|
That makes sense to me. Either way, I’m happy to buy an extra board in either format if it helps move things ahead. Jack From: n8vem...@googlegroups.com [mailto:n8vem...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of yoda As another thought - why not substitute a 68 pin PLCC version of the 68K (MC68000FN12) and an AT29C1024 16 bit 44pin PLCC for the eeprom. These would drastically reduce
the density on the board an might make the trace routing simpler. The 16 bit eeprom would make the programming simpler as well - just a thought. I have both in hand so it would not be a problem and they are reasonably priced as well. Dave How close are we on the S-100 68K??? There is a lot of pent up demand for that board - especially me as I work on the other 68xxx system - I am trying to write platform independent code and would like to test it on the new 68K board as
well. Thanks Dave Hi Well I was hoping to get the S-100 68K and S-100 80286 CPU board PCBs ordered next but they are not cooperating. The S-100 68K CPU board is nearly complete and should be done soon.
It has taken much longer than I expected though. I would like it to complete trace route optimization before ordering PCBs.
Another idea is the S-100 bus terminator board. Basically there are 10 builders willing to get these boards “as is” which is the full sized PCB with some prototyping area. Nothing
fancy but useful for terminating a legacy S-100 backplane. However these have *NOT* been prototyped so there is some additional risk. I think it is minor though since the S-100 backplane has this exact circuit and it works fine. Ideas? Thoughts? Comments? Questions? All welcome! Please lets discuss what the next steps should be. Thanks and have a nice day! -- No virus found in this message. |