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

XTIDE Universal BIOS v2.0.0 beta testing thread

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

  • Krille
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trixter
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Krille
    replied
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malc
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trixter
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • glitch
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trixter
    replied
    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krille
    replied
    I am looking for a volunteer for testing of a new transfer mode for XT-IDE cards (rev 2, 3 and 4 but also rev 1 cards with the Chuck mod).

    This new transfer mode is an attempt at improving transfer speeds (reads) specifically on Olivetti M24 and its derivatives and is not meant for any other type of machine. However, for testing purposes any XT-class machine should suffice but ideally a volunteer for testing this should have an XT-IDE card as mentioned above installed in any of the following machines;

    Olivetti M24
    AT&T PC6300
    Xerox 6060
    Logabax Persona 1600

    If you're interested in trying this (even if you don't have any of the above machines) let me know via PM and don't forget to include your e-mail address. I will send you a zip-file containing the latest XT and XT+ builds of XUB for testing (which one to use depends on the CPU in your machine).

    The XT-IDE card must be configured for High Speed mode on rev 2+ cards or have the Chuck mod done if it's a rev 1 card. The BIOS must be configured manually to use the "XTIDE rev 2 (Olivetti M24)" device type (Auto Configure doesn't work with this just yet). See image;
    XTIDE rev 2 (Olivetti M24).jpg

    Aside from testing that it works I would also be grateful for any benchmark results comparing the performance of this new transfer mode with the old "Compatibility mode"/XT-IDE rev 1 device type (the only other option for Olivetti M24 owners with XT-IDE cards). It would also be interesting to see how much slower this new transfer mode is compared with the regular High Speed mode/XT-IDE rev 2 device type.

    Anyone interested in the technical details can read more here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Krille
    replied
    Originally posted by Krille View Post
    I've just added support for the Silicon Valley Computer ADP50L controller. Anyone up for testing? See here for more info.

    Thanks to Great Hierophant for providing the original BIOS!
    More than five and a half years later, the Silicon Valley Computer ADP50L IDE controller has finally been confirmed to work with XTIDE Universal BIOS!

    I'm very grateful to forum member gepooljr for doing the testing! Thank you Geoff!

    The testing was done using a custom build I made specifically for this purpose as the controller BIOS is limited to a maximum size of 6 kilobytes (when using 8 KByte ROMs at least - the controller also supports 32 KByte ROMs but it remains to be seen how exactly that works).

    I've attached this build in case anyone else would like to try it.

    XUB_r600+_ADP50L.zip

    The zip-file contains two BIOS files, adp50l.086 for use with 8088/8086 processors, and adp50l.186 for NEC V20/V30 processors. They must be configured with XTIDECFG.COM before programming/flashing.

    For future reference, these are the build options;
    Code:
    MODULE_STRINGS_COMPRESSED
    MODULE_8BIT_IDE
    MODULE_8BIT_IDE_ADVANCED
    MODULE_HOTKEYS
    MODULE_EBIOS
    MODULE_POWER_MANAGEMENT
    MODULE_COMPATIBLE_TABLES
    ELIMINATE_CGA_SNOW
    RESERVE_DIAGNOSTIC_CYLINDER
    NO_ATAID_VALIDATION
    CLD_NEEDED
    And for the adp50l.186 file there's also this;
    Code:
    USE_186
    The Boot Menu and the Virtual Serial Drive support is not included, but aside from that, this is everything you need in an XT build of the XUB.

    Leave a comment:


  • PePe-fr
    replied
    Originally posted by PePe-fr View Post
    Well, there seems to be no problem anywhere.

    The strange thing is that 1 card works out of 3. I managed to make a 128Mb Sandisk work perfectly, and still have the same FAT corruption for every write attempt I do on the two other ones (Sandisk 32Gb and Transcend 256Mb).

    At this point, I will consider that there is some kind of incompatibility between my particular machine (it's a clone... a very undocumented one) and larger than 128Mb storages. The seller of the IDE board was able to test it with large cards, and I managed to partition, format and copy files on my biggest card using a Pentium 1.

    I'll consider the case as solved for now, sell my 2 big cards and buy a second Sandisk 128Mb just in case !

    Thanks for your help, this allowed me to conduct good tests and understand how all this works as I'm a newbie with retro-computing even if I used this particular XT for years before phasing it out !

    Hi,

    Just an update : at this point, I still can't make any use of the 256Mb card (I sold the 32Gb) on this particular XT, but I was able to make it work flawlessly on a more modern machine using the same CF adapter.

    I bought another Sandisk 128Mb CF card, and it worked perfectly on my XT (I made the partition from the XT, thing I hadn't done with the first card due to the lack of DOS floppy with a partition editor on it).

    I guess that there might be an issue with this particular XT clone motherboard/BIOS, creating a conflict which prevents writing on most CF cards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malc
    replied
    Something along those lines has been discussed before, Simulating the sound of the chirps / disk read / write, I think it'll be a lot of work for little / no gain, Personally as long as i can see an LED i'm happy, I like the silence.

    Leave a comment:


  • PePe-fr
    replied
    Hi,

    I thought of a gadget which would be very very fun on xtide boards :
    Would it be possible to use the activity LED signal to generate sound to simulate hard drive reading/writing ?

    I was thinking out loud but... that would be fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malc
    replied
    Originally posted by dJOS View Post
    Bizarre, I've bought a dozen of those and had zero failures, they also work with even the cheapest Chinese CF cards.
    I don't think i've had a years use out of any of the cheap chinese adapters and i've tried a variety of them over the years, The exception being the cheap ones that are accessible from the rear and a couple of others i have which were more expensive, I still have a couple of the rear accessible ones left and now have a use for them so last week i ordered 6 more just to keep for future use, If i want an internal and external i just remove the bracket and use those plastic standoffs with the sticky tape on the bottom and secure the adapter some place internally, I have also used a variety of CF cards over the years from well known manufactures to cheap chinese no-name CF cards and all worked well with them, From the smallest up to 4Gb CF cards.

    Leave a comment:


  • dJOS
    replied
    Originally posted by Malc View Post
    It does to me in a way, It's pot luck with those cheap chinese adapters, They either don't work or work and die after some use, The one you linked to, I've thrown more of those in the bin than any other but like i said it's pot luck, I've found the most reliable of the cheapo adapters are the ones that PePe-fr is using, I have a few of those and had no problems, I've found the adapters from E-Engines are pretty good, I have another i've had for several years but can't think of the manufaturer but they were a tad more expensive.
    Bizarre, I've bought a dozen of those and had zero failures, they also work with even the cheapest Chinese CF cards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malc
    replied
    Originally posted by dJOS View Post
    This smacks of CF IDE adapter compatibility to me, grab one of these and retest - I've had 100% success with these adapters used with an IDE extension cable.
    It does to me in a way, It's pot luck with those cheap chinese adapters, They either don't work or work and die after some use, The one you linked to, I've thrown more of those in the bin than any other but like i said it's pot luck, I've found the most reliable of the cheapo adapters are the ones that PePe-fr is using, I have a few of those and had no problems, I've found the adapters from E-Engines are pretty good, I have another i've had for several years but can't think of the manufaturer but they were a tad more expensive.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X