[Coco] CoCo 4 Project (was DriveWire is just a hobby)

[Bill Pierce]

I agree with Frank.... can you spell "MM-1" or "Tomcat"?

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: Frank Swygert <farna at amc-mag.com>
To: coco <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Sat, Sep 28, 2013 1:58 pm
Subject: [Coco] CoCo 4 Project (was DriveWire is just a hobby)


I don't think you really started anything Al. Brian pretty much spelled it out. 
While there are a few passionate souls who would really like to see a "CoCo4", 
there really just isn't a large enough user base to do much about it. If I won 
the lottery tomorrow (a few million or more!) I'd commission a CoCo4, but until 
that happens (or someone else has the money!) it's not likely to happen.

If you want hardware, the FPGA development boards are the best ticket. If you 
don't mind emulation, then one of the CoCo emulators will work just fine.


No one has tweaked either with enhanced features, except for added memory, and 
they use the same standard as a "real" CoCo3. Once that happens (better 
graphics, for example) you lose compatibility with older models and the hardware 
forks into more than one model. By that I mean if the FPGA models used a 
different graphics controller, it would have to be accepted as a standard or 
you'd have two FPGA boards and two different standards (assuming each used a 
different enhanced graphics controller) and possibly yet another standard if one 
(or more!) of the emulators were enhanced with better graphics. The later is a 
stronger possibility -- the emulator could take advantage of the host graphics. 
That might not be possible to duplicate in hardware on one of the FPGA boards, 
at least not for DECB -- OS-9 would just need the correct drivers.

I wouldn't mind losing most CoCo 1/2 compatibility in a new machine, but it 
would be nice if CoCo3 compatibility was around 90%. If you lose most CoCo3 
compatibility you're talking about a completely new machine. A completely new 
machine wouldn't be too bad for OS-9, but there would be no point for DECB users 
to go to it. Even with OS-9 there would be a problem with graphics based 
programs.
  
---------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:34:37 -0400
From: Al Hartman<alhartman6 at optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [Coco] DriveWire is just a hobby (Was: DW4 on MAc & Linux)


I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest...

-[ Al ]-

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Blake
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] DriveWire is just a hobby (Was: DW4 on MAc & Linux)

For all intents and purposes, the CoCo4 project is D.O.A. Anytime
something like this is mentioned, it usually ends up in an ideological
flame fest.

There was a kickstarter project that didn't get anywhere close to the
funding necessary - and there was quite a flame fest for this on in it's
own right.

There's been a CoCoFPGA build for two development boards, but, whether
it's ready for prime time is up for debate.

Having a CoCo3 in newer hardware would be cool, but, I'm not sure there
ever will be based on the history of the previous attempts...

-- 
Frank Swygert
Editor - American Motors Cars Magazine
www.amc-mag.com


--
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco