EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) (11/08/87)
The following was posted to news.groups yesterday. In order to create
the group described below, I need to get feedback from members of the
usenet community. This means either POSTING or MAILING me a vote on
the proposal - Yes or No. In order to create the new group, we need a
LOT of Yes groups, so if you're at all interested, please get back to
me with your YES vote - all votes will be tallied and posted.
I really need the help of ALL of you to make this happen!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I would like to propose a new group on the net -- comp.sys.coco.
The purpose of this group would be discussion on all models of the
Tandy Color Computer (CoCo for short) - the CoCo 1, 2, and 3.
There are currently well over 1 million CoCo 1's and 2's installed,
and Tandy's new CoCo 3 should be a best seller this Christmas. (It
features 640x200 graphics, 64 colors, ability to run OS-9 Level II,
80 column screen, and a lot more for only $129!)
A current group on the net, comp.sys.m6809, covers conversation on the
CoCo's (they all use some form of Motorola's 6809 chip), but this group
is far too technical and hardware-hackerish for the average CoCo owner,
and much to cryptic for many CoCo users to know that this carries
discussion on their computer.
The new group would focus more on software reviews, exchanges, help,
and other CoCo-specific functions, leaving comp.sys.m6809 open for those
who really want to talk about 6809 processors, assembly language, and
operating systems.
I have already garnered support for this group from many members of
comp.sys.m6809 who agree with me, along with a few others who do not
read that newsgroup.
I feel it is high time for this major computer to be supported on its
own on the net, and would appreciate support from users out there who
agree with me.
Being a published author about the CoCo, I have a great amount of
information to share, as do others on the net, and think this group will
provide a lively discussion. And, with Tandy launching a major campaign
for the new CoCo 3 this Christmas season, I feel it is a group with a
bright future.
Please vote YES! UUCP has trouble getting to me often, so you may want
to post. If the arpa address below doesn't work, try:
ewtileni%pucc.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.EDU
Thanks for your support! :-)
- ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________
| |
BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture |
CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________|
PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{allegra,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtilenikottke@puff.wisc.edu (Rich Kottke) (11/10/87)
I vote for the creation of comp.sys.coco. It has long been needed. -Rich
rsanders@watdcsu.UUCP (11/10/87)
I vote NO for the comp.sys.coco. As someone else pointed out, the net is
too busy now with all the newsgroups. The current traffic in comp.sys.m6809
is low enough that two (or more) groups are not needed.
I believe there is a comp.os.os9 group that is getting zilch traffic.
It could get the bulk of the CoCo stuff.
--
Roger Sanderson: {clyde|decvax|ihnp4}-\
VE3RKS {tektronix}-+--> watmath!watdcsu!rsanders
{ubc-vision|utzoo}-/V3R@PSUVMA.BITNET (11/10/87)
Put me down for a YES vote!!!!
Vic Ricker
EWTILENI@pucc.UUCP (11/13/87)
>I believe there is a comp.os.os9 group that is getting zilch traffic. >It could get the bulk of the CoCo stuff. The bulk of CoCo discussion is NOT about OS-9. That is just one potential operating system, which, by the way, also runs on the Mac, Amiga, and Atari ST. Thus, this is hardly a good place for CoCo discussion and more than a Unix forum is suitable for discussion all aspects of AT&T PCs. - ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________ | | BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________| PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{allegra,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtileni
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (11/15/87)
------------------------------- In article <3825@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) writes: > The bulk of CoCo discussion is NOT about OS-9. In view of a previous posting from Mr. Tilenius, I just can't resist the following jab: maybe, but all the *worthwhile* CoCo discussion concerns OS-9. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) That said, I agree that comp.os.os9 is not the place for all CoCo traffic (OS-9, as pointed out, runs on a fair number of computers whose owners probably don't care about CoCo HD interfaces), and that *if* there's to be a CoCo group, it should be comp.sys.tandy.coco... ...but why bother? I've seen no non-CoCo traffic on comp.sys.m6809 for quite some time, but that doesn't mean there might not be (you might be surprised at some of the places 6809s turn up, e.g. the Ensoniq Mirage and Fairlight CMI), and the presence of CoCo traffic indicates that at least some CoCo users have figured out what CPU is inside their computer. Perhaps the list of active newsgroups should give the CoCo as an example of a 6809-based system? [The preceding posting has been scrubbed with DISCLAIMO, the new powder that renders all opinions one's own--now with Lemon-Freshened Borax!] James Jones
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (11/20/87)
I've said this before via private mail, but I think that
it bears repeating in public. The only argument raised against
changing comp.sys.6809 to comp.sys.coco is that 6809 non-coco
users would be displaced. I don't think there are many
6809 users who are not coco users, who are not interested in
the 68000 family as well. As such I think it would be worth
it to collapse the m6809 and m68k groups into one group called
'comp.sys.m68' to handle the traffic for all Motorola family
processors. Likewise, there not having been much in the way
of 6809 postings outside the CoCo topic range in the current
6809 group, I'm sure the 68000 users could put up with the
"overflow".
The only argument against this would be if there were
a substantial number of 6809 users, not interested in the CoCo
*and* not interested in the 68000 family of processors. Would
those people kindly raise their hands?
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomuraEWTILENI@pucc.UUCP (11/21/87)
The following argument was brought up again that instead of creating a new group for the Tandy Color Computers (comp.sys.tandy.coco), we RENAME comp.sys.m6809 (which gets practically 0 non-CoCo related talk) to comp.sys.tandy.coco. I feel this is a good idea, and am restating Jim's article and adding my own comments. How can we rename a group, though? And do we have to vote on it. My vote is that the renaming Jim described is preferable to starting a new group, but if that fails, I'm still for creating the new group... In article <2210@lsuc.UUCP>, jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > I've said this before via private mail, but I think that >it bears repeating in public. The only argument raised against >changing comp.sys.6809 to comp.sys.coco is that 6809 non-coco >users would be displaced. I don't think there are many >6809 users who are not coco users, who are not interested in >the 68000 family as well. As such I think it would be worth >it to collapse the m6809 and m68k groups into one group called >'comp.sys.m68' to handle the traffic for all Motorola family >processors. Likewise, there not having been much in the way >of 6809 postings outside the CoCo topic range in the current >6809 group, I'm sure the 68000 users could put up with the >"overflow". > > The only argument against this would be if there were >a substantial number of 6809 users, not interested in the CoCo >*and* not interested in the 68000 family of processors. Would >those people kindly raise their hands? I absolutely agree! I would be happy NOT to create another newsgroup, and to simply SWITCH the name of comp.sys.m6809 to comp.sys.tandy.coco. This would allow broader discussion, and invite people who were scared by the technical name (or who didn't know that their Color Computer used a 6809!) to participate in the discussion. comp.sys.m68 would also be fine with me. Can we rename the newsgroups, though? That was my original proposal. Who has authority to do this? I have many votes for the creation of comp.sys.tandy.coco, but I would rather just rename comp.sys.m6809 to comp.sys.tandy.coco! If this can be done, how do we go about it? Votes or feedback on this topic are welcome by email, too. - ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________ | | BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________| PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{rutgers,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtileni
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (11/21/87)
-------------------- Jim Omura suggests merging the Motorola-related newsgroups, arguing that it is likely that few people interested in 6809s aren't also interested in the 68000 family. I myself wouldn't mind, but... ...if you do this, be prepared for vast amounts of nasty flamage from 68K people about the depth of their non-interest in "toy" microprocessors. I don't think it will fly. James Jones
pete@wlbr.EATON.COM (Pete Lyall) (11/23/87)
In article <2210@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > >The only argument raised against >changing comp.sys.6809 to comp.sys.coco is that 6809 non-coco >users would be displaced. I don't think there are many >6809 users who are not coco users, who are not interested in >the 68000 family as well. Jim - I don't think the formation of Comp.Sys.[Tandy].Coco is exactly the right choice either.. while most of the affected posters seem to be coco users, the bulk of the postings are *OS9* related .. I save all this stuff (and gateway it to CIS as well), and can assure you that very little traffic pertaining to RS-DOS has been taking place, regardless of what Mr. Tilenius (sp?) would have us believe. It appears that OS9 is the common denominator - not simply coco or coco3. I acknowledge that some of this stuff *is* coco specific, because of the windowing support etc., but this is still os9. I move that we leave the newsgroups alone (give the net.gods a break), and better utilize comp.os.os9 (perhaps get it un-moderated, as John seems to have fallen asleep 8^}) and comp.sys.m6809. By the way, what *was* the original objection to leaving things status quo? BTW - I am a coco3 owner (2 of them), as well as 5 coco2's, and a rather beefy GIMIX.. just so you're aware that I'm not being a coco bigot. -- Pete Lyall (OS9 Users Group V.P.) Eaton Corporation (818)-706-5693 Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 Sysop) OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud) Usenet: {trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex}!wlbr!pete
EWTILENI@pucc.UUCP (11/25/87)
>I don't think the formation of Comp.Sys.[Tandy].Coco is exactly the >right choice either.. while most of the affected posters seem to be >coco users, the bulk of the postings are *OS9* related .. I save all >this stuff (and gateway it to CIS as well), and can assure you that >very little traffic pertaining to RS-DOS has been taking place, >regardless of what Mr. Tilenius (sp?) would have us believe. It >appears that OS9 is the common denominator - not simply coco or coco3. My point is that anyone who has a CoCo or CoCo 3 and is NOT into the technical aspect won't even KNOW that comp.sys.m6809 is for their computer! I'm a member of a large, enthusiastic users group - but only about 30% of them are into OS-9, and I'd say that less than that number are really aware that it is an "m6809" which drives their computer. Or, if they are aware that the CoCo 3 uses a 68B09 or whatever, they think comp.sys.m6809 is about the processor - not the computer. Changing the name to comp.sys.tandy.coco will allow the discussion to continue about OS-9, but it will do FAR MORE. Those who are thinking about getting a Color Computer can join in - as they do in comp.sys.amiga - and others who recognize the term "coco" can participate. You can tell these people the benefits of Level II, to be sure, but the reason the group is only about OS-9 right now is that the other people on the net who are coco owners don't know about this. I have 40 YES votes to start comp.sys.tandy.coco. These people do not feel this forum provides an adequate place for CoCo support. Nor do I. However, RENAMING the group would KEEP what we have now, and EXPAND the groups role. Do we want to be defeated by Amiga and Atari owners? People scanning the net list see active groups for THOSE computers - but NO ACTIVE GROUP FOR THE COCO! "Hah," they conclude, "not a serious computer. Even the Atari 8-bits have their own forum, but not this - what is it - 'CoCo'." We are doing the Color Computer a disservice by refusing to broaden the newsgroup to talk about all aspects of the CoCo. - ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________ | | BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________| PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{rutgers,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtileni
dibble@cs.rochester.edu (Peter C. Dibble) (11/25/87)
In article <3932@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) writes: > My point is that anyone who has a CoCo or CoCo 3 and is NOT into the > technical aspect won't even KNOW that comp.sys.m6809 is for their computer! > I'm a member of a large, enthusiastic users group - but only about 30% of > them are into OS-9, and I'd say that less than that number are really > aware that it is an "m6809" which drives their computer. Granted, the CoCo is aimed at people who have no interest in hardware or software details. The most sophisticated part of the CoCo comunity is served by systems like Compuserve and Delphi, but that is a very small part. The users of usenet are (in general) technically sophisticated -- probably more sophisticated than the users of other systems. I doubt you could find anyone in the CoCo or OS-9 groups on Compuserve or Delphi who doesn't know that their computer contains a 6809 (and very likely some of the other important chips). I would be even more surprised if a CoCo user on usenet didn't know what microprocessor his machine used. I would not like to see comp.sys.m6809 renamed. Adding a CoCo subgroup to the Tandy, or the m6809, or even the OS9 group would be fine (though there is hardly enough traffic here to justify a group). Peter Dibble
steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (11/30/87)
In article <3891@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Eric Tilenius) writes: > > comp.sys.m68 would also be fine with me. > > Can we rename the newsgroups, though? That was my original proposal. .... > to comp.sys.tandy.coco! If this can be done, how do we go about it? I think the thing to do would be to (in order) - Creat comp.sys.coco - ask people to alias comp.sys.6809 to comp.sys.coco - kill comp.sys.6809 once the volume drops enough. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve