Jump to content

kheller2

+AtariAge Subscriber
  • Content Count

    1,760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

716 Excellent

About kheller2

  • Rank
    Stargunner
  • Birthday 01/06/1972

Contact / Social Media

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    PA, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

13,308 profile views
  1. What is interesting about the 1200XLs on eBay is that very few people that purchase one show up here and/or register with the serial tracker. Of the 506 registered 1200XLs, 118 are eBay. Where are those people?
  2. WOW.. there are SIX 1200XLs on eBay right now. One didn't show their serial! Pout.
  3. Not yet. The pages are too big for my scanner. I’ll need to hit a copy store up.
  4. AT $250 CDN you are approaching 1200XL territory.
  5. These "restrictions" are also in the REV A Tech Specs for the 1090. " The 8OOXL will not provide CPU RAM in this address space. The 600XL has no internal RAM in this address space. The 1450XL does allow access to internal CPU RAM in this address space. E.B.D.s should provide this RAM on the E.B.D. or be restricted for use only on the 1450XL. "
  6. The floppy drive was also a PBI device. I'm not sure how it interfaced with a PBI device ID (or at all). The Floppy on the "1450" and the "TONG" are different, the latter being handled a bit with MUFFY. I don't think official schematics were ever released for the "1450" version, but the "TONG" one is out there at the Museum. I also recall that the 1450 design was actually two different add on boards -- I could be wrong on that, but I remember that from some threads here where different 1450s were compared. Some other interesting things and the PBI... " 1. CARD SLOTS The parallel I/O system can support a maximum of 8 parallel devices. Each device occupies one of eight card slots. The card slots are numbered from 0 to 7, with slot 0 being the highest priority device and slot 7 being the lowest priority device. All parallel device handlers are bank selected over floating- point ROM ($D800-$DFFF). Thus, the device handler code does not need to be relocatable in order for it to be able to function in any slot. A handler can determine which slot it is in by examining OS variable SHPDVS ([$248,1]); bit 0 is set if slot 0 is selected, bit 1 is set if slot 1 is selected, and so on. 2. Page $D6xx and $D7xx RAM Memory locations $D600-$D7FF are reserved for use by parallel device handlers. This RAM is not used at all by the OS; in particular, it is not cleared during coldstart or warmstart. Each card slot has a portion of this RAM allocated to it, according to the following scheme: $D600 - $D61F Slot 0 RAM $D620 - $D63F Reserved for use by modem devices $D640 - $D67F Slot 1 RAM $D680 - $D6BF Slot 2 RAM $D6C0 - $D6FF Slot 3 RAM $D700 - $D73F Slot 4 RAM $D740 - $D77F Slot 5 RAM $D780 - $D7BF Slot 6 RAM $D7C0 - $D7FF Slot 7 RAM As the table indicates, slots 1-7 each own 64 bytes of RAM, while slot 0 owns 32 bytes of RAM. There are 32 bytes reserved for use by modem devices because 64 bytes is not enough RAM to support a modem. Obviously, a parallel device handler which uses more than 32 bytes of page $D6xx and $D7xx RAM cannot be placed in slot 0. With this one exception, parallel device handlers should be designed so that they will function properly in any slot. In particular, before accessing page $D6xx and $D7xx RAM, the handler must determine which slot it is in (by examining SHPDVS) and do an address calculation." ... " Page $D5xx is used for hardware locations within cartridges. Therefore, when parallel device drivers access their RAM on pages $D6xx and $D7xx, they must be careful not to generate any references to page $D5xx. Due to a quirk in the 6502 microprocessor, this is not as easy as it sounds. Whenever indexed addressing is used to cross a page boundary, the 6502 will generate an extra memory cycle during which it references the RAM location one page below the desired address."
  7. Not to derail this even more, but Apple was on its way back to health starting in the late 90's with the iMac and the consolidation of projects... and the killing off of their open hardware platform, and the return of Jobs. The iPod surely helped 3 years later (but it was only a mac product then). Apple seemed to just go nuts with too many products, too many management changes, and no real focus. iPhone crushed Nokia, BlackBerry, and Motorola. As for undermining dealers ... well, that depends on your definition. As I recall, mass market locations could obtain stock cheaper than official dealer networks.
  8. Isn't there a bug in the extended ram test that just retests the first bank?
  9. 1400s never made it to retail. In fact, the 1400 and 1450 were scrapped in Nov/Dec 1983. The 1450 was then resurrected in Q1 1984 as the TONG board all in one; instead of the 1450 two board version. What is interesting about this 1400 board is that it looks like a sample run and not the usual prototype boards. This is a dark green (like the sample run of 1450 boards). Most 1400 boards I've seen are lighter in color (almost with a yellow hue) and typically have the hand marked serial numbers on the board. This one says "GROUND PLANE" is is not something typically seen so it was probably very close the 1450 board minus the floppy board/power headers. I've only ever seen one other dark board 1400 and it had some wire reworks done on it.
  10. You are correct Doctor. I think the deal for the NES however was only for North American to brand the device an Atari device, everywhere else it would be Nintendo. Or something like that. And there were lots of restrictions, Atari had to buy the components from Nintendo and so on. It wasn't a great deal, but wasn't bad either. Atari just held onto the cash cow 2600 way too long and should have followed up with a more advanced system (possibly using arcade tech).
  11. Yes.. even if Atari had the Amiga Game Player System. This is Atari we are talking about. We are re-writing too much history here. Jack came in in 1984, Amiga was gone ... so we would have to re-write how that plays out now. But still, Nintendo had a lot of original content and locked in a lot of licenses that Atari had problems getting (for the 7800 and in general). I just don't see how anything could have prevented or killed off the NES, within reason that is. Oddly enough, I could see Atari getting into the graphics card business in later years if they had pulled off the 1600XL PC/A8 combo.
  12. I'm on the fence on this one. Imagine you purchased a used car and was totaled on the way to your house for delivery. Just because you can sell off the parts of the car that are still good for more than you paid for the whole car (this is typical, btw) doesn't mean you wouldn't be upset and want a refund. (This analogy fails completely apart when you consider the seller could get the junker back, which didn't happen in this case.) But... I've suffered enough destroyed Atari gear in the mail from people who can't pack that I'm fine with this. Make sure you pack that glass vase nicely next to the stone brick in the box when you ship it off.
  13. I don't think carts were subsidizing consoles back then... that's a new MS Xbox practice. LOL You can't compare it to the PS3 -- video games were a fad and fleeting moment in time. Star Raiders alone required 8K of RAM to run, as I recall. The 5200 was just under $300 in 1982. I'll stand by my swag for now of $375 for the 400GS, maybe $350. I don't think Atari would have been able to stave off the NES, no matter where it was. Atari thought they could make some money doing the 2800 in Japan JUST as Sega and Nintendo were releasing their systems in 83. I'm not trying to argue with you, and I understand what you are saying. I also don't like speculation -- so do the Jaguar -- do the Math. 😇
  14. Cost would have been an issue. The VCS was, what around $200 in 1980? The 400 was over $500. Even if you strip it down, it would probably be around $375. I'm just guessing here.
×
×
  • Create New...