Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 15:59:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org>
To: "'OpenDOS newsgroup'" <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: Re: [opendos] Re: [opendos-developer] OS advancements and old t
In-Reply-To: <199702060527.AAA13253@keeper.albany.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970208155033.27649C-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jim Lefavour wrote:
> > Watch the gaskets now. ;)
> 
> mythical "IBM Compatible" Tandy 1000/TL2.  I quickly found out that 

The odd thing was, it was SOFTWARE compatible, it would run any software
designed to run on a true blue with CGA, it main incompatiblity is in the
fact that it's a precambrian version of a Pcakard *ell, many of it's main
pieces of hardware was built onto the mother board.  Despite that, you can
aftermarket shop and get:

Any modem will work.
A special IDE controller to access drives larger that 40megs ($40)
a special VGA to add a _secondary_ video system to it, CGA's primary
An adaptor to add a 1.44 to the system.
Even network cards will work with the machine.

But even with all that, you couldn't run in PM because PM is used by the
onboard ROM drive.  (Which disappears with the installation of the HD)

> Now I own a home built (piece by piece) 486 dx2 66, and the TL2 is
> ancient history (it's keyboard controller failed a long time ago.)

I'm working on building one right now. ;)

> But of course, the current incarnation of DOS shouldn't be expected 
> to support EVERY computer and EVERY program; old, outdated systems 

I would object if the main CORE of a DOS would not work, I wouldn't object
to extended features or utilities of the DOS to not working because I'm
one to realize that the 'Tandy doesn't do Windows' and ect.

<! PrePared HTML!  Just export as a HTML file and Click!>
The Light<a href="http://www.thelight.org/">.</a>
A Christian Web Site!