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

[Roger Taylor]

At 03:41 PM 5/19/2010, you wrote:
>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.

Can you change disks from NitrOS-9 using DW3 ?
I haven't written that OS-9 command yet, but you can change disks 
from the server for now.  More support in OS-9 will come over time.




>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


Your comments about CoCoNet are of course based on what has been 
released to the public and what you've seen.  ;)

What gave you the idea to start putting networking stuff into DriveWire ?



-- 
~ Roger Taylor