Re: TI-H: Please read me

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: Please read me
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 15:22:06 -0800 (AKDT)
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
In-Reply-To: <19980827.132541.3454.0.Larry1492@juno.com>
References: <l03130300b2084d3948b8@[192.168.1.66]>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


>have a vailid point and a good way of experssing it, go ahead.

Exactly what I did.

>otherwise, we don't need people jumping in on every post to call the
>poster(s) idiots and telling you to change the specs because the XYZ chip
>is cooler/studlier/cheaper/harder to program...  I wasn't trying to
>accuse you of flaming, it was an open letter to all non-lurkers on the
>list.

Not directed to me in any way?  :)

Okay.  I never said the chip wasn't going to work.  I said it might not me
able to handle timeing.  If the PIC can't handle it, the avr probably can't
either since they are both even time cycles.  On PC hardware if you are off
a nanosec, it screwes everything.  Thats why most PC controllers (new) are
all AISC.  They are made to do one thing and have special circuts that
never let them get off track.

It would be better for me (not jumping on him) to inform him that the
timeing might be off, and so he goes and checks it, then for him to
complete the project  and think it doesn't work because of the timeing...

The PIC could handle ATA fine.  Why not just use a floppy controller?

References:

Re: TI-H: Please read me

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>

Re: TI-H: Please read me

From: larry1492@juno.com (Larry G Currie)