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

[Bob Retelle <bobr1@provide.net>]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 04:34:28 GMT, "Timothy A. Seufert"
<tas@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <dsq6ltsuer7r9fjqc7mrouf2lbbe1k2jao@4ax.com>, Bob Retelle 
><bobr1@provide.net> wrote:
>

>> 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.
>
>What's the price of a 48K RAM expansion for an Atari 400 in the early 
>'80s got to do with it?  The idea expressed was to build a simple 
>computer with the flavor of earlier simpler systems, not a clone of one 
>of them.  It's possible to build simple hobbyist hardware using cheap 
>modern building blocks.
>

It was a similar type of hardware in that it was produced in very low
volume and had no "standardized" parts in it, thus the individual
retail price was very high.

(Of course, in those days there really was little that could be called
"standardized", I admit.)

Most of the suggestions proposed here have been great from the "gee
whiz" neato aspect, but I really doubt they could be realized for the
target price, especially considering the overall sales are undoubtedly
going to be very small.


>A sensible approach would be to use SDRAM DIMMs for memory.  I've seen 
>prices as low as $30 for a 256MB stick.  With the correct choice of CPU 
>no glue logic is necessary; a lot of CPUs designed for the embedded 
>market have built in SDRAM controllers.
>

That would be great, of course.  Those features don't seem to have
been very widely considered though, considering many of the
suggestions so far.

>
>
>-- Tim
>To mail me unsolicited advertisements:  Move to Siberia.  Wait until I
>say it's OK to send.  Everybody else, remove "NOSPAM" from my address.


BobR