5 Dec
2003
5 Dec
'03
12:30 p.m.
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 15:46, Tony Duell wrote:
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.
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...
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... 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...