--- Bo Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Heh. Such a configuration IS uncommon, though not downright rare > > The original motherboard will also, very likely, have older ROMS, perhaps > 2.0, which is also uncommon enough among my own PET toys. The original _should_ have 2.0. AFAIK, only the SRAM PETs had 1.0 ROMs. The video is discrete logic, not a 6545/6845. It's one of the "problems" I've had with a software project - I disassembled the Zork engine from the C-64 version, added comments, and recompiled it with a miniature version of the c-64 kernel table to interface to PET ROMs. The problem I have is that the PET version of the binary works under VICE with 2.0 ROMs (my original PET isn't working at the moment), but I can't seem to find which zero-page locations are being used by the 4.0 kernel that I'm accidentally stepping on, and all of my working PETs are 6545-based 8032s, etc, so I can't even downgrade them. So I have this program that works under exactly one configuration, but I can't test it on real hardware because I don't have any running hardware that is either in that configuration or can be _put_ into that configuration. Sigh. I spent most of my larval-stage learning curve on a BASIC 2.0 PET, so I'm most familiar with it. I have pored over the stuff on funet to find out what I might be stepping on, but I gave up a while ago until I find some new docs. -ethan ===== Visit "The Seventh Continent" http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.