Tester needed to run a ST-225 on a WD1002A controller

[richard8456]

I don't see the confusion to be honest.

He wanted to figure out how to get the card to work in his more modern motherboard. That's a thread in itself. Because the card appeared to be dead, he assumed (as would any normal person) that it may be dead. Of course, it may be dead, or it may just be an addressing conflict causing it to appear dead.

Now, he wants someone with the same card and an ST-225 (not taking either of these items FROM him) to do some tests and verify the pair works together properly. His motive would appear to be discovering a motherboard that he knows is worth investing in because the combination of motherboard + card + drive works.

Finding that info out allows him to find a verified compatible motherboard and then finally know for sure, without a doubt, if his card is dead or not. Consider that he might spend 5 bucks each way to ship his card to someone else, and THEN the cost of a motherboard if the card works. Why not skip the "spend 5 bucks each way" part (which is exactly what he's doing)?

Aaah, a bit of support. :c) Thanks.

The first thread was about why DEBUG would not work. I was assisted to trace it to the video card. (Seems like the video card). This sort of solved my problem, but not fully, because I still needed to know if it was possible to run the WD1 on a mobo of my type.

Then at some point, probably to speed things up at my end, and save costs, I started a second thread asking for someone local to run the ST-225 in their system. Got no responses.

I then started a third thread asking for the test which was about finding out what system might run with the WD1 (according to the thread title). I could have probably have asked the guys in the first thread to do a test, so I possibly could have saved a thread.

Anyway, when I first asked for the test, the request was not very specific (despite the thread title), because it had various options open reflecting an openness about information on controller cards and motherboards.

After I discovered a batch of controllers that will (in theory work) I posted them. I did this trying to be of help.

I then altered the test request a bit by being a bit more specific, by suggesting the possibly doing a test with a "modernish AT". I said: "The only test worth doing now probably is can you make a ST-225 HD work with a modern-ish AT PC."

It might not make much sense, but somehow this change of emphasis came out of my discoveries about suitable controllers, for some reason. Perhaps I did have a some sort of change of mind. I never stated what motherboard in my first post in the thread. So, yes, if someone wants to make a deal of it, there is a measure of "test request creep" because later there was a suggestion of doing tests with a modertn-ish AT motherboard (which mine is).

I did put a note somewhere: "EDIT: Your problem is finding a controller card that will do "AT mode enabled". Again, trying to help.

Anyway, those that got on and simply did "tests" with whatever equipment they had, picked out the WD1, (as it happens), and proceeded to start out with the earlier motherboards and progressed to more and more modern, until we ended up getting results for a P1 233MX MoBo.

So, as it stands now, my understanding is, that since my motherboard is slot 1, 350 Mhz, (but PII), there is a good chance I can run the ST-225 on my motherboard. But I think I'll surely have to change my current AGP video card for something more basic and possibly my WD1.

The thing about saying my WD1 being dead, (I really just think it very probably is) is a development of my thinking as things progressed. But, these thoughts about my controller card, have no bearing on my wanting to discover if my motherboard would run the ST-225, via some controller or other (inc. the WD1).

 

[Chuckster_in_Jax]

I have been watching this post from the beginning and am very puzzled that it has gone this far and no one has asked why in the world someone would put an 8-bit MFM drive in a Pentium class machine. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's like buying a Porsche Boxster, removing the engine and replacing it with the motor from a Volkswagen Beetle.
The WD1002A-WX1 will only work with a handful of drives. Those drives have very little storage capacity and are poor performers compared to the 16-bit EIDE or SCSI drives that would normally go in a Pentium machine. By the time 386 machines came on the scene, the better performing IDE had become the new industry standard and MFM was being "kicked to the curb".

 

[MikeS]

Richard, despite your insults that I'm being judgemental and don't understand what you're doing, I was actually trying to be helpful; too bad you have to take it personally.

IMHO you're wasting a lot of time, yours and that of the people trying to help; we're up to over 60 posts so far and not really any closer to reading that disk. This really is not that complicated, although it's been a fun read.

We have known from the beginning that a WD1002A-WX1 will work with an ST-225, and that with that BIOS it will work in a 16-bit slot, so getting several people to dig out their systems to confirm that was not really necessary. In any case, that it works on their motherboards does not tell us whether it will work on yours, especially without knowing more about the relative video cards and BIOSes.

What we've also known since your debug inquiry is that the video adapter in your system is not compatible with a WD1002A-WX1 or any card with ROM at C800. This is the crucial issue, not what motherboards it works in but which video cards leave the C800 area free.

Until you try that controller with a compatible video card there's no way of knowing whether it works or not, or whether it works in your motherboard; either find another video card or someone else with a compatible computer to test it for you. Same for the drive. That's it.

FWIW, I suspect that it will work just fine with your motherboard or any other one from that era, as long as you can avoid conflicting with the video and IDE controller (if there is one).

What do you actually want to do? If, as I understand, you just want to look at the data on the drive then you are lucky that G=800:5 didn't work since it would have erased the disk.

 

[MikeS]

I have been watching this post from the beginning and am very puzzled that it has gone this far and no one has asked why in the world someone would put an 8-bit MFM drive in a Pentium class machine. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's like buying a Porsche Boxster, removing the engine and replacing it with the motor from a Volkswagen Beetle.
The WD1002A-WX1 will only work with a handful of drives. Those drives have very little storage capacity and are poor performers compared to the 16-bit EIDE or SCSI drives that would normally go in a Pentium machine. By the time 386 machines came on the scene, the better performing IDE had become the new industry standard and MFM was being "kicked to the curb".

I think if you read all the threads you'll find that at least three people have suggested that this controller was not really suited for this motherboard, but our friend seems determined to use an 8 bit card...

If that's all he has and really wants to read the drive then I suppose it makes sense, but replacing the motherboard, video card *and* HD controller a little less so.

 

[MikeS]

One more thing that you (Richard) may not be aware of: just because another controller may be compatible with the ST-225, that does not mean that you will be able to read the data on it; although compatible at the hardware level, different controllers often used different (incompatible) data formats.

 

[IBMMuseum]

I too had watched without commenting much, but on the good side it will probably spur me to retest an Everex controller that looks to just be a rebranded version of the card under discussion. At the time I had swapped all socketed chips from another controller that worked, but never got the Everex card to work. Each socketed chip in turn put in the working controller would still leave it functional.

But what the hey, I'll check it out again...

But in the proper level system...

As a note to Richard, use of that address space for VGA video controllers is not that unusual. VGA appeared on the scene as the MFM controllers using that address space were waning, so in common practice there wasn't conflicts. Both would not typically be in place at the same time.

More modern implementations of the ISA bus are also clocked higher than the original, for both performance reasons and quality of later common ISA cards able to easily handle higher rates. The card is designed for a more vintage system. Sure, some setups might work to run the adapter, but I too have to question the point of the test.

Lastly, even if I felt I was speaking the truth, I would not talk in the open forum about what I felt was another member's lack of knowledge or experience...

 

[richard8456]

When I say someone does not understand, I'm not criticising their technical knowledge or experience. I'm criticising their understanding of my intentions and actions.

For instance, I've no intention of installing the ST-225 permanently on my motherboard. Assuming I can get it to work, when I've done accessing the ST-225's, I'll shred any data. Then I'll probably let them go along with the hard disk controller.

As to being determined to use an 8 bit card, no I'm not. I just started out with the only card I knew of that worked with the ST-225. Things developed and now I know there are 16 bit cards. When I advertise for a new card (because I think it might be advantageous to) I'll list all the 8 and 16 bit cards that should work.

As to changing things, again, I was willing or open to get another mobo to see the ST-225 running. But now it begins to be clearer that this is not probably necessary.

As you see things morph as threads progress.

For everyone's information, the system I have is just to mess about with, it's not going to be used for anything other than that. Everything is attached to a wooden board. I just thought I'd do something with the old computer parts that I took apart.

Also, I'm just very curious whether I can get the ST-225 to work on my (messing about for) mobo.

 

[richard8456]

It does. I took up where you left off with a WX1 card and 225 in a P1 233MX MoBo. With the on-board HD channels disabled and no entries in the CMOS drive table, the drive fdisked, partitioned, formatted, took DOS 5 and booted.

Hi, before I retire from this thread and actually get on with some testing, what is the motherboard make and model and what video adapter do you have (if you have a plug in adaptor)? It might serve me well to get the same video adapter, or mobo, (if I decide to do that).

 

[MikeS]

When I say someone does not understand, I'm not criticising their technical knowledge or experience. I'm criticising their understanding of my intentions and actions.

You know, Richard, one of the more useful things I've learned in life is that when I'm convinced that someone doesn't understand me, often it turns out that it's in fact I who doesn't understand what they're trying to tell me.

Your intentions have been clear since you first posted them. The fact that I and some others are questioning your actions does not necessarily mean that we don't understand or that we are "judging" you; perhaps it just means that we are trying to help you understand the issues a bit better and maybe suggest a better way. After all, you did say that you're "pretty computer illiterate." (as we all were once).

When you ask for advice in a place like this you just might get it ;-)

Of course you're free to ignore it all and do whatever you like, but some people who might be helpful may lose patience and drop out. When you first posted your problem, the very first two replies from Chuck and IBMMuseum asked you to use debug and dump memory at C800, but it took a dozen or so mostly irrelevant posts before they finally got an answer. That's what I mean by wasting time and maybe trying people's patience.

On the other hand, advice and suggestions on forums like this aren't always correct or useful and I'm just adding more noise myself so, as usual, good luck with your testing! Let us know what you find.

This thread has actually made me curious whether it'd be possible to run a system without a video card and test a drive/controller remotely using ctty; will have to try that one day...

 

[MikeS]

<snip>
I've no intention of installing the ST-225 permanently on my motherboard. Assuming I can get it to work, when I've done accessing the ST-225's, I'll shred any data...

...Things developed and now I know there are 16 bit cards. When I advertise for a new card (because I think it might be advantageous to) I'll list all the 8 and 16 bit cards that should work.

Well, at least now you know that there are indeed 16 bit cards to go into those 16 bit slots in ATs and later mobos ;-)

I don't know whether you didn't believe me or are just ignoring again, but before I finally give up and leave this thread let me repeat that a controller that can access an ST-225 will not necessarily be able to actually read the data on it if it's not the one used to write the data in the first place.

Good luck!

 

[richard8456]

You know, Richard, one of the more useful things I've learned in life is that when I'm convinced that someone doesn't understand me, often it turns out that it's in fact I who doesn't understand what they're trying to tell me.

Your intentions have been clear since you first posted them. The fact that I and some others are questioning your actions does not necessarily mean that we don't understand or that we are "judging" you; perhaps it just means that we are trying to help you understand the issues a bit better and maybe suggest a better way. After all, you did say that you're "pretty computer illiterate." (as we all were once).

When you ask for advice in a place like this you just might get it ;-)

Of course you're free to ignore it all and do whatever you like, but some people who might be helpful may lose patience and drop out. When you first posted your problem, the very first two replies from Chuck and IBMMuseum asked you to use debug and dump memory at C800, but it took a dozen or so mostly irrelevant posts before they finally got an answer. That's what I mean by wasting time and maybe trying people's patience.

On the other hand, advice and suggestions on forums like this aren't always correct or useful and I'm just adding more noise myself so, as usual, good luck with your testing! Let us know what you find.

This thread has actually made me curious whether it'd be possible to run a system without a video card and test a drive/controller remotely using ctty; will have to try that one day...

I got the data as fast as I could. Once "Chuck (G)" posted the GETROM file to enable me to get the dump, I posted the dump. And no-one on that thread complained about my posts.

If anyone else wants to jump in and say I'm wasting peoples time and trying their patience - please pipe up.

And I cannot for the life of me see where I'm ignoring anyone's advice. Please point out where anyone has said don't bother trying at all, or with my motherboard, or with the WD1 type controller, or whatever. I don't think there is anything like that.

 

[MikeS]

I got the data as fast as I could. Once "Chuck (G)" posted the GETROM file to enable me to get the dump, I posted the dump. And no-one on that thread complained about my posts.

;-)
They both asked you to just go into DEBUG, type D C800:0, and let them know what you got; after 8 more posts you still hadn't done that so finally Chuck sent you a program to do it for you.

If anyone else wants to jump in and say I'm wasting peoples time and trying their patience - please pipe up.

At this point I'm obviously wasting even more time, so I'll leave it with ya.

Good luck!

 

[richard8456]

Well, at least now you know that there are indeed 16 bit cards to go into those 16 bit slots in ATs and later mobos ;-)

I don't know whether you didn't believe me or are just ignoring again, but before I finally give up and leave this thread let me repeat that a controller that can access an ST-225 will not necessarily be able to actually read the data on it if it's not the one used to write the data in the first place.

Good luck!

Well, that last bit you said, "if it's not the one used to write the data in the first place" has now sunk in. That piece of information might have not registered before.

But apart from that oversight, I don't think I'm guilty of actually wilfully ignoring any advice as a matter of intention.

Now I see, that whatever I do, there might be some mileage in keeping with the WD1, because my ST-225's were formatted with that card. Unless I find out that other Western Digital Controllers are okay.

I won't bother asking for a test of other WD controllers. :c)

 

[Druid6900]

Hi, before I retire from this thread and actually get on with some testing, what is the motherboard make and model and what video adapter do you have (if you have a plug in adaptor)? It might serve me well to get the same video adapter, or mobo, (if I decide to do that).

I don't really recall which motherboard I used. I was just testing 8 of the couple of hundred motherboards I have to certify and a couple of them were P1s, so, I just tossed one of the 1K2-wx1 cards in and hooked up one of the 225s (had to test them too anyway) and worked it up.

 

[richard8456]

Noted. Thanks. And that would be an AT machine, I'm sure.