[Coco] Coco 1 vs Coco 2 software compatibility

[David Ladd]

Ron,

Just so you know the CoCo 1 as far as the bitbanger goes can be fixed.  You
can upgrade the Op-Amp that drives the bitbanger with a faster version.
This will allow it to work at the same speeds as the CoCo 2.

As far as a replacement/updated part# for the Op-Amp hopefully someone that
has it offhand can chime in.


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| David Ladd a.k.a. PacoOtaktay a.k.a. Drencor                          |
| YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PacoOtaktay                      |
| YouTube Gaming Live: https://gaming.youtube.com/user/PacoOtaktay/live |
| Websites: http://dwladd.com     &     http://www.theterrorzone.com    |
| G+:  https://plus.google.com/113262444659438038657                    |
| G+:  https://plus.google.com/+DavidLaddPacoOtaktay                    |
|                                                                       |
| Do you have your CoCo 3 yet?                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Ron Klein <ron at kdomain.org> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> I should have mentioned I have the "F" board version of the Coco 1 that I
> upgraded to 64K (I hear it's the easiest Coco 1 version to upgrade).  Now
> that you mention it, I do recall the baud rate being slower for Drivewire
> use but didn't know why.  Thanks for mentioning that.  I would be
> interested to understand the reasons for the limitation of the Coco 1 baud
> rate (vs Coco 2) when using Drivewire so I hope someone that does know can
> respond.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Bill Pierce via Coco <
> coco at maltedmedia.com
> > wrote:
>
> > There's a difference in the bitbanger. That's the reason there's Coco1
> and
> > Coco2 versions of HDBDOS and NitrOS9 with Drivewire. Due to differences
> in
> > the chip, the Coco 1 can't do the baud rates that the Coco2 can.
> > I'm not sure what the exact differences are, but others will probably
> > elaborate.
> > Also, earlier models of the Coco 1 didn't handle the 64k upgrade well. I
> > think the "F" board (the last Coco 1?) was the first Coco 1 "officially"
> > setup for the 64k upgrade (I may be wrong on this one).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill Pierce
> > "Charlie stole the handle, and the train it won't stop going, no way to
> > slow down!" - Ian Anderson - Jethro Tull
> >
> > My Music from the Tandy/Radio Shack Color Computer 2 & 3
> > https://sites.google.com/site/dabarnstudio/
> > Co-Contributor, Co-Editor for CocoPedia
> > http://www.cocopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> >
> > E-Mail: ooogalapasooo at aol.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Klein <ron at kdomain.org>
> > To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> > Sent: Wed, May 24, 2017 12:00 pm
> > Subject: [Coco] Coco 1 vs Coco 2 software compatibility
> >
> > Hello everyone,Does anyone know of any _significant_ software
> > incompatibilities between a64K (Disk) Extended Color Basic Coco 1 and a
> 64K
> > (Disk) Extended ColorBasic Coco 2?  Not looking for anything related to
> > OS9/NitrOS9.  The onlything I can think of is perhaps any software
> written
> > to take advantage ofthe "T1" based video chip in some Coco 2's for
> > lowercase.  I do realizethere are many hardware differences, but focused
> on
> > software for now.Thanks!-Ron-- Coco mailing listCoco at maltedmedia.comhttps
> :
> > //pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> >
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>