robert@trwind.ind.TRW.COM (Robert W. Snyder) (02/23/88)
I am posting this for a friend any replies can be sent to me and I
will forward. Robert
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just purchased an Amiga 2000, Amiga 2090 controller board,
Segate ST251-1 hard disk and a Micron 2Meg board. I installed
everything and stuff seemed to work OK, then... My system began
to guru for no apparent reason. Suspiciously, it always gurued
during hard disk access. Even when I was only copying files from
place to place.
My mother board is rev 4.3.
The driver software is dated end of Nov. Works with overscan pics.
The disk was installed as dh0: (no partitions)
I came up with a simple test scenario:
Run 4 normal cli's and in each execute a batch script
with lots of 'dir opt a' on dh0:.
After some experimentation I found out the following:
(with micron board installed):
(1) Boot workbench, fastmemfirst, binddrivers.
The test will guru the machine (typically in < 5 minutes).
(2) Boot workbench, binddrivers.
The test will run a long time (> 1/2 hour) without problems.
(with an Amiga 2meg board):
The test will run a long time (> 1/2 hour) without problems
in either scenario 1 or 2.
(without an expansion mem board):
The test will run a long time (> 1/2 hour) without problems
in either scenario 1 or 2.
So I figured OK, the micron board might have problems with the 2090
board DMAing into its memory (binddrivers after 'fastmemfirst' causes
the driver buffers to be allocated in the expansion mem right?).
So I put the Micron board in a friends 2000 (mother board rev 4.2)
his 2090 controller (older) and his ST251 drive (all the same
software), then tried scenario 1. Guess what? It worked fine.
I couldn't keep trying scenarios on my friends machine so I went
home and tried some longer ones on my machine. This was done
without the expansion memory! Doing the test for long time
periods caused the system to guru also. It gurued after about
45min to 2 hours after starting the test. (I ran the test 3 times)
I have contacted Micron, they had heard of some similar problems
with the rev 4.3 motherboards and their expansion memory, but have
not been able to test it since they cannot seem to get
an Amiga 2 Meg board and an Amiga 2090 controller.
I believe that Micron is trying to get the problem fixed.
But what concerns me more is that the system Guru's *without
the expansion memory*. (BTW it passes the Commodore system diagnostics)
Has anybody heard of this problem before?
Does anybody have tests which check DMA to/from the 2090 board?
Any ideas?
Jeff
(Hmmm... Maybe I shouldn't have upgraded from my reliable 1000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Robert Snyder Disclaimer -- nobody claims dis, but me
TRW Information Networks Division 23800 Hawthorne Blvd, Torrance CA 90505
USENET: {ucbvax,ihnp4,sdcrdcf}!trwrb!trwind!robert
ARPA: robert@trwind.TRW.COMkim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (02/25/88)
In article <301@trwind.ind.TRW.COM>, robert@trwind.ind.TRW.COM (Robert W. Snyder) writes: > > I am posting this for a friend any replies can be sent to me and I > will forward. Robert > [ ... ] > My mother board is rev 4.3. > [ description of problem *possibly* attributable to the 4.3 board ] Which brings up a point that I've been wondering about ... just what are the changes from the rev 4.2 to the rev 4.3 boards? I know that they're supposed to be "functionally identical", but it could sure help to isolate problems like these to *know* what changes were made, and why. Any chance of posting a "revision history" list? (Dave ?) /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,uunet,oliveb,cbosgd,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (03/03/88)
in article <23043@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) says: > In article <301@trwind.ind.TRW.COM>, robert@trwind.ind.TRW.COM (Robert W. Snyder) writes: >> My mother board is rev 4.3. ... >> [ description of problem *possibly* attributable to the 4.3 board ] > Which brings up a point that I've been wondering about ... just what are > the changes from the rev 4.2 to the rev 4.3 boards? The main difference is that the Rev 4.3 board has a 470 Ohm pullup on the /VPA in, whereas the Rev 4.2 only have a 4.7K pullup on the /VPA line. This is only an issue if you have the MOS version of the Gary chip (started some time after R4.3 went into production) AND you're using a 68020 accelerator board like the A2620 (hint: you're not using an A2620 yet). > Any chance of posting a "revision history" list? (Dave ?) If get a chance I can look and see if there are any other changes to write about, but most of them are similar little tweaks. People get so panicky over little things like ".2" vs. ".3" that they're not supposed to even know about. Now I know why I never used this numbering scheme before. Next time we go back to coding it, like most other vendors do. > /kim -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
kjws@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (K.J.W.Smithers) (03/06/88)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: In article <3408@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >in article <23043@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) says: > >> In article <301@trwind.ind.TRW.COM>, robert@trwind.ind.TRW.COM (Robert W. Snyder) writes: > >>> My mother board is rev 4.3. ... >>> [ description of problem *possibly* attributable to the 4.3 board ] > >> Which brings up a point that I've been wondering about ... just what are >> the changes from the rev 4.2 to the rev 4.3 boards? > >The main difference is that the Rev 4.3 board has a 470 Ohm pullup on the /VPA >in, whereas the Rev 4.2 only have a 4.7K pullup on the /VPA line. This is >only an issue if you have the MOS version of the Gary chip (started some time >after R4.3 went into production) AND you're using a 68020 accelerator board >like the A2620 (hint: you're not using an A2620 yet). > >> Any chance of posting a "revision history" list? (Dave ?) > >If get a chance I can look and see if there are any other changes to write >about, but most of them are similar little tweaks. > >People get so panicky over little things like ".2" vs. ".3" that they're not >supposed to even know about. Now I know why I never used this numbering >scheme before. Next time we go back to coding it, like most other vendors >do. > >> /kim >-- >Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" PLEASE PLEASE don't do something so rash as to change the relatively simple numbering system. I am a poor user stuck with a revision 4.0 b2000 the reason why I care is that I AM *WISHING* TO ***USE*** my CSA 68020 card. A CSA 68020 does not work with a C= A2090 h-disk on 4.0 b2000's Since Commodore UK have refused to answer any of my letters as have their service sub-contractors I have been left talking (expensively) to a German rep. of CSA. It has been helpful to make it quite clear which revision I have it is hard enough with the language barrier let alone having to deal with coded boards! BUT more importantly is the /VPA line anything to do with the problem on my board? I have deciphered something about resistors in my conversations with CSA but since it has been 7 seven SEVEN **SEVEN** MONTHS since I ordered my board it makes waiting for the A2620 look easy since that apparently will work! LOOK someone I am getting very very angry, p*ssed etc with the way I am being treated. Is their any way I can get my system to work in harmony? Kit Smithers. My anger is truly directed against Commodore UK who refuse to help me even replace 6 keytops on my amiga which got slightly melted. I *MUST* buy a new keyboard at 80pounds for a few bits of plastic! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still trying to go hard and fast :-( kjws@ukc.UUCP !! prehaps try rpa@ukc.UUCP or !mcvax!ukc!rpa !mcvax!ukc!kjws !! it might get through better :-( or via British Telecom MUD (MultiUserDungeon) as 'Dingbot' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (03/08/88)
In article <3408@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: > in article <23043@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) says: > > > In article <301@trwind.ind.TRW.COM>, robert@trwind.ind.TRW.COM (Robert W. Snyder) writes: > > >> My mother board is rev 4.3. ... > >> [ description of problem *possibly* attributable to the 4.3 board ] > > > Which brings up a point that I've been wondering about ... just what are > > the changes from the rev 4.2 to the rev 4.3 boards? > > [ ... ] > > > Any chance of posting a "revision history" list? (Dave ?) > > If get a chance I can look and see if there are any other changes to write > about, but most of them are similar little tweaks. > > People get so panicky over little things like ".2" vs. ".3" that they're not > supposed to even know about. Now I know why I never used this numbering > scheme before. Next time we go back to coding it, like most other vendors > do. I didn't mean to sound "panicky", Dave! Sorry if it pulled your chain the wrong way ... that was not my intent. It does seem that this info is worth knowing though, as there *are* some reported problems with some of the revisions (CSA's 020 board works on some revs, not on others [reportedly], the ferite bead problem on some revs [3.9?], and the 2000 keyboard capacitor deal come to mind). Chip vendors can (and do) provide "bug lists" for various mask revisions, and anyone whose ever distributed a piece of S/W knows the value of providing revision information. Why should the machine be any different? While I personally don't care how you choose to "encode" revision information on your products, the current method is very nice, as it is easy for your customers and dealers to *check* when a problem arises. Kinda "user-friendly" for a change (it sure beats something like XC34J211709a, if you know what I mean :-) )! /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,ihnp4,uunet,oliveb,cbosgd,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 CIS: 76535,25
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (03/25/88)
in article <4595@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, kjws@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (K.J.W.Smithers) says: >>People get so panicky over little things like ".2" vs. ".3" that they're not >>supposed to even know about. Now I know why I never used this numbering >>scheme before. Next time we go back to coding it, like most other vendors >>do. >>Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" > > > PLEASE PLEASE don't do something so rash as to change the relatively > simple numbering system. I am a poor user stuck with a revision 4.0 b2000 > the reason why I care is that I AM *WISHING* TO ***USE*** my CSA 68020 card. > A CSA 68020 does not work with a C= A2090 h-disk on 4.0 b2000's > Since Commodore UK have refused to answer any of my letters as have their > service sub-contractors I have been left talking (expensively) to a German > rep. of CSA. It has been helpful to make it quite clear which revision I have > it is hard enough with the language barrier let alone having to deal with coded > boards! The CSA board doesn't work reliably with the A2090 hard disk on any revision of the B2000. The CSA board also doesn't work with several different add-on RAM boards. Detect a pattern here. You should. There's a big problem with the CSA board and repeatable operation. It appears to be a marginal design (I personally haven't seen one myself, but there are so many reported problems with it I can deduce this). > BUT more importantly is the /VPA line anything to do with the problem > on my board? No. If you have a Rev 4.0 board, you have the Toshiba supplied Gary which does not need the pullup. If you re-read my original note, you'll notice that I mentioned these pullups were installed before the MOS Gary went into production. <poof> > I have deciphered something about resistors in my conversations > with CSA but since it has been 7 seven SEVEN **SEVEN** MONTHS since I ordered > my board it makes waiting for the A2620 look easy since that apparently will > work! LOOK someone I am getting very very angry, p*ssed etc with the way I am > being treated. Is their any way I can get my system to work in harmony? That's something only CSA can answer. I really wish I could tell you something better, but it's out of my hands. > Kit Smithers. -- Dave Haynie "The B2000 Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (03/26/88)
[ Gee, I seem to be in a hostile mood today.... ] In article <3506@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >> A CSA 68020 does not work with a C= A2090 h-disk on 4.0 b2000's > >The CSA board doesn't work reliably with the A2090 hard disk on any revision of >the B2000. The CSA board also doesn't work with several different add-on RAM >boards. Detect a pattern here. You should. There's a big problem with the >CSA board and repeatable operation. It appears to be a marginal design (I >personally haven't seen one myself, but there are so many reported problems >with it I can deduce this). > Now this *is* interesting. You claim that it is CSA's fault for having a marginal design. However, everyone I've spoken to at CSA (and even people not associated with CSA) claim that it's Commodore's fault for not having a 4-layer motherboard. I have spoken to a person close to CSA who is attempting to sell Amigas to the truly professional community (video production, film companies, etc.), and has claimed all sorts of reliability problems with the 2000. As he tells the story (this is all hearsay, remember), he compiled and posted to BIX a compendium of *all* the problems on the B2000 motherboard, and how to fix them. Evidently, it was taken off BIX the next day by the moderator at the request of Commodore. Anyone have any comments on this? Are these people just blowing smoke? _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
morgan@brambo.UUCP (Morgan W. Jones) (03/28/88)
In article <5533@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >As he tells the story (this is all hearsay, remember), he compiled >and posted to BIX a compendium of *all* the problems on the B2000 >motherboard, and how to fix them. Evidently, it was taken off BIX the next >day by the moderator at the request of Commodore. > > Anyone have any comments on this? Are these people just blowing >smoke? If this is the case, then we should get a copy of the article and post it to the Net, where no-one can remove it (or at least C-A would be in deep #$% if they tried to cancel someone else's article). Most of us like Commodore, and I for one would be very disappointed to learn that they would pull such a prank. I think that one of the reasons that people have come to like Commodore again is because of their openness about the faults with their machines. So let's get to the bottom of this. Is anyone from CSA on the Net? >Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\ -- Morgan Jones - Bramalea Software Inc. morgan@brambo.UUCP ...!{uunet!mnetor!lsuc!ncrcan, utgpu!telly}!brambo!morgan "These might not even be my opinions, let alone anyone else's."
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (03/28/88)
In article <5533@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: |[ Gee, I seem to be in a hostile mood today.... ] |In article <3506@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: |>> A CSA 68020 does not work with a C= A2090 h-disk on 4.0 b2000's |>The CSA board doesn't work reliably with the A2090 hard disk on any revision of |>the B2000.... It appears to be a marginal design (I |>personally haven't seen one myself, but there are so many reported problems |>with it I can deduce this). |> | Now this *is* interesting. You claim that it is CSA's fault for |having a marginal design. However, everyone I've spoken to at CSA (and even |people not associated with CSA) claim that it's Commodore's fault for not |having a 4-layer motherboard. | I have spoken to a person close to CSA who is attempting to sell |Amigas to the truly professional community (video production, film |companies, etc.), and has claimed all sorts of reliability problems with the |2000. As he tells the story (this is all hearsay, remember), he compiled |and posted to BIX a compendium of *all* the problems on the B2000 |motherboard, and how to fix them. Evidently, it was taken off BIX the next |day by the moderator at the request of Commodore. What do you expect all those sources close to CSA to say? Come on now. Whose responsibility is it to get peripherals to work right? Maybe the 2000 could have been made easier to "get along with", maybe not. But if CSA products are flaky and other similar-function products are not, then it is CSA's problem. well that's my opinion anyway. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
jesup@pawl10.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (03/30/88)
>In article <5533@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >>As he tells the story (this is all hearsay, remember), he compiled >>and posted to BIX a compendium of *all* the problems on the B2000 >>motherboard, and how to fix them. Evidently, it was taken off BIX the next >>day by the moderator at the request of Commodore. >> >> Anyone have any comments on this? Are these people just blowing >>smoke? I'm on Bix, and I have never seen (or heard) of any such action. It would be easy for them to get the word out there if they wanted. Advertisements and formal reviews are disallowed (though Not-A-Review is a common ending for descriptions of new products). However, CSA has been thoroughly trashed by customers on Bix, and never made a peep in their defense, so.... Things like sending a board 3 months late, 1 day after being asked to cancel the order, which caused the board to sit on a doorstep for a week (the person who cancelled it went on vacation a couple of days later.) CSA has been compared to Tecmar, as a get product out the door first, even if it doesn't really work well, type of company. They seem to prefer to tell people to cut traces or run wires, etc, on their motherboards instead of redoing their PC board artwork to work reliably. NOTE: I am not associated with CSA or any competitors, nor am I a customer. I am merely relaying what other people have said. Take with at least a small grain of salt. // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-)
mgh@ho4cad.ATT.COM (03/31/88)
Does anyway out there no the correct connections required to interface a NEC 1402 monitor to the Amiga 2000? I have this real powerhouse system just collecting dust while I wait for a cable to be mailed to me. Any help would be greatly appreciated....... Matt Hetman