From: joe@user.com   
      
   "Michael Black"  wrote in message   
   news:fglkun$d8c$1@theodyn.ncf.ca...   
   > You're assuming wrong.   
   >   
   > The CoCo 2 was only a minor variant of the CoCo 1, no new features   
   > other than a different keyboard.  The changes were internal, to make   
   > it cheaper to manufacture.   
   >   
   > Other than size, the only real advantage of a CoCo 2 over a 1 is   
   > that some late models used a different video generator IC, so with   
   > a suitable modification it could do real lowercase rather than reverse   
   > video.   
   >   
   > And the CoCo 1 was never an "answer" to the VIC-20.  It started out   
   > with a small amount of ram, but it was far easier to fill up   
   > the memory space than on a VIC-20.  It's hard to judge the rest   
   > since I can't remember what if any special hardware the VIC-20 had.   
   > But, the 6809 CPU of the CoCo beats the 6502, and one real attraction   
   > of the CoCo from very early on was that you could run a multi-tasking   
   > operating system on it, Microware's OS-9.   
   >   
   > You can quibble on comparison with the C64, since that Commodore   
   > computer did have built in hardware for sprites and sound, but I   
   > think generally the CoCo was no second best to the C64.   
   >   
   >   Michael   
   >   
      
   The CoCo and the VIC-20?  That guys was...  well, better leave it at   
   that!   
      
   The Coco could run Flex and OS-9!  Could a VIC-20 or a C-64 ever   
   even DREAM of running stuff like that?   
      
   Hey, back in the mid-80's, the big multi-user Coco BBS system in Ft   
   Worth was actually running on a Coco!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)