JamesD

Other than that one programmer, we were a good team. It was one of these: "Give me an estimate of how long this will take" "If we work 50 hours per week, and a couple weekends, it will take 4 weeks" "I'll get you at least 4 weeks" ... "you have 3 1/2 weeks starting 1/2 week ago" It just wasn't possible.

The endless rewriting, optimizing, tricks... aaaaaand it's still slow. I wrote some BUSINESS stuff in BASIC. It's not bad at that because you don't need instant results. It can also be good for adventures, simulations, etc... Really, BASIC was sort of created as an introduction into programming, and to make programming accessible to more people. If it got you interested in programming, it did it's job. BASIC isn't completely useless for games, but it's clearly not on the level of assembly. I shared this before, but for BASIC it's not bad, and I gave him some code to speed it up a little more. The CoCo interpreter can be sped up similar to the MC-10, so with that, this would run about 10% faster. That wouldn't be too bad, but a BASIC compiler would make it a lot faster. I wish this didn't have the dubbed in music.

Self sufficiency! There are so many programmers that are helpless! I remember one that every member of the team was ready to kill. We were on a short deadline with no time to help someone else, and they were like <in pouty childish voice> "I don't know how to do this, and nobody will help me, and ..." <continues for several minutes> Programmers that learned on their own don't expect people to help them, if they don't know something, they look it up. If they still have a problem, THEN they ask about it. Don't get me wrong, I try to mentor other programmers. I remember what my first job was like. 1 part "I got this", 1 part "what if I don't got this?" But when you are putting in 60 hours a week, you don't have time to help someone else, and they weren't even trying to figure it out on their own...

FWIW, math ability beyond algebra isn't required for most coding jobs, and being good at math isn't necessarily an indicator that someone will be a good coder. Lot's of math is required for a CS degree though. I have a theory that started to fill math classes. Learning BASIC doesn't make someone a better coder, and as a language it leaves a lot to be desired. The bad habits thing was mostly started by a professor ranting about GOTO, and other professors refuted his claims, but guess which one everyone heard about. What really makes good coders, is starting programming young. It's like music, sports, or whatever. If you start the kid young, they will be better at it. The brain builds more pathways while it's still forming to do what the kid spends time doing. The BASIC interpreter, the instant on environment, the hardware simplicity, etc... makes it easier to get started. You can sit down with a book, type in the examples, and instantly see the results when you type RUN.

I get the distinct impression that people cannot read.

I just said the MC-10 was close to the price of a VIC-20, so why are you telling me it's about the price of a VIC-20? The TI-99/4A has some interesting BASIC features for setting up sprites, but I wouldn't suggest it to anyone. And you were talking CoCo or C64 which were more expensive. vs the C64 which is what you have been pushing... $300 - $120 is $180 difference in 1983 dollars. That's around $470 in today's money. The *average* car started around $7000 at that time. Does a family spend money on a computer their kid might only play games on, do they save it towards a car for them, or maybe college? When I was in college, I knew someone that received an MC-10 for Christmas. She didn't even have a cassette cable or recorder. Her parents didn't buy it for her to play games, and she wasn't interested in games. She was using it to learn BASIC, and about computers in general. I doubt she ever used BASIC for much, but she was working through examples from a book. Getting a C64 instead of an MC-10 wouldn't have made any difference other than price. It's not your opinion I dislike, it's your insistence that your opinion is somehow right, and other people's is wrong. Then you tell people their opinion is "silly", belittle someone's argument with comments like "loser computer", etc.. You also speak as if you are expert enough to know if C64 BASIC is good enough, but haven't even shown you know anything about it. This is a work in progress, and it's not quite working, but this is close to how the circle code should look on C64 BASIC. I copied the C64 specific code from a web page. It's in lowercase to get around the PET ASCII issue when posted into YAPE. This is what people claim is "good enough" for a beginner. 0 poke 53280,0 : rem set the frame color 1 base=8192:for i=base to base+7999:poke i,0:next:rem clear the screen 2 poke 53272,peek(53272) or 8:rem set bitmap memory at 8192 ($2000) 3 poke 53265,peek(53265) or 32:rem enter bitmap mode 4 PRINT CHR$(147); 5 i = .022 7 x=64/6:c=7 8 y = 32 / 2 9 rem bottom left of circle 10 for h = 0 to 1 step i 20 v=(1-h)*.66 30 x=x+h:y=y+v 40 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c) 50 next h 55 rem bottom right 60 for h = 1 to 0 step -i 70 v=(-1*.66)+(h*.66) 80 x=x+h:y=y+v 90 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c) 100 next h 110 rem top right 120 for h = 0 to -1 step -i 130 v=(-1*.66)-(h*.66) 140 x=x+h:y=y+v 150 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c) 160 next h 170 rem top left 180 for h = -1 to 0 step i 190 v=(1-abs(h))*.66 200 x=x+h:y=y+v 210 gosub 400:rem set(x,y,c) 220 next h 230 rem wait for keypress 240 get k$:if k$="" then 240 250 rem return to text mode 260 poke 53280,14:poke 53281,6:poke 646,14:end 270 end 399 rem plot pixel 400 mem=base+int(y/8)*320+int(x/8)*8+(y and 7) 401 px=c-(x and c) 402 poke mem,peek(mem) or 2^px 403 return

Guardian uses a semi-graphics mode that may not be fully supported in the MC-10 hardware out of the box, and it might not be possible without the SAM. Not sure what mode it's using.

Microsoft BASIC has several hooks to make it easy to extend on all the machines I've looked at the code for. The MC-10 is called a doorstop by the CoCo community, so when I say it has a better BASIC than the C64, it's not flattering. And for the dozenth time, no I'm not recommending the MC-10. (just adding that so someone doesn't claim I am again)

The MC-10 was approaching the price of the VIC-20 in 1983, not the C64. It's a silly argument in your opinion, and like always, somehow nobody's opinion is as good as yours.

Again, I'm not suggesting the MC-10, just pointing out your statement isn't totally accurate based on my experience. Getting it's ass handed to it depends on what you want to do. A gaming wonder out of the box it isn't, and if you want to fly multi-color sprites around the screen while playing ear splitting chip tunes, then yes, it will get it's a** handed to it. Graphics or sound hardware wise the MC-10 is pretty simple, and the graphics are even cut down for the 6847. You would need to install a hardware mod to do some of the things I talk about here. Sound is accomplished like the Apple II & original Spectrum. As I said above, the MC-10 beat the C64 running the BASIC Solitaire Solver program by quite a bit. The Apple II beat the C64 & the MC-10 beat the Apple II by 12%(? I think) so it was a noticeable difference. The Solitaire Solver was the only BASIC program I tested using the factory BASIC vs the other machines, all other tests were using my BASIC. With my BASIC the MC-10 beats the C64 running Solitaire Solver by 155%! When doing a 3D plot, it's even worse thanks to the hardware multiply. Ahl's benchmark dropped from 6 seconds slower than the C64 & Apple vs the factory BASIC (1:53 vs 1:59... MICROCOLOR BASIC's math lib is 6800 code), to almost 50 seconds faster after the first math library rewrite. The list of machine results for Ahl's Benchmark shows the MC-10 at about 30 seconds behind the IBM PC & Amiga, and I haven't rewritten the slow LOG yet. Sorting tests, prime number generation, fractals, factorials, you name it, the MC-10 wins easily against the C64, & Apple II. Atari BASIC can be a PITA to port to, but you'd need one of it's BASIC rewrites to win anything. It's pretty fast with the new ones. Speccy BASIC is horribly slow so I don't even bother with that. This is the CoCo 3 running in double speed mode vs the MC-10. The CoCo 3 will mop the floor with the machines you listed for this. My BASIC is now even faster than when I recorded this, and once the LOG is rewritten, the MC-10 might even win. I need to get busy on the hi-res graphics support. I've already written pixel setting an line drawing code for it in the past. I have several other projects I've been working on, and the 6803 beats the 6502 in every one. *edit* The editor chopped off the rest of my message. 64 column text done in graphics. Every version has changed since this, read the description for the video on youtube:

Back in the early 80s, computers weren't as cheap as they are now, so I might tell someone to get their 8 year old started on an MC-10 due to price. That's especially true given the difference in cost of living. Let's face it, you don't know if the kid is going to like programming, and I'd actually suggest NOT getting them a game machine if you wanted them to spend time learning about computers rather than just playing games. But that's just me. But now... as I said before, if you want to go that route, you are better off with a CoCo. When I was young, I knew some of the tricks for making programs smaller, and faster. I learned by optimizing other people's code. When I upgraded my RAM from 16K to 64K (32K available to BASIC), my coding style didn't really change. I was still trying to cram everything into as small a space as possible, just more of it. Some people's coding style might have gotten sloppy, but anyone pushing the capability of the machine knew better.

Well, since I said that C64 BASIC sucks, not Simon's BASIC, you are avoiding the point. If you want to play that game, here is MCX-BASIC for the MC-10. The circle command can also draw partial circles or even ellipses. It's the same syntax as EXTENDED COLOR BASIC on the CoCo. 10 PMODE 2:PCLS 20 CIRCLE(64,32),25 30 IF INKEY$=""THEN30 40 END

I continue to find it endlessly amusing you thing the C64 BASIC is good. Here is the code to draw a circle on the MC-10. The main code is here, all one of you C64 supporters have to do is port it so we can see how superior C64 BASIC is. Don't worry about the scale, or correcting for the shape of the pixels, just get it to work. Please, show us how much better the C64 BASIC is than a loser computer as the MC-10. 4 CLS0 5 I = .022 7 X=64/6:C=8 8 Y = 32 / 2 9 REM BOTTOM LEFT OF CIRCLE 10 FOR H = 0 TO 1 STEP I 20 V=(1-H)*.66 30 X=X+H:Y=Y+V 40 SET(X,Y,C) 50 NEXT H 55 REM BOTTOM RIGHT 60 FOR H = 1 TO 0 STEP -I 70 V=(-1*.66)+(H*.66) 80 X=X+H:Y=Y+V 90 SET(X,Y,C) 100 NEXT H 110 REM TOP RIGHT 120 FOR H = 0 TO -1 STEP -I 130 V=(-1*.66)-(H*.66) 140 X=X+H:Y=Y+V 150 SET(X,Y,C) 160 NEXT H 170 REM TOP LEFT 180 FOR H = -1 TO 0 STEP I 190 V=(1-ABS(H))*.66 200 X=X+H:Y=Y+V 210 SET(X,Y,C) 220 NEXT H Only one person suggested the MC-10, and as he stated, it was due to simplicity. That hardly qualifies as "Tandy fanatics". You are resorting to ad hominem attacks because we say that C64 BASIC sucks and you can't prove otherwise because it's true. And again, you have your opinion, and he has his. Why do you get to say you are right and he is wrong? I don't agree with him either, but he has a right to say his opinion without being accused of being a fanatic.

The program I ported to the Apple II, Plus/4, and C64 was a slightly optimized version of one of Jim's programs, which itself was a port that may have originated from one of the other machines. He doesn't even remember which machine it came from. I was using it to benchmark with. The MC-10 is certainly a challenge for one's programming ability, and if the C64's BASIC is okay, the MC-10's certainly is since it has more features... but I'm not sure I'd suggest the machine. You can do the same thing with COLOR BASIC on the CoCo, a CoCo 1/2 might be cheaper, and it has the high speed POKE. A CoCo would offer more hardware upgrades, and with Extended BASIC, you have more advanced options once you've worked your way through the COLOR BASIC manual. FWIW, the MC-10 RAM size is 4K, the BASIC is 8K in case that wasn't clear from @Mr SQL's post. As far as the MC-10 goes... it's keys feel kinda like a modern laptop, and it might be big enough for a pre-teen, but not most adults. My fingers have to touch each other to type on it. If the keyboard had been the size of the TI-99/2 keyboard, then it would be pretty usable as a basic microcomputer. There are people that added a better keyboard, and used it for several years. I've even heard claims it was used for word processing, but... with what program? If the hi-res graphics had been hooked up, it certainly could have displayed full upper & lower case text like many CoCo 1/2 programs used, and the 6803 would have been more than fast enough. (there is a mod to do that) There's supposedly a decent terminal program for the MC-10, but I haven't used it. FWIW, MICROCOLOR BASIC was faster at running the "Solitaire Solver" program I ported than any of the 6502 machines. You can see the results for my BASIC vs C64 below, but I'm waiting for someone to run the C64 version on real hardware to confirm the speed is accurate. This was after running the program all night on the two machines. Skip to 1:40 to see the difference in number of games of solitaire each machine solved overnight. I may try modifying the program so the main subroutines are at the top, and rerunning it. Searching through the linked list looking for line numbers kills the 6502. The code is something like 3 times the size of the 6803 code. 16 bit support, and using indexing with fixed 8 bit offsets works better for this type of thing. That's definitely something Motorola got right. *edit* The TI-99/2 keyboard is about the same size as the 99/4A keyboard, but with flat rubbery keys, but that would be more how the MC-10 COULD have been.

I don't care if the CoCo wins some computer war. That was lost 30+ years ago. I DO think it's a better option than other people give it credit for. I personally prefer it to the C64, but I'm not a huge gamer. I don't even game on the CoCo much. I DID evangelize the CoCo 3 when it sounded like people were intentionally trying to exclude it. I said MULTIPLE TIMES that I agreed if someone just wants to game, the C64 and Atari are the best options. I've suggested a C128 as an alternative to a C64 if you want to program because the BASIC is better, and I suggested trying a BASIC 3.5 extension for the C64. I made suggestions for a better version of Atari BASIC if someone gets an Atari. When I talked about BASICs in my first post, I gave an assessment of what? A dozen machines? I'm pretty sure I said several machines have good Extended BASICs. I DO think the C64 may be the worst choice if someone wants to program in BASIC. You even quoted me out of context! The bold face text clearly ignores my next sentence, and you act as if I didn't say you have your opinion and I have mine. Why? Because I think the C64 BASIC sucks and won't shut up about it? Tell you what, for the sake of peace... here is my recommendation. I'd suggest "The C64". It's $130 Pre-order on Amazon, to be released Nov 5th. Just hook it to your TV with an HDMI cable, no worrying about old hardware or add on devices, it should have a warranty, it has built in games with an easy selection system, you can load your own programs, boot to BASIC, it comes with a joystick, and it even emulates a VIC 20. You get the 8 bit experience with the least muss or fuss in a single purchase. If they don't like it or get sick of it, ebay it, sell it at a yard sale, give it away, or whatever. I don't care if they take it out and shoot it, or blend it for a youtube video, just don't do that to the original hardware. People still have the option of emulation where you can game or program on any machine you want. If you want to game on THE C64, and program another machine... you can. FWIW, I don't write code on for any of these old machines directly on the hardware. It's edited on the PC, then pasted into an emulator, or transferred to a disk image.

Other languages weren't mentioned in the original post, but BASIC was, and we are making a recommendation for a beginner. Several BASICs have a full screen editor, so that's not exactly a unique feature. The TRS-80s are one of the few machines that use an EDIT command, and require learning how to move through a line, delete characters, insert, append, etc... It's not as easy as a full screen editor, but you can fit more code on a line, so it's a trade off. It's not that hard really. D = delete I=insert etc... but it is definitely something else to learn. It still doesn't change YOUR overall ranking in any way. You aren't king here, you don't get to decide your opinion is right, and other people's opinion is wrong. You have your ranking, and I have mine. I'd ask them what they want to do before recommending a system. If they just say game... then I'd back your suggestion. If they say learn how to program... see my first post in this thread. Fear has nothing to do with it. It's about simplicity, easy to follow code, code size, how easy it is to learn, etc... How many of your friends with Commodores had ever programmed in any other BASIC? Go look at the Fedora plot thread from a few years ago. I ported the code to several machines I'd never programmed before in a short amount of time, and that was possible because I didn't have to learn the hardware, or POKE my way around. A few weeks ago I ported a program from the MC-10 (also works on the CoCo) to the Apple II, Plus/4, and C64 to do some benchmarks. Guess which port required the most research. It wasn't that difficult, but then I'm not a beginner either. Which leads to the following example of why I criticize C64 BASIC. Here is the syntax for CoCo, Plus/4 & C128, Atari BASIC (if I read the manual right), Applesoft II, and C64 to print to a specific location on the screen. [email protected]# CHAR,#,#,"":PRINT POSITION#,#:PRINT VTAB(#):HTAB(#):PRINT POKE214,#:POKE211,#:SYS58732:PRINT Even the Sinclair ZX-80 BASIC which fits in 4K can print to a specific location on the screen without POKEs, and system calls. PRINT AT #,# It doesn't get much simpler than printing to the screen. We can show the code to set up a graphics screen and draw some lines if you want to continue arguing about how the C64 BASIC doesn't suck, and POKEs are just fine. Yeah, if you only want to play existing games, the C64 and Atari are best, I already agreed to that, but the original post does mention BASIC. If you want a beginner to try BASIC, which BASIC is most likely to make them quit? Keep in mind, they aren't you, and may not be as technically inclined. If all you expect them to do is type something like the following program, the C64 is fine, but so is any BASIC. That's setting the bar pretty low. 10 PRINT"MY NAME IS BILLY!":GOTO 10 At least recognize that using some sort of BASIC add on would be beneficial to a beginner instead of blindly evangelizing what is probably the most primitive BASIC of any machine made since 1979 besides the VIC-20.

The Amiga is a problem when it comes to the BASIC category. AmigaBASIC didn't run on systems with expanded RAM. Something about Microsoft not using 32 bit code. You can compile the code with the AbsoftBASIC compiler (I think that was the compiler) and it would work fine, but it's an additional complexity. The BASIC itself is quite powerful. You can call system libraries to do most of the stuff you'd do from another language. My ex partner wrote several commercial programs in it, and compiled them for release. The results were very professional. I wrote a library that loaded IFF ILBM pictures, and 8SVX sounds so any BASIC program could load title screens, backgrounds, play sampled sounds, etc... If someone wanted to go with the Amiga, I could probably provide the library, and sample BASIC code if my A3000 will fire up.

Suck as in good for 1976... except other BASICs from that time let you set the screen position to print to without resorting to POKEs and ROM calls There... fixed it

FWIW, the original post does list BASIC, and your top two suck in that category. But since you insist... If you want to learn programming for the C64, you can make your life easier with Simon's BASIC. It's non-standard, the added commands are largely unique to it so getting your code working on another machine would be more difficult, and to even let someone else run it would require them to have the cart as well. If you can afford a C128, it includes the BASIC enhancements that were added to the Plus/4, but afford is the key word. It also offers some capabilities the C64 doesn't have though. And finally, there is a BASIC 3.5 extension for the C64. It appears to add the same commands to the C64, but the original article is written in German, and I've never used it. I think it loads from disk based on what I've read, so you could include it with any program that uses it, and other people wouldn't have to buy a cart. The code should also be more easily ported to run directly on a Plus/4 or C128. Atari BASIC isn't horrible, but it has some quirks. The biggest possibly being how it treats strings, and it can make porting to/from Microsoft BASIC challenge. I suggest getting an O.S.S. BASIC XE cart. It's faster, it adds additional commands, and should make learning or porting code easier. Turbo BASIC XE (XL?) is an option that doesn't require a cart, and many people swear by it.

Without constraints, you have a glut of junk, but I'm not sure we'll agree what the constraints should be. If you limit it to commercial games, any free game someone wrote, no matter how amazing, is excluded, and most of the titles I listed for the CoCo were commercial. Perhaps commercial quality, which leaves it up to the poster to decide what games that applies to. If you limit it to into the early 90s, you leave off some amazing titles on every platform. Some of the best games ever to make it to the Oric, Plus/4, CoCo, Atari, etc... all come after that time. Not all are exclusives, or aren't knock offs, but games like Space 1999, Pets Rescue, Digger III, Yoomp!, etc... all come from later. Gate Crasher for the CoCo 3 was from 1999. At that time, some people were probably still using their CoCos. I think I read the word "notable". I'm not sure how I'd define that in terms of exclusive computer games. Worthy of playing? Direct knock offs of other games should be excluded for sure, because no matter what you call Donkey Kong, Pacman, etc... they are still pretty much the same. There is some grey area where games have similarities, but clearly play differently. When it comes to Donkey Kong Remixed, it would be a different arcade machine if it were in the arcades, so I'm not sure how I'd treat it. It's definitely not on any other platform. In the end, you kinda have to leave it up to the posters because different people like different games, and some of us have barely seen the top 10 games on a platform let alone hundreds of possible exclusives.

If you can get a good 128K IIe platinum for $150, that's a pretty good deal, but it looks like the remaining units from that link have yellowing bad enough to call it severe, or even refer to it as orange. I notice they sell IIc machines for $120, so that could be a cheap option. Looking at costs... The IIc, IIc Plus, and IIGS do not have the cassette audio jacks, so that isn't an option with those machines, but they have built in serial, and the first 2 have built in drives so it's not such a big deal. The IIGS has a built in disk controller, but you'll need a drive emulator for it, or use a serial drive. If you get a cheap IIe without the 128K RAM upgrade, the RAM upgrade will set you back around $15 shipped from ebay. An 8GB board is $35 shipped if you have a reason to buy one. If you want to use a drive emulator with the II, II+, IIe you'll need a disk controller. Those are $20 & up on ebay. As we mentioned, drive emulators were $50(I think) on the low end to $140 on the high end. It was something like that. I'm not a fan of using old CRT TVs or composite monitors. You can find a 19" LCD at a yard sale for under $40, and a new 32" TV can be had under $100 at Walmart. Just be sure the model TV you use works with old computers. I have a Magnavox that doesn't, and there are more out there that don't. Know which ones to look for when you shop around. All my newer TVs work, it seems most of the problems were earlier LCD TVs, but I can't guarantee that. If you stick to 16:9 units, they will probably work *if* they have composite input. CoCo 3 upgrades will run you as follows: CoCoSDC is $70 with case Boyson Tech 512K RAM upgrade $20. The 2MB board kits are $50(?) but most people would want to pay for installation. The Switch-a-roo RGB to SCART cable is $40, and the SCART to HDMI adapters start at $30. Then hook it to a TV with HDMI inputs. You'll also want composite input for the artifact colors from older games. Those prices are plus shipping... so around $160 + shipping for the upgrades to have a stand alone 512K system you can hook to an HDMI TV. It's definitely a higher price for the add ons, but not by a huge amount. Ultimately, what kind of deal you get on the computer is going to be the biggest difference in price.

It wasn't a statement about what you or Bill were saying, I was saying ADTPro didn't let you load direct from the game server website. Yes, I'd forgotten ADTPro supports audio. And serial connections aren't that hard to get set up. Some USB serial adapters have a driver issue because they are knock offs of someone else's product, and the manufacturer found a way to break the clones in the driver. Not saying that's what your issue is, but it might be. It's good to look at reviews, and what people have already gotten to work on a setup like this before you buy a USB to RS-232 adapter for sure.

The title doesn't specify when the exclusive games were created. When it comes to home brews, you can find games from every decade since the 80s. Exactly where do you cut it off date wise? I think excluding titles is a bit arbitrary no matter how or when you do it. The problem with exclusives is that so many games have similarities or borrowed elements from other games. Even the CoCo which wasn't known as a gaming stronghold has over 1000 titles we have dumps of, and that doesn't include more obscure titles. Who wants to go through a 1000+ titles to find exclusives only to have someone inform you half the list you come up with came from somewhere else? CoCo exclusive titles including games starting with #s through Ci****. I make no claims as to how good these are since I haven't played most of them, some are text adventures, several are just D&D games, and several are in BASIC. Yes, they are going to range in quality from total suckage, to excellent, and everywhere in between. Half or more probably fit into the suckage category but they are exclusives. FWIW, the inevitable BS replies saying this or that don't count are probably why you don't have people posting long lists of exclusives for every computer. 3D Space Wars 666 The Haunted House A Warlocks Revenge Across the Rubicon Adventure In Mythology Adventure in Wonderland Adventure Trilogy Aldaron A Mazing World of Malcom Mortar Androne Apples Arena of Skill Atom Barbarossa Basic Dungeons and Dragons Battle for Tunis Battle Hymn - The Battle of Gettysburg Battle of the Bulge Beyond the Cimeeon Moon Blackbeard's Island Bomber Command Bomb Threat Boris the Bold Bumpers Buried Buxx Caladuril: Flame of Light Catacomb Cave Hunter Cave Walker Caves of the Unwashed Heathen Champion Chambers Chatwin Manor CINCPAC - Battle of Midway City War Civil War

Are you suggesting any remixes or games built on an existing game engine be excluded from exclusives?

Okay, just to be clear... a "few hundred bucks" is okay to buy an Apple IIe... but not a CoCo 3 setup? I realize the asking prices for CoCo 3's currently listed on ebay are nuts, but if you ask on a facebook CoCo group you can probably pick one up for a much more reasonable price. Some of the CoCo hoarders have dozens of CoCos they might be willing to let go of. FWIW, ADTPro can be bootstrapped via a Super Serial Card, and you can use virtual serial drives on your modern computer. The Super Serial Card is built in to the IIGS, IIc Plus, IIc, Laser 128, etc... so a cassette interface isn't required for similar functionality. No, you can't load games direct from the website, and you need a host computer, but it's still a cheap way to start without a drive. FWIW, you can load software on any CoCo in a similar manner using Drivewire. This explains it in detail. https://classiccomputingandelectronics.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/drivewire-4-and-coco3-in-action/ PyDrivewire supports the CoCo, and also supports the MCX BASIC serial drive setup on the MC-10. Seems odd to me that ADTPro uses the serial port, and the Apple Game server doesn't... or vice versa for that matter. It also seems odd that there isn't a version of drivewire that uses the cassette interface, so you don't need 2 cables.