[Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?

[Mark McDougall]

On 26/11/2010 5:17 PM, RJRTTY at aol.com wrote:

> I have been following this thread too and I must say I like the coco
> as much for its limitations as for its abilities.

I'm sure we could add plenty of limitations! ;)

> I for one will not miss a Coco4 if it never happens but if
> it should I would hope it remained true to the experience
> of using a real Coco.

For me, the "Coco experience" comprises the following:

* "Running close to the metal". Instant-on is a good reminder that you're 
only ever a few hand-coded assembly instructions away from the CPU itself. 
Time is measured in CPU cycles and the difference between good code and bad 
code is measured in seconds, not nanoseconds.

* The fact that one can (theoretically) single-handedly write a piece of 
software that harnesses the full power of the machine. Every ROM subroutine, 
every GIME register, every peripheral can be understood in its entirety, by 
one person. At one time.

* Playing games that you know push the machine to its limits. Every shortcut 
was taken, every graphic compressed, every loop hand-optimised - just to 
make the game playable.

So for me, extending this experience does mean; faster, more colourful, more 
memory. But that's the extent of it. No OS that I can't possibly know 
inside-out. No CPU that I can't program in assembler. No graphics that 
require an art department to design for.

And for me, *personally*, this means no emulator. No windows running 
underneath. A physical box, flashing lights, connectors. Floppys *and* SD 
cards. TV out *and* DVI. Tandy joytsticks *and* wireless Gamecube 
controllers. The best of both worlds.

Sigh. ;)

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