Talk:TRS-80 Model 100

Lack of Citations

There is an alarming lack of citations in both the Applications and Data Storage sections. An example in the Data Storage section are the claims about the dual-drive DVI being 'so rare that The Smithsonian Museum hasn't even got one'.

I also agree with the other editor who mentioned a lack of NPOV on this page. The whole Data Storage section also reads like a fan wrote it. Rocket-Fueled (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a "fan essay" is exactly what happened: in the revision history, you'll find a whole bunch of edits made on 22 September by user CPTHammonds, whose edit history shows no edits other than the ones made to this article. All of those edits are non-encylopedic in tone, wholly lacking in citations, and clearly involving large amounts of original research.

I have taken the bold step of reverting to the last version before CPTHammonds' edits, so that we are back on a stable foundation. I also left them a note on their talk page informing them of the action and why. — tooki (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Applications

FYI, the whole Applications section is NPOV and reads like someone gushing about the awesomeness of their favorite old box. I don't know how much is true or is not true, so I can't fix it. 67.182.253.42 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"No current portable computers has the appearance of the Model 100 line. More powerful systems are found as pocket-sized PDAs, or palm tops. Laptop computers with full size keyboards are larger, heavier, and have much shorter battery life than the Model 100 style of machine."

I have no idea what this means. Is it comparing to laptops of the time, or laptops of today? Any info on how much the Model 100 weighed for comparison? --Ntg 07:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The mass is given in the article - 1.4 kg. No current laptop has so little mass. By "current" I mean present-day.

The edit is incorrect in that it says the 100 booted faster than disk-based computers of the time - the Model 100 still boots faster than *any* disk based computer. I will fix the sentence to say what I mean. --Wtshymanski 08:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What to say about the Model100 ?

how-tos? cold starts, recovery, data-on-cassette, telcom, ni-cad replacement, keyboard elastics, "the HOT setup" ? (club100.org) TPDD specs, pinouts and protocols BoosterPac Description of available ROMs, (Super, URII, Cleauseau, XR4, TSDOS, Rombo, etc) Control; servo, cassette motor , X10, using BCR

hey, I could take some photos ! djp

Please do! And add as much information as you can.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Tandy manuals

What is the status of the copyright of the original owners/service/basic manuals ? Can we HTMLize them and post them here ? They comprise the bulk of required reference for these systems.

Please sign your comments. The manuals don't belong here, because Wikipedia is not a how-to manual (WP:NOT). Put them on a free website, link to them, and all will be fine. I doubt Tandy will care, but don't quote me on that.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Binary Prefix Edit War

This edit war appears to be over historical accuracy vs. numerical accuracy.

The Manual of Style states that the new binary prefixes are optional. WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding_confusion
"The use of the new binary prefix standards in the Wikipedia is not required, but is recommended for use in all articles where binary capacities are used."

The main page of the Manual of Style covers how to handle style disputes. Wp:mos#Disputes_over_style_issues

"when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

"If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

The Manual of Style is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Building consensus is a Wikipedia policy.

I would suggest that the contributors to this article try to reach a consensus on this talk page (and not in the edit summaries.)

Perhaps the article could explain that in 1983 memory was expressed as 32K. (Often just 32K not 32KB.) Today the difference in decimal and binary sized have lead to kibibytes and mebibytes. The specification section could state that this is how thing were expressed in 1983. Both points of view could improve the article,

There is not a correct answer but the most weight should go to the major contributors. SWTPC6800 02:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you can add that in 1983 memory was expressed as 32K, though I don't think it is relevant. Sarenne 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to the Specifications section. This gives an example of the changes in binary prefixes over the years. Please note the optional new binary prefixes are not a ban on the previous units. Also 8K Model 100 and 24K Model 100 are proper names. SWTPC6800 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok for the models but the specifications are not quoted so it is accurate to use IEC prefixes. Sarenne 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will update the Specification section to exactly quote the 1984 catalog SWTPC6800 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's useless to quote such things in an encyclopedia... It's not an article about the 1984's catalog.Sarenne 17:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's even more useless to try to use binary prefix terms that are not included in any of the sources. Fnagaton 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing ambiguity is not useless, especially in an encyclopedia. Sarenne 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are causing more problems than you claim to be fixing with your changes. Fnagaton 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarenne claims to be able to decide, after the fact, if "k" means 1024 or 1000 without any apparent self-doubts. If its possible to correct the original sources in this way with no other knowledge, then obviously there's no need to have the binary prefixes at all. I'm ver frustrated by the eccentricities that get imposed on Wikipedia by those with more free time on their hands than I have. I think Sarenne would be better employed resolving the much more important debate on spelling "colour" vs. "color" and "aluminium" vs. "aluminum", which are even more ambiguous. --Wtshymanski 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sarenne, you have no reference for how much storage the disk drive had - was it 90 * 1000 or 90 * 1024 bytes? And you *know* this was historically ambiguous. Don't change it without a reference. --Wtshymanski 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently it means 1024 * 90 bytes. Do you have a reference ? Sarenne 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, as do you. --Wtshymanski 00:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I have a reference and 90 KiB is correct. Thanks. Sarenne 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? You have a 1984 Radio Shack document that says "KIBIBYTES" ? Fascinating... (If only we could harness all this energy for good, instead of pointless edit wars.) --Wtshymanski 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Portable Disk Drive did not have 90 kilobytes or 90 kibibytes of storage. The exact amount is easy find. You should look up correct value before you make erroneous changes. -- SWTPC6800 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change anything about the meaning so stop telling me what I have to do and change the value yourself if you have better sources ! Sarenne 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Images?

Does anyone have an image of this computer? --Raulpascal 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Easter eggs in RAM or ROM?

From the article:

Invisible files in the system RAM named "Hayashi" and "Suzuki" commemorate the names of designers Junji Hayashi and Jey Suzuki. Another invisible deleted file named "RickY" refers to Rick Yamashita.

Since nothing in RAM survives power loss, these Easter eggs are at the very least implemented in ROM code. However, I'm willing to believe that they're implemented in such a way that the file names appear to be in system RAM, or even are automatically populated in system RAM when the system initializes after power loss. (Of course, "appear" might be the wrong word, since they're invisible...)

It's been a long time since I've powered my Model 100 up, so I don't remember how one would ever see these files names. Dim flickering neurons seem to be saying that one had to write a BASIC program that traversed the menu list in a non-standard way, perhaps by ignoring a "deleted" flag here and there.

Anyway, am I right in believing that saying these are "in the system RAM" is not the (most) accurate way to say this? Would it be better to say "Invisible file names in the system menu list" or something of the sort?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the system RAM is precisely accurate. Battery-backed - just because the CPU stops doesn't mean the RAM evaporates. What happens to your documents and programs when you switch off the 100? Same thing happens to the Easter eggs - though you are most likely correct that some subsystem in the ROM re-creates these files if they are deleted or if the system is cold-started. Fire up your 100 and PEEK at everything above 32,768 - and you'll find them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the trs model 100 (i used one for 10 years!), allowed up to 32 files in fat 6.2 names (eg CALC.BA). Five of these were taken by the five system utilities (basic, edit, comms, address, schedule). If you wanted to use the addon floppy, you entered in a binary file, and run this to start the floppy. It also supports the same 29 file fat.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bill Gates contribution

The single source for Gates claim a big part of his code went into this machine is the referenced Interview. The Byte Magazine article, introducing the Computer, only references him as Designer.

In Paul Allens Biography "Idea Man" it sounds much more like Bill Gates is lying about his contributions. Excerpt from page 167f:

"I said, “The TRS-80 Model 100 math package was a big job, and it turned out pretty well.” A year or so earlier, Tandy had asked us for a decimal floating point math program for their early notebook computer, a must for precise financial calculations. I’d never done one before and sweated bullets for months to get it right. And Bill said, “I wrote all that code.” “Really?” I said. He’d say these things with such conviction that it made me wonder for a moment: Had I written it? I went back and found the source code and printed it out, and of course it was mine. Bill hadn’t written a single line; in fact, he wasn’t even writing code at that point. The next day I went back to his office. I dropped the listing on his desk and said, “OK, Bill, here’s the math package. Show me what you wrote.” It was a strange moment. Bill froze in mid rock, glanced down at the code, and muttered, “Yeah, you did write it.” Sometimes it seemed that Bill so utterly identified with Micro­soft that he’d get confused about where the company left off and he began. "

Gates says in his interview he helped Jey with the design and debugging and a big part of his code is in there. We can assume he references mainly the Basic Interpreter (using most of the ROM) which he worked on back in the 70s for the Altair and which was now included here.

The interview with Gates contradicts Paul Allens book and Gates seems to diminish Paul Allens Role several times... He says he funded the traf-o-data development, Allen says they put their money together. Gates doesn't mention at all Allens work on the 8008 simulator and development tools on the PDP-10 which enabled him to write the traf-o-data software (and later together the Altair Basic), he only mentions himself writing some of the software and Paul Allen is mentioned on the side. He claims "we saw this magazine" about the Altair "computer around this chip in exactly the way that Paul had talked to me,"... In Paul Allens book Paul found it and showed it to Bill. I just started reading this Interview with Bill Gates and already wonder why it is referenced so uncritically.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.152.118 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC) 

---

^^^ In case anyone is updating the main page. Easter egg files exist in rom1 first. I dumped an NEC PC-8201a primary rom and found their absolute addresses. These addresses would likely be different in other variants. Note that the 3 hidden files are offset by one byte, leaving '.' in front of them. 0x6C91: BASIC ..._ 0x6C9C: TEXT ...R 0x6CA7: TELCOM .... 0x6CB2: .Suzuki ... 0x6CBD: .HayashiH.. 0x6CC8: .RickY

using poke or call commands likely copies the file or a pointer to ram space. perhaps the pointers are copied to ram space after cold start, but they definitely exist in rom first.

Someone who is comfortable with Wikipedia pages, Please update this in some way.

Nick, Jun 29 2018.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.156.242 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

NEC PC-8201 is not Tandy Model 100

I expected Wikipedia's NEC PC-8201 page to have something specific about the PC-8201. Instead, I got redirected to the Model 100 which only mentions the PC-8201 as a sibling. The Model 100 was more important — supposedly the first laptop to sell millions of units — but the PC-8201 sold very well on its own, just not in America. It certainly did better than the IBM's PC Convertible, which has its own page. And the NEC PC-8201 had all sorts of differences that make adding information about it inappropriate on a page dedicated for the Tandy Model 100. For example, since it was manufactured by NEC instead of Kyocera, it had different peripherals such as the 8241A color monitor adapter which also added graphics commands to BASIC. It makes sense to merge the TRS-80 Model 100, Tandy 200, and Tandy 102 into one page. It would make sense to merge the NEC PC-8201, PC-8201A, and PC-8300 into one page. But I do not understand why those two groups have been fused. What was the rationale? Or, was there no rationale and this is simply because the PC-8201 is not well known in America and so it is mixed in with the closest American analog? Ben (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer is pretty simple: this is a Model 100 article, and its contributors have been mainly focused on that. In that context, a lot of detail on the PC-8201 might not have seemed as important. I'm not sure why anyone hasn't addressed this before. "Rationales" in Wikipedia are more often "happenstances". (I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new, as it looks like you've been around just about as long as I have.)

It sounds like you could do a good job on creating an NEC PC-8xxx page (whatever it should actually be called), which could then be the target of the all three names. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That is helpful. I'll look into creating a NEC PC-8201 page, but I am hesitant as I am well versed in the Model 100, but only started learning about the NEC portables this year. Ben (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)