[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why the RamWorks III?

Subject: Re: Why the RamWorks III?
From: "Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@attglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:30:50 -0400
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
References: <3AEB8B47.2D7E3415@intergate.bc.ca>
Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.sys.apple2:7560

I don't actually know much about the RamWorks II, but I believe that it had
a maximum RAM size of 1MB? The RamWorks III was expandable to 3MB of total
RAM.

If the II was also able to accept the 2MB expander card, then you may safely
assume that I have no idea what I am talking about. <g>

Tom Zuchowski


"Wayne Stewart" <waynes@intergate.bc.ca> wrote in message
3AEB8B47.2D7E3415@intergate.bc.ca">news:3AEB8B47.2D7E3415@intergate.bc.ca...
> Does anyone know or can guess why the RamWorks III was produced. Looks
> like they just rearranged some of the chips on the RamWorks II and
> renamed it.
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why the RamWorks III?
  - From: Jim Pendarvis <jpendarv@patriot.net>
- Re: Why the RamWorks III?
  - From: Bruce.Baker@juge.com (Bruce Baker)

References:
- Why the RamWorks III?
  - From: Wayne Stewart <waynes@intergate.bc.ca>

Prev by Date: Re: OMG!
Next by Date: Converting dsk images to files
Previous by thread: Re: Why the RamWorks III?
Next by thread: Re: Why the RamWorks III?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread