[Coco] Another Radio Shack Article

[Bill Loguidice]

Again, there's something of a difference, there. My point was that by
making the platform backwards compatible with popular machines, you're
limiting the potential for the new platform. Most software will be made for
the older machine and you'll get less software for the newer machine. That
happened to a great degree with the C-128 and to less of a degree with the
IIGS, which had far less new software than either the Atari ST or Amiga it
was directly competing with. Obviously, other factors were in play, but
it's not as straightforward as saying that it's an obvious advantage to
make a system backwards compatible. Also, I wouldn't necessarily classify
the CoCo, CoCo 2, and CoCo 3 as completely new systems like the Apple IIGS
was. The CoCo's all used the same processor and most of the same
components. The IIGS had more significant differences than what came before
it. Tandy played it safer (and cheaper), with relatively straightforward
evolutions to keep the platform relevant beyond its 1980 origins.

===================================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director; Armchair Arcade,
Inc.<http://www.armchairarcade.com>
===================================================
Authored Books<http://www.amazon.com/Bill-Loguidice/e/B001U7W3YS/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_1>and
Film <http://www.armchairarcade.com/film>; About me and other ways to get
in touch <http://about.me/billloguidice>
===================================================


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Arthur Flexser <flexser at fiu.edu> wrote:

> Bill, I'd strongly differ with your negative assessment of the
> attractiveness of backwards compatibility.  Would a lot of Apple II
> and Commodore 64 users have bothered to upgrade to the IIGS or C-128
> if it meant discarding all their old software?  Would Windows still
> have dominated the marketplace if you had to junk a lot of software
> each time Microsoft brought out a new version?  Sure, preserving
> backwards compatibility can place limits on a new machine, but I think
> there's no question that the benefits typically greatly outweigh the
> disadvantages.
>
> I wonder if the CoCo 3 would have sold nearly as well if those
> involved hadn't done a really excellent job in preserving
> compatibility with software written for the earlier CoCo's?
>
> Art