Virtual Mixing Console
Beyond Compare" software equivalent in linux 3686
If you mean that the FSF's claims don't have much validity in this area, you are right...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jason wrote on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:32:21 -0400
Specifications of the TRS80. There are actually several models,
Z80 1.774MHz, 12kROM, up to 48kRAM, 1kvideoRAM (64x16 char only)
Z80 2 or 4 MHz, 14kROM, up to 128kRAM, 2k VRAM (64x16 or 80x24 char only)
Z80 2 or 4 MHz, 4kROM, up to 128kRAM, 2k VRAM (64x16 or 80x24 char only)
Color Computer 1 & 2
MC6809E 894.8 kHz, 8k Standard ROM, 8k Extended ROM, 16k Cartridge up to 64kRAM, MC6847-MC6883 video up to 256x96x1 raster and 32x16 text mode.
2 also supported lowercase characters and inverse video.
Color Computer 3
MC6809E 894.8 kHz or 1.79 MHz, 32k ROM, 32k cartridge, up to 2 MB RAM, TCC1014 video up to 256x96x1, palettized
I won't go into details regarding the TRS-80 model 100, 200, 12, or the PC clones.
There's no mention of any sort of MMU or virtualization. There is a hint of OS-9, though.
For purposes of comparison an Apple had up to 48kRAM with a 6502 running 1MHz and 12kbROM, with 40x40 or 40x48x4 "blocky" graphics or 280x192x2 hi-res mode. It would appear that the Apple beat out the CoCo1 by several years.
As for taking computers forward: it is possible that Microsoft is in fact taking computers forward, all right, but GUI != "easy to use", as has been pointed out a number of times. For all of their relative crudity compared to modern machines, the TRS80, COCO, C64, Apple , and even the ancient IBM PC had one thing all over the current crop: they can boot almost instantly. (They also consumed less power, though that's a given when one realizes the most sophisticated disk drives at the time were either floppies or 5 MB units, and the latter were relatively rare.)
What does GOD think of Linux and it's Homoloveual underpinnings
I don't suppose God uses a computer. But if he did I think like the majority of us he would have difficulty deciding...
Whatever happened to Microsoft's "Instant-On"? I'll admit I don't know if there are individuals working on desktop units (obviously, mobvile phones have "instant-on" capability, if they know what's good for 'em :-) ), that can boot in less than 10 seconds but there was some discussion in years past regarding the ability to burn a Linux BIOS.
How long would the populace be satisfied with a TV that took almost 30 seconds just to get itself ready for viewing? Some decades back, they'd have been rather happy with that, perhaps (tubes do need to warm up), but nowadays that would verge on the ridiculous. Come to think of it, so are some of the ads of the past at
in particular shows a young man in front of what had to be a glbutt-tube display, next to some tape drives. The computer is probably not even in the picture! A more or less typical false-floor is readily visible, though.
Some desktops might well welcome "instant-on", though it may not make much difference if the machines are left on 24-7. However, there may be some areas where the machines are turned on at 8 AM and off at 5 PM, and the home market wouldn't mind that either.
How fast can an X360 start?
-- Windows Vista. Because everyone wants a really slick-looking 8-sided wheel.
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups