I have a copy of the BIOS reference but not the service manual. 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62992334/Model%20600%20%20BIOS%20Programmers%20Reference%20Guide%2026-3901%20%20%281986%29%28Tandy%29%20204p.pdf

On 6/02/17, 12:48 PM, "M100 on behalf of Rick" 
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    In theory, this person has the Model 600 26-3901 service manual and BIOS 
reference on DVD. (But it isn't cheap either.)
    
    
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ultimate-Tandy-Radio-Shack-TRS-80-Operation-Repair-Service-Manuals-DVD-manual-/252456781419?hash=item3ac798c66b:g:VbsAAOSwBahVeB8e
    
    If they managed to get it on DVD for resale then it has to be out there 'in 
the wild' some place.
    
    I expect though it will be very much like the 102 reference manual - it 
will explain what everything is in great detail but you aren't going to find 
any service notes in there.
    
    ---
    Rick
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    > 
    > Are you up to a little component level repair? I have 2 600's
    > 
    > 
    > My first one was working except for the floppy drive, and some
    > keyboard keys were corroded.
    > 
    > 
    > I took it apart to replace the batteries and clean up the keyboard
    > keys.
    > 
    > 
    > Afterwards, the machine boots up and the system manager loads, but
    > there is no response from any keyboard keys except the power button,
    > and the clock on the screen does not advance.
    > 
    > 
    > I have a 2nd fully working 600, and I have verified that the
    > keyboard, it's cable, screen, it's cable, and the daughter card the
    > screen connects to, are all good. They all function fully when
    > connected to my other 600.
    > 
    > 
    > Similarly, plugging the known good copies of all those from the good
    > 600 into the bad 600, I get the same locked up behavior.
    > 
    > 
    > I haven't yet swapped the floppy drives to see if the floppy drive
    > problem was in the drive or on the motherboard. I will, but that's a
    > separate issue. Previously everything worked fine aside from the
    > floppy drive, and that includes both with and without a 96k ram
    > board installed, that includes after I had replaced both the memory
    > battery and the main battery.
    > 
    > 
    > So, the problem is on the motherboard, and somehow allows the boot
    > process to go far enough to load the system manager. The main cpu
    > clock must be ok or else that couldn't happen. A lot of things must
    > be ok or else that couldn't happen. Yet once the manager loads and
    > draws the initial screen, that's it. No further action. The clock
    > doesn't even advance. The keyboard which might have been
    > questionable since I had it out and apart and drenched in DeoxitD5,
    > has been proven good. Same for the screen and daughter card, though
    > I never messed with those so they weren't suspect anyway.
    > 
    > 
    > If you think you have a shot at diagnosing that (without any model
    > 600 service manual, since no one has one these days), you can have
    > this machine. Same goes for anyone else reading this if not you.
    > 
    > 
    > I have to say, even having a fully working unit, WITH basic
    > installed, this thing is terrible. 9 1/2 lbs and almost useless,
    > even compared to other machines of the day.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Everything is incredibly slow for a machine with an 8088 in it. There
    > is almost no software for it, and there might have onlybever been a
    > single 3rd party machine language program for it, which we don't
    > have a copy of, just a review describing it. What little software
    > there is is a mix of interesting but very low level utils, like
    > utility.lib, and utter crapware games. I should make a video of
    > actually using art.bas and playing spider.bas . There isn't even a
    > ram test app, which I would like to test the new ram modules
    > designed by Jayson Lee-Steere after I build the first set.
    > 
    > 
    > The development kit is lost to time. Although we have a manual that
    > describes it and it seems to be tantalizingly simple. So there are
    > no 3rd party machine language programs, nor the tools to make them
    > any more.
    > 
    > 
    > But *almost*. The way the manual describes the executable format,
    > it's basically compiled with a standard DOS 8086/8088 compiler, but
    > your code just does things that wouldn't actually work on a dos
    > machine, and a post-processing step strips off a dos exe header. So
    > it's like it might be a very small step from a ms-dos 8088 compile
    > to a model 600 compile.
    > 
    > 
    > We do have a small handful of executables to examine to reverse
    > engineer. There are all the files from the utility floppy. There is
    > basic.!55. There are all the "files" in the system roms and
    > multiplan rom which can be copied to stand-alone files from the
    > system manager. So it might be possible to make a new toolchain to
    > produce new machine language programs, in theory.
    > 
    > 
    > We also have a full proper manual for BASIC now (I scanned it and
    > uploaded to archive.org last week). So, BASIC.!55 plus UTILITY.LIB
    > (which provides peek and poke and similar) and the basic manual, and
    > the new ram modules so no one needs to be stuck with 32k or 96k any
    > more, means at least the stuff is available now to make the most out
    > of basic at least.
    > 
    > 
    > One positive factor when it comes to trying to diagnose and fix the
    > hardware without any service manual, apparently it is all 100%
    > generic parts. No asics, fpgas, cplds, gals or pals. So no mystery
    > chips or unobtanium chips. Should be possible in theory to debug it
    > 100%. I don't claim it would be worth the time it might take, only
    > that it falls on the right side of possible vs not-possible.
    > 
    > 
    > --
    > bkw
    > 
    > 
    > On Feb 5, 2017 4:13 PM, "Willard Goosey" < [email protected] > wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > Just when I'd convinced myself that I don't need more old computers,
    > you have to go and get me all interested in the T600! ;-)
    > 
    > 
    > I was sort of interested anyway, because it's the only 8088 box I've
    > ever heard of that runs neither MSDOS or CP/M-86. OTOH it was such a
    > failure!
    > 
    > 
    > I don't actually have anything useful to say, besides "good luck".
    > Now I'm going to go *stay off ebay*. :-)
    > 
    > 
    > Willard
    > 
    > Sent from Samsung tablet
    > 
    > 
    > -------- Original message --------
    > From Brian White < [email protected] >
    > Date: 02/05/2017 12:42 PM (GMT-07:00)
    > To Model 100 Discussion < [email protected] >
    > Subject [M100] Model 600 basic rom
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > I started to try to tease apart whether the basic.!55 file is maybe a
    > copy of the option rom, even though it's too large to fit on a chip.
    > 
    > 
    > I was thinking, maybe someone copied the option rom to disk via the
    > system manager, and the disk/ram copy just gets some kind of headers
    > or tails added to it which could be stripped off to get a rom image.
    > 
    > 
    > To find out, I looked at the multiplan rom. I took a direct dump of
    > the multiplan rom in an eprom programmer, which makes a guaranteed
    > exact and working copy, because I then flashed that image back to a
    > new eprom on a molex carrier and it worked.
    > 
    > 
    > Then used the system manager to copy plan.!50 from rom to disk. Then
    > removed the rom. Then copied from disk to ram. Then used xmodem to
    > copy to a modern machine.
    > 
    > 
    > Then compared those two images. Also armed with a tiny bit of info
    > about rom structure from one of the developer manuals scanned in
    > archive.org
    > 
    > 
    > I seem to have found the opposite of what I was hoping. The the rom
    > dump of multiplan is larger than the ram copy of the very same
    > physical rom chip.
    > 
    > 
    > The bulk of the two images are identical in the middle, but the rom
    > image has 64 bytes of header prepended and 64 bytes of tail
    > appended. And both versions have some dead space at the end, though
    > the ram copy fills it with spaces and the rom image fills it with
    > nulls.
    > 
    > 
    > So basic.!55 remains a mystery. It's a ram/disk executable, which is
    > larger than a rom image is possible to get.
    > 
    > 
    > https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bys6eLbSbYyhNHBIdk1rSlZORlk
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bys6eLbSbYyhSFhFZ29TSEZkTUk
    > 
    

Reply via email to