Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!wlbr!wlbreng1!pete
From: pete@wlbreng1.UUCP (Pete Lyall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m6809
Subject: Re: More on MultiPak Upgrades (CocoIII)
Message-ID: <157@wlbreng1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Dec-86 12:58:11 EST
Article-I.D.: wlbreng1.157
Posted: Thu Dec 18 12:58:11 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Dec-86 23:13:03 EST
References: <1302@ihwpt.UUCP> <1463@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: pete@wlbreng1.UUCP (0000-Pete Lyall)
Organization: Eaton Inc. IMSD, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 31

In article <1463@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>
>     I seem to be really caught this time.  I don't want to use the built
>in 80 column capability with the CoCo3 at this stage because it means a loss
>of about 2K for screen RAM, but as I understand it, my WordPakII isn't
>going to work with the new MultiPak upgrade.  Wonderful stuff.
>
>      Is this going to be a problem for all the WordPakII's?
>(I mean all the WordPak's.)
>
>Cheers! -- Jim O.

The wordpak II will have a modification kit available from P.B.J. for
around $5-$10 dollars... I believe it too is just a PAL (like the
Multi-pak) and may simply be a re-addressing out of the GIME chip's
range ($FF80 and up). The wordpak R/S's should work just fine as is,
and the wordpak 'classics' will have to fend for themselves (figures..
I have TWO).

Also, is 512K - 2K such a loss?? Also, when you see some of the neat
new window oriented stuff are you REALLY going to still want to use a
Wordpak{II, R/S} -??


                                                   Pete Lyall

Usenet:     {trwrb, scgvaxd, ihnp4, voder, vortex}!wlbr!wlbreng1!pete
Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 SIG Sysop)
OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud)
Phone:      (818)-706-5693 (work 9-5 PST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------