ottmar@micomvax.UUCP (03/26/84)
I recently dropped in at a local Radio Shack computer center to purchase a 64k
Color Computer and was pleasantly surprised to find that I had a choice
between two models (the newer one had supposedly just arrived that same day).
I naturally took the more recent model, which is the same size as the * 16k *
Color Computer II. Since I haven't yet heard of this product, I am still not
certain that the saleman didn't merely sell me an UPGRADED CoCo II ...
The new CoCo definitely runs hotter than my original one (which had been
upgraded to 32k via piggybacked RAMs). The heat is VERY localized (rear left
corner where the heat sink & power supply are). I haven't noticed any problems
caused by this - I'm just mentioning it because it was the only potential
drawback I could see to having a smaller enclosure.
The only other difference I have noticed is in the cassette interface:
1. The signals read from cassette are no longer played through
the TV speaker.
2. The cassette motor is controlled by a relay.
The above two changes are somewhat complementary: the high-pitched noise of the
cassette data is replaced by the clickety-clack of the relay, which is
certainly easier on the ears and still provides audible feedback on the tape
load's progress.
Does anyone else have any observations about the 64k CoCo II or any comments
about my own observations ? I would be interested in hearing from other owners.
The Color Disk Assembler was finally released, and it sold out FAST (two weeks)
- I think I got the last one available in the Montreal area. I can't provide
any comments because I haven't bought a disk yet, but I was wondering if any
other CoCo hacks out there have any tidbits of information about it.
It is probably ideal for anyone who is presently using the EDTASM+ cartridge,
since it supports loading source from tape and is therefore upwards
compatible with the cartridge. Extra capabilities are MACROS and INCLUDE.
P.S. - Does anyone know how it compares with the OS9 assembler? The latter is
described as "rudimentary" in Radio Shack's own catalog, and can only
produce relocatable code. It seems to me to be a poor choice for non-
OS9 applications.wagner@utcsstat.UUCP (Michael Wagner) (04/02/84)
The comment was made that the os9 assembler can only produce relocatable code. I do not think this is correct. There is an option to allow non-relocatable constructs. However, I must say I have never tried it, and it is possible that it does not in fact do what it claims. Michael Wagner, UTCS