Jump to content
stlouisrod

Atari 130XE not seeing 1050 when set to drive D2:

Recommended Posts

Have been using APE with my Atari 130XE for a while now and don't remember having this issue until lately. I keep getting error 138 (device timeout) in DOS 2.0s (or any I've tried) whenever I issue a directory listing to D2:*.*. I am booting up on D1: which is assigned to my PC folder location via APE and my SIO2PC interface. I have my 1050 switched to D2 setting, and leaving D2: in APE blank (i.e. ejected) so it is not conflicting. Unfortunately I don't have another serial device to set as D1: in the chain so I can determine if it's the controller in my 1050 which is OK with D1 setting but possibly NOT with D2 :(.

 

Any ideas? Shouldn't I be able to access PC via D1 and a real 1050 device on D2 within APE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The drive select switches on your Atari could well be dirty or have a bit of corrosion, especially if they haven't been cleaned lately and/or you've never actually used the drive as anything but D1: before. With the drive powered off, spray some good electrical contact cleaner into the switch mechanism and then slide both switches vigorously a few dozen times. Let the switches dry, set the drive to D2: and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so long as drive powers up and posts normal with disk inserted..

 

easy enough to check, use dos 2.5....or mydos, boot in d1: of ape... disconnect ape and device.... leaving drive and computer on and in the chain...

try your directories... 2 3 4 1.. one of those respond?

 

If still nothing check you 1050 switches are in proper position

still nothing? reverse them, try again..

still no joy? Use tuner cleaner in 1050 slide switches and work them...

working great! still not working.

check your sio cords... all good?

change drive select chip...

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think you should be able too access a real

1050 as D2: in Ape although I don't have any

experience with that one.

 

What I do have experience in is switching various

drives on in my drive stack to be either D1: or D2:

by their stacked order. Top two drives are set to

D2:, bottom two drives are set to D1:

 

XF551

USD

Stock 1050

Happy 1050

 

So this works by only having one of D1: ON and one

of D2: ON as I boot up. When I want to change one,

I first turn off the one I'm using with the power

switch and then I turn on the other one that is

needed for that particular need in mind.

 

BUT this is not enough. I then need to do either a

RUN AT 0x0E70 or press RESET to allow the DOS to

issue a status call to the new live drive which will

cause it to start working. If I don't take this step

the drive will just sit there all stupid like.

 

I will suggest you press the RESET button and give

the directory call to D2: another try.

 

The previous advice is absolutely correct as well,

those select switches need cleaning here every decade

at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is I have 4 drive set as D1: switching them on or off as needed but... the rest of the stack is doubled up as 1050 describes... using one of each pair switched on the other off, to further complicate it and to the complete loss of reasoning function of young ones... I switch them around using the BB, MIO, drive re assignment and sometime the logical re assignments within certain DOS versions. At that point the on lookers lose cohesive thought, start looking at the screen mouth breathing and looking like a skull garden...

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is I have 4 drive set as D1: switching them on or off as needed but... the rest of the stack is doubled up as 1050 describes... using one of each pair switched on the other off, to further complicate it and to the complete loss of reasoning function of young ones... I switch them around using the BB, MIO, drive re assignment and sometime the logical re assignments within certain DOS versions. At that point the on lookers lose cohesive thought, start looking at the screen mouth breathing and looking like a skull garden...

LOLOL.. this post officially wins the internet for today

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XF551

USD

Stock 1050

Happy 1050

...snip...

BUT this is not enough. I then need to do either a

RUN AT 0x0E70 or press RESET to allow the DOS to

issue a status call to the new live drive which will

cause it to start working. If I don't take this step

the drive will just sit there all stupid like.

If all 4 of your drives were stock, or if you're using a non-highspeed capable OS/DOS, this wouldn't happen - I think that's because the computer is still trying to communicate with the drives in the previously negotiated high-speed mode, and your reset forces the highspeed to be re-negotiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all 4 of your drives were stock, or if you're using a non-highspeed capable OS/DOS, this wouldn't happen - I think that's because the computer is still trying to communicate with the drives in the previously negotiated high-speed mode, and your reset forces the highspeed to be re-negotiated.

Good luck with your theory but I already am using a

non-highspeed DOS in MyDOS. I do not understand it

at all, I have just learned to do it automatically

in every case to cover my bases and confirm that with

a directory pull on the new powered up drive.

 

Simply because floundering around with non responsive

hardware is a frustration best avoided entirely if

you can - and I can by pressing RESET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the advice, gents, but in this case, it came down to stupidity on my part. I did not realize there were TWO switches (black and a white hiding behind it), and was flipping both switches to the right (which equates to drive 3 instead of 2). I feel shame. Thanks for bearing with me.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in post #3 you would have discovered the incorrect setting when the drive responded to the other drive numbers when testing for a directory at 2 3 4 and 1

the drive would have said hello even if in conflict with another drive ID

Edited by _The Doctor__
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. The dos versions i run error out when trying to access drives 3 and 4 even if a physical drive is set to those numbers. I saw somewhere you have to hack some dos variants to see drives beyond 2. They don't normally allocate space for the extra drives to save memory and allow all programs to load.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in those, want to shoot me some atr's? I know some limit how many open at once but almost every thing I have does 1-4 minimum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in those, want to shoot me some atr's? I know some limit how many open at once but almost every thing I have does 1-4 minimum...

Stock Atari DOS 2.5 only does 1-2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in those, want to shoot me some atr's? I know some limit how many open at once but almost every thing I have does 1-4 minimum...

 

Try any stock Atari DOS 2.5. It's limited to D1: and D2: only unless you POKE some values in BASIC, then write the modified DOS files back to disk from the DOS menu.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had any disk like that since 80 something.. very surprised anyone else would either in this day and age... what drive # is 2.5 ramdisk?

I went through every 2.5 disk I have not one is limited do just d1 and d2.... I don't remember doing it. but I must have?

None of the disk I have from other folks are that way either.. really odd.

 

Okay now that I think about it, it came with 1, 2, and 8 set up up early on, unless you had setup.com and changed it or used basic and poked like you say.. I still don't know anyone who hadn't either got the disks already good to go or had done the fix first thing and never looked back.

 

Brain fart, see how bad memory is getting, I would have been the one to tell someone that as obscure trivia... oh well. I *ss umed and now see what happens :)

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stock Atari DOS 2.5 only does 1-2.

Your as bad as me now, don't forget ....

and D8:

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Try any stock Atari DOS 2.5. It's limited to D1: and D2: only unless you POKE some values in BASIC, then write the modified DOS files back to disk from the DOS menu.

swing and foul tip, you forgot...

and D8:

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are funny. :) Here's the specific manual pages describing the DOS 2.x POKE (1802) values: Up to 8 drives. 2.0 manual covered drives 5-8 because the 815 could be assigned those ID's, whereas 2.5 doesn't, since the 810 / 1050 could only be set to 1-4. (but should still work.) I would presume 2.5 should actually be set to 1,2,8 by default, so ... 10000011 / 131 ?

DOS 2.0:
https://ia800806.us.archive.org/14/items/atari-dos-2-ref/Image072917123845.pdf#page=51

DOS 2.5:
http://www.atarimania.com/documents/Atari%20DOS%202.5%20-%201050%20Disk%20Drive%20Owner's%20Manual.pdf#page=117

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swing and foul tip, you forgot...

and D8:

 

I had a 48K 800 BITD, and 1 (one, uno, singular, ONLY :) ) stock 1050 drive. That was it. WTF would I have need to waste memory on my computer by enabling 2 more drives? Hell, I already had access to a D2: I didn't have and couldn't have afforded! And for that matter, again, WTF did I need with a like 2K D8: ramdisk?

 

Seriously, stock DOS 2.5 was and is for many people D1: and D2:, full stop. Not everyone has memory expanded computers, even today. Given that, I'm pretty sure, most casual hobbyists don't use or even know about D8:.

Edited by DrVenkman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEZGAR get kudos Plus 1 , +1, or 1up! for his concise post showing what we all read and did back in the day. :)

 

now to the other.. the OP said he was using a 130XE (128k base)

But since you wanted to make it about the 800 for some reason... I used DOS 2.0s and 2.0d as well as the OSS type products with my 800 BITD..... I used 2.5 with the XL/XE models... I just don't recall 2.5 being around in 1980... oh because it wasn't.

Come on dude next we'll have a pissing match over how to be using DOS XE on the 800. Bottom line, I naturally used what was available and needed at the time and all the disks are frozen in that time. So when I grab it it's still good to go.

 

By the time 2.5 rolled out 48/52k on 800 was normal and most of us had mosaic axlon homebrew or some other upgrade done.

 

As for the rest of all that I don't remember anything complaining about memory with a 4 drive set up without ramdisk on the 800. Your post was to be comical.. it had to be... using 2.5 in base config with ramdisk active on an 800 without any memory upgrade.

Nah can't say that's how it works.

Most folks configured that without ramdisk- killing the setting in DOS and not loading the driver. So while I used all 4 drives in that arena... most folks simply did 1-3 and killed ramdisk completely on the 800's. The common user group convention was to yank the ramdisk and turn on a real drive for the 800. In any event, if you only had one drive.. none of this would have mattered to you, and chances are you wouldn't have run into any issue anyway back in the day....

 

with all that being said did you read the post including my admission to not remembering clearly yesterday. I do remember perfectly today. So please consider what I have written in totality. I suppose if you were that pressed for memory you might have killed off anything beyond 1 drive. You still certainly would not have run 2 drives and a RAMDISK on the 800 at 48k given your memory needs described. In that environment you would have modified it just like the rest of us did, to your specific need.

 

Last point, no one said you had to run out of the box stock anything until it was mentioned later on. The op didn't say what DOS was being used or what configuration of DOS but did mention the 130XE. The failing old mind made *ss-umptions. It should have asked for more information to give a perfect exact precise answer. While the OP couldn't have answered those questions or he would have modified it himself like the rest of us already. It would have given a clue where to look. Hindsight is 20/20

 

within a short period of time I apologized for assuming he would know about the config. The rest of it looks good to me in retrospect. Of course we could now hear from someone about using the 400... and whatever scenario that would entail

Edited by _The Doctor__
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the time 2.5 rolled out 48/52k on 800 was normal and most of us had mosaic axlon homebrew or some other upgrade done.

 

 

See, that's where we differ. There are a hell of a lot of us in the 45-to-55 year old demographic who were teens when we had our 400's or 800's and they were completely stock and remained so. Go back and see how much an Axlon card cost in 1984, then remember how many boxes of blank floppies we could buy to bring to copy-parties for that same money. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this has to do with atari-130xe-not-seeing-1050-when-set-to-drive-d2

but since we must...

 

1 you wouldn't be using much of a DOS on a stock 400 and have room to run much of anything you would have needed to upgrade the memory ... I think we went fishing..*

2 running DOS on just about any 800 w/ the standard hack memory upgrades or even regular upgrades to 48/52k were not in the axlon price realm at all. * yep Red herrings started

3 the majority of 800's were 48/52k already when purchased. *

4 You still didn't have DOS 2.5 in 1984, but DOS 3 was just getting out there later that year. *

5 All the copy parties I went to had a pile of floppy drives and hole punchers/nibble notchers strewn about the place.

6 The price of floppies has little to do with the price of tea in china in 1984. *

7 I don't know if you were 11 or 21 back then.

8 I am starting to think this is an argument for the sake of arguing...

 

I don't think we differ all that much really, I just think you are bothered about some other situation, like most of us and this is as good a distraction as any. :)

Edited by _The Doctor__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasnt for my electronically inclined father, I would have been stuck with stock OS and RAM forever too.

 

When I got sparta X, which stole 1 bank of 130XE RAM, leaving only a 48K ramdisk, I had enough and printed out the petersen 320K upgrade I either downloaded or found on a PD disk and asked him to install it :) and I sure felt like a power user after that. :)

  • Like 1

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.
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...