Denial

cbmeeks wrote:My original point was that I was surprised that a drop-in replacement for the VIC-1 or VIC-2 haven't been done (yes, with FPGA) because the C64 and VIC-20 are so popular in the retro scene.

I am not surprised at all.

Last year, Sylvain, Fredric and i did develop a replacement for the 6526/8520/8521 CIA used in the C64, C128, C128D, 1571, 1581 and Amiga line of computers. This is probably a chip replacement which would be popular because it is used in a bunch of devices and computers Commodore made.

Cloning the CIA requires more than 200 macrocells and we were able to fit it in a pair of XC95144XL of 100 pins each. The size of these chips (sorry I can't solder the BGA form factor) is about 15mm wide and a pair of them required a larger board than can fit over a 40 pin DIP socket.

With the 2 CPLDs, the board, the 40 pin header and the work involved, the cost per unit to the customer of such a contraption was around 45$US per unit. Nobody would buy that.

I can easily imagine a VIC-I replacement costing around 90$US per unit and double that for the VIC-II. It is a near certitude this replacement will be slightly bigger than the original chip (as is the case with the TMS replacement) and this certainly cause some problems.

Before somebody invests thousands of dollars to develop this sort of product, one has to think how long it will take, if ever, to recover your investment and profit from it.

Last year, Sylvain, Fredric and i did develop a replacement for the 6526/8520/8521 CIA used in the C64, C128, C128D, 1571, 1581 and Amiga line of computers.

sounds like something jimmy would write

groepaz wrote:

Last year, Sylvain, Fredric and i did develop a replacement for the 6526/8520/8521 CIA used in the C64, C128, C128D, 1571, 1581 and Amiga line of computers.

sounds like something jimmy would write

Are you insinuating it does not exist ?

If you are, I consider your post as trolling.

The project's name was CIAnide.

Now even I've heard of that from posts elsewhere...

From Ray Carlsen:

Francois,
I'm happy to report that your module works fine. I ran two
drives and copied whole disks and then individual files back and
forth, first with a copy program in a stock drive and then with
JiffyDOS installed which runs faster and is more critical of
misalignment and other problems. I found no difference between
GandALF and the stock controller chip. The programs I copied fill
virtually all of a disk and thus check drive operation at the
disk track limits. For most computer and drive diagnostics, test
software and firmware is fine but I prefer to "test it in combat"
in a real world setup. I's say your chip is ready for prime time.
Thanks!


Ray

was CIAnide tested the same? run a few games and programs and then conclude its ready for prime time?

groepaz wrote:was CIAnide tested the same? run a few games and programs and then conclude its ready for prime time?

You are a troll.

I do not own a 1541, nor do I plan to buy one for any forseeable time, so I am not 'in the market' for a MOS 325572-01 IC or substitute anyhow.

However, there is a point to be noted in groepaz' posts, in conjunction what has been told about the substitute by the OP and by the testimony of Mr. Carlsen (even if only given per 3rd person), especially the last:

What has been tested by Mr. Carlsen is the basic functionality of the substitute only, as per spec. I do not see any mention of the behaviour, when more challenging objectives are going to be met.

And now comes the rub: I would know what to test with this substitute, to get the guts out of it. But I have to admit, Francois, that you have managed to piss me off once too often in the past, so I am not going to tell you.

The only thing I hope is you and your companions got it right. This will be my only post in this thread.

Mike wrote:However, there is a point to be noted in groepaz' posts, in conjunction what has been told about the substitute by the OP and by the testimony of Mr. Carlsen (even if only given per 3rd person), especially the last:

What has been tested by Mr. Carlsen is the basic functionality of the substitute only, as per spec. I do not see any mention of the behaviour, when more challenging objectives are going to be met.

Groepaz's post is about CIAnide, not GandALF.

I have clearly mentioned I have strictly no intention of ever offering CIAnide because the components and workmanship required to offer this specific product makes it completely noncompetitive and unattractive to potential buyers. This begs the question: "Why would I ever make a thorough testing and debugging on a product I have strictly no intention on ever offering ?"

And now comes the rub: I would know what to test with this substitute, to get the guts out of it. But I have to admit, Francois, that you have managed to piss me off once too often in the past, so I am not going to tell you.

The only thing I hope is you and your companions got it right. This will be my only post in this thread.

I have strictly no idea what I may have done to piss you off. The only thing I understand from this post is that you're a person with a hypersensitive ego. Therefore communicating with you is just like walking in a mine field, I better steer clear because I never know when things are just going to blow up in my face.

I will not drive myself paranoid with people who demand being handled with white gloves on a continuous basis.

If I have offended you, I have absolutely no clue how, then I bend on my knees, kiss the floor and beg for merciful forgiveness. Is that good enough ?

As for GandALF, since it is built around technology that's 35 years more advanced than the original IC, it has been put through its paces in ways a 1541 drive could never do long before Ray Carlsen ever got to test it.

The only thing I understand from this post is that you're a person with a hypersensitive ego. Therefore communicating with you is just like walking in a mine field

coffee everywhere now. this is going into my quotes file. cheers.

(i would have raised the same thoughts as Mike - however this GandALF thing is simple enough that someone _could_ get it right at least. CIA not so much. oh well. don't listen to the troll)

groepaz wrote:coffee everywhere now. this is going into my quotes file. cheers.

(i would have raised the same thoughts as Mike - however this GandALF thing is simple enough that someone _could_ get it right at least. CIA not so much. oh well. don't listen to the troll)

Never mind this one...

I have clearly mentioned I have strictly no intention of ever offering CIAnide because the components and workmanship required to offer this specific product makes it completely noncompetitive and unattractive to potential buyers. This begs the question: "Why would I ever make a thorough testing and debugging on a product I have strictly no intention on ever offering ?"

I hope your coffee tastes... erm... wears good.

"Why would I ever make a thorough testing and debugging on a product I have strictly no intention on ever offering ?"

why would you tell people that you have developed a car when you didnt even check if the motor works and the windows dont fall off when you drive sharp corners?

i know you dont want to hear it, but this is *exactly* the same as jimmy telling people for 3 years that he developed a drive emulator.

groepaz wrote:

"Why would I ever make a thorough testing and debugging on a product I have strictly no intention on ever offering ?"

why would you tell people that you have developed a car when you didnt even check if the motor works and the windows dont fall off when you drive sharp corners?

i know you dont want to hear it, but this is *exactly* the same as jimmy telling people for 3 years that he developed a drive emulator.

Let me recapitulate here for you...

cbmeeks said...

My original point was that I was surprised that a drop-in replacement for the VIC-1 or VIC-2 haven't been done ...

Then I said...

I am not surprised at all.

Last year, Sylvain, Fredric and i did develop a replacement for the 6526/8520/8521 CIA used in the C64, C128, C128D, 1571, 1581 and Amiga line of computers. This is probably a chip replacement which would be popular because it is used in a bunch of devices and computers Commodore made.

...

With the 2 CPLDs, the board, the 40 pin header and the work involved, the cost per unit to the customer of such a contraption was around 45$US per unit. Nobody would buy that.

If I use your car analogy... because I discovered at my expense that this specific type of car would have to be sold 2M$ when it's really worth 5000$ at the most... nobody would buy it so why push forward ?

The point is there are multiple good reasons why there are no VIC-I and VIC-II drop-in replacements. It's very difficult to do, information is missing and it would have to be sold for a very high price because the market is too small.

Better now ?

i know you dont want to hear it, but this is *exactly* the same as jimmy telling people for 3 years that he developed a drive emulator.

I know. Did Jim Drew admit he dropped the ball because he ran into a dead end ?

I know. Did Jim Drew admit he dropped the ball because he ran into a dead end ?

actually he keeps argueing about unrelated issues just the same whenever someone questions the emulation. hint: the cost of the hardware you were using is completely irrelevant at this point. its all about saying you have developed something, when it is clear that at best it is "i have started to develop something".

The point is there are multiple good reasons why there are no VIC-I and VIC-II drop-in replacements. It's very difficult to do, information is missing and it would have to be sold for a very high price because the market is too small.

the point is that people will not say "i have developed a vicii replacement" although they have stopped so early in the process that nothing worth calling a replacement ever existed. except if you include jimmy, of course

groepaz wrote:the point is that people will not say "i have developed a vicii replacement" although they have stopped so early in the process that nothing worth calling a replacement ever existed. except if you include jimmy, of course

Thank you for your deep and profound observation. I'm sure we all feel we greatly benefited from your insight.

I was just telling cbmeeks there are multiple good reasons why there is no drop-in replacement for the VIC-I and VIC-II.