29 Jun
2002
29 Jun
'02
4:09 a.m.
High resolution scans of both deluxe and non-deluxe boards will
be up at www.spies.com/aek/c2opt for the next week or so, for
the curious.
29 Jun
29 Jun
5:54 a.m.
"Al Kossow" <aek(a)spies.com> said:
High resolution scans of both deluxe and non-deluxe
boards will
be up at www.spies.com/aek/c2opt for the next week or so, for
the curious.
Well, that's enough to get the bottom layer into EAGLE or
Autotrax, along
with all the components. The top layer tracks might be a bit of a problem
though...
I can try anyway, but unless someone can probe the tracks that are going
under ICs on a "live" TTL-only "Transcopy" (CopyIIPC) Option Board,
this
project of mine may as well be dumped now :-/
I don't mind a challenge, though :-)
Thanks.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
6:34 a.m.
Wouldn't it be EASIER to just design a circuit to do the job, rather than
trying to trace theirs?
It is NOT that complicated!
The existing FDC deals with drive select, seeking to track, etc.
Then the add-on board (such as option board, Apple Turnover, Catweasel,
etc.) takes the pulses on the data line and stores them as bits. The rest
is software.
But buying an option board is less work than building one.
Option board v "Deluxe" option board:
I asked Brown of Central Point about programming data for the option
board, for adding support of it into XenoCopy (didn't happen). He asked
me about reading Mac 400k/800K disk with it. I told him, that until I
studied it (and hopefully got tech data from him), that I couldn't be
sure, but that I didn't think that the option board could handle a wide
enough range of data transfer rates. That was then, apparently, the
primary design goal of the "deluxe".
There are a few websites with some info on the board; there might even be
one with the amount of programming info that they would let developers
have.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
PO Box 1236 (510) 558-9366
Berkeley, CA 94701-1236
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Philip Pemberton wrote:
"Al Kossow" <aek(a)spies.com> said:
High resolution scans of both deluxe and
non-deluxe boards will
be up at www.spies.com/aek/c2opt for the next week or so, for
the curious.
Well, that's enough to get the bottom layer into EAGLE or
Autotrax, along
with all the components. The top layer tracks might be a bit of a problem
though...
I can try anyway, but unless someone can probe the tracks that are going
under ICs on a "live" TTL-only "Transcopy" (CopyIIPC) Option Board,
this
project of mine may as well be dumped now :-/
I don't mind a challenge, though :-)
Thanks.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/ 
30 Jun
30 Jun
5:21 a.m.
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
Wouldn't it be EASIER to just design a circuit to
do the job, rather than
trying to trace theirs?
It is NOT that complicated!
The existing FDC deals with drive select, seeking to track, etc.
Then the add-on board (such as option board, Apple Turnover, Catweasel,
etc.) takes the pulses on the data line and stores them as bits. The rest
is software.
Actually it seems to me that if you wanted to create a universal
floppy controller, the whole FDC + bus interface would fit easily in a <$20
FPGA (with maybe some small amount of external SRAM). This would also have the
advantage that the whole hardware configuration could be changed by
downloading it from the host if needed for more exotic floppy formats...
Peter Wallace
5:28 a.m.
"Peter C. Wallace" <pcw(a)mesanet.com> said:
<$20
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
> Wouldn't it be EASIER to just design a circuit to do the job, rather
than
> trying to trace theirs?
>
> It is NOT that complicated!
>
> The existing FDC deals with drive select, seeking to track, etc.
> Then the add-on board (such as option board, Apple Turnover, Catweasel,
> etc.) takes the pulses on the data line and stores them as bits. The
rest
is software.
Actually it seems to me that if you wanted to create a universal
floppy controller, the whole FDC + bus interface would fit easily in a FPGA (with maybe some small amount of external SRAM).
This would also have
the
advantage that the whole hardware configuration could
be changed by
downloading it from the host if needed for more exotic floppy formats...
Hmm...
Good idea.
FDD --> Xilinx FPGA --> FDC
I might have to try that. After I build my EPROM programmer.
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
7:30 a.m.
Philip Pemberton wrote:
Try using CPLD as a FDC since they have the advantage of onboard
programmability and power up configured.
FPGA (with
maybe some small amount of external SRAM). This would also have
the
advantage that the whole hardware configuration
could be changed by
downloading it from the host if needed for more exotic floppy formats...
Hmm...
Good idea.
FDD --> Xilinx FPGA --> FDC
I might have to try that. After I build my EPROM programmer. 
5:39 a.m.
"Peter C. Wallace" wrote:
Actually it seems to me that if you wanted to
create a universal
floppy controller, the whole FDC + bus interface would fit easily in a <$20
FPGA (with maybe some small amount of external SRAM).
Actually, I didn't notice any RAM on the board that was scanned
and put up on the web. But I did notice a little 8-pin chip that
I didn't recognise. A Google search for "UM8326" revealed
this information about a board called "Transcopy":
http://dbz.icequake.net/oldskool/dob/transcopy.html
Is this actually the same hardware?
--
John Honniball
coredump(a)gifford.co.uk
5:55 a.m.
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, John Honniball wrote:
Actually, I didn't notice any RAM on the board
that was scanned
It can be done without RAM
and put up on the web. But I did notice a little
8-pin chip that
I didn't recognise. A Google search for "UM8326" revealed
this information about a board called "Transcopy":
http://dbz.icequake.net/oldskool/dob/transcopy.html
Is this actually the same hardware?
That looks like the information that Central Point provided
[reluctantly] to developers.
It is for the NON-"deluxe" version of the option board.
It almost, but not quite, matches the way the Central Point software uses
the board.
5:55 a.m.
"John Honniball" <coredump(a)gifford.co.uk> said:
Actually, I didn't notice any RAM on the board
that was scanned
and put up on the web. But I did notice a little 8-pin chip that
I didn't recognise. A Google search for "UM8326" revealed
this information about a board called "Transcopy":
http://dbz.icequake.net/oldskool/dob/transcopy.html
Is this actually the same hardware?
Yup. Transcopy is the software that Central
Point wrote for the Copy II PC
Option Board.
BTW: The UM8326 is a floppy disk data separator. If you want a datasheet,
let me know and I'll upload it to my website.
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
7:48 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 407 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020630/c4f0d2ca/at…
8:33 a.m.
At 06:39 PM 6/30/02 +0100, you wrote:
"Peter C. Wallace" wrote:
Yeap, that's it! His screen shots of the Transcopy screens look just like what I
remember. Does does picture of the original box. It you go to the next higher lever on
his website he has some good info on the copy boards.
Joe
Actually it seems to me that if you
wanted to create a universal
floppy controller, the whole FDC + bus interface would fit easily in a <$20
FPGA (with maybe some small amount of external SRAM).
Actually, I didn't notice any RAM on the board that was scanned
and put up on the web. But I did notice a little 8-pin chip that
I didn't recognise. A Google search for "UM8326" revealed
this information about a board called "Transcopy":
http://dbz.icequake.net/oldskool/dob/transcopy.html
Is this actually the same hardware?
--
John Honniball
coredump(a)gifford.co.uk
7:01 p.m.
Actually, I didn't notice any RAM on the board
that was scanned
and put up on the web. But I did notice a little 8-pin chip that
I didn't recognise. A Google search for "UM8326" revealed
this information about a board called "Transcopy":
That's a data separator for FM and MFM data. Using that chip, there is
no way to read other formats like GCR. So it's not equivalent to the
Central Point stuff.
The Central Point boards let the software read the raw data from the
drive at a point *before* any data separation would be done in a "normal"
disk controller.
1 Jul
1 Jul
7:25 a.m.
> Actually, I didn't notice any RAM on the
board that was scanned
> and put up on the web. But I did notice a little 8-pin chip that
> I didn't recognise. A Google search for "UM8326" revealed
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Eric Smith wrote:
That's a data separator for FM and MFM data.
Using that chip, there is
no way to read other formats like GCR. So it's not equivalent to the
Central Point stuff.
no way to read other formats like GCR. So it's not equivalent to the
Central Point stuff.
Is, or is not, the picture being discussed a picture of an option board?
The Central Point boards let the software read the raw
data from the
drive at a point *before* any data separation would be done in a "normal"
disk controller.
The option board was designed for making unauthorized copies of copy
protected software. Being able to read non-MFM diskettes was a bonus, NOT
part of the original primary design goals. It actually has some serious
difficulties with trying to read some non-MFM formats. If it uses a
UM8326, that could account for some of the problems.
'course being able to read some other stuff was VERY handy, in being able
to point to a use for it OTHER THAN piracy. Brown of Central Point was
VERY adament that the board was NOT a tool for piracy, even though that's
all that most folks ever used it for.
6:36 a.m.
Certainly no one would ever have used one to make a backup of the
copy-protected software he legitimately purchased.
That it was primarily a piracy tool is the mentality that brought us the DMCA,
and that is driving the TCPA. That board did and does have legitimate,
non-infringing uses.
'course being able to read some other stuff was
VERY handy, in being able
to point to a use for it OTHER THAN piracy. Brown of Central Point was
VERY adament that the board was NOT a tool for piracy, even though that's
all that most folks ever used it for.
2 Jul
2 Jul
7:01 a.m.
"Michael Passer" <michael(a)passer.us> said:
Certainly no one would ever have used one to make a
backup of the
copy-protected software he legitimately purchased.
Really? I used to use CopyIIPC
for that...
That it was primarily a piracy tool is the mentality
that brought us the
DMCA,
and that is driving the TCPA. That board did and does
have legitimate,
non-infringing uses.
*sigh*. More insanity...
Hollywood: "People are pirating our movies"
Senators: "Let's make it illegal to own or use any device with a CPU that
doesn't have a copyright protection chip"
Stupid and impractical. Need I say more?
If this sort of thing starts happening over here in the UK, then I'm jumping
ship. I hear the Bahamas are nice this time of year :-)
Later.
--
Phil.
philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/
30 Jun
30 Jun
7 a.m.
Peter C. Wallace wrote
Actually it seems to me that if you wanted to create
a universal
floppy controller, the whole FDC + bus interface would fit easily in a
<$20 FPGA (with maybe some small amount of external SRAM).
It does, they did, it's called the CatWeasel
:)
greg
7971
days inactive
7974
days old
15 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
aek＠spies.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
ClassicComputers＠bouncy-castle.demon.co.uk -
coredump＠gifford.co.uk -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
michael＠passer.us -
pcw＠mesanet.com -
philpem＠dsl.pipex.com -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com