[comp.sys.tandy] Thanks!

blee@plains.NoDak.edu (blee) (08/31/90)

Thanks to the three replies so far!

I did buy the two machines yesterday for a song, and now need more help
than ever ;>.

After much fussing I was able to get the '12' to format the drive and install
Xenix 1.3. today I will work on 3.01.05.  I am guessing here but when they
boot on the disk the '12' says:

System 96k User 672k

and the '16' says:

System 96k User 162k

This means ram right?  I have been saying '12' since that is what the box
says, but Xenix boots (and RUNS!).  Any comments?

Ok, next question... how do I figure out exactly what hardware I have?
The 12 says nothing anywhere about having a 68000, but it obviously does,
and I would like to know what kind of expansion I can do with a few ram
chips.

Thanks again!

Blaine Lee
blee @ plains.nodak.edu

PS: I will get arround to personal replies, but I gotta move my car now
before I get a ticket :-O .

nanook@rwing.UUCP (Robert Dinse) (09/01/90)

In article <5730@plains.NoDak.edu>, blee@plains.NoDak.edu (blee) writes:
> After much fussing I was able to get the '12' to format the drive and install
> Xenix 1.3. today I will work on 3.01.05.

     To run 3.00.00 or later you need to have the "PAL" chip upgrade done
on the CPU card, if you can run 3.02.00 do so. They cleaned up so many
problems that existed in earlier versions. A word of warning, the upgrade
installation instructions accompanying 3.02.00 say that it isn't necessary
to reformat the hard drives. Do so, it has been my experience that performance
is actually >worse< under 3.02.00 if you don't but there is a noticable
improvement if you do.

> boot on the disk the '12' says:
> 
> System 96k User 672k
> 

     This machine has 768k installed (3 256k cards).
     If you can get a 1-meg card, just changing a strap on the CPU will
bring you up from 6 Mhz to 8 Mhz.

> and the '16' says:
> 
> System 96k User 162k

     This machine only has 1 256k card in it. Not really enough to be useful.
I've got 2 megs on Eskimo North right now and that's really too tight. I'm
looking for a reasonably priced 4-meg board ($1000 is too much!) still.

> This means ram right?  I have been saying '12' since that is what the box
> says, but Xenix boots (and RUNS!).  Any comments?

     Yes, you do have a 68000 card in there. Try booting a 3.xx.xx disk to
see if you have the PAL chip upgrade or not. If you do, go to 3.02.00.
And yes, it means RAM.

> Ok, next question... how do I figure out exactly what hardware I have?
> The 12 says nothing anywhere about having a 68000, but it obviously does,
> and I would like to know what kind of expansion I can do with a few ram
> chips.

     Easiest way I know is to take the cover off and physically look and
see what cards are in the card cage.

     On another note: I'm still interested in putting a large drive on the
SCSI interface, so far the only lead I've gotten is a name of someone who
has done it, whom I've written to but gotten no response. I'm also interested
in the 3.5 inch drive (or even 5-1/4 would be better than 8 inch), so I'd
be interested if someone has figured out how to do that.

     Lastly, has anyone experienced problems with port lock-ups on the
multi-port interface cards and found a solution. I know three people aside
from myself running dial-up systems with these and they are all experiencing
the same trouble and to date I haven't found a solution. Tandy has recommended
half a dozen wiring configurations and suggested it's a hardware problem even
though I've tried three different machines, three different cards and know
three people other than myself who are also experiencing this problem. It's
not new to 3.02.00, it's been a problem since the earlier 1.02.xx at least.
Also it does not happen on the two internal ports, they work fine.

bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (09/02/90)

In article <137@rwing.UUCP> nanook@rwing.UUCP (Robert Dinse) writes:
 
>     Lastly, has anyone experienced problems with port lock-ups on the
>multi-port interface cards and found a solution. I know three people aside
>from myself running dial-up systems with these and they are all experiencing
>the same trouble and to date I haven't found a solution. Tandy has recommended
>half a dozen wiring configurations and suggested it's a hardware problem even
>though I've tried three different machines, three different cards and know
>three people other than myself who are also experiencing this problem. It's
>not new to 3.02.00, it's been a problem since the earlier 1.02.xx at least.
>Also it does not happen on the two internal ports, they work fine.

I have seen this happen routinely on external ports since 1984.  What I
have observed though is that it only occurs on tty06 (if running one port
board. I don't know if that moves to 09 or both 06 and 09 lock if more than
one).

I have found that nothing short of a poweroff will restore this port.

I have also noted another variance with this port, and don't know whether
it is related.   I have asked about this and get no answers, or "I have
never heard of that" type answer, and it stops right there.

On a terminal logging in to all ports (except 6), if you logout, the screen
is repainted and the login prompt appears at the top of the screen.  Port 6
only moved the cursor down and redisplayed the prompt. Port 6 is strange!



-- 
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill
                      : bill@bilver.UUCP

nanook@rwing.UUCP (Robert Dinse) (09/02/90)

In article <945@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes:
> I have seen this happen routinely on external ports since 1984.  What I
> have observed though is that it only occurs on tty06

     This is a different problem. This problem I am having (and the others
I know of) affects all of the ports on the multi-terminal interface boards,
ie, tty04, tty05, tty06, tty07, tty08, tty09. It doesn't require power off,
just a boot to clear, and it doesn't affect tty01 or tty02.

     At one point Tandy told me that the SIO's they used had a one-byte
pre-fetch queue and if an interrupt was missed they'd lock up but they
were working on fixing this and expected it to be fixed in a point issue
that would be released concurrently with the 3.02.00 development system.
Well, no point issue is release and now they deny there is any problem.

     This has more or less been the kind of response I've gotten from Tandy
in general (either deny the problem outright or say the hardware is broken
and to bring it in to the service center, even though it's a generic problem
on every machine I've seen in the same kind of service), so I've gotten to
the point where it doesn't seem worth it to bother to call Fort Worthless
with problems since I know I'm not going to get help there. Writing letters
doesn't help either, it does apparently get their attention, I have been
called several times by someone named Archenhold, but he does not appear to
have any technical background and I've yet to be successful at connecting to
anyone who does.

     Anyway, different problem. The problem with tty06 is like nothing I have
experienced and does sound like a hardware problem.