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

[Brian Blake]

As I recall, Vcc either started off as or was going to be adopted into the
Coco4 emulator of choice (my memory may be failing me here.) I'm not choosy
either way; hardware vs. emulation. I am planning on buying a DE-1 board and
trying out Gary's development code (not that I could understand it if I saw
it). In kit form, I can solder, follow schematics and diagnose. By no means
am I a designer, but, I do enjoy building projects like is possible with the
Coco3+.

As for my preferred setup; I don't really care - I'll go with the hardware
flow probably. Either way, there are far smarter folks doing these projects
around here than I...


Later,

Brian





On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Frank Pittel <fwp at deepthought.com> wrote:


> I understand that we may never agree completely about whether or not the

> "coco4+"

> should run on dedicated hardware or simply be an application that runs on a

> pc of

> some sort. I think I've made my personal feelings clear. I don't understand

> it

> completely why I like the hardware approach better but I do. I also think

> that for

> the long term viability of a "coco4" I think there's an advantage to have

> it run

> as a real computer then just exist as an application on a pc.

>

> The point I was trying to make is that unless a person (realistically a

> group of

> people) pick up the ball and start doing the work of writing software,

> designing

> hardware, etc the "coco4" is just a pipe dream. In the case of the

> coco3fpga there

> is work being done by a group(?) led by Gary (or is it Gary by himself?). I

> don't

> know that anyone is actually working on writing an emulator or extending

> one of

> the existing emulators. I've read talk about it being easy to extend mess

> but I

> don't know that anyone has done.

>

> As a non-software developer, fpga desginer, etc my ability to assist is

> limited to

> acting as a tester and offering feature requests. I'm sure that if someone

> picked

> up the ball and started working on a pc app/emulator that good ideas will

> migrate

> between the two. Personally I would like to see both.

>

> The Other Frank

>

>

> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:32:10AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:

> > Well as I said, there may be more than one soution that could come out.

> > Seems to me that the work is increased quite a bit if new hardware must

> > created and an emulator still writen to support that hardware. That's

> > double the work, or at least a bunch more work. Also, so the PC and

> Windows

> > and Linux are massively available and widely supported, it's much more

> > efficent and practical to leverage them. What happens when that spcial

> > hardware that is created can't be found anymore and no one steps up to

> > create the next new solution because a few don't like the PC and/or

> > windows?

> >

> > It's much easier to expand the user base if an emulator runs on what most

> > people have, and again cheaper. I think for those that need or badly want

> > the new hardware solution, it will happen regardless. I do think an

> > emulation on popular platforms opens the doors to future development and

> > more users because people don't need to go buy and learn new hardware.

> And

> > if the new hardware requires the do it yourself approach, it severely

> > limits the future new user/developer because people can't just load it up

> > and go, they have to fiddle and tinker and learn before they can even get

> > started.

> >

> > Not everyone will be happy with a single solution. But I think many would

> > be very happy if they could have their coco 4+ emulator running in a

> window

> > on their machine so they could do more than one thing at a time and not

> > have to dedicate a box to one thing or need to reboot to start it up.

> > Free's up desk space too.

> >

> > ----------------------------------------

> >

> > From: "Frank Pittel" <fwp at deepthought.com>

> > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 9:31 AM

> > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>

> > Subject: Re: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called

> > CoCo4 or NextCoCo

> >

> > Whether running on dedicated hardware or an emulator running under an OS

> > like

> > linux or windows the "coco4" will be emulated. I have a number of issues

> > with the

> > "pc emulator" approach. The first is that I don't run windows and the

> odds

> > are

> > that any pc emulator will be a windows app. I can get around that with

> > virtualbox

> > and possibly wine but that's proven to be a major pain with vcc and so I

> > don't use

> > it.

> >

> > Aonther thing to take into consideration is that we're not the board of

> > directors

> > of a corperation that will make a decision on how to proceed and then

> > dictate that

> > decision down to be implemented. My guess is that the limit of most of

> our

> > involvement in the project will be to offer suggestions and act as

> > alpha/beta

> > testers. This means people will need to step up and actually develop the

> > "coco4".

> > To my knowledge the only work actually being done is on the fpga

> approach.

> > The

> > current goal there is to successfully and completely emulate the coco3

> and

> > when

> > that's done I'm sure features will be added and the project will evolve.

> > Much like

> > Aaron has done with drivewire. He took something that had a specific role

> > and

> > added functionality and features.

> >

> > In my never humble opinion the coco3fpga project will evolve into the

> > "coco4". If

> > for the only reason that someone stepped up and started to actually do

> it.

> >

> > The Other Frank

> >

> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:51:11AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:

> > > I agree with Steve on this. I've followed this thread and others on the

> > > topic for quite some time. I've commented a few times in the past.

> > >

> > > I really do think a good, solid emulator is the best option and here's

> my

> >

> > > reasons.

> > >

> > > 1) Can run and millions of available boxes that most people already

> have

> >

> > > and are cheap

> > > 2) Can be made "Extensible" so that add-ons can be created for it to

> > > continaully improve it. Can also be easily and cheaply upgraded without

> > > constantly spending more on hardware.

> > > 3) A card or USB device could allow simple connection to the PC to

> > connect

> > > to Coco specific devices

> > > 4) Can take advantage of PC hardware, memory, storage, etc.

> > > 5) Replacement parts are in abundance

> > > 6) Emulator will live on much longer than the hardware.

> > > 7) Software is much easier to mass produce the hardware and certainly

> > much

> > > easier and cheaper to distribute.

> > >

> > > Yes I know some whant the look and feel of a "Real Coco". Well then get

> a

> >

> > > netbook, package it in a coco case with a Coco I/O interface device to

> > hook

> > > up all the ports too. With the speed and power of today's processors

> and

> >

> > > hardware, there's absolutely no reason a well done emulator could not

> run

> >

> > > so well you would know it wasn't the real thing. William's Arcade

> > Classics

> > > that Jeff Vavasour worked on.

> > >

> > > I could go on and on. I'll just close this message with this. With the

> > > disagreements of hardware vs. emulation, the hardware side always seems

> > to

> > > go to either look and feel of the "Real Coco" or some specialized board

> > or

> > > CHIP(s) that can be used. The big issue with the hardware is, that

> > > eventually there won't be anyone with the knowledge of the Coco or the

> > > desire to keep on creating solutions in terms of products or designs

> that

> >

> > > people can do themselves if they have the skills. If someone is dead

> set

> > on

> > > designing and building some hardware solution to meet their needs and

> > > taste, more power to them. There's no reason that there must only be

> one

> >

> > > solution. Still, I think Emulation is the best choice for the reasons I

> > > mentioned and some I'm sure I've missed.

> > >

> > > My 2 cents! :)

> > >

> > > ----------------------------------------

> > >

> > > From: "Steve Bjork" <6809er at srbsoftware.com>

> > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:50 PM

> > > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts"

> > > Subject: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called

> > CoCo4

> > > or NextCoCo

> > >

> > > I've been watching everyone speak their minds on what the next gen CoCo

> > > should be. Pulling in four directions is getting nowhere, as some have

> > > pointed out.

> > >

> > > But you are putting the horse before the buggy, literally.

> > >

> > > I don't hear is what you are planing to use this next gen CoCo for? In

> > > other words, what will use it for when you are done?

> > >

> > > Are you trying to build a faster CoCo to run programs on?

> > >

> > > 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.

> > >

> > > Or are you trying to make modern technology accessible to the casual

> > > CoCo programmer?

> > >

> > > This was one of the main goals of the CoCo4.com project. (Besides

> > > making a CoCo emulator that could run on cheap modern computers.)

> > >

> > > The Super CoCo 4 BASIC was to support the new display graphic modes of

> a

> >

> > > modern Digital TV along with better and easy to use sound system. Add

> > > in an easy to use (and understand) Internet command set (under BASIC)

> so

> >

> > > you can use the internet like a hardcore net programmer.

> > >

> > > 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.

> > >

> > > All I'm saying is to layout just what you want the new computer to do

> > > before you put that time and $$$ into it.

> > >

> > > Steve Bjork

> > >

> > > On 11/18/2010 1:07 PM, jdaggett at gate.net wrote:

> > > > Frank:

> > > >

> > > > This is my observation of where the COCO4 concept is at this point:

> > > >

> > > > The COCO4, what ever it is or will be, is like a person with ropes

> tied

> >

> > > to each arm and leg

> > > > with four horses pulling in all different directions. Right now the

> > DE-2

> > > FPGA board approach

> > > > is winning out and the rest is going to be left behind. Rip to

> shreads

> >

> > > and the pieces left for the

> > > > buzzards to pick.

> > > >

> > > > Any other idea or suggestion will probably meet with some resistance

> > and

> > > really is not totally

> > > > worth persueing. Unless it solves a personal niche, it probably is no

> > > longer worth persueing.

> > > >

> > > > just my thoughts

> > > > james

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On 18 Nov 2010 at 9:41, Frank Swygert wrote:

> > > >

> > > >> Still two camps -- hardware (FPGA) and software )streamlined

> > > emulator/OS

> > > >> combined). I'm of the software camp because it would be easier,

> > > cheaper,

> > > >> and quicker to accomplish. If you bought all new hardware cost would

> > be

> > > >> comparable, but even an old Pentium 1I computer can be had for a

> song

> > > >> and would still have the computing power to emulate a CoCo at a

> > > >> relatively high speed -- though there's no reason to go so far as a

> > P1

> > > >> when even P4 machines are relatively cheap now. And most of us have

> > an

> > > >> older board that would be great for this at little to no cost.

> > > >>

> > > >> What I really advocate is both -- do the streamlined emulator with

> an

> > > >> advanced DECB and use it to develop a higher level Nitros, then put

> > the

> > > >> resulting "machine" in an FPGA hardware configuration. Both would be

> > > >> compatible software wise, but for those who needed/wanted a compact

> > > >> board it could be done. Of course the emulation/OS combo would run

> > > >> easily on something like an ITX or embedded Intel board too.

> > > >>

> > > >> -------------

> > > >> It's the attempt at a "coco4" by Steve b. that's dead. The dream

> > lives

> > > >> on!! :-)

> > > >>

> > > >>

> > > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:29:28AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:

> > > >>

> > > >>>> I know many would love to see a CoCo 4 come into existence, but I

> > > >>> thought

> > > >>>> the project was dead. Says it's dead on coco4.com

> > > >>>>

> > > >>>> Is there new info or activity on this, or just more discussion?

> > > >>>>

> > >

> > > --

> > > 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

>