[Coco] DriveWire and CocoNet (was Preserving old CoCo diskettes...)

[Aaron Wolfe]

Please note the title of this message:  DriveWire *and* CocoNet, not
DriveWire vs CocoNet.

Allen is correct that DW4 is geared towards OS-9 users.  The DriveWire
3 product provides essentially the same services to both DECB and
OS-9.  DriveWire 4 includes all these same capabilities, but adds new
features primarily on the OS-9 side.  On the other hand, Coconet seems
to provide an interface only from within BASIC, in fact I don't think
you can even mount a disk image once in OS-9 with Coconet.  Apologies
if this is incorrect, I do have a DrivePak with Coconet and have
attempted to understand it.

DriveWire 4 was designed with compatibility in mind.  It uses the same
ROM as DriveWire 3, so that everyone who already has DriveWire can
simply use the new server without needing any changes in their
hardware.  This means adding functionality in BASIC is limited to
changes on the server side.   The DriveWire 3 ROM is an 8K ROM in
order to ensure the highest level of compatibility with existing CoCo
hardware and software.  Because of the 8K size restriction, it is
doubtful that the advanced features found in DW4 will ever be possible
in BASIC (well... actually there are some exciting hardware
implementations of DriveWire being designed now that will support
this, but the basic, free product that works with any stock CoCo will
probably always be more limited in BASIC than in OS-9).

On the other hand, Coconet uses a larger ROM that provides all of it's
features in DECB.  If you are strictly a BASIC user, you will get more
functionality from Coconet than you will from DriveWire, and I don't
think that is likely to change.   DriveWire (at least my version of it
:) has different goals and while DECB support for disk images and
printing will always be supported, my focus is on things that really
are better done in OS-9 anyway.  Networking and advanced file system
support are just a better fit in OS-9, where you have lots of great
languages to work in, multi-tasking, etc.
BASIC will always have a special place in my heart, but OS-9 is what
fascinates and inspires me today.

So.. in a nutshell... Coconet supports things in BASIC that DriveWire
likely never will (and I hope I've given an acceptable explanation for
why this is).  DriveWire does things in OS-9 that Coconet currently
cannot, but I look forward to seeing where Roger will take his system
in the future.

-Aaron












On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Allen Huffman <alsplace at pobox.com> wrote:
> I see CoCoNet as more of an RS-DOS solution with partitions and networking an such while DW I see more and an OS-9 slanted tool.
>
> And that's a battle we've had forever here :)
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>