[Coco] CoCo Video Player
6809er at srbsoftware.com
Thu Mar 17 14:34:58 EDT 2011
First, I never put down John's coding. I said...
"Not saying you (or any one else) could do better. It's just that the
CoCo can't do video. "
As others have noted, this "video" could not been done back then. The
source data for this "video" is stored in modern SD card. A stock CoCo
3 with parts sold in Radio Shack stores could play only about a minute
of this type of " video". I had a Tandy 5 MB drive (special order) and
even that would only hold a few minutes of "video".
As for "revolutionary", I don't think so. The Apple ][ was doing short
little "video" before the CoCo hit the market. Most of the coders used
a smaller video window to get better quality of "video". (Maybe John
should redesign his player to use a smaller window to overcome the
limits of a 8-bit system.)
If we go back to when the CoCo 3 first hit the market, there were many
computers that where doing real video. Both the Mac and Amiga where
playing real full screen video that any consumer would want to watch.
Move forward to the early 90's and you got the Amiga/Video Toaster, a
video studio on your desk.
As for your statement ...
"If that was done in the late 80's or early 90's it would be classed as
revolutionary for a 8bit system no matter what the video quality was like."
Either you are looking back in time with rose color glasses or you only
had CoCo and never seen what other computer systems where doing back then.
We talked earlier about John's program needed a modern storage system to
hold the video, but there is more then that here. John needed modern
computers to digitize the video and convert it into a format that his
video program on the CoCo 3 could use. Once again, this is stuff the
CoCo 3 just can't do.
Even when I was creating games for the CoCo, I need other computer
systems to get the job done. Mac, IBM PC and Amiga where just a few of
the computers I used to create the Graphics, sound, music and level
design of the final product. Why? The CoCo was falling behind other
systems of the day.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the little CoCo. It was a simply designed a
computer that was easy know and control. The 6809 was a true
programmer's CPU that never got in the way of writing code. (The last
great 8-bit CPU.)
But with a simple design came limits to what the computer can do. There
is a maximum limit to the speed that memory could be access. Even if
the video image was DMA into memory, you could only do 1/2 the frame
rate since only 8-bits of 16-bit memory bus access per cycle. The
simple designed was also the wall that kept me from creating better
games for the CoCo. (I went on to creating games for Sega, Nintendo and
Sony with better graphics and sound systems.)
As for the 6309 being that much better than the 6809 and would have
saved the CoCo 3...
1) The 6309 was not available at the time the CoCo 3 was being designed.
2) The only reason that we got the CoCo3 was it cost less to
manufactured than the CoCo 2. (The 6309 was too costly.)
3) The 6309 is a bit better than a 6809, but not by a factor of 10.
One more thing, did you what to say to John....
I Congratulate John on even attemp"ting such a demo lol?"
The lol is "Laughing Out Loud". Do you really what to laugh at him?
While some use it for "lots of love", most do not. Since you are using
a keyboard then maybe you should stick with "King's English" and not use
abbreviations that can be taken the wrong way.
Steve (6809er) Bjork
More information about the Coco