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) ----------------------------------------------------------------------