Date: 2006-02-25 21:08:29
Hallo Claus, > Meaning that you've been working on an integration with IEEE > interfaces in general, No, only my own interfaces. The funny thing is, integrating my interfaces wasn't the problem. The problem was to find where to integrate them. SC is written in Turbo Vision, an event driven Turbo Pascal. And no form to guide you like in Delphi. > (if using 'standard' calls)?! Nope, everything is really hardware orientated. For example I have routines like ByteOut, ByteIn, AtnLoIEEE, NrfdLo, EoiHi etc. The source coming with my IEEE card only enable you to give complete commands like OPEN, GET etc. This is one of the reasons I haven't integrated that card. Another reason: It makes no sense to write SW for a card hard to find (IMHO). > I can do that, but it would of course be easier if it isn't needed > ;-) To make things promising, the most simple version is my basic cable plus three diodes, some resistors and three transistors. > Especially if it isn't stable?! Ehhhh? What isn't stable? My SW is AFAIK. > What's possible with the current code? What's missing? The code is quite complete. OK, certain things are impossible like M-E; it is an simulator, not an emulator. I can even use the DOS-partition but then commands like setting the track/sector cannot be used anymore. What I'm working on yet is to be able to use Commodore names under DOS. -- ___ / __|__ / / |_/ Groetjes, Ruud \ \__|_\ \___| http://Ruud.C64.org Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.