Re : Re: 90x0, was: New user

Re : Re: 90x0, was: New user

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:57:46 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <>
[ Note: This mail was converted from HTML to text by majordomo.
        Formatting might be poor. ]

  Hi, all

  Very amazing the "explosion" of answers to my mail "hello - I have a
  9090 working !". Thanks you all for your welcome messages.

  I've got some update from my 9090 :
  - I've taken picture of all that could be taken in picture
  - I've closed the box and tryed to put it in the opposite side (fan
  up) in the objective to have a better heat extraction. The ST225
  stopped to work ! I've put it again on the side with the fan down and
  the ST225 started to work again ! Any idea the reason why ?
  - I've had a closer look to the tandon 603 - It's definitely dead as
  the plate engine can't run the mecanism - There is a huge hard point
  and it's even difficult to rotate it by hand. There most have been a
  serious choc to this unit, even if silent blocs are imposants.
  - I've changed the unit number back to #10 (removed the strap wire)

  => Another questions
  - How many operationnal D9090 do you imagine are actually still in
  the world ?
  - How many were built ?
  - What was original retail price ?
  - Does it exists a "test/demo" disk for this ? Does anyone has one
  copy ?

  Best regards - Hervé

  ----- Message d'origine -----
  De: Ethan Dicks
  Date: Mercredi, Avril 15, 2009 16:11
  Objet: Re: 90x0, was: New user

  > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Anders Carlsson
  > wrote:
  > > Ruud Baltissen wrote:
  > >
  > >> we can replace the MFM-drive by any drive we like:
  > >
  > > Honestly though, aren't 90X0 drives mostly collectable?
  > Sure, but the 90X0 drives are also repairable and somewhat
  > modular, so
  > for me, at least, fixing a broken DOS board is something obvious to
  > do. If I had a dead drive or a dead "middle board", I'd more
  > seriously consider either a more modern MFM drive (like an ST225)
  > some way to hang a drive or drive emulator (FlashROM) off of the
  > port so that the DOS board _thinks_ there's a drive out there.
  > I'm not one to have a box just to look at - I want to run it if it
  > works and fix it if it's broke. I know there are those out there
  > are more interested in a "complete" system because of how it
  > looks. I
  > am much more in the "use and repair as necessary" group. That being
  > said, I probably wouldn't toss out an old TM602S or TM603S even if
  > did replace it for use with something more modern (even an ST225).
  > > For
  > > practical purposes of a storage device, I'm sure you can build
  > something> that is both smaller, lighter and more durable from
  > almost scratch.
  > Sure. Since there's virtually no software that depends on DOS3.0
  > files, there's nothing particularly magical about the
  > of CBM DOS on the 90x0. One could design an entirely new IEEE-based
  > storage device (and someone probably should), but since I already
  > a couple of D90x0 drives sitting around and because the IEEE
  > and firmware is done and known to be working on the DOS board, I
  > always attacked the problem from the point of view of putting
  > something different on the far side of the DOS board than the
  > board" and Tandon disk (especially since Tandons are odd and rare
  > expensive).
  > I am not in a position to be designing an IEEE storage device from
  > scratch, but if such a project comes around, I'd be happy to help
  > debug and use it. The one thing that I'd want it to do is to
  > either floppy images (so U1/U2 commands work on the contents of the
  > image) or have a way for an application to seek to an arbitrary
  > position in a file and read a block. This is to support a virtual
  > memory scheme for Infocom games. I have it working on floppy-based
  > games (i.e. - just as Infocom did for the C-64), but am unable to
  > migrate that to the D90x0. Some/most of the Flash-based IEC drive
  > emulators that I've seen will let you mount a partition that's a
  > file, which would completely suffice.
  > -ethan
  > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2009-04-27 16:06:22

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.