Larry

Hi Joe- There are several threads here about the MIO. You might find it useful to "wade through" those threads, especially the "NEW MIO production run". -Larry

Hi Nir- Thanks for the pics and info. I am slightly confused though, because (from memory of 1988 or so) that board in the picture is quite different than the one I saw. Way more chips on this one, and of course, the original used a DIP-40 IC. My recollection is of the plug-in board with just a few logic chips in addition to the cpu. I wonder if this is a later/enhanced design? -Larry

At the World of Atari show in Las Vegas (1998) John Harris showed me what I believe is the system that you mentioned. It ran at regular clock speed inside the main 64K, but ran at something like 8 MHz outside of the base ram. This is, I believe, similar in concept to the Warp 4 accelerator being developed in Europe. He gave me the name of the company that sold these, which I wrote down as "Multiplex Technology" in Brea, CA. I tried to contact this company but never made contact. I certainly wanted one of those units. Dunno much else about them (perhaps you know more?). Haven't head from John Harris in a long time. At the current time, it still looks like the Warp 4 is our best hope. -Larry

OK, but those look pretty trivial compared to the original bugs in Rev A and B. I've never had a program lock up or do something really weird with Rev C or Turbo (although I do seem to remember that TBXL is kind of picky about loop nesting). How is your 65816 Basic coming (probably waiting for a 65816...)? -Larry

I'm not sure...try going into the set-up menu and remapping all of the buttons. Hi- Hey! That remapping worked. I've been playing a few of my favorites: Venture and Cosmic Avenger! This is too cool. I got my daughter a Colecovision (1981?) the day they came in at Target. I was so impressed with the graphics quality versus her/my 2600 And I'll check out the Stelladapter. Thanks much to you both! -Larry

Ah! I think I see now. My "X-ray vision" shows Left pins/connectors 24-pin header Middle 28-pin eprom Right top/bottom the logic chips Thanks, Larry

Well, I've made some progress. I bought a Logitech USB Joypad (Gravis seems no longer available). I've looked at several games, but thus far I can only get the left button (up/down, etc.) working. None of the other buttons produce any response. Am I missing something in the setup? Thanks, Larry

Yes, that was my opinion when I watched the demo. All I could tell was that the normal SIO sounded a little faster. I think they ran a couple of BASIC programs that timed about 10% quicker, also. Certainly not earth-shaking. But it would still be very interesting to investigate further. If the OS had pretty good "hooks" so that the 65816 floating point could be used, that alone would be worth something. BTW, I found 7 installments from DataQue in my old AIM clippings about the T816. Does anyone know if there was an eighth? -Larry

I just got a 256K MIO off Ebay In the original box for $87 is that a good deal? I would say it is a good deal, if it works completely, and if you have a compatible drive/bridgeboard (if you intend to use the MIO). Even if you don't have the necessary other components, it's probably worth that. P.S. they run hot, so make sure you give it good ventilation. -Larry

In 1988 or so, DataQue (Chuck Steinman) developed and released the Turbo-816. It was real, and it did run in a demo at our user's group meeting. There were a series of articles published about it and DataQue's plans for add-ons for it. I think these were originally in MAM (Michigan Atari Magazine) or AIM (Atari Interface Magazine) and maybe a few installments later in Antic. Does anyone actually have one of these working? Was the Turbo-816 patched OS useful? (I am aware that Drac030 has developed his own 65816 OS.) Did the Turbo-816 have any relation to the later Sweet-16 that I believe was primarily developed by Bob Woolley? Whatever became of DataQue? I last saw him in 1992(?) at the Chicago Atarifest. *If possible*, would this device be worth "bringing back" since no other alternatives seem available? I know that several folks have worked hard on 65C816 accelerator boards, but I am not aware of a released product for the Atari community -- e.g. send in your money and in a week or so you get a package in the mail. I don't believe that the "Sweet-16" was ever released in any significant numbers, and had timing issues in some computers. (?) Would going back to "square one" be useful? -Larry

What infamous bug? The lockup bug was prevalent in the original release "A" along with a couple of less vicious ones; the 16-byte bug was the major bug in "B" which otherwise cleared up the major bugs in "A". But I'm not aware of any major bug in "C". Have you ever really seen this bug, and if so, do you know how to reproduce it? I've never encountered any bugs in TBXL or Rev. "C". -Larry

Hi Nir- I'm not sure about the mounting of the TBXL board(s). I presume that on the TBXL board, there is a 24-pin header to plug into the normal rom position on the board. But then it appears that the eprom is plugged into a board. Are there two boards? Could you please explain this a bit. Thanks, Larry

Well good -- we're on one of my very favorite subjects, BASIC compilers. I used to wish for "stand-alone" .exe files for TBXL compiled programs, and someone developed a linker. After the linker does its magic, you have one executable file. Nice! I'm not an expert on TBXL, but I have been told that it does produce ml code. (As you mention) the runtime is large, but frequently that is a common tradeoff in order to keep the compiled code from becoming even more massive as well as provide efficient code for common tasks. A "library" of core routines. But the TBXL compiler does produce fast code. Unless you "diddle" with the code, it is the fastest "regular" compiler. ADVAN may be faster (?), but it is pretty unconventional if you are used to Atari BASIC or TBXL. The MMG/Datasoft compiler actually produce assembler code that is assembled in the third or fourth pass of the compiler, so if you want to massage the code, it presents the opportunity. It also offers the choice of floating point or integer compiler packages. I also thought that the TBXL compiler used TBXL's faster math routines? But a 6502 is just not ever going to set the world on fire with its multiplication/division. Here is a question that I've never been able to find a suitable answer for. What is P-Code (as in ABC from Monarch) and can someone provide an example of how it works? I understand the concept, but I can't grasp what the "intermediate" (P-Code) would be like. And the math routines raise another question. What XL/XE Operating Systems use built-in "fast math" routines? I know that the CSS UltraSpeed Plus OS does, but I'm not aware of any others. IF a math co-processor is ever released for the 8-bit, that would speed some operations up quite a bit. Maybe even the 65C816, IF one ever becomes commonly available for the Atari. (I wish for an accelerator every Christmas, but thus far, I've evidently been too naughty...) -Larry

Hard Drive interface. 50-pin SCSI connector. I had two with these in them. Unfortunately, it requires a nearly-impossible-to-find MFM drive bridge board and a so-far-impossible-to-find version of MyDos in order to work. IIRC, an Atari partition must be set up inside a CP/M formatted HD, and the special version of MyDos is required to recognize it and communicate. Don't remember the exact bridge board required, but the MyDos is 3.13b. The "b" is the version for the ATR8000 HD. The author of MyDos no longer had a copy of this version. I tried to set up a CP/M hard drive using an Adaptec 4000 board, but the Z-TEC would have none of that. Of course it would be very unique, but a HD operating at 19Kbs would be no faster than SIO2PC/APE at 1X (sour grapes) . -Larry

I understand that point of view. Of course, with the USB interface, it is a case of specialized software necessary to support that hardware (I don't believe there is any alternative at this time). Are you planning on releasing your own software to support the serial interfaces you are selling? -Larry

I recommend you to try the native SDX Synchromesh instead. Power-cycle the drive, boot the SpartaDOS X afresh and then type: INDUS.SYS from the command prompt. Then you should be able to format a floppy with HighSpeed skew in the SpartaDOS X Formatter. But - as for testing speed - the SDX SIO driver tends to disable VBL temporarily for high baudrates, like Indus turbo mode. So if you test the speed using a VBL-based timer, the results may be a bit too good OK, did that, and several other things... I tried several sector copiers, and none so far work with Sparta. So I thought I'd copy files as a comparison. I copied FROM an APE image TO the Indus (and a 1050 as a baseline.) The results are interesting. Stock 1050 using MyDos 4.50 to copy 10 files, 677 sectors, no verify: 2:20 "Happy" in slow mode write with verify (same files): 2:39 Indus using Dos XL skew=4, using same files and Atari Dos-type format: 1:31 (Impressive! Still some problems missing writes, but very few in this test.) Indus using SDX with Indus.Sys, skew=4: 4:07 (SDX choked on the skew=4, and ended up with a disk error) Indus using SDX with Indus.Sys, skew=5, Sparta format: 2:42 (SDX did write in fast mode, but kept returning to track zero to establish its track position) Happy 1050 using SDX, skew=4: 158 Happy 1050 using MyDos, skew=5: 2:02 Note: all copy tests used the same files. Formats were Atari Dos type, except as noted. Skew really doesn't matter with the Happy. Well, I'm very surprised, but the figures don't lie: the Indus using Dos XL and its Super Synchromesh was the fastest. I take back all my bad thoughts about the Indus... -Larry

But still a lot content is missing, my plan is to have everything back end of october. Also, the stylesheet need an remake. Carsten Wow! -- looking at the "framework," you've got a BIG job ahead! Good luck! -Larry

Well, this has proved to be quite interesting. It turns out that the disk being INITialized in the Indus was in Synchromesh skew. I was able to verify that from the manual and the fact that when copying *files* to the Indus, it wrote to the drive at Synchromesh speed. Further, examining the disk after formatting, it has a skew of 4. That is the "fastest" skew that I have encountered except for the floppy board (2). That's the only good news. Now the bad news (a longer list)... Dos XL writes poorly in Synchromesh mode. It writes several sectors, then pauses to catch up and/or retry. With Synchromesh engaged, it will not work at high speed with the Black Box drivers. The "DUPDSK" file from the Dos XL distribution disk also would not work at high speed -- only regular SIO speed. (That was what confused me initially about getting the disk formatted correctly.) Using my SpartaDos X cart, things were a little better. I loaded Synchromesh from the Dos XL boot disk, then re-booted using the SDX cart. Copying files was smoother, but not by a lot. I re-formatted the disk using SDX, and it laid down a skew of 5, so this was an apples-to-oranges comparison. I would still like to try to get this benchmarked -- can anyone recommend a good sector-copier that works with SDX? Methinks that calling Super Synchromesh "quirky" is being overly kind... -Larry

I'm trying to re-run my benchmark using a "for-sure" copy of Synchromesh II -- AKA "Super Synchromesh," and need some info -- how do I INIT a disk on the Indus using Dos XL with the fast skew? The default seems to be standard skew. There is a file called "INITSYNC" but appears that it is a booting disk with the first tracks "slow" for booting, then the rest of the tracks in Synchromesh skew. I have looked in the Future Systems manual, but have not found this. -Larry

As indicated, this was released when APE for Windows did not support XP (and its older siblings). At that point, I was using a dual-boot system with XP and W98 SE so that I could use APE. That wasn't really a very good solution for my system (and eventually massively self-destructed), so I was very eager to try Atari810. The last version (1.4d) seemed to work well on my system with either the Sparta UltraSpeed driver or the Black Box driver. It was *slightly* slower than APE on my system. And it is open source, if one is truly ambitious. *Love those "skins" for the GUI.* It's most certainly worth a look. Of course, that is all now history -- Steve has continued to upgrade APE, and the PC-Mirror, printer support, graphics printer support, USB, etc. are not found in Atari810. Still, Atari810 is *light years* ahead of SIO2PC if you are a Windows user. IMO, if you don't want to pay the money for APE, then Atari810 is an excellent freeware alternative. Again IMO, I think Steve should "cripple" APE more completely in the "trial" version, to "help" folks who use the trial version for YEARS decide if they want to pay for it. And yes, I registered both versions of APE -- years ago. -Larry

Indus SuperSynchromesh and Sparta X fast serial speed equals to value 6 of the Pokey clock divisor. This is 68,2 kbps AFAIK. The ordinary Synchromesh sets the clock divisor to 16, which is 38,4 kbps. US Doubler is 10, IIRC. Hi Drac030- Thanks for the additional info. My test must have used regular Synchromesh rather than Super Synchromesh. I'll have to go back and verify that I have SS, and re-run the test. Also- Does anyone know if the Rom version in the drive makes any difference as regards speed? IIRC, Indus/Future Systems released at least 3 different rom versions for the drive. -Larry

From an earlier thread I started: >> I thought that it would be interesting to do some benchmarking using several types of floppy drives and sector interleaves. In all cases, I used a 720 sector, SD disk (or image) and sector copied the disk to an APE image. As a baseline, I copied the SD disk at 1X to the APE image. In all other cases, the Black Box high-speed drivers were used. Baseline: Interleave=8 2:35 Arch/Dblr 1050: Interleave=5 1:14 Happy 1050: Interleave=8 1:04 Note: Interleaves of 5 and 6 also produced identical results (track buffer). Floppy Board: Interleave=2 0:42 Indus with Synchromesh loaded: Interleave=6 1:20 Note: Interleave=5 failed -- missed many sectors until next rotation. APE - APE: Interleave=n.a. 0:49 The most interesting aspect to me was that although I have read that an Indus communicates at 81 kbs, it clearly is slightly slower than the 1050 Doubler. And of course, of the physical SIO drives, the Happy came out on top. << IF your track buffer can be made to work that should help things. Also, you're very right about the PITA in setting up Synchromesh. The second version is called Super Synchromesh, I believe. But you can set up the disk so that it boots faster. The first three or so tracks have the regular interleave. The rest of the disk is the faster interleave, so the boot is quite a bit quicker. But that means that you have to use Dos XL, so Sparta X is a nicer choice. -Larry

Hardware: My Black Box/Floppy Board System Software: Original BBSB cart Other: Unpublished Atari manuscript

Nice find! Not an answer to your question, but does the Track Buffer work on yours? -Larry

What I want is a dual 3.5" and 5.25" combo mech (which I own) to be able to work with it and read both as D1: and D2: Now that would ROCK! Perhaps if you do get one (or maybe someone else has already done this) you can let us know how well this "combo drive" setup works as regards compatibility. The CSS Dual Drive Upgrade should work, but remember that the combo drive is a High Density drive, so it writes with "narrow tracks." OK for reading, but it can trash a regular DD disk by writing to it. And probably the reverse, but I don't remember for sure. I've done a 360K drive + a 720K drive using the CSS Dual Drive Upgrade, and even two 720K drives, but I never hooked up the combo drive. Always been a fan of these drives, but never used the 360K format due to its lack of compatibility with other Atari drives. -Larry