Re: An approaching landmark...
Posted by: MistyCat
Date: October 21, 2011 12:08PM
First thoughts are usually right, and yes, the C=64 it was. The 1541 disk drive used not 6510 (the C=64) but 6502 M/l, the same as the Vic 20, but offset (aargggggh) by one byte (why, dear Lord, why!!!). While I'm rambling, the 1541 code was a rehash of the PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) Dual Drive, and whoever converted it from dual drive to the 1541 deserves either utmost sympathy (if s/he had no control) or a violent death, depending on whatever degree of responsibility or control over the result that person had. In my (hugely less than humble concerning 6502 and 6510) opinion, the 6502 code converted for use in the 1541 consisted of large chunks of efficient, concise and elegant code from the PET tied together with raw and bleeding clumps of binder twine (and I'll mash my metaphors however I please) for the 1541. The most glaringly, blatantly crepuscular (that doesn't mean what you think it means) example of that was the "Save at zero (S0:)" bug, finally proven to Commodore and demonstrated by (bugger. My memory's failed. Butterworth? What the hell, if you care, you know, and if you don't care, you stopped reading three whinges and a grizzle ago) .. and why the hell am I raving on in a thread named "An approaching landmark..." when all this happened before most of you were born?
This comment brought to you by Offtopic Overachievers Not very limited at all Pty, but totally sober no matter what you think and just because I've held this grudge for nearly thirty years is no reason to think that I hold any ill will at all against those &^%($%, $%^&*# mmpphh ...
(Exits stage left, accompanied by firm resolve not to re-read this in the morning.
And chocolate, because everything's better with chocolate.)