Let's not start throwing up our respective hands in disgust! Nothing's been
attempted yet. In fact, nothing's been suggested yet except a couple of
things which at first inspection didn't seem like they'd work. Now, Hans
Franke suggested something like a KIM-1. There's no reason one couldn't
code for something LIKE a KIM-1, even the guys working the Z-80 side, but
it's not convenient programming a 6532 or whatever those ROM-I/O-Timer
things were, or even a 6522 for simple I/O if that's what's needed. I
suggested a published algorithm which solves a published problem or
something close to that. There haven't been many suggestions made yet, so
it's inappropriate to choose. If one wants the hardware, it should be the
SAME hardware throughout the exercise, though. That's why I was suggesting
a simulator. All that's really needed is a run to see if it actually will
execute and end up with the desired result when code is submitted to the
hardware. A simulator would be adequate so long as it was trusted to give
honest timing results. That way, nobody would have to risk burning his
fingers.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar_at_ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> Do we really want to build hardware for the sake of this comparison?
>> Writing a bare-bones simulator would be straightforward enough. It's
really
>> just a big switch statement. The beauty is that you can include/exclude
>> undocumented features as you see fit. The gotcha is that it's easy to go
>> down a road which has no relevance to reality, i.e. if the processor
doesn't
>> work like that, even though it should, then simulating it like that is
not
>> valid.
>
>Ok, let's first assemble a committee to decide all these issues. We'll
>have to start with a Statement of Work. Perhaps we should put out an RFP
>first to select the person or group who should develop the SoW. Of course
>we'll have to pull together a comittee to draft the RFP. Once that's all
>done, then we must put together an administrative committee. We'll have
>to vote in a President, Vice President and Secretary. Perhaps we should
>incorporate as well. Let's choose the state of Delaware, since that seems
>to be the quickest route.
>
>Fucken-A people! Is this supposed to be a simple coding challenge, or a
>competition to see how much work we can create around the same? At the
>rate you all are going, it will be a year before we can even decide what
>it is we'll be coding!
>
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar_at_siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 04/03/99]
>
Received on Sat Apr 17 1999 - 16:18:20 BST