[Coco] ReactOS...

Sean badfrog at gmail.com
Mon Dec 15 02:34:04 EST 2008

I wish BeOS would have made it. That was a neat one 10 years ago. Ran
the Intel demo version, never had the money to invest in a BeBox.
Personally I would have called it the spiritual sucessor to the CoCo.
(for one, just because not enough people loved it. :)
It's multitasking could run circles around Windows at the time: 3D
demos, while playing multiple video and audio files at the same time.


The demo would run well on a Pentium or PII system, with a standard
VGA card, and sound most likely through older Soundblaster cards.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:19 AM, Mike Pepe <lamune at doki-doki.net> wrote:



>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com [mailto:coco-

>> bounces at maltedmedia.com] On Behalf Of Michael Robinson

>> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:55 PM

>> To: coco at maltedmedia.com

>> Subject: [Coco] ReactOS...


>> For those who hate Linux or those who need to run Windows

>> software that don't want to pay $400+ for a software license,

>> check out ReactOS. Please don't pirate Windows, that is hard

>> on competitors. ReactOS needs people who can do C system

>> programming. ReactOS is licensed under the GNU GPL.

>> See http://www.reactos.org if you are interested.

>> I assume that at least some of you, if not most, are using

>> Microsoft Windows right now and I know this because Microsoft

>> has a monopoly.


>> This monopoly makes me wonder, what if a successor to the coco

>> that takes the coco far enough forward to compete with the PC

>> came out? Imagine a COCO clone that is downward compatible

>> running either ReactOS or Linux as optional OSes with a

>> more Extended basic as the default language.


>> Be aware that ReactOS isn't out of alpha state yet and it

>> lacks even stable file system support.



> Well, I hate to sound like one of those guys who shits all over

> someone's ideas, but I'd like to share my opinion on this if I may. And

> I'm going to go right past the Linux and Windows stuff because, hey, I'm

> just biased that way.


> Certainly count me in as someone who would LOVE to see a "what-if" the

> CoCo architecture had been extended into modern times like the PC ended

> up. These are great thought experiments and certainly interesting forays

> into the theories and fundamentals of computer science and computer

> engineering.


> If I may make an analogy though, I kind of see what you are proposing as

> something like this:


> "as a kid I loved my Radio Flyer wagon, and I was thinking- if Radio

> Flyer had just expanded their product line a bit by stretching the wagon

> somewhat, adding a hundred seats, enclosing the top, throwing on some

> jet engines and wings, we could have had something that competes with

> airplanes!"


> The end result there being, of course, an airplane- which is something

> we already have- and redoing it presumably at far greater expense than

> just buying the plane outright.


> So putting on my engineering hat, I don't really see that anyone would

> be willing to bankroll the huge cost of developing the hardware and

> software for a platform that would presumably be able to do what we're

> already able to do with our PCs and Macs.


> Unless you're proposing some huge shift in the way people use a computer

> with this project, I don't think even the most rabid CoCo fans here

> would think it makes sense.


> If a project like this were to get anywhere, I would expect it to be

> something that is a VM that runs on a PC. Certainly something fun and

> interesting from a computer science and CoCo perspective without a

> doubt- and not worthless; I'm sure those involved would gather a great

> deal of knowledge and experience. I just don't think the masses would be

> very interested.


> -Mike


> --

> Coco mailing list

> Coco at maltedmedia.com

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco


More information about the Coco mailing list