[Coco] Program Wanted (no more BBS's!!??)

[Aaron Banerjee]

Actually, I'd most certainly call up any sort of coco BBS -- especially if
it was somewhere in the US (where I get pretty much free long distance)
and you could actually connect to it with a real coco.  As was implied
earlier, 300 baud (or even 9600 for that matter) is pretty much
impossible for large file transfers or other things one may want to do
with a modern internet service, but that's not why I'd use the coco BBS.
I'd use it for the fun of it.  Besides, it would be a lot of fun to see
whether or not my acoustic modem still works.

              - Aaron

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Merv Curley wrote:

> Well towards the end, RiBBS [OS-9} was the most used as far as I know. I may 
> have had one of the last in operation.  The chap who maintained RiBBS, lived 
> 100 km down the highway from here and we had many conversations about his 
> plans for it. I have a few mod's here which never made it to public release. 
> I was working on updating the doc's, but finally there didn't seem any point.
> 
> A few years back, a chap set up a BBS which I think we tel'netted to, and 
> after a short flurry I believe it died.  Sorry but IMHO the BBS idea has had 
> it's day unless it is run on the Internet.  This forum gets more use than any 
> BBS will, I do believe. Dennis is pretty lenient about what transpires here. 
> The Forums at Coco3.com serve pretty well the same purpose. NO?


> Our Telco used to have an option where you could have up to 3 numbers on one 
> line, cost me $4 a month for one # for the BBS. I had a nice little device 
> which decoded the rings and directed the call to the BBS or the house phones. 
> Not too inconvenient when the calls were only 1 or two a day. At the end 1 
> per month.
> 
> > The second hardest part would be manitaining a high speed dialup
> > connection. The electricity out here is about the worst I've ever seen,
> > even in good weather. The phone lines aren't much better, probably worse.
> > Of course we have 300 baud, and it should work, but shouldn't a 4.0 mhz
> > 6309 handle 9600? Why settle for less because AT&T has forgotten us, out
> > here in the woods?
> 
> That line noise will be a killer unless modems have drastically improved.  
> 9600 would be a minimum, have you ever sat and watched letters print to the 
> screen at 300 baud?  A novelty in the early 1980's, now just impossibly slow.
> The money we sent to Compuserve and Delphi for 300 baud would buy a lot of 
> groceries.
> 
> Have fun talking about it tho'.
>  
> -- 
> Merv Curley
> Toronto, Ont. Can
> 
> Debian Linux  Etch
> Desktop:  KDE 3.5.5    KMail 1.2.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>