Re: FS: IBM Workpad Z50 / memory expansion re-production run possibilities

 Ricardo,
 Wow. It sure sounds like you have a decent idea here. I don't think we 
will find a defective 32 mb module, but however, I suggest we wait until 
there is a z50 w/ 48 mb ram for sale on ebay, and whomever is in on the 
"project" splits the cost, and we accept the fact that we are destroying 
a rare and hard to get memory module so that more can be made. At that 
point we remove the 32 mb module, and then we could re-ebay the z50 w/ 
16 I suppose, as money back toward the project. At that point, disection 
so that reproduction possiblities like you suggested can be 
investigated. I would be in on the project (meaning help pay some money 
and would order a few modules in the end) if it is actually a 
possibility. It would be great to get more z50s upgraded to 48 mb to 
make more people interested in them, as a z50 w/ 16 sure isn't as nice 
as a z50 w/ 48 mb. Big difference. : )

Nick

"All unix, all the time."

http://npt.ath.cx




Ricardo L. A. Banffy wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> The cost-per-megabyte would be hideous, but that's not the point. 
> There are notebooks that are smaller and far more functional than the 
> z50. It's a hobby. It's about doing something that's next to 
> impossible (and impractical) and have fun in the process.
>
> I considered using http://www.pad2pad.com/ to get the boards 
> manufactured, buying the memories and doing the assembly myself (or 
> hiring someone to do it). Soldering SMD components manually is not 
> impossible. I am not sure if the required memories are still available 
> tough.
>
> I also wondered if I could use it to make an IDE interface for my 
> Amiga 500s, but that's another story.
>
> I never had the time for any of them. If someone has a defective 
> memory expansion that could be reverse engineered, there would be some 
> hope. AFAIK, the schematics for the board are not available anywhere.
>
> nick thompson wrote:
>> Speaking of which, what ever came of the talk of trying to see what a 
>> minimum run of them would be, cost wise? I wonder. I bet it would be 
>> too expensive to be possible.
>
>