Search results

Actually, scratch the fully static thing, I double-checked and the original 68HC000 still had a minimum clock speed. It wasn't until the SEC version that you could completely stop the clock on a 68000.

If you were making something that ran at... maybe a few dozen MHz or faster you might need that but it does seem like a stretch here.

Here’s an announcement from 1988 for availability of new 16mhz versions of both the regular and CMOS 68000s. https://archive.org/details/computer-magazine-1988-05/page/n99/mode/2up/search/68hc000?q=68hc000 and, yep, the CMOS one is about exactly twice as expensive... but the difference is $18...

Also of note: inflation was Kray-Kray in the late 1970s and early 1980’s. According to the inflation calculator that spread is only about 15% more than the general inflation rate between those two dates. Not saying Motorola wasn’t kidding themselves with that price, but there is that.

I didn’t say it existed in the “mid-70’s”, I said it was invented in the late ‘70s and started becoming mainstream by the early 1980s. (Replacing the older, very slow original CMOS process used in the 4000 series parts.) CMOS versions of CPUs originally released in HMOS were pretty readily...

Did it actually cost more? The fact that it appeared in a singularly expensive machine isn't really evidence one way or the other, plenty of ridiculously expensive computers had maybe a $100 bucks worth of silicon inside. "High Speed" CMOS was invented in the late 1970's and started spreading in...

According to the datasheet the '030 was fabricated in the same HCMOS process as the 68HC000. Apparently the 68020 is as well. The difference in max power draw between the 68HC000 and the 68030 is still about an order of magnitude; the datasheet says it's .26 watt at 16.67mhz for the 'HC000 while...

I'm not sure what benefit more layers would be, it's not like it's that complicated of a board. Most of the real estate is taken up by the physical chips.

The Portable has a 16 bit wide bus.

And the Powerbook 100.

Well, yeah, there's certainly that. I was assuming "make it yourself because education" was also a factor. ;) Also was just pointing out that *theoretically* if you bent the rules you probably could make a functional memory card in the same number of chips as that adapter card. (IE, a RAM...

That's what I said. ;) (Technically Apple wants you to buffer everything so a new-build board *should* have a row of '244s and '245s on it in addition to the GAL. But, hey, if you used *one* of those CY62167G-45ZXI 2MB chips wired straight to the bus then the loading should be about the...

Be sure to update if that actually works as a practical workaround. I do suspect the fact the 800k Mac drive doesn't have an eject button is going to be something of an issue. Under GS OS you can issue an eject like you can with a Mac, but (practically speaking) you're not going to be running GS...

Ugh. Looking at a picture of the Portable's motherboard I'm kind of concerned whether you're going to have enough clearance for that socket adapter and the board before you run into the PDS slot. With the "Dunkirk" nestled low in the corner like that there's all sorts of room for interference...

And yeah, that'll work fine for getting things onto 5.25" disks if you can lay hands on some. That'll pretty much limit you to running Apple IIe software, but it's better than nothing.

There are active components on that daisy chain board. You *might* be able to use Big Mess O' Wires' recreation of said board: https://www.bigmessowires.com/shop/product/daisy-chainer to interface the bare mechanism inside your 800k drive to your IIgs but that costs about as much as an A9M0106...

Not really, unfortunately. The 3.5" drive that's compatible with the IIgs has a little daisy-chain board inside of it that's necessary for the IIgs to recognize that there's a 3.5" drive attached to it. FWIW, I don't *think* you'll kill the IIgs' drive port by hanging the Mac drive off it, but...

Woot. Soon we'll find out just how wrong my GAL code is. ;) My first board using GALs is, according to JLCPCB, waiting for DHL to pick it up. I've tested the GAL code for that using my handy-dandy Arduino count-a-matic rig and it looks good, so, well, my guess is if it doesn't work it's...

You can build a Greaseweazel for less than $20 so, yeah, not sure where that price tag comes from. ... well, really, it’s obviously the Apple focused software that you’re paying for.

For laughs I modified the GAL code I came up with in another thread (repairing an original 1MB card) so you could use a 22v10 to make a jumper-selectable 7/8MB card using those Cypress chips. If someone wants to whip it up in Kicad the code is yours, no warranty expressed or implied. (It...