Image Map Image Map
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: New TestFDC Results Registry

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    4,818

    Default New TestFDC Results Registry

    I'd been trying to reach Dave Dunfield with new TestFDC results since apparently August (forum thread) with no results. So, I wrote a new TestFDC registry into my site:

    https://services.theglitchworks.net/ng/testfdc_results

    This registry currently includes Dave's last registry update from 2007. There's now a form for entering your results, you can find it as a link from the registry, or here:

    https://services.theglitchworks.net/...dc_results/new

    Result submissions have to be manually approved currently so that the registry doesn't get spammed. Text export forthcoming. Any suggestions welcome!

    Moderators, if someone wants to sticky this (here or in other forums), I think this would be a valuable resource for anyone wanting to use ImageDisk on non-PC formats.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    35,181
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Glitch, it's been my experience that FM-compatible and even 128-byte MFM-capable FDCs on later-model P3->AMD2+ motherboards have proliferated considerably. For example, my FIC KC-19+ P3 motherboard passes all (including 128 byte MFM) tests quite nicely and my Advantech P4 board passes all but the 128-byte MFM test. I've got several later motherboards that I haven't bothered to test, but doubt that they'll flunk the FM test.

    Oddly, most of the P1 motherboards that I have flunk the FM test. So older doesn't mean better.

    So your list, were it exhaustive, might be very long, indeed.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Thanks for creating this new list. I'll make a note to dig up the results of a few additional systems I tested. As machines with real FDCs become harder to find, it will become more valuable to have some idea it the machine will work or not first.

    One might expect devices like the Kryoflux or SuperCard Pro to take the place of an FDC, but I have run in to so many problems trying to use these for inter-operation that I think real FDC "tweeners" will need to stick around for a while longer.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    Glitch, it's been my experience that FM-compatible and even 128-byte MFM-capable FDCs on later-model P3->AMD2+ motherboards have proliferated considerably.
    Huh, interesting! I'll have to test a few of mine that have floppy controllers.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    35,181
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    I'm ready to submit a few new results, but there's a bug in TESTFDC 1.18 that affects my tests.

    That's the high-density 128-byte MFM sector test run on a 3.5" drive. All of my tests show "fail" even though I can, using my own code, format write and read back 128 byte sectors at 500Kbps. Is there a different version that I should be using? Interestingly, the 250Kbps MFM 128-byte tests pass. Is perhaps the gap being miscalculated?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Interesting. I'm fairly sure I used that same version to test a couple of FDCs a while back that passed all tests. (I have yet to dig those out and re-test). I wonder what is different? Hmmm, if it were incorrectly marking just some, but not all, chips as failed when they really should pass, then nobody would have noticed.

    Chuck, does *ImageDisk* read/write/format 128-byte sectors OK on the chip in question? Of course YOUR code would succeed where other failed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    35,181
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    I've verified the bug. I created a dummy CP/M format with 48x128 byte sectors on each track, two sides, 80 cylinders on a DSHD 3.5 floppy. I copied files from the Win98 /WINDOWS/COMMAND directory--lots of stuff there.

    IMD could read the disk and create an image. It could then correctly write the image back to disk (hint: use interleave 2:1 if you don't want to grow old waiting for the process). Here's the image file--it's rar-compressed

    Using the same floppy, as target, I get the following results from testfdc 1.18:

    Code:
    Report on FDC capabilities, issued 18/01/2018 21:48:56:
    Single-Density at 250 kbps ............................ Not tested
    Single-Density at 300 kbps ............................ Not tested
    Single-Density at 500 kbps ............................ Not tested
    Double-Density at 250 kbps ............................ Not tested
    Double-Density at 300 kbps ............................ Not tested
    Double-Density at 500 kbps ............................ Not tested
    Double-Density at 250 kbps / 128 byte sectors ......... Passed
    Double-Density at 300 kbps / 128 byte sectors ......... Not tested
    Double-Density at 500 kbps / 128 byte sectors ......... Failed
    So, if you see a result where the 128 MFM test passes at 250 Kbps, but fails at 500 Kbps, disregard the failure.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Do we also want results for low-density controllers? I would assume just put "N-not tested" for the 300kbps and 500kbps tests?

    I noticed that the low-density controller card with the Tava system I mentioned the other day actually supports FM.

    BTW, is 128-byte sector MFM support supposed to work at all on earlier/low density chips? I noticed even an original IBM PC/XT FDC fails that test. Funny thing is since it does not verify what it writes, Imagedisk will happily format and write an image with a few 128-byte MFM 250kbps (low density) sectors, but it can not read it back.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    The writing bit often doesn't hard fail (as far as the software is concerned) but the actual data written to the disk will be corrupt, that's part of the point in running TestFDC. I've had a bunch of machines that pass on the write section of TestFDC but die on the read/verify bits.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    3,611

    Default

    Ok, starting to compile a list to send in, and just a few questions and observations:

    For "class", the entry page refers to the physical form such as AT/ATX/ISA but the list uses CPU type to indicate motherboards. Is physical form really preferred? And what about proprietary motherboard form factors?

    It might be a good idea to add a disclaimer stating that results from a particular product model may vary depending on the FDC chip. This is especially true of the AHA15xx cards that may use either Intel or NSC chips.

    For newer motherboards with integrated FDCs, I suspect most just would submit "?" as FDC chip, but after thinking about it, I think ideally this should be the I/O chip (For example, IT8720F), rather than the motherboard's chip set unless perhaps it is built in to the chip set. Usually the only way to get that is to look at the motherboard.

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
  •