[Coco] The Tri-Annual CoCo 4 Thread

[Michael Robinson]

On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 09:25 +1100, Mark McDougall wrote:
> On 13/02/2014 8:30 AM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> 
> > The assembly language of the COCO
> > is more popular I understand than the assembly language used by XT's and
> > IA32 machines.
> 
> Ummm... ?
> 
> > A COCO 4 should in theory run: Linux, Syllable, MenuetOS, and ReactOS.
> > This means 32 bit is a requirement and direct memory access hardware
> > as well as memory protection hardware are a must.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> So many conflicting and unrealistic requirements I don't even know where to 
> start. You basically describe a modern PC running a Coco emulator, except 
> for a few minor details such as ROM pack support. The 'Coco4' you describe 
> is never, ever, going to happen. It's just not.
> 
> Regards,
> 
I'm sorry you feel that way.  

None of those OSes by the way are proprietary and obviously not all of
them need to work on a COCO 4.  Nitros9 is the only OS that is really
needed on a COCO 4.  

I don't see an emulator as being what people want when they talk about a
COCO 4.  

MenuetOS could be quite difficult to port from the standpoint that it is
written entirely in IA32 assembly.  ReactOS isn't particularly stable
yet.  Syllable and Linux are in great shape, but adoption of Syllable is
slow.  

Explain to me how a faster modern 6309/6809 successor can be built
without introducing: direct memory access, interrupts, memory protection
hardware, etcetera?  For a COCO 4 to be popular, really popular, it has
to compete with Playstation 3, Wii U, and XBOX.  Unlike XBOX and
Playstation 3, a COCO 4 can have an improved version of COCO basic in
ROM and like the COCO3, a COCO4 should operate with or without a hard
disk/floppy disk/etcetera.  The biggest problem, ultimately, is the
operating system.  Build a more modern 6309/6809E plus GIME chip based
computer, this can be readily done, but the complexity of the machine
will necessarily be greater than the complexity of a COCO 3.

As far as will it be a COCO, yes if it is downward compatible and can be
operated without an OS installed on a hard drive or other low mean time
between failures media device.  A solid 32 bit OS with a GUI will fit in
32 megabytes or less.  A 128 gig SSD now is under $100.

When I got my COCO 3 as a Christmas present, it was a $2k computer.
Fortunately, the cost of memory and integrated circuits in general has
plummeted.

A 1+ Ghz computer without memory protection, hardware expansion support
via interrupts, and the ability to address 4 gigabytes or more of memory
is going to be awfully limited.  Anyone can run a COCO emulator on any
computer, but people who want a COCO 4 want something that feels simple
even if it isn't.  Emulators don't offer the same feeling that hardware
offers.

My older brother who is an electrical engineer says the COCO3 can be
cloned easily using Xylinx or Microchip or Texas Instruments processors.
I'd say that the person who is serious about cloning the COCO 3 and
going further has to first duplicate the functionality of the COCO 3 in
hardware.  It has been easily 20 years since Radio Shack stopped making
Color Computers.  Once a prototype works that provides the level
of functionality that a COCO 3 does, decide what additional 
instructions and hardware are needed and start building from that
prototype.

The market will probably accept $150-$300 US for a COCO 4.  Don't
despair, in today's tech that is more substantial than what was 
possible 20 years ago.