Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159866

Re: Delay Line Memory

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Lawrence Statton wrote:

> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>> I remember in 1980, seeing an advertisement for a 64k memory board for
>> the S-100 bus.  This board had 32 RAM chips, each was 16k x 1 bits,
>> plus associated interface and addressing chips.  And the board was
>> *only* $1000 US !!!   I was amazed that much memory could be had so
>> cheaply!!!
>
> In fairness - most S100 memory boards used static memory for "good and
> sufficient reason" ("D-Ram timing is *hard*" quoth an engineer friend of
> mine), and perhaps because some of the earliest dynamic boards were
> Unbearably Badly Engineered, buyers were skeptical of them.  I had one
> stuffed to the gills with 2114 (1K x 4 in an 18-pin DIP) that was 32K,
> and was hot as a pistol.  Those chips were close to half a watt each,
> and sticking 64 of them in a board sucked a few amps off the 8V bus.  It
> had two LM323 (TO3 five volt regulator rated for 3A), and each of those
> had a honkin' huge shunt resistor to keep package dissipation down.
>
Dynamic RAM was a new thing for a lot of the people creating the very 
early home computers.  I think the Altair board used RC timing for 
something on their dynamic RAM board, and apparently that gave a lot of 
trouble.  It gave a bad name to dynamic RAM, so others avoided it, at 
least for a while.

I ended up with a stray Processor Technology dynamic RAM board, I think 
it's 16K, I got it about 1990 and no computer for it.  I gather it was 
okay, but when I checked the ads for this board, it was something like 
$695 in 1976 or so.

But somehow things improved, either people got better, or they just 
overcame the bias against dynamic RAM.  The Apple II of course made good 
use of it, including the ability to upgrade when the higher density RAM 
came along.  So did the TRS-80 that year, though I have a vague memory 
that their expansion RAM didn't work so well, in part because it was in a 
separate box.  At some point it became easier and cheaper to use dynamic 
RAM unless you only needed small amounts.  My OSI Superboard had only 
space for 8K of RAM, so there was no sense in going dynamic.

I also remember when 2K by 8 static RAM came along, in 24pin packages so 
they could interchange with eproms. Godbout soon came out with a board 
that I think was 64K, still a lot of ICs on that board, but not as bad as 
lower density RAM and since it was CMOS, suddenly the issue of power draw 
was no longer there.

The odd thing is, those CMOS static RAMs became even denser, but by that 
point dynamic RAM was the way, so we generally didn't see anyone using the 
denser CMOS static ram in "home computers".

Though I remember 15 or 20 years ago, people suggesting grabbing cache RAM 
off "old" motherboards for projects, 32K RAM in a thin 24 or so pin 
package, one or two ICs good enough for a "controller" type project.

   Michael

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:21 -0600
  Re: Delay Line Memory Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-16 15:41 -0600
  Re: Delay Line Memory David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:18 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-16 17:36 -0500
  Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:57 -0600
  Re: Delay Line Memory bert <bert.hutchings@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-16 15:08 -0800
    Re: Delay Line Memory Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-17 01:31 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:25 +0100
    Re: Delay Line Memory Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:14 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:46 -0800
      Re: Delay Line Memory jhhaynes@earthlink.net - 2016-02-17 18:18 -0800
      Re: Delay Line Memory David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:44 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:43 -0800
    Re: Delay Line Memory Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 01:24 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
      Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-16 22:19 -0500
      Re: Delay Line Memory JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:34 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-16 20:06 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 20:23 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:35 +1100
    Re: Delay Line Memory Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
      Re: Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
        Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:27 -0600
          Re: Delay Line Memory Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 04:14 +0000
          Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:07 -0500
  Re: Delay Line Memory Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-17 01:30 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 19:11 -0500
      Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 23:13 -0500
        Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:25 -0600
        Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-17 23:16 -0800
          Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 12:01 -0600
            Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
            Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:46 -0600
            Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:13 -0500
        Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 04:49 -0800
          Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:21 -0500
        Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 04:51 -0800
          Re: Delay Line Memory Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 19:16 -0500
  Re: Delay Line Memory Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
    Re: Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:50 -0600
      Re: Delay Line Memory Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 06:31 +0000
  Re: Delay Line Memory G. <gerry77@no.spam.mail.com> - 2016-02-17 04:08 +0100
  Re: Delay Line Memory Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-17 08:19 +0000
    Re: Delay Line Memory Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 14:57 -0600
    Re: Delay Line Memory "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:43 -0600
      Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-19 22:13 -0800
      Re: Delay Line Memory Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:17 +0000
      Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 09:17 -0600
        Re: Delay Line Memory Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 09:20 -0600
      Re: Delay Line Memory Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 18:49 -0800
        Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-20 21:06 -0800
  Re: Delay Line Memory jhhaynes@earthlink.net - 2016-02-17 18:23 -0800
    Re: Delay Line Memory isw <isw@witzend.com> - 2016-02-17 23:06 -0800

csiph-web