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

[Arthur Flexser]

Curious that piggybacked 32K chips wouldn't work with KEY-264K.  I wonder why
not?  Timing?  Seems like OS-9 would be a lot more finicky about timing than
KEY-264K would.  Maybe it has to do with the display window not being able to be
moved around in the same way as with 64K chips?  Or inadequate memory refresh?

My original point, though, was that I never heard of a stock 32K CoCo with 64K
chips needing any replacement of RAMs to operate in 64K mode, which suggests
that Tandy, contrary to rumors, did not use half-good 64K chips in these
machines.

Art

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 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
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>