On 11/4/2021 3:57 AM, smf wrote: > > You probably shouldn't question someones decisions if you don't > understand the reason why they made them. That might be a bit harsh towards the OP, but I understand the sentiment. In a way, the OP's point of "compromise" is relevant here. They did compromise. die sizes contributed directly to yield and cost, so the 1/8th of the die for extra RAM was a no go, expensive DRAM was a no go because, well, Commodore. And, though I'm not sure they had SRAMs lying around (that was the story around why the VIC20 had it's SRAM), I do think you're directionally correct. I'm surprised they didn't use their internal 65XX RAM option (6550?) On the larger point, it seems the farther away we get from the origin of these machines, the less well understood they are by most folks and the time period from which the design was taken. That's unfortunate, as I think it's fascinating to see how features and capabilities that we all treat with reverence on classic systems were often borne out of necessity or cost concerns. Jim > > > On 03/11/2021 21:37, Claudio Sánchez wrote: >> >> I think that was a solution of compromise so they could stop tinkering >> with the address decoding logic. Why should it be a problem to have >> color RAM mapped in DRAM in the first place? They had to include a >> SRAM chip in *every* computer (later revisions would have it included >> in that SHARP chip). >> > -- Jim Brain brain_at_jbrain.com www.jbrain.comReceived on 2021-11-04 17:00:02
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.