| |
Zibri
Account closed
Registered: May 2020
Posts: 304 |
New life for your underloved datassette unit :D
The first phase of testing just ended.
(Still in the packaging and refining phase)
But I wish to share with you all my latest accomplishment.
You might want to check this out:
https://twitter.com/zibri/status/1450979434916417540
and this:
https://twitter.com/zibri/status/1450979005117644800
The fastest example (11 kilobit/sec) has the same (or better) error rlsilience as "turbo250" but it is 3 times faster.
The slowest one (8 kilobit/sec) has the same error resilience as the standard commodore slow "save", but it is 100 times faster and twice as fast as turbo250.
;)
Notes:
1) faster speeds are possible if the tape is written with a professional equipment or hi-fi with a stabilized speed and virtually no wobbling.
2) if the tape is emulated (tapuino or similar projects) the speed can go up to 34 kilobit/sec.
3) even with datassette, higher speeds are possible but the highly depend on the status of the tape, the datassette speed and azimuth. |
|
... 327 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
SLC
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 52 |
Quote: Quoting SLC1. Already been done, allthough not in mine (as I didn't see much gain in that but I was aware of this. Martin Piper have done it and you can see this in many Psytronik releases)
2. Same as in mine and many others.
3. I (and others) did the same.
So, the difference here apparently lies in the vector used for autostart, then... and I'm pretty sure whatever vector you used, it's already been done by others.
I saw your loader (briefly):
1) not same at all you load at different addresses.
2) not same as you or any other I saw (not many to say the truth)
3) you absolutely not do the same I do, perhaps you understood it wrongly.
4) my loader allows and uses also another technique and allows the saved "cbm" data to be saved only once (or normally if needed, without any change in the code).
If you think ALL these techniques where used in a single loader, please do tell me which one and I will analyze it and tell you any differences I find. Perhaps there would be even some better ideas there.. I don't know.
Do you even read what others write?
For 1, I already stated that I do not discard that second data block, I acknowledged that it can be done. Check some of the Psytronik releases for example and you will see this. You were not first!
For 2, can you explain what you think is different? You can load $033c-$03fc, and that's it. Most of my loader resides here, but I needed some extra bytes that I chose to load near my chosen vector to autostart.
For 3, again I don't understand what you think is so different. I overload the vector I chose for autostart (I know there are more options) and the few extra bytes I needed for my loader. I just didn't choose to discard the repeat block.
I think it's you who do not understand, tbh. But what about you teling exactly what you did so that we don't have to play this guessing game?
Soci, who you do not accept any proof from because there are no twitter videos and only working binaries, uses another trick in addition to all these. In the ROM header, he places a small loader that is loading his main loader. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
BREAKING: Popcorn sold out in C64land! |
| |
Zibri
Account closed
Registered: May 2020
Posts: 304 |
Quoting BurglarBREAKING: Popcorn sold out in C64land!
ROTFL! :D |
| |
Zibri
Account closed
Registered: May 2020
Posts: 304 |
Quoting SLC
Usual whining.
I never said mine was better.
I just said it was different.
See how you are touchy?
I never implied any of what you blabbered about.
Keep calm. See how you overreact?
How you have the urge to say that someone was not first?
I said "I have never seen one using my mthods" and that's 100% true.
I made them up without any previous knowledge.
I never said nobody ever did.
Keep damn calm or go have some decent sex if you can. Perhaps it will help you and everyone else around you.
(Except perhaps the person you will have sex with.. hahahahah) |
| |
SLC
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 52 |
Quoting ZibriQuoting SLC
Usual whining.
I never said mine was better.
I just said it was different.
See how you are touchy?
I never implied any of what you blabbered about.
Keep calm. See how you overreact?
How you have the urge to say that someone was not first?
I said "I have never seen one using my mthods" and that's 100% true.
I made them up without any previous knowledge.
I never said nobody ever did.
Keep damn calm or go have some decent sex if you can. Perhaps it will help you and everyone else around you.
(Except perhaps the person you will have sex with.. hahahahah)
I did not imply that you said yours was better. I just pointed out it was the same method, but simply using a different "way in". The principles was the same, so I simply asked exactly what you thought was different about it.
I am pretty sure I'm way calmer than you, who I quite a few times see resorting to name calling and other aggressive phrases. |
| |
Zibri
Account closed
Registered: May 2020
Posts: 304 |
Quoting SLC
I am pretty sure I'm way calmer than you [...]
You don't know me as I don't know you but I find it DUMB to point out everytime I post something "that it has already been done by your grandma at the times of dinosaurs".
So, in your opinion a composer does nothing new only because he uses the "same old 12 notes"?
I am pretty sure my techniques (or a great parte of them) have already been used in the last 40 years (and probably most of the in graphical demos were jitter is very visible).
As I am pretty sure John Williams didn't invent music and even some of his tunes remind of Prokoviev and Mussorgsky.
That doesn't make his music less beautiful and original.
So, I am just saying that if ALL the techniques I used would be used by the same program and at the same time, then there would be a clone of my program hidden somewhere, and I assure there is not.
Unless a program uses the same techniques, it won't even be as accurate.
Same as my 1541 speed test. Useful or not, there is no program as accurate in determining the instant RPM of a 1541 drive.
And that's a fact.
As it is a fact that noby ever did 12338.79 bit/sec writing and reading on a datassette.
Period. |
| |
TheRyk
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 2244 |
BTT immediately, please.
If this (rather long already) thread only gets longer and longer by mere "my shit's better than yours" dick size comparisons, it will be closed.
So stick to the technical facts (popcorn lovers will find it boring, but at least they'll move along instead of fueling the fire)... or just breathe. If there's nothing new (good would be an actual release by TS), leaving this thread alone for the time being seems best. |
| |
SLC
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 52 |
Quoting ZibriQuoting SLC
I am pretty sure I'm way calmer than you [...]
You don't know me as I don't know you but I find it DUMB to point out everytime I post something "that it has already been done by your grandma at the times of dinosaurs".
Just as it is equally dumb make the claims it's a world's first for almost every little thing. Especially when you in some instances in the same breath incorrectly implies others having done it wrong. Or just because you didn't see something, it was never done. You said yourself that you haven't looked at much.
I'm going to revisit that Evil Dead thing one last time to use as an example of what I mean, because you came up with quite a few false claims already there:
You claimed that you was the first ever to create a perfect master of it. This is wrong. You can find a copy of it in The Ultimate Tape Archive which is perfectly cleaned and with no deviations in pulse lengths.
Furthermore, your master wasn't so perfect after all. When this first was pointed out, you didn't even believe it at first. Then you corrected it, but since you screwed up the header before running it through tapclean or finaltap, you concluded that it incorrectly reported these pulses because it did not support TAP V1, which was also wrong. You didn't for a single second stop to think "Hm, maybe *I* screwed up?". Not until it was pointed out to you. I also asked how it was created because I was genuinely curious considering what I saw, but that question was ignored...
Also, when I released my loader, you jumped quickly to the conclusion that I obviously must have been ripping you off somehow, even though I did not. I hadn't even read through all the technical details on what you were working on and I have never even seen your code or any of the .tap-files.
Also, here's the summary you can use when you quote this message again so you don't have to make one yourself...:
Blah blah blah usual whining blah blah! |
| |
Zibri
Account closed
Registered: May 2020
Posts: 304 |
Update:
another tester successfully did 11739.17 bit/sec 10 times over 10.
Tomorrow with a new tape he will attempt the new record :D
It seems that now 11 kilobit/sec is the normal for almost all my testers.. except one who has a not so good datassette or not so good tapes.
:D |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
Long thread. But datasette never was dead. We even get new loaders from it. Possibly the fastest released loader ever? Cool work, SLC.
I wish I still had those tons of c2n units to test.
The issue with tape is reliability much more than speed (at least once you ignore that darn ROM loader). |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 - Next |
