Tim's own version of the Catweasel/Compaticard/whatever

From: Richard Erlacher <richard_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Wed Jul 5 19:17:50 2000

I'm afraid you missed my point. This device we've been discussing has
absolutely no facility for dealing with the different modulation schemes,
e.g. MFM, RLL, GCR ... That would be a mite more complex than we want or
need, methinks.

As for me, I seldom see pseudocode, having been a hardware type for
twenty-odd years. Before that I was a high-level programmer, when those
guys used threetran, er,I mean FORTRAN, but they made us use FTN-II when
FTN-IV was available, and COBOL, APL, etc. We didn't have these new-fangled
languages like ALGOL or PASCAL ...

If you want to build a controller using hardware to deal with the various
modulation schemes, remember that they use lots of different timing
elements, and that makes CPLD design harder. I've never seen a controller
that did multiple modulations aside from FM/MFM. It might be interesting to
see . . .

Moreover, that's quite some distance off-target for this topic, since it's
intended to sample and software/massage the data so all sorts and sources of
data can be dealt with equivalently.


----- Original Message -----
From: Eric J. Korpela <korpela_at_ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Tim's own version of the Catweasel/Compaticard/whatever

> > Dealing with the
> > different modulations, as you've named, is a software post-processing
> You prefer software solutions. I prefer hardware. It doesn't make either
> of us wrong. When you close your eyes, you see pseudocode. I see
> > The notion of reprogramming the thing is perhaps a pregnant one, but I
> > reservations about the suitability of this particular device, for want
> > pins.
> Yes, I would probably choose a larger CPLD than the one previously
> Eric
Received on Wed Jul 05 2000 - 19:17:50 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:56 BST