[Coco] RE: [Color Computer] Looking for a Coco I 64k?

[L. Curtis Boyle]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:32:01 -0600, <PaulH96636 at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 11/12/2005 3:15:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> flexser at fiu.edu writes:
>
> [I made  that statement about a machine TANDY SOLD as 32K, which  
> excludes the
> 32K  obtained by piggybacking 2 sets of 16K chips, which naturally would  
> not
> be
> capable of 64K.  I never heard of anyone piggybacking 32K chips to   
> obtain
> 64K,
> if that's what you meant, but that certainly wouldn't apply to  a machine
> sold as
> 32K by Tandy.
>
> Art   ]
>
>
>
>
> Yep, that is what I meant, and KEY-264K docs specifically said that
> piggybacked 32Ks
> would *not* work.  I don't recall what it was that the piggybacked  32Ks  
> did
> work with,
> perhaps OS9-L1, or small ram drive.  IIRC it was production defective   
> 64Ks
> which were
> sold as working 32Ks, so they could be piggybacked for a few   
> applications.
>   -ph
>

     I do know that even the piggy-backed 16K's (32K total) did have some  
compatibility problems with the video. There was a program in Rainbow that  
used many PMODE 0 (or 2, can't remember) pages to animate a spinning  
umbrella, and once the video address went into the 2nd set of chips, the  
screen would fill with garbage instead of the images.




-- 
L. Curtis Boyle