Jump to content
--- Ω ---

Telnet - Getting your TI on the Internet & TI BBS's

Recommended Posts

 

I'd use a 25 pin connector on both ends for simplicity...

 

Click on the graphic below to enlarge it.

that's what i'm hazy on. i've built cables similar for my jaguar, but my ti only has db9 ports or the expansion port on the side. i'm pretty new to the ti. do i need something else? also would terminal emulator ii suffice for bbs? i read up on docs and it appears to have telnet capabilities

Edited by _shameless_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's what i'm hazy on. i've built cables similar for my jaguar, but my ti only has db9 ports or the expansion port on the side. i'm pretty new to the ti. do i need something else? also would terminal emulator ii suffice for bbs? i read up on docs and it appears to have telnet capabilities

 

Okay, I need to stop and ask a couple of questions since you said, "it only has db9 ports."  Do you have anything plugged into the RIGHT-HAND SIDE of the TI.  It would be a device that uses that large edge connector.  Like an NANO-PEB (pictured below).

 

blog-0234104001405389951.png

 

The ports on the console itself are only joystick, and the audio/video out  cassette port... not RS-232.  If you do not have something like the item pictured above or a peripheral expansion box (pictured below), you may be out of luck for a while.

 

box_front.jpg

 

After we find out what you are running we may be able to be of more help.

Edited by --- Ω ---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a bare console.. the 9-pin on the left side is joystick (TI proprietary pin-out for 2 standard 4-way joysticks), and the 9-pin on the rear is for cassette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a bare console.. the 9-pin on the left side is joystick (TI proprietary pin-out for 2 standard 4-way joysticks), and the 9-pin on the rear is for cassette.

yep, i just have the console

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually if he has a nanopeb the only thing that he can really use is the web browser no?

 

Greg

 

Sadly it appears he just has a console (for now).

 

True, in the past users of Nano-PEB's have been limited to only Stuart's Internet Browser...  however... it might be interesting to test that out using the latest version of TIMXT, because now both programs use the same UDS-10 settings.  It's no guarantee of success, because I still think there are DSR or interrupt issues, but what the heck, it does not hurt to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sadly it appears he just has a console (for now).

 

True, in the past users of Nano-PEB's have been limited to only Stuart's Internet Browser...  however... it might be interesting to test that out using the latest version of TIMXT, because now both programs use the same UDS-10 settings.  It's no guarantee of success, because I still think there are DSR or interrupt issues, but what the heck, it does not hurt to try.

 

The nano/CF device must be a 9902 variety for there to be any chance of success.  If the hardware mimics the same hardware level support, TIMXT and other terminal emulators should work just fine.  Good rule of thumb:  if the nano/CF device works with Telco and other programs, TIMXT should be a shoe-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The nano/CF device must be a 9902 variety for there to be any chance of success.  If the hardware mimics the same hardware level support, TIMXT and other terminal emulators should work just fine.  Good rule of thumb:  if the nano/CF device works with Telco and other programs, TIMXT should be a shoe-in.

Pretty sure the 9902 ver doesn't work with telco ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good rule of thumb:  if the nano/CF device works with Telco and other programs, TIMXT should be a shoe-in.

 

Well, Telco does NOT work with the Nano, so I guess it's NO GO.  I thought you were making some modifications to the access routines.  Is that still on the agenda when you can find some of that valuable commodity called time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone with a 9902 Nano would need to test TIMXT or another terminal program to confirm.   I was under the impression the 9902 version was compatible.  Is there CF7+ version with 9902?  

 

 

 

 I thought you were making some modifications to the access routines.  Is that still on the agenda when you can find some of that valuable commodity called time?

No, sorry, I'm not involved in making any modifications.  Once upon a time I did inspect the CF7+ DSR to better understand what was under the hood.  

 

TIMXT follows standard low level routine requirements and is about as simple as it gets.  If it fails, the problem is the underlying hardware, not the software. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone with a 9902 Nano would need to test TIMXT or another terminal program to confirm.   I was under the impression the 9902 version was compatible.  Is there CF7+ version with 9902?  

 

 

cf7 is parallel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reviewed the DSR code.

 

The RS232 interrupt routine is intact.   As is the case with the floppy DSR, the nanopeb SIO dsr code is lifted from the TI RS232 DSR and lightly modified to function within the environment.

 

There are a few problems which may or may not impact overall operation.   Firstly, the interrupt routine retains the same flaws as the original RS232 DSR.  Secondly, the routines to reset and test the SECOND 9902 are intact.  Since the nanoPEb does not have a second 9902, it is unclear what happens to the nano when the second RS232 is accessed.   The offending code should be corrected and/or removed.

 

I found no 'smoking gun' to explain Telco's failure.  The DSR baud rate tables match the TI RS232, which implies programs calculating in the same manner will work.  Another term program may work.  

 

If the issue is hardware related, such as a failure to pass the interrupt to the external bus or a failure to clear the generated interrupt, all bets are off. 

Edited by InsaneMultitasker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

   I remember when using Telco it activated multiple lights on the P-Box dimly, I also seem to recall something about how it checked everything before it would accept the next character, which is also one reason the program could not really go above 4800 baud.  If the DSR is still checking everything, but nothing is there... I think that could be why all the standard communication programs do not work on the Nano-PEB.  If you eliminated all those other other non-existent items that the DSR is still checking, it seems like it should be able to complete the loop and function normally.  But then again, I'm not an expert, just guessing here. 

 

If that in fact turns out to be the case, there will be a lot of happy Nano-PEB users that would just have to order an updated chip to be able to run TIMXT or Telco,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

   I remember when using Telco it activated multiple lights on the P-Box dimly, and I also seem to recall something about how it checked everything before it would accept the next character, which is also one reason the thing could not really go above 4800 baud.  If the DSR is still checking everything, but nothing is there... could that be why all the standard communication programs do not work on the Nano-PEB?  If you eliminated all those other other non-existent items to check, it seems like it could complete the loop and function normally.  But then again, I'm not an expert, just guessing here. 

 

If that in fact turns out to be the case, there will be a lot of happy Nano-PEB users that would just have to order an updated chip to be abole to run TIMXT or Telco,

 

The speed limitation is related to the slow nature of the interrupt routine most terminal programs use to capture characters.  Telco and others rely upon the DSR interrupt routine;  TIMXT does not.  

 

Perhaps the nano's RS232 port is electrically configured differently and is requiring a signal we don't normally connect, i.e., one that is tied high or low on a standard RS232.  Where are all the nano owners?  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...