Jump to content
IGNORED

The apparently (not) so OBVIOUS Poll


Omega-TI

The OBVIOUS Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. If I was going to buy a storage device for my TI...

    • I'd rather buy a neat-o state-of-the-art device capable of multiple formats and one that can act as two drives.
    • I rather buy an over-priced, obsolete tank of a drive that is hard to get diskettes for.
    • I'm going to be politically correct and choose this option.

  • Please sign in to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, we could begin with it only having 256 bytes of CPU RAM, doubly interpreted basic with program storage in video memory, slow grom storage in cartridges, if you could afford grand or two you could add 32k of 8 bit ram and 1 sssd disk drive, also TI did not want anyone writing software for it so it had a limited software library, so everyone bought 8 bit machines instead of the TI 99/4a.

Even now any one of the 8 bit machines has more users than the TI99/4a and they are more likely to be using the old hardware rather than emulators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we could begin with it only having 256 bytes of CPU RAM, doubly interpreted basic with program storage in video memory, slow grom storage in cartridges, if you could afford grand or two you could add 32k of 8 bit ram and 1 sssd disk drive, also TI did not want anyone writing software for it so it had a limited software library, so everyone bought 8 bit machines instead of the TI 99/4a.

Even now any one of the 8 bit machines has more users than the TI99/4a and they are more likely to be using the old hardware rather than emulators.

 

 

Wow I knew 256b was really laughable for on board RAM, but I just looked up the NES for comparison and it had 2kB of RAM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A#CPU_RAM_and_Scratchpad

 

My gosh! The Apple II, my first system with real keyboard, real storage, and real color graphics seems luxurious! While I don't doubt there were memory expansion options and likewise - it seems like it might be a hassle or complex. At least it does to me. I never owned a 99/4A till late in the game. After I had gotten a hard disk and an uber-elite 2400 baud modem. And then only briefly. By then I had long decided to stick with Apple II as my platform of choice. I have no particular like or dislike toward the '99.

 

When I got the Apple II I had 3 choices, 16k, 32k, 48k. And naturally me and my buddies "worked overtime" after school to get that 48k option. Then we discover we could go up to "mainframe" level and get a 16k additional card. I was like uhhhhhhhhh!!! Shaking all over the place in awe! Putting DOS up in there enabled me to do new things on my BBS, and do all sorts of special effects.

 

It enabled us to load different languages, like Fortran (yes!), Pascal, Pilot, Logo, and 'GraForth', or types of bigger super extended DOS'. When the //e came out, 128K was un-imaginable, and it took me time to utilize its potential. As a matter of fact, today, the description of the II series memory layout has been put into a modern PC, artifact behavior and interference patterns and all; as part of a program that is used to convert modern-day gifs and jpgs to really nice results on the HGR mode screens. Hope I said that right. I'm pretty high right now.

 

 

Wow I knew 256b was really laughable for on board RAM, but I just looked up the NES for comparison and it had 2kB of RAM.

 

Well yes, these were machines that were designed to run programs from ROM and not do much else. Whereas machines like the 400/800, //e, C64, and similar, were hobbyist computers. They were meant to be played with. Unlike the TI-99/4A.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A#Lack_of_third-party_development

 

"TI kept strict control over development for the machine, discouraging hobbyists and third-party developers." By not doing this Apple and Commodore and Atari rose to new heights every single day. It is the main reason why the Apple II was my second choice in getting my first computer. At first I wanted a TRS-80 originally because it looked professional. But my parents talked me out of it because it didn't have color graphics and I wouldn't be able to play games on it. Not anything worth anything anyways. Nor would I be able to expand a TRS-80 that much. With the Apple II I had all those things, and more. I just didn't realize it.

 

The Apple II was completely open, from the pop-top lid to the electricity that wafted up and out of the expansion slots (remembering as a kid now). All the ROM monitor listings, the DOS code, all the BASIC commands, the built-in access to machine language. Millions of type-in programs, data sheets for each and every electronic component used. Everything was so accessible,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was going to spend my money on a storage device, and had only two options...

A) << THIS SITE >> $112.00 (excluding shipping) for a device capable of 720K or more.

B) << THIS AUCTION >> $134.99 (excluding shipping) for a 90K SSSD 5 1/4 Floppy

Which would it be? ;)

 

It would be C.

While I don't do TI-99/4A these days - if I did I would get both. And that's what I do with Apple II. For me there is no choice. At one time I want state of the art storage. Other times I want the clunkiness of period hardware, mechanical drives.

 

The greater capability of modern solutions and the greater compatibility of old-school drives are not lost on me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much settled with my nanoPEB and F18A. But if I had a PEB, I'd probably want both options, A and B.

 

For my C64's I have original drives, SD2IEC and a 1541 Ultimate II, and wouldn't want to do without one or the other.

I still like to hear the real drive's sounds when it's loading. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you choose to enable the option, you can have the Lotharek HxC produce disk drive operating sounds. You can even set the volume level! :)

 

gallery_35324_1027_11734.jpg

8) Nice I think, but still, I'd want a real one. 90KiB or 180KiB, it doesn't matter. DD disks aren't that hard to come by, are they?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8) Nice I think, but still, I'd want a real one. 90KiB or 180KiB, it doesn't matter. DD disks aren't that hard to come by, are they?

 

I really don't know the answer about those disks being hard to come by. I only have three SSSD 90K 5.25's for my backup box and have not tried to source any more in the past year or so. It's all moot though, because but after the DDCC-1 clone is released, I'm going to pull it and round file it because my current controller will be going into that box, along with one 3.5" Teac.

 

I do understand your requirement/want for a REAL drive though, as I too will always have at least one (3.5") hooked up to my P-Box, even if it's just an external.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you choose to enable the option, you can have the Lotharek HxC produce disk drive operating sounds. You can even set the volume level! :)

 

gallery_35324_1027_11734.jpg

 

Hi,

 

I don´t like this sounds, have switched them off. Disturbs me in my deepsleep while copying a floppy :-D

 

I also have taped the LEDs from my HxC :) Yes, call me "soft-egg" or "warmduscher" :) :)

 

RS

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8) Nice I think, but still, I'd want a real one. 90KiB or 180KiB, it doesn't matter. DD disks aren't that hard to come by, are they?

 

...if you have a PEB with a standard FD-controller, you should use a 180K-floppydrive at least (DSSD).

For your comfort and compability.

 

The DoubleDensity-Floppy-Controllers are very hard to get, and expensive.

Also the DD-FloppyDrives for the PEB are a bit more expensive,

as you lso have to "hit" the right type, working proper in da PEB.

 

Having disks today with DSSD-40track, DSSD-80track, DSDD-40track, and maybe DSDD-80track,

may be a future "issue" to many users.

If you have the biggest controller, and the referring drives or a HxC-Drive, there is no problem.

But as most people don´t have that, so I assume, there will be many work in converting disks needed :)

At least, for the realiron-users :)

So lets hope that the new clone will come, and will come as a new, "affordable" standard for ALL PEB-users.

+3 please :D

 

Here´s my actual list, but NO warranty, as I am still working on it, gathering data & experience.

 

 

/EDIT: thank you again, AA/

 

TI-PEB-Tested-FLOPPYDRIVES-RMS02.pdf

Edited by schmitzi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the DD-FloppyDrives for the PEB are a bit more expensive,

as you lso have to "hit" the right type, working proper in da PEB.

 

There are SD floppy drives? :?

 

It did take some time until I found 5.25" drives on ebay, but both were properly working in the PEB. As for HD drives I cannot say for sure whether there is a problem when you use them as DD only.

 

On all those considerations please do not forget that DD also means double speed, so I would always recommend DD (despite my recent surprise when learning that a lot of people still use SD).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah sorry, I was not clear speaking. Superseeding my own thoughts :)

 

What I mean is, that a DD-drive, working for the TI, is more expensive then a "plain" 360rpm-HD-drive.

 

(I didn´t mean "DD is more epensive than SD".

I mean: SD is more expensive then DD is more expensive then HD

as: SD is more seldom than DD is more seldom than HD

)

 

And forget about the "cheaper" HD-drives, they do not work as DD-drives as they run on 360 RPMs, and are mostly not reducable there (to 300 rpm for the TI)

or coming with other problems. At least, this is my personal experience.

Edited by schmitzi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

And forget about the "cheaper" HD-drives, they do not work as DD-drives as they run on 360 RPMs, and are mostly not reducable there (to 300 rpm for the TI)

or coming with other problems. At least, this is my personal experience.

 

The 5.25" HD drives read DD format perfectly fine. I am reasonably sure the 300-RPM speed obtains in the process. The problem is writing because the head gap is smaller (half, IIRC) than on DD-only drives. This results in incomplete erasure of disks previously written with DD-only drives. There should be no problem with DD disks that have only ever seen HD drives in DD mode or reading, but never writing, DD-only-drive-written disks.

 

...lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...