Re: Fluke compiler software

> Yes the idea is to figure out how to communicate with the PODs & emulate
> what the base does, not necesarily emulate the base.
Well, thats what I thought from the initial talks, but then when the
focus was shifted to emulating 6520's and Z80's, it seemed to drift...

> Heck if we are thinking emulating bases then why aren't we focused on the
> bigger brother, 9100 series? I only know of one list reader that even has
> one of these beast.
I have 2 9100's. Its a FAR more advanced system, especially
when coupled with all the extra physical hardware testing. I have
a really nice automated setup for testing the 6532's on Gottlieb
Sys80 boards. I can clip a 6502 pod "over top" the micro, and run
test code to exersize the 6532 I/O ports, reading all 40 pins state,
real time, using the 9100 I/O adaptors.

If we are going to emulate ANY Fluke hardware, the 9100 makes
far more sense. Its 68000 based, with OS/9 running as a simple
RTOS. Fluke has some really powerful software included with the
system, including a trace diagnosis system that follows a decision
tree.

> Well we need to know the basics first, and there is no know documentation on
> the inner workings of the communication between the base & the pods. Once
> this is know, documented & available we can then concentrate on which way to
> go.
>
> I belive it is also important to make steady progress rather than trying to
> think of every enhancement we want and then build it. Just look at the
> Arcade ICE or RatBox projects if you want to see what that thinking
> produces.
I agree. I just don't see what you even "get" in the end by
emulating the 9010A exactly. Figuring out the communication
between the base and the pod is not dependant on getting a
emulated 9010A setup on a PC.

I don't consider this feature-creep at all. Just a better direction, in
my opinion.
Received on Thu Apr 04 07:40:40 2002