Scheme for expanding memory on Profyak up to 1GB ;))

Well, did my subject help anyone ;) Why haven’t I heard anything from you?

Sincerely, Musa Khaybullin.

here's news for you, All, and Roman Milukov personally. I remember once
recently RM wrote that it’s still too early to think about memory beyond 1M, they say
the time has not come yet... maybe it’s too early, but no matter how late it will be.
standards for connecting this very memory will multiply like rabbits, fortunately
there are more “craftsmen” now. a new port has already been born. more precisely, not a new
port, but a new use of old ports... although, who knows - maybe this is the
way out.
the point is this. There is a standard #7FFD at 128K. there is also a #DFFD
port on 1M. The problem is how to add 4M without introducing an additional new port?
someone Sergey Karachentsev (he will come back here on this issue) solved
simplely. The most significant bits #7FFD (6th and 7th) are responsible for addressing mega jars. bit
latch D5 - enable/disable paging of 4M memory. theoretically it
looks like this - STEP1) calling #7FFD determines the number of the required mega jar and
the standard page number in the standard 128th jar. STEP2) when accessing
#DFFD, the number of the required 128K can is set.
what is not a solution to the problem? however, there is one significant drawback - you will have to
give up #7FFD at 512K/1M.

zy: I would like to hear what dear All thinks about this.

With best wishes, Artur.[ZX]

On the day Artur Ishmurzin wrote All:

AI> here is the news for you All, and Roman Milukov personally. I remember
AI> once recently RM wrote that it’s still too early to think about memory above 1M
AI>, they say the time has not come yet... maybe it’s too early, but no matter
AI> then it’s not too late.
[skip]
AI> PS: I’d like to hear what dear All thinks about this.

My opinion is this. We should leave 128k at 7FFD as standard. It is possible to add
512k, if you like, or 256k via 1FFD.
And address the rest of the memory through an independent, parallel-operating port.
I.e. A completely new port, but initially intended only for
switching memory banks. This will be more convenient for the programmer. There is no need to mask or highlight any bits. A whole byte - 256 jars - 4Mb
And for the future, if there is more than 4Mb, reserve another port and thereby get a memory limit of 1Gb.

P.S. This is exactly the path chosen in Sprinter. It has 256k in Scorpio, and then
all memory is addressed by additional ports, and in such a way that you can get
any jar regardless of the state of the 7FFD.

Wow! The Protoss are attacking my Zerlings! It's time to get going. Ivan.

- Divorce the circuit, big and small.. [ Sprinter-II ] [Forth-CPU] [ZX]

... E-mail: ivan...@mail.ru * Welcome to www.atlant.ru/peters *

It won’t work anyway. Again there will be a craftsman who will do everything in his own way,
gather a crowd of associates (to whom he sold all this together), and there will be a lot of you.
So there is no fundamental difference in how to address - using bits 6,7 or
not.

The solution itself, IMHO, is not bad. And compatibility with 512 to #7FFD will remain -
where will it go? For the program, it doesn’t matter which megabanks are connected,
it is important that they are _different_ pages.

Sincerely,
Renat

August 18, 1999, Musa Khaybullin writes to All:

MK> Well, did my subject help anyone ;) Why haven’t we heard anything from you
MK>?

It helped a lot! :) We are waiting for our industry to start producing such memory
:)

Sincerely,
Renat

So let it be the other way around - #7ffd are the low-order bits of the address, #dffd (or something
else) are the high-order bits of the address.

See ya later, KVA of E-mage ... [ZX] [Scorpion]
{ 2:451/19 / 500:152/1 / k...@softhome.net }

AI>> All.
IM> My opinion is this. We should leave 128k at 7FFD as standard. Perhaps

this is perhaps for compatibility with already written software

IM> And the rest of the memory
IM> should be addressed through an independent parallel working port. That is,
IM> A completely new port, but initially intended only for
IM> switching memory banks. This will be more convenient for the programmer. No need

It’s more convenient, I’m still a little confused about masks.

IM> future, if there is more than 4Mb, reserve another port and
IM> thereby getting a memory limit of 1Gb.

well, this is already a little perverted

IM> P.S. This is exactly the path chosen in Sprinter. It has 256k in Scorpio,
IM> and then all the memory is addressed by additional ports, and in such a way
IM> that you can get any jar regardless of the state of 7FFD.

I did a special spec, it had port #7ffb and four slots for Sims per megabyte
it still works :-) costs 2 Sims.

C Best regards, Artem August 20, 1999

Until when???? 8-[ ] Throw some more soap at me, otherwise I didn’t see it.

WBR, Sergey! [ZX]
mailto: dr.g...@usa.net
http://www.ascendancy.homepad.com

RM> It won’t work anyway. Again, there will be a craftsman who will do everything in his own
RM> way, gather a crowd of associates (to whom he sold all this together), and

he will write software for his “handicraft”?

RM> there will be a lot of you. So there is no fundamental difference in how to address
RM> - using bits 6,7 or not.

this is more convenient. IMHO, there have been no other similar solutions yet.

RM> The solution itself, IMHO, is not bad. And compatibility with 512 to #7FFD
RM> will remain - where will it go? For the program, it doesn’t matter what mega
RM> banks are connected, it is important that they are _different_ pages.

there will be no compatibility. Or you will need to put a toggle switch on D5 #7FFD. i.e.
manually allow/prohibit paging of mega jars.

is also a way out. only in your case there is a minus - a completely new port.
compatibility with software developed for 512K/1M old ports is reduced
to nothing. although if you work in parallel with old ports...
and the above method is good - because you don't have to do anything new, the same ports remain that were (whoever had them). you'll just have to re-solder a couple of wires.

One day, Friday August 20, 1999 11:41, Viktor Kuzmin wrote to Artur Ishmurzin:

AI>> PS: I would like to hear what dear All thinks about this.
VK> So let it be the other way around - #7ffd low-order bits of the address, #dffd (or
VK> something else) - the most significant bits of the address.

something is not entirely clear... that is, 512K/1M via #7FFD, and the remaining address
lines will be placed somewhere else. s?

19 Aug 1999 you wrote here:

RM> The solution itself, IMHO, is not bad. And compatibility with 512 to #7FFD will remain -
RM> where will it go? For the program, it doesn’t matter which megabanks are connected,
RM> it is important that they are _different_ pages.

So, for the program it doesn’t matter, but for the user - no. What if he has a ramdisk there, or
some other useful information? Your program will simply ruin it all.

All the best.
Sincerely, Roman.

On the day Artur Ishmurzin wrote to Ivan Mak:

AI> is also a way out. only in your case there is a minus - a completely new
AI> port. compatibility with software developed for 512K/1M old
AI> ports is reduced to nothing. although if you work in parallel with old
AI> ports...
AI> and the good thing about the above described method is that you don’t have to do anything new
AI>, the same ports remain that were (whoever had them).
AI> you will only have to re-solder a couple of wires.
Well, everything is clear here. Two ports, 7FFD and 1FFD, with 6 and 7 bits for additional addressing, resulting in up to 2Mb expansion. You will only have to tinker with the page maps when addressing.

AI> the sprinter could afford it - because... This is a new computer with new
AI> capabilities. and what's going on here? Will there be a regular spec with the new port? anyway
AI> it will be modified to its normal form. an example is the same scorpion.
I somehow modified the 256th computer so that it had 4 windows of 256
pages each. That was in Peters-256, so I installed only 2
chips for this. And I threw out one extra one. For control I used the same port
7FFD/1FFD, but set bits 4 and 5 to decrypt the projection window, and bit 3 to
select the type of recording to the window. If 1, then the value of only 3 is recordedport bit
7FFD and 1 port bit 1FFD
In general, the system turned out to be compatible with Scorpio and at the same time 256
pages could be addressed in each processor window.
P.S. And those same 2 microcircuits are 1533IR26. This is a dual-port high-speed
4x4 bit RAM.

RM>> will remain - where will it go? For the program, it doesn’t matter what
RM>> mega banks are connected, it is important that they are _different_ pages.

AI> there will be no compatibility. or you will need to put a
AI> toggle switch on D5 #7FFD. those. manually allow/disable leafing of mega jars.

Some of us are slow.
output %00010000 and
%11010000

You will get different pages. Programs running 512 will see them that way. Because they don't
need to touch D5. And your add. they don’t touch the port.
So where will it (compatibility) be lost?

Sincerely,
Renat

RM> Well, for the program it’s all the same, but for the user it’s not. What if he has
RM> a ramdisk there, or some other useful information? Your program will simply ruin it
RM> everything.

Everything has pros and cons. Let's reason dialectically :)
Or do you think it’s better without compatibility?

Sincerely,
Renat

AI> will have to, the same ports remain that were (whoever had them).
AI> you'll just have to re-solder a couple of wires.

...I don't understand, please explain: are you thinking about the future or do you just want to add it to a specific memory board?
If for the future, then think in such a way that it would be convenient for the programmer.
And in your computer - well, hang it on any free ones, then you'll add it. :)

For technical reasons, I could not participate in the discussion of this issue...

I see that many simply did not like my idea.

I’ll say right away that I do not expect this solution to be recognized as a standard.
I just needed a convenient way to access 4 MB of RAM.
I personally have already assembled this circuit, all that remains is to get SIMM 4M.
(now I have SIMM 1M)
Of course, this method is most convenient for PROFI owners,
but that’s who I am.

The advantage of this solution from the author’s point of view:
- use of existing ports (for PROFI)
- access to RAM through two calls to ports
- absolute glitch-free operation. - considering that all new SOFT for the 48K mode
is no longer written, and the old (for 48K) port #7FFD is not used.
- the presence of only three shift commands in the memory driver

Disadvantages:
- refusal of a single-port memory access system
(need to use a driver)
- refusal of PENTAGON's port 512 KB
(#7FFD 4M is available ONLY when D5=1 !!! which means, from the program point of view,
in 48K mode!)
- the need to organize a #DFFD port (does not apply to PROFI owners)

Why didn’t I make a #AFFD port?
I would have to install duplicate triggers (registers) to separate
memory control bits and computer operating mode control bits,
and also assemble quitea sophisticated decryption scheme.

Please direct all questions to me.

Sincerely, Sergey Karachentsev.

One day, Monday August 23, 1999 18:22, Roman Milukov wrote to Artur
Ishmurzin:

RM> ...I don’t understand something, please explain: are you thinking about the future or
RM> do you just want to add more memory to a specific memory board? For the future,
RM> then think in such a way that it is convenient for the programmer. And in your computer - well,
RM> hang it on any free ones, then you will outweigh it. :)

in this case we were talking about the current state of affairs on this issue, about how
it would be more convenient to do it now. if we think about the future, then, IMHO, we need a new
port, which, as suggested by IM, will only deal with switching 128
cans.

19 Aug 1999 you wrote here:

AI>> latch bit D5 - enable/disable flipping through 4M memory.

DD> The idea is reasonable, but currently useless - there is simply no one to lock the memory
DD>. And it’s too late for him with D5 - he was recruited long ago for the page bit
DD>.

No, sometimes you need to lock memory above 128K. If you have a ramdisk there. Or some kind of residents. But this must be done with bit 2 #EFF7.

DD> A wonderful solution. Considering that it has already been proposed many times by different
DD> people at different times, with slight variations. The essence is simple - to collect in a heap
DD> all
DD> page bits of all ports (#1ffd, #7ffd, #dffd, what else is there? ATM?),

Turbo2+, Sprinter... %)

DD> it turns out
DD> addressing seems to be all 16 MB of memory or even more.

Yeah. It will be very annoying to use it later.
Why create a huge problem for yourself in the future?!
And only for the sake of momentary ease of connection and temporarily necessary (is it so
really necessary?) compatibility. :-/

By the way, how is your “Factory...”, is it brewing a new Melon? Or will the current C2H5OH
continuously recycle? ;)

RM>> perspective, then think in a way that is convenient for the programmer. And in
RM>> your computer - well, hang it on any free ones, then you will outweigh it.
RM>> :)

AI> in this case we were talking about the current state of affairs on this issue,
AI> about how it is more convenient to do it now. if we think about the future, then,
AI> IMHO, we need a new port, which, as suggested by IM, will
AI> only switch 128 cans.

Someone didn’t understand something :) The sprinter has ports (for each quarter
its own). Pages of 16k are switched through these ports, not banks of 128.
This is faster in terms of the driver, although not significant...

Sincerely,
Renat

DD> different people at different times, with slight variations. The essence is simple -
DD> collect all the page bits of all ports into a heap (#1ffd, #7ffd, #dffd, what
DD> is there else? ATM?), it turns out that addressing seems to be all 16 MB of memory or
DD> even more.

and how to scroll through it? through a "million" ports? I imagine that in order to gain access
to, for example, page 749, you will need to turn to all these
ports one by one, plus #7FFD a couple of times :). what nonsense...

AI>> however, there is one significant drawback - you will have
AI>> to abandon #7FFD at 512K/1M.
DD> What the hell? Who will have to? Him?!
DD> Tell me, when we climb into #7ffd (without touching #dffd), do our banks
DD> switch? Yes.
^^^^
no, if you are talking about ordinary programs, i.e. those that exist.

DD> Do you come across the same ones? No. So much for 512K/1M. And it doesn’t matter that for
DD> someone these pages will be physically located one after another, and for someone
DD> someone (who has 4MB) will jump through four, the essence of RAM from
DD> does not change - there is memory, and there is access to it; if you want -
DD> full, if you want - truncated, but there is.

see the explanation a little earlier... (scroll back messages)

RM> Some of us are slowing down.
RM> output %00010000 and
RM> %11010000

it was written about D5! only when there is permission to leaf through mega
cans, then and only (!) then they are leafed.

RM> You will get different pages. Programs running 512 will see them that way. Because they have no
RM> need to touch D5. And your add. they don’t touch the port.
RM> So where will it (compatibility) be lost?

Did you mean compatibility with previously written software? but when accessing #7FFD, it does not set its fifth bit. so there will be no
compatibility (unless this toggle switch is connected to the computer)

RM>> hang on any free ones, then you will re-hang them. :)

AI> if we think about the future, then, IMHO, we need a new
AI> port, which, as IM suggested, will only deal with switching
AI> 128 cans.

Yeah. We already have 16K banks, let’s now make 128K banks as well. :-/
To make the addressing more sophisticated?

SK> I just needed a convenient way to access 4 MB of RAM.
...
SK> Why didn’t I make a #AFFD port?
SK> I would have to install duplicate flip-flops (registers) to separate
SK> memory control bits and computer operating mode control bits,
SK> and also put together a rather sophisticated decryption circuit.

Why couldn’t it be simpler: leave 1M SIMM as is and attach another
SIMM 4M to #AFFD?

RM>> no need to touch D5. And your add. They don't touch the port. So where
RM>> will it (compatibility) be lost?

AI> did you mean compatibility with previously written software? but he
AI> when accessing #7FFD does not set its fifth bit. so there will be
AI> no compatibility (unless this toggle switch is connected to the computer)

No, it’s better to have a latch port. Then everything will be managed via three ports.
Or four... Why is this necessary? G)

Sincerely,
Renat

RM>>> it will all crash.
RM>> There are pros and cons to everything. Let's reason dialectically :)
RM>> Or do you think it’s better without compatibility?
RM> In my opinion, compatibility is needed, of course. But how the programmer
RM> uses it is another question. All sorts of auto settings are good only in toys.

Look back at the software that has already been made... Why create problems in
the future?

Sincerely,
Renat

29 Aug 1999 you wrote here:

RM> Two ports and idiotic memory management on them :)
RM> But a huge plus is that the machine works with a hardware ramdisk, and even 256k
RM> of memory is not killed by this very ramdisk.

In KAI, it seems, some special commands are used for the ramdisk. It cannot be accessed like a
regular floppy disk.

AI>> did you mean compatibility with previously written software? but he
AI>> when accessing #7FFD does not set its fifth bit. so there will be
AI>> no compatibility (unless this toggle switch is connected to the computer)

:) wasn’t it you who, a month earlier, suggested putting some kind of fiddle somewhere
for more complete incompatibility with the HD scheme? As for D5, you can use the same toggle switch, or not switch it at all. the lack of D5 is not fatal here. it
was introduced only to prevent fatal work with the memory of some 512
programs, fatal for the ram disk, which will (most likely) be located in
pages of additional extended memory (bent, eh! :)

AI>> question about how it’s more convenient to do it now. if we think about the future
AI>>, then, IMHO, we need a new port, which, as suggested by IM,
AI>> will only deal with switching 128 cans.
RM> Someone didn’t understand something :) The sprinter has ports (for each
RM> quarter there is one). Through these ports, pages of 16k are switched, and not
RM> banks of 128. This is faster in terms of the driver, although not significant...

that's it. there are two possibilities:

1. the port is responsible for switching 128-bit banks.
pros: compatibility with tons of 128-bit software.
cons: two-port memory management (which, in principle, is not very important)
2. the port is responsible for switching 16K pages.
pros: software memory management is simplified to the limit, easy
to further increase the memory (number of pages)
cons: lack of compatibility with old software.

One day, Friday August 27, 1999 06:23, Roman Milukov wrote to Artur Ishmurzin:

AI>> if we think about the future, then, IMHO, we need a new port, which,
AI>>, as suggested by IM, will only deal with switching 128
AI>> cans.
RM> Yep. We already have 16K banks, let’s now make 128K banks as well. :-/
RM> To make the addressing more sophisticated?

I don’t understand, what are you talking about? I meant standard 128K cans from standard
Spectrum 128,+,+2, etc., i.e. pages 0-7 (0 bank), 8-15 (1 bank), etc.
I’ll explain it differently. 128K is addressed in the old way - via #7FFD. But addressing
additional memory is carried out through another port, which flips through
these same 128K banks, i.e. :

256 (8-bit addressing of the new port, or the number of 128 jars) x 8 (number of
pages in a standard 128 jar) = 2048 pages of 16K or 32 MB.

hatya, IMHO, 32 meters is probably enough for me :)

SK>> separating memory control bits and mode control bits
SK>> computer operation, and also putting together a rather sophisticated decryption circuit
SK>>.

RM> Why couldn’t it have been simpler: leave 1M SIMM as is and screw
RM> another 4M SIMM on #AFFD?

why are you all crazy, obsessed with #..FD? Why did they please you so much?
It’s like you’ve already gotten used to the existing mess, but you’re new...

All the best.
Dmitry.

... LD..X-TRADE... [ZX]

RM>> three ports. Or four... Why is this necessary? F)
SK> But this is completely useless!

I’m exaggerating. You are reinventing the wheel here, and the potatoes are rotting in the fields! :)
A bug-free option won't work anyway. And the invention of a new
standard (with new glitches) will only do harm, IMHO...
Everything has been done for a long time and is working...

Sincerely,
Renat

RM>> and not banks of 128. This is faster in terms of the driver, although
RM>> is insignificant...
AI> that's it. there are two possibilities:

AI> 1. the port is responsible for switching 128 cans.
AI> pros: compatibility with tons of 128 software.
AI> cons: dual-port memory management (which, in principle, is not very good

This has been done a long time ago. Pros, Scorpio, ATM and so on...

AI> important) 2. the port switches pages 16K.
AI> pros: software memory management is simplified to the limit,
AI> ease of further increase in memory (number of pages)
AI> cons: lack of compatibility with old software.

Thoughts are bigger :) If there is port #7ffd, which addresses 128 (or 512)
k. No questions. And there is another port that will allow you to connect
any page. They both exist... Moreover, if you make it so that the state of
#7ffd does not change when the second port changes, then the second port will be responsible
for which page from 4M is the first for #7ffd, which is the second, and so on
on...
But you don’t have to do this... But two ports are not bad. Because compatibility
will remain, and all memory will be accessible through one port.

Sincerely,
Renat

AI> :) wasn’t it you, a month earlier, who suggested some kind of trick somewhere
AI> to be shoveled for more complete incompatibility with the HD scheme? and about

I shouldn’t be taken seriously in this echo at all. :) In fairness
I’ll note that I’m not the only one here :)

AI> D5, then you can put the same toggle switch, or not turn it on at all.
AI> the absence of D5 is not fatal here. it was introduced only to
AI> prevent fatal work with the memory of some 512 programs,
AI> fatal for the ram disk, which will (most likely) be located
AI> in the pages of additional extended memory (bent, eh! :)

If all your megabytes are needed only by the ram disk, you can make a separate port...
But to be able to use 512 (even with killing ramdisk) also
not bad...

AI>>> dog to the computer)

31 Aug 1999 you wrote here:

AI> I’ll explain it differently. 128K is addressed in the old way - via #7FFD. but
AI> addressing
AI> additional memory is carried out through another port, which
AI> flips through
AI> these same 128K banks, i.e. :

I understood you perfectly. I just don’t understand why complicate your life?

...
AI> although, IMHO, 32 meters was probably enough for me :)

That’s for sure. :)
Otherwise you could do 1M using #7FFD, and then switch meter banks!
1M * 256 = 256M!!! ;)))

SK>> working with
SK>> upper memory.

RM> Let's move to another plane: what do you understand as
RM> glitches?
RM> (specifically when working with upper memory).

Any incorrect use (from the point of view of my modification) of the high bits of
port #7FFD is a GLITCH. In this case, the concept of GLITCH also includes
port activation via PENTAGON's port. It was correctly noted that damage to the ramdisk is possible. For me, the safety of the ramdisk is much more important than the ability to use programs written by PENTAGON'ONLY. If among such
programs there are valuable ones, then it is better to write a driver for it for the computer you
use. And in general, every self-respecting programmer should consider
the possibility of running his product on any machine (at least from the point of view of
capturing the software market).

SK> Any incorrect use (from the point of view of my
SK> modification) of the high bits of port #7FFD is a GLITCH. Under the concept
Exactly - yours. And the purpose of the most significant bits of the 7FFD port has long been determined.
SK> The GLUCH in this case also includes the triggering of the port on the
SK> PENTAGON port. It was correctly noted that
Plz, decipher, for a stupid user, what does this sentence mean???:)

SK> the ramdisk may be damaged. For me, the safety of the
SK> ramdisk is much more important than the ability to use the
SK> programs written by PENTAGON'ONLY. If among such programs there are
SK> valuable ones, then it is better to write a driver for it for the computer
SK> that you use. And in general, every self-respecting
SK> programmer should provide for the possibility of running his
SK> product on any machine (at least from the point of view of capturing the
SK> software market).
What kind of market are we talking about, huh? The market has been gone for a long time:-<.

.....

SK>> concept
ND> Exactly - yours. And the purpose of the most significant bits of port 7FFD
ND> has long been determined.

Yes, it is determined! ...only unsuccessful. Port #7FFD PENTAGON
has the only advantage - there is no need to install
an additional port and only within 512 KB.
The bits of this port are not in the right places (conversion is required). As a result, the apparent simplicity of this port turns into the need to perform a number of
machine operations, the total execution time of which is no less than
working with two PROFI, ATM, TURBO 2+ ports ...
In my scheme, the high-order bits go exactly where they should go (more than
half of the operations are associated with servicing the PROFI #DFFD port).

SK> Yes it is defined! ...only unsuccessful. Port #7FFD PENTAGON
SUCCESS??? Ha! It was adopted as one of the first extensions, however! And, IMHO, it’s not in vain...

SK> has the only advantage - this is the absence
SK> of the need to install an additional port and only within the
SK> limits of 512 KB.
By no means, comrade, you can install it on it.

SK> The bits of this port are not in the right places (
SK> conversion is required). As a result, the apparent simplicity of this port
SK> turns into the need to perform a number of machine operations,
SK> the total execution time of which is no less than
SK> working with two ports PROFI, ATM, TURBO 2+ ...
Three Ha-Ha ;). I wouldn’t even talk about TURBO 2+ ports. Did you have it? No. But I
had it, and I know better how long it takes to scroll through this port... And
what does speed have to do with it?

SK> In my scheme, the high-order bits go exactly where they
SK> should go (more than half of the operations are related to
SK> servicing the PROFI #DFFD port).
Why did he give up the PROFI port? All the necessary software supports 7FFD.

ND> UNSUCCESSFUL??? Ha! It was adopted as one of the first expansions,
ND> however! And, IMHO, not in vain...

The fact that it was adopted first does not give it any advantages!
It was invented, so to speak, by pioneer superspectrumists. Back then no one could know what would come of it. Now everyone can see what it
resulted into.

...

One day, Wednesday September 01, 1999 17:00, Renat Mamedov wrote to Artur Ishmurzin:

AI>> 1. the port gets stuck by switching 128 cans. pros: compatibility with
AI>> tons of 128th software. cons: dual-port memory management (which in
RM> This has been done a long time ago. Pros, Scorpio, ATM and so on...

so the problem is that in these models the devil
knows what else is hung on the ports, not only memory. And further memory expansion on their ports is
impossible.

AI>> 2. the port is involved in switching 16K pages. pros: software
AI>> control memory simplified to the limit, ease of further
RM> Thoughts are larger :) If there is port #7ffd, which addresses 128 (or
RM> 512) kilo. No questions. And there is another port that will allow
RM> to connect any page. They both exist... Moreover, if you make it so
RM> that the state of #7ffd does not change when the second port changes, then the second
RM> port will be responsible for which page from 4M is the first for
RM> #7ffd, which is the second and so on... But you don’t have to do this... But two

is too tricky..

RM> I shouldn’t be taken seriously at all in this echo. :)
RM> In fairness, I note that I’m not the only one here :)

people who like to criticize? no matter what and how...

RM> If all your megabytes are needed only by the ramdisk, you can make a separate
RM> port... But being able to use 512 (even if it kills the
RM> ramdisk) is also not bad...

if you haven’t noticed yet, on the Spectrum >128K memory is used mainly
as a ramdisk. in particular, against such use of memory there was a big war here in the recent
past under the subject "New text editor for spektrumists"

AI>> here the additional memory is addressed through
AI>> another port that flips through these same 128K banks, i.e. :
RM> I understand you perfectly. I just don’t understand why complicate your life?

not to complicate it, but to make it easier. Instead of using two parallel
ports (meter/half-meter/128th #7FFD for compatibility and
some #NewPort to ensure RAM expandability to 4, 8, etc.
meters), you can use these ports symbiotically. Here is the standard for
memory, the volume of which is enough for the spec that will be under the z380. although no,
there is direct addressing of 4GB.

SK> The fact that he was accepted first does not give him any advantages!
Not at all, this is an advantage - to be the first. ;)

SK> It was invented, so to speak, by
SK> pioneer superspectrumists. Back then no one could have known what
:)
SK> would come of it. Now everyone can see what it has become
SK>.
Ja-ja, a real extended memory port, which is most convenient to use.

SK> ...

SK>> Yes, it’s definite! ...only unsuccessful. Port #7FFD PENTAGON
ND> UNSUCCESSFUL??? Ha! It was adopted as one of the first extensions, however! And,
ND> IMHO, not in vain...

The Profi extension standard is also one of the earliest. All Profi models
could have a memory of more than 128k.

Regards, Alex from FFC COMPUTERS.

>E-MAIL: asde...@softhome.net ICQ: #13064553

ND> Ja-ja, a real extended memory port, which is the most convenient
ND> to use.

I have no choice but to list the disadvantages of the #7FFD
PENTAGON port for addressing 512/1024 KB:
- uneven use of bits for memory addressing (high-order bits
are not in their proper places)
- the total amount of addressable memory 1024 KB

ND> ???!!! Does the memory driver for TURBU 2+ take up less space than the mega memory driver for 7FFD? Kuuuull ;-)))))

I checked the TURBO 2+ documentation. The six least significant bits of port
#F7 really make it quite easy to address 1024 KB of RAM,
though in inverse form.

Judging by the letters that came to me since the beginning of the discussion of this topic
the most popular way to expand memory is the #7FFD PENTAGON port,
and its second modification using
the D5 latch bit has already become widespread. There are people who claim that this is the most convenient port and it should be repeated on every computer.
In fact, this is not so!
Firstly, this port is not yet an expansion standard.
Secondly, there are a lot of other SPECTRUM models where access to RAM is
implemented differently.
Thirdly, this port is not convenient for programming

Almost all memory management methods now allow you to address up to 1024
KB. But things do not stand still. Now a massive assault on the megabyte frontier is about to begin and then, alas, we will have to come up with another port. And then working with memory will become even
more confusing.
I think it’s time to think now: how should memory management be done in
SPECTRUM of the future?

No. I am not going to propose my scheme as a standard, although it
allows you to address 4096 KB of RAM.

In my opinion, the new port should satisfy the requirements:
- ease of programming
- ease of implementation
In accordance with the first requirement, the RAM port should be made 8-bit,
both in terms of addressing and in numberused (for memory addressing)
bits. Moreover, inversion is not allowed.
As for the implementation, I propose the following scheme:

C_7FFD ────╦────────────── 1) trigger TM2
│ ┌────┬
└────┤ & ├──── 2) register TM9 (TM8)
┌────┤ │
│ └────┘
C_XX ────╩────────────── 3) register TM9

1) Required for duplicating bits D3 and D4 of port #7FFD-128 K
2) Register for controlling lines S0-S2 of RAM control. It is implemented on an existing
register TM9, or TM8.
3) Line control register S3-S7.

All that remains is to select the port number #XX.

What should we do for those who have already expanded their computer?
I think if the amount of serviced memory is satisfactory, then nothing should be done at all
.
You should also not make several ports for the sake of compatibility.
This nothing. Compatibility is best achieved through the widespread use of replaceable
memory drivers. Only in this way will it be possible to save numerous
users from unnecessary headaches regarding RAM.

I can recommend my scheme to PROFI owners, since it requires minimal
changes on the board and remains compatible with old software for PROFI.

Please give reasons for your thoughts and ideas.

Sincerely, SergeyKarachentsev.

4 Sep 1999 you wrote here:

SK> In my scheme, the most significant bits go exactly where they should go

Cool.
What, in other schemes they don’t?

SK> This means that installing the PENTAGON #7FFD port on my computer makes no
any
SK> sense !

Your computer - you know better. ;)

An excerpt from the Rules for you personally:

[...]
3. Excessive quoting is punished (more than 70%) [*],
try to leave those phrases to which, in your opinion, you
are giving an answer or comment.
[...]

All the best.
Sincerely Roman Milukov.

3 Sep 1999 you wrote here:

SK> Any incorrect use (from the point of view of my modification) of higher
bits

And from the point of view of my modification... And from the point of view of Vasya's modification...

SK> port #7FFD is a GLITCH. In this case, the concept of GLITCH also includes
SK> port triggering on PENTAGON's port. It was correctly noted that
SK> damage to the ramdisk is possible. For me, the safety of the ramdisk is much more important
SK> than the ability to use programs written by PENTAGON'ONLY. If among

If the safety of the ramdisk is so important to you, then you just need to make a
_special_ lock for it, and not pervert the addressing. Why D5 #7FFD was used in this
quality is not clear.

AI> what do you think is useful? According to my observations, there has not yet been
AI> not a single
AI> idea that you haven’t criticized to smithereens.

The whole problem is that I’ve been reading this echo for a year and a half and nothing worthwhile has come out of the
developed projects. The same editor under 512... I'm trying
to bring you back to earth. There is still a lot of interesting things here :)

Sincerely,
Renat

6 Sep 1999 you wrote here:
...
SK> the most popular way to expand memory is the #7FFD
SK> port of PENTAGON,
SK> and its second modification using
SK> the D5 latch bit has already become widespread. There are people who claim that this is the most convenient port and
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
SK> it should be repeated on every computer.
SK> Actually this is not so!
SK> Firstly, this port is not yet an extension standard.

Again... Who said that it is not yet?!! Are there GOST standards or something
similar? (and he himself asked for arguments)
And only the owners of Pentagons and
other 128K machines freely choose which port to make. It is precisely these “people” who “claim”. But you didn’t have to choose, you already had it installed.

Note that not a single office made a separate port for RAM, they shoved it where
bits were free. And no matter how you distort it, it will still not be convenient.
Therefore, it will be easier to make the New Spectrum compatible with existing software only
at the 48K level. Only in this case can it be made more effective, and not get confused in the rudiments of “standards”. :(

SK> Secondly, there are a lot of other SPECTRUM models where access to RAM
SK> is implemented differently.
SK>Thirdly, this port is not convenient for programming

This statement seems strange to me...

SK> Kb. But things do not stand still. Now a massive assault
SK> on the megabyte milestone is about to begin, and then

...and then _soon_ a massive assault on the 4 megabyte milestone will begin
and then... ;)

SK> In my opinion, the new port should meet the requirements:
SK> - ease of programming
SK> - ease of implementation
...
SK> As for the implementation, I propose the following scheme:
...

Your scheme is not much different from 1M according to #7FFD. The only difference is its
complexity, and only for the sake of expansion to 4M. This is the ceiling. And then?

ND>> I know better about flipping through this port... And anyway, what does
ND>> have to do with speed?

SK> It’s not only about speed, but also about the number of commands in the memory driver.

I don’t understand something. How does this “what does speed have to do with it”? Is it really nice when the computer
slows down?

Look at this is-dosnogo blocker for a meter-long #7FFD ramdisk, only
225 bytes, (author - Valery Kozhevnikov aka Jason). Compare his speed with yours. Feel the difference.

The layout of the pages coincides with the TR-DOS 5.13Fm-ramdisk (you can expand
trd-shniki and then use them from TR-DOS).

address 50000.

section 1 of 1 of file zx1024jr.C < Lara Croft 4.40 UUE >

sum -r/size 11222/337 section
sum -r/size 239/225 entire input file

[Monday 6 September 1999] at [07:42:04] Roman Milukov wrote a letter to
Sergey Karachentsev.
They discussed the topic “no, just listen...”. Let's continue what we started...

[skip]

RM> If the safety of the ramdisk is so important to you, then you just need
RM> to make a _special_ lock for it
RM>, and not pervert the addressing. Why
RM> it was not clear to use D5 #7FFD in this
RM> capacity.

I agree 100%. It’s *convenient* to do on D5, but *not logical*.
+Attempt on the Holy - this bit in the *proprietary* Speck is used for completely
*different* purposes!

Sincerely, Felix.

[I ZX]

AI>> there’s not a single idea that you haven’t criticized to smithereens.
RM> The whole problem is that I’ve been reading this echo for a year and a half and nothing worthwhile has come out of
RM> the deployed projects. Same editor under 512... I'm trying
RM> to bring you back down to earth. There is still a lot of interesting things here :)

understand, a person (let's take a normal, sober-minded Sinclairist) is ready
to direct his energy for the benefit of the Spectrum, he has new ideas, and not some nonsense like “let's put a Pentium instead of the z80”. He is in a hurry to share his
ideas with, as he thinks, like-minded people. and what? - befalls him a hail of
critical remarks, among which the most important place is occupied by the following: "...nobody needs this and no one will ever do it." Spectrum on the z380. You need to support such aspirations, and not bury them prematurely.
for example, you become a representative of his survey in 5026, collect responses to the questionnaire from as many Sinclairists as possible. I understand that you don’t care, but not really yet.you still come here.

9 Sep 1999 you wrote here:

FK> +Attempt on the Holy - this bit in the *proprietary* Speck is used for completely
FK> *different* purposes!

No, this is not an argument.
Many things in the world were first used for other purposes, but then they found
better uses.

RM>> nothing good came of the deployed projects. Same editor under
RM>> 512... I'm trying to bring you back down to earth. There is still a lot of interesting things here
RM>> :)
AI> understand, a person (let’s take a normal, sober
AI> sinclairist) is ready to direct his energy for the benefit of the Spectrum, he
AI> has new ideas, and not some nonsense like “let’s put it in place of z80

I think in most cases complete nonsense is proposed by people
holding a soldering iron in their hands and wanting apply it immediately.

I can give DMA Sound as a positive example. The author consistently and
despite external disturbances promotes his development.

AI Pentium) he is in a hurry to share his ideas with, as he thinks,
AI> like-minded people, and what? - a hail of critical
AI> remarks fall upon him, among which the most important one is the following
AI> “... no one needs this and no one will ever do it.” Of course,
AI> after this, the likelihood of the author achieving a successful end is very
AI> is very small.

If a person has sufficient strength to push his development, then he
will push it.and not bury

Such aspirations should neither be buried nor supported. Due to their uselessness
(such as carrying sand across the desert), they themselves will die out.

AI> them prematurely. for example, you become a representative of his survey in 5026
AI>, collect answers to the questionnaire from as many
AI> Sinclairists as possible. I understand that you don’t give a damn, but you don’t really
AI> yet, since you still come here.

:)))) In region 5026, I am the last, and even Vlad, we are interested in Spectrum.
It seems that you there have the wrong opinion about the situation with the platform :)

The questionnaire, in my opinion, was compiled illiterately...

And all your conversations resemble a fight under carpet Meaninglessness.
Irrationality. There must be progress, but people will always stand in the way of this progress. Most of the proposed projects, both for hardware
and software, propose to put pressure on unwanted people.

And if I bother someone, tweet me :)

Sincerely,
Renat

SK> There is nothing left for me to do but list the disadvantages
SK> of the #7FFD PENTAGON port for addressing 512/1024 KB:
SK> - uneven use of bits for addressing memory
SK> (high-order bits are not in the right place)
This does not affect the speed of operation and its size in any way.

SK> - the total amount of addressable memory 1024 KB
Yeah, so what?

SK> I checked the TURBO 2+ documentation. The six least significant bits of the
SK> port
SK> #F7 really make it possible to quite easily address RAM
SK> with a capacity of 1024 KB, albeit in inverse form.
What is this for here?

....

RM> :)))) In region 5026, I am the last, and even Vlad, we are interested in Spectrum.
RM> It looks like you have the wrong opinion there about the situation with the platform
RM> :)
RM> The questionnaire, in my opinion, was compiled illiterately...

Why didn’t you write it better? The questionnaire was compiled for a specific purpose.
Even if you see in it only what lies on the surface, it means it
was a success :).

RM> And all your conversations resemble a fight under the carpet. Senselessness.
RM> Irrationality. There must be progress, but people will always
RM> stand in the way of this progress. Most of the proposed projects, both for hardware
RM> and software, propose to put pressure on unwanted people.

Maybe you can offer your own development option? :). It's just that you belong to the pessimists - for them even white is black :). The problem with Spectrum as a
platform is that it has practically dropped out of the computer world. Spectrum is a car for people who do not succumb to general trends and do not follow the herd. Now he is practically dying. And in principle, there would be nothing terrible about this (you never know the platforms died), but it was the most popular computer in the country and people who used to do something on Speck are now just hanging around idle. They didn't buy themselves a more powerful computer (no money), but were
seduced :) by the "charms" of morepowerful computers cannot realize their
plans on the Spectrum. This does not mean that they are bad coders/artists, etc.
It’s just that not everyone is able to think in terms of “two colors in a familiar place.”
To each his own. But if these people want to stay on the Spectrum and create something new for everyone, why not help them?
And then, what do undesirable people mean :( ? I personally am not going to push anyone. On the contrary, I conducted a survey of people, trying to find out the requirements for a new computer. Of course, you can’t please everyone. But it’s quite possible for the majority.

RM> And if I’m bothering someone, put tweet at me :)

Well, why not? I need to take it out on someone :-P.

RM> * Origin: do you respect me? (2:5026/5.46)

There is such a joke:

Two drunks are crawling along the road. The first one asks the second:

1: Do you, ...hic..., respect me?

2: Yeah... . And you me?

1: And I, ...hic.., respect you.

2: Well, that means we are respected people.

Sincerely, Dmitry :).

AI> on z380. We need to support such aspirations, and not bury them
AI> prematurely.

Thank you, Arthur. It made me tear up ;). In general, the answers in the questionnaires of Spectrumists (and non-Spectrumists too) quite comfort me. And I basically
decided on the direction of work. Although, of course, people like RM bring
confusion into my soul and spoil my mood :(.

AI> for example, you become a representative of his survey in 5026, collect
AI> answers
AI> to the questionnaire from as many Sinclairists as possible. I understand that you
AI> don’t care
AI>, but not really yet, since you still come here.

Maybe a person just has a calling - to criticize? In this world, to each his own.

Sincerely, Dmitry.

[skip]

FK>> +Attempt on the Holy - this bit in the *proprietary* Speck
FK>> is used for completely
FK>> *other* purposes!

RM> No, this is not an argument.
RM> Many things in the world were initially used for other purposes,
RM> but then they found
RM> a better use.

Cool! And this is what the REAL guy says?! Hmmm, healthy conservatism
is no longer in fashion?...

RM>> Pointlessness. Irrationality. There must be progress, but
RM>> people will always stand in the way of this progress. Most
RM>> of the proposed projects, both for hardware and software, offer to put pressure on unwanted
RM>> people.
DP> Maybe you can offer your version of development? :). It's just you

As I already said, Spectrum is a balanced system. Improving its
parameters in one place will create problems in another. A rocket engine is of no use on a motorcycle. And changing everything is no longer a Spectrum. To move forward
we need software. Move the hardware too, but cover the rear with software. :)

DP> you belong to the pessimists - for them even white is black :).

Sometimes you need to look at your garden through the eyes of your neighbor (c).

DP> The problem with Spectrum as a platform is that it has practically fallen out of
DP> the computer world. The Spectrum is a car for people who do not succumb to general trends and do not follow the herd. Now he is practically

A herd of people who do not walk in a herd. absurd :) People are all different on the platform.

DP> is dying. And in principle, there would be nothing terrible in this (you never know
DP> platforms died), but it was the most popular computer in the country and people
DP> who used to do something on Speck are now just hanging around
DP> doing nothing. They didn't buy themselves a more powerful computer (nomoney),
DP> but seduced :) by the “charms” of more powerful computers cannot
DP> realize their plans on the Spectrum. This does not mean that they are bad
DP > coders/artists, etc. It’s just that not everyone is given the ability to think in categories
DP> “two colors in a familiar place.” To each his own. But if these people want
DP> to stay on the Spectrum and create something new for everyone, why not
DP> help them?

These people themselves don’t know what they want. The one who knows what he wants will achieve it.
It’s just that the general tendency is this - general laziness, everyone makes an excuse
by the weakness of technology. Nonsense. The machine is quite strong and at the same time uncomplicated.

DP> And then, what does undesirable people mean :( ? I personally am not
DP> going to
DP> to crush anyone. On the contrary, I conducted a survey of people, trying to find out the requirements for
DP> a new computer. Of course, you can’t please everyone. But the majority is completely
DP> possible.

It seems to me that you are adjusting public opinion to your own :)

Here once, on September 13, 1999, Dmitry Pavluhin and Artur Ishmurzin were whispering,
but I still heard everything! They said that

DP> had basically decided on the direction of work. Although, of course, people
DP> like RM bring confusion into my soul and spoil my mood :(.
Empty. :) Try to be more calm about criticism. ;-)
Moreover, as far as I noticed, he does not focus on the slogans
"sax" and "mastday", but brings something quite well-reasoned,
although not too optimistic. :) And you can always benefit from reasoned criticism
... If everyone shouts "Rulez" -
surely nothing good will come of it.
DP> Maybe a person just has a calling - to criticize? In this world
DP> to each his own.
By the way, one cannot help but notice that he not only criticizes other people's _ideas_,
but also _does_ something specific. Its CMOS is the de facto end
forev standard. :) Glitch service is a no less well-known thing.
I wanted to write a toy - I gave away Homer. Frivolous, by the way.
Probably, we could have continued.
And all this without noisy discussions and optimistic “coming soon” :)
I just thought, did, and came out.
In general, you were in a hurry in defining his calling... ;)

How I stood up! :))))

DP> Sincerely, Dmitry.

Good luck!
Vitalic.

... *That's it!* Inscription on the cemetery.

Hi, Dmitry!
once 13-09-99 at approximately 21:23:34
Dmitry Pavlukhin wrote to Renat Mamedov about something that needs to be listened to...

DP> And then, what does unwanted people mean :( ? I personally am not going to put pressure on anyone -
DP> On the contrary, I conducted a survey of people, trying to find out the requirements for the new
DP> com-
DP> pu. Of course, you can’t please everyone. But it’s quite possible.
What kind of survey did it somehow pass me by...

DP> There is such an anecdote:
Anecdotes are always good.

See you again, Dmitry.

RM> consistently and despite external disturbances promotes its
RM> development.

this is a plus for him..

AI>> “...no one needs this and no one will ever do it.” of course,
AI>> after this, the probability of the author achieving a successful end
AI>> is very small.
RM> If a person has sufficient strength to push his development -
RM> then he will push it. If there is even the slightest doubt about its usefulness -

do you think people just come here for advice? precisely to find out how people will react to a new idea, whether it is needed or not. and then they immediately hit them on the head -
"break off, bro, no one cares about your SOMETHING." is it good, is it right?

RM>> will stall.
AI> without support everything will stall by itself. IMHO, there are no people
AI> who don’t give a damn about anything, who will quietly sniffle and work on their
AI> idea. a person needs tender support. Always! you need knowledge that his work

Words are all this. But the facts prove the opposite. Most projects, despite support, die. Often because the authors take on
something global... We need something simpler to begin with...

AI> will not be in vain. but this is already from the field of psychology..

Let's separate work and hobbies. Only the second is on the cake, so often the beloved
Soviet feeling (deep moral satisfaction from the work done) is enough...

RM>> but then they found better uses.

FK> Cool! And this is what the REAL guy says?! Hmmm, healthy conservatism
FK> is no longer in fashion?...

Maybe we should remember that a real Speck should have two separate “fields” of memory?
I’m sure it’s common on your computer. When Leningrads, Skorpas, and others were riveting,
that conservatism was in fashion?
And I, a realist, long ago took out of my computer the “closest to the branded” board
“Kharkov-48”, modified to 128 + AY, bug-free and beautiful. It was very nice to have all sorts of toys and demos on it. I shoved the "glitchy" "Moscow-128" and still
haven't
regretted it.
And the ROM versions?
Everything changes.

RM> Maybe we should remember that a real Spec should have two
RM> separate memory “fields”?

Why exaggerate? I understand perfectly well what we are talking about.

RM> I’m sure it’s common on your computer.

Yes. And /WAIT is, unlike...

RM> When Leningrads were riveted,
RM> Scorpi, and others,
RM> that conservatism was in fashion?

Yes. Zonov used an additional port for his 256 KB, rather than the “latch” from #7ffd. Just don’t talk about conflicts in some software - a passed stage.

Leningrad clones are the closest to the original. Without two fields
memory, of course. At least they have /WAIT, unlike...

RM> And I, a realist, long ago took out from my computer the “closest
RM> board
RM> “Kharkova-48”, modified to 128 + AY, bug-free and
RM> beautiful. Very beautiful
RM> there were all sorts of toys and demos on it. I shoved the "buggy"
RM> "Moscow-128" and still
RM> have never regretted it.

What for?

RM> And the ROM versions?
RM> Everything changes.

??? What does ROM have to do with it?

19 Sep 99 22:37, Felix Knajzev wrote to Roman Milukov:

FK> Leningrad clones are the closest to the original. Without two fields
FK> memory, naturally. At least they have /WAIT, unlike...

Don’t tell me fairy tales here!

Compare your temporary whiteboard with the branded one!!!
Don’t forget about the correspondence between the paper and the border in terms of bars.

Kirill Frolov. [ZX]

DP>> going
DP>> to press. On the contrary, I conducted a survey of people, trying to find out the requirements for
DP>> the new computer. Of course you can't please everyone. But for the majority it is quite possible
DP>>.

RM> It seems to me that you are adjusting public opinion to your own :)

Under no circumstances :[ ]. It’s just that the picture so far is as I said. Apparently, people who have a negative attitude towards such projects simply do not want to speak out :(. But in vain - for the completeness of the picture, a negative opinion is simply necessary. And as for writing it in with pens in the questionnaire - write it in,
you are not the only one writing it in - it will just make the analysis more complicated.

Sincerely, Dmitry.

FK> ??? And what does ROM have to do with it?

Are we still talking about conservatism?
I personally remember the time when they strived for 100% compatibility with proprietary
software. And some programs refused to work on computers with modified ROM. And
modern monsters have a lot of ROM...

DP> Under no circumstances :[ ]. It’s just that so far the picture is as I and
DP> said.
DP> Apparently, people who have a negative attitude towards such projects
DP> simply do not want to speak out :(. But in vain - to complete the picture
DP> a negative opinion is simply necessary. And as for entering by hand
DP> into the questionnaire - write it in, you’re not the only one entering - it will just complicate the analysis.

Yes, I won’t do anything. enter :) I am not a supporter of sandbox games.
And I’m not the only one.

Sincerely,
Renat

DP>> Laziness - that's for sure. But still, the Spectrum lacks something -
DP>> for example, a richer graphic screen, a normal OS - already for
DP>> these two points it is desirable to increase the power of the computer.

RM> It’s not just about “masterpieces”! On the 48th, for example, it’s difficult in FIDO, but
RM> here they’re already chatting about the Internet.
By the way, yesterday I was at our book market (where we have a Spectrum
party). So there was one guy who quite seriously suggested that I make a 48Kb terminal and a tape recorder!!! I trudged quietly and slowly as I imagined what it might look like. :)))

Good luck! Evgeny. (Aka 2:5057/18.73)

■ The night is shorter than the day... The day will kill me... The world of illusions burns down in it. (C) Aria.

RM> it’s difficult, but here they are already chatting about the Internet.

Most of the difficulties are the authors’ conjectures (attempts to explain their own
inaction).

Sincerely,
Renat