ST536 STE EDITION

[exxos]

I tried without MAPROM (as is only really used for copying ROM to RAM now)

IMG_2422.JPG (59.88 KiB) Viewed 1118 times

So I marginally beat my old scores then

[exxos]

@HigashiJun was it you who discovered there was different height STE sockets ? I cannot remember what the outcome of all that was...

[Badwolf]

I have found some versions of GB6 won't detect AltRAM even if they're running from it! Not sure if that's relevant as I imagine you know what version you're running

If you're using the latest official on the website then all it does is tries to allocate some ttram.. if it can, it switches to alt-ram mode, if not, it assume STram.

Sorry, just to tangent off onto this for a second. Do you mean this one:-

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=27

If so, I'm seeing that problem with it. It's literally running from AltRAM (says so), but then says it can't detect any. If it were full, then fair enough, but there 8MB in total.

I wonder if there's a TOS version check somewhere in the detection logic?

BW

[exxos]

Sorry, just to tangent off onto this for a second. Do you mean this one:-

Yep.

If so, I'm seeing that problem with it. It's literally running from AltRAM (says so), but then says it can't detect any. If it were full, then fair enough, but there 8MB in total.

I wonder if there's a TOS version check somewhere in the detection logic?

Not really sure how that could be because this was the detection code..

viewtopic.php?p=117000#p117000

But it could be the cookiejar isn't setup ?

I will have a look through the code see if I can spot anything. Not even sure anyone tested alt-ram in the 68K address space. I don't think anything really existed at the time for me to even test it.

EDIT:

There could be a "assumption" that > TOS200 might be needed for it to detect alt-ram in the actual test routine.. Not sure if your testing TOS104 or TOS206 ? But if you can easily try TOS206 it would explain something..

[Badwolf]

There could be a "assumption" that > TOS200 might be needed for it to detect alt-ram in the actual test routine.. Not sure if your testing TOS104 or TOS206 ? But if you can easily try TOS206 it would explain something..

Yes, that was it. Many thanks. Apologies for the hijack.

BW

[HigashiJun]

@HigashiJun was it you who discovered there was different height STE sockets ? I cannot remember what the outcome of all that was...

Yes, I have pointed this issue on the forum and to the Thunderstorm team also.

The Thunderstorm team now has a regular version of its TwiSTEr and another one with a lower Winslow socket.

Since I swapped my higher CPU socket for a lower one, a regular TwiSTEr can be fitted without interfering with the keyboard.

[exxos]

OK thanks. Have not seen the other lower profile sockets personally. I'll just have to make a note of it and if I ever do a production run to warn people that there are sockets and the 3-D objects may not fit.

Anyway..

Started toying with some brackets..

Capture.PNG (38.39 KiB) Viewed 1001 times

Mostly thinking this would bolt onto the booster PCB. The "top" section would actually rest on top of the YM sound chip. There is also an assumption that the chip is not fitted in a socket at this point. The 3-D bracket could simply be double sided sticky taped onto the top of the sound chip. It is not under any sort of pressure it is just to stop the board from "bending" out of the socket. However, there will be a additional brace on top of the 68K part like on the STE booster which pushes down on the top shielding to make sure it does not move. Ideally should be hot glued into place as that is what the old skool boosters tended to do.. But I don't really want to get that messy.

I'm still in two minds about whether to do a small production run. The problem is in mouser , the PLDs are like £26 a pop alone. 25 of them would be £655 alone. Normally when I do a small run of something, it generally ends up being around £2,000- £3,000 . Shipping and tax tends to double the cost of the things. It's frustrating as generally the parts (at least in generic ones) are pretty cheap and the assembly itself and PCB costs are generally cheap also.

I think the problem is as well as there are others doing accelerators, any likely sales have already happened. Not saying people wouldn't also by the STE536. Though I generally found boosters tend to take the most time and effort for the least amount of interest. They're not exactly cheap things either. As people already likely have alternatives, the market would be even less and it was pretty low to start with. But anyway I feel like I am repeating myself again at this point...

[HigashiJun]

OK thanks. Have not seen the other lower profile sockets personally. I'll just have to make a note of it and if I ever do a production run to warn people that there are sockets and the 3-D objects may not fit.

That would at least save you from claims...

[exxos]

That would at least save you from claims...

Yes, though I am trying to think of alternatives where spacers can be made adjustable by some bolts probably. But I don't really want to spend much more time on all this anyway. I'll just list the socket brand I have in my machine and if people have other sockets then they accept the objects I will likely have done may not fit and they may have to come up with their own solution instead.

[HigashiJun]

@exxos

That's a wise move !