Re: Request for Product

["Sean Fahey" <a2fan@hotmail.com>]

"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message
gqadnWKUKfuulUnfRVn-3Q@comcast.com">news:gqadnWKUKfuulUnfRVn-3Q@comcast.com...

> I think I am going with the switchable model. Also, horizontally
> mounted cards will allow for more than 2 cards in one slot. Even
> still, a cabled version going to an external location (box),
> will allow even more cards in a slot. Imagine being able to have
> say 4 cards (switchable) in each of 2-3 slots. Howard, are you
> reading this.  :o)

I have a Select-a-Slot and also an Extend-a-Slot in storage - back in the
day, they seem to be only good for (relatively) slow cards. Whenever I tried
to use a disk or SCSI controller on one of them, bad things eventually
happened. They were fine for things like Thunderclocks, some serial and
parallel cards. I had mixed luck with my Mockingboard - sometimes it worked,
sometimes it didn't. At the time, I was told it was a bus timing, or latency
issue - can't remember, it was several years ago. How would yours be
different?

That was why I became interested in the ProSlot - I hoped it would be more
reliable since there was no long cable, and fewer bridges.

Some quick estimates - it looks like up 3 to 4 slots could be added, 2 tall
(height, not length), 2 short (ie LANceGS). Card length could be minor
problem unless you assume all long cards go on the bottom, short cards on
top. That would help with the strain relief on slot 7 as well.

If you add a bunch more slots, and they are all powered... we could overload
the PS. People tend to fill empty slots with whatever they can, sometimes
with power hungry boards.

Personally, I could see me putting a PCT and Z80 on one of these, and maybe
some other coprocessor cards that aren't used at the same time and watch the
PS go wonkers.