riscy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SIMMS

To: riscy@pyramid.com
Subject: Re: SIMMS
From: rei2!tsprad@uunet.UU.NET (6692)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1993 16:10:46 -0500 (CDT)
In-reply-to: <9307091731.AA25233@rei.com> from "UUCP Login" at Jul 9, 93 12:31:52 pm
Reply-to: riscy@pyramid.com
Sender: riscy-request@pyramid.com
> I've been thinking about memory.  I'm a software weenie, so if I've
> seriously mis-understood, please *gently* correct me.
> 
Same goes for me, too.

[Mucho memory in SIMMS]
> requires all that expensive 4-, 6-, or 8- layer M/B real estate.
> Plus drill holes through all those layers is not a pleasant thought (routing
> headaches, reliability, cost).  And 16 SIMM sockets ($).
> 
> Since Waldorf has (seems to have) agreed to produce boards that have surface
> mount components, would it be reasonable to mount discrete memory chips
> on the M/B?  Here was what I was considering:
> 
>   18 1Mbx4 70ns (is 70ns fast enough?) surface mount DRAMs on the M/B.
>       (18 because I assume the 3730 part wants parity bits)
>    8 standard SIMMs on M/B
> 
> Russell Kent
> 
If the answers to Russell's questions (which I deleted) are positive
I think this is a good idea.  It raises the base price of the board,
but a board with _no_ memory is worthless anyway.  For me,
personally, 32 MegaBytes in surface mount and no SIMMS would be OK,
but I realize that the amount of memory people want, and want to pay
for, varies wildly.  Russell's compromise addresses that.

I guess the real key is whether Waldorf can put surface mount
components on both sides of the board.  There is probably very
little difference between SIMM sockets and surface mount if it's all
on one side of the board.

-- 
Ted Spradley   Recognition International, Inc.  Opinions are mine, not theirs.
2701 E Grauwyler Rd. |Your productivity is not enhanced when you're staring
Irving TX 75061      |at that thing.  Your productivity is enhanced when
214-579-6692         |the computer is working and you're doing something else.

 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>