[Coco] TRS-80 Color Computer: Wikipedia Article

[Arthur Flexser]

I doubt the paragraph's accuracy, though I don't know the cost difference
either.  It seems much more likely to me that Tandy deliberately limited the
capabilities of the CoCo to keep it in what they saw as its marketing niche:
 an inexpensive machine primarily to be marketed as suitable for kids (look
at the Tandy ads from back then for the CoCo--kids playing games or running
"educational" applications), and one that they did not want to compete with
their more "serious" computers, with the higher profit margins.

This is the first time, in decades of online CoCo participation, that I've
ever heard anyone propose the explanation that the CoCo's limitations were
due to a cost tradeoff to enable a 6809 to be used in it.

Art

On 11/25/09, Andrew <keeper63 at cox.net> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> First off I apologize if, with this email, I inadvertently open some kind
> of "old wounds" or "animosity"; I also apologize if this question has been
> asked before, but I honestly haven't had much luck finding an answer.
>
> The question concerns this section of the Wikipedia article on our
> (hopefully) favorite computer:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80_Color_Computer#Competition
>
> I don't necessarily doubt its accuracy, but it does seem to be made up of
> whole cloth, and has no provenance other than the author's (whomever he may
> be); this doesn't necessarily mean it is false, so as I read the article
> today and reached this part, I was asking myself "what was the cost
> difference at the time, per 1000, for an OEM to purchase each processor?"...
>
> I simply would like to know the answer to this. I find it likely that the
> 6809 cost more (per thousand) than the 6502; what I wonder about is the
> actual difference: Are we talking about something whereby the 6809 cost
> $5.00 each per 1000, and the 6502 cost only $1.00 each per 1000? Less? More?
> Googling "6809 vs 6502 cost per thousand" doesn't bring back anything useful
> (though I did discover the Micro magazine archive, so there's that).
>
> I was only a kid when I used my Color Computers their heaviest, and had
> little-to-no clue on these issues. However, I did always wonder why the
> Color Computer got ripped off in the sound (and to some extent, video)
> departments. The Wikipedia article's stance seems the most probable and true
> answer, but citations for this information would have been appreciated.
>
> It would also be interesting to know what possible alternatives there were
> to the custom GIME chip when the Color Computer 3 came out; was the GIME
> more cost effective than other solutions of the era?
>
> Can anyone here shed more light on this subject? Thank you in advance...
>
> Andrew L. Ayers
> Glendale, Arizona
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>