Re: Differences between 8501R1 and 8501R4

Den Thu, 5 Dec 2019 12:17:13 +0100 skrev Anders Carlsson
<anders.carlsson_at_sfks.se>:
> Gerrit Heitsch wrote:
> 
> > 2) The 8501R4 came out in 1986, after the 264 series already ended.
> > I wonder why Commodore made a new revision.
> 
> Indeed, from a business point of view this seems odd. Those of us who 
> are part of the Commodore International Historical Society group on 
> Facebook have been blessed with plenty of business reports and
> similar internal documents lately (though not very much technical
> stuff) and it is clear that the 264 series was a money hole that
> Commodore didn't know what to do with by 1985/86.
> 
> Is the R4 more reliable than previous revisions, which would explain
> why they kept revising it (at low cost, hopefully) as part of getting
> the remaining stock on market instead of writing it off as losses?

Developing stuff that won't really fit the market perfectly can also be
a way of testing new technology without screwing up royally with a
product that won't work. Compare the Amiga 600 which to the end user is
kind of a crippled A500+ with IDE+PCMCIA instead of the regular
expansion bus. But for Commodore it was the first Amiga with surface
mount components on the PCB. Had the A600 had technical difficulties
when released Commodore could just had continued with the A500 and
A500+ range, perhaps even an A500++ with built in IDE interface like
the A600. Had there been technical difficulties when the A4000 and
A1200 were introduced they would had been in real troubles.

Not sure what relationship the 8501R4 has to other MOS/CSG chips though.

-- 
(\_/) Copy the bunny to your mails to help
(O.o) him achieve world domination.
(> <) Come join the dark side.
/_|_\ We have cookies.