From: Ethan Dicks (ethan.dicks_at_gmail.com)
Date: 2006-09-27 20:23:41
On 9/27/06, Gabriele Bozzi <mabuse68@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, makes sense to me.
> Thus this is a 3008 (or 2001-N or B) under 2001's skin. After all is
> not bad since I have the best (worst?) of both worlds: a chicklet
> keyboard and a rom that manages disk drives.
It's true that you shouldn't have IEEE issues as the original boards
did, but C= did make upgrade ROMs for the 8K static PET board (the
origininal), or you can install your own modern ROM adapter in the CPU
socket - removable, so you could restore the PET to its original
mis-functionality, but upgraded so you don't have the same problems.
> Is it true what I read: that the original rev1 was a very close
> derivative of the Kim-1 with video attached?
While it wouldn't be surprising that the PET designers were familiar
with the KIM, I think the PET is a from-scratch design that happens
to share the CPU. One of the most significant differences is that the
KIM used 6530s which were mask-programmed with their address decode
information and ROM contents. This means that if a KIM 6530 breaks,
you have to get one for a KIM, there is no generic one. In all PETs,
there are ROMs, but no 6530s, meaning that when a VLSI chip (6520,
6522...) breaks, you just drop a new one in from anywhere; when a ROM
breaks, you drop that in, or a compatible EPROM. Also, the PET is
more than just RAM, ROM, and video - there's the tape interface, the
keyboard interface, the User Port, and the IEEE interface. Very
different from a KIM.
-ethan
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.