cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
113 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Didier Derny
I tried the following thing:

removed -5v
removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
removed 4116
installed sockets
installed 4164

works!!!

just need to restore +9v unregulated  (apparently only used or tape motor)

IEEE-488 still not working  (pia cold, look strange)

everything is reversible... (no definitive modifications)





       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Ethan Dicks
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, didier derny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I tried the following thing:
>
> removed -5v
> removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
> removed 4116
> installed sockets
> installed 4164
>
> works!!!

Superb!

> just need to restore +9v unregulated  (apparently only used or tape motor)

Right (I do happen to use my tape drive - I was reading tapes last night)

> IEEE-488 still not working  (pia cold, look strange)

I have substituted a 6821 for the 6520 PIA and it seems to work fine.
The 6821 is not hard to find (especially at my house since I worked
for a place that had a product that included a 6821 and I got all the
old stock when they closed).

> everything is reversible... (no definitive modifications)

Even better.

Cheers,

-ethan

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Mike Stein
In reply to this post by Didier Derny
What would make something non-reversible?

m

----- Original Message -----
From: "didier derny" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:08 PM
Subject: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164


>I tried the following thing:
>
> removed -5v
> removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
> removed 4116
> installed sockets
> installed 4164
>
> works!!!
>
> just need to restore +9v unregulated  (apparently only used or tape motor)
>
> IEEE-488 still not working  (pia cold, look strange)
>
> everything is reversible... (no definitive modifications)
>
>
>
>
>
>       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Didier Derny
I've seen some boards:

cut

punched

burnt (large tracks)

and even painted!!!



On 07/10/2016 00:39, Mike Stein wrote:

> What would make something non-reversible?
>
> m
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "didier derny" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 4:08 PM
> Subject: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164
>
>
>> I tried the following thing:
>>
>> removed -5v
>> removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
>> removed 4116
>> installed sockets
>> installed 4164
>>
>> works!!!
>>
>> just need to restore +9v unregulated  (apparently only used or tape motor)
>>
>> IEEE-488 still not working  (pia cold, look strange)
>>
>> everything is reversible... (no definitive modifications)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
>         Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

silverdr-2
In reply to this post by Mike Stein

> On 2016-10-07, at 00:39, Mike Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What would make something non-reversible?

MHO of what is reversible and what is non-reversible in this context goes something along the lines of: if you want to install a switch and you have to go even an extra mile to install it in the existing hole/opening that's reversible. If you cut or drill a new hole to install the switch that's non-reversible. Even if we all know that the hole can be plumbed. Similar applies to PCBs. When I design for example my ROM adapters, I make them so that one removes the ROM chips and plugs the adapter into the very same sockets. No trace-cutting, no fly-wires, etc. Changes are reversible [*]. Whenever you want to return to original state, you just pull the adapter out and put the chips back in. Obviously cut traces can be solder-connected back to function but in the context I'd call the modification/damage irreversible - it won't be the same as before when you solder it back together. And I don't even talk about things like drilling/cutting the boards, breaking it into pieces in order to fit into another casings, etc. Those are obviously irreversible in the context, even if one can theoretically try to reassemble things in the original case later on.

--
SD!

* - provided sockets were originally there. If not, installing sockets in a clean way, although "irreversible" in the context is still acceptable ;-)


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Gerrit Heitsch
In reply to this post by Didier Derny
On 10/06/2016 10:08 PM, didier derny wrote:
> I tried the following thing:
>
> removed -5v
> removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
> removed 4116
> installed sockets
> installed 4164
>
> works!!!

Did you make sure to use 4164 that only need a 128 cycle Refresh?

  Gerrit



       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Mike Stein
In reply to this post by silverdr-2
I guess technically 'reversible' means being able to put things back *exactly* the way they were, especially without any soldering, so cutting and restoring traces, adding and removing sockets etc. would not qualify as 'reversible'.

I've often wondered why it's standard practice to install a socket when replacing a single bad chip; presumably the odds of the same chip failing again are slim, and it certainly is a glaring 'modification'.

But in this context it sort of makes sense, since it makes it easier to reverse the mods by putting back the 4116s (if anyone really wanted to).

IMO what really matters is documenting any changes and keeping those docs with the system, especially if they deviate from the official schematic, and especially when they involve changing board voltages and (unnecessarily?) remove functionality such as cassette operation.

m

----- Original Message -----
From: <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164



> On 2016-10-07, at 00:39, Mike Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What would make something non-reversible?

MHO of what is reversible and what is non-reversible in this context goes something along the lines of: if you want to install a switch and you have to go even an extra mile to install it in the existing hole/opening that's reversible. If you cut or drill a new hole to install the switch that's non-reversible. Even if we all know that the hole can be plumbed. Similar applies to PCBs. When I design for example my ROM adapters, I make them so that one removes the ROM chips and plugs the adapter into the very same sockets. No trace-cutting, no fly-wires, etc. Changes are reversible [*]. Whenever you want to return to original state, you just pull the adapter out and put the chips back in. Obviously cut traces can be solder-connected back to function but in the context I'd call the modification/damage irreversible - it won't be the same as before when you solder it back together. And I don't even talk about things like drilling/cutting the boards, breaking it into pieces in order to fit into another casings, etc. Those are obviously irreversible in the context, even if one can theoretically try to reassemble things in the original case later on.

--
SD!

* - provided sockets were originally there. If not, installing sockets in a clean way, although "irreversible" in the context is still acceptable ;-)


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Francesco Messineo
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Mike Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess technically 'reversible' means being able to put things back *exactly* the way they were, especially without any soldering, so cutting and restoring traces, adding and removing sockets etc. would not qualify as 'reversible'.
>
> I've often wondered why it's standard practice to install a socket when replacing a single bad chip; presumably the odds of the same chip failing again are slim, and it certainly is a glaring 'modification'.

as I do quite a few repairs of old gears, I think I can give a number
of reasons why I almost always install a socket:
1) most of the times, the failing chip is not alone, the replacement
can be killed instantly by another fault: random example is a bus
conflict where a failed input or output sinks/source
current against another output, this in many cases makes the
replacement fail soon again.
2) in the troubleshooting process, might often be good to
isolate/replace a signal around a failed chip (because there're other
related faults not yet identified), a socket makes this process
easier.
3) it's cheap enough that even if you are sure there's no reason to
fall in the 1) and 2) cases, you don't just take the chance to be
wrong.

(all IMHO)

Frank

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Didier Derny
In reply to this post by Gerrit Heitsch
I used the 4164 brand already tested in this type of experiment...

apparently the machine is not crashing... so I guess the stack is not
trashed...

as soon as the IEEE-488 is repaired, I'll try some memory test



On 07/10/2016 16:31, Gerrit Heitsch wrote:

> On 10/06/2016 10:08 PM, didier derny wrote:
>> I tried the following thing:
>>
>> removed -5v
>> removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
>> removed 4116
>> installed sockets
>> installed 4164
>>
>> works!!!
>
> Did you make sure to use 4164 that only need a 128 cycle Refresh?
>
>  Gerrit
>
>
>
>       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Didier Derny
In reply to this post by Ethan Dicks
I have the ieee-488 tester from tynemouth software

at power up all led are on  except 'REN'  and 'D3'
replacing the 6520 by a bulgarian 6821 [CM602] has the same effect,
apparently the problem comes from a mc3446

I dont remember the use of the 'REN' line...

btw with a bulagarian 6502  [CM630P] the commodore works ....

then memory seems stable  (not yet fully tested..., I guess I'll have to
wait the mc3446)







On 06/10/2016 23:25, Ethan Dicks wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, didier derny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I tried the following thing:
>>
>> removed -5v
>> removed +12v and send 5v on +12v
>> removed 4116
>> installed sockets
>> installed 4164
>>
>> works!!!
> Superb!
>
>> just need to restore +9v unregulated  (apparently only used or tape motor)
> Right (I do happen to use my tape drive - I was reading tapes last night)
>
>> IEEE-488 still not working  (pia cold, look strange)
> I have substituted a 6821 for the 6520 PIA and it seems to work fine.
> The 6821 is not hard to find (especially at my house since I worked
> for a place that had a product that included a 6821 and I got all the
> old stock when they closed).
>
>> everything is reversible... (no definitive modifications)
> Even better.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -ethan
>
>         Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Mike Stein
In reply to this post by Francesco Messineo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francesco Messineo" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164


> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Mike Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I guess technically 'reversible' means being able to put things back *exactly* the way they were, especially without any soldering, so cutting and restoring traces, adding and removing sockets etc. would not qualify as 'reversible'.
>>
>> I've often wondered why it's standard practice to install a socket when replacing a single bad chip; presumably the odds of the same chip failing again are slim, and it certainly is a glaring 'modification'.
>
> as I do quite a few repairs of old gears, I think I can give a number
> of reasons why I almost always install a socket:
> 1) most of the times, the failing chip is not alone, the replacement
> can be killed instantly by another fault: random example is a bus
> conflict where a failed input or output sinks/source
> current against another output, this in many cases makes the
> replacement fail soon again.
> 2) in the troubleshooting process, might often be good to
> isolate/replace a signal around a failed chip (because there're other
> related faults not yet identified), a socket makes this process
> easier.
> 3) it's cheap enough that even if you are sure there's no reason to
> fall in the 1) and 2) cases, you don't just take the chance to be
> wrong.
>
> (all IMHO)
>
> Frank
>
>       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
=========================
All valid reasons, although in my experience it often is only one chip and when it isn't it's often obvious what else is wrong.

But it's not about how much it costs, but whether you're concerned with keeping the board/system as close (or easily restorable) to original condition as possible, with some people even making sure that date codes on replacement chips match the rest of the system.

Different priorities for different folks...

m

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Francesco Messineo
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Mike Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>

>> as I do quite a few repairs of old gears, I think I can give a number
>> of reasons why I almost always install a socket:
>> 1) most of the times, the failing chip is not alone, the replacement
>> can be killed instantly by another fault: random example is a bus
>> conflict where a failed input or output sinks/source
>> current against another output, this in many cases makes the
>> replacement fail soon again.
>> 2) in the troubleshooting process, might often be good to
>> isolate/replace a signal around a failed chip (because there're other
>> related faults not yet identified), a socket makes this process
>> easier.
>> 3) it's cheap enough that even if you are sure there's no reason to
>> fall in the 1) and 2) cases, you don't just take the chance to be
>> wrong.
>>
>> (all IMHO)
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
> =========================
> All valid reasons, although in my experience it often is only one chip and when it isn't it's often obvious what else is wrong.

different experiences.

>
> But it's not about how much it costs, but whether you're concerned with keeping the board/system as close (or easily restorable) to original condition as possible, with some people even making sure that date codes on replacement chips match the rest of the system.
>
> Different priorities for different folks...

This is going too off topic, so I promise it's my last rant.

I was repairing commodore equipment (mostly) back in the '80s and
nobody would solder back a chip without a socket, at least the ones
who I learned from. Also nobody cared much about date codes too. My
own  C64 purchased in 1984 has chips with up to 1989 date codes (I
repaired it several times during its life).
Commodore itself couldn't make two boards the same: different
factories would socket the main chips, some would socket only PLA and
SID, others would socket the ROMs or the VIC-II and 8701, some others
would not put any socket.
Is my C64 not "original" then? I had the famous speeddos mod installed
in 1986 too. I consider the mod original as at the time it made great
sense to have it.
Repair, in my book, is restoring the functionality to full original
specification (or better), else is drifting into religious beliefs. :)
<-- please notice.
Frank

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Gerrit Heitsch
On 10/08/2016 04:44 PM, Francesco Messineo wrote:
> Commodore itself couldn't make two boards the same: different
> factories would socket the main chips, some would socket only PLA and
> SID, others would socket the ROMs or the VIC-II and 8701, some others
> would not put any socket.

I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
Everything else I have seen either way.


  Gerrit



       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Francesco Messineo
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Gerrit Heitsch
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2016 04:44 PM, Francesco Messineo wrote:
>>
>> Commodore itself couldn't make two boards the same: different
>> factories would socket the main chips, some would socket only PLA and
>> SID, others would socket the ROMs or the VIC-II and 8701, some others
>> would not put any socket.
>
>
> I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
> Everything else I have seen either way.

right, VIC-II and 8701 (on the boards where it is present) are always
socketed on all boards I've seen in the last 32 years.

Frank

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

silverdr-2
In reply to this post by Mike Stein

> On 2016-10-07, at 18:45, Mike Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I've often wondered why it's standard practice to install a socket when replacing a single bad chip; presumably the odds of the same chip failing again are slim, and it certainly is a glaring 'modification'.

I agree to socketing (and do it myself) because:

a) the manufacturers often did it themselves before they started reducing costs
b) sockets introduce no changes to neither fucntion, nor schematics nor mechanical [*]
c) they make diagnosing, other mods, etc. much easier, while [a) and b)]

--
SD!


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Christian Dirks
In reply to this post by Gerrit Heitsch
Am 08.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Gerrit Heitsch:
>
> I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
> Everything else I have seen either way.

I have one C64 with no sockets.
It's hidden somewhere between all the other stuff,
so I don't actually know which mainboard assy is installed.

Christian

--
Christian Dirks
[hidden email]




signature.asc (851 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Gerrit Heitsch
On 10/08/2016 07:00 PM, Christian Dirks wrote:
> Am 08.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Gerrit Heitsch:
>>
>> I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
>> Everything else I have seen either way.
>
> I have one C64 with no sockets.

A soldered VIC? Send pix!


  Gerrit



       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Francesco Messineo
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Gerrit Heitsch
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/08/2016 07:00 PM, Christian Dirks wrote:
>>
>> Am 08.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Gerrit Heitsch:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
>>> Everything else I have seen either way.
>>
>>
>> I have one C64 with no sockets.
>
>
> A soldered VIC? Send pix!

indeed,  I want to see it too!

F

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

silverdr-2
In reply to this post by Gerrit Heitsch

> On 2016-10-08, at 20:34, Gerrit Heitsch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 10/08/2016 07:00 PM, Christian Dirks wrote:
>> Am 08.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Gerrit Heitsch:
>>>
>>> I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
>>> Everything else I have seen either way.
>>
>> I have one C64 with no sockets.
>
> A soldered VIC? Send pix!

And SID? Ditto! And if "yes" - then check if the soldering is original.

--
SD!


       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: cbm 8032 motherboard + 4164

Gerrit Heitsch
On 10/08/2016 09:42 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

>
>> On 2016-10-08, at 20:34, Gerrit Heitsch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/08/2016 07:00 PM, Christian Dirks wrote:
>>> Am 08.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Gerrit Heitsch:
>>>>
>>>> I have yet to see a C64 where the 8701 and VIC-II are not in sockets.
>>>> Everything else I have seen either way.
>>>
>>> I have one C64 with no sockets.
>>
>> A soldered VIC? Send pix!
>
> And SID? Ditto! And if "yes" - then check if the soldering is original.

On a lot of 250407 boards the SID was soldered, so that's nothing
special. I have 2 of those.

  Gerrit



       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
1234 ... 6