[Coco] CoCo Ethernet for $25-$30...

[Aaron Wolfe]

Yes, Bill is saying pretty much what I'm trying to get across.

The wiznet offloads the TCP/IP stack
Drivewire offloads the TCP/IP stack
The wiznet communicates serially with the coco
Drivewire communicates serially with the coco
The wiznet provides commands to establish TCP connections
Drivewire provides commands to establish TCP connections
Etc.....

I am very much in favor of getting a wiznet chip connected to the coco.. In
fact I have been discussing doing exactly that with lots of people for a
few years now.   You can find messages I've posted to this list about the
wiznet solution in the archives.

However, it makes me sad to hear things like "I've waited ten years for
this" when we already have it, and people are using it right now to do all
kinds of cool stuff.  So it uses a general purpose computer instead of a
dedicated purpose computer.. OK I get that isn't ideal, but its the best we
have right now and it works right now, and any software you write for it
will work fine with a dedicated purpose solution like the wiznet should we
finally get one :-)

/end of rant
On Apr 9, 2013 12:42 AM, "Bill Pierce" <ooogalapasooo at aol.com> wrote:

>
> Allen,
> I think you're missing Aaron's point. First of all, using the "wiznet: ro
> "RPi" to do the work (IMHO) are the same thing.... using other computers
> (small, but not part of the coco and work without it) to access the
> internet. Aaron is trying to tell you, he has alread done this with the RPI.
> You have to program these intefaces right? They are not dependant on the
> Coco right?
> (IMHO) Any device no matter how small (DoD Cart) or how big (PC running
> DW4) is just another device plugged in. Just another interface. The RPi
> running DW4 stuck inside a Coco3 is much less than a HD controller with an
> IBM board controlling HDs.
>  I remember people "bucking" the "new" disk drives in the early 80s saying
> "that's not a Coco", then they'd "plug in" their tape recorders. The same
> with HDs later.
> Yes, if I could have a cart to plug into the MPI and give me ethernet
> access to the net... I would love it.
>
> What you're missing is that Aaron's not telling you to hook up a PC and
> run DW4, he's telling you that DW4 is portable enough that it will run on
> most anything including most project board solutions that will support a
> Java enviroment, and if not, he can most likely adapt it. if it can run
> Java, it can run DW4.
>
> There is already software that will controll any unit running DW4 from the
> Coco. If I had a RPi, I would be looking into a way to do a direct connect
> in some way that's faster than serial. Something related to the Coco's cart
> port. If we can get data to the RPi in bytes instead of bits, we're in
> business. All that's really missing in the chain is a faster connection to
> the Coco.
>
> Just to give an example, the new NitrOS9 software I'm about to release
> will (through DW4) connect to the internet, check for updates, prompt for
> download if updates are available, download the updates, install them, and
> restart itself. All on the Coco. All the PC is, is my internet connection,
> just a big modem plugged in. DW4 is the interpreter in the modem. This will
> work on ANY device that will host DW4 and a internet connection. And this
> is just the tip of that iceberg.
>
> Bill Pierce
> My Music from the Tandy/Radio Shack Color Computer 2 & 3
> https://sites.google.com/site/dabarnstudio/
> Co-Webmaster of The TRS-80 Color Computer Archive
> http://www.colorcomputerarchive.com/
> Co-Contributor, Co-Editor for CocoPedia
> http://www.cocopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> E-Mail: ooogalapasooo at aol.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Huffman <alsplace at pobox.com>
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Sent: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 11:59 pm
> Subject: Re: [Coco] CoCo Ethernet for $25-$30...
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I have ben waiting over a decade for someone to come out with some way
> to get
> a CoCo on the internet without it just being a PC on the internet with a
> CoCo
> attached... Still hasn't happened, so I guess one of us will do it then
> figure
> out a way to standardize the interface so software can be written.
> >
> > I don't think this assessment is fair.  The web server, telnet client,
> > inetd, smtp client, etc that work with DriveWire 4 all process their
> > respective protocols at the TCP layer.
>
> Yes, true, and I understand. But it's just a PC doing something and then
> the
> CoCo is basically downloading it. If someone hooked up a PC to the CoCo so
> it
> could print via parallel, it wouldn't feel the same to me as a CoCo
> parallel
> port adapter. If "let me show you what I can do on my computer" involves
> another
> computer, I'm just not sure it's quite the same.
>
> --
> 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
>