Subject: RE: Minimal CP-M SBC design
From: "Andrew Lynch" <lynchaj at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 14:43:26 -0400
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 12:29:24 -0400
From: Dave McGuire
I dunno Chuck...the only reason more CP/M
systems weren't ROM-
resident back in the day was due to convention, not technical
restrictions. I (personally) don't think there's anything
non-"period" about ROM-ing CP/M.
It's not the ROM-ing of CP/M that disturbs me, but rather the
"disklessness" of the thing. Wasn't the whole idea of CP/M
originally to give you something to manage files on your floppy
drives? I mean, that's what the bulk of the code in CP/M is for--
heaven knows, the support for other I/O is nothing to write home
about.
If one wants to enjoy a "vintage" experience, what sense is there in
being diskless? At any rate, even something as simple as a WD1770-
type controller added to the design would give that capability with a
minimum of support "glue".
Alternatively, one could stay diskless and add a sound-effects module
to emulate the "chunk" and "grrr" of a head-load and seek--and the
"thunk-click" of a drive door being opened and a floppy inserted.
I still don't have the hang of this "vintage" thing yet, probably
because I'm vintage myself. Please forgive my density...
Cheers,
Chuck
-----REPLY-----
Hi Chuck,
I hear what you are saying and agree there is something just very
disconcerting about diskless CP/M computers. However, CP/M in the CBIOS is
really just about block devices and the OS really could care less whether
you attach a 8" SSSD floppy, a CF drive or a ROM. It is all the same to the
BDOS.
My goal here is to *eventually* allow expansion to include IDE and floppy
drives. As a matter of fact, the CBIOS does support IDE hard disks already
but requires the interface IO card and the ECB backplane to attach it to the
SBC. I have an IDE hard disk with CP/M format and some programs on it.
My goal with the SBC using ROM/RAM drives was to allow something minimal to
operate as a SBC and have some functionality with the option to expand to as
desired. I am trying for a modular, low cost approach with easy to build
increments.
Assuming I get this SBC respun and into manufacturing my next project is to
redo my ECB backplane as a PCB. After that will be the disk IO board and
bus debuggers which are also made from prototype boards.
My Test Prototype home brew computer was built entirely with prototype
boards and point to point wiring. It supported IDE drives and even had a
NEC765 FDC circuit built in. I wrote some software but never got around to
test the FDC part since the machine started experiencing reliability
problems which I think trace back to poor grounding and power distribution
issues. The new PCB SBC version seems much more solid than the prototype
did.
You used it as it's one of the few you can still buy.
I happen to use that chip as I have them and was even supporting them back
years ago. But you know adding that chip with it's support nearly doubles
the chip count of a minimal CP/M engine.
A few areas I watch for. Sockets do not help reliability. Ground is never
ground enough. Bypass everything.
Allison
The SBC is something which works but gives only limited
functionality. If
that is enough, people can stop there. If they want more they can plug it
into the ECB backplane and add peripheral cards. So far only two peripheral
cards exist; the disk IO card and the bus debugger. Hopefully more in the
future. I have some ideas kicking around in my head but am concentrating on
the SBC for now.
Thanks and have a nice weekend!
Andrew Lynch