[Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called CoCo4 or NextCoCo

Frank Pittel fwp at deepthought.com
Fri Nov 19 14:23:56 EST 2010 

I understand that we may never agree completely about whether or not the "coco4+"
should run on dedicated hardware or simply be an application that runs on a pc of
some sort. I think I've made my personal feelings clear. I don't understand it
completely why I like the hardware approach better but I do. I also think that for
the long term viability of a "coco4" I think there's an advantage to have it run
as a real computer then just exist as an application on a pc.

The point I was trying to make is that unless a person (realistically a group of
people) pick up the ball and start doing the work of writing software, designing
hardware, etc the "coco4" is just a pipe dream. In the case of the coco3fpga there
is work being done by a group(?) led by Gary (or is it Gary by himself?). I don't
know that anyone is actually working on writing an emulator or extending one of
the existing emulators. I've read talk about it being easy to extend mess but I
don't know that anyone has done.

As a non-software developer, fpga desginer, etc my ability to assist is limited to
acting as a tester and offering feature requests. I'm sure that if someone picked
up the ball and started working on a pc app/emulator that good ideas will migrate
between the two. Personally I would like to see both.

The Other Frank


On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:32:10AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:
> Well as I said, there may be more than one soution that could come out. 
> Seems to me that the work is increased quite a bit if new hardware must 
> created and an emulator still writen to support that hardware. That's 
> double the work, or at least a bunch more work. Also, so the PC and Windows 
> and Linux are massively available and widely supported, it's much more 
> efficent and practical to leverage them. What happens when that spcial 
> hardware that is created can't be found anymore and no one steps up to 
> create the next new solution because a few don't like the PC and/or 
> windows? 
> 
> It's much easier to expand the user base if an emulator runs on what most 
> people have, and again cheaper. I think for those that need or badly want 
> the new hardware solution, it will happen regardless. I do think an 
> emulation on popular platforms opens the doors to future development and 
> more users because people don't need to go buy and learn new hardware. And 
> if the new hardware requires the do it yourself approach, it severely 
> limits the future new user/developer because people can't just load it up 
> and go, they have to fiddle and tinker and learn before they can even get 
> started.
> 
> Not everyone will be happy with a single solution. But I think many would 
> be very happy if they could have their coco 4+ emulator running in a window 
> on their machine so they could do more than one thing at a time and not 
> have to dedicate a box to one thing or need to reboot to start it up. 
> Free's up desk space too.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> From: "Frank Pittel" <fwp at deepthought.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 9:31 AM
> To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called 
> CoCo4 or NextCoCo 
> 
> Whether running on dedicated hardware or an emulator running under an OS 
> like
> linux or windows the "coco4" will be emulated. I have a number of issues 
> with the
> "pc emulator" approach. The first is that I don't run windows and the odds 
> are
> that any pc emulator will be a windows app. I can get around that with 
> virtualbox
> and possibly wine but that's proven to be a major pain with vcc and so I 
> don't use
> it.
> 
> Aonther thing to take into consideration is that we're not the board of 
> directors
> of a corperation that will make a decision on how to proceed and then 
> dictate that
> decision down to be implemented. My guess is that the limit of most of our
> involvement in the project will be to offer suggestions and act as 
> alpha/beta
> testers. This means people will need to step up and actually develop the 
> "coco4".
> To my knowledge the only work actually being done is on the fpga approach. 
> The
> current goal there is to successfully and completely emulate the coco3 and 
> when
> that's done I'm sure features will be added and the project will evolve. 
> Much like
> Aaron has done with drivewire. He took something that had a specific role 
> and
> added functionality and features.
> 
> In my never humble opinion the coco3fpga project will evolve into the 
> "coco4". If
> for the only reason that someone stepped up and started to actually do it.
> 
> The Other Frank
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:51:11AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:
> > I agree with Steve on this. I've followed this thread and others on the 
> > topic for quite some time. I've commented a few times in the past.
> > 
> > I really do think a good, solid emulator is the best option and here's my 
> 
> > reasons.
> > 
> > 1) Can run and millions of available boxes that most people already have 
> 
> > and are cheap
> > 2) Can be made "Extensible" so that add-ons can be created for it to 
> > continaully improve it. Can also be easily and cheaply upgraded without 
> > constantly spending more on hardware.
> > 3) A card or USB device could allow simple connection to the PC to 
> connect 
> > to Coco specific devices
> > 4) Can take advantage of PC hardware, memory, storage, etc.
> > 5) Replacement parts are in abundance
> > 6) Emulator will live on much longer than the hardware.
> > 7) Software is much easier to mass produce the hardware and certainly 
> much 
> > easier and cheaper to distribute.
> > 
> > Yes I know some whant the look and feel of a "Real Coco". Well then get a 
> 
> > netbook, package it in a coco case with a Coco I/O interface device to 
> hook 
> > up all the ports too. With the speed and power of today's processors and 
> 
> > hardware, there's absolutely no reason a well done emulator could not run 
> 
> > so well you would know it wasn't the real thing. William's Arcade 
> Classics 
> > that Jeff Vavasour worked on.
> > 
> > I could go on and on. I'll just close this message with this. With the 
> > disagreements of hardware vs. emulation, the hardware side always seems 
> to 
> > go to either look and feel of the "Real Coco" or some specialized board 
> or 
> > CHIP(s) that can be used. The big issue with the hardware is, that 
> > eventually there won't be anyone with the knowledge of the Coco or the 
> > desire to keep on creating solutions in terms of products or designs that 
> 
> > people can do themselves if they have the skills. If someone is dead set 
> on 
> > designing and building some hardware solution to meet their needs and 
> > taste, more power to them. There's no reason that there must only be one 
> 
> > solution. Still, I think Emulation is the best choice for the reasons I 
> > mentioned and some I'm sure I've missed.
> > 
> > My 2 cents! :)
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 
> > From: "Steve Bjork" <6809er at srbsoftware.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:50 PM
> > To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" 
> > Subject: [Coco] Why do a next Gen CoCo? was Any news on the so called 
> CoCo4 
> > or NextCoCo 
> > 
> > I've been watching everyone speak their minds on what the next gen CoCo 
> > should be. Pulling in four directions is getting nowhere, as some have 
> > pointed out.
> > 
> > But you are putting the horse before the buggy, literally.
> > 
> > I don't hear is what you are planing to use this next gen CoCo for? In 
> > other words, what will use it for when you are done?
> > 
> > Are you trying to build a faster CoCo to run programs on?
> > 
> > Oh, there is some talk about FPGA board approach can run programs about 
> > 10 times faster. Big deal! I can build a Linux box for the price of a 
> > FPGA board that will run software 1,000's times faster with better 
> > graphics, sound and the Internet to boot. But the FPGA board has no (or 
> > little) interface for CoCo hardware. (if I reading the messages right.) 
> > Nor will it use any modern computer technology directly. Not much of a 
> > next gen CoCo.
> > 
> > Or are you trying to make modern technology accessible to the casual 
> > CoCo programmer?
> > 
> > This was one of the main goals of the CoCo4.com project. (Besides 
> > making a CoCo emulator that could run on cheap modern computers.)
> > 
> > The Super CoCo 4 BASIC was to support the new display graphic modes of a 
> 
> > modern Digital TV along with better and easy to use sound system. Add 
> > in an easy to use (and understand) Internet command set (under BASIC) so 
> 
> > you can use the internet like a hardcore net programmer.
> > 
> > As you can see, the CoCo4.com project was all about unlocking modern 
> > computer technology in the same the computers did back in the 80's. 
> > Something that modern computer designers just don't do any more.
> > 
> > All I'm saying is to layout just what you want the new computer to do 
> > before you put that time and $$$ into it.
> > 
> > Steve Bjork
> > 
> > On 11/18/2010 1:07 PM, jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> > > Frank:
> > >
> > > This is my observation of where the COCO4 concept is at this point:
> > >
> > > The COCO4, what ever it is or will be, is like a person with ropes tied 
> 
> > to each arm and leg
> > > with four horses pulling in all different directions. Right now the 
> DE-2 
> > FPGA board approach
> > > is winning out and the rest is going to be left behind. Rip to shreads 
> 
> > and the pieces left for the
> > > buzzards to pick.
> > >
> > > Any other idea or suggestion will probably meet with some resistance 
> and 
> > really is not totally
> > > worth persueing. Unless it solves a personal niche, it probably is no 
> > longer worth persueing.
> > >
> > > just my thoughts
> > > james
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 Nov 2010 at 9:41, Frank Swygert wrote:
> > >
> > >> Still two camps -- hardware (FPGA) and software )streamlined 
> > emulator/OS
> > >> combined). I'm of the software camp because it would be easier, 
> > cheaper,
> > >> and quicker to accomplish. If you bought all new hardware cost would 
> be
> > >> comparable, but even an old Pentium 1I computer can be had for a song
> > >> and would still have the computing power to emulate a CoCo at a
> > >> relatively high speed -- though there's no reason to go so far as a 
> P1
> > >> when even P4 machines are relatively cheap now. And most of us have 
> an
> > >> older board that would be great for this at little to no cost.
> > >>
> > >> What I really advocate is both -- do the streamlined emulator with an
> > >> advanced DECB and use it to develop a higher level Nitros, then put 
> the
> > >> resulting "machine" in an FPGA hardware configuration. Both would be
> > >> compatible software wise, but for those who needed/wanted a compact
> > >> board it could be done. Of course the emulation/OS combo would run
> > >> easily on something like an ITX or embedded Intel board too.
> > >>
> > >> -------------
> > >> It's the attempt at a "coco4" by Steve b. that's dead. The dream 
> lives
> > >> on!! :-)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:29:28AM -0800, Steve Batson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> I know many would love to see a CoCo 4 come into existence, but I
> > >>> thought
> > >>>> the project was dead. Says it's dead on coco4.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is there new info or activity on this, or just more discussion?
> > >>>>
> > 
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> 
>  
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

More information about the Coco mailing list