[comp.sys.ibm.pc] Xebex AMNESIA Card

Paul.Birkel@K.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (09/10/88)

I have a Xebex AMNESIA PC/XT expanded memory board which I purchased 2
years ago and installed on a Zenith Z-148. I was never able to get the
%@$#! vdisk in expanded memory to work properly, and after awhile I gave
up -- assuming that the problem was related to way that Zenith handled
memory address decoding above 640k (I had schematics).

Now I have moved the card to a true Blue PC-Portable and have encountered
the exact same problems. Basically, any file larger than 16k is either
garbaged, destroys the FAT, or freezes the machine to the point that a
power cycle is required. This is LIM 3.2, and as I recall one "swaps" in
16k chunks ... sounds to me like the software. It's using a page frame
located at CC00:0000 and I/O addresses 258/259.

So ... Xebec tells me that they no longer support the product, did have
several software upgrades, but don't know if they have any left!

The release of the driver is 1.24, and I've tried using both MS-DOS 3.1
and PC-DOS 3.0. With MS-DOS I at least get the file "copied" into the
VDisk and can run dir on it and attempt to execute the file. With PC-DOS
the results of dir are mostly garbage characters, and trying to execute
the file results in "file not found". Sometimes the lock-up occurs during
the copy with the source drive still active (enabled).

With MS-DOS 3.1 (which sorta works) the VDISK is ver. 3.02. My
configuration is with three banks of 256k of which 384k are used to
backfill, and 384k are assigned to VDISK. Sector size is 128 and directory
entries are 64.

The other behavior I observe, which may be related, occurs during the
loading of the driver when it does a memory test. Page 0 moves along
reasonably, but then it either zips through or skips page 1 and the first
part of page 2, the remainder of page 2 starting at about 28 or maybe 2A
then runs at the "normal" speed. This behavior seems inconsistent with
what I would presume would be the "obvious" mapping: first the 1 1/2 banks
of backfill and then the 1 1/2 banks of extended memory. I therefore
assume that for reasons of their own they apply a different mapping that
is advantageous for some other reasons. I haven't tried determing whether
it's the slow or fast testing pages that correspond to extended memory. I
may be adding another bank of memory soon which should make the sizes of
the 2 memory portions asymetrical.  My guess is that they're testing only
the pages used for extended memory since the POST has already tested the
rest. So this may be a "feature" rather than a defect.

If anyone has such a board with a later release (>1.24) or a working
release of the Xebec driver or some ideas about how to proceed, I would
*greatly* appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks for your attention,

paul

Paul A. Birkel
Dept. of Computer Science
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213

(412) 268-8893