Re: A question about 80 columns card

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Greg Weston wrote:

>In article <20030508161820.28097.00000053@mb-m17.aol.com>, Michael J.
>Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >I can't remember, or the articles at the time never said, why they
>> >didn't just put the extra memory on the motherboard.
>> 
>> The only apparent motivation was additional profit from selling
>> the 80-column capability for a lot more than the cost of memory.
>
>Actually, it wsn't all that much more expensive than the cost of the
>parts. It's just that the parts _were_ expensive. In flipping through
>the manual just now, I think the reason it wasn't added directly was
>because when it was first available it would actually cause issues with
>some older software.

Really?  I thought the compatibility issues only arose when the
80-column firmware was active.

I would expect that the chice of a 65C02 caused more compatibility
problems than the addition of the new soft switches and AUX mem.

>> By the time of the Platinum //e, the game was up, and the card
>> was included (though, ironically, the original "optional" design
>> required a higher-cost approach--AUX connector and separate
>> card--instead of simply putting two more 4x64K chips on the
>> main board).
>
>Even better: remember that there were 2 80 column cards. The "standard"
>one actually only had 1K of extra memory.

True, but that would really have been a waste.  ;-)

-michael

Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/