Is there still interest in trying to get some of the features working in a native Linux C program? I've had some experience with FTDI and other generic usbserial devices in linux, and I'd love to help you guys out.
I saw that WINE has done some more work with USB handling : http://wiki.winehq.org/USB
2005 1500 HD , Custom OS3 SD tune .
2006 Trailblazer
Dinosaurs and Plants gave their lives so that we may drive , long live fossil fuel .
IBM did go to Mot. They wanted Mot to kick up the address space on the 6809 (like Intel did on the 8080) but Mot didn't figure there was enough volume in it to justify the R&D.
Very good read.IBM's design was overly complex since they only had experience designing large grossly complex systems like the System 360 (has anyone read Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man Month"... it's a good read)... so they ended up with the abomination they called the Personal Computer...
Actually, IBM was trying to clone the Apple ][. The first PC's had cassette storage, video like the Apple, etc.
Really!Too bad IBM did not the have foresight to go with the 68000 (which had a true 32 bit architecture, unlike the 8/16 bit architecture of the 8088)... we're all paying for it now (and have been since day one).
Ah, too bad, looks like Motorola missed their greatest opportunity... just like DR with CP/M.
I didn't know IBM were trying to clone the Apple; it's funny, the INT13h cassette timer subcall is still present in some BIOS's, lol.
Yes, the 68000 internally was 32 bit even tho the external bus was 16 bit, it would do two bus cycles for an external 32 bit transfer.
On the other hand, the 8088/8086 internally were 16 bit, and used segment registers to manipulate the address range beyond 64K.
Heh. Online at the same time ... Yeah, Mot blew it big time on that one.
I can't remember where I learned that. Maybe Byte back in the day. I still have PC and AT manuals will full schematics and BIOS listings. That is where IBM blew it.I didn't know IBM were trying to clone the Apple; it's funny, the INT13h cassette timer subcall is still present in some BIOS's, lol.
Yeah, I an no fan of the X86 architecture. Other than playing a bit with an 1802 and 6502, I used Mot on the desk and in product, from the 6800 to 68040 for my desktop/development and 6802 to 68340 in product. I had Mot based Ataris for a while. I developed a lot of code in the field on an ST or Falcon. I can write assembler for any of them, which is something I don't attempt on X86. I finally got an X86 box to run linux. It is a long way from assembler/editor off tape and code back to tape to 3GHz processors, C, 1TB drive, ....Yes, the 68000 internally was 32 bit even tho the external bus was 16 bit, it would do two bus cycles for an external 32 bit transfer.
On the other hand, the 8088/8086 internally were 16 bit, and used segment registers to manipulate the address range beyond 64K.
Sometime I'd like to talk to you about git. I just got hosed by a CVS merge.
I use git every day... pm me your phone # and we can talk sometime tomorrow.
I am a linux dev
C / C++ / ASM