Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[Bob Retelle <bobr1@provide.net>]

On 16 Jul 2001 14:38:10 GMT, wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron
Desnoyers Winmill) wrote:

>william strutts (wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com) wrote:
>: > Hardware:
>: >  - 4MB to 8MB RAM
><...>
>: >  - 64MB to 256MB RAM with battery backup, for
>: >    storing documents.  Or use flash memory if
>: >    it is cheap enough.
>
>: You couldn't get that much ram on a 68000 because it only
>: has a 24 bit memory bus.  You would have to go to a 68030
>: or so to get the wider data path.
>
>Then throw in some sort of decoder for the 64-256MB chunk.  Since
>it is not the main memory (that would be the 4MB chunk), it should
>not make much of a difference.  Indeed, it need not make any
>difference to the average programmer, since it would (presumably)
>be access through a set of file system calls.
>

Oh sure, throw in this non-standard bit of chaff here($), and that
non-standard bit of dross there ($$)  and pretty soon you find out why
things like "Atari clones" cost a small fortune.  Some sort of decoder
here, and a bank-switcher there, and we're not talking about $300
retail any more.


>Besides, isn't the 6502 limited to 64kB chunks.  Apple simply
>implemented some sort of paging mechanism to access the 128kB found
>in later models (IIe/IIc).  Likewise for the 192kB card which I
>have lying around here, somewhere.  (Though my understanding is
>the 1MB card for the 8-bit machines used some sort of window into
>memory.)
>

And how much did that 192k card cost?

And how much would that translate into today's currency?

A 48k RAM expansion board for an Atari 400 retailed for $150, which in
todays dollars would break this project before it got started.

Low volume, non-standard, high cost.

>Byron.

BobR