[RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #176

gindrup at okway.okstate.edu gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
Tue Mar 24 17:11:06 EST 1998


     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: [RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #176 
Author:  <rc5 at llamas.net> at SMTP
Date:    3/23/98 2:35 PM


> ----------
> From: 	Joe Zbiciak[SMTP:j-zbiciak1 at ti.com] 
> Sent: 	Sunday, March 22, 1998 12:53 AM
> To: 	rc5 at llamas.net
> Subject: 	Re: [RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #176 
> 
[snip]
> Then there's even weirder computers, such as the TRS-80 CoCo 2.  It 
> used a 6800-series processor, and ran it at 0.9MHz, unless you poked
> the right value into a certain location, and then the CPU would run at 
> twice the clock rate.  (All of the programs I ever wrote for it
> included that poke on around line 1.  ;-)  I never found out if I was 
> clocking it beyond its safe operating limits, but I don't think I was. 
> I think the slow clock rate was for backwards compatibility with older 
> games/programs.
> 
CoCo used the 6809E, which was only rated for 1MHz.  Running at the 
double clock might burn out the CPU.
     
[snip]
None of the above seem appropriate for RC5 cracking.  Machines are too 
slow and combersome to connect to the 'net.
     
Trevor.
     
     The risk of burning out the CPU didn't seem to exist on F-board 
     CoCos and later.  There was still some debate about this when I 
     finally threw mine away.  The CoCo also had the problem that CPU 
     time was stolen to draw the screen.  I don't recall the details 
     since POKE 65437, ... seemed to cancel out the effect.
            -- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at Okway.okstate.edu

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list