Image Map Image Map
Page 50 of 51 FirstFirst ... 40464748495051 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 505

Thread: XTIDE Universal BIOS v2.0.0 beta testing thread

  1. #491
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    That's a better question to ask of Krille. Assuming the rev 2/3/4 boards all have the low and high data registers one byte apart, I don't see how rev 2/3 would be any different, but I might be missing something.
    Offering a bounty for:
    - The software "Overhead Express" (doesn't have to be original, can be a copy)
    - A working Sanyo MBC-775, Olivetti M24, or Logabax 1600
    - Documentation and original disks for: Panasonic Sr. Partner, Zenith Z-160 series
    - Music Construction Set, IBM Music Feature edition (has red sticker on front stating IBM Music Feature)

  2. #492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixter View Post
    ...For a proper test, I'd like a recommendation on what configuration I should load for the "normal" test, so that we have metric baselines to compare with the new code. I'm assuming "8-bit mode", and jj_pearce's DISKTEST is an acceptable benchmarking and testing program.
    I used DISKTEST and CheckIt 3 when i tested XUB v1.1.5 - r591 > r600, Not sure if they are the best to use though, I have none of the listed systems either.

  3. #493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixter View Post
    I have 2 working 6300s, parts to make two more, as well as a Xerox 6060 I haven't set up yet, so I'm the most likely candidate for testing. The only drawback, in the short term, is that I don't have a rev 2/3/4 card. Most of my cards are ADP50s, Rev 1 cards, or suddenlymatt cards. So, I've ordered an assembled Rev 4 card with the slot 8 mod, and hopefully it will arrive relatively soon.
    You know, all four of those controllers are supported by XUB and as it happens XUB supports up to four controllers in the same machine. *HINT* *HINT*

    For a proper test, I'd like a recommendation on what configuration I should load for the "normal" test, so that we have metric baselines to compare with the new code. I'm assuming "8-bit mode", and jj_pearce's DISKTEST is an acceptable benchmarking and testing program.
    The "normal" test would be with the card configured for Compatibility mode and the IDE controller device type set to "XTIDE rev 1" in XTIDECFG. Use the same BIOS version in all tests.

    Quote Originally Posted by glitch View Post
    Do you want me to loan you some earlier rev boards? I can ship them with the rev 4 order. I'd test myself but I don't have any of the listed machines.
    The basic functionality can probably be tested on any machine - I don't expect any weirdness from the listed machines. The benchmark results on the other hand are going to be quite a bit more interesting as the listed machines are the intended target, and they have 8086 or V30 processors unlike almost all other XT-class machines, so benchmark results from an 8088 machine is not really going to be relevant. That said, I welcome anyone willing to test or benchmark this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixter View Post
    That's a better question to ask of Krille. Assuming the rev 2/3/4 boards all have the low and high data registers one byte apart, I don't see how rev 2/3 would be any different, but I might be missing something.
    That's correct. If it works on one revision then it should work on all of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malc View Post
    I used DISKTEST and CheckIt 3 when i tested XUB v1.1.5 - r591 > r600, Not sure if they are the best to use though, I have none of the listed systems either.
    Yeah, James' DISKTEST and CheckIt are good candidates for benchmarking. Another option is mbbrutman's IOTEST.
    Looking for a cache card for the "ICL ErgoPRO C4/66d V"

  4. #494
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krille View Post
    You know, all four of those controllers are supported by XUB and as it happens XUB supports up to four controllers in the same machine. *HINT* *HINT*
    That's... an interesting prospect. Assuming two 8GB CFs per cable, that would be 64GB in a single system -- but DOS would only give me 24 drive letters, so I'd only be able to use 48GB of it. I'll pass

    The basic functionality can probably be tested on any machine - I don't expect any weirdness from the listed machines. The benchmark results on the other hand are going to be quite a bit more interesting as the listed machines are the intended target, and they have 8086 or V30 processors unlike almost all other XT-class machines, so benchmark results from an 8088 machine is not really going to be relevant. That said, I welcome anyone willing to test or benchmark this.
    Just for you, I'll test with and without an NEC V20. I usually leave the NEC V20 out, since it breaks Geoworks Ensemble, and 640x400 Geoworks is a sight to behold on these systems.

    Here's another thought: Do the M24/variants ALWAYS swaps word order, or SOMETIMES swap word order? If the former, then this might be viable:

    Code:
    	in	ax, dx			; Load word from port
    	stosw				; Store swapped-order word to [ES:DI] in correct order
    Offering a bounty for:
    - The software "Overhead Express" (doesn't have to be original, can be a copy)
    - A working Sanyo MBC-775, Olivetti M24, or Logabax 1600
    - Documentation and original disks for: Panasonic Sr. Partner, Zenith Z-160 series
    - Music Construction Set, IBM Music Feature edition (has red sticker on front stating IBM Music Feature)

  5. #495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixter View Post
    That's... an interesting prospect. Assuming two 8GB CFs per cable, that would be 64GB in a single system -- but DOS would only give me 24 drive letters, so I'd only be able to use 48GB of it. I'll pass
    Too bad. I would have loved to see a youtube video of such a ridiculously tricked out XT machine.

    Just for you, I'll test with and without an NEC V20. I usually leave the NEC V20 out, since it breaks Geoworks Ensemble, and 640x400 Geoworks is a sight to behold on these systems.
    I'm curious, how does the V30 break Geoworks Ensemble? Did they make use of Intel's undocumented instructions? Maybe it can be patched or would it be too much work?

    Here's another thought: Do the M24/variants ALWAYS swaps word order, or SOMETIMES swap word order? If the former, then this might be viable:

    Code:
    	in	ax, dx			; Load word from port
    	stosw				; Store swapped-order word to [ES:DI] in correct order
    There's more to it than just byte swapping, you might recall this thread?
    Looking for a cache card for the "ICL ErgoPRO C4/66d V"

  6. #496
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krille View Post
    Too bad. I would have loved to see a youtube video of such a ridiculously tricked out XT machine.
    That strikes a nerve! Okay, I might consider it. But the same thing can be achieved with just a single XT-IDE and a 64G or higher drive.

    I'm curious, how does the V30 break Geoworks Ensemble? Did they make use of Intel's undocumented instructions? Maybe it can be patched or would it be too much work?
    It hangs on startup, and I never bothered to troubleshoot it further. I was hoping the recent open source release of geoworks would shed some light but I haven't had time to look into it. I'm guessing it's a faulty CPU detection routine.

    There's more to it than just byte swapping, you might recall this thread?
    I do, but I'd forgotten a byte is inserted into the stream. I thought it was just an endian problem.
    Offering a bounty for:
    - The software "Overhead Express" (doesn't have to be original, can be a copy)
    - A working Sanyo MBC-775, Olivetti M24, or Logabax 1600
    - Documentation and original disks for: Panasonic Sr. Partner, Zenith Z-160 series
    - Music Construction Set, IBM Music Feature edition (has red sticker on front stating IBM Music Feature)

  7. #497
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    (15 minutes is way too short a time for editing posts. Admins, please lengthen.)
    Looking at the geoworks source code at bluewayse/pcgeos, CPU detect looks ok (it's in SysInit.asm) but there seems to be a disconnect between detecting an 80186 and later in the code assuming there is only an 8086 or 80286. I'd really have to trace it to see.
    Offering a bounty for:
    - The software "Overhead Express" (doesn't have to be original, can be a copy)
    - A working Sanyo MBC-775, Olivetti M24, or Logabax 1600
    - Documentation and original disks for: Panasonic Sr. Partner, Zenith Z-160 series
    - Music Construction Set, IBM Music Feature edition (has red sticker on front stating IBM Music Feature)

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trixter View Post
    That's... an interesting prospect. Assuming two 8GB CFs per cable, that would be 64GB in a single system -- but DOS would only give me 24 drive letters, so I'd only be able to use 48GB of it. I'll pass
    According to devdriv.txt in the source release, MSDOS 2 supports 63 drives:
    The theoretical limit is 63 (2^6 - 1), but it should be noted that after 26 the drive letters get a little strange (like ] \ and ^)
    Must admit, I've never tried it.

  9. #499
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'm not sure how this would work in practice, because the characters mentioned when it gets "a little strange" are just the ASCII characters beyond upper-case letters. Past those, we get into lower-case letters, but since DOS treats lower-case letters as upper-case, you wouldn't be able to actually access them. At a bare minimum, COMMAND.COM and FDISK would have to be patched to allow any ascii character as a letter, and traditional DOS programs would likely not be able to access those drives either.

    Such an experiment is only useful if the storage is actually accessible by programs so I still posit that 24 would be the practical limit. I suppose you could forcefully override A: and B: as well, but that almost seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
    Offering a bounty for:
    - The software "Overhead Express" (doesn't have to be original, can be a copy)
    - A working Sanyo MBC-775, Olivetti M24, or Logabax 1600
    - Documentation and original disks for: Panasonic Sr. Partner, Zenith Z-160 series
    - Music Construction Set, IBM Music Feature edition (has red sticker on front stating IBM Music Feature)

  10. #500

    Default

    I've wondered for some time why databases from the time didn't write to disk partitions directly, it would have been a lot faster with such tiny cpu and ram. Or use FAT12 at least.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •