Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo
From: mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Unexpandable megas
Summary: Your theory
	 "bad"?
Message-ID: <2374@sactoh0.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 90 05:58:34 GMT
References: <1989Dec30.064240.9297@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1990Jan3.220110.409@mentor.com>
Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA
Lines: 31

In article <1990Jan3.220110.409@mentor.com>, dclemans@mentor.com (Dave Clemans @ APD x1292) writes:
> In the systems I've seen, the "unexpandable" Mega 2 board does not
> look like a new PCB layout.  Instead it looks like the original
> layout artwork with the second memory bank covered up so that that
> area stayed all copper.
> 
> My theory is that they ended up with a run of memory controller
> chips that would not reliably drive a 4mb system.  Rather than
> throw those away, they decided it was cheaper to do a kludge
> run of "unexpandable" Mega-2 boards, stuffing the "bad" memory
> controller chips into them.
> 
> dgc

I certainly hope that no one thinks that is a reason, if any, why
Atari decided to use a particular board.

A kludge? Bad chips? Are you certain? Because you use the words "my
theory", it is just speculation on your part, and I'd like to make
that clear to the other users here.

Maybe you're right, but maybe not.

Ja ne da-cha,
Shinobu

-- 
--
   (ames att sun)!pacbell! \      Sakura-mendo, CA
           ucdavis!csusac! - sactoh0!mfolivo
              uunet!mmsac! /      the good guys!