[Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo projectthatBjork was heading?

[Little John]

The TC-9 was a 6809 based machine. It was basically a CoCo 3 (GIME and all) 
but without the BASIC ROMs and the audio DAC was mapped differently. I don't 
think it went over too well - it was geared towards OS-9 L2 usage. It could 
be connected to one of the other FHL OS-K machines (was that the TC70?). 
Actually up to 14 TC-9's I think could be connected to the 68K machine and 
appear in it's memory map. I can't remember exactly - it was something like 
that...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sean" <badfrog at gmail.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo 
projectthatBjork was heading?


I remember seeing the MM/1 at the '91 Rainbowfest in IL, and wanting
one.    I was just a poor high school student at the time.  If I was
in the position I am now, I'm absolutely sure I would have bought one.
 I remember being torn between the MM/1, and the other 68k boxes being
shown at that show - I think the TC-9 was one of them, was that Frank
Hogg?

Somewhat proof of my willingness for beta devices would be that I'm
still on the waiting list for a Pandora.  (www.openpandora.org).
Homebrew originated, taking much longer than promised, etc....

But I also have a netbook thanks to my job, and that works just fine
as an emulator box, and weighs a lot less than a CoCo.  So I would
agree that 'coco 4' hardware might be kind of silly.


On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Boisy G. Pitre <boisy at tee-boy.com> wrote:

> Aside from your stance on software emulation (I prefer an FPGA based 

> hardware solution), this is a great post and right on target. The MM/1 was 

> a dream that was just too laborious to realize, and several people sunk a 

> lot of effort only to realize little gain. The one who I believe was most 

> affected was the creator himself, Paul K. Ward. My understanding is that 

> he put a lot of his money on the MM/1 and ended up loosing it all, 

> including his marriage. Suppliers (including Microware, as I was told when 

> I worked there) got paid little or nothing from IMS. As tough a lesson as 

> it must have been for him, I admire that he did it. Trying to follow an 

> act like Tandy just felt like a loosing proposition at the time, but you 

> have to hand it to him.... he tried.

>

> I still have my old MM/1 VHS video that Paul shipped to me back in late 

> 1990. Holy cow, it's been 20 years already! I recently digitized it an 

> aside from some bad spots and skips, it's pretty watchable. I should put 

> it up on YouTube.

>

> Fast forward to now, and we have computational power that can emulate the 

> MM/1 40 times over. It's a different world now... a software world, where 

> hardware is a commodity. Building good software is enough of a job without 

> adding hardware to the mix.

> --

> Boisy G. Pitre

> http://www.tee-boy.com/

>

> On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Paul Fitch wrote:

>

>> I think the FPGA route is the only realistic method available to do this 

>> in

>> hardware. I'm just not that interested in a hardware project. Doing it in

>> emulation (the Coco4) however, has had me wishing very hard that I could

>> program at that level. I just don't see spending hundreds of dollars on

>> duplicating hardware that in most any matchup would be inferior to the 

>> stuff

>> found on every bargin basement Windows 7 starter computer available today

>> for under $400.00. And that's just the brand new stuff.

>>

>> I would love to be able fire up VCC v2.0 and get a 1024 x 768, 64k color

>> screen under Uber-DECB or Nitros9 v3.0. With native USB awareness built 

>> in,

>> I would run it on my netbook, it would talk to my X-10 stuff, it would 

>> get

>> my email, I would surf the web.

>>

>> The thing about that (now dead) Coco4 wishlist is it could all have been

>> realized two or three years ago fully in software, without the thousands 

>> of

>> hours necessary to design hardware to run it. Then finding the money to 

>> get

>> it into production, then the need to convince 50 or 60 or 100 people, out 

>> of

>> how many of us are there left these days, 400-500 tops, to buy it?

>>

>> It reminds me so much of what the MM/1 guys went thru. They spent their

>> dreams trying to get the hardware available at the time to live up to 

>> their

>> (and mine, and everyone elses) expectations. Today you don't need that

>> hardware headache. The hardware is here, it's a software problem.

>>

>> I dearly wish someone would code a solution. I wish even more I had the

>> skills to do it myself.

>>

>> I'm not interested in a hardware Coco4, but I would buy the emulation.

>>


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