RE: Ultimax questions

From: Bil Herd <>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 13:22:13 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Hi Giovi,

Mostly it was about getting to CES where afterwards we could "catch our
breath" and use the combined knowledge and wisdom of the chip design team to
help administer guidelines and advice to the 8563 project.  Prior to CES
everyone was too busy to watch other people's work unless it became a show
stopper (almost did).  The designer if the 8563 had felt prior to CES that
since there will always be a problem with synchronization between two clocks
(and metastability and all of that) that it didn’t make since to try and
reduce the chance of error  further.  I believe a couple of the designers
cornered him and explained the difference between an error every
1x10exponet8 and 1x10exponet22.

In some ways I think it also stayed broken or at least hard to use, for
example 256 byte move is not very useful.

Also they fixed and added several things after I was gone in the 64k VDC, by
then I don’t know if Commodore was so CES show driven.

Thanks for the kind words.


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Giovi
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Ultimax questions


Bil, amazing: I was reading about you on the book "On the Edge" and when I
stopped for a while and I got a quick glimpse on my notebook, I've seen your
name on the latest email received :) The work you guys did about the C128
was terrific, indeed. But how did you solved the video chip problems? You
told you have had many troubles with it, due to the poor design (at least
this is what I understood), including the problems you had showing the C128
prototypes at CES; but there's no explanation on the book about how you
fixed them later or I missed that part...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bil Herd" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 12:28 AM
Subject: RE: Ultimax questions

The connector itself was a product of mechanical design in the Tokyo Office:
Ira Velensky did the design  where he specified the connectors needed to
meet the footprint requirement as defined by JT.  My memory is he told the
vendor the size he needed and they created the connector for him/us, or at
least ramped up production on what had only been drawings.  The TED had no
reason to have a C64 cart interface and 2mm offered a much denser connector,
the joystick DIN's fit correctly in the slanted part of the case.

For those that may not have seen it, I rant about the 116, which drove the
TED family, at

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Jim Brain
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Ultimax questions

On 10/21/2013 1:15 PM, Gerrit Heitsch wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 08:08 PM, Jim Brain wrote:
>> On 10/21/2013 10:59 AM, Michał Pleban wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>> Uffe Jakobsen wrote:
>>>>> I have one for the VIC-20 as well, if interested.
>>>> I would be interested in that one.
>>> And while we are at it, was there ever one created for Plus/4? :-)
>>> Regards,
>>> Michau.
>>>         Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
>> I'm happy to help (I think I have a ULP that can create the 50 pin
>> connector), but which cart case would one use for the dimensions of
>> the PCB?
> The problem with the 264 series is that the connector doesn't use the
> normal 2.54mm (1/10") spacing but 2mm.
The ULP I have will do any spacing.  It's how I created my .1" and .156"
ones.  It'll take a bit to find it, though....
> Whoever had that bright idea?
Now, you're just trolling :-)

Let's see if Bil pipes in.  He got the +4 project at some point, maybe he
knows why...


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2013-10-22 18:01:54

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.