From: Ethan Dicks (ethan.dicks_at_gmail.com)
Date: 2006-09-27 20:23:41
On 9/27/06, Gabriele Bozzi <email@example.com> wrote: > Well, makes sense to me. > Thus this is a 3008 (or 2001-N or B) under 2001's skin. After all is > not bad since I have the best (worst?) of both worlds: a chicklet > keyboard and a rom that manages disk drives. It's true that you shouldn't have IEEE issues as the original boards did, but C= did make upgrade ROMs for the 8K static PET board (the origininal), or you can install your own modern ROM adapter in the CPU socket - removable, so you could restore the PET to its original mis-functionality, but upgraded so you don't have the same problems. > Is it true what I read: that the original rev1 was a very close > derivative of the Kim-1 with video attached? While it wouldn't be surprising that the PET designers were familiar with the KIM, I think the PET is a from-scratch design that happens to share the CPU. One of the most significant differences is that the KIM used 6530s which were mask-programmed with their address decode information and ROM contents. This means that if a KIM 6530 breaks, you have to get one for a KIM, there is no generic one. In all PETs, there are ROMs, but no 6530s, meaning that when a VLSI chip (6520, 6522...) breaks, you just drop a new one in from anywhere; when a ROM breaks, you drop that in, or a compatible EPROM. Also, the PET is more than just RAM, ROM, and video - there's the tape interface, the keyboard interface, the User Port, and the IEEE interface. Very different from a KIM. -ethan Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.