Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!ccavax!bruce
From: bruce@ccavax.camb.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.sys.cisco
Subject: Re: CSC/3 vs. CSC/2 processor
Message-ID: <32255.26ed05ed@ccavax.camb.com>
Date: 11 Sep 90 19:42:37 GMT
References: <25834@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <25834@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, swatt@noc.net.yale.edu (Alan S. Watt) writes:
> 
> I think cisco should immediately re-engineer the CSC/3 board to allow
> addition of memory (perhaps even on a separate card connected by
> ribbon cable) *without* having to replace the processor card.  You
> can call this the CSC/3+ or CSC/4 or whatever, but you should do this
> immediately and offer to exchange existing CSC/3 cards for the new

Wonderful idea, and while you are at it, INCLUDE provision for /2 owners
(especially those who bought so recently they COULD have ordered /3s - had
they been told of their planned arrival...) to not get so ripped off in the 
upgrade.

ANY spare card space should be socketed for some user friendly memory
insertion. Catering to 1 and 4 meg SIMMs would currently make a lot of sense.

I can think of 2 different basically equivalent X terminals where one chose
memory upgrades to be their proprietary cards at about $600 per meg, and the
other vendor simply socketed for the same 8 bit SIMMs one stocks in the
stationary cabinet for the MAC users. Guess which X terminal sells!

Users really appreciate vendors that let them take advantage of commodity
priced and available components when building up what is already an EXPENSIVE
piece of hardware. Sell us what needs your expertise, but don't try 'DECing'
us for the rest.