With a QUAD in the M100 you can pull all the socketed RAM chips and reuse them in your other machine, you will need to open the M100 to get at the other ones though.
From: M100 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Gregory McGill <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:33 PM To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [M100] REX build - which 4.9 release to use? ok good to know.. i need ram in that 100 badly.. though I guess I pulled a chip out of the other 100 I have to install the quad I put in there, so that could be installed in this one.. if I can find it. hopefully I stuck it in with the multiplan chip I yanked to install my other REX.. speaking of other REX it looks like an older revision On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Fugu ME100 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Unfortunately the QUAD is only for the M100 not the T102 :( http://bitchin100.com/wiki/index.php?title=QUAD It is a very nice addition to the M100 though, especially with the REX in place. From: M100 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Gregory McGill <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:14 PM To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [M100] REX build - which 4.9 release to use? https://photos.app.goo.gl/3jkaHxX1P7RlQALt2 now I just need a couple quads :D Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Gregory McGill <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Btw i got them yesterday Josh thanks again! Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Josh Malone <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I programmed the 4.9 release on the 2 I built for Greg. I got them from a file called R49_M100T102_236_rebuild.zip with checksums: 5ddfff2652f3757a54cfbb98aca6196e rf149.co<http://rf149.co> dcc1d9ef47b4673ea782a02bd6b5b575 RXF149.BR<http://RXF149.BR> 9e71cace85983e42a2f8c2a1f1f8894d tsd100.bx and timestamps: 4853 Nov 29 2015 rf149.co<http://rf149.co> 32768 Nov 29 2015 RXF149.BR<http://RXF149.BR> 32768 Aug 5 2009 tsd100.bx It contained the Y2K patch and I had no issues with it. On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Jim Anderson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > So I finally got all my parts - the items from China came much sooner than > expected, with three parcels arriving at once on Tuesday. Yay! This > included the AM29F800BB-70EC chips, so I was able to build the first one > using one of those, although I also ordered a couple of MX29F800CBTI-70G from > DigiKey which seem like they might be a suitable replacement. I'm going to > try building the next one using one of those chips and report back on success > or failure. > > I built the first one last night and managed to possibly ruin one voltage > regulator (depending on how much heat they can take (opinions welcome), > because I bridged the three pads on one side and ended up having to remove it > from the board, which took a lot longer than I had wanted). Otherwise, it > was a success and is working properly. > > Question for Stephen or others in-the-know: I installed the 4.9 software > release linked to from the 'Building a REX' wiki page - it's in the file > 'Beta R49 Dec 7 2013.zip' in Stephen's Member Upload Library area on > club100.org<http://club100.org> in a folder titled 'REX 4.9 Beta'. After > installation I started to wonder if this was the best version of 4.9 to use, > since I remember reading that 4.9 included a Y2K patch for the menu, and my > menu still says 1900. > > Looking on the 'REX Release 4.9' page on > bitchin100.com<http://bitchin100.com>, I see revision 236 (which says it's > buggy) and revision 162, both of which date from 2015, leading me to conclude > they're newer than the one I installed (based on the date in 2013, since the > version I installed has no revision number)... would these be the releases > with the Y2K menu patch? Is the version I installed buggy and/or otherwise > to be avoided? > > > > > > > > jim >
