Originally Posted by Schoenfeld
Trouble with "soldering on a customer's board" is that it must be done by a technician. This costs some money, and sending the card back&forth costs another chunk of money. The other alternative is to mass-produce and mass-test an accelerator that will work on the ACA500. In the end, this will be cheaper than one-off soldering and patching on an ACA500.
That was an explanation in February 2015 when I first asked about possibility of adding second RAM chip to ACA500. To sum it up, in general and in chronological order:
1. Cost(?) only was pointed as a reason for both ACA500 having only 2 MB in standard and against user's modification. No potential compatibility issues indicated back then.
2. When I was wondering a year ago, Jens kept silent about firmware supporting/not supporting adding missing second RAM-CHIP to ACA500.
3. It turned out that firmware supports it from the word "GO" and 4 MB in total is recognized immediately by ACA500.
4. All of the sudden compatibility-issues explanation arises, while neither me, nor other people who enhanced their ACA500 have experienced such (lucky us
I mean no offence, but let's treat our intelligence the proper way. I have some idea why ACA500 was sold as it was (some people already spoke it loud few posts earlier), Jens has every right to use business model as he does, but we - potential or already - customers, have every right to comment on that and it has nothing to do with anything personal (like some "defenders" mention). I see nothing wrong in market expressing it's approval/disapproval, after all it helps to sell products how people really need them.
For me, this modification works and after that I'm indeed happy ACA500 user and glad that I haven't gone the road of adding ACA12XY to ACA500 (h*ll of a cost-saving
). And I'm not ruling out buying Jens' new products in the future when whole value-to-price ratio is good enough.
After all it's up to anyone to decide what to do with the money, already bought card, etc.