17 Aug
2016
17 Aug
'16
8:26 p.m.
>
> No doubt you can get it to work, and it can be a useful ability in some
> situations.
> But monitors and loaders tended to be written with different objectives.
>
> Monitors targetted interactive use, not receipt of back-to-back
characters,
> which would be why you have to add per-char
delays.
> The monitor is likely dropping a character or starting a read in the
middle
> of one and getting garbage because it went away
for too long while
looking
> up the command.
> It only has the stop bit period, or even less time, to do processing
after
> receipt of a character.
>
> Loaders expect back-to-back characters and are written or optimised
> accordingly, not that one can't still run into problems, which is why
the
> checksums can be good.
It would be a lot easier if everyone picked top or bottom posting when they
reply but I digress....
My suggestion to use the "monitor method" is a stop-gap just to get to the
point of loading in something useful when no other means was workinhg. I
agree any process that has no checksum will be unreliable. Whatever.. .
Let's say for now you have at least the monitor method until something
better comes along.
As far as splitters for serial, they're plentiful on ebay...serial switch
boxes that is. If you set your modern terminal sodtware to match the same
settings as the swtpc vintage terminal you would be able to switch between
them. I sometimes load in programs using a modern terminal to download a
papertape into the computer then switch to a vintage terminal for use.
Simple...assuming you can get your modern machine to match the vintagr, and
you have the cables. Otherwise you'll have to buy/make them.
Bill