Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!toddpw From: toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: ZipGS GX Message-ID: <1990Dec12.061924.28377@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 12 Dec 90 06:19:24 GMT References: <36819@cup.portal.com> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 27 -Rich-@cup.portal.com (Richard Sherman Payne) writes: > Zip's spokesman was very verbose, and hardly let me talk. It was >mostly a prepared speech. I found out that if you upgrade the SRAM, then your >warranty is null and void. He seemed to think that most people who upgraded >their systems were somehow smart enough to pull the CPU (with extensive >handholding), but nowhere near smart enough to replace the SRAM chips. He >did not say this directly, and I never got a chance to make the comparison. I've talked to the zip guys (luckily for me they are within driving distance) on the phone (I haven't managed to get a ride over to swap my board for the RAMFast fix version yet). I have found them to be fairly nice but they got really awkward after I asked them a technical question -- until I told them to explain as techie as they wanted. Most people ARE smart enough to pull the CPU. Selecting SRAMs of the correct size and pinout for upgrades is not something I would want to try unless I knew more about which chips the Zip was designed for. Since Zip hasn't released this info, they are fully justified in discouraging people from risking their accelerators. The main reason I agree with this policy is that Zip is moving to a cache RAM combination that uses faster chips for tag (I assume in preparation for the ASIC 65816) -- chips which are NOT widely available to consumers. Looking at my Zip GSX, it has two skinny 25 ns tag RAM's -- don't count on JameCo carrying these. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu