nasa@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Daniel Poirot) (01/25/89)
Did anyone out there save the articles from COMPUTER SHOPPER that described
a way to transfer files back and forth from an IBM-PC to a C64? I recall
they modified a PC parallel port and wrote software for the C64 USERPORT.
Alternatly, does anyone have a way to transfer files that beats 1200 baud
XMODEM? My C64 and Prominade are still the best system I have for
programming EPROMs.
Thanks,
Daniel Poirot {ihnp4,codas}!killer!nasa
Lockheed B16
2400 Nasa Rd. 1
Houston, TX 77536 "A mind is a terrible thing."jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) (01/25/89)
In article <6907@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> nasa@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Daniel Poirot) writes: > >Did anyone out there save the articles from COMPUTER SHOPPER that described >a way to transfer files back and forth from an IBM-PC to a C64? I recall >they modified a PC parallel port and wrote software for the C64 USERPORT. I'd heard of that. However, a friend of mine hooked up his C128 to his PClone and ran CS-DOS on the 128. He was able to do 9600bps transfers with no hardware mods. (Nice!) >Alternatly, does anyone have a way to transfer files that beats 1200 baud >XMODEM? My C64 and Prominade are still the best system I have for >programming EPROMs. Try PaperClip III/64 at 2400 baud. Very nice, although I have an occasional lockup (may be just the amount of extra junk I have loaded onto my 64 systems) Where'd the EPROMs come into the discussion? :-) -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)
nfs0294@dsacg1.UUCP (Glendell R. Midkiff) (01/25/89)
From article <6907@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, by nasa@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Daniel Poirot): > > Alternatly, does anyone have a way to transfer files that beats 1200 baud > XMODEM? My C64 and Prominade are still the best system I have for > programming EPROMs. > The best alternative I found when I was trying to transfer files from my C64 to MS-DOS was to find a friend who had a C128 with a 1571 disk drive. There is a software package called BIG BLUE READER that can format MS-DOS diskettes on the 1571 drive. Transferring from the C64 format to MS-DOS format then is very simple. Big Blue Reader will read the C64 disk and write the MS-DOS disk on the 1571 drive. Worked great for me. -- |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| |Glen Midkiff osu-cis!dsacg1!gmidkiff | | Phone: (614)-238-9643 @DLA, Systems Automation Center, Columbus, Oh. | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) (01/26/89)
In article <6907@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, nasa@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Daniel Poirot) writes: > > Did anyone out there save the articles from COMPUTER SHOPPER that described > a way to transfer files back and forth from an IBM-PC to a C64? I recall > they modified a PC parallel port and wrote software for the C64 USERPORT. > I recall seeing on the newstand the article in Computer Shopper that talked about making a parallel connection between a c64 and ibm-pc. I think it was Dec '86. I'm surprised I haven't heard about other similar attempts at high speed connection between a c64 and a server computer. With the cost of hard disks for the c64 I would think it would almost justify the cost of a pc-clone just to use it as a file server. Has anybody else heard of products to create a server environment between c64 and another machine with hard disk? Kevin Allred Department of Chemical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Allred@cheme1.che.utexas.edu
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (01/26/89)
> I'd heard of that. However, a friend of mine hooked up his C128 to > his PClone and ran CS-DOS on the 128. He was able to do 9600bps > transfers with no hardware mods. (Nice!) Joe: The CS-DOS RS-232 drivers are the exact same ones that you a few messages back said were capable of "2400, not much more". With the exception that it is running on a 2 MHz machine, Chris Smeets' drivers are copied almost byte for byte from my FASTERM. PaperClip III/64 should be able to XMODEM at 3600 or perhaps even 4800 bps. Steve's code differs slightly from mine, but I haven't spent the time looking at it closely. =========================================================================== Internet: Geoffrey.Welsh@f171.n221.z1.fidonet.org | 66 Mooregate Crescent Usenet: watmath!isishq!izot | Suite 602 FidoNet: Geoffrey Welsh on 1:221/171 | Kitchener, Ontario PunterNet: 7/Geoffrey Welsh | N2M 5E6 CANADA BBS: (519) 742-8939 24h 7d 300/1200/2400bps | (519) 741-9553 =========================================================================== | "I don't need a disclaimer. No one pays any attention to what I say." | =========================================================================== -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) (01/27/89)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1348.23DEB74C@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) wrote: ] > I'd heard of that. However, a friend of mine hooked up his C128 to ] > his PClone and ran CS-DOS on the 128. He was able to do 9600bps ] > transfers with no hardware mods. (Nice!) ] ] Joe: The CS-DOS RS-232 drivers are the exact same ones that you a few ]messages back said were capable of "2400, not much more". With the exception ]that it is running on a 2 MHz machine, Chris Smeets' drivers are copied almost ]byte for byte from my FASTERM. Plagiarism? <grin> <grin> <grin> ] PaperClip III/64 should be able to XMODEM at 3600 or perhaps even 4800 bps. ]Steve's code differs slightly from mine, but I haven't spent the time looking ]at it closely. Then it might be my 64's. Although neither of the two that are hooked to 2400's work at speeds higher than that, be it PCIII or FASTERM. -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (01/29/89)
> From: jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) > Message-ID: <601@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> > ]Chris Smeets' drivers are copied almost byte for byte from my FASTERM. > > Plagiarism? <grin> <grin> <grin> He asked so I gave him the code. > ] PaperClip III/64 should be able to XMODEM at 3600 or perhaps even 4800 > bps. > ]Steve's code differs slightly from mine, but I haven't spent the time > looking > ]at it closely. > > Then it might be my 64's. Although neither of the two that are hooked > to 2400's work at speeds higher than that, be it PCIII or FASTERM. Steve's 9600 bps on PC III/128 is 16% off - and I know why. Apparently the 1670 Modem/1200 works fine with the C64's slightly off 1200 bps, but not with a strictly correct 1200 bps! Thus PC II (note: "II", not "III") was designed to provide that error, and it grew at higher baud rates... PC III inherited that timing error (which only got worse on the 1 MHz C64). FASTERM was never tested against a high-speed modem, but DesTerm 128 was verified against a USRobotics HST. We found that, because the modem had to auto sync to a wide range of baud rates, it would not accept even slightly off timing. As a result, the code in DesTerm 128 is almost identical to that in FASTERM, but the constants were arrived at by means of an oscilloscope and confirmed by trial on the HST. Thus, you may not be able to use FASTERM with your 2400 MNP modem at 4800 bps because its autosync timers are too sensitive for it... -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) (02/02/89)
In comp.sys.cbm article <1447.23E5B7FA@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) wrote: ] > Plagiarism? <grin> <grin> <grin> ] He asked so I gave him the code. I should hope. :-) ] Steve's 9600 bps on PC III/128 is 16% off - and I know why. Apparently the ^^ 'just a little off' hehe ]1670 Modem/1200 works fine with the C64's slightly off 1200 bps, but not with ]a strictly correct 1200 bps! Thus PC II (note: "II", not "III") was designed ]to provide that error, and it grew at higher baud rates... PC III inherited ]that timing error (which only got worse on the 1 MHz C64). Another argument in my battle to ban the 1670. ] FASTERM was never tested against a high-speed modem, but DesTerm 128 was ]verified against a USRobotics HST. We found that, because the modem had to ]auto sync to a wide range of baud rates, it would not accept even slightly off ]timing. As a result, the code in DesTerm 128 is almost identical to that in ]FASTERM, but the constants were arrived at by means of an oscilloscope and ]confirmed by trial on the HST. Well, I can't do anything fancy to get it to work.... I don't have the necessary facilities. ] Thus, you may not be able to use FASTERM with your 2400 MNP modem at 4800 ]bps because its autosync timers are too sensitive for it... Didn't work too well between two direct connect 64's either, which is why I STILL suspect clock speed problems. . JG -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)