[Coco] How many CoCos made, compare to C64

[Frank Swygert]

Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:29:40 -0800
From: Timothy Keith<timothy.g.keith at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Coco] Coco Digest, Vol 104, Issue 33

We've discussed this before -- I don't recall the estimated number of CoCos (all models total), but think it was around a million. Maybe that was a million CC3s though... if that's the case there could have been two million CoCos made counting all models. Include Brazillian and a couple other South American, at least one European (I think) and a Korean clones and there likely was closer to two million made, but nothing like the numbers of the C64. The CoCo was made to more or less compete with the C64, but marketing was very different. It wasn't marketed as THE computer for a family, it was marketed as a stepping stone to a more powerful (and expensive/profitable) computer. That's one reason Tandy never really pushed it. They could have, and sold more, but it would have cut into sales of their low end PC line, which they made more money on. Once you put a complete CoCo3 system together with monitor, multi-pak and a couple disc drives you were very close to the price of a Tandy 1000 MX/SX, and they had a small hard drive too. In many respects the CoCo was just as much computer for the money, but there just wasn't enough profit in selling them, especially in the late 80s when the "home computer" market collapsed. I think the CoCo3 was versatile enough that Tandy could have continued selling it as an experimenter's/beginner's machine, but the numbers couldn't be kept up at the prices they had to charge. The only way to keep it going would have been to go to way more integration to lower costs, but I don't think the market of the time would support it. Tandy would have had to go into the easily programmable controller business to support sales, not just consumer products. Many companies did buy CoCos to use as inexpensive controllers, but they bought the consumer products (or just populated boards from the Tandy parts division) and modded them as needed. More integration would also mean a lot fewer hacks/mods later. The integrated GIME chip has stalled further video development as it is.

A lot of the mods made for the C64 HAVE been made for the CoCo. There simply isn't much use for some of them. Part of the "problem" is the much smaller user base. The CoCo community has things like Drivewire and CoCoNet to use a PC as a drive server (and other things). Hooking up to a USB peripheral is relatively easy, writing drivers/software to support a USB device is a different story. The C-64 USB device is simply a drive replacement -- it won't support printers or anything else, just a thumb drive. Then a special version of C64 BASIC is needed to use it, so you can't use a lot of software with it. "We" already have CF and SD card readers available for about the same cost as the USB drive -- no point. USB printers are generally "dumb" devices that count on the PC processor and driver to make them work. That's way too much load for a CoCo! You might be able to make printing a two step process -- save the formatted file (not just ASCII text) with a word processor then run a program that would be just a printer driver to pull the file in and send it to the printer. Not very convenient, but I suppose it would work, but only for a few printers (I'd target HP/compatible inkjets and lasers). A lot of projects just aren't practical, or are reinventing the wheel for no othere reason than to see if it can be done. Great for experimenting/learning, not necessarily for a product that might have a handful of buyers, and especially not something that competes (even indirectly) with an existing product. There needs to be a certain number sold to make something worth the time and effort even to create a DIY circuit board.

PCs are just too cheap now! Buy a P4 and run an emulator. That doesn't help the hardware side, but does leave the software side wide open for improvement. You are right about one thing -- the CoCo is much easier to program and develop hardware for than the C64. CoCo BASIC is more powerful (except for sound -- the C64 has the CoCo beat there!) and easier to work with. The hardware is fully documented and rather easy to work with, depending on just what you're doing. The only hardware drawback is that the cartridge port isn't buffered, so you can blow out the 6809 processor. The 6809 is relatively cheap though, so socketing the MB and buying a few spares is a viable solution if you intend to work with the cartridge port a lot. There's a lot you can do with the joystick, bit banger, and even cassette port though.


----------------------------

> Welcome "back" Tim! I'm no longer using a CoCo, but still have a couple and keep up with the list. You might want to start by dwonloading "Tandy's little Wonder" from the site archives (ftp://maltedmedia.com/coco/MAGAZINES/Tandy's  Little Wonder/Cocobook-TLW2.pdf).
>
I have read that were were between 20 and 30 million Commodore 64s
manufactured.   How many Cocos were made ?  I also read that the
original Coco was very
similar to the 6809 reference implementation board that Motorola
created for evaluation by OEMs.  Tandy did not get as creative with
the Coco as they could have, which I think means that the Coco doesn't
have as many custom ASICs as the C64. The Coco is a pretty clean
design.  That there are millions more C-64s built than Cocos, is
probably why there seems to be more cool Commodore projects.  The
stock C-64 had better sound and graphics than the original Coco, but I
think the Coco hardware hackers could probably go a little further
than the C-64. Back in the day, the 1541 disk drive was not very good,
the Coco had a more standard drive, but none of that matters much now.
  If you haven't done so, Google Commodore 64 hardware projects.
They're still pretty actively updating their simple 6502 box.  I think
most of what has been done for the C-64 could be done for the Coco.
In one Commodore blog it is claimed that USB support was added in a
couple weeks.  I have no idea how these mods are done, or what value
these mods really add to the C-64, but its fun to read of the ongoing
enthusiasm for the classic 8-bit home system.  It helps that there are
a gazillion C64s out there.  I'm not a hardware person, but I'd like
to learn a little more.  I think that in a few years thousands of
iPhones will be resting in the back of desk drawers, maybe they'll
still be cool, but likely not used. Its got to be easier to mod the
Coco than the new stuff.  One web site claims to be powered by a
Commodore 64.  No doubt that HTTP is simple, especially when the
content is static. There is a decade old Ethernet cartridge project
for the C-64 that supports connecting to the Internet. Does similar
hardware and TCP/IP stack exist for the Coco?   Its fun hobby stuff,
some of the C64 projects are described as if it is rather simple.

-- 
Frank Swygert
Publisher, "American Motors Cars"
Magazine (AMC)
For all AMC enthusiasts
http://www.amc-mag.com
(free download available!)