trs-80 model II trouble--problem solved..and follow-up
dkelvey at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 18 12:57:54 CST 2009
> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:07:29 -0800
> From: cisin at xenosoft.com
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: trs-80 model II trouble--problem solved..and follow-up
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> > I probably still have a bunch of these--they were castoffs from work
> > when we got some "real" 16K DRAMs, I got to keep the '09s. Curiously
> > most of the 09s worked just fine in full 16K mode and passed every
> > diagnostic I could throw at them. So calling them "bad" was perhaps
> > a little misleading. It could well have been that half the chip
> > didn't meet specs.
> Let's not do like Gibson/Spinrite.
> Perhaps the manufacturer had some test for the chips that was more
> rigorous than what we have. If they say that their product is bad, I'll
> believe them, even if it "tests good" most of the time.
I recall when 2716s first came out. Intel got premium prices for them.
They had a number of half bad parts that they labeled as 2508s ( not to be confused
with TI's 2508s ). These also had the high/low selector in the name.
Over the years, competition and demand brought the price of 2716s down.
There was no increased demand for the 2508s so their price remained
high ( even higher than a 2716 ). Towards the end, 2508s were in fact
perfectly good 2716s that were relabeled as 2508s.
It was actually more expensive to have a different flow process for
the 2508s than to just test them all as good 2716s.
At the time that I recall seeing an Intel price list, the 2716s were ~$5
while the 2508s were at ~$32.
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
More information about the cctech