5 Jul
2000
5 Jul
'00
12:17 p.m.
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.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric J. Korpela <korpela(a)ellie.ssl.berkeley.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Tim's own version of the Catweasel/Compaticard/whatever
mentioned.
>
Dealing with the
> different modulations, as you've named, is a software post-processing
task.
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
schematics.
> The notion of reprogramming the thing is perhaps a pregnant one, but I
have
> reservations about the suitability of this
particular device, for want
of
pins.
Yes, I would probably choose a larger CPLD than the one previously
Eric