[Coco] Why do we need a CoCo 4? (Long irrelevant rant)

[John Eric]

sort of like what was done with the 65c816 a 16-bit compatible with the 8-bit 65c02?




________________________________
From: Bill Barnes <da3m0n_slay3r at yahoo.com>
To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 1:00:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Why do we need a CoCo 4? (Long irrelevant rant)

The PLUS to the fpga idea is, we can extend the 6809/6309 core, if need be to include real 16-bit and even possibly 32-bit operations by creating op-codes that the 6809/6309 haven't used or reserved... we could have a 681609 or 631609 on our hands that way. Possibly using the 6309 trick and have a third mode (6809,6309,631609).

Ah how complex things have become... and what a mess some of the APIs are... Libraries help, but the chore is that some of those libraries have as messed up functions as the APIs they were created to simplify.

-Later!   -WB-    -- BABIC Computer Consulting.


--- On Mon, 12/29/08, John Eric <jet.pack at ymail.com> wrote:

> From: John Eric <jet.pack at ymail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Why do we need a CoCo 4? (Long irrelevant rant)
> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:34 PM
> It's not so much of a need as it is a want. I just want
> one. I think Gary's CC3FPGA may eventually be just that.
> Too bad I can't figure out how to compile the thing
> after having bought a Digilent Spartan board w/1000kgate. We
> all have our opinions, I guess. I just miss the simpler
> times when programming was simple and fun and not so much of
> a chore.... JE 



      

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