Re: VIC-II DRAM refresh

From: Francesco Messineo <>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:18:46 +0200
Message-ID: <>
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM,  <> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-14, at 13:42, Francesco Messineo <> wrote:
>>> I'd say the "meltdown" (as Gerrit called it) is at least as common. But that probably also depends on the brand. And if I am to think about it, I'd also say that I (probably - about 4ms of lack of refresh on those memcells :) had more cases when the chip was plain dead, poisoning the bus or so than cases where some cells failed but the chip was otherwise working. Summarising, I'd say the "almost always" part of your statement is what I find hard to agree with ;-)
>> ok, everybody has different experience.
> True. I think even if we had a subjectively large sample, we still neither have a picture big enough nor properly acquired and retained data.

exactly my point!

>> None of us "lives" by repairing electronics from the '80s (or some of you still can maybe?)
> I did it for a living long enough to get enough ;-) but I still - occasionally - refurbish some of those.

it's something I like to do still now, but it's not worth any money for sure.

> P. S. But I totally agree with your CIA being the most common failure in the 64 :-)

my sample of substituted CIAs is probably in the 20s by now, nothing
else is so numerous by a large amount. I would really understand why
some CIAs can work on some systems though, now that it has mentioned
by someone else.


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2016-10-14 13:00:24

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.