[einr]

RAM was very expensive then and 16 bit CPUs weren't that much faster to justify the cost if you were aiming for the home market.

Both true, which makes this an even more baffling choice -- why pick the more expensive, state of the art 16-bit CPU* that you're getting little or no benefit from + 16K of extremely slow-to-access combined video and system RAM? You could have used a cheaper 8-bit CPU and maybe for the same budget have fit 4K or 8K of system RAM on the bus + some amount of dedicated video RAM for the VDP. This would have been faster and more useful in nearly all real world applications, make for a much cleaner board design, easier development, and probably cheaper. That's what everyone else did.

Then again, what was this machine's target market?

Home computing, so yeah.

http://www.vintagecomputing.com/wp-content/images/retroscan/...

* The reason is probably that TI wanted to show off their state-of-the-art CPU tech and be able to point to the spec sheet and say "look, it's 16 bit! All our competitors are only 8 bits -- that's half as many bits!"