On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Henk Gooijen <henk.gooijen at hotmail.com> wrote:
From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at
gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:56 PM
> [...snip...]
> If you mean paper copies vs a real chip, maybe not, but for PDFs, the
> second google hit reveals all...
Sorry... HTML, not PDFs, but still easy to read.
Cool !! ?Never heard of DTACK Grounded before, but I quickly read the
first issue. Seems fun to read the others ...
I've read most of them through that archive. I might even have one or
two in a folder of ancient docs, but I doubt it's one of the last 4
issues (the ones that _aren't_ available to read).
Probably known in this group, I am a fan of Motorola,
not Intel....
Quite.
I learned assembler as first language on
More than 2 years ago, I started rewriting the
6809-based pdp8/e code
to 68000... I have actually translated the 6809 code to 68000...
... I am sure I have a 12 MHz
68k chip, and for some reason I also think to have a 16 MHz version, but
I doubt Motorola ever made a 68k at 16 MHz ...
I don't recall seeing anything in a DIP package badged faster than
12.5MHz, but perhaps one of the newer dies (68EC000?) might go faster
and still be bus and register-compatible with the original?
Would there be interest to run a (slow) pdp8/e on a
68k? ?I coded ASCII
"art" for the lights display on a VT220 using ESC sequences.
I'm sure there'd be some interest but based on my experience, you
should probably set performance expectations around a nominal 8MHz CPU
(since they are so much more common than the faster varieties). If
you make a "DTACK Grounded" 68000 SBC design, modern SRAM and EPROM
are plenty fast enough to keep up and it _would_ keep the design
simple (two 8-bit-wide ROMs, two 8-bit-wide SRAMs, whatever I/O, which
might be your only bottleneck, depending on what serial chip you might
pick - we had to do software throttling on our old 4MHz Z8530 serial
design - lots of careful coding and uncareful sprinkling of NOPs to
dodge back-to-back reads and writes of the SIO). It really needn't be
much more complex than a 6809 design with a 16-bit bus.
Something that might be an interesting alternative to a VT220 might be
an HD44780-type textual LCD, especially a wide format panel like 2x40
(or the less common but impressive 4x40). OTOH, depending on your
ASCII art, it wouldn't be difficult to rig up an AVR microcontroller
to interpret your selected terminal codes and drive the LCD panel as
an option.
I'm always interested in discussing 68000 designs real and imagined.
I first ran across a preliminary spec sheet back when I was using a
PET every week and five years later was using them every day at work.
Cheers,
-ethan