|
Post by subspaceplatform on Feb 16, 2006 11:42:15 GMT -5
I've been out of the scene for a few years, but I'm buying a Commodore system very soon. I can't decide which internet solution is right for me... the RR-Net seems more elegant and appealing, but it seems limited by software (only Contiki works with it, right?). With a RS-232 interface/UDS-10 I could use QuantumLink, CML, Hyperlink, etc...
I've seen posts here referring to the fact that QuantumLink and CML will eventually work with the RR-Net. Is this for real? How much longer?
I used to own a Turbo232 and used that for net access in the past. It was great. I see that QuantumLink has been patched to work with it, but what about the CML client?
Please don't reply that I should get both. It's overkill for me and I simply can't afford that solution. As it is I'm probably going to be spending more on my C= system than I would for a used Pentium 4 computer!
Thanks in advance for the advice!
|
|
|
Post by Leif Bloomquist on Feb 16, 2006 13:24:28 GMT -5
Instead of a Turbo232 or Swiftlink, you could build one of Jeff's el cheapo user port RS232 interfaces for a few bucks. That would keep you in good stead for Q-Link and CML at least. Hyperlink needs a Turbo232 or SwiftLink though.
I would say that Q-Link will work with the RR-Net in about two years. It's a non-trivial problem since you need to implement an entire TCP/IP stack and you need the memory to put packets in when they arrive, and on and on.
If you're on a budget, there's no point in getting an RR-Net until there is more software than Contiki for it. Contiki's neat but gets boring very quickly. There are a couple of cool apps (WarpCopy64, codenet) that run on the Retro Replay that let you do cross-development or fast disk transfers, but if you don't need those then there's no point.
|
|
|
Post by subspaceplatform on Feb 16, 2006 13:44:11 GMT -5
Yikes. So I need TWO RS232 interfaces? One compatible for CML and one for Hyperlink? And Qlink will be compatible with either interface depending on whether I use the patched version or not. And Contiki won't work with either - RR-Net only. Way too complicated. We need a standard here, people.
Any plans to make the CML client Turbo232 compatible a la QLink?
Thanks for the reply, Leif.
|
|
|
Post by Leif Bloomquist on Feb 16, 2006 13:52:32 GMT -5
Lack of standards is the great paradox of the Commodore 64 ;-) It's annoying as heck but also gives you great flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Feb 16, 2006 16:20:12 GMT -5
Yikes. So I need TWO RS232 interfaces? One compatible for CML and one for Hyperlink? It is my understanding that HyperLink requires a Turbo232 or a SwiftLink where as CML and Quantum Link Reloaded will work with a Turbo232, SwiftLink or a homebuilt RS-232 interface. If so, a Turbo232 or a SwiftLink will give you the most flexibility. I must admit I'm not 100% sure though so perhaps someone could clarify... Regardless of which RS232 adaptor you use you'll need a device to bridge the Commodore to the Internet and that's where you run into another problem. A Lantronix UDS-10 is fine for HyperLink and Q-Link but not for CML as it requires a PC-side program called CMLServ. The next version of CML should work just fine with a UDS-10 (check the CML board for more information). I think the best thing is to buy a Turbo232 or a SwiftLink and connect it to a PC running Telnet BBS Server, TCPSER, TCPSER4J or CMLServ depending on what you want to do. That should give you access to HyperLink, CML, Q-Link and you can even use your favorite terminal program to connect to telnet bulletin boards. Alternately, you could just use VICE.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Ledger on Feb 16, 2006 16:52:55 GMT -5
CML is currently designed for low-speed interfaces at this time. I have the code for the Swiftlink/Turbo232 interfaces ready for use, but I've been pretty focused on getting a proxy working so that VICE/UDS-10 users can use it as well.
As soon as I can get the proxy working correctly so that CML supports TCPSER/UDS type connections instead of using CMLServ, I'll be a little more ready to add the extended interface support.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by subspaceplatform on Feb 17, 2006 12:04:12 GMT -5
Not interested in using a PC... I used to do that - at one point I had a Linux box set up for the purpose of being able to log into it with my C128, in addition to another PC set up as a 64HDD. My setup looked ridiculous. Besides, I'm a Mac guy now for the most part... I still have a couple of old PCs but they are used for dedicated purposes in my recording studio.
This time I just want a nice little simple, stock C= system to play around with at home, capable of connecting to the net so I can download files without the need of Star Commander, 64HDD, etc. And to be able to mess around with Hyperlink, QLink, CML, etc. without the need of another bulky PC "helper".
Vice? Yeah, I use it... it's cool but it's not the real thing. Besides, I'm into SID stuff and want to do some simple MIDI programming. SID emulation is sketchy and there is no MIDI interface emulation in Vice.
Looks like the Turbo232/UDS-10 combo is the way to go at this time, especially now that I know CML will work with it eventually.
Thanks for all the helpful responses!! Great forum!
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Feb 17, 2006 14:39:37 GMT -5
I can appreciate your desire to have a clean and simple setup. If there was a way to have a single mini-PC (ideally running headless) that did TCP/IP bridging and simulated a hard disk it would be tolerable but multiple PCs is major hassle. A Turbo232 connected to a UDS-10 will make life easier. As for emulation, as a fellow Mac user I have a bit of advice. While VICE is a great emulator, there's another that's worth looking at. It's called Power64 and you can download a trial version from www.infinite-loop.at/Power64/index.html. It's easy to use and has some nifty features like the ability to cut & paste into the 64's keyboard buffer. See some BASIC on a website, copy it to the clipboard and paste it into the 64 and type "run". It's that easy. Please post a picture when you get everything set up. It sounds like you're going to have a cool system.
|
|
|
Post by Leif Bloomquist on Feb 17, 2006 15:08:01 GMT -5
I can appreciate your desire to have a clean and simple setup. If there was a way to have a single mini-PC (ideally running headless) that did TCP/IP bridging and simulated a hard disk it would be tolerable but multiple PCs is major hassle. Agreed. I've finally got around to putting a single board computer in a little box, running Win2K, BBS Server and PCLink (The IDE64 equivalent of 64HDD, that actually runs under Windows!). Works great. However - the PCLink cable uses the user port, so I can't use it and connect to Q-Link at the same time. Argh!
|
|
|
Post by Golan Klinger on Feb 17, 2006 16:52:26 GMT -5
However - the PCLink cable uses the user port, so I can't use it and connect to Q-Link at the same time. Argh! You can't win. I ran into this problem a couple of years ago when I dabbled with 64HDD. It's a wonderful thing but the problem is that you need a dedicated PC. You may recall that I tried to create something like 64HDD that would run on a UNIX box. I got the communication part working but the timing was a major pain and I eventually gave up. <sigh>
|
|
|
Post by subspaceplatform on Feb 17, 2006 21:29:14 GMT -5
Please post a picture when you get everything set up. It sounds like you're going to have a cool system. Will do!
|
|