Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmger!peterk
From: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: AT bus in 2000 and 3000
Message-ID: <1222@cbmger.UUCP>
Date: 13 May 91 10:11:00 GMT
References: <21393@cbmvax.commodore.com> <42181@cup.portal.com> <1991May10.213512.16629@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> <2834@swrinde.nde.swri.edu>
Reply-To: peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY)
Organization: Commodore Bueromaschinen GmbH, West Germany
Lines: 40

In article <2834@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) writes:
>
>Actually, I think the 4040 disk drive was the earliest CBM machine to
>have multi-processors in it. Two 6502's - one for each drive.

No, not for each drive. One was the bus controller to connect the floppy
via IEC bus to the computer and interpret the commands. The other was
the real floppy controller doing the hard stuff on the drive hardware.
And even older than the 4040 was the 3040 and the 2040 with the same
setup. (Though I fear the 2040 was never released to public. This was
before I joined Commodore, but a floppy I bought used had the 2040
label on it.)

>The 6809 mode stuff was from Waterloo if I remember correctly.  The
>SuperPET was the hottest micro of it's day. I wrote lots of software
>for the 8032's & SuperPETs, but didn't get a chance to work much with
>the 6809 mode and don't really remember anything about it.

Hmm, perhaps you were lucky. The Waterloo software was ssslllloooowww.
All the languages compiled into P code and were beaten by the normal
Basic interpreter in speed... I heard enough nice things about the 
6809 to decide that this speed lack was not the processor's fault.

>>loaded off of disk.  The floppy disk stored 512K on a 5.25
>>inch floppy drive using double density disks!

(was obviously an 8050)

>Also, the 8052 (8250? whatever) was a dual drive which stored 1Meg on a
>single double-sided, double-density floppy. 2 Meg. total.
>Unfortunately, it was a flat file system, so this cut down a bit on
>it's usability.

Yes, I still love that 8250. It appeared also more reliable than today's
HD drives. My 8250 here still is going strong. It sits within a CBM 8296-D
directly besides my A3000. I find this sort of adequate :-).

-- 
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk