Re: Saturn 128k card

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Nama wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:04 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Nama wrote:
> > > Hi, I have a Saturn 128k card (actually I think its maybe a clone)
> > > that has been sitting around, unused for some time, and I finally
> > > thought I would test it out in my II+.
> > > I downloaded the manual and DSK images from the internet, and
> > > installed the card in slot 0. I have run the ram test from the Saturn
> > > disk that tests all the banks, and everything passed successfully. I
> > > then read in the manual that you can do an extended ram test which I
> > > tried, The first part of this ram test seems the same as the non
> > > extended test, and the card passes that fine. However, after some
> > > waiting before moving on, the software reports an error.
> > > (ill test again tomorrow and be a little more specific about the exact
> > > error)
> > > Does anyone have any experience with these cards?
> > They work fine--I used one on my ][+ until I switched to a //e with
> > a MultiRAM card.
> >
> > The problem you describe could be caused by a heat-sensitive chip,
> > either on the card or in the computer, or by any transient failure
> > in either.
> >
> > When you re-run the test, look for repeatable behavior.
> >
> > -michael
> >
> > AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
> > Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
> >
> > "The wastebasket is our most important design
> > tool--and it's seriously underused."
> > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> Thanks, but I don't think thats the problem. It passes the first
> 'standard' test, but fails on the 'extended' test, It is NOT random in
> that is passes sometimes and fails others. It always fails the
> extended test.
>
> The standard test is as follows:
>
> BANK 1-1 (C083)FINISHED PAGE D0
> BANK 1-1 (C083)FINISHED PAGE D1...
> though to...
> BANK 8-2 (C08B) FINISHED PAGE DF
>
> However when I do the extended test which is evoked by '0F' (insted
> of
> just '0'), again it works through all the banks (as above) with out
> any problem,
> but then it starts to do the extended testing, and I get the
> following:
>
> FORGET TEST
> LOADING SLOT 0
> WAITING....................
> ..................................
> ..................................
> ..................................
> ..................................
> ..................................
> .................................. (periods slowly draw across
> screen)
> ........
> TESTING SLOT 0
> ?BANK 1-1 (C083) D000 90 FF 01101111ERR
> SLOT0
> C)ONTINUE, Q)UIT, OR N)EXT SLOT?
>
> ...If I opt to (C)ontinue, then I get the following:
>
> ?BANK 1-1 (C083) D001 27 FF 11011000ERR
> SLOT0
> C)ONTINUE, Q)UIT, OR N)EXT SLOT?
>
> and so on forever...

It's hard to see how a hard failure would be caught by the "extended"
test but not by the quick one, particularly since it seems like the
entire bank is failing.

The fact that the error information shows different bits failing makes
me think that the bank is not even switched in properly.

You may have already done so, but it would be good to re-seat all the
chips and see if anything changes.

Does the byte (in binary format) before the ERR always come up the
same for corresponding addresses (D000, etc.) if the program is re-run?.

It would be interesting to run a program that exercises the memory in
normal use to see if it fails--maybe Copy II Plus, for example.

-michael

AppleCrate II: An Apple II "blade server"!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **