[Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo

[Frank Pittel]

Mark,

I think you missed an important reason for why the coco3fpga is becoming the
"coco4" that people have wanted for over a decade.  The reason is simply that it's
actually being done. A lot of people have talked about doing something but Gary
has taken the bull by the horns and acted.

The Other Frank


On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:10AM +1100, Mark McDougall wrote:

> On 19/11/2010 9:50 AM, Steve Bjork wrote:

> 

> >Oh, there is some talk about FPGA board approach can run programs about 10

> >times faster. Big deal! I can build a Linux box for the price of a FPGA

> >board that will run software 1,000's times faster with better graphics,

> >sound and the Internet to boot. But the FPGA board has no (or little)

> >interface for CoCo hardware. (if I reading the messages right.) Nor will it

> >use any modern computer technology directly. Not much of a next gen CoCo.

> 

> With much respect Steve, what you describe has IMHO as much to do

> with being a Coco 4 as it does an Atari 2700, or an Amiga 5000, or a

> Nintendo 128.

> 

> >As you can see, the CoCo4.com project was all about unlocking modern

> >computer technology in the same the computers did back in the 80's.

> >Something that modern computer designers just don't do any more.

> 

> That's great, and I would imagine definitely what some people would

> be looking for in a "Coco 4".

> 

> The real problem here is not people "pulling in different

> directions" but rather making the mistake of trying to define the

> "Coco 4" as a single product/project that encompasses the

> wishes/goals of everyone that is interested in the Coco.

> 

> As you point out Steve, the first step is to define what you're

> trying to do. In your case, you've done that with your "Coco 4"

> project. Now everyone else has to do the same, and then get together

> to work out:

> 

> (1) How many different projects are required to achieve this

> cross-section of goals. Obviously the less the better.

> 

> (2) Decide if there are any common aspects that can be designed into

> each distinct project/product, in order to both reduce the

> development effort and provide as much cross-compatibility as

> possible.

> 

> The real reason that Coco3FPGA is the defacto standard atm is that

> it is the only tangible "Coco 4" project. And the real reasons the

> DE1 is the defacto standard are because they're cheap, a few coco

> people have one, and Gary is actively supporting it. Personally, I

> think it's a good start.

> 

> As I said, this doesn't embody everyone's idea of what a Coco 4

> should be - and that obviously includes you Steve - and I certainly

> understand. I have ideas of my own that are to a large degree along

> these (Coco3FPGA) lines, but diverge down the track towards your

> "Coco 4" project. But that's a long-term goal.

> 

> Regards,

> 

> -- 

> |              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it

> |  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"

> 

> --

> Coco mailing list

> Coco at maltedmedia.com

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