>>> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 06:48:19PM +0200, Gerrit Heitsch wrote: >>>> The funny thing is... Did Commodore ever use the 82S100 in production C64 systems? So far I have only seen the 93459PC made by Fairchild in any of them. >>> >> On Jul 29, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Marko Mäkelä wrote: >>> I seem to remember that my oldest C64 (serial number 34727) contains a 82S100. Can anyone confirm? > On Jul 30, 2012, at 19:10, raycomp <raycomp@visi.com> wrote: >> I have repaired perhaps a dozen of the older C64's which have had the 82S100 chip (some of them had failed). On 2012-07-31, at 02:14, Justin wrote: > I agree, all of mine failed also. This thread can possibly explain to me the difference between what everyone kept saying for years (that the main failure cause for a 64 was a dead PLA chip) and my own experience from repairing literally hundreds of them back in the days. From my experience PLA was responsible for a really tiny percentage of the failures. But I recall only few (one or two - memory doesn't serve so good - of the very oldest boards) having the actual 82S100 loaded. Might it be that the 82S100 was failing like hell and the Fairchild chips were much more robust? -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2012-09-01 23:00:09
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.