Jump to content
9640News

Geneve V0.99 Eprom Beta

Recommended Posts

This is a beta release of the V0.99 Geneve Eprom that should allow booting from TIPI and IDE, along with SCSI, MFM, HRD, and floppy along with boot tracking for executing your AUTOEXEC from the appropriate booting device if using MDOS V7.30.

 

The one thing I have noticed is the system requires minimally a floppy controller in the system.  You don't need floppies attached, just need the controller.  I'm not sure why.  This may be resolvable at a future date.

 

For now, if you do not have an eprom burner, I would let other users test and report feedback to determine if there are any needed updates.

 

On real hardware, the Geneve can boot from a TIPI.  As I do not have a IDE controller, I tested the IDE code with MAME and it boots under a MAME configuration from an IDE drive.

 

Each of the attached LOAD-xxx files (specific to MFM, IDE, SCSI, TIPI) needed to be added.  Details are in the EPROM-BETA DIS/VAR 80 file.  The "/" has been replaced with the "-" symbol for filename for the SYSTEM/SYS and LOAD/xxx files.  So, create a second copy of SYSTEM-SYS and use the appropriate LOAD-xxx. 

 

The LOAD-MFM file needs to be on the floppy disk with SYSTEM-SYS if you are booting from floppy with a Myarc HFDC.

 

PFM and PFM+ users do NOT need this update.

 

Report feedback here.

 

 

Updated File 4/7/2021 13:45 EST with the only change making sure the TIFILES header for the LOAD-TIP file was LOAD-TIP.  TIDIR reported it as LOAD-SYS.

EPROM V0.99 Eprom Beta.zip

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, my PFM has "Boot 3.0 Schroeder", I understand it does not apply

 

---

 

But my standard Geneve has v1.00 (and not 0.98), so should I do it there ?

(I can take a fresh chip, so there is nothing to lose (Toulouse))  :grin:

 

(But it sounds that it does not apply too, because of my higher number...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Schmitzi said:

 

OK, my PFM has "Boot 3.0 Schroeder", I understand it does not apply

 

---

 

But my standard Geneve has v1.00 (and not 0.98), so should I do it there ?

(I can take a fresh chip, so there is nothing to lose (Toulouse))  :grin:

 

(But it sounds that it does not apply too, because of my higher number...)

 

Schmitzi, this o ly updates the .98 to boot from ide and tipi. Your 1.00 will not do that . But there may be a 1.01 version that will, that's up to the dev team to decide. Hope this helps.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RickyDean said:

Schmitzi, this o ly updates the .98 to boot from ide and tipi. Your 1.00 will not do that . But there may be a 1.01 version that will, that's up to the dev team to decide. Hope this helps.

 

ah OK, thx. So maybe the 0.9x is something like another BIOS "family" than the 1.x?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Schmitzi said:

 

OK, my PFM has "Boot 3.0 Schroeder", I understand it does not apply

 

---

 

But my standard Geneve has v1.00 (and not 0.98), so should I do it there ?

(I can take a fresh chip, so there is nothing to lose (Toulouse))  :grin:

 

(But it sounds that it does not apply too, because of my higher number...)

 

 

Your Geneve V1.00 eprom, what is the boot device you are using now? If you are booting from a hard drive type device, then I would not upgrade.  If you are booting from a floppy drive, then the Eprom after some other users test, may be appropriate if you are going to boot from an IDE or TIPI.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 9640News said:

 

Your Geneve V1.00 eprom, what is the boot device you are using now? If you are booting from a hard drive type device, then I would not upgrade.  If you are booting from a floppy drive, then the Eprom after some other users test, may be appropriate if you are going to boot from an IDE or TIPI.

 

I mounted the system in the last weeks (or months), have floppies only here at the moment, so there is no data on it.

The IDE-controller is on the road to me. TIPI is an option too, but I still have to find out wether to mount my Tipi/PEB-card here

or better in the PFM-Geneve (with IDE or HFDC). We will see, my focus is on the PFM and 730 at the moment :)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Schmitzi said:

 

I mounted the system in the last weeks (or months), have floppies only here at the moment, so there is no data on it.

The IDE-controller is on the road to me. TIPI is an option too, but I still have to find out wether to mount my Tipi/PEB-card here

or better in the PFM-Geneve (with IDE or HFDC). We will see, my focus is on the PFM and 730 at the moment :)

 

 

Get a second TIPI/PI and put in both systems.  

 

System #1:

 

PFM-Geneve, TIPI/PI, and HFDC

 

System #2

 

Geneve with 0.99 Eprom, TIPI/PI, and IDE

 

You can then use a Windows share and copy files from one system to the other as needed.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 9640News said:

PFM and PFM+ users do NOT need this update.

Thanks, Beery :)   PFM users can use the update programs provided in the Geneve OS / MDOS 7.30 release ZIP.   Your work on this eprom may spur some further updates/changes to the PFM later this year.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GDMike said:

Is that eprom ready to send out? Let me know, I definitely need it, my pi has a 1TB sd card already.

If you have a spare eprom and a burner, you can beta test the eprom file that is contained in the zip file in the first post.

 

Please realize this is a beta test, and if you don't have a burner, if Bob Carmany or someone else can burn you an eprom of the beta, realize it is a beta until I get more feedback.  It works in MAME for booting from an IDE, and it works booting MDOS from my TIPI.


There is a EPROM-BETA (DIS/VAR 80) readme in the zip file for more details.

 

What I am saying here, is it is a beta test eprom bios, and if it doesn't work, then let me know.  But don't complain if you spent a few dollars to get a beta burned to an eprom and it doesn't work on your system.  All I ask is for feedback.

 

Beery

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to burn with, just looking for the eprom to throw in the Geneve.

I'm looking to Access tipi files, not so much interested in ti-994 files.

Just a way of working with FORTH+ files, and of course booting from MDOS. 

The reason is because I'm only on the floppy system and shuffling around on my gotech is slow and painful. When I was on the 4A I had everything organized on my tipi and that's what I would do here. Because it acts like a hard drive and it's not slow. 

Edited by GDMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be able to burn copies of the Geneve Boot Vn 0.99 for anyone who wants one.  The total price per chip is $8 which includes a 27128 EPROM and USPS First Class (with tracking) shipping.

Edited by atrax27407
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Schmitzi said:

oh yes please, and there was this one:

 

 

Myarc-Geneve9640-Cecure-RMS-02.thumb.JPG.f03ab04f43d1df69e37afc93aaf9ee17.JPG

I haven't seen one of those labels in many years!  And I can happily say that I never once had to Dremel (cut) any of the cases for these modifications.  Cases were not considered optional -  without a case, the Geneve is not stable in the PEB.  I still have the composite clamshell that was cut for one of my cards - it is quite heavy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

38 minutes ago, InsaneMultitasker said:

I haven't seen one of those labels in many years!  And I can happily say that I never once had to Dremel (cut) any of the cases for these modifications.  Cases were not considered optional -  without a case, the Geneve is not stable in the PEB.  I still have the composite clamshell that was cut for one of my cards - it is quite heavy.

 

:)

 

ah, not stable because of stability or because of heat ?

(The heat thing I solved with my 2 extra fans at the front (silent ones),

but stability seems not to be an issue in my PEB here, if you mean mounting and "remaining" in the slot.

OK, I would never move this PEB more than 3 Meters without dismounting the Geneve.

Or is there anything else that I have to be careful with ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and sorry, but what I still do not understand is the difference between


- the lower Bios numbers (0.98, 0.99)

- the higher Bios numbers (1.00, 1.01)

- Bios number like 3.00 G. Schroeder/8.00 (on my PFM)

?


If it´s just the capability of boot devices, can´t they be brought together into one Bios ?

I think No, if this is (a part of) the difference...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Schmitzi said:

but stability seems not to be an issue in my PEB here, if you mean mounting and "remaining" in the slot.

Yes, physical stability :) 

 

32 minutes ago, Schmitzi said:

- Bios number like 3.00 G. Schroeder/8.00 (on my PFM)

PFM version numbers are not related to the Geneve EPROM, Beery's updates, or Tony's updates.

PFM version 3.00 is original code; version 7 is an update I created long ago for the PFM512; version 8.01 is the new release for both PFM512 and PFM+ devices. I also documented some of this information in the readme for PFM. :)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ah OK, I collected some data before, in a list :grin: , but could not remember :)

 

I worked on it 2 more hours now, and checked the TXT´s and PDF´s, to come some closer. Some ;)

Maybe you can have a look:

 

[  ....  ]  List was removed not to mislead people with false infos. Update is pending :)

 

 

 

I have to revise the MDOS-list later, but I already entered all seen data today:

 

[  ....  ]  List was removed not to mislead people with false infos. Update is pending :)

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some feedback per your original post:

 

The 0.99 eprom version number confuses me a bit.   The beta EPROM version 0.99 is now "between" two old versions 0.98 and 1.00. Is there any way to identify the difference at bootup?  Or must the owner know what EPROM is in his/her system?  I see this as problematic in the future for repairs and owner transfers. 

 

It is also important to track filenames as I foresee disk images and release ZIP files with multiple copies of the OS and some loaders.

 

Here's a grid of my current understanding of the files, though a few names may need fixing. (corrected re:post 26)

 

image.png.7333fad803b8b53aa326f2e142167f2e.png

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Schmitzi said:

 

grafik.thumb.png.d9071548bea25229c5af212509b2de9d.png

I remember 0.97, 1.01, 1.06, 2.00 (?), 2.21, 2.50, 5.0, 6.50, 6.70RC2, 7.00, 7.30.

 

Internally, @Insanemultitasker and myself had 7.21, but outside of perhaps two other people that were beta testing for eprom support, it was not a release.  Likely, it was just shown as in-house version number on a demo.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, InsaneMultitasker said:

Some feedback per your original post:

 

The 0.99 eprom version number confuses me a bit.   The beta EPROM version 0.99 is now "between" two old versions 0.98 and 1.00. Is there any way to identify the difference at bootup?  Or must the owner know what EPROM is in his/her system?  I see this as problematic in the future for repairs and owner transfers. 

 

It is also important to track filenames as I foresee disk images and release ZIP files with multiple copies of the OS and some loaders.

 

Here's a grid of my current understanding of the files, though a few names may need fixing.

 

image.png.3cf6cbc3ff9c80731e239e47c13a4e64.png

 

 

I used version 0.99 as it was an extension of the 0.98 eprom that added TIPI, IDE, and SCSI while maintaining the original Swan.  The 1.00 was code was significantly changed from the 0.98 codebase, so I used an in-between version number..  I was never able to piece together Tony's fragments to build upon the 1.00 codebase.

 

I do see where ownership transfer could be an issue as one might not know whether to name the OS as SYSTEM/SYS or SYSTEM-SYS.  

 

I would welcome anyone that wanted to create their own graphic image without changing the existing video registers in the code AND it fitting in the 8K.  If someone is interested, give me a shout. It would need to be themed with the Geneve in mind.  And while the Ugly Duckling graphic is cute, I would not entertain that graphic.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 9640News said:

I used version 0.99 as it was an extension of the 0.98 eprom that added TIPI, IDE, and SCSI while maintaining the original Swan.  The 1.00 was code was significantly changed from the 0.98 codebase, so I used an in-between version number..  I was never able to piece together Tony's fragments to build upon the 1.00 codebase.

 

I do see where ownership transfer could be an issue as one might not know whether to name the OS as SYSTEM/SYS or SYSTEM-SYS.  

 

I would welcome anyone that wanted to create their own graphic image without changing the existing video registers in the code AND it fitting in the 8K.  If someone is interested, give me a shout. It would need to be themed with the Geneve in mind.  And while the Ugly Duckling graphic is cute, I would not entertain that graphic.

 

 

did the file name change for loading via TIPI ? the graphic shows 'load-tipi'.  When I tested originally i thought it was 'load-tip' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 9640News said:

I used version 0.99 as it was an extension of the 0.98 eprom that added TIPI, IDE, and SCSI while maintaining the original Swan.  The 1.00 was code was significantly changed from the 0.98 codebase, so I used an in-between version number..  I was never able to piece together Tony's fragments to build upon the 1.00 codebase.

Tony's eprom is based on 0.98 as well.  I don't see it as a problem if you were to leapfrog his versions.  Up to you.  If the distributions include both sets of files for the old and new eprom, maybe that's enough.

  • 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.

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...