Re: C64 IEEE interface

From: Michał Pleban <*lists_at_michau.name*> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 10:56:09 +0100 Message-ID: <545F3A39.80101@michau.name> · lists_at_michau.name

Hello!

silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote:

> Interesting read, Michau. I am sure not an expert on IEEE bus as
> implemented on CBMs, but I always thought that IEC was a kind of serial
> version of the IEEE. Meaning that the communication mechanisms and
> protocols were adopted from IEEE. Things like ATN addressing and co. If
> something, I would expect more problems with the IEC version due to
> stripping down the number of lines and functions but what you write
> seems to contradict it. I am surprised that there is no way do detect
> the "device not present" condition in a similar way as on the IEC bus
> for example. Interesting. How did the PETs detect the condition?

The IEC protocol being slower, does not mean it's otherwise technically
inferior. As the physical level, it is a totally different protocol,
which uses some IEEE concepts only for convenience.

The problems with device detection arise when there is no device present
on the bus. I guess with the PETs they didn't think it's a big problem.

Regards,
Michau.

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list