[Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo projectthatBjork was heading?

Sun Nov 7 02:58:39 EST 2010

Joel,

Coming off of a 2+week vacation.

I do have the info but currently no time.

Sorry.

Regards,

Mark

At 10/21/2010 11:01 PM, you wrote:
>On 10/21/2010 07:12 AM, Mark Marlette wrote:
>>I placed several mods in Curtis's and my TC-9. I agree very 
>>unstable and that was resolved with some mods.
>>
>>Fun stuff!
>>
>
>Do you still have information on the mods?  I'd be interested in 
>trying to get mine to work better.  I was really disappointed that I 
>never got much use out of it.  I might have tried harder if I hadn't 
>gotten the MM/1.
>
>JCE
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Joel Ewy<jcewy at swbell.net>
>>To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts<coco at maltedmedia.com>
>>Sent: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 04:36:03 -0000 (UTC)
>>Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo 
>>projectthatBjork was heading?
>>
>>On 10/20/2010 11:20 PM, Little John wrote:
>>
>>>The TC-9 was a 6809 based machine. It was basically a CoCo 3 (GIME and
>>>all) but without the BASIC ROMs and the audio DAC was mapped
>>>differently. I don't think it went over too well - it was geared
>>>towards OS-9 L2 usage. It could be connected to one of the other FHL
>>>OS-K machines (was that the TC70?). Actually up to 14 TC-9's I think
>>>could be connected to the 68K machine and appear in it's memory map. I
>>>can't remember exactly - it was something like that...
>>>
>>>
>>I've got both a TC-9 Tomcat and an MM/1.  The TC-9 was always flaky and
>>unreliable.  The MM/1 still works, though I need to put another HD in
>>it.  The MM/1 was really a neat computer, and I just wish there had been
>>more software developed for it.
>>
>>JCE
>>
>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean"<badfrog at gmail.com>
>>>To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts"<coco at maltedmedia.com>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:02 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo
>>>projectthatBjork was heading?
>>>
>>>
>>>I remember seeing the MM/1 at the '91 Rainbowfest in IL, and wanting
>>>one.    I was just a poor high school student at the time.  If I was
>>>in the position I am now, I'm absolutely sure I would have bought one.
>>>I remember being torn between the MM/1, and the other 68k boxes being
>>>shown at that show - I think the TC-9 was one of them, was that Frank
>>>Hogg?
>>>
>>>Somewhat proof of my willingness for beta devices would be that I'm
>>>still on the waiting list for a Pandora.  (www.openpandora.org).
>>>Homebrew originated, taking much longer than promised, etc....
>>>
>>>But I also have a netbook thanks to my job, and that works just fine
>>>as an emulator box, and weighs a lot less than a CoCo.  So I would
>>>agree that 'coco 4' hardware might be kind of silly.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Boisy G. Pitre<boisy at tee-boy.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aside from your stance on software emulation (I prefer an FPGA based
>>>>hardware solution), this is a great post and right on target. The
>>>>MM/1 was a dream that was just too laborious to realize, and several
>>>>people sunk a lot of effort only to realize little gain. The one who
>>>>I believe was most affected was the creator himself, Paul K. Ward. My
>>>>understanding is that he put a lot of his money on the MM/1 and ended
>>>>up loosing it all, including his marriage. Suppliers (including
>>>>Microware, as I was told when I worked there) got paid little or
>>>>nothing from IMS. As tough a lesson as it must have been for him, I
>>>>admire that he did it. Trying to follow an act like Tandy just felt
>>>>like a loosing proposition at the time, but you have to hand it to
>>>>him.... he tried.
>>>>
>>>>I still have my old MM/1 VHS video that Paul shipped to me back in
>>>>late 1990. Holy cow, it's been 20 years already! I recently digitized
>>>>it an aside from some bad spots and skips, it's pretty watchable. I
>>>>should put it up on YouTube.
>>>>
>>>>Fast forward to now, and we have computational power that can emulate
>>>>the MM/1 40 times over. It's a different world now... a software
>>>>world, where hardware is a commodity. Building good software is
>>>>enough of a job without adding hardware to the mix.
>>>>--
>>>>Boisy G. Pitre
>>>>http://www.tee-boy.com/
>>>>
>>>>On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Paul Fitch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the FPGA route is the only realistic method available to do
>>>>>this in
>>>>>hardware. I'm just not that interested in a hardware project. Doing
>>>>>it in
>>>>>emulation (the Coco4) however, has had me wishing very hard that I
>>>>>could
>>>>>program at that level. I just don't see spending hundreds of dollars on
>>>>>duplicating hardware that in most any matchup would be inferior to
>>>>>the stuff
>>>>>found on every bargin basement Windows 7 starter computer available
>>>>>today
>>>>>for under $400.00. And that's just the brand new stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would love to be able fire up VCC v2.0 and get a 1024 x 768, 64k
>>>>>color
>>>>>screen under Uber-DECB or Nitros9 v3.0. With native USB awareness
>>>>>built in,
>>>>>I would run it on my netbook, it would talk to my X-10 stuff, it
>>>>>would get
>>>>>my email, I would surf the web.
>>>>>
>>>>>The thing about that (now dead) Coco4 wishlist is it could all have
>>>>>been
>>>>>realized two or three years ago fully in software, without the
>>>>>thousands of
>>>>>hours necessary to design hardware to run it. Then finding the money
>>>>>to get
>>>>>it into production, then the need to convince 50 or 60 or 100
>>>>>people, out of
>>>>>how many of us are there left these days, 400-500 tops, to buy it?
>>>>>
>>>>>It reminds me so much of what the MM/1 guys went thru. They spent their
>>>>>dreams trying to get the hardware available at the time to live up
>>>>>to their
>>>>>(and mine, and everyone elses) expectations. Today you don't need that
>>>>>hardware headache. The hardware is here, it's a software problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>I dearly wish someone would code a solution. I wish even more I had the
>>>>>skills to do it myself.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not interested in a hardware Coco4, but I would buy the emulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>--
>>>Coco mailing list
>>>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>>>
>>>--
>>>Coco mailing list
>>>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Coco mailing list
>>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>>
>>
>>--
>>Coco mailing list
>>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Coco mailing list
>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.864 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3240 - Release Date: 
>11/05/10 14:34:00