Talk:Dragon 32/64
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Need for separate Dragon Data article?
Do we really need both a Dragon Data and a Dragon 32/64 article?? Linuxlad 22:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- As the Dragon Data article stands now, you certainly have a valid point there. However, if one could partly base the article on [1] (see below), there is more than enough historical information about the company as such (and, on The DRAGON Archive website, even more info on e.g. other Dragon computers than the 32/64). One should be careful, of course, to avoid copyvios -- i.e. be sure to write the wkp article using the reference as a guide rather than citing too large parts of it. --Wernher 12:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- [1] A Slayed Beast - History of the Dragon computer – From The DRAGON Archive © Miro International Pty Ltd.
-
- The present Dragon Data article deserves its stub marker, but there is scope for two different articles here - one on the computer, and one on the company that made/marketed it. Blufive 12:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- [Re: other Dragon computers than the 32/64]: But they never made anything else ! (despite rumours, there was never a 128 or higher - except for the ones that sad techies like me and others upgraded! (I still have 3, capable of running OS9 level 2, hacked from from the Tandy CocCo3) Linuxlad 15:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the clarification! :) Still, there is sufficient info available about Dragon Data's birth, life, and demise, so as to warrant a separate article on the company. --Wernher 15:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- There weren't any others released, but I'm certain at least one other made it to the prototype stage. Besides, Wiki is not paper, and it does make some sort of sense to separate the business side from discussion of the hardware. I'm glad to hear there are still people keeping them running, though (I've got one in a cupboard here, but it's been a while since it was booted up...) Blufive 20:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Prototypes
[Copied from the previous thread:] There weren't any others released, but I'm certain at least one other made it to the prototype stage. [...] I'm glad to hear there are still people keeping [the old Dragons] running[.] (I've got one in a cupboard here, but it's been a while since it was booted up...)Blufive 20:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I suspect the 128 could have been just a pretty box - what memory management strategy would it have used? (the MC6829 was no longer in production) Tandy got a special made up for the CoCo3.
- Finally, yes I have 3 machines, but I've not turned them on for a few years now... Linuxlad 22:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tandy/Dragon cross-compatibility
On Tandy/Dragon cross-compatability, might be worth noting that BASIC programs had to be 'retokenised' IIRC. Linuxlad 22:07, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sources for "Special features trivia"
Just to have mentioned it: the source of my recent corrections in the trivia section is the book by Vander Reyden. --Wernher 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Amount of memory
I know it sounds silly, but I honestly believe that my old Dragon 32 had 16K of memory. I've a vague memory of someone telling me the 32 meant it could be upgraded to 32K.
Can anyone confirm?
--JimmyTheWig 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
