[Coco] 128 or 512?

[theother_bob]

The question is whether to devote time/resources to developing two versions, and what to keep/throw away in the stripped down version... and how many would really benefit from a stripped-down version. The only reason to really maintain a 128K version of a software package would be to maintain compatibility with a stock CC3, which seems to be a dubious goal.

Bob

----- Original Message ----
From: Joel Ewy <jcewy at swbell.net>
To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:25:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] 128 or 512?


Diego Barizo wrote:
> I was talking with "The other Bob" about program development, and we 
> were not sure if we should release versions of our programs that use 
> 512Kb of RAM.
>
> Do you have 128 or 512 in your CoCo?
> You can answer to my email address, to avoid "traffic jams" in the list, 
> but please, reply. You will be helping the development of new CoCo software.
>
> Diego
> http://coco.sclaudia.net
>   
Well, why not release versions that support 512K?  Is it a matter of having too much support or inventory overhead?  I have 2 512K and 1 128K CoCo 3, and a 1M TC-9 (with problems).


Mike Pepe wrote:
> .... I'd guess most of us here have at least 512k, but probably the
> majority of CoCo 3's left in the world are still 128k
>
The question is, how many people _who are still using CoCo 3s_ don't
have more than 128k, and wouldn't be willing to upgrade for a worthy
program?

The best option, in my mind, would be to have both 128K and 512K
versions.  But if a program requires 512K, why hold it back just because
some people can't run it?  If the memory is well-used, it means a more
featureful program for those who can run it.

JCE


-- 
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited