Omnimaga
Calculator Community => Other Calc-Related Projects and Ideas => Topic started by: DrDnar on July 10, 2011, 08:40:31 pm
-
Introduction
In the past few weeks, we've resolved many important mysteries concerning the hardware of the TI-83+ series of calculators. However, there are still questions remaining. There are three questions that I cannot answer without amassing data from other people. They are:
- What does port 15h mean?
- What does port 3Ah mean?
- Do the autoselect commands work on all units?
- Is the boot sector of the TI-83+ locked by the flash chip?
By giving me some simple information and running a small program on your calculator, you can help answer these questions. People with any model, from the TI-83+ to the TI-84+SE, can help.
Skip to the How to Help heading if you're super lazy or just have no curiosity.
Current Theories
Port 15h has a non-zero value on the TI-83+SE and above. Its value never changes on any one particular unit, but it seems to be different on different units. Also, I've heard nothing about its value on a TI-83+. I think port 15h may be some kind of ASIC hardware version indicator. To verify this, I need data from many units. I'd also like to know whether it reports anything of interest on the TI-83+.
By request of thepenguin77, I've added a test concerning port 3A. It has something to do with USB. DanE (the prophet from the Kingdom of USB) believed it was a USB driver revision ID. We may ask you additional questions if we see an interesting value, because we have some evidence to indicate that it means something really important.
Similarly, I need data from many units too see if the autoselect commands work. I'm particularly interested in the TI-83+, because autoselect hasn't been tested on it. What is autoselect, you ask? It's a special command that allows you to query the flash chip for its manufacturer ID and device ID. The manufacturer ID will probably change from unit to unit, but the device ID should be the same for all models:
- 23h or 0B9h for the TI-83+
- 0DAh for the TI-84+
- 0C4h for the TI-83+SE and the TI-84+SE
Previously, we used port 21 to distinguish between the TI-84+ and the TI-84+SE, but port 21 can be programmed to lie. If autoselect is reliable, we have a way to be certain. (I also believe that the TI-84+ and the TI-84+SE and fully identical except for the flash chip.)
Finally, you may be aware that we've succeeded in unlocking the boot sector of the TI-83+SE and TI-84+/SE. <technical stuff> However, the hardware of the TI-83+ is different. We're not sure if the boot sector on that model can be unlocked. The data sheet for the flash chip says that the chip can be configured, using a piece of hardware known as an external flash programmer, to permanently lock any combination of sectors from being written to or erased. The TI-83+SE and above don't use this method of protection, and it's possible that the TI-83+ doesn't, either. The bad news is that this can only be undone by applying 12 V to one particular pin. </technical stuff>
The good news is that there is a way to find out whether or not the flash chip's internal protection--and therefore if the boot sector can be changed--is being used: there is one additional autoselect command that allows you to query whether any particular sector is has been protected with the flash chip's internal protection. If the boot sector of the TI-83+ is locked with this protection, it will return 01; if not, 00. If you get a 00 on a TI-83+, then there may be a way to unlock the TI-83+'s boot sector.
How to Help
First, answer a few questions about your calculator.
- 1. What is the model? (TI-83+, TI-83+SE, TI-84+, or TI-84+SE)
- 2. What is the HW revision? (This is the last six digits of the serial number on the back of your calculator. Mine is S-0605D.)
- 3. Do you need ALCDFIX? If you've never had any issues with corrupted graphics in games, you don't need it. Optional: If you do need ALCDFIX, how much delay does it add? (check ports 29 and 2A in Calcsys) Just say "yes" if you have a TI-83+.
Next, run the attached program (hwtests.8xp) on your calculator, using the Asm( token found under 2nd+0. The source is attached below, too. This program will report some information:
- 4. The program version number
- 5. Do you have the full 128 K of RAM?
- 6. The value in port 15
- 7. The value in port 3A
- 8. The manufacturer ID and the device ID returned by the autoselect commands
- 9. The protection status of sectors 1F, 3F, and 7F
Post your answers here.
Mine are
- 1. TI-84+SE
- 2. S-0605D
- 3. No LCD issues.
- 4. Version #2
- 5. Do you have the full 128 K of RAM? Yes.
- 6. The value in port 15: 45
- 7. The value in port 3A: 00
- 8. The manufacturer ID and the device ID returned by the autoselect commands: 04 (Fujitsu) C4 (2048 K chip, top boot)
- 9. The protection status of sectors 1F, 3F, and 7F: all 00
Other Mysteries
There are still other unknown ports. If you have hardware that can supply your calculator with a carefully variable voltage (from 2.9 to 5.0 VDC), let me know and I'll send you another program. I believe that the calculator can test the voltage down to at least half a volt of accuracy by writing to port 04, but I don't have the hardware to test this.
Other unknown ports are listed at WikiTI (http://wikiti.brandonw.net/index.php?title=Category:83Plus:Ports:Unknown).
-
As I have a decent size collection of graphing calculators I'd be happy to help testing. I'll test and post results tomorrow. =)
-
Here's some information from my ancient calculator:
- 1. TI-84+ SE
- 2. S-0404
- 3. ALCDFIX not needed
- 4. Program version #2 used
- 5. 128 K RAM: Yes
- 6. Port 15: 44
- 7. Port 3A: 0F
- 8. IDs: 04C4
- 9. P?: 000000
-
1. 84+
2. S-0406F
3. Yes ( although since I use DCS I haven't had to worry about it for a while )
4. Yes
5. 45
6. 00
7. 01DA
8. 000000
( Keep in mind I use ZStart and have modified my certificate with my name )
-
DrDnar, this is a very good idea for a topic. I have one suggestion though, you should also check bit 3 of 3A. No one has any idea what it does, but if it is set, that means something special related to usb hardware and we really need to know what it means.
I'll edit in my tests when I finish them.
1. Ti-84+SE
2. P-0508M
3. Requires ALCDFIX
4. V2
5. Ram = no
6. Port 15 = 55
7. port 3A = 00
8. 01C4
9. P?: 000000
1. Ti-84+SE
2. P-0510O
3. Requires ALCDFIX
4. V2
5. Ram = no
6. Port 15 = 55
7. Port 3A = 00
8. 7FC4
9. 000000
-
Okay, people, sorry to mess you all up, but I've just edited my post to include thepenguin's request for reading port 3A.
Interesting, TI really has used AMD flash chips (that's the 01 number some of you are reporting). I don't know who manufacturer 7F is, though.
-
Edited my post
-
Edited my post for port 3A. It reads as 0F on my calc, so it's different from everybody else's results so far. Although that's not the only thing different about my calculator compared to the other calculators tested so far.
-
Darn, now my installation of TiLP broke, somehow...
EDIT: Nevermind, posting my results soon.
1. TI-83+
2. S-0508K
3. No
4. v#2
5. 83+
6. Port 15: 00
7. Port 3A: No (oddly it doesn't show and goes right to No IDs: without a newline)
8. 01B9
9. P?: 000045
-
1. TI-84+SE
2. S-0606F
3. No, I've never had to.
4. 10 July 2011 v#2
5. yes, I have 128K
6. port 15: 45
7. port 3A: 00
8. 01C4
9. all zeros
I have the AMD flash chip then?
Oh, and anything you find about USB, I would love to know. Even if it's just ideas/discussions.
-
7. Port 3A: No (oddly it doesn't show and goes right to No IDs: without a newline)
I've fixed that bug. I forgot to insert a new line. Also, it just displays "no" for that test on the TI-83+ and TI-83+SE because we don't expect it to read anything of interest anyway.
8. 01B9
9. P?: 000045
Very interesting! It took me a bit to find the data sheet (http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/104993/SPANSION/S29AL004D.html) for the B9 device code. Even more interesting is that autoselect reports that the boot sector isn't hardware locked, so there's still a possibility that we can reflash the boot code on the TI-83+. (The 45 is a read from RAM page 1, not any flash sector.)
-
8. 01B9
9. P?: 000045
Very interesting! It took me a bit to find the data sheet (http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/104993/SPANSION/S29AL004D.html) for the B9 device code. Even more interesting is that autoselect reports that the boot sector isn't hardware locked, so there's still a possibility that we can reflash the boot code on the TI-83+. (The 45 is a read from RAM page 1, not any flash sector.)
Cool!
-
I have the AMD flash chip then?
Yes. By the way, AMD's flash manufacturing division appears to be now run by a subsidiary called Spansion.
Also, the 23h for the TI-83+ chip was an in-theory thing only. It's what a very old data sheet said.
-
1. TI-84+
2. K-0207E
3. Don't think so?
4. v#2
5. 128 K RAM: Yes
6. Port 15: 45
7. Port 3A: 00
8. IDs: C2DA
9. 000000
-
1. TI-84PSE
2. S0306-F
3. Yes (10)
4. V2
5. Yes
6. 45
7. 00
8. 01C4
9. 000000
-
1. TI-84+SE (with ViewScreen slot)
2. S-1204A
3. No
4. 10 July 2011 v#2
5. Yes
6. 44
7. 0F
8. 04C4
9. 000000
-
there u go :
1 > 84+se with viewscreen slot
2 > S-0404 (a true rolls royce =])
3 > no
4 > 2
5 > yep
6 > 44
7 > 0F
8 > 04C4
9 > 000000
-
Strange results :
1 > 83+ with viewscreen slot
2 > I-0299A
3 > yep
4 > 2
5 > 83+
6 > 15
7 > No
8 > 0123
9 > 010146
EDIT : A fat sry for the 2ble post i'm really tired...
-
Fascinating! Those numbers suggest that the boot sector is hard-locked on that unit. Yet, another TI-83+ owner said that his boot sector wasn't locked. If it's really a a unit from 1999, then TI has substantially changed the TI-83+'s hardware since then (but, we already knew that). This means that TI used the flash chip's locking feature before moving to the ASIC. Now, it's the ASIC itself that handles locking. More experimentation on newer units is clearly called for.
Also, speaking of newer units, while I'm glad that older members of the community with older units are active during the summer, it's the transition between 128 K of RAM and 48 K that I'm most interested in. So, let's get information on some newer models.
Here's the data so far:
Known manufacturer IDs are
ID Manufacturer
01 AMD
04 Fujitsu
7F Unknown
C2 Unknown
Known device IDs are
ID Device
23 512 K (4 megabit) (old units)
B9 512 K (4 megabit) (new units)
C4 2048 K (16 megabit)
DA 1024 K (8 megabit)
Data Chart
Note: VS = ViewScreen
Model HW Bad LCD V# All RAM Port 15 Port 3A Chip ID Boot Owner
84+SE S-0605D No 2 Yes 45 00 04C4 000000 Me
84+SE S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 Runer112
84+ S-0406F Yes 2 Yes 45 00 01DA 000000 Eeems
84+SE P-0508M Yes 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 thepenguin77
84+SE P-0510O Yes 2 No 55 00 7FC4 000000 thepenguin77
83+ S-0508K No 2 N/A 00 N/A 01B9 000045 Juju
84+SE S-0606F No 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 graphmastur
84+ K-0207E No 2 Yes 45 00 C2DA 000000 ZippyDee
84+SE S0306-F 10h 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 BuckeyeDude
84+SEVS S-1204A No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 JosJuice
84+SEVS S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 the_mad_joob
83+VS I-0299A Yes 2 N/A 15 No 0123 010146 the_mad_joob
-
@Runer112 :
Could you please tell if you have a viewscreen slot at the back of your model ?
Because if yes, there's a chance port 3A would be related to this additionnal hardware piece.
Nothing sure yet, since my 83+VS ouputs a "No" on that part of the test...
Thx in advance =]
-
@Runer112 :
Could you please tell if you have a viewscreen slot at the back of your model ?
Because if yes, there's a chance port 3A would be related to this additionnal hardware piece.
Nothing sure yet, since my 83+VS ouputs a "No" on that part of the test...
Thx in advance =]
That's because yours is an 83+. It outputted "No" because that test is not conducted on an 83+/83+SE.
Edit: ZippyDee has a K. O.O :w00t: (I was hoping we could do some tests on those. (My opinion is those are "refurbished" calcs, i.e. calcs that were returned to TI as defective and then fixed and redistributed. I have no hard evidence to prove that, but it's my theory anyway. ;) )
-
Thought of something like this but since i wasn't sure you know...
Thx 4 clarification =]
Other than that, i'm pretty sure Runer112 has a VS port on his 84+SE, since it's exactly the same data as mine.
For now, it's not too risky to say that 3A has something to do with the viewscreen port.
Unfortunately, it'll be quite hard to know precisely what are the read/write values, since someone that has both hardware may be hard to find (brandon maybe ?).
Also, to be honest, i'm not sure it would be such a great discovery, even for the active community...
-
I think we figured out port 15h.
On the non 83+:
Port 15 is split up into two fields, the high nibble and the low nibble.
High nibble:
4 - Calculator has full ram
5 - Calculator is missing ram
Low nibble:
4 - Port 3A is 0F
5 - Port 3A is 00
Of course the high nibble also means which ASIC you have, but I don't know what those are called.
Edit:
Wait a second, changed low nibble. When we figure out what 3A means, then we can finish this.
Edit2:
the_mad_joob: Your calculator does not have a port 3A :D, so it can't display the correct number.
-
That makes sense when i read Dnar's table.
Nice read =]
This would mean port 15 can only be read.
At least, it adds a fast and easy way to evaluate the optionnal hardware presence (ram & vs) =]
[Crossed Edit] : Yeah, that's what ztrumpet meant i guess. That would suppose that another port than 3A is used on basic ti83+ models (for viewscreen).
-
ZippyDee has a K. O.O :w00t: (I was hoping we could do some tests on those. (My opinion is those are "refurbished" calcs, i.e. calcs that were returned to TI as defective and then fixed and redistributed. I have no hard evidence to prove that, but it's my theory anyway. ;) )
Tests? I'd be happy to help with some tests...I didn't know my calc was special :P
-
Here you go!
1. TI-84+SE Teacher Edition (ViewScreen?)
2. S-0404
3. No ALCDFIX
4. 10 July 2011 v#2
5. 128k RAM: Yes
6. Port 15h: 44
7. Port 3Ah: 0F
8. IDs:04C4
9. P?: 000000
(note: Certificate modified with ThePenguin's ABOUTNAM program, also uses zstart)
1. TI-84+
2. S-0306F
3. No ALCDFIX
4. 10 July 2011 v#2
5. 128k RAM: Yes
6. Port 15h: 45
7. Port 3Ah: 00
8. IDs: 01DA
9. P?: 000000
-
Apparently, you can only actually write to the high-nibble of 3A, but when you write to the low one, it's ignored. After writing 0xFF (Which ends up being 0xF0 because only the high nibble is accepted) and turning off my calc and then back on, it ends up being 0x60.
-
Looks like Runer112, Mighty Moose & me have the exact same 84+SE.
-
Runer does not have a view screen adapter, which means that port 3A refers to a different USB hardware revision.
Here is what I put on WikiTI (http://wikiti.brandonw.net/index.php?title=83Plus:Ports:15)
[ wikiTI]
This port reports the ASIC version from which the number of ram pages and USB driver revision can be determined. On the 83+, it does something different.
Read Values
33 - TI-REF 83PL2M/TA2 - No USB driver and has 128KB of RAM
44 - TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 - Uses old USB driver and has 128KB of RAM
45 - TI-REF 84PLUSB/TA3 - Uses new USB driver and has 128KB of RAM
55 - TI-REF 84PLC/TA1 - Uses new USB driver and has 48KB of RAM
Write Values
No effect
[/ wikiTI]
I really have to thank critor back on that old thread on UTI (http://www.unitedti.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8913&view=findpost&p=137113) or else I wouldn't have figured out the difference between 44/45.
-
My calculator does not have a ViewScreen port. Otherwise, it seems to be pretty much the same.
-
So does this mean there are no calcs with the viewscreen port that were made recently?
-
1. TI-84+SE
2. S-0607H
3. Yes (4)
4. V2
5. No
6. 55
7. 00
8. 01C4
9. 000000
-
Here are my three calcs:
1.) TI-84+SE
2.) P-0509M
3.) No
4.) 10 July 2011 v#2
5.) No
6.) 55
7.) 00
8.) 01C4
9.) 000000
(Note that I have several of thepenguin's OS mods in use on this calc. I don't think it affects any of the tests though.)
1.) TI-83+
2.) S-0407K
3.) No
4.) 10 July 2011 v#2
5.) n/a (83+)
6.) 00
7.) n/a
8.) 01B9
9.) 000086
1.) TI-83+SE
2.) I-0302A
3.) No
4.) 10 July 2011 v#2
5.) Yes
6.) 33
7.) 00
8.) 04C4
9.) 000000
-
1) TI-84+SE
2) P-0508M
3) No LCD issues
4) v#2
5) Only 48KiB of RAM
6) $55
7) $00
8) $01C4
9) $000000
-
1: 84 PBE
2: S-0305B
3: Yes, 12
4: 2
5: Yes
6: 45
7: 00
8: 04DA
9: 000000
Des it matter if there's anything installed? (Calcutil, Omnicalc, etc)
-
Darl, it's hardware stuff, and since the ports being read are never modified by other programs, it shouldn't.
-
1. TI-84+SE
2. S-0704A
3. No LCD issues.
4. 10 July 2011 v2
5. Do you have the full 128 K of RAM? Yes.
6. The value in port 15: 44
7. The value in port 3A: 0F
8. The manufacturer ID and the device ID returned by the autoselect commands: 04C4
9. 000000
-
My calculator does not have a ViewScreen port. Otherwise, it seems to be pretty much the same.
My bad, another example that shows how far intuition can sometimes suck =]
So does this mean there are no calcs with the viewscreen port that were made recently?
Interesting deduction, since calcs with a vs port all seem to have been released around year 2004.
That would mean port 3A is related to another specific hardware piece, which was assembled during that time.
Anyone has an idea what this could be ?
EDIT :
@thepenguin77 : Thx for the wiki addition =]
Now, some other leads :
- port 15 (83+BE|SE) : All the models tested read 00 except mine (15), which boot sector is locked, according to dnar. This port may then have something to do with boot sector protection status on 83+ models.
- port 3A (84+BE|SE) : After having taken another look at the different results, there's a possibility the LS nibble of this port may also be related to the usb driver revision (seem to return 0F only when port 15 returns 44).
-
- port 15 (83+BE|SE) : All the models tested read 00 except mine (15), which boot sector is locked, according to dnar. This port may then have something to do with boot sector protection status on 83+ models.
Probably wrong. The boot sector protection for your TI-83+ is solved. It's implemented in the flash chip, and can only be temporarily undone with a 12 V power source applied to the right pin. The value read from port 15 has no meaning or is unreleated. Newer models have completely different hardware; your unit has a separate Z80, whereas the newer units have the Z80 integrated into the ASIC. On those units, the bus is internal to the ASIC and tends to read 0 for ports with no function. It's possible that port 15 affects the boot sector protection on newer units, but it's unrelated to the fact that yours reads 15.
-
glad you figured it out =]
-
Here we go:
1. Ti-84+ SE
2. P-0608M
3. Yes, 4
4. Version #2
5. No
6. Port 15: 55
7. Port 3A: 00
8. IDs: 01C4
9. P?: 000000
1. Ti-83+ SE
2. S-0303C
3. No.
4. Version #2
5. Yes
6. Port 15: 33
7. Port 3A: 00
8. IDs: 04C4
9. P?: 000000
1. Ti-83+
2. N-0403G
3. No.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The program froze, powered off my calc, and then caused a RAM clear. No other ASM programs present. Happened 3 times.
I can provide additional info, just ask.
1. Ti-83+
2. S-0504B
3. No.
4. Version #2
5. 83+
6. Port 15: F5
7. Port 3A: No
8. IDs: 04B9
9. P?: 01017E
1. Ti-83+
2. S0404D
3. No.
4. Version #2
5. 83+
6. Port 15: FF
7. Port 3A: No
8. IDs: 04B9
9. P?: 0101FF
There you go. Hope this helps. =)
-
I was bored.
Known manufacturer IDs are
ID Manufacturer
01 AMD
04 Fujitsu
7F Unknown
C2 Unknown
Known device IDs are
ID Device
23 512 K (4 megabit) (old units)
B9 512 K (4 megabit) (new units)
C4 2048 K (16 megabit)
DA 1024 K (8 megabit)
Data Chart
Note: VS = ViewScreen
Model HW Bad LCD V# All RAM Port 15 Port 3A Chip ID Boot Owner
83+VS I-0299A Yes 2 N/A 15 No 0123 010146 the_mad_joob
83+ S-0404D 2 N/A FF N/A 04B9 0101FF Art_of_camelot
83+ S-0504B 2 N/A F5 N/A 04B9 01017E Art_of_camelot
83+ S-0407K No 2 N/A 00 N/A 01B9 000086 ztrumpet
83+ S-0508K No 2 N/A 00 N/A 01B9 000045 Juju
83+SE I-0302A No 2 Yes 33 00 04C4 000000 ztrumpet
83+SE S-0303C 2 Yes 33 00 040C 000000 Art_of_Camelot
84+SEVS S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 the_mad_joob
84+SEVS S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 Mighty Moose
84+SE S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 Runer112
84+SE S-0704A No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 leafiness0
84+SEVS S-1204A No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 JosJuice
84+ S-0305B Yes 2 Yes 45 00 04DA 000000 Darl181
84+SE S-0605D No 2 Yes 45 00 04C4 000000 DrDnar
84+SE S-0306F Yes 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 BuckeyeDude
84+ S-0306F No 2 Yes 45 00 01DA 000000 Mighty Moose
84+ S-0406F Yes 2 Yes 45 00 01DA 000000 Eeems
84+SE S-0606F No 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 graphmastur
84+ K-0207E No 2 Yes 45 00 C2DA 000000 ZippyDee
84+SE S-0607H Yes 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 jsj795
84+SE P-0508M Yes 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 thepenguin77
84+SE P-0508M No 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 calcdude84se
84+SE P-0608M 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 Art_of_camelot
84+SE P-0509M No 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 ztrumpet
84+SE P-0510O Yes 2 No 55 00 7FC4 000000 thepenguin77
83+ N-0403G No
Putting them in order by date really makes some patterns stand out.
-
Art_of_camelot: an easy way to tell if the lcd driver has delay issues is to use Fred Lionetti's Donkey Kong (DK5MOS on ticalc). the splash screen will let you know immediately if there are any issues.
i can't seem to find my newer 83+... anyways, here are a few:
* 1. TI-84+SE with zstart modded certificate
* 2. S-0806F
* 3. yes. driver setting 12. port 29:00110000 port port 2A:00100111
* 4. Version #2
* 5. Do you have the full 128 K of RAM? Yes.
* 6. The value in port 15: 45
* 7. The value in port 3A: 00
* 8. ID's: 01C4
* 9. P?: all 00
* 1. TI-84+
* 2. S-0805C
* 3. yes. driver setting 8. port 29:00100000 port 2A:00100111
* 4. Version #2
* 5. Do you have the full 128 K of RAM? Yes.
* 6. The value in port 15: 45
* 7. The value in port 3A: 00
* 8. ID's 04DA
* 9. P?: all 00
* 1. TI-84+ on which 15 rows of the LCD have failed.
* 2. K-04090
* 3. No LCD delay issues, at least :P
* 4. Version #2
* 5. Do you have the full 128 K of RAM? indecipherable (these pixels are dead
* 6. indecipherable (these pixels are dead)
* 7. The value in port 3A: 00
* 8. ID's C2DA
* 9. P?: all 00
* 1. TI-83+
* 2. N-0405G
* 3. No LCD issues.
* 4. Version #2 the program crashed the first time i ran it, for some reason...
* 6. The value in port 15: 75
* 8. ID's C223
* 9. P? 0000FE
-
Interesting...
Boot sector seem to be locked on 83+BEs until 2004 (at least).
Also, looks like 83+SEs can have another kind of fujitsu chip (040C). > typo confirmed
EDIT : Since i wasn't sure, tested DK5MOS.8XP on my I-0299A and the splash screen is displayed properly. My bad. Feel free to update the data chart (lcd=good).
-
Art_of_camelot, please recheck the results for the TI-83+SE. In particular, are you sure that 040C isn't a typo?
-
Yes, it was an error. The result was actually 04C4. Sorry about that. Post edited.
-
1. TI-84 Plus SE
2. P-02100
3. Yes (56)
4. V2
5. No
6. 55
7. 00
8. C2C4
9. 000000
Why you no have full 128K RAM!? :(
-
It's extra system RAM that TI either excluded or made inaccessible in newer calcs produced after about the middle of 2006(If I'm remembering right). They changed the plant at which newer calculators were produced and started using a different chips which only had or are able to access 48 KB of the extra RAM.
-
Though it probably just isn't there. It was presumably a money-saving maneuver, and it doesn't save money to keep the RAM there.
-
1. 84+
2. P-0508L
3. No
4. 2
5. No :(
6. 55
7. 00
8. C2DA
9. All 00's
-
1:TI 84+SE
2:P-0409M
3:No
4:v2
5:No
6:55
7:00
8:C2C4
9:000000
-
I was asking myself :
It seems that the only way to know if a calc needs alcdfix or not is to try a program which is known to display distorded stuff with problematic calcs.
Is there another proper way to be 100% sure of it, by checking some ports or something ?
-
I think with certain hardware revisions or something, the fix is needed b/c of bad lcd drivers.
-
It's a typo on thepenguin77's part. It was actually 04C4.
Edit: Errr, I missed the 4th page of the topic, sorry XD
-
/me actually did the same thing :P
I remember there were pictures on datamath of some calc, showing the different ribbons going to the display but I can't find it now :P
EDIT: some interesting stuff at http://datamath.org/Graphing/TI-84PLUS_WM08_TL.htm#PCB , old data is old but still..
-
On the old UTI topic, they used to check the lcd fps (http://www.unitedti.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8913&st=140&p=137113&#entry137113).
It was something like :
If around 120 fps > alcdfix needed
If around 240 fps > alcdfix not needed
But the fact is, that checking this value seems to be irrelevant, since one of my calcs returns 115 fps but runs those specific games totally well without alcdfix.
-
Calc84, you can call it my typo, but Art_of_camelot started it :P
The_mad_joob, the reason why yours doesn't require ALCDFIX is kind of funny, it's because your CPU is so dang slow. This affects the test in two ways, 1) it made the fps a lot slower than it should have been, purely because the CPU couldn't keep up, 2) when you are actually drawing stuff to the screen, the cpu is again slower and doesn't go faster than the LCD. Runer had the same thing happen to his calc.
Shmibs, could you find a way to get the results of that K calculator, really all we need is the port 15 value, which you can get with calcsys. I'm interested in K's because they are weird sometimes
Known manufacturer IDs are
ID Manufacturer
01 AMD
04 Fujitsu
7F Unknown
C2 Unknown
Known device IDs are
ID Device
23 512 K (4 megabit) (old units)
B9 512 K (4 megabit) (new units)
C4 2048 K (16 megabit)
DA 1024 K (8 megabit)
Data Chart
Note: VS = ViewScreen
Model HW Bad LCD V# All RAM Port 15 Port 3A Chip ID Boot Owner
83+VS I-0299A Yes 2 N/A 15 No 0123 010146 the_mad_joob
83+ S-0404D 2 N/A FF N/A 04B9 0101FF Art_of_camelot
83+ S-0504B 2 N/A F5 N/A 04B9 01017E Art_of_camelot
83+ N-0405G NO 2 N/A 75 N/A C223 0000FE shmibs
83+ S-0407K No 2 N/A 00 N/A 01B9 000086 ztrumpet
83+ S-0508K No 2 N/A 00 N/A 01B9 000045 Juju
83+SE I-0302A No 2 Yes 33 00 04C4 000000 ztrumpet
83+SE S-0303C 2 Yes 33 00 04C4 000000 Art_of_Camelot
84+SEVS S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 the_mad_joob
84+SEVS S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 Mighty Moose
84+SE S-0404 No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 Runer112
84+SE S-0704A No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 leafiness0
84+SEVS S-1204A No 2 Yes 44 0F 04C4 000000 JosJuice
84+ S-0305B Yes 2 Yes 45 00 04DA 000000 Darl181
84+ S-0805C Yes 2 Yes 45 00 04DA 000000 shmibs
84+SE S-0605D No 2 Yes 45 00 04C4 000000 DrDnar
84+SE S-0306F Yes 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 BuckeyeDude
84+ S-0306F No 2 Yes 45 00 01DA 000000 Mighty Moose
84+ S-0406F Yes 2 Yes 45 00 01DA 000000 Eeems
84+SE S-0606F No 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 graphmastur
84+SE S-0806F Yes 2 Yes 45 00 01C4 000000 shmibs
84+ K-0207E No 2 Yes 45 00 C2DA 000000 ZippyDee
84+SE S-0607H Yes 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 jsj795
84+ P-0508L No 2 No 55 00 C2DA 000000 Broseph Radison
84+SE P-0508M Yes 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 thepenguin77
84+SE P-0508M No 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 calcdude84se
84+SE P-0608M 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 Art_of_camelot
84+SE P-0409M No 2 No 55 00 C2C4 000000 Freyaday
84+ K-0409O No 2 00 C2DA 000000 shmibs
84+SE P-0509M No 2 No 55 00 01C4 000000 ztrumpet
84+SE P-0210O Yes 2 No 55 00 C2C4 000000 ralphdspam
84+SE P-0510O Yes 2 No 55 00 7FC4 000000 thepenguin77
83+ N-0403G No
-
Not sure if this is still needed, but here's some more data:
1. 84+
2. S-0304
3. No (as far as I know)
4. #2
5. Yes
6. 44
7. 0F
8. 04DA
9. 000000
-
thepenguin77, your information is a little out-of-date. I did some more research on the flash chips:
Known manufacturer IDs are
ID Manufacturer
01 AMD
04 Fujitsu
1C EON (read from 200h)
7F Extended code, read from 200h
C2 Macronix
Known device IDs are
ID Device
23 512 K (4 megabit) (5.0 V) (e.g. Am29F400B)
B9 512 K (4 megabit) (3.0 V)
C4 2048 K (16 megabit) (e.g. S29AL016J)
DA 1024 K (8 megabit) (e.g. S29AL008J)Notice how the TI-83+'s chip was originally a 5.0 V chip, but is now a 3.0 V chip? TI moved to 3.0 V logic. This means that the calculator will safely operate down to voltages of 3.0 V. (In fact, the flash chip data sheet says the maximum voltage you can safely supply to the flash chip is 3.6 V.) If you supply more than 3.0 V, the voltage regulator just converts the extra voltage into heat. TI really ought to update the TI-83+ OS not to signal low battery until 3.5 V, and redesign the case to accept only 3 AAAs---think of all the millions of batteries being wasted! The same goes for the TI-83+SE. It also seems that the serial port now operates at 3 V instead of 5 V. The TI-84+/SE will also operate at 3.0 V (confirmed with an assembly program running with interrupts disabled), but the USB port might not work right.
-
That's interesting, I noticed that I could run my calculator with only 3 batteries, and that explains it. Also, your data is a little out of date ;D, I just copied and pasted it.
-
My calc:
1. Calculator model: TI-84+SE
2. HW revision: P-0509M
3. ALCDFIX: Never heard of it, never had any issue with graphics.
4. Program Version Number: 10 July 2011 v#2
5. Full RAM?: No
6. Port 15: 55
7. Port 3A: 00
8. IDs: C2C4
9. Protection status: 000000
My brother's calc:
1. Calculator model: TI-84+
2. HW revision: K-1205A
3. ALCDFIX: Graphics seem fine?
4. Program Version Number: 10 July 2011 v#2
5. Full RAM?: Yes
6. Port 15: 45
7. Port 3A: 00
8. IDs: 01DA
9. Protection status: 000000
-
Michael_Lee, what years did both you and your brother get your calcs?
-
I bought mine from Staples (I think) 2 years ago -- the summer of 2009? It was just before I entered high school.
It's a bit trickier for my brother -- he's just entering high school, and inherited his calculator from a cousin who just finished college. I have no idea when she bought her calculator, and for that matter where -- she lived in a different country before she moved here.
-
It's a bit trickier for my brother -- he's just entering high school, and inherited his calculator from a cousin who just finished college. I have no idea when she bought her calculator, and for that matter where -- she lived in a different country before she moved here.
Aww, too bad. It's a K, so more information about it would have maybe let us know how weird it is. ;) Thanks, though. :)
-
I can ask her, if you want. Hang on a moment.
Might take more then a moment -- I can't find her contact info.
She purchased her calculator about 3 and a half years ago, in the US.
-
She purchased her calculator about 3 and a half years ago, in the US.
Yup, it's a K alright. ;P Do you mind posting its full serial number? Thanks. :)
-
Serial number: 1062006136_K-1205A
Product Number: 0A-3-02-28
ID: 0A265-60F71-4C93
OS: 2.40
Are Ks really that interesting?
-
The_mad_joob, the reason why yours doesn't require ALCDFIX is kind of funny, it's because your CPU is so dang slow. This affects the test in two ways, 1) it made the fps a lot slower than it should have been, purely because the CPU couldn't keep up, 2) when you are actually drawing stuff to the screen, the cpu is again slower and doesn't go faster than the LCD. Runer had the same thing happen to his calc.
That would make sense, since the model i'm talking about is one of the very first 84+SEs (early 2004).
For the record, its cpu runs at about 14-14.4 mhz, whereas the later ones are close to 16 mhz, according to the test results posted on uti.
Btw, i know it's originally not the main goal of this topic, but my old 83+VS I-0299A has, in fact, a good lcd (my mistake).