Re: Hey, idiots!

[mark@trillian.JSC.NASA.GOV (Mark Manning/Metrica)]

In article <Jul.14.18.24.00.1994.17729@er5.rutgers.edu>, neiderma@eden.rutgers.edu (Kid) writes:
[Stuff Deleted]

There could be a simple answer to this:  They are using an 8-bit
machine with a 16-bit databus.  Thus, instead of having to do two
reads and two writes they do one and so speed up the computer
tremendously.  I'm sure a company which produces it's own computer
could easily have a special chip produced which allows them to
read and write 16-bits at a time.

So then you ask: But why stick with such a thing?  Well, conformity to
the product line, upwards compatibility, advances in technology allow
them to use the cheaper chip but get more bang for the buck.  There
could be a lot of reasons.  Price is a big reason.  It probably costs
them less than a dollar to produce 65C02 cpu chips.  Probably the
entire system costs less than $20.00 to produce.  This would allow the
manufacturer to sell them for less than a regular computer.

Remember that in retail, the price you see is at least three times as
high as what it cost the manufacturer to produce.  So a game system
which costs you $150.00 really only cost about $50.00 to make.  So you
see we are talking REALLY cheap here.

But the really important question to ask here is: What is the cheapest
solution to the need for 16-bit graphics?  If the 65C02 can handle it
- why go any higher?  Heck, most of the Macintoshes now-a-days have
65c02 chips in them to read/write floppy drives.  The SuperDrive has
1.44megs on it.  That's more than 64k (FFFF hex).  If it can handle
1.44 meg drives - why not 16-bit graphics?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All responses MUST be sent to mark@cliff.jsc.nasa.gov!!!!!
"When I was just a lad of ten.  My father said to me.... Come here and take a lesson from...the lovely lemon tree." Peter, Paul, and Mary.