[Coco] ?PEEK(&HFF90) RETURNS 126 ON MY UNUPGRADED 26-3124?

Wed Apr 25 17:27:46 EDT 2007

If you're one of the ones that sniped (or should I say out sniped )
you're in trouble! :-) (for the humor impared :-))

Frank

On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 12:51:46PM -0700, coco at yourdvd.net wrote:
> Honestly - it could have been my sister's kids that violated the
> package, rather than the post office - it was WELL packaged. :-)
> (Perhaps I am cursed - maybe someone I outbid HEXed me :-) )
> p.s. - I am through bidding for awhile (as long as I can resist the urge
> to SEARCH eBay  - it's more difficult than quitting smoking, not bidding
> that is) -r
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [Coco] ?PEEK(&HFF90) RETURNS 126 ON MY UNUPGRADED 26-3124?
> > From: Mark Marlette <mark at cloud9tech.com>
> > Date: Wed, April 25, 2007 12:42 pm
> > To: coco at maltedmedia.com
> > 
> > Robert,
> > 
> > Man yo are hitting the first for everything. I'll maqke sure in the  
> > future that the IC is in more protected place. The Antistat foam and  
> > bubble packaging usually is enough.
> > 
> > The MPI is simple. The equations are simple. The interface and design  
> > are VERY problematic.
> > 
> > Mark
> > 
> > Quoting coco at yourdvd.net:
> > 
> > > got the gal replacement for the pal. it was squished by the post office
> > > - looked like they stepped on the sucker, but i straightened all those
> > > pins out plugged 'er in and voila - coco 3 mpi :-)
> > > While I had the 3024 MPI opened, I noticed just how different it is
> > from
> > > the 3124. The 3024 should be easy to build an exact clone but using
> > your
> > > gal instaed of the tandy pal - all other circuits at first glance
> > appear
> > > to be standard ttl and some power supply stuff. i made one some time
> > ago
> > > using 74ls138's and 74ls374 latches, etc. to clone the mpi - a lot of
> > > discrete circuitry. had 8 slots, but otherwise worked like a coco 3
> > > mpi. I had planned to replace the 138's with 154's and make 16 slots
> > > (major overkill), but then i popped by paul bartons site and he
> > > mentions the upper bit of both nybbles being used as an enable disable
> > > of the associated signal. I didn't think the multi-pak worked like that
> > > and didn't account for it in the thing i built, but it still worked :-)
> > > one day i'll dig all this junk i made out of storage and stick the
> > > schematics somewhere.... r
> > >
> > > p.s. i made the slots out of a short piece of ribbon cable and a 40
> > conn
> > > ids connector.
> > >
> > >> -------- Original Message --------
> > >> Subject: Re: [Coco] ?PEEK(&HFF90) RETURNS 126 ON MY UNUPGRADED
> > 26-3124?
> > >> From: Mark Marlette <mark at cloud9tech.com>
> > >> Date: Tue, April 24, 2007 10:57 am
> > >> To: Robert Gault <robert.gault at worldnet.att.net>
> > >> Cc: coco at maltedmedia.com
> > >>
> > >> Robert,
> > >>
> > >> I don't have the data right in front of me....hold on let me check
> > >> C-9's CVS for the mpak manual...
> > >>
> > >> Nope...have to add it...
> > >>
> > >> I looked at my source to the .abl code for the GAL, 26-3024 update.
> > >>
> > >> The new range of the MPI is $FF40-$FF7F.
> > >>
> > >> If I looked at the 3124 mod that I have already documented at home I
> > >> could quickly figure out what it's original range was. From my web
> > >> page it appears that the MPIs unmodified range went into the GIME's
> > >> address space($ff90).
> > >>
> > >> The peek makes sure that it is not. This si the first I have heard
> > >> that it isn't working.
> > >>
> > >> Done this MANY years ago so I don't recall.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry for the slow response. Was gone over the weekend and have many
> > >> business/list emails to reply to.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Mark
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Mark Marlette wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Robert,
> > >> What GIME is in your CoCo?
> > >> Test performed on the same CoCo?
> > >> I'm sure I have done this test on both MPIs. Been too long ago.
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Mark
> > >> At 4/21/2007 02:12 PM, you wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Marks test of ?peek(&hff90) returns 255 on all of my 3024 multi-paks,
> > >> however it returned 126 on my 3124. I opened the 3124 and there is no
> > >> satellite board nor any piggy backed chips nor any mod of any kind - i
> > >> can't see that this pak has been upgraded. Does this test only work
> > for
> > >> the 3024's? thanks - Rob
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I just tried a test with a Coco3 and an MPI 3024. Without the MPI the
> > >> PEEK returned 126 and the same with the MPI.
> > >>
> > >> What are you trying to determine with this PEEK, whether the MPI was
> > >> upgraded for Coco3 use?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Coco mailing list
> > >> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > >> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Coco mailing list
> > > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Coco mailing list
> > Coco at maltedmedia.com
> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
> 
> 
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco