On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
On 7/7/14 2:32 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
The more recent (late 80s through present) Zilog documentation is
absolutely riddled with errors. It looks like it
went through several
generations of conversions between typesetting systems, getting worse at
each step.
If you ever take the time, and errata document would be nice to add to
bitsavers
for the various versions of the documents.
The best errata for them is the original (1970s and early 1980s) manuals.
The 1990s ones are *so* shoddy that it's not even worth looking at them if
the original manuals can be found. It looks like they were retyped by
low-paid interns and never proofread. Entire rows, columns, or headings
got lost from tables, hexadecimal values are wrong, etc.
Of course, if errors are found in the original manuals, it's worth
publishing errata for those. I have vague memories of finding only one or
two minor errors in the peripheral tech manuals back in the day. I suspect
that Mostek and Zilog had the actual engineers proofread those.