Classic99 Updates

[Gazoo]

 

[userCart0]

; *** 632k cart - works ***

name="632k cart"

rom0=G|6000|A000|MODS\9800g.BIN

rom1=G1|6000|A000|MODS\9804g.BIN

rom2=G2|6000|6000|MODS\9808g.BIN

rom3=3|0000|80000|MODS\BackwardsROM3.BIN

 

You may have to change the UserCart number if you already have entries in that area,

Just make it the next number.

 

I updated the Classic99 demo files to reflect the changes in the real cartridge files. Zip file is attached.

632kCartFiles.zip

 

Gazoo

[+Ksarul]

Tursi, I have a Classic99 feature request: can you put a configuration switch in there to switch between inverted and non-inverted cartridge images? That way we can test any possible images in emulation before burning them to real hardware. Note that any image greater than 128K per menu section will always be non-inverted.

[Tursi]

I intend to make non-inverted carts another type, but... I have not had a lot of time for hobby coding lately.

[Tursi]

 

Note that any image greater than 128K per menu section will always be non-inverted.

 

This statement is not true. I've made my own carts that were larger and inverted.

[+Ksarul]

True--but each of the physical carts that supports inverted image sizes up to 512K on the ROM side actually breaks the chip into four 128K zones that are selected by a pair of front switches on the cartridge, since we only had four latches available on the 379 (and the GAL to extend that to six latches didn't work right--or I had a mistake in the board layout for it that we never did find). I was speaking more from the standpoint of what people would actually be burning into physical hardware.

[unhuman]

Feature request: ability to save (and restore) state. This way I could save my place in games that don't feature save/restore.

 

Thanks!

[Retrospect]

Tursi ....... I now have Windows XP and will no longer be pestering about the clipboard.

3 years is enough for anyone to endure my nagging. lol

[RXB]

Tursi ....... I now have Windows XP and will no longer be pestering about the clipboard.

3 years is enough for anyone to endure my nagging. lol

You know you can get a copy of Window Server 2003 (pretty much the Beta of Windows 7) for a song and dance.

I have several versions I use and all licensed to me under Microsoft valid licensing.

 

Also Window Server 2005 is easy to acquire and would run on your system I bet.

[+arcadeshopper]

You know you can get a copy of Window Server 2003 (pretty much the Beta of Windows 7) for a song and dance.

I have several versions I use and all licensed to me under Microsoft valid licensing.

 

Also Window Server 2005 is easy to acquire and would run on your system I bet.

 

That's a good idea, since it's basically the same software.. just says server on the boot screen.. people are giving away XP licenses too i bet now that monkeysoft has stopped supporting it..

[+Ksarul]

Note--Support for Server 2003 ends this summer, so you aren't gaining much there. I ended up going with Windows 7 when Microsoft dropped their support for Windows 2000 (I preferred 2000 over XP, so I never made that jump). I'll probably stay with it until it gets end-of-lifed and then move to ReactOS (assuming it gets out of Alpha state by then, but it is getting much more functional in the most recent iterations, so I figure it might just be ready in time).

[+OLD CS1]

Note--Support for Server 2003 ends this summer, so you aren't gaining much there. I ended up going with Windows 7 when Microsoft dropped their support for Windows 2000 (I preferred 2000 over XP, so I never made that jump). I'll probably stay with it until it gets end-of-lifed and then move to ReactOS (assuming it gets out of Alpha state by then, but it is getting much more functional in the most recent iterations, so I figure it might just be ready in time).

 

Windows Server 2003 SP2 ends next summer (July 14, 2015,) along with Windows XP x64 SP2 which is the workstation edition of Server 2003 x64 SP2. I am still running XP x64 on my workstation; had it on my laptop, too, but I recently moved to Windows 7.

 

Also, there is no Windows Server 2005, but Windows Server 2008 (Vista core) and Windows Server 2008R2 (Windows 7 core.)

 

Anyway, I do not have a lot of faith that ReactOS will reach a beta or even release milestone by next summer. In general, I see little wrong with running older operating systems like 2000 or XP for dedicated purposes. I still have an NT Workstation for my Catweasel and some older media devices like QIC tape drives.

[senior_falcon]

In an earlier post I mentioned a preference for the slightly fuzzy screen that some of my computers display. I've attached two pics to show what I mean. (Sorry, you have to click on them) All the images are with no filtering. On the right is size 2 and to the left of that I have made the window a little smaller. "Dell" is a sharp image from my desktop. Note the deformed characters in the reduced size screen. "Laptop" is from my HP laptop which give a fuzzy image. The characters in reduced size screen are as well formed as those on the right. Any idea why this is? Is there a way to change it if my computer gives the fuzzy image and I want the sharp one, or to get the fuzzy image if my computer gives the sharp one?

Laptop.bmp

Dell.bmp

[RXB]

 

Windows Server 2003 SP2 ends next summer (July 14, 2015,) along with Windows XP x64 SP2 which is the workstation edition of Server 2003 x64 SP2. I am still running XP x64 on my workstation; had it on my laptop, too, but I recently moved to Windows 7.

 

Also, there is no Windows Server 2005, but Windows Server 2008 (Vista core) and Windows Server 2008R2 (Windows 7 core.)

 

Anyway, I do not have a lot of faith that ReactOS will reach a beta or even release milestone by next summer. In general, I see little wrong with running older operating systems like 2000 or XP for dedicated purposes. I still have an NT Workstation for my Catweasel and some older media devices like QIC tape drives.

Sorry I was getting everything Microsoft made as I was licensed as a distributor so had almost anything they made.

2005 server was a for runner to 2008 server.

 

I also have 2008 server too. (Also a few copies of Virtual sever)

[+OLD CS1]

Sorry I was getting everything Microsoft made as I was licensed as a distributor so had almost anything they made.

2005 server was a for runner to 2008 server.

 

I also have 2008 server too. (Also a few copies of Virtual sever)

 

I do not recall seeing it in the MSDN or TechNet catalogs, though it might have been unofficial name of "Longhorn Server" and that whole batch of messiness. Yeah, I purchased VirtualPC... then Microsoft made it free. IIRC, Virtual Server was available in MSDN and TechNet (but I lacked the horsepower to run it) but VirtualPC did not show up until after it was made free. Like it mattered at that point. I think I still have the installation CD here in my pile of outdated subscription discs.

[RXB]

I have both from Microsoft. The original was Virtual Server 2005 as that was the first version. Virtual PC pre dated that much earlier.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Virtual_Server

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/

 

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 lead to todays Hyper-V for 2012

 

 

I helped install Virtual Server at Freightliner when I worked IT, we ran Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and XP on it as the sofware was much to hard to update with no source code to update them.

[+OLD CS1]

Yup. I meant that VirtualPC did not show up in my TechNet and MAPS until after Microsoft released it as free (while it was commercial, for some reason I only had access to Virtual Server in my subscriptions.)

 

I had a vendor screw me on an installation. I cleared the install for SBS 2003, got everything ordered, installed, and on the day the software vendor was to do their installation, I get told, ohhhhh, see our software is built on Terminal Services. I wound up putting Virtual Server 2005 on the SBS machine for the TS to save the day.

 

I am doing everything in Hyper-V these days. I am about to upgrade my hosting infrastructure from 2008R2 to Hyper-V v3 (2012R2.) I get System Center with VMM as part of my MAPS, but I will not be rolling out such an installation at a client site as Microsoft really just sucks on its support for small installations. VMware has been a much better partner for small-and-growing (with the exception of limiting live redundancy to a single vCPU, the best I can do right now even with the 5.5 release is high availability.) Anyway, I got nothing else here... back to our regularly-scheduled Classic 99 thread

[Tursi]

In an earlier post I mentioned a preference for the slightly fuzzy screen that some of my computers display. I've attached two pics to show what I mean. (Sorry, you have to click on them) All the images are with no filtering. On the right is size 2 and to the left of that I have made the window a little smaller. "Dell" is a sharp image from my desktop. Note the deformed characters in the reduced size screen. "Laptop" is from my HP laptop which give a fuzzy image. The characters in reduced size screen are as well formed as those on the right. Any idea why this is? Is there a way to change it if my computer gives the fuzzy image and I want the sharp one, or to get the fuzzy image if my computer gives the sharp one?

 

I think you are seeing filtering from your graphics card, mine does some of that as well. There are no settings in Classic99 to control that, you can't add the fuzzy anyway. It should be possible to turn the fuzzy off on systems that do it, but that will be in the DirectX settings.

 

Not much I can do from Classic99 with the current architecture though.

[Tursi]

Anyway, I will not hard code assumptions that cartridge size determines banking scheme, because as I said, I've made inverted cartridges larger than 128k. It's a silly limitation when I can just define a different type. But I can't promise when that will happen.

 

I'd like save states too, but they are a while out.

[+Ksarul]

I wasn't expecting you to do that at all, Tursi, it was just a thought that paralleled the real iron applications. As long as we can program for both inverted and non-inverted, all is good. Besides--if I can shoehorn an octal latch into one of my boards, we could go up to 2 Megabytes per cartridge. I'd have to put a 42-pin socket on there for the EPROM though (using a 27C160).

 

That would probably be sheer overkill though. . .LOL

[Tursi]

Everything I do in Classic99 has real iron applications, or I wouldn't bother doing it. Even pasting to the keyboard has a future plan. (Serial input to the PS/2 controller )

 

I'm wishing we'd used a non-DIP AVR though. Maybe a future board we can look at that? We can get so much more flash in those.

[+Ksarul]

Let me know which package you are looking to use and which chip and I can make your command a reality, Tursi!

 

I could even switch to a 377 so we get 8 latches and can go up to 2MB chips, but then they won't be PLCCs, which would bring the board's cost to build up quite a bit...especially as I got a super deal on the 2,500 PLCCs I have in stock.

 

I'd have to pull out my other soldering station too--as that one has a thermal gun to do SMT work.

 

There are now close to a dozen folks with the current board in hand too, so the current one is starting to get a good workout, especially if we figure out the proper way to let them load data into the GROM side. Do you have a procedure set up to safely push data in manually in lieu of the envisioned loader? That would let people work with their favorite GROMs now, even if the loading method isn't optimum for ease of use yet.

 

Many thanks for everything you've done on this cartridge! You've made it much more than it ever would have been otherwise!

[Tursi]

Writing to the GROM side is done via an interface to the AVR's flash controller, to simplify the code on my side... but it's pretty easy. You set the block number you want to write. Command it to erase (wait until it reports done), then write 512 bytes into the buffer and command it to write. I know it's not as easy as GRAM writes. It's possible to reproduce that behaviour, but doing it in a way that doesn't over-wear the flash will result in more complex code.

 

I hope to get back to this soon. Life is settling down a little, the pains of the new house are getting tamed, the new job is becoming routine, and I actually spent a few minutes looking at my task list this past weekend.

[Retrospect]

Tursi, I've noticed Classic99 only runs at normal speed when under CPU Overdrive ... I tried Tombstone city and it was evident the music was too slow, then when i switched to overdrive it sounded more the normal speed.

 

This would not be a problem normally, except that cpu overdrive really does hammer my CPU ... it spikes from 53% to 100% .... is this the timing issue you said you had found?

 

I'm still not sure if it is classic99 or my laptop just being really old now.

[sometimes99er]

I think you laptop is a bit old. For comparison one core in my CPU goes from 0% to 100% when turning on CPU Overdrive while listening to Tombstone City, and yes, it sounds better. On the other hand, Alpiner sounds about the same, with or without CPU Overdrive.

Edited June 2, 2014 by sometimes99er

[Tursi]

Tursi, I've noticed Classic99 only runs at normal speed when under CPU Overdrive ... I tried Tombstone city and it was evident the music was too slow, then when i switched to overdrive it sounded more the normal speed.

 

This would not be a problem normally, except that cpu overdrive really does hammer my CPU ... it spikes from 53% to 100% .... is this the timing issue you said you had found?

 

I'm still not sure if it is classic99 or my laptop just being really old now.

Yeah, it's impossible for me to know for sure. My laptop was running it slow too, but even overdrive wasn't enough. (Overdrive just increases the number of cycles it's allowed to run per "frame", which is why it hits your CPU harder.)