- VCF South West - June 14 - 16, Davidson-Gundy Alumni Center at University of Texas at Dallas
- VCF West - Aug 2 - 3, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
- VCF Midwest - Sept 7 - 8 2024, Schaumburg, IL
- VCF SoCal - Mid February 2025, Location TBD, Southern CA
- VCF East - April 2025, Infoage Museum, Wall NJ
-
Please review our updated Terms and Rules here
Pet tester v4 eprom?
- Thread starter mjnurney
- Start date
dave_m
Veteran Member
2532 is OK in the universal board you have as it protects the I/O address space. Make sure a kernal ROM is in UD6.
daver2
10k Member
When you say "it doesn't do anything" what do you actually mean (out of interest)?
When you say 0.4 do you mean version 04? Version 0.4 will be so old...
It is interesting that Version 02 works though... Did you program them into the same EPROM - or different EPROMs? Just trying to think what the differences are between the set-up that worked for you and the one that didn't.
Dave
When you say 0.4 do you mean version 04? Version 0.4 will be so old...
It is interesting that Version 02 works though... Did you program them into the same EPROM - or different EPROMs? Just trying to think what the differences are between the set-up that worked for you and the one that didn't.
Dave
MikeS
Veteran Member
As Dave suggests it depends on the model; on the early ones $E800 to $EFFF interferes with the I/O chips. Best to use a 2716.
[hi Dave,
just a blank screen and it’s version 04, I see it has many more diag features. I do have a 2716 here I can try that
QUOTE=daver2;n1214580]When you say "it doesn't do anything" what do you actually mean (out of interest)?
When you say 0.4 do you mean version 04? Version 0.4 will be so old...
It is interesting that Version 02 works though... Did you program them into the same EPROM - or different EPROMs? Just trying to think what the differences are between the set-up that worked for you and the one that didn't.
Dave[/QUOTE]
just a blank screen and it’s version 04, I see it has many more diag features. I do have a 2716 here I can try that
QUOTE=daver2;n1214580]When you say "it doesn't do anything" what do you actually mean (out of interest)?
When you say 0.4 do you mean version 04? Version 0.4 will be so old...
It is interesting that Version 02 works though... Did you program them into the same EPROM - or different EPROMs? Just trying to think what the differences are between the set-up that worked for you and the one that didn't.
Dave[/QUOTE]
daver2
10k Member
Bells may be ringing...
My initial page 0 and 1 RAM tests are not exhaustive enough for my liking. There could be issues that 'sneak through'. It is just possible that the current tests initially pass the RAM and then fall foul when it gets used in anger later on. Although I don't think there is anything that would actually result in a blank screen though - there should be some static text displayed and then it 'dies a death' when it tries to calculate the ROM checksums (as this code uses subroutine calls/returns that in turn uses page 1 RAM, and a 16-bit pointer - or so - to address the ROM).
There is still something 'strange' going on?
Dave
My initial page 0 and 1 RAM tests are not exhaustive enough for my liking. There could be issues that 'sneak through'. It is just possible that the current tests initially pass the RAM and then fall foul when it gets used in anger later on. Although I don't think there is anything that would actually result in a blank screen though - there should be some static text displayed and then it 'dies a death' when it tries to calculate the ROM checksums (as this code uses subroutine calls/returns that in turn uses page 1 RAM, and a 16-bit pointer - or so - to address the ROM).
There is still something 'strange' going on?
Dave