[Coco] Coco4 thoughts

Sat Jan 3 15:35:13 EST 2009

Hi guys,

Great discussion! Here is my 25 cents regarding marketing...

How about the CoCo as a cheap but powerful computer for poorer countries,
like Nicholas Negropontes "100-dollar computer" (now: *One Laptop Per Child*)?
Heck we could maybe even offer an even cheaper computer that would be
powerful enough for the basics and be a powerful tool for education and
extending the global village!

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child

There are other similar projects around. Check out the external links at the
bottom...

Cheers,
Fedor

2009/1/2 Frank Swygert <farna at att.net>

> I have to agree with Paul and Carlos. They are pretty much on the same
> track -- a nice learning/experimenters computer, cheap enough to be used not
> only to develop something, but to power it as well.
> Cost wise, the "CoCo4.exe" will probably be the most effective. PC
> hardware, especially a couple generations old, is cheap and plentiful, and
> already has everything built in. Heck, it would be nice to kick DOS,
> Windows, or Linux completely out of the picture -- the "CoCo4" would in
> effect be as much an OS as anything else. That would be ideal for DECB
> anyway, but might hinder running Nitros-9. Of course porting Nitros to the
> x-86 architecture has always been a possibility for that arena.
>
> The cost factor is why Tandy went to the GIME. And that's our biggest
> hurdle now. Tandy skimped on it - made it "just enough" as far as speed and
> power, to save money. Can't blame them in a way -- the CoCo was supposed to
> be a cheap computer and the price of mainstream PCs were spiraling downward,
> cutting deeply into profit margins. I suppose we really should be grateful
> that there even was a CoCo3.
> Any video producing machine will have to have a reverse engineered GIME to
> be compatible. That has been a major hurdle. With the cost of FPGAs coming
> down, and I think someone has actually done the ground work, that's not so
> far fetched. Basing the machine on an existing evaluation board will be
> expensive though. The price needs to be kept under $300, though I'd really
> like to see one closer to the vicinity of $200, but I just don't think it's
> possible. Carlos, I'd love it if you proved me wrong!
>
> So what would a new machine have to have as a MINIMUM -- not wants, but
> needs. That should be the starting point, then add the wants if/as possible.
>
> 1. Minimum of CoCo3 software compatibility. I don't think not supporting
> the older, seldom used graphics modes of the CC1/2 will be a big loss,
> especially if losing them will save $$$ in the price tag.
> 2. Capable of using modern peripherals. This looks to be a harder part, but
> I think it's easier than it sounds. There are USB floppy drives (though only
> 3.5"), and there are drive emulator boards for USB devices. That might be
> the easiest way to go. Instead of a hard drive a USB device would be good,
> or an SD card device. There are affordable 8GB USB thumb drives! Just
> supporting USB drive emulation might be easier and cheaper than supporting
> both, and USB is pretty universal. May need a special transfer program to
> transfer files to/from a PC if any special setup of the device is needed for
> the CoCo (program for the PC to read/write to the CoCo formatted USB drive).
>
> 3. Printers are a different story. There are few "smart" printers around
> anymore. The only one I know of are a few dot matrix printers still made for
> multi part forms still used by businesses. Epson still sells a 9 pin
> 300LX+II with serial, parallel, and USB ports, available for around $200.
> Would be nice to have ink jet support, but that would require some overhead.
> Someone wrote about an adapter that would translate ESC/2 codes into
> something a standard "dumb" inkjet (or dare I say laser?) printer could
> print, but I'm thinking a micro controller programmed with a printer driver
> would be the best solution. Of course then it would have to support a
> limited number of printers -- maybe the HP family? I'm assuming the drivers
> are all similar though. Probably not -- so any adapter or other solution
> would be limited to a few specific models. Still, it would probably be best
> to just leave the serial port (a real hardware port AND a bit-banger port
> would be nice!) and make a MC conv
> erter. A PC can always be used as a printer processor, I guess. I doubt
> many would be trying to use a new CoCo-like machine for word processing,
> though a printer for code listings would be nice. If it's as simple as
> storing the listing on a USB drive and sticking it in a PC (and possibly
> running a transfer program) to transfer and print, I could live with that.
> Or buy a $200 (or used) dot-matrix printer.
> 4. Video. Must be CC3 compatible, and I'd really like to see video on
> board. If on board it must be compatible with off the shelf monitors. If the
> new machine's main purpose is for experimenters/learning basics, however, it
> could rely just on a TV for a monitor. I don't like the idea of having to
> rely on a PC, but in reality it could be a hardware board that could work
> alone, but require a PC for video and programming input. Most would really
> like to see higher resolution -- at least 640x480. 640x192 is the highest
> the CC3 will produce. More than 640x480 would probably take costs way up due
> to memory and hardware requirements.
> 5. There are experimenter computers out there now, so the further we go in
> that direction instead of a stand-alone programmable
> learning/experimenting/game machine similar to the original CoCo, the less
> applicable it becomes. I mean it would just be of fleeting interest to CoCo
> people if it's only partially CoCo3 compatible and requires a PC to work.
> The only advantage such a machine would have is that the board could be
> programmed then disconnected from the PC to "do its thing". So do PIC
> controllers, BASIC Stamps, and several others though. If you're building a
> retro computer do it all the way!
> 6. Then there's this little beastie: http://www.multilabs.net/Retro.html.
> It's very similar to a CoCo1. It has 64K (32K for ROM and graphics, but the
> graphics memory isn't accessible, and 32K program memory), low res graphics
> (CoCo1 had some better modes), etc. If nothing else, the interfacing devices
> offered by this company may help. Their ezVGA module will only produce
> 320x240 graphics though. They have PS/2 to serial keyboard and mouse
> adapters, and even a serial VGA adapter. This might be all most
> experimenters need, and the Retro is only $99. I'm thinking that a
> CoCo3-like computer similar to this is what people would really like to see.
>
>
> -----------------
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:42:24 -0500
> From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej at arid.us>
>
> My son has a Lego Mindstorm NXT robot.  While I am quite interested in it
> --
> pretty cool with the Bluetooth interface and programmable microcontroller
> --
> he is far less interested.  The reason is that if he creates something, he
> can't share his creations.  He gets more enjoyment out of scripting on
> video
> games sites and updating his own web site.
>
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:07:06 -0600
> From: Carlos Santiago <carlossantiago at austin.rr.com>
>
> My view of the Coco family of computers has always been as a hobbyist.
> Anyone that is interested in a Coco as their primary machine, will  demand
> many new features and applications that already exist in a PC  or Mac. These
> users will have a hard time because they will try to  mould the Coco into
> something that it is not.
>
> As for a Coco4.exe Steve Bjork is already working on this along with a  new
> version of Basic. These will satisfy the need for something that  runs on
> the PC, but it will not allow you to develop any new Coco  specific
> hardware.
>
> The Coco has alway been a computer for those interested in writing
>  programs and adding new and interesting hardware features.  A hobbyist
>  computer.
>
> My interest is to rekindle that spirit.
>
> A new Coco4 will allow those who had great ideas about Coco software  and
> hardware to implement them.
> I would like to start a list of people that are interested in the  idea of
> a Coco4 and also those of you that are capable of  contributing. This would
> be a project for the Coco community to  provided those of you with the type
> of machine you dream about. Some  of the feedback I received was that it
> would cost too much. Or that  the design would be too complex. I have been a
> hardware engineer since  1979 and have spent much time developing products
> that are low cost  and feature rich.
>
>
> On thing that is clear is that the Coco4 may materialize in the near
>  future as software or hardware. If you would like a specific feature  or
> capability, the only way to obtain it is by being involved. I mean  in the
> real sense, not just to request a crazy feature to see if it  can be done.
> The start of all this will be a development document that  will define the
> boundaries of the project. Once this is complete and  agreed upon, the
> design work can start.
>
>
> --
> Frank Swygert
> Publisher, "American Motors Cars" Magazine (AMC)
> For all AMC enthusiasts
> http://farna.home.att.net/AMC.html
> (free download available!)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>