[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why the RamWorks III?

Subject: Re: Why the RamWorks III?
From: "Mark Cummings" <NOTfigjams@primus.com.au>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:37:28 +1000
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Organization: CWO Customer - reports relating to abuse should be sent to abuse@cwo.net.au
References: <3AEB8B47.2D7E3415@intergate.bc.ca>
Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.sys.apple2:7556

Could it have something to do with the price/availability of the DRAMs at
the time ?
The RW Basic (256K-512K) and RWIII (256K-1M) uses 41256s (256Kx1bit), but I
don't know what the RWII uses.
In the case of the piggy back card for the RW Basic, RWII & RWIII, there is
a comment in the RWIII manual stating the original piggy back card
(discontinued at the time) used very expensive and rare 256Kx8bit DRAMs.

Mark


Wayne Stewart wrote in message <3AEB8B47.2D7E3415@intergate.bc.ca>...
>Does anyone know or can guess why the RamWorks III was produced. Looks
>like they just rearranged some of the chips on the RamWorks II and
>renamed it.
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why the RamWorks III?
  - From: Wayne Stewart <waynes@intergate.bc.ca>

References:
- Why the RamWorks III?
  - From: Wayne Stewart <waynes@intergate.bc.ca>

Prev by Date: Re: The Network from Heck ver 4.0 its 4.0! was a typo!
Next by Date: Re: The Network from Heck ver 4.0 its 4.0! was a typo!
Previous by thread: Why the RamWorks III?
Next by thread: Re: Why the RamWorks III?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread