Jump to content

Talk:TRS-80/Archives/2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Games used radio interference for sound??

The claim in the Model III section that radio interference from the Model I was so strong that many games used it for sound effects seems very unlikely. The reference seem to be to a very early game called Target, released for the Sol-20 computer in 1977 and possibly also the TRS-80. This (amazingly) seems actually to have been the case: http://www.sol20.org/programs.html

It is very unlikely, however, that this would have been used in later games. According to other sources, TRS-80 games did use a cassette player standing next to the computer for sound, but it would have been connected through the cassette port.

Will change unless someone has a citation. --Brooklyn mark (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall any particular problems with RF interference with the Model I. The "history of personal computing" page even mentions this as a major competitive advantage for the Apple II - it sounds like something Apple II salespeople would say about the TRS-80 but this is the first I've heard of it. Thomas144 (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Model I definitely did have RF issues. It was one the reasons they were discontinued. I remember having to turn mine off when someone wanted to watch TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.147.34 (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I will personally attest to having seen three different games that used radio interference for their sound effects. In fairness, one was just a demo. Later games did use the cassette output port plugged into a speaker. Keybounce (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

MC10 description

User:Helixblue changed the description of the MC10 from "Smallish,in a white flat,rectangular case with "chicklet" keys that made typing difficult(unless you had smallish hands)" to "similar in appearance to the Sinclair ZX-81", with the log message "rv rubbish added by 24.69.255.205". But actually the original text seemed like a better and more accurate description.

--Brouhaha 21:59, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mapper boards

Anyone have more info on the mapper boards, that let you run CP/M on the Model III (and possibly the older ones; I don't know though)? I can't even remember if they were by Omikron or Omicron... it seems they're worthy of a section here, as they were rather useful. Bushytails 01:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My father had one, I'll ask him.--Bcrowell 20:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Level I ROM

The Level I ROM is a combination of Tiny Basic and graphic extensions. While the Tiny Basic is public domain, the graphic extensions may be owned by Tandy. There's probably also a BIOS-like thing that interacts between the interpreter and hardware, and that thing may also be owned by Tandy. Is it possible to create a free Level I ROM image by leaving the Tiny Basic part unchanged while rewriting the graphic extensions and BIOS-like thing from scratch using clean-room method? Has anyone already done this? There is a Level I Basic simulator, which is not an emulator and contains no ROM code, but this solution would be even better.

A combination of which Tiny BASIC and extensions? There were many Tiny BASICs, and it is not obvious that Level I is based on any specific one known to be in the public domain. --Brouhaha 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It is possible to compare the interpreter contained in the Level I Basic ROM with known public domain versions of Tiny Basic designed for Z80. If it turns out that it is not based on any of them, it is (maybe) possible to replace it with a public domain Tiny Basic version (while still rewriting the graphic extensions and other things from scratch), and again get an emulator-safe Level I ROM image. The TRS-80 ROM also contains font. Fonts cannot be copyrighted, while programs that implement fonts (like TrueType font files) can. The screen font in the TRS-80 ROM is not a program, it is a binary file that represents the font. This file is not executed as a program. Anyway it is possible to replace it with any other font or emulate TRS-80 in video card's text mode.
If it has to be rewritten based on some other Tiny BASIC, it's not really Level I any more; it's something new and different. Anyhow, the Level I ROM does NOT contain any fonts. Nor does the Level II ROM, for that matter. The font is produced by a Motorola MC6670 character generator chip, which is a ROM, but is not part of BASIC. -Brouhaha 16:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, th thing should be made compatible with the original Level I ROM, like FreeDOS is compatible with MS-DOS. And what is Motorola's copyright policy on the font contained in MC6670?
The Tiny Basic that Tandy's Level I Basic was based on was written by Dr. Li-Chen Wang and first appeared in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia as Palo Alto Tiny Basic. There were many differences between Dr. Wang's Basic and Tandy's, most notably the graphics routines mentioned previously and the fact that Tiny Basic was integer-only whereas Level I Basic used floating point and in fact did not have an integer data type at all. Since Tiny Basic was intended to drive a TTY, the Level I ROM also included routines to emulate a TTY, more or less, with the TRS-80 hardware. As for the character generator, that was completely separate from the Basic ROM and would not be an issue for a FOSS implementation of Level I Basic. Nibios 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Trash 80 (was Search fixes)

Since I don't know what the tags are in this case, can we fix it up so someone searching for "Trash 80" and "Trash-80" will redirect here? As is, there's no results for them.--24.9.8.61 09:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely people would be smart enough to search on the proper name rather than a nickname?
BTW, I moved this from the top of the page—talk articles are normally chronological from top to bottom. Barefootguru 17:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Didn't everyone know this machine as a Trash 80? Nickname or not, I don't see why it isn't referenced on the main page. Its part of its history! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.253.125.2 (talk) 12:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Even though many people referred to it as "Trash 80", it is a pejorative nickname. User:LiarsofPalestine just added it to the article, and it is already a redirect page, so I am removing the reference from the main article. --Unixguy 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
We had a fan club of 65 regulars at it's peak and we called it Trash-80 lovingly. I would seriously disagree that's a pejorative. If it was initially it became adopted by the users. Alatari 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It was perjoritive at first, says an ex-Commodore kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Having had one of the Z80 units (Model I Level II), it was a perjoritive, and to some, still is. However it IS a part of the history of those units, and like it or not, needs to be referenced-probably as Trash-80. Matthewcrandall9 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Model 100

Looks like a large part of the description of the Model 100 series was lost. Anyone have a previous version that included this? --Co149 07:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fixed, thanks! --Co149 07:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Model 4 and other vague memories

I'm a bit new here so I hope I'm doing this right. In the discussion of the Model 4, am I right in remembering a 4D which had higher density disk drives?

The Model 4D had a green monochrome screen (instead of white that the early Model 4s came with). The keyboard was rearranged (arrow keys were moved), and it came with DS DD (368KB) 5.25" floppy instead of the SS DD (184KB) drive that the original Model 4 came with. 08:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any value in mentioning early 110, 300 and 1200 baud modems (which I used with the 3 and 4 and 4p) or putting up pictures of them?

Should there be any mention of baseline memory sizes (48k for the 3 i think and 64 or 128 for the 4)? Just wondering...thanks

I have a vague memory of seeing advertisements in "80 Microcomputing" magazines of Model 4 machines with four half-height 5-1/4" drives in the internal bays. I believe these were offered by resellers, and not directly from Radio Shack. These were my dream machines at the time, but I haven't yet found evidence that this isn't a synthetic memory. Does anybody recall such a beast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.141.26 (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this true

A display unit that was green by default also existed, made from another modified television chassis, but its casing was entirely incompatible with the Model I expansion unit (The expansion unit was designed specifically for the XL-100 screen, with recesses in its casing to hold the feet of the display).

Yes there was. I don't like "entirely incompatible". It can still sit on the EI, it just doesn't fit like the older monitor. The one I have here is 26-9202 UK 240V version a much better monitor than the older one. Knutrl 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

TRS-80 Dominance

Need some help with this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware_%281960s-present%29. I sold software for 2 years in 1979-1981 for the TRS-80 and it outpaced Apple by far. If anyone can find sales figures on total numbers of TRS-80 sold and numbers of softwares titles sold (i.e. Instant Software, Scott Adams, etc.) it would be helpful. Alatari 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Found an indirect article on sales figures from the period: http://www.pegasus3d.com/total_share.html http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/total-share.ars/10, still working on tracking down the original sources.

Checking references and verifying statements seems to take up 9/10's the articles workload Alatari 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article seems written with a bias - it seems to focus almost exclusively on the drawbacks and flaws in the system without covering the strengths of the system.

Yes, and some of the wording (TRS-DOS [...] was so crummy) is clearly unencyclopedic.  ::Travis Evans 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah what the hell? I have nothing but happy memories of my Model III. Haber 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think when talking about this era of computers (1977-83), the 'strengths' are that it worked and turned on. None of them really stood out for anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bringing this article in line with the above guidelines. I listed the old EL list here so we can discuss whether it's notable. IF it's a link to a fansite or software download that's considered to-be-avoided but can be submitted to the Open Directory Project. TRS-80 at the Open Directory Project

Kept

Fan Sites - the absolute largest fan site by Alexa Internet volume might be listed

Commercial interests

Self-Published and others

Bill Gates and TRS-80 BASIC "last project"

I removed the following:

In a November, 1991 discussion with Peter Coffee and Steven Kovitz, Bill Gates stated that the TRS-80's Level II BASIC was his last actual hands-on programming project and went on compare notes about some of the more innovative programming techniques that he used in order to get as much functionality as possible in 12 KB of ROM.

There was no citation, and it contradicts a quote from him (with citation) in the TRS-80 Model 100 article that the Model 100 was the "the last machine where [he] wrote a very high percentage of the code in the product."

It's certainly possible that he said both of these things, but without a cite for the former, we have to assume that only the latter is true.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Bill Gates does any programming at all, even if just for fun? If so, what is his language of choice?
Did he ever learn any other languages than 8080 assembler & BASIC? Did he ever need to? Terry Yager (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Level II BASIC evidently wasn't Bill Gates' last programming project. I fondly remember the very capable Level III BASIC for the Exatron Stringy Floppy. TRS-80.org says, "The Level III BASIC manual contains this surprising statement of authorship: 'Microsoft has a reputation for quality, advanced programming techniques and efficiency that is surpassed by none. Level III BASIC was written by Microsoft president, Bill Gates.' " See http://www.trs-80.org/level-3-basic/ Opus131 (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Model 1 graphics / lower case letters

The text is slightly inaccurate with regards to the model 1 lowercase letters.

The original, 7 bit video memory could NOT distinguish upper and lowercase letters. The 8th bit was generated by logic (if my memory is correct, bit 6 was generated as an xor of bit 7 (off for text) and bit 5 (resulting in all text being converted to upper case).

Adding the 8th memory chip let you see the lower case; the character bitmap chip used only had 7 lines of text, so the lowercase letters had no descenders. Aftermarket character bitmap chips were released that included 9 scanlines of character data (so the lowercase letters got two scanlines of descenders).

--Keybounce (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cassette

I removed an "extremely" from the discussion of how unreliable the cassette storage was; it still seems a little overdone. My recollection is that you found a good volume setting, marked it carefully, and rarely ever needed to touch it again, but maybe others had worse experiences.

Also deleted some nonsense about "baud" being the inappropriate measure for the tape speed and changed the units to bps to sidestep the issue. I'm not an expert but I believe bps would be equal to baud for the encoding used on TRS-80 tapes. Kaleja (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image of PC-2

I own a free image of a PC-2, one of the pocket computer line. What would be the community's opinion on inserting this into the appropriate section? Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

It has been 30 days (approx.) and no one has replied, so I am going to just upload the image. Feel free to challenge it on this or my talk page. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Model 2/12/16/6000 emulators?

Does anyone know if there are any emulators for the Model 2, 12, 16 or 6000? Cousert (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Model II nitpick

The description says that the Model II's display is not memory mapped and that's why the entire address space is available. This isn't quite true -- it IS memory mapped (at F800 hex if I remember right) but can be bank-switched out. Presumably this must also be true of the Model 12 since it's compatible (I wouldn't know about the M68Kish ones). / John Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.76.253 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Video display issue/challenge

I removed the following line from the section on video memory, where later versions added the 8th memory chip to support lower case:

The software, however, remained unchanged, and when using standard BASIC programming, no lower case characters could be displayed. A small keyboard driver written in machine language could overcome this shortcoming.

I want a citation for this. My memory is that while the software was mostly unchanged, you could generate lowercase letters on the keyboard. I KNOW I was able to use lowercase letters, but I actually don't know if that was from the rom, from the debounce patch, or from patches loaded by the disk operating system.

I do know that several changes were made to the roms around that time (the change to "R/S L2 basic", among others), putting the debounce driver into the rom; lowercase keyboard support may have been added as well.

Keybounce (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Software compatibility between the models needs better documentation

While there are some hints in the text, a comprehensive documentation of which TRS-80 models are (upward) compatible to which other models would be a very welcome addition. -- 77.7.142.174 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And...then what? what happened to TRS-80?

This article fails to explain or even mention why Tandy withdrew from the microcomputer market, why TRS-80s are no longer sold, etc. The history seems to stop at product introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.93.100 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sound

While none of the TRS-80s included sound hardware, square wave tones could be produced by outputting data to the cassette port and plugging headphones or an amplifier into the Data Out line. Some games used this ability for sound effects.

But the CoCo made sound, even the TRS 80 Model 100 could make various beeps. This needs to be restricted to, say, the I, II, III and IV. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe the problem is that they mean the original TRS-80 machines, not later technically-unrelated machines (such as the CoCo and Model 100) that were only related by the brand. Ubcule (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Poor grammar

"The transfer of information about what keys were being pressed was unusual, instead of transferring data via an I/O device or chip, the hardware mapped the keyboard to pre-defined locations in memory, i.e., there was no 'real' memory at this location, but performing a read from the keyboard area of the memory map would return the state of a particular set of keys." this sentence is poorly written. For starters, "about what keys" seems to mean something like "via keys."202.179.16.72 (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How's this [1]? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

I added the split proposal:-

"It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled TRS-80 Model I and TRS-80 (brand), accessible from a disambiguation page. "

The "TRS-80" name originally referred to a specific computer (subsequently known as the Model I), but was later used as a brand for many technically unrelated machines.

The problem is that the article is trying to do both- it serves as the "main" article for the original TRS-80 and its compatible descendants (and hence focuses on it heavily), but is also an "umbrella" article for all TRS-80 branded computers (many of which are not technically related). The major later ones (such as the TRS-80 Color Computer) have articles in their own right, but the original TRS-80 doesn't.

The inclusion of later models detracts from the focus on the originals, but the top of the article relates to the original computers, which may confuse anyone looking for details on later models in the range.

IMHO, it would be better to have one article focusing on the original TRS-80 (Model I plus and its compatible descendants, Model III and 4) and another for the "TRS-80" brand overall. I *don't* think the "umbrella" brand-oriented page should be merely a disambiguation; it can (and should) cover the history of the brand and Tandy/Radio Shack's progress in the market. But the original architecture machines deserve an article in their own right.

I'm not saying it *has* to be split exactly as I described above, but I think separating out the two things would be useful. Ubcule (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The present article isn't extraordinarily long by contemporary Wikipedia standards, and already has an overview of the other models sold with the TRS 80 name; each has a main article, listed here. I don't see how a split could work any better; this article collects the "brand name" and discusses the Z80 models, and the other articles pointed at here discuss other systems sold under the label. I don't think we want to send readers skipping all through cyberpsace to get an overview of the product line. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the length (you'll note that I never said it was). It's the fact the article is currently trying to serve two different purposes that in most other cases *would* probably be separate Wikipedia articles.
For example; if someone comes to this article looking to find out about one of the later TRS-80 machines (e.g. the CoCo, Model 100, pocket computer or MC-10), but understandably thinks "TRS-80" is the model number and has typed that in, they arrive here. The information they'll see on the first page of the article relates specifically to the original Model I and its descendants, but they wouldn't know that.
The problem is that TRS-80 was originally a specific model, but later became a generic brand applied to several technically unrelated families that just happen to use the "TRS-80" name. As you say, *they* all got their own articles- as they should, because they're essentially unrelated formats. But the original Model I, III and 4 don't. Why?
Ubcule (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
(Additional; due to lack of comments I've posted a short request to the talk pages of those who have contibuted to the article in the past year (excluding bots and anonymous editors) to get an interested- but hopefully unbiased- cross section of opinion. If I don't hear any more either way, I'll leave the article "as is".) Ubcule (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Full ack, the name was just a marketing trick. -- Polluks ★ 16:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response; am I correct in interpreting this as agreement with the proposal? (Please excuse my stupidity :-)) Ubcule (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
yep.

Oppose for the same reasons as Wtshymanski stated above. --Brouhaha (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. It makes sense for the article to continue serving all machines descended from the original 1977 TRS-80 architecturally. As the article grows, should there be a need for separate articles for the III, 4, 4P, etc., they should be broken out of this one with summary stub sections remaining that point to them. For now, as Wtshymanski said, the current relevant text is not overlong.

What should happen immediately is the overdetailed discussion of machines that are not architecturally descended from the 1977 TRS-80. For example the section discussing the Tandy DOS-based machines should be turned into a summary stub akin to the one for the Color Computer, at most. Ylee (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Ylee. Perhaps my proposal was unclear, as you seem to agree me with as much as you disagree(?) I should make clear that I do *not* want to have separate articles for the Model I, Model III and Model 4; on the contrary, I strongly support all three remaining within a single article as they are versions of the same architecture.
What I *did* want was to separate out that article covering the Model I, III and 4 from the "complete overview and history" of the TRS-80 brand. That is, to have:-
- TRS-80 Model I, III and 4 (or whatever title), covering *all* the machines of that architecture.
- TRS-80 (brand), covering all uses of the brand and its history, and providing an overview and context.
Later models that don't have enough info to warrant their own articles can remain as sections in the TRS-80 (brand) article. I don't want things split beyond that- as things stand, all the series that have enough info and importance to warrant being split off and summised (e.g. the CoCo and the MC-10) have already had that done- *except* that Model I/III/4!
Finally, let me re-emphasise that my proposal was *not* for reasons of article length. It's because the article is covering two distinctly different bases that distract from each other and would be better served by being separate; the TRS-80 Model I, III and 4 article focuses specifically on models of that architecture, and TRS-80 (brand) has a clearer flow, provides a better overview and is less confusing for the new reader. In short, it aims to solve the problem of "overdetailed discussion of machines that are not architecturally descended from the 1977 TRS-80" by *not* presenting them as one and the same thing, but putting them in context. Ubcule (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The more information you have on the other TRS-80 products, the more your split proposal makes sense. Besides more printers (line printer, daisy wheel printer, plotter printer), what else is missing from the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

More (useful) information is good, but I wasn't arguing the split for reasons of length, and this shouldn't have a bearing upon whether or not the article warrants splitting. Or (can I put it another way), the issue of whether the original Model-I, III and 4 architecture deserves an article of its own. As you can see in this draft, this would be a detailed article in its own right and the TRS-80 brand (draft) article is also detailed and holds up in its own right. Ubcule (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional; I've created a couple of rough drafts to show how the split could go (broadly speaking):-

- TRS-80 Model I, III and 4 (or whatever title), covering *all* the machines of that architecture.
- TRS-80 (brand), covering all uses of the brand and its history, and providing an overview and context. Ubcule (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Support I think the proposal has merit, particularly with the recent comments. The TRS-80 was a brand with several product lines. Breaking it down by architecture and brand makes sense. Charles Oppermann (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to have settled into a "no consensus" at best, so I'll leave this for now and go ahead with some (minor) additions to the opening paragraph to clarify the issue raised above instead. (*) (Though I'd be happy for the merge proposal notice to remain a bit longer).

While I have no hard feelings with those who disagreed, I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised as the idea had seemed quite sensible and I'd expected a primarily positive response- hopefully getting some useful discussion and feedback relating to the fine details of how the articles should be split and named. Oh well. :-/ Ubcule (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Support in the context of TRS-80 Color Computer, TRS-80 MC-10, TRS-80 Model 100 and TRS-80 Pocket Computer, I think the early model merits a separate article. -—Kvng 14:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong support - this article is confusing and focuses on two completely different subjects.  — TORTOISEWRATH 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) AbstaainBrad Shen (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support for one article for the original TRS-80 Model I and its descendants, and another about the unrelated machines that confusingly share the same name, for marketing, not technical reasons I suppose. The TRS-80_(disambiguation) page makes the distinction clear. When people link to the TRS-80 computer, they expect to connect to the popular Model I and its successors (III, 4), not to only vaguely related machines sharing the same name. At the very least, Model II and III should not be mixed together under the heading "Business Systems". How about making the three chapters: "Models I, III, 4", "Models II, 16" (a separate line of business computers), and "Other Systems branded 'TRS-80'"? Also, what's Tandy 10 doing in this article? It wasn’t part of the TRS‑80 line at all. --Kai Carver (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Split Started...

The response to my split proposal a while back (above) over time seems to have been slightly in favour, but no more, and I hadn't intended rushing in to anything. However, I noticed that Thumperward appears to have started a rewrite in February to address the same problem. I don't know if this was in response to my proposal or just coincidence..?

I agree that the current article is a "ghastly chimera" (i.e. tries to cover the Model I architecture *specifically* in-depth, yet also acts as an umbrella to many other "TRS-80" computers that are related to it in name only).

Since the dormant issue has been forced, I'd comment that:-

  • IMHO it's preferable to move the "umbrella" (non-Model I/III/4) content away to a separate article rather than try to "condense" it. The content was perfectly good, it just shouldn't have been confusingly placed here. I've moved it (based on the earlier, non-condensed version) to List of TRS-80 and Tandy-branded computers.
  • I've restored the Model III and the Model 4 content to this article. Those machines are architecturally-related to (and broadly compatible with) the Model I, so logically *should* be grouped together with it.
  • I moved content related to the TRS-80 Model II (and its descendants) to its own article, since that had enough in its own right and is a distinct architecture
  • Not everything in List of TRS-80 and Tandy-branded computers has a "mainarticle". I don't see the point in splitting off sections if they're likely to remain stub articles.
  • Do we need TRS-80 (disambiguation) any more?

If I've overlooked any redirects or minor issues, I'll try to get them tidied up soon.

Ubcule (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Great work! I'm still unsure about List of TRS-80 and Tandy-branded computers though, because it doesn't follow the usual format of list articles (it isn't a list). It would be worth examining whether any of the content there is unique (i.e. it isn't on the parent articles) and if so moving said content to the parents and then summarising. If there remains too much material for the usual list format we might consider renaming it to remove the word "list" to avoid confusion.
It might also be a good idea merging list of TRS-80 clones into this article now we've a little more room; it's a little short as a standalone and nearly devoid of sourcing.
Once again, thanks very much for stepping up here. That's considerable improved this article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it was a concern that it might not strictly follow the "list" format. On the other hand, it's still (broadly) a list.
Some of the content of the list article *is* a very-condensed version of content from the main article. The intent was that the article would act as an "umbrella" and place the machines in context within Tandy's computer range (both TRS-80 and Tandy branded; I realised that having two separate articles would have been over-proliferation and weakened it as an overview).
I'm not planning on rushing in to anything tonight (especially as I spent too much time on it last night!) and I'll maybe wait a short while to see if there's any further response and opinion- including on the article titles- before building on them, fixing and improving redirects and links, etc. Cheers,
Ubcule (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Was not the computer used to wardial phone numbers in the movie "wargames" also a TRS-80? Maybe it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.1.234 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not a TRS-80.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames#Plot), it was an IMSAI computer. But why? The movie was made in 1983. The IMSAI was obsolete by then. Also according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMSAI_8080), the IMSAI_8080 (the model used in the film) was discontinued in 1978, five years before War Games was produced. Why didn't they go with something more up to date, like an early IBM PC for example.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.45.171 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No hacker in 1983 would have been caught dead using an IBM PC. Or a TRS80 for that matter. The only thing other than an IMSAI/S100 type that would have made sense would be an Apple II. The IMSAI's obsolescence shows that Lightman is not a noob; he's been doing this for a number of years. Besides being more impressive onscreen and a closer visual analogue to WOPR.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TRS-80/Archives/2015&oldid=829880111"