My research aim is to discover whether the OO Pseudo Slot Macintosh Video Address, which is unimplemented in the IIfx, will disable the Vampire Video Sub-System in the IIsi.
This would be a VERY GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!!!



dougg3 wrote:But until then, is anybody interested in boards? I'd be happy to send out bare boards to anyone for $2.90 (1/12 of my PCB order cost) plus the cost of shippingLike I said, the SIMM should work in any of the II series Macs that have a ROM SIMM socket with the exception of the IIsi but that can be fixed by cutting a trace, and also the SE/30.



Trash80toHP_Mini wrote:However, forward compatibility for increased utility of the IIsi is an entirely different animal!

I wonder if the reverse would work? (IIsi ROM in a IIfx)


dougg3 wrote:In both cases, About this Macintosh in System 7.0.1 still identifies the computer as a Macintosh IIci.

bigmessowires wrote:That's curious. How does it know?
Trash80toHP_Mini wrote:Cool! What I'm trying to do is to open up more NuBus and Pseudo Slot memory blocks in the artificially limited IIsi memory map.
I'd like to use the DuoDock's Gemini Card to get a second (7 inch) NuBus Card into the Box underneath the Full Length Rocket 33 . . .
. . . as well as the Radius Color Pivot II PDS Card and PDS NIC going underneath the MoBo at the same time!



>

dougg3 wrote:It will be interesting to see what happens once you disconnect the motherboard RAM! Is removing VCC enough? Sometimes chips can still get phantom power over the other wires -- I've seen it on smaller chips, no idea about how RAM chips behave in that case. Maybe you could disconnect the output enable lines and/or chip select lines instead? Just a thought.
Why did the stock IIfx ROM work when the modified one didn't? Theoretically they should behave exactly the same if you have burned a standard IIfx ROM image on the modified SIMM (I'm assuming you're talking about the socketed SIMM you bought from me). Does the socketed SIMM still work in the IIfx?




More likely I unseated something or other . . . 

tt wrote:Trash80toHP_Mini wrote:However, forward compatibility for increased utility of the IIsi is an entirely different animal!
I see, I always thought (incorrectly) the IIfx was the last II model.


(ever so slightly miffed
)Users browsing this forum: bse5150 and 1 guest