[Coco] Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk.

[Stephen H. Fischer]

Hi,

I understand that the non OS-9 users have made up the bulk of CoCo users
right from the start.

IMHO this division of the CoCo users remains the same today.

Whether we are talking about a hardware project or software project, if we
wish to increase the numbers of people ordering / buying / using our
projects we must include features that DECB folk want. Some hardware
projects may require larger numbers of users to reach a point that the price
can be lowered and the project justified or started. The same for software
projects, although not as much.

The "Rocket," a 68K CPU add on for the CoCo was canceled due to not enough
people committing to buying one. This was a project for the OS-9 users
alone. I remember that I sent money which was returned when it was canceled.
That is a prime example that numbers of users does matter.

How much of the stuff we OS-9'ers want is being produced at all due to DECB
folk, the DECB folk numbers being perhaps the majority?

There is a big problem on this list for DECB folk.

The discussions we are having are so overwhelming about OS-9 that I suspect
many DECB folk that are signed up for our messages have or are thinking
about leaving as what is in their interest is discussed so little. I am
revising my previous statement.

When I joined Delphi's OS-9 group, the group was dominated by OSK folk and
there was very little discussion about CoCo OS-9. I concluded that CoCo OS-9
was dead. Again a case of the topic most being discussed having driven away
people that do not share the interest of the highest and most often posted
topics, OSK.

When Delphi added the ability to read Usenet messages I discovered
"Bit.Listserv.CoCo" and found that CoCo OS-9 was very much alive and that
many projects that I was interested in had already been completed, Jeff's
emulator being the most interesting. The reward had already been collected
and the process terminated so I could not add to it.

Nothing was said on the Delphi OS-9 group, or so little was that I never
discovered it.

-------------------------------------------------------

There are two comments that describe the problem to me.

"As we have so few members, we need only one list."

That has been the policy for bit "Bit.Listserv.CoCo" from the start and
continues here at our new home.

"As we have only one list, Our member numbers are small."

If I am correct, this comment has been true for the recent period and today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Splitting this list up into three or four lists *may* increase our DECB and
OSK (I am trying to get over my previous option and not discourage them)
members and produce more projects for them. The current list remaining for
posts that involve all CoCo Users.

As I believe that many of the users on Yahoo are DECB users a poll there
would produce a valid result. I also believe that Yahoo will not produce a
valid result for other questions.

We might create a DECB list on Yahoo and be friendly toward it. What are the
charters for the current groups? Perhaps as we have two a change in the
charter for one might be valid experiment if it  was advertised and not
repeated on our main list. It still would be there in case of a disaster
like Dennis sailing off into the sunrise or what ever reason for us to
recover using.

----------------------------------------------------

Being an OS-9 person, why am I working on one DECB project and investigating
another?

The previous time I worked on a DECB program many years ago I built and
edited it on OS-9 and transferred it to a DECB disk for testing.

The DECB program was reading HDD info and issuing formatting commands to the
HDD. The use of OS-9 and the disk system was reasonable.

The very resent CoCo 3 S-Video project was to just put some images onto the
TV screen so I could take digital pictures of them.
So I did not drag my OS-9 system from the other room close to my TV but just
grabbed a Spare CoCo 3 and cassette recorder. The room that the OS-9 disk
system was in was too hot to use.

I stopped the preparing of a "Gee Whiz" display program and substituted a
lame wheel display that was not too attractive when the digital photo was
taken.

When I saw a post about features to be added to DECB the first thing that
came to mind was a full screen editor. I had previously used TeleWriter for
preparing a DECB program and found that to be better than DECB but not as
good as "Colorful SLED ED6" running under OS-9. (My work.)

Then I remembered the FLEX Basic preprocessor and realized that it would
greatly simply the building and editing of the DECB program I had stopped
working on.

I am very unhappy with my self as to not doing the FLEX Preprocessor project
before. I had the FLEX Basic preprocessor software long before I got my CoCo
2.

I realized that the DECB Preprocessor would require a full screen editor to
gain the most efficiency but remembering the Telewriter experience as not
being too good so I have decided to use OS-9 for building and editing DECB
Preprocessor programs. Well, actually my Windows XP system and Lotus WordPro 
for the initial version as I have already have been using "AWK" on that 
system with the Crimson editor, a syntax knowledgeable coloring editor. I 
have at least three of these editors, they each have separate uses and 
features.

I know most people do not know what I am talking about when I say Basic
Preprocessor. I looked for an example to post but I could not find any and I
do not have a FLEX system to read any disks that might have any on. That is
if the disks can be read. OS-9 folk can think like BasicO9, DECB folk, like
most other Basics that they have seen. I will post an example as soon I
build one.

When I got the "OS-9 as Replacement for DECB" Idea I realized that if it can
be built it would be the best environment I would want for any DECB programs
I would wish to write, should I want to write any. That is quite unlikely,
but possible.

We would gain more OS-9 users interested in our hardware and software
projects without gaining any more OS-9 people. That would be a good thing to
me but not the impossible goal we have set requiring all DECB users shift to 
OS-9.
That is not working.

The recent comments on my last post for "OS-9 as Replacement for DECB" have
been interesting, but off the topic I wish to be discussed. I am working on
a clearer post about my idea and hope to post it soon. It will be long as I
am going to be very specific to try to lead the discussion to the idea I
have.

I know this is long. I consider it to be a list of suggestions to be
considered on the common theme "Why DECB is important to OS-9 folk."
and my responses to some questions that might be asked due to my slow
posting rate.

Stephen H. Fischer