[Coco] Including an SSC (was: CocoSDC)

[Zippster]

There won’t be any changes for this run.
We’d have to go through prototyping and testing, and I think there
are enough people wanting Darren’s (awesome) board as it is now.

- Ed

On Oct 10, 2014, at 9:07 AM, tim lindner <tlindner at macmess.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:49 AM, S Klammer <sklammer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Although Darren's CocoSDC is great on its own (I do have one)... since so
>> many units are being requested, would it be a thought to try and include an
>> onboard SSC and/or Orch90?
> 
> As someone who has extensively studied the internals of the SSC, I
> would say it is not worth it.
> 
> http://tlindner.macmess.org/?page_id=96
> 
> The SSC is a whole extra computer sitting on the CoCo's bus. The MPU
> is custom and not available.
> 
> It would be much better (for the software developer) for the PSG to be
> directly connected to the CoCo. While this would suck for software
> already written for the SSC. It would make new software more
> streamlined.
> 
> As far as the Orch-90, that hardware is dead simple. Programs that use
> the Orch-90 for sound don't usually do much else. The CPU overhead for
> the device is huge.
> 
> Personally, I would not want the SDC to contain a major change on this run.
> 
> A PSG and Orch-90 card would make a great project for the CoCo
> development board mentioned elsewhere on the list.
> 
> Footnote: PSG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_Sound_Generator
> 
> -- 
> tim lindner
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco