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

[Luis Fernández]

Must be compatible with everything, there is no real limitation, which 
hinders most emulators is the environment where they are not emulating.
   After having the bases can add more stuff, emulating an alleged coco4 or 
hardware that does not exsist, we can invent a new cpu with all the 
instructions of 6809 and also with instructions for 16-32-64 bit or more.
    The emulator does not care if we invent as a graphics adapter or sound 
and make it work.

Coco12y3 will remain compatible with, but may move

Maybe this time we will first emulator and then coco4

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Ostrom" <smostrom7 at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 9:57 PM
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Subject: Re: [Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?

>
> ----- 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 --
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>