Talk:Dragon 32/64

MC6847
>>Additionally as a cost cutting/memory saving measure only upper case character set was available.<<

This wasn't a cost cutting measure, the MC6847 video display chip only had upper case characters. And in any case, 32 characters could be redefined, so it wasn't a restriction.

>>The Dragon has additional circuitry to make the MC6847 VDG compatible with European 625-line television standards, rather than the US 525-line NTSC standard, and a Centronics parallel printer port not present on the TRS-80. Some models were manufactured with NTSC video for the US and Canadian markets.<<

The Tandy also was made for PAL, and they used the same shortcut method as the Dragon, resulting in rather tiny screen, this was more of an issue. Some of the far eastern clones ie VZ200 and Color Genie were actually better adapted in that they inserted blank lines to make the PAL screen.60.231.232.112 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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 &copy; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

.... No, this is not the case. The 32 meant 32K of RAM (there was also 32K of ROM). Of course the 32K was not all available for BASIC programming .. some was used up with screen memory, essential registers etc.

From memory there was almost 25K available for BASIC programming if you used only the low-resolution modes. If your Dragon had less than this, it probably had a problem in its RAM chips. This is quite possible.

The Dragon 64 had similar architecture to a 32, but with an extra mode that allowed you to switch off the 32K ROM and add an extra 32K RAM instead. This was used for alternative operating systems like OS9 or Flex, as you'd be unable to use the BASIC ROM. There was a halfway-house too, 48K mode, which allowed about 40K of RAM for programming but disabled the disk drives.

It was possible to upgrade from a Dragon 32 to a 64.


 * Since nobody else seems to have mentioned it here, the "16K" confusion was common due to Microsoft's not entirely helpful "16K Basic Interpreter" banner message; it had me wondering for a while, and most other people who saw it thought it referred to the amount of usable memory rather than the amount of ROM occupied by BASIC.--194.247.53.233 (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon 64 Recall
I lived in Coventry, England at the time Dragon computers were taking the market by storm, and I well remember the just-in-time-for-Christmas introduction of the long-anticipated Dragon 64, which came in a distinctive grey casing so you could tell it was the latest and greatest, and the floods of them that were returned at the end of December because of a manufacturing defect that rendered the machines useless.

I'd always assumed that this fiasco was a key event in Dragon going out of business. Does this not ring a bell with anyone? I had a friend in the business of writing third-party software for the Dragon who was severely discomoded by the affair, yet I see no mention in the main article of the event.

Dragon computers had killed the market for Tandy Colour Computers in Coventry the previous Christmas, but Radio Shack did a roaring trade in joysticks. With a little work, either using POKE or a soldering iron, the Tandy joystick would work with the Dragon 32 (as would the Tandy assembler plug-in module).

Steve Mann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.193 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Coco 3?
Did Dragon Data ever consider producing a computer compatible with the Coco 3?


 * The CoCo page says the CoCo 3 was announced in July 1986. Given that Dragon Data went out of business in 1984, I think that's a "no".  Blufive (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL
"The numerous external ports" - is that a joke? --88.192.12.234 (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The Dragon had 2 joystick ports, printer port, an 8K cartridge socket (for disk drives etc), connector for composite monitor in addition to the aerial lead for a TV, and the D64 had an RS232 port as well. Most other computers of the age and price range needed additional interfaces or were incapable of these connections. You'd have to go to, eg, the BBC Model B, which cost twice as much, to find a computer with as much built-in connectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.127.144 (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Weekabix
Does anyone recall whether they were giving away Dragons with packets of Weekabix at some point(if you collected the tokens)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.27.254 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, my friend, they were not, your memory is as faulty as a 7K RAM chip. First of all you are thinking of "Weetabix" as "Weekabix" does not exist; and second, there once was a game given away via Weetabix which ran on various computers including the Dragon. But giving away a game worth about £5 in those days is not the same as a computer worth around £180 in the same era...! Lovely idea though :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.127.144 (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragon 32/64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100205181625/http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0916/gadgets-design-forgot-0916.cfm to http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0916/gadgets-design-forgot-0916.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cadigital.com/computer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Boasting of it's computational power
"In terms of raw computational power, the Dragon beat most of its contemporary rivals based on the older MOS Technology 6502" - where are the citations? It was only running at 0.89 Mhz and the 6809 has a fairly slow instruction time. Sophie Wilson states that the 6809 did not make good use of the memory system which was the real bottleneck of performance. Djmips (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, along with another comment about the monitor port - Atari, CBM, BBC etc - all had monitor ports.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)