NobodyIsHere
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,394
Hi! As you probably already know John and I are working on an S-100 Front Panel (Bus Monitor) type project. The board is ready for the prototype stage and I will be ordering a couple PCBs tonight for the initial round of build and test. Those are internal units only meant to shake out the bugs before a PCB manufacturing order to take place some time in the hopefully not too distant future.
One key point is although this board is used as a display panel on the front of an S-100 system it is actually functionally closer to a "Bus Monitor" if that is a meaningful distinction. Normally I associate "Front Panel" devices as those like the original Altair/IMSAI used to boot strap a ROMless S-100 CPU and has the ability to inject data values into arbitrary memory locations. The Bus Monitor functions more like the Jade Bus Probe which provides status of the various bus lines and reset/run/stop/single step, etc but *not* the ability to boot strap.
Either a "Front Panel" or "Bus Monitor" will provide a meaningful and useful display on the front of your S-100 box but the functionality is different. I have a Jade Bus Probe and absolutely love that board and it is extremely useful in diagnosing broken systems and even just watching working ones. The historical "Front Panel" bootstrap functions really only appear on the earliest and most simple S-100 systems and are uncommon on the later designs. I believe this due to high cost and complexity and generally not being very useful when a boot ROM is available.
The differences between a "front panel" that can bootstrap and a "bus monitor" is not really the purpose of my post though. Regarding the S-100 front panel (bus monitor) project, what sort of displays has been a design issue since the beginning such as HP5082-7340 hex displays, TIL311s, LED bars, or even a uC based unit with integrated displays. Since each type has its own strengths and weaknesses we were never really able to settle on a single variety and went with a "display mezzanine" board approach instead. Basically this means is there is a base board that plugs into the S-100 bus and a row of three 26 pin dual row headers which export the control and display signals to a mezzanine board. Initially the mezzanine board will be implemented as a HP5082-7340 based unit *or* with 74LS273's and LED bars. In fact, the initial prototype PCBs will include *both* display mezzanine units as a single PCB. They will be manually cut up using a bandsaw or other device to separate out the display mezzanines which are then manually mounted on the base board. The display mezzanine boards do not have to be mounted directly on the base board and can be extended using ribbon cables from the bus "card cage" to a separate front of the computer control and display area.
Given the background, here is my question; how to handle the multiple PCBs needed for this project? Normally the S100computers and/or N8VEM related boards have been single independent units. The S-100 front panel project requires *at least* two; the base board and a display mezzanine. There are some ramifications of this approach in ordering PCB manufacturing of multiple units will affect cost. I believe combining the three PCBs we currently have into one massive unit the hobbyist cuts up on their own will be more economical than two or more separate PCBs. However, the cost is the hobbyist is responsible for "slicing and dicing" their own PCBs. The cuts should not be difficult to make since there is 0.1" separation between the boards for blade width.
I don't have a bandsaw and am not going to get into the business of cutting up multiple PCBs so this issue of one versus many boards is important. Can hobbyists tolerate their own PCB cutting? It is really easy to do with simple handtools if necessary but obviously a bandsaw would be better. I don't imagine this will be a problem but I would like to hear from other hobbyists before the final design.
It comes down to this; which is better? One less expensive PCB that requires cutting or several more expensive PCBs that with no cutting required? It is not going to be both ways so please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Andrew Lynch
One key point is although this board is used as a display panel on the front of an S-100 system it is actually functionally closer to a "Bus Monitor" if that is a meaningful distinction. Normally I associate "Front Panel" devices as those like the original Altair/IMSAI used to boot strap a ROMless S-100 CPU and has the ability to inject data values into arbitrary memory locations. The Bus Monitor functions more like the Jade Bus Probe which provides status of the various bus lines and reset/run/stop/single step, etc but *not* the ability to boot strap.
Either a "Front Panel" or "Bus Monitor" will provide a meaningful and useful display on the front of your S-100 box but the functionality is different. I have a Jade Bus Probe and absolutely love that board and it is extremely useful in diagnosing broken systems and even just watching working ones. The historical "Front Panel" bootstrap functions really only appear on the earliest and most simple S-100 systems and are uncommon on the later designs. I believe this due to high cost and complexity and generally not being very useful when a boot ROM is available.
The differences between a "front panel" that can bootstrap and a "bus monitor" is not really the purpose of my post though. Regarding the S-100 front panel (bus monitor) project, what sort of displays has been a design issue since the beginning such as HP5082-7340 hex displays, TIL311s, LED bars, or even a uC based unit with integrated displays. Since each type has its own strengths and weaknesses we were never really able to settle on a single variety and went with a "display mezzanine" board approach instead. Basically this means is there is a base board that plugs into the S-100 bus and a row of three 26 pin dual row headers which export the control and display signals to a mezzanine board. Initially the mezzanine board will be implemented as a HP5082-7340 based unit *or* with 74LS273's and LED bars. In fact, the initial prototype PCBs will include *both* display mezzanine units as a single PCB. They will be manually cut up using a bandsaw or other device to separate out the display mezzanines which are then manually mounted on the base board. The display mezzanine boards do not have to be mounted directly on the base board and can be extended using ribbon cables from the bus "card cage" to a separate front of the computer control and display area.
Given the background, here is my question; how to handle the multiple PCBs needed for this project? Normally the S100computers and/or N8VEM related boards have been single independent units. The S-100 front panel project requires *at least* two; the base board and a display mezzanine. There are some ramifications of this approach in ordering PCB manufacturing of multiple units will affect cost. I believe combining the three PCBs we currently have into one massive unit the hobbyist cuts up on their own will be more economical than two or more separate PCBs. However, the cost is the hobbyist is responsible for "slicing and dicing" their own PCBs. The cuts should not be difficult to make since there is 0.1" separation between the boards for blade width.
I don't have a bandsaw and am not going to get into the business of cutting up multiple PCBs so this issue of one versus many boards is important. Can hobbyists tolerate their own PCB cutting? It is really easy to do with simple handtools if necessary but obviously a bandsaw would be better. I don't imagine this will be a problem but I would like to hear from other hobbyists before the final design.
It comes down to this; which is better? One less expensive PCB that requires cutting or several more expensive PCBs that with no cutting required? It is not going to be both ways so please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Andrew Lynch