Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!shiloh!fnx!del From: del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) Newsgroups: comp.os.cpm Subject: Re: Need info on 5832 and 58321 clock chips Message-ID: <558@fnx.UUCP> Date: 17 Mar 90 17:52:07 GMT References: <847@gold.GVG.TEK.COM> <85.25fe1792@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> Reply-To: del@fnx.UUCP (Dag Erik Lindberg) Organization: I/Ovations Kirkland, WA Lines: 20 In article <85.25fe1792@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> syswtr@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu writes: >In article <847@gold.GVG.TEK.COM>, grege@gold.GVG.TEK.COM (Gregory Ebert) writes: > If you are building your own hardware, the 5832 has very slow access >time. A 4 Mhz Z80 will probably not be relaible when reading/writing the >5832. A slower processor (i.e. 2.5 Mhz) may work... Isn't this why wait states were invented? If you are designing your own hardware, or in any properly designed hardware, the speed of the peripheral chip is unrelated to the reliability of operation, only to the performance. This is something that has largely been forgotten in the @#$%^ Clone world. Used to be, on systems where different CPU clock speeds were likely to be encountered, there would be a jumper on each add in board to set the wait states for that board, to match it to the processor speed. If this practice had not been dropped with the Big Blue Box there wouldn't be all the problems of finding peripherals that work at the new, higher clock speeds. But that's another story in another news group. -- del AKA Erik Lindberg