[Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo?

[Steve Ostrom]

This discussion is great.  I was so hoping Steve Bjork's Coco4 project would 
work, and was disappointed when it was abandoned.  If we do come up with a 
"better" Coco, please do not forget the old semi-graphics modes.  Many 
really great software programs were written for these old graphics modes, 
such as Mark Data's Cave Hunter.

-- Steve --



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Bjork" <6809er at srbsoftware.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo?


> Mark,
>
> Remember, the CoCo4 Project did include an CoCo1/2/3 emulator that would 
> work most Color Computer without any mods.
> But the emulator did not stop there.  You could also could also use the 
> optional I/O card to hookup CoCo Joysticks, Floppy Disk controller card 
> and other devices to the CoCo 4 system.  The I/O card would have its own 
> Micro-CPU chip to talk to the CoCo hardware and USB interface to the PC. 
> Best of all, it was deign to fit inside a CoCo case and use the CoCo 
> keyboard.  It would look and work just like a CoCo 3.
>
> A new project that I've been toying with over the past few months (since 
> all work has stop of the CoCo 4 project) is a Western Digital Floppy Disk 
> controller emulator.  Instead of emulating the Floppy drive as others have 
> done, I would emulate the WDFC data to the CPU.  Any program could work 
> with the device without any mods.
>
> For the CoCo, the device would be about the size of a rom pak and 
> interface into a PC as a USB device.  Its operation would be like 
> DriveWire without the need to mod DECB or OS-9.  An OS-9 driver could be 
> written to talk to the device in a "native" mode for faster byte 
> transfers.  (And be upto 8 times faster than drive wire too.)
>
> The plan is to create a working device to the CoCo first and then release 
> the design to public domain for others to use with their non-coco systems.
>
> Steve Bjork
>
> On 11/18/2010 4:16 PM, Mark McDougall wrote:
>> Anything beyond what Steve is describing is, IMHO, so far removed from a 
>> Coco as to be pointless. I'm not 100% sure of Steve's specifications but 
>> I would imagine that his BASIC language is more of an extension to DECB 
>> than a completely new language?!?
>>
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>