[Coco] Why do we need a CoCo 4? (Long irrelevant rant)

[Bill Barnes]

Only prob with skipping TCP/IP it is that is a lower layer and is needed for HTML, FTP, Gopher, Telnet, etc.  If you use that "Pee-Cee" to handle that, and use the Coco as a terminal., fine, if you want the fancy gfx of HTTP, umm a CoCo3 would work as long as the gfx details were lowered... It would still be r-e-a-l-l-y s--l--o--w to render it all.

-Later!   -WB-    -- BABIC Computer Consulting.


--- On Mon, 12/29/08, BookWorm <bookworm at cavenet.com> wrote:

> From: BookWorm <bookworm at cavenet.com>
> Subject: [Coco] Why do we need a CoCo 4? (Long irrelevant rant)
> To: coco at maltedmedia.com
> Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:05 PM
> Who needs a CoCo 4/5/6/257.3/etc.?
> 
... 
> A new GIME chip might be practical. So would a web browser.
> If TCP/IP is to 
> much, skip it for now, and just do HTML. With CoCoNet, we
> can get online 
> through a $#%& pee sea, so why not take it a step
> further and display a page? 
> Or use DOS Lynx, like a shell account in the old days?
>