From: Jim Brain (brain_at_jbrain.com)
Date: 2007-12-28 20:30:22
firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > Hallo allemaal, > > > I'm very sorry but I have to spoil the fun a bit for the C64/C128 owners > who want to use Jim's X-IDE card in combination with their computer. > Some minutes ago I decide to combine various pages dedicated to IDE > interfaces to one single page. And I started with using the one for the > C64 interface as base: http://www.baltissen.org/newhtm/ide.htm . > Beside that I noticed that there is something wrong with the page (even > worse, it is the wrong page and an outdated schematic), seeing the > schematic I noticed something I completely forgot to mention: as you all > probably know the VIC ships sometimes accesses the buss a bit longer > then it should. No problem for the 6510 and other peripheral IC's but it > will be a problem for the IDE interface. In fact it is about the same > problem when connecting a 6522 or 6551 to the expansion port. And > Are you sure. Link232 works fine without the 7474 (http://www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/hs232). If needed, one IC is easy to add, but the 6551 works fine without it, as far as I know. > Question for those people with a CMD (or other) hardisk: how compatible > is this harddisk regarding well speedloaders/copiers line EXOS, FC3, PC, > and RR? Or does your harddisk have its own speed tools? > I don't have any of those, but I do have a CMD HD, so if no one has a CMD HD and can test, let me know and I'll see what I can do. > I completely forgot about that; you just convinced me. But again, we > first need a stable Kernal. > No worries. My day job includes thinking about all of this stuff; I just don't have the time to implement it all. > If this won't work anyway for truly random access, why do you want to > use a, IMHO, complicated FS instead of FAT. Just thinking about ways to keep as much of CBM DOS intact (layout as well), but offer larger disk sizes. > Regarding the IDE64 FS, what > is the significant advantage of using it that you want to go through > quite some trouble to find its layout? Just curiousity :) > I don't know enough about it to state whether it is harder or simpler. FAT is simple, yes, but LFN support and other features make it kludgy. Still, the closer you can keep the FS to CBM specs, I think the better. Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.