> > > > No doubt you can get it to work, and it can be a useful ability in some > > situations. > > But monitors and loaders tended to be written with different objectives. > > > > Monitors targetted interactive use, not receipt of back-to-back characters, > > which would be why you have to add per-char delays. > > The monitor is likely dropping a character or starting a read in the middle > > of one and getting garbage because it went away for too long while looking > > up the command. > > It only has the stop bit period, or even less time, to do processing after > > receipt of a character. > > > > Loaders expect back-to-back characters and are written or optimised > > accordingly, not that one can't still run into problems, which is why the > > checksums can be good.
It would be a lot easier if everyone picked top or bottom posting when they reply but I digress.... My suggestion to use the "monitor method" is a stop-gap just to get to the point of loading in something useful when no other means was workinhg. I agree any process that has no checksum will be unreliable. Whatever.. . Let's say for now you have at least the monitor method until something better comes along. As far as splitters for serial, they're plentiful on ebay...serial switch boxes that is. If you set your modern terminal sodtware to match the same settings as the swtpc vintage terminal you would be able to switch between them. I sometimes load in programs using a modern terminal to download a papertape into the computer then switch to a vintage terminal for use. Simple...assuming you can get your modern machine to match the vintagr, and you have the cables. Otherwise you'll have to buy/make them. Bill
