Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

Well, upgrading a 102 should only cost you around $6.00 or less and just involves plugging in a chip. If you're handy you could upgrade an 8K 100 for around the same amount... m - Original Message - From: Jan Vanden Bossche To: m...@bitchin100.com Sent: Friday, January 25,

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

> I recall someone suggesting that sharing designs would encourage "hacking". > I Have yet to see any shared derivatives. I recall getting a bunch of > suggestions on how rex could be improved layout wise. I guess no one > grabbed the baton. I would Have expected by now a new and improved

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

> -Original Message- > > I have posted the design for REX at club100.  I feel this design is > pretty solid. > I have posted the design for T200RAM at club100.  This is very simple > and good to go. Question: if someone like myself, who has no experience with PCB design nor the software

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

Yes, I think so. But that also means I had the concept wrong. I thought that the RAM-switching was done ON the REX, and that the live RAM was on the REX. If I understand it now - sorry I'm slow - the RAM-image is copied into the live RAM of the machine. But, that also mean that, in order to be

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

QUAD V4 works ok with 0QUAD software, but I was unable to integrated it with REX.That is why I pulled the PCB because I'm not 100% confident in the design, and it didn't meet my goal of 100% interop with REX. I have shared my schematic for Quad V4, and V5 at club 100 for the purposes of

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

I can still order quad v4 pcbs from oshpark, even though they are not otherwise available any more. I personally haven't had any problems with the v4. I'm not sure how bad the unreliable reset to bank 1 problem really is. Meaning, when it happens, really how bad is that for the user? Do you just

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

< what he said ;) On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:25 PM Gregory McGill wrote: > bucket = 24k > flash image = 32k > > you can't put 32k in 24k so it will truncate at 24k.. or saving flash > images from that machine will only save 24k of data. because that's all > there is > > easy fix: I sell 8k

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

bucket = 24k flash image = 32k you can't put 32k in 24k so it will truncate at 24k.. or saving flash images from that machine will only save 24k of data. because that's all there is easy fix: I sell 8k ram at arcadeshopper.com Greg On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:17 AM Fred Whitaker wrote: > If

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

wish I could get more quads :) On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:17 AM Fred Whitaker wrote: > If it is a Model 100, and you have a quad, you can enjoy 32K on four > screens. > > > > Sent from Mail for > Windows 10 > > > -- >

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

Ram images are sized to match what is in the M100. example you cite would be 24kB of usable image data within a 32 Kb "record" on the flash... does that answer the question ? ;) On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:17 PM Fred Whitaker wrote: > If it is a Model 100, and you have a quad, you can enjoy 32K

Re: [M100] REX in a sub-standard machine

If it is a Model 100, and you have a quad, you can enjoy 32K on four screens. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: M100 on behalf of Jan Vanden Bossche Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 10:51:18 AM To: