[Coco] Artifacting on LCD?

[Mike Pepe]

I'm not surprised. They were M68k and 6809 compatible, which may be why
they had 5 digits. They were known as the "Raster Memory System". One
chip was called the Raster Memory Controller. I forget what the other
one was called. I had some advance info datasheets but I don't believe
they ever were released. Looks like the data was released in 1986, I did
find a scan from the Master Selection Guide, but that's about it.

Oh, "Raster Memory Interface" was the other one :)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: coco-bounces at maltedmedia.com [mailto:coco-
> bounces at maltedmedia.com] On Behalf Of LinuxRules
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:28 PM
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [Coco] Artifacting on LCD?
> 
> Mike Pepe wrote:
> > Oh, and let's not forget the 68486/68487 SAM/VDG replacements- that
> > would have been a fixed VDG as well.
> >
> > Too bad I lost the datasheets for those, I would be curious to
> remember
> > how they were structured and what features they would have given us
> if
> > they had actually been produced.
> >
> > Maybe John knows :)
> >
> No, I've never heard of those chip numbers.
> In fact, they strike me as odd. Once the 68k was in production,
> management
> decreed that 5 digit numbers (68xxx) would be reserved for 16-32 bit
> chips
> and 8bit chips would be 4 digit numbers. (all changed with the CMOS
> MCUs.).
> At the time of the 68K introduction, IIRC the only 8bit chip with a 5
> digit number
> was the 68488 (GPIB controller). If '486 and '487 numbers were
assigned
> after
> the 68K, I would expect them to be 16-32 bit chips. If assigned before
> the 68K,
> I never heard a peep about them. Odd, but not impossible, that I
> wouldn't have...........
> 
> 
> cheers,
> johnd
> JohnDumas at austin.rr.com
> 
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco