Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ti-csl!haddock
From: haddock@ti-csl
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: KickStart disks vs. ROM kernel
Message-ID: <9300007@ti-csl>
Date: Sun, 8-Jun-86 02:23:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ti-csl.9300007
Posted: Sun Jun  8 02:23:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jun-86 00:15:25 EDT
References: <18@uw-atm.UUCP>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:uw-atm.UUCP:18:ti-csl:9300007:000:949
Nf-From: ti-csl!haddock    Jun  8 01:23:00 1986


/* ---------- "KickStart disks vs. ROM kernel" ---------- */

	> I would like to suggest a different solution: EEPROMs
	>(Electrically Erasable, Programmable Read Only Memory).
	>These would have the advantage of high speed start
	>(no more waiting for those blasted KickStart disks
	>to be read), along with the flexibility to make updates.

	>James M Synge      UUCP: uw-beaver!uw-june!james

Clearly a GREAT idea James, 'cept that EEPROMs are a
s__tload more expensive than the current RAM chips and
much more so over mass-produced ROMs.   Commodore wants to
go with the ROM 'cause they're much cheaper to put into
the Amiga.

			-Rusty-
================================================================
*hardcopy*		*electr{onic, ic}*
Rusty Haddock		ARPA:  Haddock%TI-CSL@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
POB 226015 M/S 238	CSNET: Haddock@TI-CSL
Texas Instruments Inc.	USENET: {ut-sally,convex!smu,texsun}!ti-csl!haddock
Dallas, Texas 75266	VOICE: (214) 995-0330