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

[Steve Bjork]

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?
>>>>