Re: LZ: Re: $4 serial link prob
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
> From: Andrew Haninger <ahaning@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Max Mansour wrote:
> > > And I would build a $5 parallel link. I would _never_ pay $40 (at
least)
> > > for a cable I can build myself for a fraction of the price... Even if
it
> > > wouldn't be so reliable...
> >
> > Yes, and when you end up frying your calc, I bet you can easily build
> > another one yourself for a fraction of the cost ($100). It is a _far_
> > better idea to invest in a graphlink, or build yourself the Connect85
> > hardware. Both of these are more expensive to build/make, but offer
> > protecion for your calc which $4/$5 cables don't.
> thanx Max! you're the only one here who has understood what i said and
> hasn't gone against me<G>!! and i was strarting to feel stupid about
I am not going against you, but I am not altogether with you on your
reasoning. You pretty much thought that if you pay more, you get more.
You are partially right, but you did not realize the the reasons behind
having which cables. Magnus didn't make c85 out of 2 diodes and some
"dressing", the extra hardware is there to regulate voltage, etc..
> having ti's link(do you have that one or the conn.85 one?).
I have built the Parallel ($5?) link cable, although its name is deceiving,
it cost me about $0.50 to build...I also have a graphlink cable, and at one
time i was thinking about making a c85 cable, but I don't have access to
PCB etching HW anymore...
> now max, when do you think you'll shrink the size of black jack? it's a
> good game but please, either optimize it or put in all that stuff. it's
> really too big for what it is.
I've pretty much stopped programming ZShell, so I have no idea when I will
get around to optimizing it (which would be pretty easy for me, as I've
learned a lot more about ASM since I wrote BJ...)
>
> Andy Haninger
> aka &y
> ahaning@freenet.columbus.oh.us
>
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: