I have some reservations about your opeing assertion. I'd modify it to say
that articles are sometimes descriptions of circuits that work, sometimes.
I know people who build a circuit and try it once. If it works they say
they have the circuit working, and if it doesn't, they only say they have it
built.
There are fellows I know who seem to be quite competent at building
circuits, yet I see their stuff working and I see it malfunctioning, both.
Sometimes I believe their circuits/assembly techniues to be solid, sometimes
not. If I'm interested in applying a technology demonstrated in this
manner, I often try it myself, sometimes simulating it first, if I have
doubts about the validity of the underlying theory. The fact that a circuit
LOOKS good doesn't excuse you from performing the requisite analysis. I've
seen more error committed on the basis of inadequate analysis than probably
any other reason.
I seriously doubt, however, that anyone has written an article about
mounting two ISA cards on an S-100 board which occupies only a single card
slot when finished. That's what I was describing. I believe that's what is
needed, as opposed, say, to a multi-board interface, occupying, say, the
last position in a cardcage, thereby allowing cards to protrude somewhat
beyond the end of the cardcage. I'd consider that a believable approach.
The reason I say this is that the only way one gets to the notion I
described is by ordering the DIN 41612 connectors with their genders
reversed. Only a true dummy (referring to ME, of course) would do such a
silly thing.
I've got a basement full of circuits which didn't work though they were
copied from the application note. There are also a number which do work,
but I mostly delivered the working ones to someone who paid for them.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp_at_world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: homemade computer for fun and experience...
><>Been there and done that.
><>Also, there are no less than two articles on how to go from s100 to ISA.
><>
><There's a substantial reach from an article to a solid and working circuit
><on a board capable of actually supporting the functions. This is
>
>The articles actually are descriptions of circuits that do work.
>
><particularly true since, now, the user is required to understand the inner
><workings of his own machine as well as those of the card he wishes to use.
><Having the usual inkling about ISA is not always sufficient.
>
>That was true then. Unlike PCs with plug and pray configuring a s100
>system meant you generally had knowledge and documentation or were plain
>crazy.
>
><><ISA cards on a single s-100 board. This would certainly be cheap enough
><><most cases, to warrant such an effort. The software might get to be a
><><problem, though.
><
><Yes, and therein lies the "problem" for the average user.
>
>define average user... today that's mom and pop that buy a PC and plug
>it in. Definatly not the case in 1980. The reality of older computers
>like the S100, SS50, Multibus types were you had to be a knowledgeable
>user. Or if that was a problem you went to Apple or TRS80 styled machine
>where the hardware was generally a fixed and software was the experimental
>arena.
>
>Allison
>
Received on Sun Apr 04 1999 - 19:02:39 BST