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

[William Astle]

On 10-11-22 07:26 PM, Mark McDougall wrote:
> On 23/11/2010 11:31 AM, Theodore (Alex) Evans wrote:
>
>> If one wants to get pedantic, 8ns giving you 125MHz is only 4x faster
>> than
>> 25MHz, not 5x faster.
>
> Damn, my stupid calculator is broken, it _insists_ that 125/25=5, not 4! :(

<pedantism>

5 times more means the difference is five times. Thus, 5 times more than 
X is actually *6* times X. So 125 is 5 times *as much* as 25 but 4 times 
*more* than 25.

In other words, for the "times more" calculation, you first get the 
difference (125-25 = 100) then divide. So (125-25)/25.

</pedantism>

>
>> especially since there is nothing stopping you from giving the video
>> side 32
>> bit access even with no changes to the CPU.
>
> ...except for the minor fact that you don't have 32-bit memory...
>
>> If we are modifying the 6x09 CPU, I would like to see support for 24
>> or 32
>> bit addresses in the CPU and a true 16-bit ALU, and yes a wider data bus
>> would be nice too. To support all this there would have to be another CPU
>> mode because at the very least it would mess up the stack.
>
> Surely that's just a matter of changing the port widths on John Kent's
> CPU09 core... right John? Maybe you should've used generics when you
> wrote it!?!
>
> Sorry to be sarcastic Alex, I couldn't help myself. But you do have a
> tendency to over-simplify everything.
>
> Regards,
>


-- 
William Astle
lost at l-w.ca