2

We currently have five questions about the TRS-80 Model 100, four of which are tagged . That tag lumps them in with a large number of questions for unrelated (except for the nameplate) and very different desktop machines such as the Model I/III/4 and Model II/12/etc.

The Model 100 is actually a rebadged Kyocera Kyotronic 85 that was also sold under several other different badges by other companies, including the Olivetti M10 and the NEC PC-8201 and PC-8300. (There are some differences between these machines, but they are not as different from each other as, say, an Apple II and Apple IIe, which both fall under the tag here, are.)

I am aware that the "model number" of the Kyocera computer was "KC 85," but this seems to have been rarely used. "Kyotronic 85" seems to have been what was consistently used on the computer faceplate and manuals, even in Japan.

So I'm thinking we should have a single tag to cover all of these. I propose we call it with the following aliases:

  • This matches what seems to be the most popular Tandy/TRS-80 tagging scheme. I don't see a need for further aliases for the -102, -200, etc., since anybody with one of those more rare machines is likely to quickly discover, if they don't already know, that they are part of the Model 100 series.
  • , to ensure it shows up in tag searches finding , which covers all NEC PC-nnnn series except for this particular one. PC-8201 left out for the same reasons as Model 102 above.

Except for the "-family" issue discussed below, I'm not too fussy about the naming, or which name is the tag name vs. which are aliases. I propose "Kyotronic 85" as the tag because that's the original machine name and, while not well known, my understanding is that none of the other names are well known outside their regions, either. (Certainly as a North American "Olivetti M10" wouldn't have rung any bells for me back when I was a Model 100 owner.) But if everybody agrees that, e.g., is better as the tag name, I'm fine with that.

Note that I do not use "family" in the tag name (kyotronic-85-family) as has been suggested in an answer here. Convention in RCSE so far has been to leave that out:

  • : "For questions about the Apple II series of personal computers," covering the II+, IIe, compatibles such as the Laser and Franklin, etc.
  • : Covers the wide variety of MS basics out there for different CPUs and significantly varying versions for different manufacturers (Altair, Commodore, Applesoft, etc.)
  • : "For questions related to the Commodore Amiga family of personal computers."
  • (The TRS-80 scheme may appear to be an exception, but the issue there is that they need to clearly distinguish Model I/III/4 and Model II/12/60; a lot of people, even those familiar with the Model III, are not aware that Models I and III are the same thing for our purposes, but Models I and II are completely different.)

If there are no major objections, I am happy to set this up.

(This question was prompted by waning to put into the tag description the tag one should use for the PC-8300, upon which I realized that there is no such tag.)

  • Are you sure that new users know that a M200 is an extended M100, or a 8201 is the predecessor to the 8300? After all, veterans are usually not asking a lot of questions or searching. RC.SE should be welcoming new members and reader, not making requiring (much) previous knowledge. Or do we want to make it a field for the initiated? – Raffzahn Sep 6 at 10:48
  • On a side note, this feels as if you're investing quite some time to find reasons why anything but your original setup is wrong. There is no need to fight. This is not about your idea vs. some other. RC.SE is not a competitive environment, but cooperative. You opened this and asked for comments and as a leader on this topic should be your obligation to see how to incooperate them to for the better of the site, shouldn't it? It's for the best of RC.SE to join forces. – Raffzahn Sep 6 at 10:55
  • @Raffzahn I am not sure that new users would know the M200 vs. M100 relationship or the 8201 vs. 8300 relationship. Nor am I sure that it's useful rather than confusing to have a long list of aliases making that relationship clear. Thus, I leave it to others to add those aliases if they think it's important. In other words, I'm leaving this up to you: if this change goes through, please go ahead and add whatever further aliases you have strong feelings about. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 9 at 19:26
  • @Raffzahn As for finding reasons why anything but the setup one suggested oneself is wrong, I feel you're doing the same thing. So that leaves us at a bit of an impasse, doesn't it? – Curt J. Sampson Sep 9 at 19:29
  • 1
    Anything that has KC-85 in it is an especially bad choice, as it might be misleading: It used to be the model name of a GDR home computer: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleincomputer_KC_85/2-4 – tofro Sep 12 at 14:02
1

I'm having difficulty reconciling Raffzahn's position that we should have a huge number of aliases, and Ross Ridge's position (as best I can tell; I can't get a clear answer) that we have no aliases and just a tag.

I'm thinking of dealing with this by punting on most of it, instead just creating just the tag, describing it as being for all models mentioned in the question and various posts, and applying it to the relevant posts. I would create no aliases for it.

This would at least give us a tag. Others can then add aliases as they like (to which I have no objection) and petition a moderator to change the tag name if they like (to which I also have no objection). Or just continue discussion about it.

My one worry is that the may be confusing for non-North-Americans; I don't know how well the "Model 100" name is known outside North America. If you have an opinion, or better yet evidence, about this, make it known. Again, keep in mind that we can always get a moderator to rename the tag later, so let's focus on getting something acceptable, rather than perfect, here.

If I see no serious objections in the next few days, I'll add , give it a description and tag the appropriate posts with it.

0

There are no questions that even mention Kyotronic, so it would be inappropriate to create a tag named after the Kyotronic 85. Tags are supposed to be helpful and meaningful, and a tag would be meaningless to anyone looking for information on the TSR-80 Model 100, which we do have 5 questions about. Retagging these Model 100 questions as would be absurd and unhelpful.

It doesn't matter that the Model 100 was based on the Kyotronic 85. There's no requirement nor need for tags to acknowledge this relationship, not if it's not going to serve some useful purpose.

Similarly there's no need for or tags/aliases as there are no questions about these devices.

Ultimately what you're proposing to do is to put the cart before the horse, imagining a broad range of future questions that would benefit from being "properly" tagged according your view of the relationship between related devices. However that's not how tags work here, you can't create a tag without at least one existing question, and your tag isn't appropriate for any existing question.

  • I proposed adding only one tag that applies to separate the Model-100s from the Model Is and IIIs and so on that are clearly entirely different machines. I proposed adding this tag with four names because I felt that that family of machines doesn't deserve more than one tag; my sense is that you also agree there shouldn't be more than one tag for them. If you don't like the tag vs. alias allocation of names, e.g. you'd like the tag to be trs-80-model-100, I'm open to that so long as non-North-Americans agree. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 9 at 19:38
  • Perhaps you could help clarify things by putting forward a concrete alternative to my proposal, even if it's "keep the TRS-80 Model 100 questions grouped with the TRS-80 Model I/III etc. questions." – Curt J. Sampson Sep 9 at 19:38
  • @CurtJ.Sampson Your question doesn't actually address the issue of the the [trs-80] tag covering entirely different machines, so I didn't address that issue in my answer. I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of your proposal as stated. – Ross Ridge Sep 9 at 20:16
  • I'm sorry, I had assumed everybody likely to read this already knew about the issues with the vastly different "TRS-80" machines. I've updated the post to make it clear that the TRS-80 tag is not useful for describing much about a machine, and that the Kyotronic 85 and Model 100 are essentially the same computer with a different badge, which it's not clear to me that you understand. I've also updated the question to clarify that I'm not fussy about which model gets the tag name and which model names become aliases. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 10 at 2:27
  • So now, can you please clarify, at least a little more, exactly what you want done differently here? Do you understand that my proposal is to have just one tag for all the KC85/M100/OM10/etc. machines? If you object to that, do you want no tags at all for these machines or more than one tag? – Curt J. Sampson Sep 10 at 2:29
  • @CurtJ.Sampson I obviously understand that the Model 100 is based on the Kyotronic 85, otherwise I wouldn't have said that fact doesn't matter. Please don't comment further until you take the time to actually read my answer. – Ross Ridge Sep 10 at 5:42
  • Ok, so you disagree then that questions about the Kyotronic 85, Olivetti M10 and TRS-80 Model 100 should all be concentrated under a single tag? If you would just explicity state what you do want it would be a lot easier for me to figure out what you're getting at without playing twenty questions. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 10 at 6:20
  • @CurtJ.Sampson Again, please don't bother commenting unless you're going to read my answer. You're not playing twenty questions, you're simply ignoring what I'm saying. – Ross Ridge Sep 10 at 7:06
  • I am not; I simply don't understand what you're saying, possibly because you seem to be confused about the difference between tags and aliases. E.g., you say "there's no need for nec-pc-8300 or olivetti-m10 tags," which I fully agree with and which is why I proposed not making those tags. Your argument that the aliases are unnecessary, well, you can take that up with @Raffzahn who believes that they and many others are necessary. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 10 at 7:22
  • So just answer a simple question: how many tags (not aliases) do you want to create: 0, 1 or more than 1, and what do you want it/them to be called? – Curt J. Sampson Sep 10 at 7:23
  • @CurtJ.Sampson Deliberately quoting me out of context only proves that you're simply ignoring what I've written because you're incapable of coming up with an intelligent response. Continuing to harass me won't change my answer. – Ross Ridge Sep 10 at 7:36
  • I am incapable of coming up with an intelligent response because you I don't understand what you're saying. Communication is a two-way street, and refusing to clarify what you want or answer simple questions is a good way to ensure that others can't try to take your opinion into account. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 10 at 7:53
-2

Basically yes, just a few remarks

  • The full name for the Kyotronic is Kyotronic KC-85
  • TRS-80 M100
    • The TRS-80 Model 100 is not just a rebadged KC-85, it got a
      • changed case,
      • changed software (Address and Scheduler added),
      • less base RAM,
      • different RAM/ROM socket configuration
      • build in Modem,
      • Bar code reader interface.
    • The follow up Model 102 is a cost reduced, slimmer version with more base RAM and some other changes.
    • The next in line, the Model 200 is basically the same machine with
      • More max RAM
      • Twice the display
      • More applications in ROM
  • NEX 82xx/83xx It didn't start with the 8300. First model was
    • The NEC 8201(A) has
      • Way more memorypossible (~100KiB)
      • More sockets for RAM/ROM
      • Expansion slot
      • two fast serial interfaces
    • Followup is the PC-8300 with it's tilted case and extended keyboard and even more memory possible
    • Next compatible NEC is the PC-8401 featuring eventually the same additions than the Tandy 200 (RAM, Display) but running a ROM based CP/M by default - but can be made to run 8201 software
  • Olivetti M10
    • Seperate Versions in Europe and the US
    • US version got different software and a modem
    • Tilted display
    • and, a must for an Olivetti, best Design :))

So long story short: They are not imply rebadged KC-85, but rather a family based around the same design. If we really want to have them in ONE tag (which does have its pros) it needs to cover all compatible models (maybe with exception of the PC-8401). My sugestion would be

as synonyms. The NEC PC-8401 gets left out as it differs a lot due the CP/M in ROM.

(And yes, I did work with them back in ~1990, doing analysis to write software that could be put in ROM to be used with either machine, as it seamed like a good idea to have multiple suppliers)

  • I suggest sticking with "Kyotronic 85" as the name; that was what was used on the faceplate and the manuals. "KC-85" seems to have been rarely used by Kyocera themselves, and I've found no evidence that "Kyotronic KC-85" was ever used. Perhaps "KC" was just an abbreviation for "KyotroniC." (I've updated the question with the evidence for all this.) – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 1:43
  • 1
    I disagree with tandy-model-100 for similar reasons; on the faceplate and in the manuals there was no "Tandy" at all; it was the "TRS-80 Model 100." I am ok with the tag being not just model-100; I've updated the question to suggest trs-80-model-100, for consistency with the best-voted proposed tagging scheme covering all Tandy/TRS-80 computers. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 1:58
  • I don't see the point of a kyotronic-kc-85 as a synonym for kyotronic-kc-85-family. Since it's never been used, no posts will ever be tagged 'kyotronic-kc-85`; existing synonyms are rewritten to the tag in new posts. And one being a prefix of the other, the search is the same except when searching for "family" in the tags field, which clearly isn't really helpful. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 2:03
  • For the same reason, I don't see the need for many of those other synonyms; they don't provide significant help when searching for the correct kyotronic-85 tag that will eventually go on a post when posting, and when searching for something so specific, non-tag searches work just as well given the small (in most cases, zero) number of questions specific to those models. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 2:04
  • After some thought, I also think that one should go without the -family prefix, per current RC convention. Question updated with more detail. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 2:16
  • The KC-85 tag has been used in many sources. RC sites like Oldcomputers, Decadecounter, French System-Cfg or Japanese news sites. Respectable sites like Italian National Museum for Technology and most notably the 1997 Kyocera FAQ – Raffzahn Sep 6 at 2:49
  • --- next ---No objections for doing TRS-80 instead of Tandy - at least to oldtimers like me that's a synonym. Younger reader may see it different. --- next --- Beside that your claim that 'no post will ever be tagged' is rather bold, making one leaf also the hub of a data structure is less than elegant. Having the hub naming the family and a all pointing there is way more clean. – Raffzahn Sep 6 at 2:50
  • --- finally --- The 'faceplate' argument you made is perfectly supporting the idea of having all variation as synonyms. 'Cause while a Model 102 user (it's on the front) can guess that he has to select the Model 100 tag, it's by no means obvious why a Model 200 owner has to do so - similar someone looking for a NEC 8201 does not necessary know to select 8300, or does he? Saving in synonyms isn't any gain in itself, but reducing usability. Let the computer do the job. – Raffzahn Sep 6 at 2:51
  • Re synonyms: how about I set up the initial set I suggested above and you can add whatever you think is important. I find having two many synonyms makes searches harder, not easier, but each to his own I guess. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 4:23
  • Re KC-85: regardless of what are more or less nicknames used by other sites, I think that going with what the manufacturer itself uses in all but obscure locations is the best way to go. Kyocera never wrote it as "Kyotronic KC-85," and seems to have very rarely ever used "KC-85," certainly never on faceplates or the covers or titles of manuals. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 4:25
  • My "no post will ever be tagged" claim is not "bold," it is fact for alias X, so long as tag X never existed and continues not to exist. Go try to tag a post intel-8080; you will find you can't because it's an alias. (I just confirmed this here; clicking "edit tags" then "save" removed the intel-8080 "tag," even though I'd left it in the list, because it no longer exists; it's now an alias. Try it yourself with another example.) – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 4:31
  • @CurtJ.Sampson I guess your claim about truly know the future in detail can stand for itself. Then again calling one of the largest and quite professional museum for technology 'some site' is not shy as well, isn't it? One should give them more credit than any of us hobbyists. – Raffzahn Sep 6 at 10:38
  • I don't know what your hang-up here is about "truly know the future" and such nonsense: I'm explaining to you that if an alias exists, SE will never tag anything with that alias, but always convert it to the tag. If you disagree that SE works that way, show the evidence. (I explained to you how to test this.) As for the museum: secondary sources do not override primary sources. – Curt J. Sampson Sep 6 at 12:50
  • @CurtJ.Sampson Kyocera might not have used "KC-85", but instead, some other guys used that, unfortunately for an entirely different computer: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleincomputer_KC_85/2-4 – tofro Sep 12 at 14:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .