Changes
/* Mass-storage, RTC and network dilemma */
*[[Symbiface II]] IDE/PATA mass-storage or [[X-Mass]] with [[Nova]] NVRAM/RTC is the historically-plausible solution as the IDE/PATA interface was created in 1986. But it's a lie as the IDE interface was effectively introduced on the CPC with the [[CPC-IDE]] prototype in 2004, and the Symbiface II being available in 2006. Also, these devices don't offer any network support.
*[[Symbiface 3]], [[Albireo]] and [[M4 Board]] are the modern solutions that feed the CPC a direct file view of the mass-storage instead of a sectors view. So the FAT filesystem does not need to be handled on the CPC itself. It's overall a simpler, more convenient approach. And it is definitely more future-proof. But that means throwing away historical pretense.
*Symbiface 3 is really pushing limits. So much that it denatures the CPC as it possess an onboard mp3 player. Are we still talking about Amstrad CPC here?But it has really nice features like the concept of rombanks and emulation of old peripherals like the Dobbertin HD20, the SSA-1, the AmDrum and the Digiblaster.
*Albireo provides low-level access to internet via SLIP which means having the IP stack on the CPC side instead of it being done by the peripheral like in the M4 board, and having a bridge server on the other side. So it is not convenient at all. Also, just like the X-Mass, the Albireo does not provide RTC functionality.
*M4 Board is [https://unidos.cpcscene.net/doku.php?id=en%3Aannexes the fastest measured solution for mass-storage on the CPC]. It is a very complete and convenient solution with NTP-based RTC and Wifi network and very future-proof. But that means sacrificing historical pretense as the M4 board does all the hard work regarding the filesystem and network protocols for the CPC. As the Internet stack was never to be implemented on the CPC during its commercial lifetime anyway, does historical pretense matter for that kind of stuff?
