f



ZIP GSX 1.0.1 vs 1.0.2

Hi,

I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later. I upgraded one
card myself to 12.5Mhz and 32K cache and that board doesnt have any
logic chip sockets at all. My other one I sent of to get upgraded to
12.5Mhz and 64K Cache and i think it came back (was about 5 years ago
so not 100%) with logic chip sockets and labels for which chip goes
were... I have a picture of the card ftp://drewbie.dyndns.org/UPG_ZIPGS.JPG

My question is what did the logic chips do? and is it something i can
add to the card to push them to higher speeds/other benefits?

I have been posting alot recently and wanted to just say thanks for
everyones help. My IIGS comes our every few years and this time it has
stayed out longer :-)

Cheers
Drew
0
goggledrew (244)
8/28/2008 7:24:05 PM
comp.sys.apple2 11066 articles. 4 followers. antoine.vignau (1077) is leader. Post Follow

39 Replies
1133 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 0

Drew wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later. I upgraded one
> card myself to 12.5Mhz and 32K cache and that board doesnt have any
> logic chip sockets at all. My other one I sent of to get upgraded to
> 12.5Mhz and 64K Cache and i think it came back (was about 5 years ago
> so not 100%) with logic chip sockets and labels for which chip goes
> were... I have a picture of the card ftp://drewbie.dyndns.org/UPG_ZIPGS.JPG
> 
> My question is what did the logic chips do? and is it something i can
> add to the card to push them to higher speeds/other benefits?

Interesting.  I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and noticed the lack 
of those chips.  Wasn't sure if it was practical to upgrade it or not.  Can 
anyone else provide some data points on this?  Henry Courbis?  What's your 
experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?

Somehow I doubt it's just a matter of installing the two 74F parts. 
Somewhere, something else must have changed (jumpers?  traces cut?).

Steve
0
snhirsch (1237)
8/29/2008 12:56:14 AM
"Steven Hirsch" <snhirsch@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n8-dncbtUYWz1CrVnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Drew wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
>> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
>> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later. I upgraded one
>> card myself to 12.5Mhz and 32K cache and that board doesnt have any
>> logic chip sockets at all. My other one I sent of to get upgraded to
>> 12.5Mhz and 64K Cache and i think it came back (was about 5 years ago
>> so not 100%) with logic chip sockets and labels for which chip goes
>> were... I have a picture of the card ftp://drewbie.dyndns.org/UPG_ZIPGS.JPG
>> 
>> My question is what did the logic chips do? and is it something i can
>> add to the card to push them to higher speeds/other benefits?
> 
> Interesting.  I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and noticed the lack 
> of those chips.  Wasn't sure if it was practical to upgrade it or not.  Can 
> anyone else provide some data points on this?  Henry Courbis?  What's your 
> experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?
> 
> Somehow I doubt it's just a matter of installing the two 74F parts. 
> Somewhere, something else must have changed (jumpers?  traces cut?).


Everything listed at ReactiveMicro as an upgrade is more or less 
a hack to increase speed and cache ram. Store bought 1.01 vs 1.02 
is probably a small logic chip change, nothing to be concerned with. 
Mine is 1.02 and is standard 8 MHz, and 8K cache out of the box. 
I believe they updated some near the end of production to 10/16 for 
the sake of sales. 

Bill Garber from GS-Electronics
http://www.garberstreet.com

0
willy46pa (2246)
8/29/2008 1:33:13 AM
"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:S-KdnWeDV7VEzCrVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>Everything listed at ReactiveMicro as an upgrade is more or less a hack to 
>increase speed and cache ram.

Hey Mr. Gerber,

Speaking of which and accelerators and such...

I wish that I still had my orginal Apple //e with the zip chip but my son 
somehow misplaced it, so wishing for that is not realistic. All I have left 
of that one is a joystick. This one as you know is stock.

So instead I wish that you or Henry or someone else with the talent to do so 
would provide an Apple //e accelerator, or if you ever come across a ZIP 
chip or similar for the //e that you don't want to hoard for yourself, 
please let me buy it from you.

This //e is incredible with the Microdrive that I just received. Disk I/O 
just flies! The icing on the cake would be an accelarator.

- Mr. Buggles



0
bbuckels (478)
8/29/2008 3:03:30 AM
"Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net> wrote in message news:9GJtk.14179$4s1.1851@newsfe06.iad...
> "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:S-KdnWeDV7VEzCrVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>Everything listed at ReactiveMicro as an upgrade is more or less a hack to 
>>increase speed and cache ram.
> 
> Hey Mr. Gerber,
> 
> Speaking of which and accelerators and such...
> 
> I wish that I still had my orginal Apple //e with the zip chip but my son 
> somehow misplaced it, so wishing for that is not realistic. All I have left 
> of that one is a joystick. This one as you know is stock.
> 
> So instead I wish that you or Henry or someone else with the talent to do so 
> would provide an Apple //e accelerator, or if you ever come across a ZIP 
> chip or similar for the //e that you don't want to hoard for yourself, 
> please let me buy it from you.

Accelerators are not trivial. Btw, ZipChip is not the only 
one for the IIe, and also, the earlier one for II+ works in 
them. I've run IIe with 3-4 different ones. 

> This //e is incredible with the Microdrive that I just received. Disk I/O 
> just flies! The icing on the cake would be an accelarator.

Oh yeah. Now you need to get a CFFA, as well. 

Bill Garber from GS-Electronics
http://www.garberstreet.com

0
willy46pa (2246)
8/29/2008 3:54:36 AM
Bill Garber wrote:
> 
> "Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net> wrote in message 
> news:9GJtk.14179$4s1.1851@newsfe06.iad...
>> "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message 
>> news:S-KdnWeDV7VEzCrVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Everything listed at ReactiveMicro as an upgrade is more or less a 
>>> hack to increase speed and cache ram.
>>
>> Hey Mr. Gerber,
>>
>> Speaking of which and accelerators and such...
>>
>> I wish that I still had my orginal Apple //e with the zip chip but my 
>> son somehow misplaced it, so wishing for that is not realistic. All I 
>> have left of that one is a joystick. This one as you know is stock.
>>
>> So instead I wish that you or Henry or someone else with the talent to 
>> do so would provide an Apple //e accelerator, or if you ever come 
>> across a ZIP chip or similar for the //e that you don't want to hoard 
>> for yourself, please let me buy it from you.
> 
> Accelerators are not trivial. Btw, ZipChip is not the only one for the 
> IIe, and also, the earlier one for II+ works in them. I've run IIe with 
> 3-4 different ones.

But the 8MHz Zip Chip is the coolest and fastest, by far (not counting
the Zip clone, the 10MHz RocketChip, which is quite rare).

It makes the //e fast enough that development in the native
environment is quite acceptable.

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/29/2008 6:36:38 AM
On Aug 29, 4:36=A0pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> Bill Garber wrote:
>
> > "Bill Buckels" <bbuck...@mts.net> wrote in message
> >news:9GJtk.14179$4s1.1851@newsfe06.iad...
> >> "Bill Garber" <willy4...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:S-KdnWeDV7VEzCrVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>> Everything listed at ReactiveMicro as an upgrade is more or less a
> >>> hack to increase speed and cache ram.
>
> >> Hey Mr. Gerber,
>
> >> Speaking of which and accelerators and such...
>
> >> I wish that I still had my orginal Apple //e with the zip chip but my
> >> son somehow misplaced it, so wishing for that is not realistic. All I
> >> have left of that one is a joystick. This one as you know is stock.
>
> >> So instead I wish that you or Henry or someone else with the talent to
> >> do so would provide an Apple //e accelerator, or if you ever come
> >> across a ZIP chip or similar for the //e that you don't want to hoard
> >> for yourself, please let me buy it from you.
>
> > Accelerators are not trivial. Btw, ZipChip is not the only one for the
> > IIe, and also, the earlier one for II+ works in them. I've run IIe with
> > 3-4 different ones.
>
> But the 8MHz Zip Chip is the coolest and fastest, by far (not counting
> the Zip clone, the 10MHz RocketChip, which is quite rare).
>
> It makes the //e fast enough that development in the native
> environment is quite acceptable.

Even at 4Mhz I find it's good enough, given your disk IO is also fast.

The only downside is not being able to have multiple Apple II's
although you at least don't have that problem ;-)

Matt

0
mdj.mdj (1102)
8/29/2008 7:02:36 AM
"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:k9ydnegBBO5h7yrVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...

>Accelerators are not trivial. Btw, ZipChip is not the only one for the IIe, 
>and also, the earlier one for II+ works in them. I've run IIe with 3-4 
>different ones.

Accelerators for the //e are impossible to find. I realize that they are not 
trivial. What is to prevent you or Henry from reverse-engineering an Apple 
//e  zip chip and doing a production run?

Unless someone does this, I will never get one. Henry has one that he needs 
for future testing.

What do you think it would cost if you had a run of 100 or so and took 
pre-orders?

>Oh yeah. Now you need to get a CFFA, as well.

I don't think I need one. This Microdrive seems to work excellently. Why do 
you think I need a CFFA? When I get my GS I will be buying a Microdrive as 
well unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to or indicates why I 
should buy a CFFA instead.

- Buggles


0
bbuckels (478)
8/29/2008 2:02:07 PM
On Aug 29, 1:36 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> But the 8MHz Zip Chip is the coolest and fastest, by far (not counting
> the Zip clone, the 10MHz RocketChip, which is quite rare).
>
> It makes the //e fast enough that development in the native
> environment is quite acceptable.

I really don't notice a significant difference between 1MHz and 8MHz
when I'm coding. The computer is always waiting on me as I enter my
next brilliant line of code. When I assemble, disassemble, compile,
parse and analyze or whatever, I've found the media I'm reading and
writing to is much more relevant, ie CFFA or other mass storage vs
floppy. The only time I really appreciate the speed increase is when
I'm loading someone's huge AppleWorks spreadsheet for conversion and
migration to another platform.

If someone manages to clone, or better yet, come out with something
that's an improvement over the ZipChip ... I'd buy several.
0
a2fan (1188)
8/29/2008 2:04:59 PM
Hello Steve.

>> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
>> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
>> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later.
>> My question is what did the logic chips do?
> Interesting.  I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and noticed the 
> lack of those chips.  Wasn't sure if it was practical to upgrade it or 
> not.  Can anyone else provide some data points on this?  Henry Courbis? 
> What's your experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?

Well, I did notice a few differences between the 1.01 and 1.02.  Thought I 
had some pics of the 1.01 but it seems I don't. :-/

ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never wasted 
anything, including PCBs.  Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance: 
http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/DSCN0475.JPG

Why they wouldn't just redesign the PCB is beyond me.  There has been some 
speculation that they purposefully designed the PCB that way though.  The 
idea being that if the PLCC (square) chip becomes hard to find that they 
could then build the board using standard logic ICs.  Seems like an odd 
strategy though to me.

So what the difference is between the two ZIP GSX boards, or should I say 
the ASICs (large square IC), really isn't know (at least to me).  Maybe they 
weren't sure about the ASICs ability to work and only has a small batch 
produced.  Being this was 1989 (?) it was in the middle of the 'custom 
logic'
reevaluation where it was really starting to become 'cheap' to produce these 
large ASICs.  So if the 1.01 boards kind of worked, and worked good enough, 
why not sell them?  It's just a business decision at that point.  Then maybe 
they fixed a few minor reliability issues and produced a second batch, 
v1.02.  Of course I have no idea what the real story is and I'm just 
speculating.  In 1989-90 we all kind of knew that Apple II was on its way 
out.  So that's where I start to consider the 'small batch' theory.


There's my two cents.


-- 
Henry S. Courbis
www.ReactiveMicro.com
Legacy Hardware and Support - Come take a look at what we have to offer! 


0
Henry
8/29/2008 2:22:17 PM
Hello Bill.

> Accelerators for the //e are impossible to find.

I wouldn't say 'impossible'.  You can find some good deals for TransWarps on 
eBay.  Every now and again a ZIP CHIP does come up for sale though.


> I realize that they are not
> trivial. What is to prevent you or Henry from reverse-engineering an Apple
> //e  zip chip and doing a production run?

Nothing really.  Reverse-engineering is a major pain in the rear though.  At 
some point I may decap a dead ZIP and see how they did what they did.  I 
still think the best way to go is cloning the TransWarp II though.  Since 
they are so rare though it's going to be hard to convince an owner to part 
with the board and then let me do some tinkering.  Of course if a few other 
projects I have in the works turn out well then I may try to convince some 
owners to let me 'study' their board for a cut of future sales.


> What do you think it would cost if you had a run of 100 or so and took
> pre-orders?

Costs on 100?  Probably $6k.  Feel like investing? ;-)  And that's not even 
counting the research costs.  Add probably another $1000 on to that number 
then.


> I don't think I need one. This Microdrive seems to work excellently. Why 
> do
> you think I need a CFFA?

Everyone 'needs' a CFFA! ;-)  Heck, buy two!  Then you'll need a Focus or 
three.  I'm sure Rich and Tony will appreciate your support, as do I.


> When I get my GS I will be buying a Microdrive.

Actually, a MicroDrive/Turbo would be your best bet.  They are about 40% 
quicker then the MicroDrive/Basic.  Well worth the extra few bucks if you 
ask me.  They had a nice review in Juiced.GS too.


-- 
Henry S. Courbis
www.ReactiveMicro.com
Legacy Hardware and Support - Come take a look at what we have to offer! 


0
Henry
8/29/2008 2:37:47 PM
On 29 Aug, 15:22, "Henry S. Courbis" <apl2research(a.t.)comcast.net>
wrote:
> Hello Steve.
>
> >> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
> >> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
> >> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later.
> >> My question is what did the logic chips do?
> > Interesting. =A0I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and noticed=
 the
> > lack of those chips. =A0Wasn't sure if it was practical to upgrade it o=
r
> > not. =A0Can anyone else provide some data points on this? =A0Henry Cour=
bis?
> > What's your experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?
>
> Well, I did notice a few differences between the 1.01 and 1.02. =A0Though=
t I
> had some pics of the 1.01 but it seems I don't. :-/
>
> ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never wasted
> anything, including PCBs. =A0Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance:http://www.d=
ownloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hard...
>
> Why they wouldn't just redesign the PCB is beyond me. =A0There has been s=
ome
> speculation that they purposefully designed the PCB that way though. =A0T=
he
> idea being that if the PLCC (square) chip becomes hard to find that they
> could then build the board using standard logic ICs. =A0Seems like an odd
> strategy though to me.
>
> So what the difference is between the two ZIP GSX boards, or should I say
> the ASICs (large square IC), really isn't know (at least to me). =A0Maybe=
 they
> weren't sure about the ASICs ability to work and only has a small batch
> produced. =A0Being this was 1989 (?) it was in the middle of the 'custom
> logic'
> reevaluation where it was really starting to become 'cheap' to produce th=
ese
> large ASICs. =A0So if the 1.01 boards kind of worked, and worked good eno=
ugh,
> why not sell them? =A0It's just a business decision at that point. =A0The=
n maybe
> they fixed a few minor reliability issues and produced a second batch,
> v1.02. =A0Of course I have no idea what the real story is and I'm just
> speculating. =A0In 1989-90 we all kind of knew that Apple II was on its w=
ay
> out. =A0So that's where I start to consider the 'small batch' theory.
>
> There's my two cents.
>
> --
> Henry S. Courbiswww.ReactiveMicro.com
> Legacy Hardware and Support - Come take a look at what we have to offer!

Thanks Henry for that, didn't really cross my mind that the ASICs
might be different between the two boards. Looking at the picture on
your site of the ZIP GSX 1.0.2 the ASICs do indeed look different
types to the one on my card. I did speak to you about this before, but
was bugging me that my card had the sockets :-).
My cards run fine, they never hang, get the odd crash but never sure
if thats the card or not to be honest. I was happily playing OOTW for
over an hour at full screen and full 12.5Mhz speed the other night....

Thanks
Drew
0
goggledrew (244)
8/29/2008 3:41:45 PM
On Aug 28, 8:03=A0pm, "Bill Buckels" <bbuck...@mts.net> wrote:
> "Bill Garber" <willy4...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:S-KdnWeDV7VEzCrVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> >Everything listed at ReactiveMicro as an upgrade is more or less a hack =
to
> >increase speed and cache ram.
>
> Hey Mr. Gerber,
>
> Speaking of which and accelerators and such...
>
> I wish that I still had my orginal Apple //e with the zip chip but my son
> somehow misplaced it, so wishing for that is not realistic. All I have le=
ft
> of that one is a joystick. This one as you know is stock.
>
> So instead I wish that you or Henry or someone else with the talent to do=
 so
> would provide an Apple //e accelerator, or if you ever come across a ZIP
> chip or similar for the //e that you don't want to hoard for yourself,
> please let me buy it from you.
>
> This //e is incredible with the Microdrive that I just received. Disk I/O
> just flies! The icing on the cake would be an accelarator.
>
> - Mr. Buggles

I've got a Titan Accelerator available for sale/trade
0
aiiadict (1731)
8/29/2008 4:57:13 PM
On 29 Ago, 18:57, aiiad...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've got a Titan Accelerator available for sale/trade

How I can check if my Titan Accelerator works ?

Mauro
0
oraclemaster (107)
8/29/2008 6:28:55 PM
Drew wrote:

>> So what the difference is between the two ZIP GSX boards, or should I say
>> the ASICs (large square IC), really isn't know (at least to me).  Maybe they
>> weren't sure about the ASICs ability to work and only has a small batch
>> produced.  Being this was 1989 (?) it was in the middle of the 'custom
>> logic'
>> reevaluation where it was really starting to become 'cheap' to produce these
>> large ASICs.  So if the 1.01 boards kind of worked, and worked good enough,
>> why not sell them?  It's just a business decision at that point.  Then maybe
>> they fixed a few minor reliability issues and produced a second batch,
>> v1.02.  Of course I have no idea what the real story is and I'm just
>> speculating.  In 1989-90 we all kind of knew that Apple II was on its way
>> out.  So that's where I start to consider the 'small batch' theory.

> Thanks Henry for that, didn't really cross my mind that the ASICs
> might be different between the two boards. Looking at the picture on
> your site of the ZIP GSX 1.0.2 the ASICs do indeed look different
> types to the one on my card. I did speak to you about this before, but
> was bugging me that my card had the sockets :-).

My point is that those two chips were designed to do something with signals on 
the card and that the differences between 1.01 and 1.0.2 must amount to more 
than their presence or absence.  In order for it to work without them, there 
must be jumpers to provide the equivalent paths in the circuit topology.

Perhaps they are simply buffers?

So, it sounds like it's possible to upgrade a 1.0.1 rev GSX from what I'm hearing.

> My cards run fine, they never hang, get the odd crash but never sure
> if thats the card or not to be honest. I was happily playing OOTW for
> over an hour at full screen and full 12.5Mhz speed the other night....

Unfortunately, my 12.5Mhz. 1.0.2 board (I have one of each) does not run 
reliably.  If left on it will eventually put the machine in a state where the 
mouse will move the cursor, but nothing else responds (nothing from keyboard 
or mouse buttons).

Maybe I'll have better luck with the 1.0.1 unit.

Steve
0
snhirsch (1237)
8/29/2008 11:03:02 PM
I have a few accelerators I might part with. A Titan, Zip Chip 4000, Zip Chip 
8000, RocketChip 10, Transwarp, Stellation 68008. The Zip8 is my favorite. 
The //e makes a high pitched tweet when it boots :-) No GS specific boards.

http://www.regnirps.com/Apple6502stuff/speed.htm

I am working on and off on an accelerator based on a 70MHz ARM7 which I just 
switched to 400MHz ARM9 with about a 4 to one cycle count. The ARM7 would 
have run like a 18 to 20 MHz 65C02. Higher with some code substitution 
tricks. The ARM9 like a 100MHz 65C02. The problem is fighting featuritis. Why 
not support USB? 1024x768 VGA? SD Cards (well, that one stays)? Ethernet? 
etc, etc, etc.

Just gotta finish!

-- Charlie Springer

0
RAM6246 (431)
8/30/2008 2:17:23 AM
On 30 Aug, 00:03, Steven Hirsch <snhir...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> >> So what the difference is between the two ZIP GSX boards, or should I =
say
> >> the ASICs (large square IC), really isn't know (at least to me). =A0Ma=
ybe they
> >> weren't sure about the ASICs ability to work and only has a small batc=
h
> >> produced. =A0Being this was 1989 (?) it was in the middle of the 'cust=
om
> >> logic'
> >> reevaluation where it was really starting to become 'cheap' to produce=
 these
> >> large ASICs. =A0So if the 1.01 boards kind of worked, and worked good =
enough,
> >> why not sell them? =A0It's just a business decision at that point. =A0=
Then maybe
> >> they fixed a few minor reliability issues and produced a second batch,
> >> v1.02. =A0Of course I have no idea what the real story is and I'm just
> >> speculating. =A0In 1989-90 we all kind of knew that Apple II was on it=
s way
> >> out. =A0So that's where I start to consider the 'small batch' theory.
> > Thanks Henry for that, didn't really cross my mind that the ASICs
> > might be different between the two boards. Looking at the picture on
> > your site of the ZIP GSX 1.0.2 the ASICs do indeed look different
> > types to the one on my card. I did speak to you about this before, but
> > was bugging me that my card had the sockets :-).
>
> My point is that those two chips were designed to do something with signa=
ls on
> the card and that the differences between 1.01 and 1.0.2 must amount to m=
ore
> than their presence or absence. =A0In order for it to work without them, =
there
> must be jumpers to provide the equivalent paths in the circuit topology.
>
> Perhaps they are simply buffers?
>
> So, it sounds like it's possible to upgrade a 1.0.1 rev GSX from what I'm=
 hearing.
>
> > My cards run fine, they never hang, get the odd crash but never sure
> > if thats the card or not to be honest. I was happily playing OOTW for
> > over an hour at full screen and full 12.5Mhz speed the other night....
>
> Unfortunately, my 12.5Mhz. 1.0.2 board (I have one of each) does not run
> reliably. =A0If left on it will eventually put the machine in a state whe=
re the
> mouse will move the cursor, but nothing else responds (nothing from keybo=
ard
> or mouse buttons).
>
> Maybe I'll have better luck with the 1.0.1 unit.
>
> Steve

Hi Steve,

Well on the back of my 2 x 1.0.1 boards there is a capacitor...maybe
thats the difference. Anyone confirm if there is a capacitor on the
back of the 1.0.2 board?  Good luck with the 1.0.1 card, I was able to
to get mine going what seems to be relatively reliable at 12.5Mhz (and
larger caches), both with a DIY method (i.e using adapters for cache
modules) and sent of the other one to get done properly.

Cheers
Drew
0
goggledrew (244)
8/30/2008 6:42:22 AM
Henry S. Courbis wrote:

> ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never wasted 
> anything, including PCBs.  Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance: 
> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/DSCN0475.JPG

> Why they wouldn't just redesign the PCB is beyond me.  There has been some 
> speculation that they purposefully designed the PCB that way though.  The 
> idea being that if the PLCC (square) chip becomes hard to find that they 
> could then build the board using standard logic ICs.  Seems like an odd 
> strategy though to me.

Hi Henry, actually it costs MORE to manufacture PCBs padded for two 
different components as more board real estate means higher cost per 
board. It's more likely that they're got a release schedule to keep and 
wasn't sure if the ASIC will be done on time, so the PCB out laid out 
for both discrete and PLCC.
0
None2266 (78)
8/30/2008 2:57:59 PM
"David C. Chiu" <none@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:g9bn5t02cak@news1.newsguy.com...
> Henry S. Courbis wrote:
> 
>> ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never wasted 
>> anything, including PCBs.  Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance: 
>> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/DSCN0475.JPG
> 
>> Why they wouldn't just redesign the PCB is beyond me.  There has been some 
>> speculation that they purposefully designed the PCB that way though.  The 
>> idea being that if the PLCC (square) chip becomes hard to find that they 
>> could then build the board using standard logic ICs.  Seems like an odd 
>> strategy though to me.
> 
> Hi Henry, actually it costs MORE to manufacture PCBs padded for two 
> different components as more board real estate means higher cost per 
> board. It's more likely that they're got a release schedule to keep and 
> wasn't sure if the ASIC will be done on time, so the PCB out laid out 
> for both discrete and PLCC. 

This is a more 'logical' explanation, as has been my 
experience that even just a few less 'via' holes can 
dramatically cut the cost per board. 

Bill Garber from GS-Electronics
http://www.garberstreet.com

0
willy46pa (2246)
8/30/2008 3:40:27 PM
a2fan@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 29, 1:36 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> But the 8MHz Zip Chip is the coolest and fastest, by far (not counting
>> the Zip clone, the 10MHz RocketChip, which is quite rare).
>>
>> It makes the //e fast enough that development in the native
>> environment is quite acceptable.
> 
> I really don't notice a significant difference between 1MHz and 8MHz
> when I'm coding. The computer is always waiting on me as I enter my
> next brilliant line of code. When I assemble, disassemble, compile,
> parse and analyze or whatever, I've found the media I'm reading and
> writing to is much more relevant, ie CFFA or other mass storage vs
> floppy. The only time I really appreciate the speed increase is when
> I'm loading someone's huge AppleWorks spreadsheet for conversion and
> migration to another platform.

When assembling a large program from CFFA, processor clock speed makes
a *big* difference!  I'd estimate it's at least 4-5x faster than 1MHz.

I regularly do Merlin assemblies that take several a couple of minutes
(listing to screen) or about 10 seconds without listing--this on a //e
with an 8MHz Zip Chip.  Without the Zip enabled, they take at least ten
minutes with listing (painful!) and about a minute without listing.

I've never bothered timing them exactly, but the subjective difference
is pretty extreme.

> If someone manages to clone, or better yet, come out with something
> that's an improvement over the ZipChip ... I'd buy several.

You're not alone!

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/31/2008 1:06:02 AM
Henry S. Courbis wrote:
> Hello Bill.
> 
>> Accelerators for the //e are impossible to find.
> 
> I wouldn't say 'impossible'.  You can find some good deals for TransWarps on 
> eBay.  Every now and again a ZIP CHIP does come up for sale though.
> 
> 
>> I realize that they are not
>> trivial. What is to prevent you or Henry from reverse-engineering an Apple
>> //e  zip chip and doing a production run?
> 
> Nothing really.  Reverse-engineering is a major pain in the rear though.  At 
> some point I may decap a dead ZIP and see how they did what they did.

Just look at the IIc+.  It's exactly a Zip Chip without the potting.
;-)

>  I 
> still think the best way to go is cloning the TransWarp II though.  Since 
> they are so rare though it's going to be hard to convince an owner to part 
> with the board and then let me do some tinkering.  Of course if a few other 
> projects I have in the works turn out well then I may try to convince some 
> owners to let me 'study' their board for a cut of future sales.

It's a much higher-power design, though modern logic may help with that.

>> What do you think it would cost if you had a run of 100 or so and took
>> pre-orders?
> 
> Costs on 100?  Probably $6k.  Feel like investing? ;-)  And that's not even 
> counting the research costs.  Add probably another $1000 on to that number 
> then.

And the packaging is non-trivial if you want it to plug into the
processor socket and not interfere with cards, like the Zip.

Keeping the total power well under a watt is a *huge* advantage in my
book.

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/31/2008 1:10:45 AM
Oracle wrote:
> On 29 Ago, 18:57, aiiad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've got a Titan Accelerator available for sale/trade
> 
> How I can check if my Titan Accelerator works ?

Plug it in and power up.  If the "beep" is a "cheep",
then it's working.

The very similar SpeedDemon had a cute hi-res sign-on
logo, but I don't know what the Titan did.

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/31/2008 1:12:45 AM
Henry S. Courbis wrote:
> Hello Steve.
> 
>>> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
>>> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
>>> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later.
>>> My question is what did the logic chips do?
>> Interesting.  I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and noticed the 
>> lack of those chips.  Wasn't sure if it was practical to upgrade it or 
>> not.  Can anyone else provide some data points on this?  Henry Courbis? 
>> What's your experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?
> 
> Well, I did notice a few differences between the 1.01 and 1.02.  Thought I 
> had some pics of the 1.01 but it seems I don't. :-/
> 
> ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never wasted 
> anything, including PCBs.  Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance: 
> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/DSCN0475.JPG

That was a completely different company.  Zip Technologies went
bankrupt.  The Zip Drive was made by iomega.

> Why they wouldn't just redesign the PCB is beyond me.  There has been some 
> speculation that they purposefully designed the PCB that way though.  The 
> idea being that if the PLCC (square) chip becomes hard to find that they 
> could then build the board using standard logic ICs.  Seems like an odd 
> strategy though to me.

When you are designing a product for a lifetime of over a year (so your
suppliers may change) and over a million units, you *really* try to
minimize SKUs and maximize supplier choice.  Having a versatile PCB is
a sound engineering choice that is extremely common in high volume
electronics like Zip Drives.

Of course, for the ZipGS accelerator, volumes could never have been
projected to be very high, given the market conditions.  (Unlike the
Zip Chip, where they pretty much sold everything they could make as
fast as they could get it from the factory!)

> So what the difference is between the two ZIP GSX boards, or should I say 
> the ASICs (large square IC), really isn't know (at least to me).  Maybe they 
> weren't sure about the ASICs ability to work and only has a small batch 
> produced.  Being this was 1989 (?) it was in the middle of the 'custom 
> logic'
> reevaluation where it was really starting to become 'cheap' to produce these 
> large ASICs.  So if the 1.01 boards kind of worked, and worked good enough, 
> why not sell them?  It's just a business decision at that point.  Then maybe 
> they fixed a few minor reliability issues and produced a second batch, 
> v1.02.  Of course I have no idea what the real story is and I'm just 
> speculating.  In 1989-90 we all kind of knew that Apple II was on its way 
> out.  So that's where I start to consider the 'small batch' theory.
> 
> 
> There's my two cents.

Makes sense-especially since early production is a lot like extended
beta test...   ;-)

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/31/2008 1:20:55 AM
"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message news:OtWdnS8TeptkbCTVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Henry S. Courbis wrote:
>> Hello Steve.
>> 
>>>> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
>>>> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
>>>> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later.
>>>> My question is what did the logic chips do?
>>> Interesting.  I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and noticed the 
>>> lack of those chips.  Wasn't sure if it was practical to upgrade it or 
>>> not.  Can anyone else provide some data points on this?  Henry Courbis? 
>>> What's your experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?
>> 
>> Well, I did notice a few differences between the 1.01 and 1.02.  Thought I 
>> had some pics of the 1.01 but it seems I don't. :-/
>> 
>> ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never wasted 
>> anything, including PCBs.  Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance: 
>> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/DSCN0475.JPG
> 
> That was a completely different company.  Zip Technologies went
> bankrupt.  The Zip Drive was made by iomega.

http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/ZipAd.jpg 

Then, no offense, why are they both on the same ad? 

Bill Garber from GS-Electronics
http://www.garberstreet.com

0
willy46pa (2246)
8/31/2008 1:34:54 AM
Bill Garber wrote:
>>
>> That was a completely different company.  Zip Technologies went
>> bankrupt.  The Zip Drive was made by iomega.
> 
> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/ZipAd.jpg 
> 
> Then, no offense, why are they both on the same ad?


Looks like there was more than one Zip Drive. I guess after the company
behind the Apple ZipDrive(tm) went under, the TM didn't matter much any 
more. So Iomega recycled it.

-Alex.
0
alexf (262)
8/31/2008 4:18:15 AM
On Aug 30, 8:34=A0pm, "Bill Garber" <willy4...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Then, no offense, why are they both on the same ad?
>
> Bill Garber from GS-Electronicshttp://www.garberstreet.com

Because that Zip Drive is not the Zip Drive that most of us know
today. This one is an internal hard drive made by Zip Technologies,
the maker of the Zip Chip, as it plainly shows on the bottom of the
board in the picture:

http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/Z=
IP_DRIVE/Pics/ZipAd.jpg

the normal Zip Drive we are all familiar with is made by Iomega and
uses disks that hold anywhere from 100MB to 750MB. Depending on when
this ad cam out I wouldn't be surprised if Iomega had sued Zip
Technologies over use of the name.

Dean

0
dean.phares (601)
8/31/2008 4:45:02 AM
On Aug 31, 6:45 am, magnusfalkirk <dean.pha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Because that Zip Drive is not the Zip Drive that most of us know
> today. This one is an internal hard drive made by Zip Technologies,
> the maker of the Zip Chip, as it plainly shows on the bottom of the
> board in the picture:
>
> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hard...
>
> the normal Zip Drive we are all familiar with is made by Iomega and
> uses disks that hold anywhere from 100MB to 750MB. Depending on when
> this ad cam out I wouldn't be surprised if Iomega had sued Zip
> Technologies over use of the name.

Wikipedia says that Iomega introduced their ZipDrive in late 1994.
I wonder when this ZipDrive "filecard" came out.

bye
Marcus
0
8/31/2008 6:44:32 AM
On Aug 30, 8:42 am, Drew <GoggleD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well on the back of my 2 x 1.0.1 boards there is a capacitor...maybe
> thats the difference. Anyone confirm if there is a capacitor on the
> back of the 1.0.2 board?

I don't have the card but a photo of the 1.02 backside and it
doesn't have a capacitor there.

Judging by ebay auctions the 1.02 seems to be much more common
than the 1.01.

bye
Marcus
0
8/31/2008 6:48:03 AM
heuser.marcus@freenet.de wrote:
> On Aug 30, 8:42 am, Drew <GoggleD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well on the back of my 2 x 1.0.1 boards there is a capacitor...maybe
>> thats the difference. Anyone confirm if there is a capacitor on the
>> back of the 1.0.2 board?
> 
> I don't have the card but a photo of the 1.02 backside and it
> doesn't have a capacitor there.
> 
> Judging by ebay auctions the 1.02 seems to be much more common
> than the 1.01.

If the capacitor is a small value (less than 0.01uF), then it is
used to slow down a signal that was most likely creating a "race"
condition on some cards.

If the capacitor is 0.01uF or bigger, then it is a bypass cap
that was installed to solve a power glitch problem.

Either way, the 1.02 version apparently altered the logic in
the gate array to eliminate the need for the cap--and possibly
in a way that lowered the average upper limit on card speed.
(This suggests that the cap is probably a small cap, and a race
condition was the problem it was fixing.)

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/31/2008 8:41:59 AM
Bill Garber wrote:
> 
> "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
> news:OtWdnS8TeptkbCTVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Henry S. Courbis wrote:
>>> Hello Steve.
>>>
>>>>> I have a couple of ZIP GSX boards that are version 1.0.1. Since i have
>>>>> had them i had always wondered what the difference was between this
>>>>> version and the 1.0.2 versions that came out later.
>>>>> My question is what did the logic chips do?
>>>> Interesting.  I just came into possession of Zip GSX 1.01 and 
>>>> noticed the lack of those chips.  Wasn't sure if it was practical to 
>>>> upgrade it or not.  Can anyone else provide some data points on 
>>>> this?  Henry Courbis? What's your experience with v1.01 vs. 1.0.2 Zips?
>>>
>>> Well, I did notice a few differences between the 1.01 and 1.02.  
>>> Thought I had some pics of the 1.01 but it seems I don't. :-/
>>>
>>> ZIP Technologies seemed to be one of those companies what never 
>>> wasted anything, including PCBs.  Take the ZIP DRIVE for instance: 
>>> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/DSCN0475.JPG 
>>>
>>
>> That was a completely different company.  Zip Technologies went
>> bankrupt.  The Zip Drive was made by iomega.
> 
> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hardware/ZIP_DRIVE/Pics/ZipAd.jpg 
> 
> Then, no offense, why are they both on the same ad?

My mistake--I've never seen that Zip Drive, but thought that the
popular iomega Zip Drive was being discussed.  I should have looked
at the photo!  ;-(

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
8/31/2008 8:46:14 AM
On Aug 31, 9:41=A0am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> heuser.mar...@freenet.de wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 8:42 am, Drew <GoggleD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Well on the back of my 2 x 1.0.1 boards there is a capacitor...maybe
> >> thats the difference. Anyone confirm if there is a capacitor on the
> >> back of the 1.0.2 board?
>
> > I don't have the card but a photo of the 1.02 backside and it
> > doesn't have a capacitor there.
>
> > Judging by ebay auctions the 1.02 seems to be much more common
> > than the 1.01.
>
> If the capacitor is a small value (less than 0.01uF), then it is
> used to slow down a signal that was most likely creating a "race"
> condition on some cards.
>
> If the capacitor is 0.01uF or bigger, then it is a bypass cap
> that was installed to solve a power glitch problem.
>
> Either way, the 1.02 version apparently altered the logic in
> the gate array to eliminate the need for the cap--and possibly
> in a way that lowered the average upper limit on card speed.
> (This suggests that the cap is probably a small cap, and a race
> condition was the problem it was fixing.)

Hi,

Can't make any markings on the cap, but have put a photo up:-

ftp://drewbie.dyndns.org/RearofZipgsx.jpg

I got both my 1.0.1 cards at the same time and both have the same cap.

Cheers
Drew
0
goggledrew (244)
8/31/2008 5:07:01 PM
Drew wrote:
> On Aug 31, 9:41 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>> heuser.mar...@freenet.de wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 8:42 am, Drew <GoggleD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Well on the back of my 2 x 1.0.1 boards there is a capacitor...maybe
>>>> thats the difference. Anyone confirm if there is a capacitor on the
>>>> back of the 1.0.2 board?
>>> I don't have the card but a photo of the 1.02 backside and it
>>> doesn't have a capacitor there.
>>> Judging by ebay auctions the 1.02 seems to be much more common
>>> than the 1.01.
>> If the capacitor is a small value (less than 0.01uF), then it is
>> used to slow down a signal that was most likely creating a "race"
>> condition on some cards.
>>
>> If the capacitor is 0.01uF or bigger, then it is a bypass cap
>> that was installed to solve a power glitch problem.
>>
>> Either way, the 1.02 version apparently altered the logic in
>> the gate array to eliminate the need for the cap--and possibly
>> in a way that lowered the average upper limit on card speed.
>> (This suggests that the cap is probably a small cap, and a race
>> condition was the problem it was fixing.)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Can't make any markings on the cap, but have put a photo up:-
> 
> ftp://drewbie.dyndns.org/RearofZipgsx.jpg

The picture is too blurry to tell definitively (and the markings are
probably on the underside of the cap), but it looks smaller than 0.01uF.
I'd guess 100pF to 1000pF, and almost certainly a capacitor intended
to delay a signal rise and/or fall time by a small amount.

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
9/1/2008 6:55:51 AM
>
> The picture is too blurry to tell definitively (and the markings are
> probably on the underside of the cap), but it looks smaller than 0.01uF.
> I'd guess 100pF to 1000pF, and almost certainly a capacitor intended
> to delay a signal rise and/or fall time by a small amount.
>
> -michael


Yea pic wasn't great, not to impressed with my new camera....but
anyway (its possible i actually can't take photos ;-)). Thanks for the
info michael.

Drew
0
goggledrew (244)
9/1/2008 7:31:21 AM
<aiiadict@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c030a7f9-34da-44ac-8f95-3c97fe20652d@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I've got a Titan Accelerator available for sale/trade

If this is the //e compatible one, what would you want for it? The Transwarp 
isn't exactly my perfect solution either.

I wish Charlie would sell me the 8 MGHZ zip chip would be my perfect 
solution.

Bill


0
bbuckels (478)
9/2/2008 12:57:36 AM
On Sep 1, 9:31 am, Drew <GoggleD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yea pic wasn't great, not to impressed with my new camera....but
> anyway (its possible i actually can't take photos ;-)).

Which model is it? Does it not have a macro function?

bye
Marcus
0
9/2/2008 4:23:15 AM
On Sep 2, 5:23=A0am, heuser.mar...@freenet.de wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:31 am, Drew <GoggleD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yea pic wasn't great, not to impressed with my new camera....but
> > anyway (its possible i actually can't take photos ;-)).
>
> Which model is it? Does it not have a macro function?
>
> bye
> Marcus

I am sure it does, its a newish Kodak. I was trying to take a picture
and zoom in, when as you rightly point out I should have used the
Macro function :-)
0
goggledrew (244)
9/2/2008 8:08:44 AM
<aiiadict@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c030a7f9-34da-44ac-8f95-3c97fe20652d@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>I've got a Titan Accelerator available for sale/trade
Hi Rich,

I was able to get a 4 MHZ ZIP II which is what I was after at the start.

I also got a 3.6 MHZ Transwarp as a back-up while I was at-it.

According to the Wikipedia Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_accelerators

The March 1986 Apple Assembly Line (volume 6, number 6) "determined that the 
TransWarp was faster than either the McT SpeedDemon or Titan Accelerator //e 
when running the same applications, even though all three cards ran at the 
same 3.58 MHz native speed."

Also the Wikipedia article mentions the Transwarp's other features such as 
configurable slot speeds (like the ZIP chip) and mentions that while the 
Titan Accelerator //e solved an auxilliary memory problem that the earlier 
version had, it did not offer high speed memory in the auxilliary bank while 
the Transwarp did.

There are of course other faster accelerators but I think I am all 
accelerated-out for the time being and I think these two and my Microdrive 
satisfy my requirements for upgrading this puppie for the present with the 
exception of a Z80 card.

I need to save some play money for my Commodore 64 restoration which is 
next, and after that I want to get a GS together again to install my Orca C 
on, then onto a Commodore 128.

Henry has mentioned that he has a Microdrive/Turbo when I get the GS going.

The C64 and C128 will get MMC Replay Cards which are somewhat of the same 
idea. The C128 already comes with a Z80.

Why? I don't know.

Bill 


0
bbuckels (478)
9/3/2008 11:56:17 PM
"Henry S. Courbis" <apl2research(a.t.)comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:I9OdnXrMuPBNlCXVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com...

>Costs on 100?  Probably $6k.  Feel like investing? ;-)  And that's not even 
>counting the research costs.  Add probably another $1000 on to that number

That's only $70 but by the time it gets to the production stage and retails 
it probably would sell for much more. Would there be a market unless all the 
used accelerators were dead? And would we all be dead as well as well as our 
Apple II's?

Does Matt's suggestion that ZIP logic be implemented in CPLD make more 
sense?

>Everyone 'needs' a CFFA! ;-)  Heck, buy two!  Then you'll need a Focus or 
>three.  I'm sure Rich and Tony will appreciate your support, as do I.

Not right now.

BTW the external CF drive is a nice add-on. After I opened my case a time or 
two I realized I'd best get one.

Bill 


0
bbuckels (478)
9/4/2008 12:41:33 AM
Bill Buckels wrote:
> "Henry S. Courbis" <apl2research(a.t.)comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:I9OdnXrMuPBNlCXVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com...
> 
>> Costs on 100?  Probably $6k.  Feel like investing? ;-)  And that's not even 
>> counting the research costs.  Add probably another $1000 on to that number
> 
> That's only $70 but by the time it gets to the production stage and retails 
> it probably would sell for much more. Would there be a market unless all the 
> used accelerators were dead? And would we all be dead as well as well as our 
> Apple II's?

In an industrial environment (meaning that you have to make a reasonable
profit after R&D, manufacturing, and marketing), multiply the raw cost
by pi and you'll come closer to a price.  ;-)

> Does Matt's suggestion that ZIP logic be implemented in CPLD make more 
> sense?

I think that the Zip architecture is quite clean and extensible to
higher clock speeds and larger caches.

> BTW the external CF drive is a nice add-on. After I opened my case a time or 
> two I realized I'd best get one.

Or just leave the cover off--that's what "real developers" do!  ;-)
You can always tell a "user" by the fact that the monitor is stacked
on top of the machine.  ;-)

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
9/4/2008 1:41:33 AM
Bill Buckels wrote:

> I was able to get a 4 MHZ ZIP II which is what I was after at the start.
> 
> I also got a 3.6 MHZ Transwarp as a back-up while I was at-it.

Congratulations!

> According to the Wikipedia Article
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_accelerators
> 
> The March 1986 Apple Assembly Line (volume 6, number 6) "determined that the 
> TransWarp was faster than either the McT SpeedDemon or Titan Accelerator //e 
> when running the same applications, even though all three cards ran at the 
> same 3.58 MHz native speed."

This is no doubt a function of the caching/non-caching architectures of
the cards, and how cleverly they handle write-through to Apple memory.

> Also the Wikipedia article mentions the Transwarp's other features such as 
> configurable slot speeds (like the ZIP chip) and mentions that while the 
> Titan Accelerator //e solved an auxilliary memory problem that the earlier 
> version had, it did not offer high speed memory in the auxilliary bank while 
> the Transwarp did.

The SpeedDemon and Titan were "1st generation" accelerators, and lacked
some of the finesse--or brute force--of later generations.

The Zip Chip is particularly clever in its buffering of write-throughs, 
so that it need not slow down for Apple memory writes unless they occur
closer together than 4 cycles (for the 4MHz) or 8 cycles (for the 8MHz).

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
0
mjmahon (7061)
9/4/2008 1:54:27 AM
Reply: