Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!ea.UUCP!jejones
From: jejones@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.6809
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <74200015@ea.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Dec-85 13:09:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ea.74200015
Posted: Thu Dec 26 13:09:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 23:18:36 EST
References: <3566@utah-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 15
Nf-ID: #R:utah-cs.UUCP:3566:ea.UUCP:74200015:000:611
Nf-From: ea.UUCP!jejones    Dec 26 12:09:00 1985


With luck, sometime in 1Q86, my previous response on this topic will be
*way* out of date.  According to messages posted in the CompuServe OS-9
SIG (by its sysop), the following should happen:

In 1Q86 (or 2Q86 at the latest), OS-9/68000 for the Amiga and the 520ST.
Some time between March and May 1986, CoCo 3 with reasonable display,
	512K RAM, and OS-9 Level Two.

The latter's been expected for quite some time now, so I can understand
a certain amount of skepticism.  The former is simply something that's
LONG overdue, and should have been done by the folks who brought out the
boxes.

						James Jones