[Coco] Coco Digest, Vol 137, Issue 52

[Timothy Keith]

>
> Bill, my take on this is that it's a lot easier to set up an old 486
> computer with a stripped down version of DOS (maybe FreeDOS) to boot up as
> a CoCo directly. It would boot up faster and have a lot less overhead, so
> should work better on old hardware. I'm sure there are those that will
> counter that running MESS with Puppy Linux or DSL stripped down a bit
> could be as fast and efficient though. Not having Drivewire capability is
> a definite downside though. There isn't a Java for MS-DOS??
>
> I'd like to see a "CoCo Linux" that has a minimal Linux setup that will
> boot up as a virtual CoCo3+ (with  the recent enhancements) on a live CD.
> Just put it in and boot -- with the option to install as the entire OS.
> One could dual boot a system as a CoCo or Windows (or regular Linux)! It
> would be a virtual "CoCo4".
>
> I really think the FPGA system with the current enhancements (and the
> emulators which have those enhancements) should be referred to as the
> "CoCo4 enhancements" (not exactly the same as just "CoCo4"). I think those
> enhancements (Drivewire, extra memory, Becker, and the extra color mode)
> are about as far as the CoCo3 hardware model can be enhanced and still
> retain backwards compatibility with real CoCo3 hardware.
>

I agree with this concept, it would be good that the O/S natively boot
and emulate a Coco 4 without being hosted by Linux or Windows. Whether
it uses a kernel based on Linux or some other free O/S that's okay, as
long as the user first sees a NitrOs-9 prompt.