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

Re: WDC 65C02

Subject: Re: WDC 65C02
From: "BLuRry" <brendan.robert@gmail.com>
Date: 24 Mar 2006 09:46:12 -0800
Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
In-reply-to: <mMKdnT4WKIuBtbnZRVn-rg@comcast.com>
Injection-info: t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=12.110.208.10; posting-account=N5hIbA0AAACzTGVDiZh9ucUYdzqr6aq7
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2, comp.sys.atari.8bit
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: <dLIUf.550$t22.534@dukeread08> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603232127260.29184@static-141-149-129-16.buff.east.verizon.net> <otCdndrMMK2w_b7ZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com> <f62dncCAOPPu9b7ZnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com> <mMKdnT4WKIuBtbnZRVn-rg@comcast.com>
User-agent: G2/0.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:5820 comp.sys.atari.8bit:2698

This was because of the older ram chips' response time, correct?  If
you wanted to upgrade the ram chips to faster ram, would that work?
Would the same go for a //e as well?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: WDC 65C02
  - From: "Vince Briel" <vbriel@removethisspamcamcast.net>

References:
- WDC 65C02
  - From: "Jack Tseng" <tseng4@hotmail.com>
- Re: WDC 65C02
  - From: Lyrical Nanoha <LyricalNanoha@dosius.ath.cx>
- Re: WDC 65C02
  - From: "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net>
- Re: WDC 65C02
  - From: "Vince Briel" <vbriel@removethisspamcamcast.net>
- Re: WDC 65C02
  - From: "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net>

Prev by Date: Re: WDC 65C02
Next by Date: Re: WDC 65C02
Previous by thread: Re: WDC 65C02
Next by thread: Re: WDC 65C02
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread