Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-bee.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve From: eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari Subject: Re: Another ST-AMIGA comparison Message-ID: <380@ssc-bee.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 11:30:11 EDT Article-I.D.: ssc-bee.380 Posted: Fri Sep 20 11:30:11 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 04:47:02 EDT References: <489@ihlpm.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:191 net.micro.atari:1168 > > Let's look at few facts on the ST-AMIGA comparison. > > IT will cost more to upgrade the AMIGAS ram because the AMIGA > uses expensive 64k by 4 chips instead of cheaper and more available > 256k by 1 chips. There is already a way to expand the ST to 1 meg > for just the cost of 16 256k by 1 chips. > > R.T. Bradstrum I really don't believe this is a fact. Although the Amiga appears to use 64Kx4 on the main board, it does this for the convenience of the video controller chip. Since the video controller chip is supposedly limited to 512k bytes addressing range, there is no reason memory hung on the side beyond the first 512k bytes need be 64kx4; 256kx1 will probably do quite nicely. If you don't know the facts, R.T., don't claim you do. Thats why we have the word probably! -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve