skwirl42 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 27 18:59:00 EST 2008
On 12/27/08, Frank Swygert <farna at att.net> wrote:
> What I find ambiguous is ... that the emulators do the same thing, only run on a PC
> also. While the idea is to make the PC a slave to the CoCo instead of the
> other way around, it just seems like a lot of trouble for nothing. I suppose
> it's good for sharing files between the two systems, or using the PC to
> download DSK files then install on the CoCo. I suppose those who have a CoCo
> and PC both set up at and in use at the same time will find it more useful
> though. The PC can easily serve the CoCo while still doing other things.
The idea is to avoid too much extra hardware, and yet still allow the
PC to serve up files to the CoCo. Take for instance Nitros-9
development. If the entire system gets built on a PC, which is a whole
lot quicker than doing it on the CoCo, then the PC can automatically
serve up the disk image to the CoCo. Perhaps the CoCo has been set up
with a Drivewire/CoCoNet ROM of some sort, and can boot directly from
the serial port.
In the case of CoCoNet, you could even have your CoCo boot directly
from nightly Nitros-9 builds put up by someone on the internet,
As for an emulator, even a dedicated one, with CoCo "compatible"
hardware, it still wouldn't be a real CoCo, and I don't think the
enthusiasts of real CoCo systems would be interested. The people who
are willing to use an emulated CoCo will just use a PC with an
Not to shoot you down or anything, I'm just trying to explain why this
is probably a preferable solution.
More information about the Coco