[Coco] Re: Coco Repack

[jdaggett at gate.net]

while this is speculation on my part, yes

james


On 9 Aug 2004 at 20:27, Steve Ostrom wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 09 Aug 2004 20:27:09 -0500
From:           	Steve Ostrom <smostrom at mn.rr.com>
To:             	CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts 
<coco at maltedmedia.com>
Subject:        	Re: [Coco] Re: Coco Repack
Send reply to:  	CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts 
<coco at maltedmedia.com>
	<mailto:coco-
request at maltedmedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
	<mailto:coco-
request at maltedmedia.com?subject=subscribe>

> Is there any chance that when Tandy limited the number of pins on the
> GIME to save money, the "lost" graphics modes were really lost by
> doing this?
> 
> Sorry, just an idle thought.
> 
> -- Steve --
> 
> 
> jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> 
> >Mark 
> >
> >The MMU is real simple. It is basically a 2 to 1 4 bit wide
> >multiplexor that feeds a 16x8 ram. The GIME chip uses a 16x6 ram.
> >Most  likely the package was limited to 68 pins by Tandy and cost
> >factors. Next standard size up is 84 pins in a PLCC package. Given
> >that during the 80's it was around 10 cents a pin for package cost,
> >another 16 pins would have meant another $1.60 for the part. 
> >
> >I really believe that many of the limitations of the GIME chip is
> >solely due to keeping costs to a bare minimum. 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco