Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809
Subject: Re: CoCo III - Still a Rumor?
Message-ID: <3500153@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Jun-86 14:14:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.3500153
Posted: Tue Jun  3 14:14:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jun-86 05:19:13 EDT
References: <115@safari.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:safari.UUCP:115:uokvax.UUCP:3500153:000:1955
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    Jun  3 13:14:00 1986


/* 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 */