Alex Wulms wrote:
However, on 8-bits and on 16-bits systems, octals are not so convenient to
use, for obvious reasons.
If you are reading sectors and you see each byte as octal you can read
Z80 ml much more easilly.
For example with 101 then you can see directly that it means "ld a,b"
The
"Airam Rguez." wrote:
which three new types? I only have seen one ;)
You know what I mean.
well...
A lot of people are creating new computers based on the MSX standard
Some use Z180, others Z380, etc. etc. etc.
In order to keep MSX a standard like it always has been,
Hello.
Some time ago, someone (I don't remember his name) was asking for people
wanting
to buy v9958 and FM. Well, I want one fm and a v9958 too, and there's a
lot
of brazilian people that wants it too. Ademir will for sure want at
least 20 of them to
use in his new MSX motherboards
Hi Mauricio,
That person is Sander Zuidema [[EMAIL PROTECTED]].
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Mauricio Braga
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: V9958 and FM again
Hello.
Some
Hah, that was Sander Zuidema. Mail him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oops, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I think? Shit, I should have let him reply himself!)
or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best regards,
Manuel
---
Pre-PS: After 30/9/2000, I cannot use this address anymore. Therefore,
from 25/9/2000, please
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, David Heremans wrote:
If you are reading sectors and you see each byte as octal you can read
Z80 ml much more easilly.
For example with 101 then you can see directly that it means "ld a,b"
The entire Z80 is verry octal based in its opcode structure.
True, except that 101
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000, you wrote:
The way numbers are written may be
different. Here's how my assembler does it:
starting with a number 0-9, a hexadecimal number is expected.
starting with %, a decimal number is expected.
starting with @,
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
Small numbers of cycles are not possible. But usually, the number of
cycles needed is about 50 or 100.
JoyNet singal propagation doesn't need waits that long. On 3.5MHz I got
speeds of about 3.5 kilobyte per second, that is 3500*8=28000 bits
I only replied to what I didn't agree with or what I had something to say
about. Other things I cut out.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
The protocol can be fixed: adding CRC and a timeout is sufficient. But I
think a more elegant solution is possible, where you wouldn't need a
Oops, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I think? Shit, I should have let him reply
himself!)
or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm this way it is just fine ;)
Greetz,
Sander
Who has no time at all at the moment, but will send all people that ordered
one
or more chips a message soon, because it seems that today we have
Hello Albert,
Yes, fMSX-DOS has a pretty good OPLL emulation.
:
I'm not sure about this.
I asked for a wave based OPLL emulation.
fMSX-DOS emulates OPLL by using the OPL3 generator contained
inside my Sound Blaster.
I'd like to get a MSX emulator that uses the Sound Blaster PCM
for
I'd like to make a good PCM emulation of a OPLL. But i'm
still looking for some good and free source code.
Hello Albert,
Yes, fMSX-DOS has a pretty good OPLL emulation.
:
I'm not sure about this.
I asked for a wave based OPLL emulation.
fMSX-DOS emulates OPLL by using the
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000, you wrote:
The protocol can be fixed: adding CRC and a timeout is sufficient. But I
think a more elegant solution is possible, where you wouldn't need a CRC.
What do you mean with that? Some error-correction algoritm in the protocol
(equivalent to a CRC)? Or UDP-like
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000, you wrote:
JoyNet singal propagation doesn't need waits that long. On 3.5MHz I got
speeds of about 3.5 kilobyte per second, that is 3500*8=28000 bits per
second, which is 125 clocks for a total 1-bit cycle (data + ack). Given
the fact that there are quite a few
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
Error detection other than CRC. Under the assumption that there are only
1-bit errors, the protocol itself can detect errors. I'm not sure this
assumption is correct, but gathering statistical evidence (hours of testing)
should tell us more
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
For Linux, the best solution would be to write a serial driver for
JoyNet. Then pppd can be used to connect to UZIX and you can use the
existing PPP network device.
Not at all. Linux knows the `network driver' as a special object. I
Alex Wulms wrote:
However, on 8-bits and on 16-bits systems, octals are not so convenient
to
use, for obvious reasons.
If you are reading sectors and you see each byte as octal you can read
Z80 ml much more easilly.
For example with 101 then you can see directly that it means "ld a,b"
Not at all. Linux knows the `network driver' as a special object. I
should
just write a network driver, so the parallel port is treated as a
network
device. Then you can just use the connection as if it is an ethernet
card
, which means there is no need for a point to point link. It also
Yes, a timeout is needed for such situations. But as long as the other
side is connected (and running an os with JUMP drivers), everything should
be ok and no locks are possible.
You should _never_ assume that... One flawd bit on the ack line and... The
receiver thinks he sent an ack and
At 17:03 8-9-00 +0200, you wrote:
Yes, fMSX-DOS has a pretty good OPLL emulation.
I asked for a wave based OPLL emulation.
fMSX-DOS emulates OPLL by using the OPL3 generator contained
inside my Sound Blaster.
You didn't write that (I think). You just asked for good FM-emulation. In
that case,
Albert Beevendorp soltó algo asà como:
You mean in BASIC? In assembly, it's BIOS call #0180 and #0183.
I knew that already, I do mean in Basic.
DEFUSR=H180: A=USR(0)
DEFUSR=H183: A=USR(0)
:)
Un saludo,
Jose Angel Morente ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
*MSX
Hello Tristan!
IIRC, fMSX-DOS uses the OPL3 and not wave based emulation.
BTW. I don't think wave (pcm?) based emulation will do any good. A
mathematical emulation of 2-operator FM synthesis would be more
suitable. The OPLL has some pretty hard to emulate stuff (hardware
voices) which
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000, you wrote:
Who need numbers in an arbitrary base anyway? Hexadecimal, decimal and
binary are enough. Octal is supported by many languages, but it is rarely
used in practice (the only use I know is Unix file permissions).
Arbitrary base is easily implemented and might
23 matches
Mail list logo
