I recently came into posession of a folder marked 'ECONET PODULE'. I first thought it was just rubbish (as it had old Acornsoft catalogues in it), but then found several editions of the expansion card specifications and what I believe to be the (mainly work-in progress) schematics of the RiscPC Econet interface. Lots of A1 schematics with Acorn logos on and constant name changes (Victoria Econet Podule, Omega Econet Podule, Medusa Econet Podule, Medusa Internal Econet Card, and I think one or two others).
Other than possible historical value I don't really care about any of this. However, some of the designs have been drawn on the back of Acorn Technical Division timesheets (which are what clued me into this being 'official'), and as two of the project codes it lists RISC OS Mexico and RISC OS Green. Anyone know what these are? I know there's a list of Acorn codenames somewhere but a search didn't turn either of these two up.
In article <73b7458f-92f7-4b99-964e-644724634...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, <tommowal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] two of the project codes it lists RISC OS Mexico and RISC OS Green. > Anyone know what these are? I know there's a list of Acorn codenames > somewhere but a search didn't turn either of these two up.
On Sun, 2009-05-24 at 01:03 +0100, Ste (news) wrote: > In article > <73b7458f-92f7-4b99-964e-644724634...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, > <tommowal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] two of the project codes it lists RISC OS Mexico and RISC OS Green. > > Anyone know what these are? I know there's a list of Acorn codenames > > somewhere but a search didn't turn either of these two up.
> but I don't recognise those names. If anyone does know what they are, then > please update our wiki page!
On the basis of the build_for_green flag I removed from the Font Manager sources the other day, Green == RISC OS 3.10. It also confirms that Blue == RO 3.50.
"Ste (news)" <st...@revi11.plus.com> wrote: > In article > <73b7458f-92f7-4b99-964e-644724634...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, > <tommowal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] two of the project codes it lists RISC OS Mexico and RISC OS > > Green. Anyone know what these are? I know there's a list of Acorn > > codenames somewhere but a search didn't turn either of these two up.
> but I don't recognise those names. If anyone does know what they are, > then please update our wiki page!
A quick grep of the source code for "mexico" only had one hit that wasn't instantly obviously to do with territories. It was in the desktop module, somewhere in doing the banner;
; OSS This section used to be conditionally compiled in for pre-release ; versions to display the pre-release string. It now works by looking the ; string up in the messages file, and not displaying anything if the ; string is absent. Thus RAM loaded localisations have a extra string to ; play with for their pre-release versions as was done for the Mexico ; Amber version.
That answers no questions, but raises another; what's Amber?
John-Mark Bell <j...@netsurf-browser.org> wrote: > On the basis of the build_for_green flag I removed from the Font Manager > sources the other day, Green == RISC OS 3.10. It also confirms that Blue > == RO 3.50.
There are various notes in the Wimp, Font Manager and ColourTrans code that provide circumstantial evidence to agree. Wimp was "Updated after bug fixing prior to Green release" on 13 Apr 1992.
And we know Black == RISC OS 3.6, so that fits.
Kernel 3.00 (25 Sep 1991) is marked in its Changes file as 'Amber release', so Amber == RISC OS 3.0
As to Mexico, what else ran RISC OS 3.0 apart from A5000 ('Brisbane', according to the list)? Did they develop on R225/R260 perhaps? Or maybe A680?
In article <ea9e8f6050.Ke...@talktalk.net>, Kevin Wells <kevinwe...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> In message <20090524123050.16911...@trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net> > Rob Kendrick <n...@rjek.com> wrote:
> >That answers no questions, but raises another; what's Amber?
> The bit on traffic lights between green and red. > Sorry could not resit it.
What's that, an exam?
From my perspective, it's that light on the corner of a motor vehicle, the ones so many people just can't find the energy to use when on roundabouts or road junctions etc.
It takes so much concentration and energy they just can't do it... The poor dears.
The GM has suitable epithets for such drivers, but unfortunately he's muzzled at the moment.
In article <506096d3ded...@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes <d...@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ea9e8f6050.Ke...@talktalk.net>, > Kevin Wells <kevinwe...@talktalk.net> wrote:
[Snip]
> > Sorry could not resit it. > What's that, an exam? > From my perspective, it's that light on the corner of a motor vehicle, > the ones so many people just can't find the energy to use when on > roundabouts or road junctions etc.
Ah! That'll be the "I have just changed lane right in front of you" light then.
Theo Markettos wrote: > John-Mark Bell <j...@netsurf-browser.org> wrote: >> On the basis of the build_for_green flag I removed from the Font Manager >> sources the other day, Green == RISC OS 3.10. It also confirms that Blue >> == RO 3.50.
> There are various notes in the Wimp, Font Manager and ColourTrans code that > provide circumstantial evidence to agree. Wimp was "Updated after bug > fixing prior to Green release" on 13 Apr 1992.
> And we know Black == RISC OS 3.6, so that fits.
> Kernel 3.00 (25 Sep 1991) is marked in its Changes file as 'Amber release', > so Amber == RISC OS 3.0
> As to Mexico, what else ran RISC OS 3.0 apart from A5000 ('Brisbane', > according to the list)? Did they develop on R225/R260 perhaps? Or maybe > A680?
This is a contrived answer, and like much else, doesn't answer anything ;-) but it was entirely possible to run 3.00 in for example an A3000. I presume 3.00 would have also worked find in all the Axxx and Rxxx machines, and presumably also in A4000 (wow, I had almost forgotten about that machine). Perhaps also the A30x0s, although that clearly would have been retrograde from what they were shipped with.
Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > This is a contrived answer, and like much else, doesn't answer anything > ;-) but it was entirely possible to run 3.00 in for example an A3000. > I presume 3.00 would have also worked find in all the Axxx and Rxxx > machines, and presumably also in A4000 (wow, I had almost forgotten > about that machine). Perhaps also the A30x0s, although that clearly > would have been retrograde from what they were shipped with.
That's true. I'm guessing there was some hardware used to develop RISC OS 3 while the A5000 was being designed at the same time. A bit like RISC OS 3.5 was developed on A5000s. Since they mention Mexico as something RO3.0 was built for, that's a machine not on ROOL's codename list. The only machines I can think of that might be suitable are the Rxxx Unix machines, or oddities like A680. The contemporary A-series machines have Australian codenames, so wouldn't surprise me if this was a different 'continent', as it were.
<URL:mailto:theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> wrote: > > This is a contrived answer, and like much else, doesn't answer anything > > ;-) but it was entirely possible to run 3.00 in for example an A3000. > > I presume 3.00 would have also worked find in all the Axxx and Rxxx > > machines, and presumably also in A4000 (wow, I had almost forgotten > > about that machine). Perhaps also the A30x0s, although that clearly > > would have been retrograde from what they were shipped with.
> That's true. I'm guessing there was some hardware used to develop RISC OS 3 > while the A5000 was being designed at the same time. A bit like RISC OS 3.5 > was developed on A5000s. Since they mention Mexico as something RO3.0 was > built for, that's a machine not on ROOL's codename list. The only machines > I can think of that might be suitable are the Rxxx Unix machines, or > oddities like A680. The contemporary A-series machines have Australian > codenames, so wouldn't surprise me if this was a different 'continent', as > it were.
IIRC Acorn gave a lot of warnings that 3.00 wouldn't work on anything earlier than A5000, saying it had no support for the different I/O hardware in earlier machines. I think remember that it was impiricly confirmed by a user at the time.
Chris Evans
-- CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists' Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679 ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/ 78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote: > IIRC Acorn gave a lot of warnings that 3.00 wouldn't work on anything > earlier than A5000, saying it had no support for the different I/O hardware > in earlier machines. I think remember that it was impiricly confirmed by a > user at the time.
Interesting... I thought some people had successfully run 3.00 in earlier machines at the time, but my memory could be playing tricks with me. It wouldn't surprise me if there were A5000-specific features in there... IOEB [*] and the 82C710 I/O chip were quite different to the Archimedes series.
The Mexico comment in the code does suggest there was a special Mexico build of Amber (RISC OS 3.00), so perhaps this had all the 'legacy' hardware stuff compiled in. They obviously didn't bin it, as that code was used in RO3.1.
[*] Can anyone enlighten me as to what IOEB actually /does/? I don't think there are any major functions in the A5000 different from the A540. Monitor ID is the only thing I can spot from the schematic. Does it just mop up glue logic? It only has 4 bits of data bus, but takes a lot of clocks and interrupts.
> [*] Can anyone enlighten me as to what IOEB actually /does/? I don't think > there are any major functions in the A5000 different from the A540. Monitor > ID is the only thing I can spot from the schematic. Does it just mop up > glue logic? It only has 4 bits of data bus, but takes a lot of clocks and > interrupts.
Yep, mainly glue logic. It controls the VIDC clocks and interfaces between the memory and IO clocks. All its functionality was implemented in PALs on the A540 and could be retrofitted to the A500 and A680.
In article <4XB*yA...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Theo Markettos <theom+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> John-Mark Bell <j...@netsurf-browser.org> wrote: > > On the basis of the build_for_green flag I removed from the Font Manager > > sources the other day, Green == RISC OS 3.10. It also confirms that Blue > > == RO 3.50. > There are various notes in the Wimp, Font Manager and ColourTrans code that > provide circumstantial evidence to agree. Wimp was "Updated after bug > fixing prior to Green release" on 13 Apr 1992. > And we know Black == RISC OS 3.6, so that fits. > Kernel 3.00 (25 Sep 1991) is marked in its Changes file as 'Amber release', > so Amber == RISC OS 3.0 > As to Mexico, what else ran RISC OS 3.0 apart from A5000 ('Brisbane', > according to the list)? Did they develop on R225/R260 perhaps? Or maybe > A680?
There is a version for the A500 the machine I have has it fitted. Perhaps this is Mexico?
tommowal...@gmail.com wrote: > Yep, mainly glue logic. It controls the VIDC clocks and interfaces > between the memory and IO clocks. All its functionality was > implemented in PALs on the A540 and could be retrofitted to the A500 > and A680.
Thanks. I'm surprised it was cheaper to go about fabbing their own ASIC for stuff that could have fitted in some off-the-shelf PALs. But then Acorn were always rather too keen on fabbing things they didn't really need to (see Phoebe). Though IOEB has an A4LCD pin (chip select for the LCD controller), so perhaps it was designed with A4 in mind (where there really isn't space for a bunch of PALs) and retrofitted to A5000.
Theo Markettos wrote: > Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote: >> IIRC Acorn gave a lot of warnings that 3.00 wouldn't work on anything >> earlier than A5000, saying it had no support for the different I/O hardware >> in earlier machines. I think remember that it was impiricly confirmed by a >> user at the time.
> Interesting... I thought some people had successfully run 3.00 in earlier > machines at the time, but my memory could be playing tricks with me.
Developers were soft loading the major improvements in RO3 (Wimp, multi-tasking filer) a few months after RO2 came out, so they looked to all intents and purposes to be running RO3 (minus a fair chunk of the available RAM softloading took up back then).
I personally didn't see a full ROM copy of the OS on anything earlier than the A5000, and I held off buying on of those until it came with RISC OS 3.1 as 3.0 was a bit of a lemon.
+n...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Thanks. I'm surprised it was cheaper to go about fabbing their own ASIC for > stuff that could have fitted in some off-the-shelf PALs. But then Acorn > were always rather too keen on fabbing things they didn't really need to > (see Phoebe). Though IOEB has an A4LCD pin (chip select for the LCD > controller), so perhaps it was designed with A4 in mind (where there really > isn't space for a bunch of PALs) and retrofitted to A5000.
Quite likely, as the very early A5000s don't have it and have PALs instead.
|
