Announcement

Collapse

Forum etiquette

Our mission ...

This forum is part of our mission to promote the preservation of vintage computers through education and outreach. (In real life we also run events and have a museum.) We encourage you to join us, participate, share your knowledge, and enjoy.

This forum has been around in this format for over 15 years. These rules and guidelines help us maintain a healthy and active community, and we moderate the forum to keep things on track. Please familiarize yourself with these rules and guidelines.


Remain civil and respectful

There are several hundred people who actively participate here. People come from all different backgrounds and will have different ways of seeing things. You will not agree with everything you read here. Back-and-forth discussions are fine but do not cross the line into rude or disrespectful behavior.

Conduct yourself as you would at any other place where people come together in person to discuss their hobby. If you wouldn't say something to somebody in person, then you probably should not be writing it here.

This should be obvious but, just in case: profanity, threats, slurs against any group (sexual, racial, gender, etc.) will not be tolerated.


Stay close to the original topic being discussed
  • If you are starting a new thread choose a reasonable sub-forum to start your thread. (If you choose incorrectly don't worry, we can fix that.)
  • If you are responding to a thread, stay on topic - the original poster was trying to achieve something. You can always start a new thread instead of potentially "hijacking" an existing thread.



Contribute something meaningful

To put things in engineering terms, we value a high signal to noise ratio. Coming here should not be a waste of time.
  • This is not a chat room. If you are taking less than 30 seconds to make a post then you are probably doing something wrong. A post should be on topic, clear, and contribute something meaningful to the discussion. If people read your posts and feel that their time as been wasted, they will stop reading your posts. Worse yet, they will stop visiting and we'll lose their experience and contributions.
  • Do not bump threads.
  • Do not "necro-post" unless you are following up to a specific person on a specific thread. And even then, that person may have moved on. Just start a new thread for your related topic.
  • Use the Private Message system for posts that are targeted at a specific person.


"PM Sent!" messages (or, how to use the Private Message system)

This forum has a private message feature that we want people to use for messages that are not of general interest to other members.

In short, if you are going to reply to a thread and that reply is targeted to a specific individual and not of interest to anybody else (either now or in the future) then send a private message instead.

Here are some obvious examples of when you should not reply to a thread and use the PM system instead:
  • "PM Sent!": Do not tell the rest of us that you sent a PM ... the forum software will tell the other person that they have a PM waiting.
  • "How much is shipping to ....": This is a very specific and directed question that is not of interest to anybody else.


Why do we have this policy? Sending a "PM Sent!" type message basically wastes everybody else's time by making them having to scroll past a post in a thread that looks to be updated, when the update is not meaningful. And the person you are sending the PM to will be notified by the forum software that they have a message waiting for them. Look up at the top near the right edge where it says 'Notifications' ... if you have a PM waiting, it will tell you there.

Copyright and other legal issues

We are here to discuss vintage computing, so discussing software, books, and other intellectual property that is on-topic is fine. We don't want people using these forums to discuss or enable copyright violations or other things that are against the law; whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. Do not use our resources for something that is legally or morally questionable.

Our discussions here generally fall under "fair use." Telling people how to pirate a software title is an example of something that is not allowable here.


Reporting problematic posts

If you see spam, a wildly off-topic post, or something abusive or illegal please report the thread by clicking on the "Report Post" icon. (It looks like an exclamation point in a triangle and it is available under every post.) This send a notification to all of the moderators, so somebody will see it and deal with it.

If you are unsure you may consider sending a private message to a moderator instead.


New user moderation

New users are directly moderated so that we can weed spammers out early. This means that for your first 10 posts you will have some delay before they are seen. We understand this can be disruptive to the flow of conversation and we try to keep up with our new user moderation duties to avoid undue inconvenience. Please do not make duplicate posts, extra posts to bump your post count, or ask the moderators to expedite this process; 10 moderated posts will go by quickly.

New users also have a smaller personal message inbox limit and are rate limited when sending PMs to other users.


Other suggestions
  • Use Google, books, or other definitive sources. There is a lot of information out there.
  • Don't make people guess at what you are trying to say; we are not mind readers. Be clear and concise.
  • Spelling and grammar are not rated, but they do make a post easier to read.
See more
See less

Lo-tech ISA CompactFlash Adapter revision 2b + Tandy TL/2 anyone do a recent install?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lo-tech ISA CompactFlash Adapter revision 2b + Tandy TL/2 anyone do a recent install?

    Subject typo: Actually not sure if it's a rev 2b or rev3. TexElec has conflicting info on their site.

    I'm getting ready to install this tonight and I was wondering if anyone has installed one of these recently into a TL/2 or 3 (found some older archived posts from years ago which might not be relevant anymore).

    Looks like TexElec (the unit I purchased) flashes these with IDE_XT.BIN before testing/shipping.

    Will TL/2 benefit from the IDE_XTP.BIN since it's a 286? I thought I read somewhere that the 286 in the TL series didn't take advantage of many of the 286 instructions and acted more like a 8088/8086 but maybe I misread that.

    Also, the lo-tech site provides a padded version of the rom to push the address to CC00h and get it out of the way of C800h. I believe this is the IDE_XT.BIN that's been done this way. How would I do so with XTP if using it would be advantageous.

    EDIT:

    I added a post and I guess since I'm new everything has to be approved by a moderator. Anyway, I wanted to say that before I bothered updating to a padded bios rom I tried it running on D800h (configured it that way with the jumper before even installing in the unit) and it works perfectly.
    Last edited by mmlenz; September 14, 2018, 04:29 AM.

    #2
    Originally posted by mmlenz View Post
    Subject typo: Actually not sure if it's a rev 2b or rev3. TexElec has conflicting info on their site.

    I'm getting ready to install this tonight and I was wondering if anyone has installed one of these recently into a TL/2 or 3 (found some older archived posts from years ago which might not be relevant anymore).

    Looks like TexElec (the unit I purchased) flashes these with IDE_XT.BIN before testing/shipping.

    Will TL/2 benefit from the IDE_XTP.BIN since it's a 286? I thought I read somewhere that the 286 in the TL series didn't take advantage of many of the 286 instructions and acted more like a 8088/8086 but maybe I misread that.

    Also, the lo-tech site provides a padded version of the rom to push the address to CC00h and get it out of the way of C800h. I believe this is the IDE_XT.BIN that's been done this way. How would I do so with XTP if using it would be advantageous.
    You need the padded version of the ROM for the TL/2 as it does not work on the default address C800h (which conflicts). That's all I can say. The standard flash does not work on the TL/2 at all. Won't recognize it.

    Comment


      #3
      Oddly I had zero problems after all. I just switched it to D800h before even attempting to use it and everything worked perfectly first try.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mmlenz View Post
        Will TL/2 benefit from the IDE_XTP.BIN since it's a 286?
        Yes indeed.

        Also, the lo-tech site provides a padded version of the rom to push the address to CC00h and get it out of the way of C800h. I believe this is the IDE_XT.BIN that's been done this way. How would I do so with XTP if using it would be advantageous.
        First configure the BIOS with XTIDECFG.COM, then in DEBUG, do this;
        Code:
        -[B]f100 4100 ff[/B]
        -[B]npadding.bin[/B]
        -[B]rcx[/B]
        CX 0000  :[B]4000[/B]
        -[B]w[/B]
        Writing 4000 bytes
        -[B]q[/B]
        Then do this;
        Code:
        [B]copy/b padding.bin+ide_xtp.bin xub.bin[/B]
        Now you can use the Lo-tech flash utility to program the board with xub.bin. Also, you might want to use the large build (ide_xtpl.bin) instead if you want the boot menu.
        Looking for a cache card for the "ICL ErgoPRO C4/66d V"

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by mmlenz View Post
          Oddly I had zero problems after all. I just switched it to D800h before even attempting to use it and everything worked perfectly first try.
          The padded version of the XUB on the lo-tech site was IIRC for the original lo-tech isa-cf adapter which was fixed at C800h

          Comment


            #6
            I read some posts about people not having luck with various lo-tech cards running on D800 on TL/2's either which is just odd. I do still have an old dead smartdrive plugged in on this machine and I'll remove it and see what if any impact it has. Going to try out the XTP rom tonight after I run a disktest to see what kind of throughput i'm already getting on the stock rom.
            Last edited by mmlenz; September 14, 2018, 10:16 AM.

            Comment


              #7
              Here are the benchmarks for XTP and XT. Read/write are basically double.

              https://imgur.com/a/IK9L0ad

              Comment


                #8
                Here's a couple benchmarks for you. The first is a TL/3 with a ST351A/X drive. The second is a SX with Lo-tech CF (old-ass Plexar 256meg CF) at normal speed, then with the 286 accelerator turned on. Its pretty clear on the SX that the CPU is a major bottleneck.

                IMG_2961.jpgIMG_2963.jpg

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by mmlenz View Post
                  Subject typo: Actually not sure if it's a rev 2b or rev3. TexElec has conflicting info on their site.

                  I'm getting ready to install this tonight and I was wondering if anyone has installed one of these recently into a TL/2 or 3 (found some older archived posts from years ago which might not be relevant anymore).

                  Looks like TexElec (the unit I purchased) flashes these with IDE_XT.BIN before testing/shipping.

                  Will TL/2 benefit from the IDE_XTP.BIN since it's a 286? I thought I read somewhere that the 286 in the TL series didn't take advantage of many of the 286 instructions and acted more like a 8088/8086 but maybe I misread that.

                  Also, the lo-tech site provides a padded version of the rom to push the address to CC00h and get it out of the way of C800h. I believe this is the IDE_XT.BIN that's been done this way. How would I do so with XTP if using it would be advantageous.

                  EDIT:

                  I added a post and I guess since I'm new everything has to be approved by a moderator. Anyway, I wanted to say that before I bothered updating to a padded bios rom I tried it running on D800h (configured it that way with the jumper before even installing in the unit) and it works perfectly.
                  Just chiming in to clarify, these are rev3. We had a data entry error that spanned over a long period of time that I just caught it recently. The site consistently reflects this now. So sorry for the confusion.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by sarawill View Post
                    Just chiming in to clarify, these are rev3. We had a data entry error that spanned over a long period of time that I just caught it recently. The site consistently reflects this now. So sorry for the confusion.
                    Rev 3 Lo-tech XT-CF? Rev 3 must be something different than the Lo-tech v3? https://www.lo-tech.co.uk/wiki/XT-CFv3 correct? Because those use dip-switches instead of jumpers now right?

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X