coius wrote:Was this kit made for the 512?
tomlee59 wrote:the GCC Hyperdrive used an IDE drive (more correctly, ST-506, which became IDE), but with a goofy connector.
JDW wrote:I appreciate the comments, especially the link. I see that Picasa allows a large photo size (1600px) than Flickr (1024px). I'm a resolution fanatic, so this appeals to me. I may need to transfer everything to Picasa at some point! But I still like many Flickr features, and the 68kMLA Flickr Group is nice too.
This is what I found.
mmi was *not* a drive manufacturer, they were an IC manufacturer, MiniScribe
was the drive vendor, the original hyper drive products for Mac plus didn't
not change the processor type, in fact it clipped onto the processor we did
a product for the Mac se called 'hypercharger 020' which upgraded the
processor from a 68000 to 68020. The MMI that is well known is 'monolithic
memories inc' they did earlier devices called PALs P)rogrammable (A)rray
(L)ogicwe we were a very large customer of theirs in the early days
PALs at the time allowed use to produce more compact designs (as well as
hide elements of the design from copiers/counterfitters)
This came from our engineering department.
tomlee59 wrote: the GCC Hyperdrive used an IDE drive (more correctly, ST-506, which became IDE), but with a goofy connector.
Mac128 wrote:... was essentially IDE based...
I was involved during the peak period circa 1985-86. I knew that they went-on after me but for how long who knows. I assumed that the release of the external drive was the end of the line. When I saw your design I knew it was different than the iterations I had seen. In particular the simplified drive mounting chassis (which appeared to achieve the same thing with fewer manufacturing steps) and the the full CPU access through an expansion connector on the controller card lead me to think that maybe this is what the hyperdrive had evolved to as they made preparation for the 2000 integration/rollout. The fact that the board was a 512K board only in physical layout was explained to me by the fact that it indeed said 512 and therefore maybe they had two unique boards for the 512 and plus solutions. If I had seen for example that you had case labeling with red in the logos or using an acrylic bubble or early graphics then that would have immediately shook me out of my funk and it would have clicked. There was just enough details in the technical photos to indicate change with no case photos to clearly date it. My mistake.
However, it wasn't until I looked at a 2.0 board with the fully contoured back edges to deal with the SIMMs of the Plus and the revisions of the components on your board that it finally began to click. I was correct that your machine bookended my experience with the series, but since the majority of the unknown to me was after I left computer servicing, I had incorrectly assumed it was there that it belonged.
Actually your board predates everything I have. The design is similar to my 512K only v1.1, but still not the same. The components are earlier and the firmware earlier. Even the v1.1 setup has a nearly completely enclosed drive chassis that makes routing the analog and hard and floppy drive cables a pain. It's quite a bit more rigid and likely shielded but I'm not sure what problem they were trying to solve. I don't think it was the cause of their drive failures, but evidently somebody did because it costs money to make production changes like that. As you know your drive setup is flipped 180 degrees with a shortest path route.
So you have my collection beat for date to the marketplace I have no parts like it.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest