Image 128 DID exist in a very rudimentary form, back in I think it was 1991. John Moore (Little John) was working on it. He had a very basic system which he had running in another user of his Lt Kernal HD. One night when I was online he broke into chat to show me what he had going on. Took me out of chat and bumped me into the 128 version. Not sure how he did it or whatnot. It ran pretty well.. He had me into the subs which were substantially faster then the Turbo Rels on the 64 version. Unfortunately, the software died with him. I have no clue what happened to his hardware, it would have been nice to see the work he had done on it..  Kind of reminds me of a few years back getting in touch with Fred Darts Daughter who remembered me from back in the day and I asked her what happened to her fathers hardware I would love to buy it from her. She said they threw it all out a few years before I asked.. My reason for wanting it? THe 1.2 source that Fred had along with the serializer!! Fred had his LTK setup so he had a image file of the BBS unserialized, and he could "burn" a disk with it and the serializer would create like 5 ML's with consecutive numbers.. It would have been nice to get my old serial number back on my 1.2 when I was running it.. But alas that was not going to happen...

@bucko It is great how you have this information and share it so others can be informed on the past & present about these folks. I take it this is included in your text files on your BBS along with the other great memories?

@palkat Unfortunately, no it is not written down anywhere other then my responses.. When I drop the memories go with me.. LOL

I vote for a 128 version as I am going to be using a C128dcr in C64 mode to run mine anyway. 

I would love a 128 version also.. I am currently running a CNet 128 version which is a total piece of crap in my eyes! This thing has had so many hands in it that the code is true spaghetti! When I was programming back in the day for Image, when I would write a file, I would always in line 1 clear my variables then do a goto100. This would leave 98 lines of empty space for routines that were used repeatedly, every section of my program would start at a new sequence of lines, in other words section 2 or part 2 would start at 200, and everything goes from there. Once I was done with the program one of two things happened. If I was going to continue modifications to it I would leave the program as is, if I was done and I didn't want anyone else to change it. I would renumber it by 1's thus not leaving any space to add in anything. Anyways, the point I am getting at, is I have been breaking down CNet 128 v7.2+ for the past week or so modifying it up trying to fix bugs, and basically just putting my thumbprint on the BBS. What have I found? This thing is total crap, there is so much spaghetti code in it that it is extremely hard to follow the program. There is one section where the file does a gosub up into the program, then a goto towards the end. IN other words, in line 1000 it does a gosub5, then at the end of 5 it does a goto9999 where another routine is done. Why not just gosub9999 do the entire routine, then return?~!?!?! This is what I have been trying to follow, stuff like this..

I have been saying to some people, Unfortunately, to many hands were in the pie on this program. Ken Pletzer wrote it, and did his thing for 4 versions, then sold the rights to someone else, who wrote a couple of versions, then another person got into it and finally the person who owns the rights now has it.. To many people tried to do to much to it.. If you look at Image, 1.0 was written by Don Gladden and Ray Kelm, 1.1 was written by John Moore, and Ray Kelm, 1.2 was written by John Moore and Ray Kelm, see where I am going with this?? 2.0 was written by John, Ray, Fred, Myself, Larry G, Larry H, Jack Followay, and Bob Sisco, the version that is out there was mainly written by Ray, John, Fred, Jack, Larry H, and Myself. 3.0 was the guys I just mentioned but mainly Larry H who finished a broken program that was in my eyes 50% done. The point I am getting at is not a lot of hands have touched Image, thus the reason it is very stable.. DTJ BBS Andrew was the only person to ever touch it! No issues with that software.. CNet DS2, another one only Jim Selleck had his hands on it and it is very stable. 

So with all of my babbling here. More for the history books... LO

@bucko Not trying to poke the bear with an electric pole here, BUT... 

You know where I am with a CNet/Image style BBS for the C128.  With that said and what your encountering with Cnet128 v7.x, plus me breaking your Cnet128 all weekend, what about using an older Cnet128 for start with. You even said the first 4 versions were consistent with who coded it. Other wise it sounds like your putting stitches and band-aids on Cnet 128 v7.x to make it run and you know once I dial in I will find a way to lock it due to the old spaghetti code.

I know you were looking for another BBS project for the Commodore like a bullet in the head but hey you have already invested the better part of this year so far on it, just spitballing ideas here to help.  - "Help Me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're My Only Hope" 

LOL not poking the bear but I wouldn't get involved with any project like that.. The problem with the early versions is they are not Y2k, now technically you can get around that with a couple of poke statements (it was done with Image 2.0 at first) I have since changed the ML to reflect the year 2000+ without the poke statements anymore (I also believe Ray played around with that portion also) in fact the ML I am running on bootup reflects the date of 12/7/2020 instead of 12/7/2090 before it gets set by the clock. Getting CNet to do it might be some work.. I will be honest with you, Cnet 4.0 though stable has nothing my other BBS's don't have. Image 3.0 (at least the way I have mine setup) you can't tell that it is a C64 BBS.. What I am doing with my 128 board is just for fun.. If I am going to do any major programming it will be for Image. I have 2 projects on the burner right now, one is a announcement type program, and the other is a modification to a subsystem to make it more 80 column friendly (I am taking a subsystem back in time to bring it to today, kind of like the movie Back to the Future) I won't say which subsystem as I want to start work on it first to see if what I want to do will be worth it.. Anyways.. I am babbling..

@bucko Once again you got my interest sparked!!! Last time you did that was for the Image 3.0 project a couple years back!

In the meantime here is something I saw tonight that was interesting.. The mega65 using its ethernet to connect to a commodore bbs!

https://c65gs.blogspot.com/2021/04/working-on-simple-ethernet-enabled.html

The U64 can do that also, I just don't know enough about the ethernet programming to get it done in Image.. I know a couple of people who would love it.. It's a nice feature for todays Commodore clones though..

@bucko I'd ;ice that in Image. It would be cool to tun it on an ultimate 64 elite and not tax my 128!!

The sad part is I don't understand the routines of the Ethernet port. If Gideon were to fix the Swiftlink emulation that would be fine to use as you really wouldn't need anything else to run it, such as BBS Server or TCPSER. All Image needs is response codes from the "modem" when sending AT commands, if it gets them it works! I can modify the ML to accept 57600 speed if need be, and the sub.modem file can be modified also, although I already have people complaining 38.4 is to fast! I had a 2.0 setup to use the Swiftlink emulation of the U64 but it was bugged at the time. Some said it was Image I know it was not as Image works fine on a real Swiftlink, and I proved it via Video's.. Unfortunately, those who were brought in to prove me wrong had the wrong attitudes with me so I left the discussion of fixing it. In other words Gideon was cool and wanted to fix the emulation but a C*Base person who was brought into the conversation gave me attitude so screw em! Anyways, if I ever figure out the Ethernet/Swiftlink of Image, I will attempt to get it going. I do have an Image 3.0 sitting on a SD card to test with the U64..