mdj wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:28 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:mdj wrote:One *possible* way to get wireless, if somebody ever develops a USB adaptor would be to use bluetooth, which is a much simpler protocol stack and simpler hardware that could probably be implemented in firmware on the Apple III'd think that ZigBee is both simpler and cheaper--and development boards with on-board control are available.Could be, yes. I was thinking in terms of there already being cheap workable solutions on the other end, which may be some form of PC, and assuming a USB solution exists it's all software at that point, no extra hardware required.
I see what you meant, but I think you might find that the software required is in excess of half a megabyte of sloppily layered C code. Anytime someone here talks about the need for "connectivity", I ask "connectivity for what purpose?". I think we have all been conditioned by the ubiquity of "everything to everything" connectivity for "all" services, that we tend to forget that there are about a million lines of code involved in creating that illusion. By comparison, I'm finishing up a file server for NadaNet that is written in Applesoft BASIC running under ProDOS, in less than 300 lines, with Applesoft client-side code of about 15 lines. ;-) I've put more information on that into a separate thread... -michael NadaNet networking for Apple II computers! Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/ "The wastebasket is our most important design tool--and it's seriously underused."