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

[Little John]

A Canadian Fellow by the name of Fred Morgan also bought one of the 
TC9's....

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Marlette" <mmarlette at frontiernet.net>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 orNextCoCo 
projectthatBjork was heading?


>
> Curtis can correct me if I am wrong but IIRC, there were only three TC-9s 
> ever made.
>
> I have one, Curtis I hope still has his, not sure who had the other Wes???
>
> AT306, MM1, TC-9 and a Japanese based dual processor 6x09, in my 
> collection. All functioning.
>
> A guy in our local club had the FHL OSK machine, forget the name ATM, very 
> expensive but VERY nice and FAST(68040), I think. Would be nice to collect 
> that one as well. Would need another wall in the warehouse though. :)
>
> FPGA = software loadable hardware......The best of both worlds, hands 
> down.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
> Cloud-9
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Little John <sales at gimechip.com>
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Sent: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 04:20:10 -0000 (UTC)
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo 
> projectthatBjork was heading?
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco