Nevertheless, when the future of Nascom seemed so uncertain and many
of us might have ended up with some un-repairable and certainly un-expandable
white elephants on our hands, the product was kept alive by the small group of
dealers and manufacturers who gave service and assistance as well as
developing compatible products. INMC80 must continue to support these as well.
I don’t think Mr. Deane has anything to fear from this, in fact I doubt if his
company buys many components which are not “second sourced” to use the jargon;
and as long as you don’t start publishing information for users of American
white-boxes and Japanese copies thereof, I see no need to rename the magazine
“Practical Computing” or somesuch.
The following is an extract from a long and detailed letter from David
Bryden of Scarborough.
I am concerned that the club and the manufacturers might make the
mistake, as I see it, of making and supporting only complete systems. By all
means do that, but please don’t forget that a lot of us started off as
primarily constructors. Having said that, it would be of tremendous interest
to me if the system could develop to a stage where I could have a homebrew
system compatible with a commercial system at work.
I feel that in the current situation you have to support the bus
rather than the manufacturers, because in the period of limbo so much time and
effort has been put in by the dealers developing products. If we had had to
wait for the outcome of receivership then I think many of us would have
changed to other systems. Further, I feel that whatever Lucas say, if the
subsidiary, Lucas Logic looses money, then we could be back in the familiar
I see the club’s role as that of a co-ordinator and projector of
hobbyists such as myself, whose interests won’t always coincide with those of
the manufacturers, who sees himself selling large volumes of unsocketed boards
and packaged software. Please don’t let us get into the Pet/Tandy position.
Now that the Nascom ship has been salvaged and appears to have a
promising captain at the helm, perhaps some of the deserters will return to
Subscription to INMC80 seems pretty good and I suspect that most
subscribers own or plan to own a Nascom. On these grounds I think INMC80
should remain Nascom oriented since there is only one other Nascom oriented
publication available. Naturally Nasbus is important to Nascom users, but how
many will be interested in the purchase of another Nasbus computer? When the
other computer is more established, it may be worth broadening the INMC80
coverage to cater for the common units which may be used with Nascom. Till
then the magazine should be consolidating itself and not losing touch with
owners of Nascom 1 and 2 machines.
I Wish to advise you that I am in favour of our mag supporting ‘Nascom
only’. However, General articles on, say, the Z80 and how to interface IBM