printers, etc, should also be included. Any product approved by Nascom for
attachment to their computers should also fall within the ‘Nascom only’
I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that the ‘news’ become
Nasbus oriented and not solely concerned with Nascom products. In this way one
can get a properly balanced view of all that is available as a rival to the
S100, however small.
(There follows some technical details related to Nasbus specs).
Thirdly, but not least, I note that there are a number of 8 x 8 cards
which are becoming available for the Nasbus. The operative words in this are
surely ‘becoming available’, not actually ‘available now’. One hopes that we
do not go through the usual rigmarole of products ‘being developed’ which
somehow seems to take two years to fruition.
(Ed. I am sure that all the boards that we referred to in the last issues are
‘available now’ – sorry if that is a shock to the system!)
My vote goes to Nasbus compatible products. Without them the present
dedicated dealers would have hardly survived, so I don’t go along with the
Lucas request for Nascom only.
Many thanks for another superb mag .... etc.
University of Sheffield
Dear Mr. Hunt,
I think the INMC80 should support all Nasbus compatible products, not
just those from Nascom. Whilst the newsletter would clearly benefit from the
blessing of Lucas Logic Ltd., its prime responsibility should be to its
readership, who I think would be better served by taking a ‘wider’ approach.
(He then says some very nice things about us, and please send us a
rough draft of your ‘Laboratory Control System’, it sounds fascinating).
Dr. C. R. Brown
I feel that the mag should retain its existing identity and content,
continuing to cover ALL Nasbus compatible items, since these are of prime
interest to the membership and must be encouraged by Lucas since they enhance
and encourage ownership and sales of Nascom products.