emjej@uokvax.UUCP (06/03/86)
/* Written 1:48 am May 30, 1986 by ecs160s002@ucdavis.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.micro.6809 */ > Has anyone heard anything more about the still rumored CoCo III? Out here > in the sticks of Oregon, we haven't heard much except that some Radio Shacks > got price and/or availability lists. What's the scoop with this rumored OS-9 > Level II machine? > > Stan Dolson > ..!tektronix!omssw2!argent!safari!stan > ..!tektronix!reed!omen!bucket!stand > ..!tektronix!reed!omen!bucket!percival!stanleyd The "CoCo III" is a farce. As far as I know, Tandy is quietly dropping the CoCo into the abyss and doesn't care much what we think about it. They have said in their newsletter that they will not be releasing a 68k machine, so even if they do release a new machine it will still have the same limits as the CoCo does, even with n 6829's. The PC is still 16 bits wide and no change in "addressable" memory will change the fact that we can not run any sizable program. I do not WANT to worry about splitting up a large program just right so that the modules will fit correctly into memory. The operating system should do this or the memory should be large enough. Either way, the CoCo is pretty obsolete (no flames please, I am just being honest. I like the thing, but I recognize its limitations). - Mark Nagel ...!{ucbvax,dual,lll-crg}!ucdavis!deneb!u572112244ea /* End of text from uokvax.UUCP:net.micro.6809 */
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (06/03/86)
/* Written 1:48 am May 30, 1986 by ecs160s002@ucdavis.UUCP in net.micro.6809 */ >The "CoCo III" is a farce. As far as I know, Tandy is quietly dropping the >CoCo into the abyss and doesn't care much what we think about it. This is inconsistent with the information I have heard, which claims that the new machine will be out in August 1986. The exact statement from the Tandy Newsletter is that no new CoCo would come out in spring 1986. (Please note that I am not defending Tandy in any way, and I don't disagree with the proposition that Tandy was stupid beyond belief to not have come out with a better 6809-based computer years ago.) >They have >said in their newsletter that they will not be releasing a 68k machine, so >even if they do release a new machine it will still have the same limits >as the CoCo does, even with n 6829's. They already have a 68K-based computer; it may not have reasonable graphics, and they don't sell a decent OS for it, but it exists. (I agree, though, that a 68K-based machine with good graphics and OS-9 would be ideal.) A new CoCo would have those limitations inherent in the 6809, but would not have all those of the current CoCo. PDP-11s have gotten along for a while with 64K per process... >I do not WANT to worry about splitting up a large program >just right so that the modules will fit correctly into memory. The operating >system should do this or the memory should be large enough. Either way, the >CoCo is pretty obsolete (no flames please, I am just being honest. I like the >thing, but I recognize its limitations). While I can understand your sentiments, and deplore Tandy's joining the bandwagon of International BM TLs (see *The Joys of Yiddish* for the definition of "TL"), one can nevertheless do a great deal with a 6809, and an improved CoCo would be by far the least expensive reasonable multitasking system one could buy. James Jones /* End of text from net.micro.6809 */
knudsen@ihwpt.UUCP (mike knudsen) (06/06/86)
> A new CoCo would have those limitations inherent in the 6809, but would not > have all those of the current CoCo. PDP-11s have gotten along for a while > with 64K per process... > > While I can understand your sentiments, and deplore Tandy's joining the > bandwagon of International BM TLs (see *The Joys of Yiddish* for the > definition of "TL"), one can nevertheless do a great deal with a 6809, > and an improved CoCo would be by far the least expensive reasonable > multitasking system one could buy. > James Jones One thing that worries me about a Level II 6809 system is that the standard Motorola chip for this adds another cycle to every memory access. Since the 6809 already wastes one cycle internally for every access (relative to the 6502 and to common sense necessity, not counting the second cycle wasted on adding backwards bytes in indexed addresses), a Level II Coco would be really slow. Of course the clock speed could be doubled (if some new graphics chip were used besides 6847) which would more than compensate. Also, it seems that TTL logic could be used to build an MMU or DAT that would be fast enough to avoid missing a cycle; this logic could be put in a gate array or PAL. This would require Tandy to do some original design work of their own -- an event less likely (and maybe less desirable?) than World War III. (OK, that's unfair -- the Coco cassette interface, easily the best ever produced, was *not* copied out of the Motorola book.) Still wondering why Tandy didn't put a CTRL key and lower case in the Coco years ago, plus monitor output -- these could have been easily added to newer models without interfering with older hardware/software or user habits. mike k Coco is a beach near Cape Canaveral. Tandy is a euphemism for Radio Shack.
djfiander@watnot.UUCP (David J. Fiander) (06/06/86)
> >>They have >>said in their newsletter that they will not be releasing a 68k machine, so >>even if they do release a new machine it will still have the same limits >>as the CoCo does, even with n 6829's. > >They already have a 68K-based computer; it may not have reasonable graphics, >and they don't sell a decent OS for it, but it exists. (I agree, though, >that a 68K-based machine with good graphics and OS-9 would be ideal.) I find it interesting that a USENET user thinks that UN*X SYS V (which is the OS on tandy's 68K machine) isn't a decent OS <:->. Oh, well. Maybe you would prefer that it ran CP-M68K :-? -- UUCP : {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watnot!djfiander CSNET : djfiander%watnot@waterloo.CSNET ARPA : djfiander%watnot%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA BITNET: djfiande@watdcs
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (06/09/86)
In <insert magic # here> watnot!djfiander says... >I find it interesting that a USENET user thinks that UN*X SYS V (which is >the OS on tandy's 68K machine) isn't a decent OS <:->. Oh, well. Maybe >you would prefer that it ran CP-M68K :-? I use USENET because it's there. For personal computers, OS-9 is vastly preferable to Unix. James Jones
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (06/10/86)
Mark Nagel said that he felt that a CoCo III would be a "farce".
The Commodore C128 has sold over 600,000 units world-wide since its
introduction. A CoCo III running OS-9 Level II, reasonably well designed
(not even an exceptional implimentation) would be a far more potent
machine and could easily account for a substantial chunk of sales.
A machine that makes money is no farce.
Besides, I prefer the 6809 over the 68000. It gives the impression
of being more orthogonal.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
(416) 652-3880ecs160s045@ucdavis.UUCP (Mark Nagel) (06/10/86)
> > Mark Nagel said that he felt that a CoCo III would be a "farce". > The Commodore C128 has sold over 600,000 units world-wide since its > introduction. A CoCo III running OS-9 Level II, reasonably well designed > (not even an exceptional implimentation) would be a far more potent > machine and could easily account for a substantial chunk of sales. > A machine that makes money is no farce. > > Besides, I prefer the 6809 over the 68000. It gives the impression > of being more orthogonal. > > Cheers! -- Jim O. > > -- > James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto > ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura > Byte Information eXchange: jimomura > (416) 652-3880 I did *not* say that the CoCo III would be a farce - I said that the fact that Tandy would ever release one is a farce. Apparently, the rumor mill is still running and some people believe that Tandy will actually produce a new CoCo - maybe they will and maybe they won't. The fact is that if they do now, they will be way behind the game with the Amiga and Atari ST picking up most of the sales. I also don't see how you can call the 6809 instruction set orthogonal as compared to the 68000. The 68000 is a superset of the PDP-11 which is by far more orthogonal than the 6809. For instance, I can not auto-increment one of the 6809's "general registers", only the index regs. The 68000 has a *very* orthogonal instruction set. - Mark Nagel ...!{ucbvax,dual,lll-crg}!ucdavis!524789610rmd
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (06/14/86)
In article <372@ucdavis.UUCP> ecs160s045@ucdavis.UUCP (Mark Nagel) writes: [Mark correct's my misunderstanding where I thought he said that a CoCo III would be a "farce" wherein he *actually* said] >that Tandy would ever release one is a farce. Apparently, the rumor mill is >still running and some people believe that Tandy will actually produce a >new CoCo - maybe they will and maybe they won't. The fact is that if they do >now, they will be way behind the game with the Amiga and Atari ST picking up >most of the sales. I also don't see how you can call the 6809 instruction >set orthogonal as compared to the 68000. The 68000 is a superset of the >PDP-11 which is by far more orthogonal than the 6809. For instance, I can >not auto-increment one of the 6809's "general registers", only the index >regs. The 68000 has a *very* orthogonal instruction set. Sure you can auto-inc and auto-dec the X and Y registers. See Leventhal's 6809 Assembly Language Programming at pp 3-30 to 3-34. In fact, you can even do indirect addressing with auto-inc and auto-dec. On the otherhand, long relative addressing for full 32 bit addressing isn't well done on the 68000. The 68020 looks complete (I haven't really studied either processor in depth, but the '020 had more and possibly all combinations covered). -- James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura (416) 652-3880
phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) (06/18/86)
(Actually a reply to Mark Nagel, whose article I never saw save as excerpted by Jim Omura - now watch it arrive here tomorrow!) > In article <372@ucdavis.UUCP> ecs160s045@ucdavis.UUCP (Mark Nagel) writes: > > > I also don't see how you can call the 6809 instruction > >set orthogonal as compared to the 68000. The 68000 is a superset of the > >PDP-11 which is by far more orthogonal than the 6809. > Yes, the PDP-11 instruction set is very nicely orthogonal. However, that does *not* mean that making the 68k instruction set a superset of it made it just as (or even more) orthogonal. In fact, the 68k instruction set has many non-orthogonal "extensions" which make it, to my mind, less orthogonal than the PDP-11, and certainly not the 32-bit-PDP-11-extension I was expecting from all the advance hype. I was happy to stick with my MACRO-11. Phil Kos The Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD "Sound of the thunder with the rain pouring down And it looks like the old man's getting on." - Robert Hunter