[Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?

[Steve Ostrom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Swygert" <farna at att.net>
To: <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 4:54 PM
Subject: [Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?


> Assume we are talking about advance hardware features and advance ROM. I'm 
> not asking for everything you'd like to see, but what would be the minimum 
> requirements -- the least common denominator/best compromise.
>
> 1. CoCo3 compatibility. Drop CoCo 1/2 semi graphics and artifacting modes. 
> The main purpose is to provide advanced but easy to program features while 
> maintaining a decent software base, not run everything ever made for the 
> CoCo line.
>
>

Frank, I'm obviously not an expert, so maybe you can give me some reasons 
for this statement.  What would be the reason for dropping features - any 
features?  Are we limited by space, or are there compatibility issues?  Is 
it lack of programming time?

I agree that there should be 100% Coco 3 compatibility plus adding extra 
features that people want in the Coco4.  Not every good program ever written 
for the Color Computer was written for the Coco3.  Some will not run on the 
Coco3.  Many run using artifacting, and a few run on semi-graphics modes. 
Why make a conscious effort to exclude these?  If there is space, why not 
have full Coco1 and Coco2 compatibility modes in addition to the Coco3? 
Just curious about your reasoning.

-- Steve --