On 16/04/2014 00:09, Dave Park wrote:
Which device is most likely to have code written for it that gets it to a
useful state, be it a 'driver' or SuperBASIC routines that peek and poke
their way to victory or assembly or whatever?
I would envisage the best way would be to create as a minimum a
Hi Derek,
> Did your email system on the Q60 use a TCP/IP stack through an ISA
> Ethernet Card in the Q60 ISA slot.
Yes. The program was quite nice for the time, but it has no SSL
encryption, so connecting to a mail server could become problematic
today. My provider has announced that it soon wi
Hi Dave,
> The CS2200A which is used in the Qx0 is the other contender.
Qx0 uses RTL8019 (NE2000 compatible). The CP2200 ("P" not "S") is used
on the Q68.
> What I struggle with is that this option has been available to owners for 15+
> years and yet nobody has used it in QDOSMSQ...
Except me.
Hi Peter,
Did your email system on the Q60 use a TCP/IP stack through an ISA
Ethernet Card in the Q60 ISA slot.
I think you said in the QL Forum, that there is a CP2200a in the Q68.
Maybe a more wider solution would be to have more the one ethernet system.
This could cause development issues
Remember, email me off-list if you're interested in the beta program. :)
I'm interested, but I have some W5100 chips here (in development boards)
and resources to build one just for the QL. So I think I can help.
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http:/
So, here's the summary of my thinking.
>From a coding point of view, one chip stands out from the others. If
installed in a system, anyone who reads the datasheet can write a BASIC, C
or ASM program that directly transfers data to and from the WS5300. No need
to deal with a TCP/IP stack whatsoever
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:46 PM, John Alexander
wrote:
> If the parts are decided then the final choice is merely how many and how
> much
> as you state here
No part is decided. It does look like the WS5300 has a couple of
advantages, but a couple of people whose opinions I hold in high esteem
p
Thank you for being understanding, John.
If we get to do ethernet, it will be integral to the UltraQ board and will
be fitted to every UltraQ made. There would probably be a standalone board
too, because it would be a horrible limitation to have to buy UltimIDE plus
the UltraQ upgrade just to get
If the parts are decided then the final choice is merely how many and
how much
as you state here
On 15/04/14 23:37, Dave Park wrote:
Yes please :)
I have five WizNet WS5300 and five CP8900A here. I don't have any CS2200.
Having another 20 or so is about $120 of reduced cost just for the chips
Hi Dave,
> I am a little disheartened that ethernet on the Qx0 is not used by any
> QDOSMSQ* versions.
I used it with QDOS Classic - even sent email from my Q60 to this list,
where you could see in the header that it was not Linux ;-)
But QDOS Classic had other shortcomings (absence of maintaine
Yes please :)
I have five WizNet WS5300 and five CP8900A here. I don't have any CS2200.
Having another 20 or so is about $120 of reduced cost just for the chips
alone, which is very attractive since I am trying to do this project as
affordably as possible for buyers without making a profit myself.
Several different designs there but the majority of the chips used are
5V tolerant I/O. I'm glad some one appreciates the thought just
wondering why
there's such a problem putting a single chip Ethernet port on a computer
that it's
taken 30 years to do it.
Any way the IPv4 stack and more imp
Dave, I think I have up to 25 Wiznet chips and unpopulated PCB's (SPI
interface) unused from an abandoned project. You can have them if it helps. The
PCB like all my designs was created using the QL PCBDesign software so it can
easily be altered to the QL bus.
On 15 April 2014 22:45:55 BST, Da
That device, while cheap, has no 5v tolerance. The level translation, while
simple to do, is relatively expensive in terms of components + board space.
In the end, it erases most of the cost benefit. Also, it doesn't fit within
the package profile of how UltimIDE and UltraQ will pair together to ju
Could save a lot of dev effort and choose any one of the following
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=arduino+ethernet&_sop=2
Then your contribution is the base board to interface the Ethernet board
to the QL. Idea been start from a cheap known good solution testable on
Please add the CP2200 to the list of devices under consideration.
I did just look it up and it is comparable in features to the CS8900A. With
a brief search, I might be able to buy CS2200-based ethernet cards and
harvest all the components needed off them quite economically, for example.
I am a l
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29:23PM +0200, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
> Wiznet:
>
> + TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy.
> + Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what
> original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway.
> - Onl
Wiznet:
+ TCP/IP included. Implementation of socket API for QL probably pretty easy.
+ Reliefs slow 68008 main processor. But then I seriously question what
original QL owners are going to do with this thing anyway.
- Only 4 parallel connections. That's 4 more than QLs usually have,
but still
Doesn't the CS8900a get more coverage on the Arduino space (probably why
it got mentioned)
Probably not a bad idea thieve the code out ine from an Arduino driver
or something so you can do basic Ethernet
Then add a stack du jour for the IPv4 example;
http://fnet.sourceforge.net/
Personally t
Dave Park wrote:
> Peter, could you outline what is available for the CS8900A, please?
For the QL? Nothing, as far as I know.
Are you asking a different Peter? I proposed the CP2200.
Peter
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.
If that's the case then the driver software really shouldn't be too
complex, I guess. I also see it directly supports an 8 bit bus and is 5V
tolerant. With a 3.6V supply that should eliminate the requirement of
bus level shifters.
On 15/04/2014 16:38, Petri Pellinen wrote:
Malcolm, using the
Malcolm, using the W5300 is really easy since it is a TCP stack and
not an ethernet interface. Essentially you write high level command
bytes to the command register (e.g. "open", "close", "send") and
read/write data from/to the w5300 memory buffers. The w3500 takes care
of all the rest.
On Tue, A
I'd agree the physical package should be fine, I've even hand soldered
those without problems. If the Wiznet really has a socket level
interface I'd seriously consider it. I'd have thought just about all the
QL's resources would be used up doing what the W5300 co-processor does
and may be a rea
Yes, Malcolm, the interface is at the socket level.
Both of the devices have some pros and cons. I am still open to suggestions
for other options.
One thing I am not concerned about is the pitch and number of pins on the
WS5300 or any other device. I don't hand solder SMD boards. I use a solder
m
Hi,
I would think the most important criteria would be to choose a solution
that reduces the software load on 68K. It seems after a brief look at
the data sheets that the W5300's interface is at socket level, is that
right?
Malcolm
On 14/04/2014 22:39, Dave Park wrote:
I have been presented
Hi Dave,
> I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for
> the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to
> the list.
I suggest the CP2200. It is the easiest to solder, least pins,
smallest, simple connection to the QL bus. More importan
x27;d like to help in development.
---
Enviado do meu Motorola PT550
Meu site: http://www.tabalabs.com.br
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Park"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 6:39 PM
Subject: [Ql-Users] Ethernet chit chat...
I have been presented with two good co
I have been presented with two good contenders for an ethernet solution for
the QL. There might be others; I am open to suggestions and may add more to
the list.
I would like there to be a *polite, friendly, respectful,
constructive*debate about the relative merits of the two devices. Once
you hav
28 matches
Mail list logo
