--- Bo Zimmerman <bo@zimmers.net> wrote:
> Heh. Such a configuration IS uncommon, though not downright rare
>
> The original motherboard will also, very likely, have older ROMS, perhaps
> 2.0, which is also uncommon enough among my own PET toys.
The original _should_ have 2.0. AFAIK, only the SRAM PETs had 1.0 ROMs. The
video is discrete logic, not a 6545/6845. It's one of the "problems" I've
had with a software project - I disassembled the Zork engine from the C-64
version, added comments, and recompiled it with a miniature version of the
c-64 kernel table to interface to PET ROMs. The problem I have is that the
PET version of the binary works under VICE with 2.0 ROMs (my original PET
isn't working at the moment), but I can't seem to find which zero-page
locations are being used by the 4.0 kernel that I'm accidentally stepping
on, and all of my working PETs are 6545-based 8032s, etc, so I can't even
downgrade them.
So I have this program that works under exactly one configuration, but I
can't test it on real hardware because I don't have any running hardware
that is either in that configuration or can be _put_ into that configuration.
Sigh.
I spent most of my larval-stage learning curve on a BASIC 2.0 PET, so I'm most
familiar with it. I have pored over the stuff on funet to find out what I
might be stepping on, but I gave up a while ago until I find some new docs.
-ethan
=====
Visit "The Seventh Continent"
http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.