Talk:VTech Laser 200

I never really noticed it before, but the black is not really black, its a darker green. And in the technical manual and main unit manual there is no reference to dark or light green, just green.

I was thinking that maybe the mode 0 text screen is really just a TTL monochrome screen, that is _one colour_, but with two luminance levels, the black border simply being an absence of a video signal . That is it is just low luminance green foreground and high luminance green background ? Only the Motorola 6847 entry also refers to it as "black".

So I was thinking mode 0 was like this :

1.text

foreground - low luminance green

background - high luminance green or orange.

In green mode, luminances are inverted (except there is only one luminance for orange)

2.block graphics

foreground - any colour, green in high luminance.

background - green in low luminance.

Block graphics are unaffected by black or green mode.

And for mode 1, green is always high luminosity eg light green ?60.231.232.112 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is an entire 11 different colours all up.

Can prove it with a screenshot - if I knew how to upload said screenshot. Screenshot and evidence can be found over on the VZ/Laser facebook page. Should also be able to reproduce all 11 colours in text mode on the likes of the Dragon, NEC PC6001 and TRS coco computers since they all use the 6847 chip as well. 65.181.12.92 (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly on the TRS80 MC10 computer (that also uses the 6847 video chip), there has been a number of assembly demos produced that show all eleven colours on the screen at the same time, eg: fire and plasma graphics demonstrations to show this effect. The actual monitor display that is used can have quite an effect on the difference of hues between 'dark green', 'dark dark green' and black. 139.130.187.46 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

This entry was a bit of a mess, so I've changed it using information from the "Dick Smith VZ300 Unit Manual" and the "Dick Smith VZ300 Technical Manual", as well as by experimenting converting Tandy Color Computer and TRS-80 programs. 120.20.224.28 (talk)

This is mentioned in the peripherals section; however, this has to be a typo, as no such sound/music IC was ever made (can't find any hits searching Google) and the number part of this chip's designation is the same as the number part of the graphics chip's designation. I therefore changed it to the SN76489AN, which is the likely chip that was intended to be written here, as it is similar in designation and was a very popular sound/music chip at the time. Jerri Kohl (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, SN6847AN is a typo. --> SN76489AN.

>>"The Laser 200 was designed and built by Video Technology (VTech) in Hong Kong and derived from the Tandy TRS-80."<<

VTech is a Taiwanese company and the VZ200 was made in Taiwan. It is unrelated to the TRS-80, you are thinking of the Dick Smith System 80 / Video Genie which was made by EACA in Hong Kong.101.178.163.92 (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately VTech, originally known as Video Technology Limited was started in 1976 in Hong Kong, and is still there today. Please show evidence to back the 'Made in Taiwan' claim to change my mind. Every single VZ200 and VZ300 ever made has a little "Made in Hong Kong" sticker on them. The VZ200 and VZ300 uses a modified Level II BASIC that was originally 'borrowed' from the TRS-80. Bushy555 (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Dave.

The Lazer 100/110, that were released prior to the VZ200, were TRS-80 Model 1 clones, so there is a very high chance that the VZ200 was in some way derived from the 100/110; especially if the claims above about the BASIC are correct. Jerri Kohl (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Laser110's ROM releases were v1.0, v1.1 and 1.2

These ROMs are identical to those found in Laser200/210 and VZ200.

The Laser100/110 did not have colour output, and were released with only 2kb RAM - unknown video RAM. 1KB? 2KB?

'Hires' MODE(1) 128x64 graphics was shown essentially in black and white, or perhaps in four shades of grey? 139.130.187.46 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

An external link to site hosted on tripod was removed. This was because the link was added by the author of the website, the website does not significantly contribute to this article, and most importantly, the website features copyright violations. LinaMishima 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Oric 1 was selling for £99 at this point" is not true. The Oric FAQ says "£139.95" for launch price, Old-Computers.com says "£129.95". -- NZeemin (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@NZeemin: - Late reply(!) more for reference, but it should be noted that the Your Computer quote gives the Oric's price as £99, which it can be assumed was current at the time the review was written. Ubcule (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, that £99 price will be for the 16K version which (from what I've read) was apparently in very short supply early on- with purchasers of the 16K version being sent 48K models on loan until the former were available(!)- and the 16K model later aimed more at foreign markets.

So it's possible that few- if any- 16K models actually made it to the UK market, but it was nominally available at that price at once point, and- presumably- mentioned as such by Your Computer. Ubcule (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Link is dead as of 28 Feb 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushy555 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this article right now, but was really surprised nobody had added tags to it. There's a lot of opinions and original research in here (Commodore Basic is "crude and slow", the name is "similar" to the VIC20)... this article needs some serious attention. As it is, I would consider deleting and merging many of the sections. More reliable sources need to be found, at least relative to the importance and length of this article. An article this long should definitely have more than 4 links, but it should also not be this long. I strongly encourage anyone familiar with this computer to pick up the torch and bring this article in line with quality standards! MrAureliusR_Talk! 21:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename to 'VTech Laser'. The page should be make about all the models in the range, it probably isn't worth making separate pages on each model; due to redundancy and a small amount of information. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: - The 'VTech Laser' name was also used on other completely unrelated models as listed at the VTech Laser page (which wasn't around when you posted your comment).

But I strongly agree that it would be a bad idea to have an article for every different name this machine was sold under(!) As you say, there is little sufficiently unique about each of them to warrant or fill out a separate article, and it would also end up scattering or duplicating related info.

I think it's best simply to keep it as VTech Laser 200 as that seems to be the "base model"- and most common- generic name for it and to redirect to that, or a subsection of it, which I've now done for (hopefully) all the rebadged and variant names.

Some redirects- such as this one for the Laser 310- have also been categorised separately, so they appear in categories relevant to *them* specifically and we get the best of both worlds.

Ubcule (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

No objection to anything you said there. So I withdraw suggestion to rename this page. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

There is evidence that Texet submitted (at least) a couple of rebadged "TX8000" machines for review, but one of those reviews notes that theirs was a "pre-production model". I've seen no clear evidence of them actually being sold on the UK market.

Since the Texets were (AFAICT) simply existing machines with their name stuck on, it would be quite easy to test the water then withdraw or to release a very small number to judge how well it might go.

This is obviously pure speculation. Does anyone actually know for sure?

Ubcule (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I looked further into this, and it appears that Texet had an exclusive distribution agreement, but the original Texet company went into receivership around the time they were planning on launching the TX8000, and Texet's name and assets were sold and reformed as a legally separate new company.

Since the agreement was with the original, defunct business, it's unclear whether this nullified the agreement or let one or both sides pull out, but the article isn't the place for unfounded speculation, so I've simply reported what was said at the time.

Regardless, Texet's "exclusive" agreement must have disappeared as it appears that a different party distributed it under its original name (Laser 200) from mid-1983, and the implication in computer mags is that the Texet-badged version disappeared quickly or never got as far as a retail launch in the first place. Ubcule (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Still replying to myself, but I found *one* source- and only one so far!- to (at first glance) back up the claim that it actually went on sale- specifically here saying had been on sale since "the end of March".

However, they don't make clear whether they or Texet are the ones claiming that, or whether they verified it in the latter case.

Also, given that the on-sale date of the May issue was supposed to be the first of April, and given that copy deadlines would likely have been some time before that, the window between that and an "end of March" launch would have been small if not nonexistent for that to happen.

Given that, it's quite plausible even that they wrote that *before* the planned launch date on the assumption it would be true by the time it went to press.

Still, given that last part is crossing over into the territory of personal and unprovable speculation on my part, it goes without saying that it shouldn't and won't go in the article(!) Ubcule (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the research. Appreciate the work and the updated details. ~2025-31387-16 (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Claimed to be November 1983 from this ref:-

But there's plenty of evidence it was around in early 1983 and already launched in some markets in 1982.

Ubcule (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The section on the German market mentions Sanyo and "Sanyo Video", but it's not entirely clear what the setup is here:-

The VTech Laser 110, 200, 210 and VTech Laser 310 sold and distributed all throughout Germany by Sanyo.

Does Sanyo here- without scare quotes- mean the original Sanyo company were distributing those models?

In mid to late 1982, the Laser 200 hit the German market via Sanyo. [..] "Sanyo Video" advertised both the Laser 110 and the Laser 210

Who are "Sanyo Video"? The use of scare quotes implies that they are not actually Sanyo? Is this a third-party distributor using the name without permission? Is it an alias of VTech?

The VZ200 was sold in Germany as the "VTECH VZ200", the "more sophisticated models" as "SANYO VIDEO/LASER XXX". This led to legal action because of the misleading use of the "SANYO" brand name ("SANYO VIDEO"). A friendly agreement was reached with "SANYO" at the time by Video Technology in Hong Kong. Packaging of German LASER 310s were labelled "SANYO VIDEO".

I'm still not clear on who and what is going on here. Why was the use of the "Sanyo" brand name "misleading"? What was the nature of the "friendly agreement"?

On top of that, why would Sanyo- a Japanese company- be distributing a Hong Kong-made computer when they already had the likes of the Sanyo PHC-20 and Sanyo PHC-25 themselves?

I notice that the content was originally added via this edit by anonymous user 139.130.187.46 (talk · contribs).

I can confirm that- having searched numerous magazines for this article- there definitely *were* advertisements in German magazines for versions of the Laser 200/210/etc. under a distributor's name of "Sanyo Video" (e.g. here and here). So it's not a complete hoax or nonsense.

But I've still no idea what *exactly* the deal was beyond that....!

(I wonder if Bushy555 (talk · contribs)- who appears to be a Laser 200 afficionado, but not (AFAICT) the person who posted that content- knows anything about this or can shed any light on it?)

Ubcule (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

...above Sanyo details (unedited) were obtained from a German enthusiast through one of the German 8-bit forums a few years ago. Im kinda confused as you are. Cheers. ~2025-31387-16 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31387-16: I'm assuming that you're the same person that added that information originally via this anonymous edit in late 2022?

Generally speaking, we don't consider comments in forums reliable sources in themselves unless they're backed up. If, on top of that, *you* don't even properly understand the information you were adding(!) that's a very bad sign.

My inclination would be to remove it if there wasn't clear evidence- backed up by concrete references- that the distributor *did* claim to be "Sanyo Video", whoever "Sanyo Video" actually were. That still doesn't help with my original question above, however.

Did you also add this section?

Ubcule (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's claimed here by @~2025-31387-16: that

One legitimate Laser 300 was found within the Chinese 'flea market' clearly pictured as a 'Laser 300' in 2024. No hardware details were obtained.

Where did this claim come from?

There's no reference at all, let alone evidence- it could be third-hand hearsay, it could be completely made up.

While I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of this being true (given the number of different names the Laser 200 and 310 have worn) we need more evidence than some random claim with no source if this is to be kept in the article. Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)