Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6918 comp.sys.att:11265
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!thad
From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 3B1/UNIXPC problems with WD2010 disk chip *SOLVED*
Message-ID: <37154@cup.portal.com>
Date: 22 Dec 90 06:40:45 GMT
References: <36875@cup.portal.com> <37026@cup.portal.com>
  <1990Dec20.041624.3329@cbnews.att.com>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 45

One minor typo appears twice in the "report" I posted re: the fixes required
for using a WD2010 in a recalcitrant 3B1:

	whereever you see "6.1K", replace that with "6.81K" (in reference to
	the OLD resistor to be replaced)

Also, I just today saw, for the first time, a fairly "new" 3B1 motherboard at
Rev. level H which, from the factory, had the full and complete "DRUN Patch"
installed exactly as I described it.  Two points:

	1) the new 1% precision resistors on the motherboard DO have the
	   traditional color coding!

	2) this motherboard did NOT have C252.  It was omitted by the factory;
	   wouldn't worry about this, as those on which I left the C252 work
	   just fine.

Glad to hear my use of "CDraw 2.0" was a neat idea!  One comment: it, like the
"Tetrix"-clone, leave the 3B1 console keyboard in a "weird" state regarding
the use of ESCape key ... this only affects those who use ksh in emacs mode
for either filename completion or for ESCape sequences to move back-and-forth
in the line.  In other words, if you run either CDraw or Tetris, each ESCape
you type comes into the system as TWO escapes.  Comparing the "before" and
"after" ``stty -a'' shows no obvious problem, but a minor problem it is;
solution is to log out and then log back in.  Weird.

And, finally:

res@cbnews.att.com (Robert E. Stampfli)
in <1990Dec20.041624.3329@cbnews.att.com> writes:

	Question: We bought two WD2010 chips in Thad's sale.  On trying them
	in several intended machines, we discovered one consistently did not
	work at all, while the other performed perfectly.  Is there a
	reasonable chance that applying this fix would allow us to use the
	"bad" 2010?  Frankly, I don't want to delve into this unless there is
	a reasonable chance of success.

I didn't mean to imply that NO chips (from the group buy) were bad, only that
the several returned for testing DID, in fact, work OK on a system that would
"take" a WD2010.  From Bob's description it would appear that, in fact, he
does have a bad chip.  Sigh.  I'll see if I can round up some more, but no
promises.

Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]