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

[Mark McDougall]

On 21/10/2010 2:02 PM, Sean wrote:

> 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....

I was also on that list for about 9 months, then pulled the plug.

Still follow it daily, and may still plonk down for a 2nd batch unit. Still 
not real happy about the nub failures though... :(

> 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 the contrary, my view is that 'Coco 4 Software' is kind of silly. 
Personally, I really don't see the point; either faithfully emulate the Coco 
in software, or use a modern PC. What's the point of 'emulating' a mythical 
machine in software?

OTOH, having 'Coco 4 Hardware' makes a lot more sense. And what I mean by 
that, is fully-compatible hardware that integrates not only with legacy 
peripherals (cartridges, floppies etc) but also with more modern 
peripherals, like SD card, USB joysticks, etc. You get the *full* legacy 
experience (ideally it would be a Coco mobo replacement), with the benefit 
of modern convenience where desired. A bit like "pimping" your Coco with an 
unlimited credit account at Cloud9!

There's also the opportunity to enhance the hardware as well, say, more 
colours, custom palette etc. But this is not the primary point of the 
exercise, just stuff that is done "because you can". And because 
programmable logic makes it that much easier.

But, each to their own... I wouldn't deny anyone a software Coco4 'emulator' 
if that's what they so desire.

Regards,

-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"