[Coco] What would a CoCo successor have to have as a minimum?

Erturk Kocalar erturkk at kocalar.com
Wed Nov 24 21:31:15 EST 2010

As a newcomer to coco, it's been interesting and educational to read all the comments and view points.

I thought I should add mine too :)

The next generation of coco should carry the spirit of coco3 further.

what are the unique features that make coco3 awesome?  what makes it unique compared to other 8bit computers?  How would you describe coco 3 to the world?  

To give an example, I do have a lot of experience on commodore 64.  To somebody else, I can summarize c64 as i) good graphics, ii) good sound and iii) lots of games.  Based on these, Amiga500 was a good next step.

So for coco, so far I know of, 6809 and high-end OS's.  what else?

Last, compatibility is a gray subject.  It is very important for transition but could hinder in the long run. I am thinking of, one extreme is windows & intel (everything is compatible); the other extreme is apple - (compatibility during the transition.).  Which is better?  It looks like both paths worked.


On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:49 AM, Steve Batson wrote:

> Man! Lot's of different ideas here!
> Just wanted to add my 2 cents. Some seem to be willing to leave 
> compatibility behind or drop it at the CoCo 3 level. Does that really make 
> sense? If you drop compatibility, there goes a huge sofware base which 
> means you have this new computer with limited stuff to run on it and it 
> will not be that appealing to nearly as many. The reason the PC has been so 
> popular, is that it maintained compatibility with most software and a lot 
> of hardware. Apple with the New Intel iMacs did the same thing in 
> maintaining compatibility. They did an awesome job in going from the 
> PowerPC to the Intel Processors, rewrote the OS with the Rosetta Emulator 
> or Simulator or what ever you want to call it and it runs the PowerPC based 
> apps automatically. The new Macs are basically PC motherboards.
> I know this thread is focused on the hardware so I will stick with the 
> hardware side :)
> The question I have is, if a new system is going to be bult, why limit it 
> like many have been taking about? Many have been suggesting designs that 
> are more powerful than a CoCo, but still limited by today's hardware 
> standards. Why do you want to build a computer that probably should have 
> been built 10 or 15 years ago. Build a more up to date system with today's 
> hardware capabilities (more memory, better graphics, fast processors, etc.) 
> and make it compatible with the CoCo's so that the software base is not 
> left been behind.
> How about building a CoCo 4 board or device that plugs into a PC and 
> leaverage all the PC Hardware somehow. Might require some type of basic OS 
> or Loader to make it work.
> It just seems that many of the ideas people are throwing out are causing 
> concern because of the cost. Why design something that one is going to 
> build or buy because of cost?
> Just wondering. I'd buy something that is reasonable, works well and has 
> support. But not If it's over priced or not compatible with a good software 
> base. As a PC and Mac owner, I'm not going to want to go on to yet another 
> system just because it's called a CoCo 4.
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

More information about the Coco mailing list