On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 8:31 AM r.stricklin via cctalk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 2023, at 11:10 PM, Tony Duell via cctalk <[email protected]> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > And this is where I get lost..
> >
>
> I do not understand your overbearing attitude of helplessness toward this 
> project. I have known you on many occasions to go to far greater lengths to 
> achieve far deeper understanding of far more complicated devices. Far less 
> intelligent people than you have managed somehow to marshal the necessary 
> resources to make useful headway with the damn thing. The majority of the 
> questions you’re demanding answers to seem to me like the kind of questions 
> that could be easily answered with about four minutes’ worth of simple 
> experimentation.

It's a combination of things :

I regard the Greaseweazle (or any other similar device) as a tool to
help me to do something which I enjoy -- running classic computers.
While I am happy to spend time improving my skills at using tools, I
do not expect to have to guess at what the designer was doing.

I also want to understand what my tools should be doing. Not what they
seem to have done in the past. Getting some of my classics running is
a big enough ob without having to worry whether or not some missing
option in writing the boot disk image to a real disk has caused that
disk to be mangled. The more I know to be correct, the better. I can
sit down with the Greaseweazle board, the PC, a floppy drive and a
logic analyser and probably find some combination of options that
produces what look to be sensible signals on the Write Data line. But
whether they are sensible signals is a much bigger problem.

Yes, I like solving puzzles. But this shouldn't be a puzzle. If I want
to solve a puzzle about reading and writing arbitrary disk formats the
I'll design my own device to do it.

-tony

Reply via email to