[Coco] [CoCo] Atari and Amiga Comparison (what if Tandy had...)

[farna at att.net]

Part of the reason the MM/1 and TC-9 never caught on is that they weren't CoCo compatible. If Tandy had just been a tad smarter and had the GIME designed for 4MHz or faster operation, then added the extra bit or two for more memory, there could have been a CoCo4. Even a 4MHz CoCo with 2MB of RAM would have been killer! A more standard monitor would have been nice too. There were other affordable OSK capable 68K machines before any of those, the Star Kits machine is the first to come to mind. I think in the end the price to produce and support a CoCo was getting to close to the low end PC compatibles, and the profit margin to low. 

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:05:45 EDT
From: RJRTTY at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Coco] [Color Computer] Re:  [CoCo] Atari and Amiga
	comparison
To: coco at maltedmedia.com
Message-ID: <be8.12323d8c.3329d9c9 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

In a message dated 3/14/07 4:15:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jdiffendaffer at yahoo.com writes:


>Still, Motorola
>bailed on the 6809 and without at least an 8Mhz  version I'm not sure
>the machine could have gone any further  anyway.
 
 
Ain't that the truth.   An 8 mhz 6809 would have been a heart  attack.
But I think a CoCo4 or cOcO4 or coco4 or COCO4 however you
want to spell it would have used a 68000 like the MM/1 and the
other unofficial coco successors.
 
Roy

--
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars" 
Magazine (AMC)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
(free download available!)


-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: coco-request at maltedmedia.com
>
> This message has been processed by Symantec's AntiVirus Technology.
> 
> Unknown00000000.data was not scanned for viruses because too many nested levels 
> of files were found.
> 
> 
> For more information on antivirus tips and technology, visit
http://ses.symantec.com/