Jump to content

Photo

ON TOPIC: Ponderings


17 replies to this topic

#1 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Mon Aug 6, 2018 6:36 PM

With the P-Box TIPI released, coupled with it's massive (TI-wise) storage capability on the RPi, combined with one of the 1024K SAMS cards, I wonder what the first 'exploit' will be year or so 'down the line'.

 

Do you guys have any predictions?



#2 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Tue Aug 7, 2018 5:07 AM

Another thing to ponder...

 

How many basic P-Boxes with only 32K and an original 5.25 floppy do you think are floating around out there unused?  Many of those systems will suddenly become viable for use again with a single TIPI card.



#3 HOME AUTOMATION OFFLINE  

HOME AUTOMATION

    Star Raider

  • 63 posts

Posted Tue Aug 7, 2018 7:37 AM

I personally prefer the sidecar 32K+TIPI. I imagine I could use a side-port splitter to hook it up with my P-BOX for the purposes of data x-fer or prototyping. I have 2 PEBs as you mentioned plus rs2323s I obtained years ago as bakups to my main PEB w corcomps in it. Before TIPI I had been forced to DEVELOP on my MINIMEMORY and store on .WAVs using a voice recorder. Because of limited space!

The AIRCRAFT CARRIER + FIRE-HOSE + ELEPHANT-PAW + CONSOLE + MONITOR = NO DEVELOPMENT AREA.

...and the original sidecars... TI board members must have assumed that we users all hold board meetings as well, so we all must have conference tables.

At the high-rate TIPI x-fers data, block swapping makes fair use of 32k. however intense apps or games benefit from more RAM. Considering conservation of space and 512K x 127 = 64Meg I imagine a FINALGROM to be my final solution.

TIPI + 32K + FINALGROM + CONSOLE + MONITOR(tiny) = ROOM TO GROW

and after all, we're merely passengers here...



#4 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Tue Aug 7, 2018 8:32 AM

The AIRCRAFT CARRIER + FIRE-HOSE + ELEPHANT-PAW + CONSOLE + MONITOR = NO DEVELOPMENT AREA.
 

 

"Aircraft Carrier"... that's a good one and gave me a belly laugh this morning, thanks for that!  :thumbsup:

 

For those already with P-Boxes, or those needing other specialty cards, the P-Box is where it's at.  I also like the sidecar model, but I also need extra capability, so I opted for both.  Both versions are great and offer something for everyone.

 

I got to thinking though, how inexpensive the TIPI option really is compared to our original investment(s) back in the day.  If I remember correctly, I paid $150.00 back in 1983 for my TI RS-232 and probably a little more for my TI Acoustical modem, but let's say $300.00 for both.  In today's dollars that's a little over $750.00 to get 'online'.

 

Now days, the TIPI, RPI3, power cord and an SD card will come in under $200.00, in 1983 dollars that's just under $80.00 to get online, but you also get way more than just 'online' you get storage space up the Wazoo that people would have spent quite literally THOUSANDS of dollars for back then.

Attached Files



#5 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:03 AM

Today I pondered, what will.... 'never be'.

 

Even though we probably have the greatest percentage (as a group) of Triple Tech Card users that have probably ever been in one place, it's still a rare card.  In fact I believe the last piece of useful software ever written for it was SETCLOCK by Gazoo back in 2015.  

 

While P-Box TIPI users will grow somewhat over time, we are still a microscopic blip on the scene.  How many P-Box users own both a TIPI & Triple Tech Cards?  One, two, maybe three at most?  With numbers like that, the odds of one of them being an assembly level programmer is probably slim to none.  So the dream of an automatic time setting program for the Triple Tech Card is probably an empty one.

 

It would be cool though, imagine a program that takes the Internet time off the RPi and sets the Triple Tech Clock with it.  Never again would your TI's clock be off!

Now imagine if such a program could be written to load up another program?  Say for example you wanted to run REMIND-ME, you would run this new program which would set the clock instantly and then load up the REMIND-ME program.  Awesomeness... that will never be. 



#6 BeeryMiller OFFLINE  

BeeryMiller

    Moonsweeper

  • 483 posts
  • Location:Campbellsburg, KY

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:07 AM

You mention a program setting the Triple Tech time from the RPI, what about a program setting the Myrac HFDC time?



#7 jedimatt42 OFFLINE  

jedimatt42

    Stargunner

  • 1,758 posts
  • Location:Beaverton, OR

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:18 AM

How were these clock's accessed?  It looked to me like the date time components were available in memory mapped addresses. Which makes me suspect the DSR API is not regularly used, since poking a crubit and then reading a memory address is far easier than setting up a PAB and making a DSRLNK request.

 

Are the corcomp clock and the corcomp Triple Tech clock 100% compatible?  was the HFDC clock DSR compatible with the corcomp clock?   

 

OPEN #1:"CLOCK" ????  level of compatibility is what I'm talking about...

 

Is there any value in adding a DSR level compatible "CLOCK" device to TIPI?  Or would 100% of the software that ins't BASIC still fail? 

 

-M@



#8 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:41 AM

 

... was the HFDC clock DSR compatible with the corcomp clock?   

 

Is there any value in adding a DSR level compatible "CLOCK" device to TIPI?  Or would 100% of the software that ins't BASIC still fail? 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if the Myarc and CorComp Triple Tech Cards are compatible or not.

 

They would probably fail.  Tursi has PARTIALLY implemented the Triple Tech Clock in Classic 99, but it does not work with programs like, BOOT, 9640 Menu System or Remind-Me!

 

As for value, I think that all depends on the user, for me personally I use the calendar program daily, so I'm biased.



#9 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:39 AM

Oh I forgot, yes, the sidecar Corcomp Clock is 100% compatible with the CorComp Triple Tech Card.  The only difference is the addition of a 64K printer buffer and a place to plug the speech synthesizer in, getting it off the side of the console.



#10 mizapf OFFLINE  

mizapf

    River Patroller

  • 3,316 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:47 AM

I think most clocks are the same chip MM58274 (at least on Geneve, HFDC, BwG), so the only thing is how it is mapped into the address space. According to the manual, BwG and Corcomp Triple Tech use the same access via the DSR.



#11 AMenard OFFLINE  

AMenard

    Dragonstomper

  • 646 posts
  • Location:Beauharnois, Qc, Canada

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:12 PM

With all the new stuff coming out to replace the old Ti hardware by modern equivalent, at what point it stop being a Ti setup?

 

I mean, the only thing left is the console & keyboard but how long before that is replaced by an FPGA or rPi?



#12 mizapf OFFLINE  

mizapf

    River Patroller

  • 3,316 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:23 PM

Good (and in my view important) question that we've been discussing for years.



#13 InsaneMultitasker OFFLINE  

InsaneMultitasker

    River Patroller

  • 2,163 posts

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:11 PM

I think the most common clock implementations were the Triple Tech, MBP/MBP 2 cards, and the Geneve.  I don't recall seeing much software that made use of the HFDC clock - it wasn't even battery-backed up without modification.  I think the PGRAM+ clock is triple tech compatible.  Clulow is MBP compatible.  BwG controller and IDE card clocks have their own unique DSR access.

 

Direct clock chip access was often preferred in assembly applications (menus, terminal programs) for speed and interrupt reasons.  MBP-style cards had no DSR; this was even a selling point at one time.

 

I doubt that adding "CLOCK" will matter for most legacy assembly programs. Still, compatible DSR output would be nice.  For what it's worth, I would not have added DSR-based "CLOCK" support to any of my programs if it weren't for Classic99's implementation.  I do find it hard to pin a value on time/date as it is more a novelty than a need.



#14 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:09 PM

 

I doubt that adding "CLOCK" will matter for most legacy assembly programs. Still, compatible DSR output would be nice.  For what it's worth, I would not have added DSR-based "CLOCK" support to any of my programs if it weren't for Classic99's implementation.  I do find it hard to pin a value on time/date as it is more a novelty than a need.

 

If you're mainly a gamer, I agree a RTC might be a little superfluous and a FinalGROM with a 32K sidecar might be all you 'need' and in that senario even a TIPI of either format might be overkill.  I can only speak for myself, and in my case a RTC is a *MUST*, as it auto-magically loads "Remind-ME!" up to the proper date.

 

Having the TIPI perfectly emulate the CorComp clock would enable others to use some functions of legacy software otherwise denied them.  

 

With all the new stuff coming out to replace the old Ti hardware by modern equivalent, at what point it stop being a Ti setup?

 

I mean, the only thing left is the console & keyboard but how long before that is replaced by an FPGA or rPi?

 

 All RTC's for the TI were third-party devices, adding that ability within TIPI would be no different, IMHO.  



#15 InsaneMultitasker OFFLINE  

InsaneMultitasker

    River Patroller

  • 2,163 posts

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:29 PM


Having the TIPI perfectly emulate the CorComp clock would enable others to use some functions of legacy software otherwise denied them.  

Challenge is there are two ways to access the CorComp clock - by name and direct hardware.  The latter is something you won't be able to emulate and is the reason some programs will not work, unless modified.



#16 jedimatt42 OFFLINE  

jedimatt42

    Stargunner

  • 1,758 posts
  • Location:Beaverton, OR

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:35 PM

Well, if it has to be mapped into the address space, I'm out.

-M@

#17 --- Ω --- OFFLINE  

--- Ω ---

    --- Ω ---

  • Topic Starter
  • 12,518 posts
  • Location:워싱턴 주

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:52 PM

Well, if it has to be mapped into the address space, I'm out.
 

 

Totally understandable!  Honestly, I'd be happy with a simple stand-alone E/A 5 support program that reads the time from the Internet using the TIPI/RPi and transfers it to the CorComp clock.  



#18 jedimatt42 OFFLINE  

jedimatt42

    Stargunner

  • 1,758 posts
  • Location:Beaverton, OR

Posted Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:34 PM

With all the new stuff coming out to replace the old Ti hardware by modern equivalent, at what point it stop being a Ti setup?

 

I mean, the only thing left is the console & keyboard but how long before that is replaced by an FPGA or rPi?

 

You've been around long enough to know that is a pointless debate.  Vote with your dollars... 

 

-M@






0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users