Re: Commodore probably had the best cassette implementation
- From: "anoneds@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <anoneds@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Oct 2005 18:17:35 -0700
Lige Hensley wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:49:33 -0400, "TheHairyBeast"
> <Emort007ATdway.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm guessing you have never used a Coleco ADAM. It had a digital data pack
> >system, that was a regular tape drive system with a custom digital format.
> >
> > In effect it was a Very high speed system that had a directory stored in
> >the center of the tape, and pretty good load times. Close to or faster then
> >the 64-1541. Sadly the ADAM failed on every level due to quality control
> >problems and bad timing. But in response to your statement the ADAM tape
> >drive system in FAR superior to that of any other system.
>
>
> I would agree with that. I'd vote for the TI99-4/A to have the
> WORST...
Nope, not even close. Try the TRS-80 Model I. There were ALL SORTS of
problems with those, you couldn't guarantee what you saved could be
read back on the same cassette recorder. Read 80Micro for all the
problems and the hardware mods to make them more reliable.
The TI-99/4 line had a very easy to use interface, with interactive
prompts and good error detection. And it allowed STANDARD cassette
recorders. Yes, the C= line had very cheap peripherals compared to
other systems of the era EXCEPT the cassette deck, which couldn't be
standard cheap deck.
The 99/4 allowed two cassette recorders (for file processing). It did
not support file names (like many of the systems of the time - 1979,
that is).
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Interest in other 8 bit computers?
- Next by Date: Re: Commodore probably had the best cassette implementation
- Previous by thread: Re: Interest in other 8 bit computers?
- Next by thread: Re: Commodore probably had the best cassette implementation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
