[Top] [All Lists]


To: riscy@pyramid.com
Subject: Re: SIMMs
From: rohrer@fncrd8.fnal.gov (Keith Rohrer)
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 15:20:43 -0600 (CDT)
In-reply-to: <5471547@prancer.Dartmouth.EDU> from "Steven D. Ligett" at Jul 15, 93 03:27:57 pm
Reply-to: riscy@pyramid.com
Sender: owner-riscy@pyramid.com
> --- Andreas Busse wrote:
> This is all more or less true. 3-chip x9 SIMMs have only few more chips than
> x36 SIMMs. The discussion what SIMMs we should use had no technical reason,
> just a practical. RAMs are going to be more expensive, so it would be
> desirable for most of us to use the SIMMs we already *have*, and these are
> 1Mx9 and 4Mx9 SIMMs, with a few exceptions.
> --- end of quoted material ---
> I think it makes the most sense to design for what we *will be* able to buy,
> not what we have now.  Building a "junk box" computer may be fun, but is a
You mean, buy the motherboard, let it sit in a closet until the following
summer when I can afford the memory?  Depending on how layout goes, it might
be good to have a daughtercard with (full-speed) simm sockets of x36 or x9,
depending on the card or some of each.  If we have enough VLSI chips for
the real work, board space may not be a problem, but beware also creeping
featurism and overflowing the board with all the connectors for the things
the wonder-chips will also do...

> SIMM "shape" is tending from the older x8 and x9 SIMMs to x32, x33, x36, and
> x40 SIMMs.  Some of this is due to Wang Labs reaching out from the grave to
> try to strangle other companies.  Some is due to benefits of the x32ish
> shape.
Hmmm...more expensive, and yet you need to replace it in larger hunks if/when
it goes bad.  Sounds superior to me...  /*sarcasm off*/



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