else

These things rarely pop up even on eBay. They probably didn't sell very many back in the day.... I've never owned one, but I'm guessing they don't work much like a hard drive in today's sense. Since Coleco never released a version of EOS (Elementary Operating System) that supported large volumes, I would think the hard disk would have to be partitioned in to lots of little volumes each roughly the size of a data pack. You probably simply select which "volume" you want to run though a program launcher. Also, there was no way to "quit" from most Adam programs, so you would still need to pull ye olde reset switch if you wanted to run something else. Anyhow, this is pretty much speculation on my part.... To be honest, there were such few programs released for the Adam (and those that were are pretty buggy) that a hard drive seems almost unnecessary.

I did a search about 6 months ago or so for one. I did find some -- nice compact switching ones that could fit right inside the memory console itself (I think it would be really cool to stick it right in there). But the ones I found all cost $100 or more, and I couldn't justify the price. Who knows though. A bit of searching and you may come up with something cheaper that would work. Alternatively you could probably build one using say a loptop power supply and some regulators, if you have the time. The laptop supply I'm using to type this puts out 16V at 4.5A....

Also note that you would be operating your Colecovision power supply out of spec. The Colecovision power supply outputs: 1 .+5VDC .9A 2.-5VDC .1A 3.+12VDC .3A While the Adam memory console requires: +5V 2.75 A -5V 0.2 A +12VI 0.6 A +12VL 0.3 A You will be drawing more current than the Colecovision power supply is spec'ed to handle. I would assume the Colecovision power supply has a fuse in it that would blow before it bursts in to flames, but you still might want to use a bit of caution....

I'm not so sure you can go about connecting a Colecovision power supply to your Adam. According to Coleco's Technical Manual, those two +12v pins are different. One is for logic signals, while the other is for inductive loads (such as the motors in the tape drives). Coleco Inc. -- Adam Technical Manual But it would be an interesting experiment if you're up for it....

How about that -- right up the road from me. But I try to stay away from arcade games -- they're just too big and awkward for me (I've owned an Asteroids and a Millipede in the past). Gotta love the brain-twisting description though: "There are 4 games 3 of the games have 2 games (The Neo Geo's in 1 cabinet)"

Why not just run the Coleco emulator on a Windows CE or Palm device? Seems like that would be a lot cheaper and easier. I honestly don't see why anyone would want to do custom hardware these days when emulators are so readily available, unless of course you're doing extremely high volumes and you're looking to shave every penny out of the design. If you're really stuck on your case design, then just hack a Windoews CE device in to that form factor....

Massively popular? Maybe so in your neck of the woods, but to me it seemed like they were a very, very distant second to the Mattel Electronics line. Electronic Quarterback (which wasn't part of the Head to Head series) seemed to be the only Coleco handheld which had any popularity.... Besides, they aren't even trying to emulate the Head to Head series. These are all completely different games. The Head to Head games were all LED based. Maybe they didn't get the rights to those games either -- they only go the rights to the Head to Head name?

Wouldn't they own the rights to the non-licensed Coleco games such as Antarctic Adventure, Destructor, Super Action Football, Super Action Baseball, etc? 986343[/snapback] No. They only own the Coleco names and some of the older product lines. They have no rights to the Colecovision games, however, I did read somewhere that they were either in 'talks' to license or had already licensed SOME of the Colecovision properties from Telegames - the current owners. I THINK Technosource is the mfgr of the current Coleco Head to Heads and would also produce this 'Colecovision' plug 'n play-if it ever makes it to market. Without the 'big' arcade games, I just don't see much nostalgiac value in the Colecovision properties. The number one draw for that console were the arcade to home adaptations. Atari and Intellivision, on the other hand, had many, many great and well known games. Oh, there are two new Inty handhelds being released. One is a two player 15-in-1 and there is another 10-in-1 unit. Supposedly, the quality of games is improved. Man, where the heck is my Channel F 25 in 1 unit? Or that Emerson Arcadia unit? Dangit! 986383[/snapback] Wow, they didn't even get any of the games!!! What was the point of even getting the Coleco name then? I hope they didn't pay more then about $1.00 for the name, becuase without any games it seems pretty worthless....

Wouldn't they own the rights to the non-licensed Coleco games such as Antarctic Adventure, Destructor, Super Action Football, Super Action Baseball, etc?

The bottom line for me is a fun game, not how it looks.

consider me a happy fan then!!! Any clue as to which boxes??? Coz I need 6 for all my aircars Gaztee 984951[/snapback] That's awesome news! Every bit as good as a new game as far as I'm concerned!!!

Quick question for Carl or anyone.... Was there a box for Phaze-Zero? I bought mine from B&C and just received the bare cart. However, I was looking through Jungle Guide #2 last night, and on the back cover it shows a box for it. If there was one made, I'd sure like to get it. Actually, if Songbird or anyone is looking for something to do -- it would sure be nice to get boxes and instructions printed up for a bunch of games -- Barkely, Brett Hull, Space War 2K, etc. Lot of work, I know. Just thought I'd throw it out there....

Umm, do you two need to get a room or something 983463[/snapback] My point is quite simple, really. Coleco was the KING of vaporware. Their marketing department announced tons of software and hardware that nobody over in engineering ever did a minute's worth of work on. Take a look at some of their brochures for the Colecovision and the Adam and see for yourself. Just because marketing says something, that doesn't mean it ever made it to any engineering drawing board and it certainly doesn't mean a prototype was ever produced....

Great, then lets get back on topic shall we? Show all of us a better source that says Coleco made Intellivision adapters (or even had ones on the drawing board). That is what the original question was asking for after all.... 983381[/snapback] If you want it that way, fine. /ME cracks knuckles. In an interview with the founder of Intellivison Productions, Keith Robinson, the following conversation took place: Interestingly, Keith seems to believe the problem was replicating the Intellivision OS without getting into trouble. The lawsuit with Atari was probably costly for Coleco, and they may not have wanted to get into one with Intellivision. It's hard to say if he's right, since most of the lawsuits over DOS clones wouldn't come until later, but Tempest may find this info to be of interest. And with that, Mr. Else, I place the burden of proof to the contrary fully on your plate. 983397[/snapback] Hello???? I have been saying this very thing since the beginning -- that prototypes don't exist. You are the one who has been arguing they do. Please try to concentrate, okay?

Great, then lets get back on topic shall we? Show all of us a better source that says Coleco made Intellivision adapters (or even had ones on the drawing board). That is what the original question was asking for after all....

I already understand how the legal system works in this country, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. How about opening your mind to the possibility that just because somebody wrote something down, that doesn't mean it's true. People are human and humans make mistakes. In this case, just because some FAQ says Coleco made an Intellivision adapter maybe, just maybe, it's not true. Okay, please explain further. You're saying Coleco settled and agreed to pay Atari royalties AFTER the judge had found them not guilty? Sounds goofy, but I'm all ears. Maybe I don't understand the legal system as well as I thought I did....

Yep, this is exactly the part I am talking about. Okay, maybe it wasn't ruled illegal, but a settlement was reached nonetheless.... And since I know you don't believe anything unless it is written in a FAQ or book, see this link: Settlement There you go -- it's written in an actual physical book. That must make it true, right?

Right. The point was that Compaq had gone to the trouble of a "clean room" process, with two groups. One group reverse-engineers the chips and produces a specification, the second group writes code to that specification, and then the first group tests the result and tells them what is wrong, and why, but not how to fix it. 983286[/snapback] And lets not forget that Coleco's Atari adapter was ruled illegal too. Coleco then had to work out a deal with Atari so that the could continue to sell them.

And it looks quite nice in it's new home 982953[/snapback] Nice score. Was it tough to haul it all the way to scenic Dover, NH? 983171[/snapback] Not really, though it was quite a bit heavier than I expected. But unlike an arcade game, it comes apart in the middle so it is slightly more manageable. It is in MINT condition. The guy told me his buddy worked at a trade show back in the 90s in Boston that Atari was at. According to him, after the show was done Atari packed up and left but didn't take this display with them. So his buddy took it home. I find that story a bit hard to believe, but I guess it is plausable. Assuming it's true, I figure that means it was used for perhaps a handful of days at most! Unfortuantely, they didn't get the keys with the display, so the back is locked up. Not sure what to do about that. For now I guess I'll leave it. Maybe I'll try drilling the lock out in the future (I"m not sure how strong these locks are or if drilling it would even work). P.S. Thanks for the heads up this Rick!!! I never would have seen it if it weren't for you...

That's one possibility, but not the only possibility. Other ones include: 1) Someone inside Mattel leaked the information to Coleco about how to get around it. 2) Coleco got lucky and stumbled on how to get around it accidentially (it doesn't sound like it was all that tricky of a lock-out feature). But again, as Apple has shown in court -- the question not whether it is hard or easy. It is a question of whether it is legal. 982924[/snapback] Oh yea, and I left out the most likely scenario that occurred: 3) Coleco dumped out the old ROM and the new ROM. Then they did a simple diff on the two files and noticed that 99.999% of the code was the same, except for one or two instructions. Next they simply figured out what the changed instructions were doing and BINGO! -- they were back in business. Probably took somebody less than a day to figure out.... But of course Coleco couldn't have simply turned around and burned this code in to their own ROM. I'm sure that wouldn't have been legal.

And it looks quite nice in it's new home

Well, I'm not going to sit here and argue back and forth with you on this. If you think the FAQ is the 100% beyond any shadow of a doubt correct, you're entitled to your opinion. I like to think that it was created by humans who are not perfect and from time to time make mistakes. In this case, I think it is very suspect.... I don't know, that sounds dangerous. I wouldn't want to go messing with the world's encyclopedias before I have convinced everyone that this is the case. Wait -- where have I heard that before? Oh yea -- FROM YOU!

That's one possibility, but not the only possibility. Other ones include: 1) Someone inside Mattel leaked the information to Coleco about how to get around it. 2) Coleco got lucky and stumbled on how to get around it accidentially (it doesn't sound like it was all that tricky of a lock-out feature). But again, as Apple has shown in court -- the question not whether it is hard or easy. It is a question of whether it is legal.

How would _I_ go about changing everyone's perception? That's a big task and I do have a day job after all. Besides, I don't see the big deal in changing this: "Coleco prototyped a..." to this: "It is rumored that Coleco prototyped a..." Is that really going to cause an uproar around the world? I mean even the FAQ that you reference uses the word "supposedly", but the Wikipedia article doesn't. So how can you even argue that Wikipedia is correct if it drops this key word???

I've seen this "supposed" Intellivison adapter mentioned before also. I frankly don't believe it. It's one thing to reverse engineer the 2600, which is strictly hardware based and generally pretty simplistic. This is legal. It is quite another to reverse engineer the Intellivsion because it also includes a more complex firmware component. I'm not sure if this is even legal. This firmware aspect is basically the argument that Apple has used to kill off any company that has ever attempted to clone it's hardware. Remember the Macintosh hardware emulators from the early 90's that supplied you with all the hardware _except_ for the ROMs, which you had to supply yourself? Coleco would have had to ship the Intellivison adapter without ROMs too! Given this, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that Coleco would have wasted time and money on a product that it could never legally produce (at least with the Intellivision ROMs in it).... The wikipedia article needs fixing, imho.