[Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo

[Brian Blake]

As I recall, Vcc either started off as or was going to be adopted into the
Coco4 emulator of choice (my memory may be failing me here.) I'm not choosy
either way; hardware vs. emulation. I am planning on buying a DE-1 board and
trying out Gary's development code (not that I could understand it if I saw
it). In kit form, I can solder, follow schematics and diagnose. By no means
am I a designer, but, I do enjoy building projects like is possible with the
Coco3+.

As for my preferred setup; I don't really care - I'll go with the hardware
flow probably. Either way, there are far smarter folks doing these projects
around here than I...


Later,

Brian





On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Frank Pittel <fwp at deepthought.com> wrote:

> I understand that we may never agree completely about whether or not the
> "coco4+"
> should run on dedicated hardware or simply be an application that runs on a
> pc of
> some sort. I think I've made my personal feelings clear. I don't understand
> it
> completely why I like the hardware approach better but I do. I also think
> that for
> the long term viability of a "coco4" I think there's an advantage to have
> it run
> as a real computer then just exist as an application on a pc.
>
> The point I was trying to make is that unless a person (realistically a
> group of
> people) pick up the ball and start doing the work of writing software,
> designing
> hardware, etc the "coco4" is just a pipe dream. In the case of the
> coco3fpga there
> is work being done by a group(?) led by Gary (or is it Gary by himself?). I
> don't
> know that anyone is actually working on writing an emulator or extending
> one of
> the existing emulators. I've read talk about it being easy to extend mess
> but I
> don't know that anyone has done.
>
> As a non-software developer, fpga desginer, etc my ability to assist is
> limited to
> acting as a tester and offering feature requests. I'm sure that if someone
> picked
> up the ball and started working on a pc app/emulator that good ideas will
> migrate
> between the two. Personally I would like to see both.
>
> The Other Frank
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:32:10AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:
> > Well as I said, there may be more than one soution that could come out.
> > Seems to me that the work is increased quite a bit if new hardware must
> > created and an emulator still writen to support that hardware. That's
> > double the work, or at least a bunch more work. Also, so the PC and
> Windows
> > and Linux are massively available and widely supported, it's much more
> > efficent and practical to leverage them. What happens when that spcial
> > hardware that is created can't be found anymore and no one steps up to
> > create the next new solution because a few don't like the PC and/or
> > windows?
> >
> > It's much easier to expand the user base if an emulator runs on what most
> > people have, and again cheaper. I think for those that need or badly want
> > the new hardware solution, it will happen regardless. I do think an
> > emulation on popular platforms opens the doors to future development and
> > more users because people don't need to go buy and learn new hardware.
> And
> > if the new hardware requires the do it yourself approach, it severely
> > limits the future new user/developer because people can't just load it up
> > and go, they have to fiddle and tinker and learn before they can even get
> > started.
> >
> > Not everyone will be happy with a single solution. But I think many would
> > be very happy if they could have their coco 4+ emulator running in a
> window
> > on their machine so they could do more than one thing at a time and not
> > have to dedicate a box to one thing or need to reboot to start it up.
> > Free's up desk space too.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > From: "Frank Pittel" <fwp at deepthought.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 9:31 AM
> > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called
> > CoCo4 or NextCoCo
> >
> > Whether running on dedicated hardware or an emulator running under an OS
> > like
> > linux or windows the "coco4" will be emulated. I have a number of issues
> > with the
> > "pc emulator" approach. The first is that I don't run windows and the
> odds
> > are
> > that any pc emulator will be a windows app. I can get around that with
> > virtualbox
> > and possibly wine but that's proven to be a major pain with vcc and so I
> > don't use
> > it.
> >
> > Aonther thing to take into consideration is that we're not the board of
> > directors
> > of a corperation that will make a decision on how to proceed and then
> > dictate that
> > decision down to be implemented. My guess is that the limit of most of
> our
> > involvement in the project will be to offer suggestions and act as
> > alpha/beta
> > testers. This means people will need to step up and actually develop the
> > "coco4".
> > To my knowledge the only work actually being done is on the fpga
> approach.
> > The
> > current goal there is to successfully and completely emulate the coco3
> and
> > when
> > that's done I'm sure features will be added and the project will evolve.
> > Much like
> > Aaron has done with drivewire. He took something that had a specific role
> > and
> > added functionality and features.
> >
> > In my never humble opinion the coco3fpga project will evolve into the
> > "coco4". If
> > for the only reason that someone stepped up and started to actually do
> it.
> >
> > The Other Frank
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:51:11AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:
> > > I agree with Steve on this. I've followed this thread and others on the
> > > topic for quite some time. I've commented a few times in the past.
> > >
> > > I really do think a good, solid emulator is the best option and here's
> my
> >
> > > reasons.
> > >
> > > 1) Can run and millions of available boxes that most people already
> have
> >
> > > and are cheap
> > > 2) Can be made "Extensible" so that add-ons can be created for it to
> > > continaully improve it. Can also be easily and cheaply upgraded without
> > > constantly spending more on hardware.
> > > 3) A card or USB device could allow simple connection to the PC to
> > connect
> > > to Coco specific devices
> > > 4) Can take advantage of PC hardware, memory, storage, etc.
> > > 5) Replacement parts are in abundance
> > > 6) Emulator will live on much longer than the hardware.
> > > 7) Software is much easier to mass produce the hardware and certainly
> > much
> > > easier and cheaper to distribute.
> > >
> > > Yes I know some whant the look and feel of a "Real Coco". Well then get
> a
> >
> > > netbook, package it in a coco case with a Coco I/O interface device to
> > hook
> > > up all the ports too. With the speed and power of today's processors
> and
> >
> > > hardware, there's absolutely no reason a well done emulator could not
> run
> >
> > > so well you would know it wasn't the real thing. William's Arcade
> > Classics
> > > that Jeff Vavasour worked on.
> > >
> > > I could go on and on. I'll just close this message with this. With the
> > > disagreements of hardware vs. emulation, the hardware side always seems
> > to
> > > go to either look and feel of the "Real Coco" or some specialized board
> > or
> > > CHIP(s) that can be used. The big issue with the hardware is, that
> > > eventually there won't be anyone with the knowledge of the Coco or the
> > > desire to keep on creating solutions in terms of products or designs
> that
> >
> > > people can do themselves if they have the skills. If someone is dead
> set
> > on
> > > designing and building some hardware solution to meet their needs and
> > > taste, more power to them. There's no reason that there must only be
> one
> >
> > > solution. Still, I think Emulation is the best choice for the reasons I
> > > mentioned and some I'm sure I've missed.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents! :)
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > From: "Steve Bjork" <6809er at srbsoftware.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:50 PM
> > > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts"
> > > Subject: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called
> > CoCo4
> > > or NextCoCo
> > >
> > > I've been watching everyone speak their minds on what the next gen CoCo
> > > should be. Pulling in four directions is getting nowhere, as some have
> > > pointed out.
> > >
> > > But you are putting the horse before the buggy, literally.
> > >
> > > I don't hear is what you are planing to use this next gen CoCo for? In
> > > other words, what will use it for when you are done?
> > >
> > > Are you trying to build a faster CoCo to run programs on?
> > >
> > > Oh, there is some talk about FPGA board approach can run programs about
> > > 10 times faster. Big deal! I can build a Linux box for the price of a
> > > FPGA board that will run software 1,000's times faster with better
> > > graphics, sound and the Internet to boot. But the FPGA board has no (or
> > > little) interface for CoCo hardware. (if I reading the messages right.)
> > > Nor will it use any modern computer technology directly. Not much of a
> > > next gen CoCo.
> > >
> > > Or are you trying to make modern technology accessible to the casual
> > > CoCo programmer?
> > >
> > > This was one of the main goals of the CoCo4.com project. (Besides
> > > making a CoCo emulator that could run on cheap modern computers.)
> > >
> > > The Super CoCo 4 BASIC was to support the new display graphic modes of
> a
> >
> > > modern Digital TV along with better and easy to use sound system. Add
> > > in an easy to use (and understand) Internet command set (under BASIC)
> so
> >
> > > you can use the internet like a hardcore net programmer.
> > >
> > > As you can see, the CoCo4.com project was all about unlocking modern
> > > computer technology in the same the computers did back in the 80's.
> > > Something that modern computer designers just don't do any more.
> > >
> > > All I'm saying is to layout just what you want the new computer to do
> > > before you put that time and $$$ into it.
> > >
> > > Steve Bjork
> > >
> > > On 11/18/2010 1:07 PM, jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> > > > Frank:
> > > >
> > > > This is my observation of where the COCO4 concept is at this point:
> > > >
> > > > The COCO4, what ever it is or will be, is like a person with ropes
> tied
> >
> > > to each arm and leg
> > > > with four horses pulling in all different directions. Right now the
> > DE-2
> > > FPGA board approach
> > > > is winning out and the rest is going to be left behind. Rip to
> shreads
> >
> > > and the pieces left for the
> > > > buzzards to pick.
> > > >
> > > > Any other idea or suggestion will probably meet with some resistance
> > and
> > > really is not totally
> > > > worth persueing. Unless it solves a personal niche, it probably is no
> > > longer worth persueing.
> > > >
> > > > just my thoughts
> > > > james
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 18 Nov 2010 at 9:41, Frank Swygert wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Still two camps -- hardware (FPGA) and software )streamlined
> > > emulator/OS
> > > >> combined). I'm of the software camp because it would be easier,
> > > cheaper,
> > > >> and quicker to accomplish. If you bought all new hardware cost would
> > be
> > > >> comparable, but even an old Pentium 1I computer can be had for a
> song
> > > >> and would still have the computing power to emulate a CoCo at a
> > > >> relatively high speed -- though there's no reason to go so far as a
> > P1
> > > >> when even P4 machines are relatively cheap now. And most of us have
> > an
> > > >> older board that would be great for this at little to no cost.
> > > >>
> > > >> What I really advocate is both -- do the streamlined emulator with
> an
> > > >> advanced DECB and use it to develop a higher level Nitros, then put
> > the
> > > >> resulting "machine" in an FPGA hardware configuration. Both would be
> > > >> compatible software wise, but for those who needed/wanted a compact
> > > >> board it could be done. Of course the emulation/OS combo would run
> > > >> easily on something like an ITX or embedded Intel board too.
> > > >>
> > > >> -------------
> > > >> It's the attempt at a "coco4" by Steve b. that's dead. The dream
> > lives
> > > >> on!! :-)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:29:28AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>> I know many would love to see a CoCo 4 come into existence, but I
> > > >>> thought
> > > >>>> the project was dead. Says it's dead on coco4.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Is there new info or activity on this, or just more discussion?
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Coco mailing list
> > > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Coco mailing list
> > > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>