So, here's the summary of my thinking. >From a coding point of view, one chip stands out from the others. If installed in a system, anyone who reads the datasheet can write a BASIC, C or ASM program that directly transfers data to and from the WS5300. No need to deal with a TCP/IP stack whatsoever. This naturally fits in with the QL design philosophy of having intelligent peripherals. It looks like, with even a little prompting, even a less skilled programmer like myself could get the WS5300 working at a basic level. That cannot be said for any of the other options presented.
The second attractive thing about the WS5300 is that it can work as well on a 7.5MHz QL as a 25MHz one. The system overhead would be relatively light. Now, the reality is that the WS5300 does have some limitations; for example, it only supports 8 ports when used in intelligent mode. However, that limitation disappears if used in the same mode the other options are used in. Therefore it has the same development hurdles, no more and no less if used in that mode. I suspect the "quick start" nature of the WS5300 means we will quickly see new applications developed for it, or existing applications made aware of how to use it. The CS2200A which is used in the Qx0 is the other contender. What I struggle with is that this option has been available to owners for 15+ years and yet nobody has used it in QDOSMSQ... Since it is unsupported, using a different chipset doesn't create a compatibility split - which was something I expressly wanted to avoid. My fear is that the same thing will happen if the WS5300 is used. What if I build it and they don't come? So, currently, my thinking is to use the WS5300. It represents the best opportunities for use at the widest range of skill levels. It is easy to incorporate. It's just the path of least resistance. The feedback so far has been very interesting to read. I want to express my gratitude to you all for keeping things civil and constructive. I'll leave discussion open for another day. This period will be for anyone to raise a specific objection / deal-breaker to using the WS5300 *that hasn't already be addressed*. This isn't a democracy: Sandy get to decide what's a deal breaker, because Sandy will be making the commitment to build it and support it. I have a couple of very skilled advisors guiding me, and I trust their judgment. It will also be the time for those who are interested in doing any development work with the WS5300 to email me *off-list* with a two-paragraph outline of what they'd do if they had one: what they'd work on, and where they expect things to go with it in the future. You also need to give a commitment to the openness principles in the first post: 1. You'd join a developer mailing list and report occasionally on progress you'd made to the other three people and me. Others could join the list to provide feedback, etc. The list would allow you to self-co-ordinate your efforts within the group. I would not be the boss of you. I would not own your work. There is no schedule or deadline. 2. Anything you do, once reaching a state of development greater than "alpha", would be open source and freely distributable. A GIT repository or similar would be nice. 3. I would, upon release, host information and downloads at SinclairQL.com so people can explore the code or develop it further. If I get more than 3-4 interested people I might have a couple more questions for some of you - or if your ideas are really great I might make a couple of extra prototypes. Remember, email me off-list if you're interested in the beta program. :) Thank you. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Dave Park <d...@sinclairql.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:46 PM, John Alexander < > acontractor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> If the parts are decided then the final choice is merely how many and how >> much >> as you state here > > > No part is decided. It does look like the WS5300 has a couple of > advantages, but a couple of people whose opinions I hold in high esteem > prefer another device. Since it's about likelihood of coding, not the > device itself, there's no clear actual leader. > > > -- > Dave Park > Sandy Electronics, LLC > d...@sinclairql.com > -- Dave Park Sandy Electronics, LLC d...@sinclairql.com _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
