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