csantiag@potpourri.UUCP (Carlos Santiago) (12/01/87)
I believe that if the CoCo is to survive 10 years, some great
improvements must be made in the graphics hardware, memory and the
system components.
The greatest problem is that A full blown coco system is made of too
many parts i.e. coco, disk ctlr., MPI.... These system components must be
integrated into one package, and some kind of standard bus should be added.
The MPI is just an extension of the ROM port, if some standard bus was
created much faster controller boards could be designed that would not slow
the microprocessor down.
In order to meet the demand of todays graphics environments, the
coco graphics hardware must be enhanced to support hardware windows and
dma to move large blocks of display memory. These enhancements will off
load the 6809 and increase the overall performance of the coco.
Expanding the total memory from 512k to 1 or 2 meg will be a requirement
to run large programs and graphics intensive applications in the future.
--
Gould, CSD, Home of the Firebreathers
The opinions expressed are my own.
...uunet!gould!csantiago
...mcnc!rti-sel!gould!potpourri!csantiagkoonce@wheatena (tim koonce) (12/05/87)
A lot of people have been talking about the need to expand the CoCo's memory from 512k to several meg. As I see it, the problem with memory right now is _not_ the 512k total memory limit, but the 64k per-process limit. Level 2 does not allow any easy access to large amounts of memory. What is needed is either 1) dynamic instantiation of data objects under Level 2 (What I mean here is a call which is "Create a new data module with this name and this size". Then programs could simply ask for a lot of data modules to be created and link/unlink to manage very large data spaces. This would still not directly address the code size limit, though, but that can be gotten around with multiple parallel processes communicating throught data modules, or pipes, or... Such a capability *could* be added, without too much trouble.), or 2) a change of processor to one with a large linear address space, i.e. a 680x0. More memory is of dubious usefulness under the other limitations imposed by OS9 and the 6809. As for greater graphics resolution, things can get unpleasant for the graphics programmer if graphics screens exceed about 40k, since then you can't fit the graphics routines and all of the screen memory into a single address space. Simple tasks like drawing lines can then get pretty complicated. Basically, I feel that the days of the 6809-based CoCo are numbered. I like the computer for its capabilities for the price, but I don't think that large increases in memory or graphics capability are reasonable without a change of processor. What I would like to see is a dual-processor 6809/68000 system, that would allow you to run Level 2, with the 68k as an i/o processor, or OSK with the 6809 as an i/o processor, or even OSK with Level 2 in a window!! Tim Koonce +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |ARPA: koonce@bosco.berkeley.edu | | |Delphi: TIMKOONCE CIS:72276,1135 | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
wheels@mks.UUCP (12/08/87)
In article <1447@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, koonce@wheatena (tim koonce) writes: > A lot of people have been talking about the need to expand the > CoCo's memory from 512k to several meg. > [.....] > or 2) a change of processor to one with a large linear > address space, i.e. a 680x0. A Coco with lots of memory and good graphics is called an Atari St. Please, no flames! I have one of each (coco and ST), and the ST is a good upgrade for the coco. Both use Motorola processors, both will run OS9, both are inexpensive compared to equivalents, and both are popular home systems. It's hard to see Radio Shack making any more mods to the coco. But then, I was surprised when they made the coco 3, so who knows? -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 43 Bridgeport Rd. E. BIX: mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2J4 CompuServe: 73260,1043
dml@loral.UUCP (Dave Lewis) (12/09/87)
In article <1447@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> koonce@bosco.UUCP (tim koonce) writes: > > A lot of people have been talking about the need to expand the >CoCo's memory from 512k to several meg. As I see it, the problem with >memory right now is _not_ the 512k total memory limit, but the 64k >per-process limit..... > ....a change of processor to one with a large linear >address space, i.e. a 680x0. More memory is of dubious usefulness >under the other limitations imposed by OS9 and the 6809. > ....discusses other limitations of the CoCo3.... So, what you want is a 68000-based machine (possibly with options to add 68010/020/030) that can be expanded to 4 megs or more, hardware-assisted video, built-in disk controller, and more I/O. Such a machine is already available; it's called the Amiga. DON'T TRY TO MAKE A LAMBOURGHINI OUT OF A FORD! The Color Computer is what it always was: a low-cost computer with enough power and features for the serious home user. It's not a CAD workstation, a professional programmer's development station, or a desktop video engine. The 'enhancements' you recommend would price it right out of its market. Do you seriously think such a machine could sell for less than $600? I don't. I think it would compete directly with the Amiga 500, and suffer the enormous disadvantage of being upwardly compatible with a "toy" instead of downwardly compatible with some really advanced hardware (the Amiga 1000 and 2000). ("toy" is not my term; it's from the ignorant bean-counter types that buy all those IBM's.) I'd say a 68000 Color Computer is AT LEAST 5 years away, probably more, possibly never. Look how long it took Radio Shack to make the first real change, and how reluctantly they did it. I went to the Radio Shack booth at this year's San Diego Computer Society show and asked why they had three un-klones* and NO CoCo 3's. They said the CoCo 3 was "being discontinued". AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!! I said, sure, they're going to discontinue the only thing they've ever done right, that had sold 200,000 units before the first shipment reached the loading dock. Now I realize I've said some unpleasant things here -- but don't flame me as a CoCo-basher. I wrote NewDisk, the shareware OS-9 disk driver for the CoCo 1&2; rewrote OS9Gen and Cobbler to work with double-sided disks; did new versions of MakDir, Dir, and Dump; and I'm still working on OS-9 utility programs for CoCo 1, 2 and 3. I purchased an Amiga 1000 in July, which I spend most of my time on; I also bought a CoCo 3 last month. I think there's still a lot of unused potential in the current hardware, why build a whole new computer just because there are some faster ones out there? I've been off the net for a while because news-posting from my site has been broke for the last four months or so, what can I say, I'm back. * I propose the term "klone" for all the IBM pee-pee me-too's out there. Since Radio Shack's line of 8086 machines are not really `compatible', they should be called "un-klones". ------------------------------- Dave Lewis Loral Instrumentation San Diego hp-sdd --\ ihnp4 --\ sdcrdcf --\ bang --\ kontron -\ csndvax ---\ calmasd -->-->!crash --\ celerity --->------->!sdcsvax!sdcc3 --->--->!loral!dml (uucp) dcdwest ---/ gould9 --/ "The day-to-day travails of the IBM programmer are so amusing to those of us who are fortunate enough never to have been one -- sort of like watching Charlie Chaplin trying to cook a shoe." -- the new and improved Fortune database -------------------------------
vodall@hpfcdq.HP.COM (Bill Vodall) (12/11/87)
How about a COCO 4 made from a 68008 with 3/4 meg ram and the same graphics capabilities as the COCO 3. Hardware cost should be about the same and performance should be 3x. (The performance figure comes from something I heard - so I'm guessing.) If somebody built a box like that I'd buy it. Bill Vodall
koonce@ronzoni (tim koonce) (12/14/87)
In article <326@mks.UUCP> wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) writes: > >A Coco with lots of memory and good graphics is called an Atari St. > Actually, I agree. I have a friend with an ST, and it'll be tough, once I can save the money, to choose between getting a hard disk for the CoCo3, or getting an ST. My only concern with OSk on the ST is simply: does it support windowing?? If so, I will probably move in that direction RealSoonNow, since I've started to put together some ideas for projects which I am fairly certain simply will not fit under Level 2. (projects which will use 100-200k of program space and ~100k of data space, which is the real problem under L2) I'd like to pursue these projects, but a CoCo3 simply isn't big enough. But, after working some with Level2, and with the SUNs here at school, I'm addicted to this windowing environment. It's great! I'll be a LOT more interested in OSk when someone can tell me that it supports graphics and windowing. -- Tim Koonce +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |ARPA: koonce@bosco.berkeley.edu | | |Delphi: TIMKOONCE CIS:72276,1135 | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+