From: Cameron Kaiser (spectre_at_floodgap.com)
Date: 2008-03-06 07:45:35
> > The IEC bus just lets the disk drive sort it out, while LOAD"$",1 would
> > search the 'tape' for a file named $. I suppose there could be magic for
> > that on the other end, but I agree with Jim that the IEC bus is much more
> > flexible. You'd be dealing with relative timing intolerance either way.
> >
> I could be way off base here, but when you "loaded" a program from tape,
> I didn't think the CBM actually sent the name out. It just watched for
> a set of header bytes to come in, and matched them against the name you
> had specified.
Sorry, I didn't make that clear in my post -- yes, the PC wouldn't know,
but it could provide a $ as part of the 'files' it offered, which would
just map to its internal directory. 'Eventually' the 64 would see it and
treat it as a regular file, despite being 'magic' on the PC side.
But the IEC method is clearly better in any case and requires less fudging
around once the bus timing issue is conquered.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- If a seagull flies over the sea, what flies over the bay? ------------------
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.