[Coco] The Tri-Annual CoCo 4 Thread

[Mark McDougall]

On 13/02/2014 3:44 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:

> A strictly hobbyist approach to developing a COCO 4 hasn't worked and
> probably won't work.  The problem is, it has been a long time since the
> COCO died and you have to go bigger.  Maybe IBM can help.

Even IBM don't have the capability to produce what you refer to.

>> I'm really not sure what this statement has to do with the specifications
>> you throw about. It's also old news, and has also been done before. And,
>> FTR, I *am* an electronics design engineer; one that has worked on designs
>> for modern intel base-boards and PCI & PCIe boards so you might say I know
>> a little about modern computer design too...
> 
> Are you calling me a liar?  That's what it sounds like to me.  

Exactly which sentence above has me claiming you're a liar? I'm starting
to understand now where your ideas are coming from...

It's clear I'm wasting my breath. But with having written my first
computer program 35 years ago, a degree in Computer Science and another in
Electrical Engineering, 26 years experience as a professional programmer,
20 years experience as a professional engineer (including computer
design), experience in both hardware and software emulation of a host of
systems (including the Coco), what do I know?

Regards,

-- 
|              Mark McDougall                | "Electrical Engineers do it
|  <http://members.iinet.net.au/~msmcdoug>   |   with less resistance!"