[Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?
6809er at srbsoftware.com
Mon Nov 22 12:21:44 EST 2010
Or a Mac from Apple.
By the way, the Mac was first going to use the 6809, till the design
team found that the 68000 was better suited for the larger compiled
programs used in business applications. After all, it was the 16-bit
IBM PC that was killing the profitability of their little 8-bit Apple II
and not the their 8-bit computers on the market.
On 11/22/2010 5:35 AM, jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> I think that is what Tandy came to a conclusion 20years ago.
> On 22 Nov 2010 at 10:39, Mark McDougall wrote:
>> on 22/11/2010 9:20 AM, Mark McDougall wrote:
>>> Once you throw away the 6809 then you're not talking about a Coco 4 any more
>>> IMHO. A 68k with enhanced graphics is called an "Amiga".
>> Just to play devil's advocate...
>> My throw-away line has got me thinking...
>> Looking at the "wish list" for those interested in Coco 4 - the Amiga pretty
>> much sums it up.
>> "Faster CPU" - check.
>> "Enhanced graphics" - check.
>> "Retro experience" - check.
>> "Instant on" - ermm... not too bad. But you can't have your cake and eat it too!
>> "Simple Powerful language with access to graphics/sound" - check (AMOS BASIC).
>> I'm assuming someone enthusiastic enough could even port OS-9/68K?
>> Seriously, what is there about the Amiga that doesn't fit the bill, aside
>> from the name?
>> | Mark McDougall | "Electrical Engineers do it
More information about the Coco