Disk hardware emulation, was Re: Grandfather system RTE6/VM?

From: Tom Jennings <tomj_at_wps.com>
Date: Fri Dec 5 20:30:07 2003

On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 15:46, Tony Duell wrote:
> > My suggestion (worth every cent you paid for it) is to use a whole damn
> > computer on the other side of the HD controller.
>
> BLETCH!!! one reason I work with classic computers is to get away from
> this rediculous modern notion that the way to solve a problem is to throw
> CPU power at it without even thinking if there's an elegant solution...

Eh. It's unaesthetic, but computrons cost nothing. I agree with you, cpu
speeds are a foolish goal generally, but I was being somewhat arch; eg.
a 'throwaway' PC has more computing power than, etc.

If a purist sort of elegance is your goal, then by all means go that
way. Not only do I understand that, I practice it in many areas,
fanatically. But a simulated device that allows a 'classic' environment
to otherwise live, fine by me.


> Err, the interface is the tricky part (I've got some sketched-out
> schematics of ideas I've had -- getting the darn thing to work at 50-80
> MHz and use easy-to-get components is the hard part...).

Oh, agreed. For fast stuff then hardware is currently the only approach.
No argument here!

> > readable than yelling schematics) code.
>
> That depends on who you are. Personally, I have no problems at all
> understanding a 50 page schematic, but don't like reading long source
> listings...

I have no problem with complex schematics nor software listings. But
like it or not, code is more portable than hardware; making an SMD ->
EIDE interface in hardware is the best solution -- until EIDE is as
obsolete as SMD. It'll be sooner than we like.


To reiterate, for simulating high-speed interfaces, hardware is probably
the only choice. The definition of "high speed" changes daily...
Received on Fri Dec 05 2003 - 20:30:07 GMT