PBI CONNECTION STANDARD

[MEtalGuy66]

I don't wanna start a huge whining session here, but I just went through HELL trying to come up with a way to connect a certain (no mames mentioned) PBI device in a way that makes any sense for the user.

 

There is a standard for using common crimp together IDC cables for PBI connection. This standard has been in place and worked well for over 20 years..

 

If you are considering designing a PBI device, please consider this standard.

 

This avoids things like super long cables, devices having to lay upside-down on the table surface, devices sticking out the back of your machine 4 inches up in front of your face, with everything facing AWAY FROM YOU, and the IDE connector sticking straight up in the air.. (Heheh. again I wont name names, but XL owners who use a certain IDE controller will certainly identify with this last example)..

 

Anywayze.. IF you simply MAKE SURE that the layout shown below is included on the FRONT of the TOP SIDE of the PCB of your PBI device, everyone will be happy and your device will have a multitude of options for being connected to the PBI/ECI bus in ways that are actually convenient/ergonomically sound from the end-user standpoint.

 

Edited November 5, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[candle]

you have some spares, put there r4/s4 r5/s5 lines if you may..

/cas and /ras are obsolete, casinh would be of more value

 

vcc should be omitted, since its asking for trouble - pbi device should be self-powered

for 600xl 5v is present only for 1064 there

[MEtalGuy66]

Those signals aren't present on the XL PBI bus.. This is a standard thats been used for 20 years.. I didn't create it.. Its defined by where the signals fall if you plug a standard 50 pin cable into the PBI bus of an XL machine. Like it or not.. /RD4 /RD5 , /S4, and /S5 are not there!

 

Im not saying you cant use those signals on a device that is made SPECIFICALLY to plug into the XE's ECI bus.. But if what you want is a true PBI device that's compatable with both XL and XE, This pin layout NEEDS To BE PRESENT and in the proper orientation on your PCB because it enables people to plug your device in without complicated nightmares, and have the device actually hook up in some convenient fashion.

 

To further clarify things: A "standard cable" is one that can be made by just crimping the appropriate connectors onto a standard 50pin IDC ribbon cable..

 

IM NOT TRYING TO DEVELOP A NEW STANDARD! I'm trying to get people who design for the existing PBI standard to use the correct pinout, so as to avoid cabling nightmares... Thats all...

Edited November 6, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[candle]

what is the point of keeping NC lines and for futher use if there won't be any new revision of the board after all

like it or not, but atari corp is dead, and deep buried

people are still here and want to have their machines up and running

if there is something to improove, then why not to go for it

[MEtalGuy66]

what is the point of keeping NC lines and for futher use if there won't be any new revision of the board after all

like it or not, but atari corp is dead, and deep buried

people are still here and want to have their machines up and running

if there is something to improove, then why not to go for it

 

You, my friend, are completely missing the point..

 

If you want to create a new standard for device connectivity, thats wonderful... Go for it.. I wish you great luck in getting everyone to adopt it.. Thats not the purpose of this topic..

 

There have been quite a few devices designed to plug DIRECTLY INTO an unmodified atari, using the signals available at the PBi bus.. Unfortunately, some people have designed PCB layout in such a way that makes no sense..

 

I didnt want to elaborate, but it looks like your going to force me to..

 

The IDEa interface is a good design (especially for what it costs).. It performs its function well.. I know you said you think its flakey, but everyone Ive talked to says it works fine for them.. Unfortunately, the connection methods that have to be used are a freakin nightmare..

 

If you are plugging it into an XE, and you buy their custom adaptor board along with the interface, all is fine.. But they could have done this using the correct cable pinout orientation and made the interface MUCH EASIER to plug into an XL without effecting the XE arrangement one bit..

 

The way it stands, if you have an XL, you have three options:

 

1) Solder a card edge connector directly to the solder side of the PCB.. In which case, the PCB plugs directly into the back of the XL.. Unfortunately, if you do this, the IDEA board sticks straight up off the back of the machine about four inches, with the indicator light, jumpers, and everything else facing AWAY from the user.. Also, the IDE connector is facing straight up in the air.. What kind of crack would a user have to be smoking to prefer this arrangement!?!?!

 

2) You instead of soldering the IDC connector to the top side of the board (xe arrangement,) you can solder it to the bottom(solder) side of the board in which case the pinout will match the standard I referred to above.. Unfortunately, this orientation only has the following two problematic possibilities:

 

a) the IDEa board to lay upside down on the table surface.

b) have an overly long cable that folds underneath the board and is long enough for the IDEa to be oriented towards the atari and the drive stuck in between the atari and the IDEa..

 

3) make a totally custom cable by paintakingly soldering every single connection to get the correct pin orientation so that the cable and interface can lay in a DECENT orientation..

 

 

CANDLE: My point has nothing to do with signal availability or design of the electronics.

 

My point is that if the guy who did the board layout had used the pinout I showed at the beginning of this thread (the same pinout that MANY MANY PBI devices have used in the past,) the interface could be easily connected to either machine using a multitude of cheap/available/easy to produce connection options and allow the interface to be much more useable... They could just as easily make their "XE adaptor board" using that pinout, as the one they in fact used..

 

 

I really must apologize to the IDEa designers for this.. I did not want to "bash" anyone's design.. But Candle is insisting on turning this into a "lets redesign the PBI standard" thread.. And that's not what I'm talking about at all..

Edited November 6, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[candle]

Okay, i got you first time, just proposing some little changes, that would be downwards compatible, and using still standard pinout

if someone having XL with PBI would want to get them integrated - it would only require 4 wires, if not - 0 wires

but it would be good to have them

 

and about the ide:

a test for you

get XE machine, put adapter into cart/eci slot, make sure you have your machine 100% assembled (i mean top of the case and screws holding it on place ) and put some carts into cart socket of pbi adapter

 

if you will be lucky enough - the adapter will pull out by itself

I can't understand the logic behind this, as i can't understand why it so big

only thing i could think of is problematic purchasment of the edge connectors here in poland - at least the type that would go on ribbon cable

and guess what - i did buy one actually, good for me? no i had to swap every other wire to make it work with 50 pin header on idea board

[MEtalGuy66]

Yeah I just did the same thing for a guy who sent me his board. (swaped every other wire in the cable)..

 

Well, you guys in europe, in general, have not had the history of commonly available commercially produced PBI devices that we have enjoyed here in the states.. And this is why I do not want to disrespect the IDEa designers for their choice in pinout standards.. I just want to make it known that there is in fact a standard for the 50 pin IDC header on PBI/ECI devices, so that future designers are aware of it and don't cause the same type of problems.

 

As far as your idea of adding the etxra signals to the NC pins, I think its a good one.. But it should be outlined in the instruction manual for your actual device that uses these signals so that the person installing the device can make sure that the needed mods have been done inside the XL.. The XE has all the signals available at the ECI/CART bus.. so it's just a matter of including the needed circuits in the "xe adaptor" design...

[candle]

agreed

[drac030]

I really must apologize to the IDEa designers for this..

 

As it is known, I am one of the designers, but I am not upset, mainly because I am "only" responsible for the software. This is how my current IDEa setup looks like:

 

http://www.ibi.uw.ed...bxe_overall.jpg

 

It is plugged into the computer via an adapter board, and I had an (apparently false) impression that a separate XL adapter board exists and makes it equally easy to plug it into an XL.

 

The XE adapter board certainly has at least one flaw, namely the cartridge connector is located a bit too close to the computer, so that some cartridges are difficult (but possible anyway) to be plugged in.

 

As about "defining new standard", I think that a new standard has already been defined by Atari and it is called CART/ECI. It has some signals that XL bus misses (e.g. HALT), so that maybe it would make sense to do one step towards XL and XE bus unification and add these (i.e. HALT, D1xx and whatever XL doesn't have) to the standard schematic you post here, at least just as a guideline for any future designers (e.g. "NC" means something else than "Reserved for HALT line").

Edited November 6, 2009 by drac030

[MEtalGuy66]

Yeah theres no doubt that the ECI bus offers more flexibility (aside from having to make provisions for the cart slot)..

 

However, if the standard pinout were used for the cable that goes from the IDEa to the XE adaptor, there wouldnt need to be an "XL adaptor".. Because a standard crimped together cable would work perfectly.. This is the route that every other PBI manufacturer took, because obviously, theres no need for an extra cart slot on an XL either..

 

I do really like the interface.. It offers plenty of flexibility of configuration, and its a very straightforward design. I especially like the FDISK2 program.. We should write a version of that for all popular hardisk interfaces (eg. Black Box, MIO, KMK, etc.) and get it included in the SpartaDOS X distro..

 

Nice XE setup, btw.. I wish I had the space to have a clean setup like that..

Edited November 6, 2009 by MEtalGuy66

[Mathy]

Hello Ken

 

We should write a version of that for all popular hardisk interfaces (eg. Black Box, MIO, KMK, etc.) and get it included in the SpartaDOS X distro..

If you write a version of FDISK that's ASPI compatible, you only have to write ASPI drivers (or as Matthias Belitz called them ASPI managers) for each of those interfaces. Except for the BlackBox of course, as the BB ASPI driver already exists.

 

greetings

 

Mathy

 

PS for those not knowing what ASPI is, check out my (AT)ASPI page.

[+bob1200xl]

What does the FDISK2 program do? Is there a link to info on it?

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

Yeah theres no doubt that the ECI bus offers more flexibility (aside from having to make provisions for the cart slot)..

 

However, if the standard pinout were used for the cable that goes from the IDEa to the XE adaptor, there wouldnt need to be an "XL adaptor".. Because a standard crimped together cable would work perfectly.. This is the route that every other PBI manufacturer took, because obviously, theres no need for an extra cart slot on an XL either..

 

I do really like the interface.. It offers plenty of flexibility of configuration, and its a very straightforward design. I especially like the FDISK2 program.. We should write a version of that for all popular hardisk interfaces (eg. Black Box, MIO, KMK, etc.) and get it included in the SpartaDOS X distro..

 

Nice XE setup, btw.. I wish I had the space to have a clean setup like that..

[candle]

Fdisk2 is part of utility programs for KMK/IDEA and KMK/JZ interfaces

[drac030]

@bob: It is a tool which allows you to partition the disk and configure the KMK/JŻ and IDEa interfaces. Here you can see how the program looks like http://atariki.krap.pl/index.php/KMK/J%C5%BB_IDE_FDISK_II

 

@mathy: I'll take a look at this, perhaps I could implement this too.

[drac030]

@mathy: I don't see how ASPI could be used for a disk partitioner, which relies on a proprietary partition table format. This is first what should be standardized if we want hardware-independent tools like that.

[BillC]

Regarding the layout of the PBI header on the IDEa interface, it would appear from this thread that the designer followed the original PBI standard, but mistakenly oriented it to the bottom instead of the top, then made the ECI adapter to work with this layout.

 

I agree that this was a mistake, but much less serious than using a completely different layout.

 

For this situation I believe just adding a short 50-pin IDC F/F cable, joined inline to the existing cable with a long 50-pin male header would effective swap the headers/signals to allow connecting to the PBI with no soldering. The disadvantage is this adds extra connection points which could potentially fail.

[Curt Vendel]

Should we just make (or should I say remake) the 1090XL backplane and allow cards to be inserted into a box and the box could be placed under a monitor???

 

 

Curt

 

I don't wanna start a huge whining session here, but I just went through HELL trying to come up with a way to connect a certain (no mames mentioned) PBI device in a way that makes any sense for the user.

 

There is a standard for using common crimp together IDC cables for PBI connection. This standard has been in place and worked well for over 20 years..

 

If you are considering designing a PBI device, please consider this standard.

 

This avoids things like super long cables, devices having to lay upside-down on the table surface, devices sticking out the back of your machine 4 inches up in front of your face, with everything facing AWAY FROM YOU, and the IDE connector sticking straight up in the air.. (Heheh. again I wont name names, but XL owners who use a certain IDE controller will certainly identify with this last example)..

 

Anywayze.. IF you simply MAKE SURE that the layout shown below is included on the FRONT of the TOP SIDE of the PCB of your PBI device, everyone will be happy and your device will have a multitude of options for being connected to the PBI/ECI bus in ways that are actually convenient/ergonomically sound from the end-user standpoint.

 

[candle]

i've used this pinout as an reference for speeddrive - it costed me one cpld chip and a hour of making a "proper" cable that had every pair of pins twisted (odds should be even)

so.. just be warned

rebuilding 1090 in its original form has little use for me - its simply damn too big

[MEtalGuy66]

Candle, as we discussed before, the reason for your ERRORS with Speeddrive is the fact that you ignored this pinout... You used the STANDARD 50 pin IDC footprint in Altium Designer, and ASSUMED that the pins were in the right place. You ignored the numbering scheme that is actually SHOWN on the diagram, and assumed that the signal-to-number relationship was all you had to pay attention to. Why do you think "TOP LAYER OF PCB" and "FRONT OF DEVICE TOWARDS ATARI" are indicated on the diagram? OBVIOUSLY, there is a reason for this.. You didn't think.. and therefore, you f*cked yourself..

 

As I told you before, there is a REASON that the pins are laid out this way.. This diagram is correct.. It is used exactly this way on the MIO and the Black Box.. The pin numbers correspond to pin numbers on the PBI Card edge.. This is done to maintain some degree of sanity for troubleshooting purposes..

 

Like it or not.. This IS and HAS BEEN the standard for a LONG TIME. Sorry it is so hard for you to deal with.. And I don't mean to sound abrasive, or demeaning. It's just very important to me that standards be maintained and observed whenever possible.

 

Kurt, I agree with Candle.. The 1090XL is a nice piece of nostalgia, but makes little sense in this day & age.. Back then, it took a large expansion card to do what can be done in a fraction of the space of a single CPLD or FPGA.. It makes little sense for anyone to design a large expansion chassis like the 1090..

Edited April 27, 2010 by MEtalGuy66

[candle]

Ken Ken Ken...

didn't i ignored what you replied to me in a first place?

do you think there was no reason for this?

there is no "alternate pin numbering" as it goes for IDC headers - you gave an example that is missleading

my fault was i didn't check it myself

[MEtalGuy66]

Once again, you ignore what I am saying..

 

The Pins on that diagram are not IDC pin numbers.. They are PBI card edge pin numbers (the card edge on the back of a 600XL or 800XL).. This is the way the pins are actually silk-screened onto the MIO board from ICD. On the black box, there is no silk screening, but the square "pin one" indictates this.. And this is the whole damn reason I made this diagram in teh first place.. The way the pins are marked on the devices (and referred to in all existing schematics and service literature) are by the PBI pin numbers.. Not the IDC pin numbers.

 

As far as the diagram being "misleading"... It's only misleading to the person who chooses to ignore it entirely.. If the standard IDC pin numbering scheme was used, I would not bother to publish a diagram. I'd just give a list of pin numbers and signal names (Which is all you seem to have paid attention to anywayze)..

 

When you make a standard crimped together cable that goes from 25x2 card-edge to 25x2 (50 pin IDC), the two pin rows end up being swapped from one connector to the other.(at least if we go by the way that ATARI numbered their edge connector.. Its possible that others number theirs differently so as to avoid this discrepency.) This is and has been the source of all the confusion.. and this is why I made the diagram in the first place. I thought I made my self sufficiently clear that you REALLY DO NEED TO PAY EXACT ATTENTION to it.. I guess it requires something of cataclysmic forewarning proportions to suitably impress that on you..

Edited April 27, 2010 by MEtalGuy66

[Defender II]

NecroBump.

Do you have a new link to your picture with the diagram?

The current link it dead and I can't find it on your web page.

Thanks!

 

I don't wanna start a huge whining session here, but I just went through HELL trying to come up with a way to connect a certain (no mames mentioned) PBI device in a way that makes any sense for the user.

There is a standard for using common crimp together IDC cables for PBI connection. This standard has been in place and worked well for over 20 years..

If you are considering designing a PBI device, please consider this standard.

This avoids things like super long cables, devices having to lay upside-down on the table surface, devices sticking out the back of your machine 4 inches up in front of your face, with everything facing AWAY FROM YOU, and the IDE connector sticking straight up in the air.. (Heheh. again I wont name names, but XL owners who use a certain IDE controller will certainly identify with this last example)..

Anywayze.. IF you simply MAKE SURE that the layout shown below is included on the FRONT of the TOP SIDE of the PCB of your PBI device, everyone will be happy and your device will have a multitude of options for being connected to the PBI/ECI bus in ways that are actually convenient/ergonomically sound from the end-user standpoint.

[santosp]

NecroBump.

Do you have a new link to your picture with the diagram?

The current link it dead and I can't find it on your web page.

Thanks!