Escom 1200

[_caddy_]

roms......


were they made by amd in 1991?

i just got me some off ebay, and they have a sticker on them, but the chip has AMD logo's on it, and say (c) 1991

cant seem to get a decent enough photo so you lot can see what i mean

check that...
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQCTAm0Tq4dnAvdUFApAemfvzheR4G8JB3vAjSA!Xp1T9szyp4QpXX4AiYRDrDMNwP4XsoLmwCMgE05s6XSuPwj2pJFV89lpYeHdTIMwkM0/IMAGE_00003.jpg

has someone started copying old amiga roms?

[leofoe]

I do not believe that the 3.1 ROM's you find on Ebay these days are genuine Commodore/AT ROM's. They are just EPROM's, burned with the original software.

[x56h34]

3.1 roms for Escom A1200 and A4000T units can be found in genuine flavors here and there, however after Escom fell apart, dealers obtained rights to burn the contents onto compatible eprom chips, so those are probably what you have. :-)

[_caddy_]

ahh, that would make sence


they work perfectly, aside from a majot lag when you turn the comp on (apparently true of all 3.1 roms though???)



cheers,

[x56h34]

As far as I know, some eproms have actually faster read speed than the actual, real rom chips. This is of course barely noticeable. The delay that you experience is scsi.device seeking devices for ~30 seconds on your motherboard IDE connector. This happens by default with A1200 and A4000 3.1 roms.

[Doobrey]

x56h34 wrote:
As far as I know, some eproms have actually faster read speed than the actual, real rom chips. This is of course barely noticeable.

There isn't be any difference in use,as the read/write cycle isn't controlled by the EPROM. IIRC, Gayle/Gary controls the timing on ROM accesses ( 0 wait state on an A1200) and has no way of telling if they're faster/slower than the specified speed.

[AmigaEd]

@X56h34

he delay that you experience is scsi.device seeking devices for ~30 seconds on your motherboard IDE connector.

Yes, but you have to admit that 20 year old techology is still  amazing in that it boots faster at least 2x faster than Windoze :inquisitive:

Later,
AmigaEd
 

[Doobrey]

AmigaEd wrote:
Yes, but you have to admit that 20 year old techology is still  amazing in that it boots faster at least 2x faster than Windoze :inquisitive:

 :lol:  :lol:
Yup.. all too true, my PC is only just finishing the BIOS stuff when my A1200 gets to the 3.9 WB screen  :-D

[x56h34]

@AmigaEd & Doobrey:

Ask yourself how fast would Windows boot on your 20 year old Amiga (hypothetically speaking, of course) and you'll see that it's a moot point. :-)

[Amiga1200PPC]

Not moot.
Ask yourself how fast AmigaOS would boot on todays machines.

[Effy]

Just try Amithlon or WinUAE to get an answer  :lol:

[bloodline]

Effy wrote:
Just try Amithlon or WinUAE to get an answer  :lol:

Or better, try AROS :-)

[x56h34]

@Wishmaster:

Well, I suppose really fast (again hypothetically speaking). Anyway, my point was not to make a Windows vs AOS argument. AOS is extremely light-weight as an OS compared to Windows, therefore AOS boots fast by default. Windows loads tons of more stuff at boot and that is percisely why it takes longer for it to boot, in general.