Microsoft Z-80 Card on Apple II+
Bryan Parkoff
while the speed is set to normal. It is what I understand that it DOES NOT
support Apple IIgs ROM 01/03, but it can only support Apple II and II+.
Please explain why.
--
Yours Truly,
Bryan Parkoff
BPar...@satx.rr.com
Quadrajet1
while the speed is set to normal. It is what I understand that it DOES NOT
support Apple IIgs ROM 01/03, but it can only support Apple II and II+.
Please explain why. >>
Who knows. Could be that the IIgs was not even out yet when the Z80 card was
developed? :)
I seem to think the AE card does work though, I may be wrong...
Raymond
Michael J. Mahon
<BPar...@satx.rr.com> writes:
> I am surprised that Microsoft Z-80 Card does NOT work on Apple IIgs
>while the speed is set to normal. It is what I understand that it DOES NOT
>support Apple IIgs ROM 01/03, but it can only support Apple II and II+.
> Please explain why.
Any slot card must meet the setup time and hold time constraints
of the slot in order to communicate reliably.
The SoftCard uses a rather unusual "syncopated" Z80 clock, and
perhaps pushes some of the timing margins a bit.
The IIgs (and to a lesser extent, the //e) implement the peripheral
bus quite differently than the earlier Apples, and, as a result, shifts
the timing constraints.
It appears that the Softcard and the later bus implementations
move timing margins in opposite directions, resulting in unreliable
communications.
(BTW, it was just such timing constraints that require the //e to
use a 2MHz 65C02 at 1MHz--in this case because of the ASIC
implementation of clock generation, bus logic, and decoding.)
-michael
Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
Paul Schlyter
The AE card is more likely to work, because it was more of a computer
of its own, and was less tightly integrated with the Apple II.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/
Steven N. Hirsch
> In article <20030331012134...@mb-fd.aol.com>,
> Quadrajet1 <quadr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>><< I am surprised that Microsoft Z-80 Card does NOT work on Apple IIgs
>>while the speed is set to normal. It is what I understand that it DOES NOT
>>support Apple IIgs ROM 01/03, but it can only support Apple II and II+.
>> Please explain why. >>
>>
>> Who knows. Could be that the IIgs was not even out yet when the Z80 card was
>>developed? :)
>>
>> I seem to think the AE card does work though, I may be wrong...
>
>
> The AE card is more likely to work, because it was more of a computer
> of its own, and was less tightly integrated with the Apple II.
I think you may be confusing it with the Applicard/Starcard. The AE
Z80+ board was almost exact knockoff of the Microsoft Softcard.
Quadrajet1
> of its own, and was less tightly integrated with the Apple II.
I think you may be confusing it with the Applicard/Starcard. The AE
Z80+ board was almost exact knockoff of the Microsoft Softcard.
>>
The reason I thought the AE card may work is it was made a lot later than the
MS card. Plus if I recall they made 2 versions, one with a red LED and one
with a green LED. I think one was 4 Mhz, the other was 6?
I remember the Applicard, and others. They had their own 64K of RAM attached
to the card. But there again, it predated the IIgs as well, I am sure.
Raymond
Joel
RAMdisk support.
Make sure you have the control panel set to "Your card"
Joel
"Quadrajet1" <quadr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030331081125...@mb-fv.aol.com...
Steven N. Hirsch
> The AE Z80 Plus does work with the Apple IIgs and even has 3.5 drive and
> RAMdisk support.
Yes, I know. I wrote it! <g>.
> Make sure you have the control panel set to "Your card"
That, and be sure to have the speed at "slow". None of the
"traditional" softcards will work at high speed on a IIgs. They have a
tight reliance on CPU/bus timing.
Steve
Steven N. Hirsch
> << > The AE card is more likely to work, because it was more of a computer
>
>>of its own, and was less tightly integrated with the Apple II.
>
>
> I think you may be confusing it with the Applicard/Starcard. The AE
> Z80+ board was almost exact knockoff of the Microsoft Softcard.
> >>
>
> The reason I thought the AE card may work is it was made a lot later than the
> MS card. Plus if I recall they made 2 versions, one with a red LED and one
> with a green LED. I think one was 4 Mhz, the other was 6?
No. They were all MS knockoffs and ran at an effective 2Mhz. You may
be getting thrown by the speed rating of the CPU chip, which has nothing
to do with how it actually operates in circuit.
> I remember the Applicard, and others. They had their own 64K of RAM attached
> to the card. But there again, it predated the IIgs as well, I am sure.
Yes, it did. However it did not do any fancy tricks with the bus and
works fine even on accelerated IIgs systems.
Steve
Quadrajet1
than the
> MS card. Plus if I recall they made 2 versions, one with a red LED and one
> with a green LED. I think one was 4 Mhz, the other was 6?
No. They were all MS knockoffs and ran at an effective 2Mhz. You may
be getting thrown by the speed rating of the CPU chip, which has nothing
to do with how it actually operates in circuit. >>
I beg to differ, there was 2 different versions of the AE Z80 card. I'd have
to do some research on that, but most of my materials from that era is buried.
We used to sell them back when they were new. AE never really knocked anything
off, they made it better. I have seen Taiwan knockoffs that even copied the
silkscreen so the card would still say Microsoft (or whatever) on it. But you
could tell a mile away from the quality of the workmanship.
Raymond
Michael J. Mahon
(Quadrajet1) writes:
><< > The reason I thought the AE card may work is it was made a lot later
>than the
>> MS card. Plus if I recall they made 2 versions, one with a red LED and one
>> with a green LED. I think one was 4 Mhz, the other was 6?
>
Steven N. Hirsch replied:
>
>>No. They were all MS knockoffs and ran at an effective 2Mhz. You may
>>be getting thrown by the speed rating of the CPU chip, which has nothing
>>to do with how it actually operates in circuit.
>
> I beg to differ, there was 2 different versions of the AE Z80 card. I'd
>have
>to do some research on that, but most of my materials from that era is
>buried.
>We used to sell them back when they were new. AE never really knocked
>anything
>off, they made it better. I have seen Taiwan knockoffs that even copied the
>silkscreen so the card would still say Microsoft (or whatever) on it. But
>you
>could tell a mile away from the quality of the workmanship.
I do not have an AE Z80 card, but I suspect that what Steven meant
by "knockoff" is that the AE cards use the same address mapping
and clocking scheme. This would make them "compatible" with
the SoftCard, but also susceptible to the same bus timing issues.
The SoftCard ran all Z80-generated addresses through an adder to
add $10 to the high-order byte. This is how the distinctive Z80 "view"
of the Apple II address space was generated. The extra time for this
add came out of the address setup budget, and required both fancy
footwork on the Z80 timing and, apparently, pushing the margins on
the peripheral bus to work. All cards which use a similar address
mapping scheme may have problems with later implementations of
the Apple II peripheral bus.
Paul Schlyter
Michael J. Mahon <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> The SoftCard ran all Z80-generated addresses through an adder to
> add $10 to the high-order byte. This is how the distinctive Z80
> "view" of the Apple II address space was generated.
address range 0B000H to 0DFFFH vas translated to 6502 addresses $D000
to $FFFF (i.e. an addition of $2000 to the Z80 addresses in this
range), while Z80 addresses 0E000H to 0EFFFH was translated to the
Apple II's I/O address range $C000 to $CFFF (i.e. a subtraction of
$2000 from the Z80 addresses). This little trick made the "hole" at
$Cxxx in the Apple II RAM address space appear to go away, giving the
Z80 a coninuous space of RAM memory from 0000H to 0DFFFH which
included 12K of the Language Card RAM giving CP/M 56K of RAM instead
of just 44K. Such a memory layout is what CP/M expected: continuous
RAM from 0000H up to some upper boundary.
> The extra time for this add came out of the address setup budget,
> and required both fancy footwork on the Z80 timing and, apparently,
> pushing the margins on the peripheral bus to work. All cards
> which use a similar address mapping scheme may have problems with
> later implementations of the Apple II peripheral bus.
translation off though. However, Z80 software for the Apple II
would then not work.
Michael J. Mahon
writes:
>In article <20030402140413...@mb-ch.aol.com>,
>Michael J. Mahon <mjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The SoftCard ran all Z80-generated addresses through an adder to
>> add $10 to the high-order byte. This is how the distinctive Z80
>> "view" of the Apple II address space was generated.
>
>It wasn't a simple addition of $1000 to all Z80 adresses: the Z80
>address range 0B000H to 0DFFFH vas translated to 6502 addresses $D000
>to $FFFF (i.e. an addition of $2000 to the Z80 addresses in this
>range), while Z80 addresses 0E000H to 0EFFFH was translated to the
>Apple II's I/O address range $C000 to $CFFF (i.e. a subtraction of
>$2000 from the Z80 addresses). This little trick made the "hole" at
>$Cxxx in the Apple II RAM address space appear to go away, giving the
>Z80 a coninuous space of RAM memory from 0000H to 0DFFFH which
>included 12K of the Language Card RAM giving CP/M 56K of RAM instead
>of just 44K. Such a memory layout is what CP/M expected: continuous
>RAM from 0000H up to some upper boundary.
Thanks for the detail, Paul.
I wasn't trying to give a complete account of the address translation
(not wanting to go look it up ;-), but simply to point out why having
the Z80 address Apple II memory through an adder might strain the
address setup time margin.
Having the amount added or subtracted dependent on additional
decoding strengthens the point.
Steven N. Hirsch
What Mike said. I knew the hardware designers at AE personally, BTW.
Steve Malachek was responsible for the AE Z80+ card which I'm familiar
with. It's possible that some redesign took place later, but I'm not
directly aware of it. Many years under the bridge since then <g>..
Steve
Willi Kusche
"Steven N. Hirsch" <shi...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<L2Bia.26332$TW2.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
> Joel wrote:
> > The AE Z80 Plus does work with the Apple IIgs and even has 3.5 drive and
> > RAMdisk support.
>
> Yes, I know. I wrote it! <g>.
Are you referring to the code in the ROM on the card? I think I
bought one of those cards on eBay.
Willi
Steven N. Hirsch
No, the Z80+ did not have an onboard ROM. I developed most of the
driver software and configuration utilities that were shipped with
Applied Engineering's "CP/AM" operating system. This used a third-party
CCP and BDOS which were compatible with DR CP/M and a highly-customized
BIOS (both Z80 and 6502 code).
The work was done under contract with AE, circa 1985-86.
Steve
Andy
++++++++++
General question, I have an AE Z80+ card but was never able to find
the customized "CP/AM". Does anyone know where it can be found on the
net?
Thanks,
Andy
Steven N. Hirsch
>>No, the Z80+ did not have an onboard ROM. I developed most of the
>>driver software and configuration utilities that were shipped with
>>Applied Engineering's "CP/AM" operating system. This used a third-party
>>CCP and BDOS which were compatible with DR CP/M and a highly-customized
>>BIOS (both Z80 and 6502 code).
>>
>>The work was done under contract with AE, circa 1985-86.
> General question, I have an AE Z80+ card but was never able to find
> the customized "CP/AM". Does anyone know where it can be found on the
> net?
Please contact me privately and I may be able to help out.