On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Marko Mäkelä <email@example.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:01:22PM -0400, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> > If the PET Rabbit is anything like Vic Rabbit, I wish you luck. >> >> That sounds like you put some time into it and gave up. > > No, just look at my findings of the Vic Rabbit. Ah. Gotcha. > The implementation is > flawed in that the generated pulse widths vary a lot, more than the pulse > widths written by the Commodore routines. There is not much difference > between the widest short pulse and the narrowest medium pulse. That's unfortunate. I don't remember problems with real Rabbit tapes back in the day, but it sounds like there isn't much robustness. I never had a disk drive until I got a 1540 in 1982. All of my PET work (1977-1982) was saved on tapes (the ones I still have). I was happy to use the PET Rabbit because it saved a lot of time, and I had the free ROM space to keep it in the machine at all times (along with an improved Machine Language Monitor that included a line-at-a-time assembler/disassembler and the Sykes BASIC Toolkit). > I didn't > have any tapes in that format; I merely tested the cartridge image I got. OK. I don't know if the formats are identical or merely similar, but with some free time, I should probably be able to generate some samples for comparison. > For sampling, many people have had success with mtap under MS-DOS or FreeDOS, > connecting a C2N to the parallel port of a PC. mtap. That's what I was using that was able to read about 98% of my C=-format PET tapes. It worked fine for ones that were in good enough shape to read in a real machine. -ethan Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2009-04-08 21:28:59
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.