[Coco] The COCO vs The Apple II
Mark D. Overholser
apple2 at markoverholser.com
Sun Jan 11 04:47:00 EST 2015
On 1/10/2015 00:11, Tony Cappellini wrote:
> I've spent the last week or so learning 6502 Assembly language,
> just for the sake of nostalgia ( retrocomputing).
>
Fantastic.. I learned the 6502 back in 1985-86 with the original Roger
Wagner, Assembly Lines: The Book. I am learning the 6809 with William
Barden, Jr's TRS-80 Color Computer Assembly Language Programmings and
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz's Learning the 6809.
I have owned an Apple ][, since NOV-1983, a Commodore SX-64 since 1985
and only recently purchased a CoCo 3 and a CoCo 2B, so I know way more
about Apple ]['s and a bit more about Commodore's than CoCo's.
<< SNIP >>
When comparing the Apple ][ Line of Computers and the CoCo Line of
Computers, remember the Time Line and What was available and When..
> I am just dismayed at how primitive the Basic & DOS are compared to the
> Coco's.
The Apple ]['s used the MOS Technologies 6502 CPU. The MOS 6502 was
developed in 1975 and the lessor known 6501 was pin compatible with the
Motorola 6500 [1][2]
Apple ][ Monitor is 2048 Bytes ( 2K Bytes ). The Original Monitor ROM
and the Auto Start ROM. The Monitor included a Mini Assembler, both
Included a Machine Language Monitor.
The Integer BASIC ROM is an additional 6144 Bytes ( 6K Bytes ) and was
Introduced in 1977. That was a Total of 8K Bytes when including the
Monitor ROM or Auto Start ROM.
The AppleSoft BASIC ROM was an additional 10240 Bytes ( 10K Bytes ) and
was released in 1979. That was a Total of 12K Bytes when Including the
Auto Start ROM.
The CoCo 1 was released with an 8192 Byte ( 8K Byte ) ROM with Basic and
some Kernel Routines in 1981. An Extended BASIC was released in late
1981 or Early 1982 at 8192 Bytes ( 8K Bytes ) for a Combined Total of 16
K Bytes. The Motorola 6809 is a more advanced design than the 6800-6808
processors, which are very comparable to the 6502. If Synertek had
developed the SY6516, that would have been a better comparison to the
6809.[3]
Apple DOS 3.1 was released in JUL-1978 and update to v3.2 in FEB-1979
v3.2.1 in JUL-1979 and then v3.3 in AUG-1980. Also available were UCSD
Pascal in AUG-1979, Apple CP/M in MAR-1980, and ProDOS in OCT-1983.[4]
Apple DOS 3.3 uses around 10.5 K Bytes of RAM and 3 Tracks of Disk Space
Apple DOS 3.1-3.2 and Early CP/M Disks were different ( 13 Sector ) than
UCSD Pascal, DOS 3.3, ProDOS and Later CP/M ( 16 Sector ).
Because the original Shugart SA400 drives were Single Sided, 35 Tracks
with 10 Hard Sectors, and Steve Wozniak didn't like Shugart's
Electronics, he developed his own, that resulted in 13 Soft Sectors per
track, a 23K Byte Increase from the standard Shugart SA400. Later an
Increase to 16 Soft Sectors gave a bigger Increase, about 50K Bytes. The
Apple designed electronics also cost less money, and placed all the
processing power on the main CPU.
The CoCo Disk System was released in late 1981 or Early 1982 and had an
8192 Byte ( 8K Byte ) ROM with a Full Height, 5.25" Single Sided Drive
with 161280 Bytes ( 160 K Bytes ), consisting of 35 Soft Sectored Track
with 18 Sectors per Track. The Tandy Disk Controller had a dedicated
Controller, originally the Western Digital WD FD1793B-02, later a
Fujitsu MB8877A was used on at least some of them, since it didn't
require 12VDC.
[1] Commodore: A Company on the Edge - Brian Bagnall
[2] Apple ][ Reference Manual - Apple computer
<ftp://ftp.apple.asimov.net/pub/apple_II/documentation/misc/a2_reference_manual_alt.pdf>
[3] MICRO -- The 6502 ( and 6809 ) Journal ; APR-1980, Page 36
<http://www.6502.org/documents/publications/micro/micro_23_apr_1980.pdf>
and MAR-1981, Page 67
<http://www.6502.org/documents/publications/micro/micro_34_mar_1981.pdf>
[4] www.apple2history.org ; <http://apple2history.org/history/ah05/> and
<http://apple2history.org/history/ah14/> and
<http://apple2history.org/history/ah15/>
> I had to run a binary program from disk just to copy files between
> floppies. This sounds like CP/M.
>
Copying Files is a Higher Level Operation. On PC/MS-DOS it is part of
the Command Interpreter, on UN*X/Linux, it is an external Command, or
Program, usually located in the /bin directory.. I believe that COPY is
also an External Command on CP/M, ( I am not spending the Time to boot
my Osborn I to find out)
> To make a floppy bootable, a bunch of stuff must be written to it, using up
> most of the space.
>
3 Tracks out of 35.. and 1 Track for the CATALOG. Leaving 31 Tracks of
16 Sectors for storage of your Data. Also, Patches to the DOS, will let
you use some of Track 2 for Storage, and you can also shorten your
Catalog too. Since DOS 3.3 and ProDOS are completely Resident in
Memory, you can Boot One Disk, then remove it to insert another for your
Application of Data.
> We have everything in ROM on the coco. Don't need to boot DOS from a disk!!
> All of the commands are just there waiting to be invoked.
>
True, the same can be said about the Commodore Vic-20, C64 and C128
built in DOS. Does it help the DOS be any Faster or Reliable?? It
defiantly saves Disk Space, at the cost of Flexibility and Individuality..
Also, if there are any Fixes or Improvements that need to be made, the
ROM needs to be replaced, or Patched in Memory, like the Microware
Extensions to the CoCo 3. According to www.apple2history.org, there are
17 versions of 8 Bit ProDOS. The first 13 of them should run on an
Original Apple ][, with a 16K RAM Card, ( A Total of 64K ), and a 16
Sector Disk Controller, as long as you run Machine Language Programs.. (
ProDOS v2.x.x require a 65C02 Processor to Boot ) There were also other
Developers that created DOS's for the Apple ][ and the almost total
Software Control of the Apple Disk ][ gave all kinds of interesting Copy
Protection Schemes.. <http://apple2history.org/history/ah15/>
From what I can tell of reading about OS9, it is entirely loaded from
Disk, as well as CP/M ( except for it's Boot Loader), PC/MS-DOS,
UN*X/Linux/BSD, Novell Netware, Mac OS, IBM OS/2, BeOS, and Windows.
All the Computer Manufactures tried to save costs by Cutting Corners,
that is why the Apple ][ has its AppleSoft ( Micro-Soft ) BASIC with
Added Graphic Commands, but lost the Boolean AND and OR and NOT and its
Software based Disk System. The C64 has its Disk System with the Super
Slow Disk Interface, and the Version 2.0 ( Micro-Soft ) BASIC with
Boolean AND and OR and NOT, but no Graphic or Sound Commands..
> I was trying to setup a loop using by decrementing a 2-Byte number in a
> 6502 register. It wasn't working. The 6502 has only 3 (general purpose)
> 8-Bit registers, compared to the 6809's 5, 16-Bit registers. (I'm not
> counting PC, Stack ptr,and flags because I don't consider them to be
> general purpose, even though they can be used by the user for esoteric
> things) WTH!!
>
Use the Zero Page with the X and Y Registers to do 16 Bit Counters.
> I'm having fun though, learning all of this, but it begs the question..
>
<< SNIP >>
> There tons more programs, books, games for the Apple II than what I've seen
> for the Coco.
>
First Mover Advantage in Built In Color Graphics, Large Education Sales
and Software, and Young Consumer's Mind Share.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage>
> One place the coco has it hands down is with OS9 & NitrOS9. I haven't been
> involved with the Apple II that long, but I haven't heard about any "real"
> OS's for the Apple II. I think the closes thing is the OS that runs on the
> IIGS. (It looks & feels a bit like the toaster Mac OS)
>
The GS in 65816 Mode has a Segmented Architecture like the 8086/8088.
Apple "hobbled it" to 8MB of RAM even though the 65816 can address as
much RAM as the Intel 80286 can, 16 MB. That makes it a bit more
powerful, then add a Fast 65816 on a TransWarp Card, and it can really
ROCK!!!
> Tandy really messed up, but at least they got 3 coco models out there
> before they cancelled the program.
>
Apple would have Canceled the Apple ][ long before 1993, but the Mac
just wasn't paying the Bills...
On 1/10/2015 01:25, Arthur Flexser wrote:> I can think of several
reasons why the Apple II outsold the CoCo.
>
> 1. It got there first, and acquired a lot of devoted fans very fast.
>
And a decent Floppy Drive system. ;) And Visi-Calc !!
> 2. It had an open architecture, amenable to third-party add-ons.
>
Apple ][ Full Schematics were provided in the Apple ][ Reference Manual.
The Disk System was ALL on the Disk, so that it could be Modified and
Changed. Steve Wozniak knew that expandability was important to
Hobbyist Computer Users.. One of the biggest reasons the IBM PC had
Slots, was because the Apple ][ had Slots..
Commodore also provided Full Schematics with the VIC-20 and C64, but
unlike the Apple ][ being made with off-the-shelf parts, making it easy
to Clone. A Clone of the Commodore machines would still need to buy the
VIC-I or VIC-II and SID and 6520's or 6522's or 6526's, from Commodore
or a Second Source supplier.
> 3. Tandy deliberately hobbled the CoCo with a toy-like 32-column screen
> and no provision for a monitor.
>
The TRS-80, I, II, III, and IV were the Professional Lines, with
Monitors. The CoCo was the Home Line, connected to a TV Set. You would
have thought that since the Apple ][ had 40 Columns, that the CoCo 1
should have.. Even the C64 jumped up to 40 Columns, after the VIC-20
had 22.
> 4. Tandy marketed the CoCo as a toy.
>
To protect the TRS-80 Models, I, II, III, and IV.... Same reason Apple
"hobbled" the ][gs.. To protect the Mac.
> 5. Tandy was not particularly welcoming to the third-party market,
and its
> own software for the CoCo was generally third rate.
>
That killed the TI99/4A too, "not particularly welcoming to the
third-party market". Possibly the Quality of their own Software, but
I haven't used the TI99/4A enough to know..
> Art
>
On 1/10/2015 07:51, Chris Osborn wrote:>
> On Jan 10, 2015, at 1:26 AM, Nick Marentes <nickma2 at optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
>
>> The Apple targeted a more "mature" market. It looked more like a
"real" computer (it had a real keyboard and connected to a monitor) and
hardware folks loved the 6 expansion slots, all internal to the machine
yet hidden inside to preserve the professional looks.
>
> They have 8 slots, except for the IIc, which doesn’t have any. Slots
1 through 7 would take peripheral cards, and slot 0 was reserved for
special RAM cards.
>
Slot 0 was only on the Apple ][ and Apple ][+, it was only for the ROM
Card or 16K RAM Card.
The Apple ][e has a AUX Slot, that was used for Bank Switched RAM, used
for the 80 Column Display Mode, and the Double High-Res Graphics Mode,
and had the Signals to allow RGB Video Adapters to be Developed.
The Apple ][GS has a dedicated Slot for RAM, I don't recall if it is
Called the AUX Slot.
The Apple ][, ][+ and ][e only had Composite Video built in..
A 3rd Party RF Modulator was needed to connect to a TV. ( This was due
to an FCC Emissions Issue ) But it definitely implied that the Apple ][
was for serious computing..
> --
> Follow me on twitter: @FozzTexx
> Check out my blog: http://insentricity.com
>
>
>
>
On 1/10/2015 14:18, RETRO Innovations wrote:> On 1/10/2015 2:11 AM, Tony
Cappellini wrote:
>> I am just dismayed at how primitive the Basic & DOS are compared to the
>> Coco's.
>> I had to run a binary program from disk just to copy files between
>> floppies. This sounds like CP/M.
> Not all 65XX machines are so primitive :-) Commodore's do not require
> DOS on disk, etc.
>
Other than the Slow as Molasses on a January Day, transfer rates, and
primitive Power Supplies, Commodore 1541 Drives are fantastic... There
are Disk Copy Programs that would copy between two drives, and let you
unplug them from the C64. And Using More Sectors on the Longer Outer
Tracks, and Fewer on the Shorter Inner Tracks.
That is what Smart Peripherals will do for you..
>> I was trying to setup a loop using by decrementing a 2-Byte number in a
>> 6502 register. It wasn't working. The 6502 has only 3 (general purpose)
>> 8-Bit registers, compared to the 6809's 5, 16-Bit registers. (I'm not
>> counting PC, Stack ptr,and flags because I don't consider them to be
>> general purpose, even though they can be used by the user for esoteric
>> things) WTH!!
> self modifying code and zpage can be your friend :-)
>
> That said, it's a bit unfair to compare a newer CPU like the 6809 with
> the 6502, which is comparable to the 6800, correct? Had the 6502
> evolved (MOS under Tramiel had no appetite to do so), I think a
> comparable 65XX would have appeared (The '816 has some neat 16 bit
> features, but it's still not as elegant as the '09)
>
Look at the never released SY6516 from Synertek. ( Links to some
Articles in MICRO up above )
> But, I know you knew that, and yes, the 6502 can be a beast to program
> given years of programmers thinking of CPUs as being register based (the
> 6502 wants you to think of zpage as a 256 byte register file, but it
> require a bit different thinking to get there).
>
If there is not much of a penalty on Clock Cycles, why not develop code
like that.. Like you said, Different Paradigm.
>
>>
>> I'm having fun though, learning all of this, but it begs the question..
>>
>> How did the Apple II being having such a primitive basic, DOS, & CPU
>> outsell
>> and be so much more popular than the Coco? The Apple II was
approximately
>> 3-4 times the cost of the Coco.
> Then as now... Marketing! The move to put them in schools was genius,
> IMHO.
> Jim
>
And that generation grew up, and got jobs and stand in lines out side
the Apple Stores, all night, to get the latest Apple Offering.. ;)
On 1/10/2015 16:04, Allen Huffman wrote:>> On Jan 10, 2015, at 11:39 AM,
didier derny <didier at aida.org> wrote:
>>
>> You know in 1980 with a commodore 8000 with a disk unit 8050 you had
all you need for many activities
>
> I do recall the Commodore disk drive was a serial device slower than
the CoCO cassette port or something like that. My advanced C64 friends
had some kind of plug in cartridge to accelerate it, but others did not.
I remember seeing this on a C64 game once:
>
> PLEASE WAIT 3.5 MINUTES WHILE THE GAME LOADS
>
> How far we have come :)
>
> -- A
>
>
The Epyx FastLoad Cartridge!! My SX-64 Never leaves home with out it!!!
I have also heard of kits to convert the Serial Link into a Parallel Link.
The C64, I think has better Sound and Graphics ( and Sprites and
Hardware Side Scrolling support ) than any other 8 Bit computer, maybe
even better than the Nintendo ES and SNES.
=====================================================================
I am sure I got some of this wrong, so Call me up to the Front of the
Class...
MarkO
More information about the Coco
mailing list