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

Fri Oct 22 01:14:02 EDT 2010

Those mods might also make a neat web page :)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Ewy" <jcewy at swbell.net>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo 
projectthatBjork was heading?


> On 10/21/2010 07:12 AM, Mark Marlette wrote:
>> I placed several mods in Curtis's and my TC-9. I agree very unstable and 
>> that was resolved with some mods.
>>
>> Fun stuff!
>>
>
> Do you still have information on the mods?  I'd be interested in trying to 
> get mine to work better.  I was really disappointed that I never got much 
> use out of it.  I might have tried harder if I hadn't gotten the MM/1.
>
> JCE
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joel Ewy<jcewy at swbell.net>
>> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts<coco at maltedmedia.com>
>> Sent: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 04:36:03 -0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [Coco] Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo 
>> projectthatBjork was heading?
>>
>> On 10/20/2010 11:20 PM, Little John wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>>
>> I've got both a TC-9 Tomcat and an MM/1.  The TC-9 was always flaky and
>> unreliable.  The MM/1 still works, though I need to put another HD in
>> it.  The MM/1 was really a neat computer, and I just wish there had been
>> more software developed for it.
>>
>> JCE
>>
>>
>>> ----- 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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