Image Map Image Map
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Seagate ST-4053 and IBM AT

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stone View Post
    But the ST-4038 runs OK with that IBM AT controller, right?
    Exactly
    IBM PC 5150(A): IBM PC 5150(B): IBM PC 5160 (64-256k): IBM PC 5160 (256-640k): IBM PC 5170 (099): IBM PC 5170 (319/339): IBM PC 5140: IBM PC 5162: IBM PC 5155: IBM PC Expansion Unit 5161:
    WANTED!: IBM 5175 monitor, IBM 5145 monitor, IBM PC/XT/AT rear screws, Intel INBOARD 386AT card, IBM 5140 keyboard, very early IBM PC (S/N: under 5000)
    My IBM PC hardware collection

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by romanon View Post
    No, seek test not passes at all, instant error in first two entries
    What exactly is the error message shown ?

    Quote Originally Posted by modem7 View Post
    Some machines have flat (straight-through) control cables, and some have twisted control cables. If the IBM AT and the 386 have different types of control cables, you would have to change the drive-select jumper when moving the drive between the machines. Different types of control cable ?
    Quote Originally Posted by romanon View Post
    Yes, I am aware of it, I deal with it with changing of jumper position on disk.
    I read your answer as that you do have different types of control cables in the AT and the 386, and that you are changing the drive-select jumper on the (good) ST-4053 when you move it to the AT. Is it possible that you are changing the drive-select jumper incorrectly ?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    5,891
    Blog Entries
    44

    Default

    At this point we can confirm the drive is good (it IS formatting in another machine with known good hardware) and something in the 5170 is making it choke.

    Drive ID (as above, verify you are switching the ID correctly. An improper ID will make the format and everything else fail instantly)

    Cabling (use the cable set that you know are good from the 386. I have seen the crimps go weird with age and flexing)

    Controller (use a controller with its own BIOS that supports the drive. Fudging drive types never seems to work)

  4. #14

    Default

    I am using always jumpering which work correctly on previous disk (ST-403. On IBM AT is not twisted cable so position is 1-2. On 386 is twisted, so correct position is 3-4.
    Now I am trying older typ (first generation) of IBM controller. ST-4038 work correctly on IBM, so cables are good, controller is good. When I connect ST-4053 (after changing disk type in setup), there is 1790-Disk 0 Error on startup.
    Seek test is now passed on all three entries (SSTOR). But attempt to LVL format is failture. There is **ERROR (0xcc) ** Write fault on selected drive.
    I switched to previous controller (second generation) and results are same.
    IBM PC 5150(A): IBM PC 5150(B): IBM PC 5160 (64-256k): IBM PC 5160 (256-640k): IBM PC 5170 (099): IBM PC 5170 (319/339): IBM PC 5140: IBM PC 5162: IBM PC 5155: IBM PC Expansion Unit 5161:
    WANTED!: IBM 5175 monitor, IBM 5145 monitor, IBM PC/XT/AT rear screws, Intel INBOARD 386AT card, IBM 5140 keyboard, very early IBM PC (S/N: under 5000)
    My IBM PC hardware collection

  5. #15

    Default

    UPDATE:
    I used controller from 386 PC, Its WD10006V-MM2 and ST-4053 works on IBM AT without any problems. So only explanation is that IBM controller (first and also second generation and also WD 1003-WA2) are incompatible with ST-4053 hard drive.
    UPDATE2:
    it is interesting that despite of all errors, i can open that disk with command C: and also use command DIR without any errors. I tried copy file from floppy drive to that disk and also with success. It was file park.com. Subsequently I tried to run that file, but without success..There was also error in read test in SSTOR
    UPDATE3:
    So finally success!! Offender was probably WPC. Nearest disk type to ST-4053 was type 17, but this disk type has WPC 300 and ST-4053 has WPC none (or 65535). So my second attempt was find out compatible disk with WPC none. Nearest was type 11 (855/5/17). After setting disk type to type 11 disk working without errors. Its possible that older controllers are more sensitive to WPC settings than newer ones.
    Last edited by romanon; November 25th, 2019 at 02:20 AM.
    IBM PC 5150(A): IBM PC 5150(B): IBM PC 5160 (64-256k): IBM PC 5160 (256-640k): IBM PC 5170 (099): IBM PC 5170 (319/339): IBM PC 5140: IBM PC 5162: IBM PC 5155: IBM PC Expansion Unit 5161:
    WANTED!: IBM 5175 monitor, IBM 5145 monitor, IBM PC/XT/AT rear screws, Intel INBOARD 386AT card, IBM 5140 keyboard, very early IBM PC (S/N: under 5000)
    My IBM PC hardware collection

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by romanon View Post
    Seek test is now passed on all three entries (SSTOR). But attempt to LVL format is failture. There is **ERROR (0xcc) ** Write fault on selected drive.
    I switched to previous controller (second generation) and results are same.
    I once saw that symptom (seeking okay, but drive read only), and in that case, the cause was a bad connector on the control ribbon cable.
    Per the photo at [here], I had a warning label on the drive, until I eventually replaced the bad cable.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by romanon View Post
    UPDATE3:
    So finally success!! Offender was probably WPC. Nearest disk type to ST-4053 was type 17, but this disk type has WPC 300 and ST-4053 has WPC none (or 65535). So my second attempt was find out compatible disk with WPC none. Nearest was type 11 (855/5/17). After setting disk type to type 11 disk working without errors. Its possible that older controllers are more sensitive to WPC settings than newer ones.
    IBM type 17: No WPC applied to cylinders 0 to 299; WPC applied to cylinders 300 to 977
    IBM type 11: No WPC applied to cylinders 0 to 855

    In both cases, no WPC is applied to cylinder 0, the first cylinder that various code will use on a LLF attempt.

    So it does not make sense to me that WPC is the cause.

    If you change the type number back to 17, does a LLF fail again ?

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by modem7 View Post
    IBM type 17: No WPC applied to cylinders 0 to 299; WPC applied to cylinders 300 to 977
    IBM type 11: No WPC applied to cylinders 0 to 855

    In both cases, no WPC is applied to cylinder 0, the first cylinder that various code will use on a LLF attempt.

    So it does not make sense to me that WPC is the cause.

    If you change the type number back to 17, does a LLF fail again ?
    I will try. But all attempts with type 17 was failure. Until switching to type 11 I didnt have successful boot or no post error.
    IBM PC 5150(A): IBM PC 5150(B): IBM PC 5160 (64-256k): IBM PC 5160 (256-640k): IBM PC 5170 (099): IBM PC 5170 (319/339): IBM PC 5140: IBM PC 5162: IBM PC 5155: IBM PC Expansion Unit 5161:
    WANTED!: IBM 5175 monitor, IBM 5145 monitor, IBM PC/XT/AT rear screws, Intel INBOARD 386AT card, IBM 5140 keyboard, very early IBM PC (S/N: under 5000)
    My IBM PC hardware collection

  9. #19

    Default

    Ok I dont want to LVL format it agin because now disk is stable and full of dates, but when I switch now to type 17, I get error 1780 on startup.
    IBM PC 5150(A): IBM PC 5150(B): IBM PC 5160 (64-256k): IBM PC 5160 (256-640k): IBM PC 5170 (099): IBM PC 5170 (319/339): IBM PC 5140: IBM PC 5162: IBM PC 5155: IBM PC Expansion Unit 5161:
    WANTED!: IBM 5175 monitor, IBM 5145 monitor, IBM PC/XT/AT rear screws, Intel INBOARD 386AT card, IBM 5140 keyboard, very early IBM PC (S/N: under 5000)
    My IBM PC hardware collection

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by romanon View Post
    Ok I dont want to LVL format it agin because now disk is stable and full of dates, but when I switch now to type 17, I get error 1780 on startup.
    1780 or 1790 ?

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
  •