Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!convex!swarren From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Why not SIMMs? (was Re: A3000) Message-ID: <101993@convex.convex.com> Date: 3 May 90 18:28:59 GMT References: <79733@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <744@sagpd1.UUCP> <2252@awdprime.UUCP> Sender: news@convex.com Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX Lines: 29 In article tadguy@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Tad Guy) writes: >In article <2252@awdprime.UUCP> robin@sabre.austin.ibm.com (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) writes: >> The specs I have say 4Meg in 1Meg ZIPS and 16Meg in 4Meg ZIPS. > >Ok, I'll ask the stupid question I haven't seen yet: > > Why doesn't the A3000 use SIMMs? > >It would seem foolish for any new personal workstation to not use >something as common (and cheap) as SIMMs... What am I missing? > > ...tad ZIPPs are just about as space-saving as SIMMs are. SIMMs are more expensive/Mbyte than individual chips. SIMMs for 4 Mbit chips are still very expensive. You can populate your memory system cheaper and in roughly the same space using ZIPPs. Since a SIMM is nothing more than the discrete chips soldered onto a PC board, you should always be able to get the discrete chips (same # of chips) cheaper than the SIMMs. Any questions? -- --Steve DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own (I don't speak for Convex) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM