Post your questions, opinions and reviews of the MPC1000. This forum is for discussion of the OFFICIAL Akai OS (2.1). If you wish to discuss the JJ OS, please use the dedicated JJ OS forum
By richard Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:20 am
okay so I paid the fukkers

but the 1000 uses the 128 RAM (reported as 123.4 in the load menu) instead of the 16mb onboard not AS WELL as... ? I have autoload disabled and nothing in the flash RAM?

seems like a lot of redundant RAM there

shouldn't I have like 149mb free when I start??

Richard

By LabWorkz Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:01 am
Dawg the 1k uses 5 mb flash rom regradless if your usin it or not ya dig! :roll:

By 247beatz Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:16 am
hes talkin about the original 16 mbs of ram you get with it.

but yeah, it seems to me that akai cant really get anything right these days. I mean i have had no problems so far but everyone has had problems.

By LabWorkz Fri Feb 27, 2004 2:33 am
U cant get the 128 mb ram and the 16 that comes wit it ya dig! Since u are a 2k user u should know that once u max out the 2k u dont get the 2 mb memory that comes wit it! :wink:

By elmacaco Fri Feb 27, 2004 3:16 am
Most systems now are like this, RS7000 too,

By richard Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:19 am
then they shoulda put the 128 in as standard from the beginning - woulda hardly added anything to the cost

it was just greed that made them put it as an upgrade

Richard

By tiger vomitt Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:33 pm
what a totally nauseating bit of news. why would they make it so that the original 16mb isnt usable after the upgrade? im a huge 1000 supporter - - but fückîn A that is flat out retarded.

By elmacaco Sat Feb 28, 2004 1:04 am
Probably to save money on the addressing of the memory. If you only have one set of addressing circuits, you can only use 1 chip. if you put in another one, the size, and pricepoint would raise up too high to justify it for a measly 16Mb's.

Coming from someone who's got 1.5Mb's ;)

That's kind of a guess, I aint really a digital guy.
User avatar

By effekt Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:12 am
^^^ I thing that this is the only logical explenation for that.

By Toecutter Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:59 am
Seems like a waste of 16 whole mb's of ram... what a shame...

By elmacaco Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:19 am
Would you pay an extra $100 per unit to enable it?

By tiger vomitt Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:57 am
i wouldnt, but if that's the case they shoulda just made the 128MB standard right?

By LabWorkz Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:14 am
Ima cop it for $110 f#ck it! :wink:

By elmacaco Tue Mar 02, 2004 3:40 pm
No.... they still want to get a wider market base, at about $1000 they would lose customers.

I don't know what all the fuss is about, 16 Mb's are cheap as hell, implementing a machine so it uses two memory sources well (say you split programs across the 16 & 128, it would have to access each separately and it would probably take a lot longer to load, and you think you have bugs now!)

Seriously, no big deal. Then if your memory fails down the road, you can still have the base memory.

By mpc3000 Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:56 pm
"they shoulda just made the 128MB standard "

Why? To force us that do not need it to pay for it anyway?

"Sir, that 4 ft hood ornament comes standard on that car."
"But I do not want it."
"To bad you have to pay for it anyway. That is what standard means"

Regardless, just put it standard would have added over 200 to the price as opposed to getting it for $100 as an option. I it is better to let us have a choice.