Extra RAM page trouble
This is an archived, read-only copy of the United-TI subforum , including posts and topic from May 2003 to April 2012. If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this forum, you can visit Cemetech's Technology & Calculator Open Topic subforum. Some of these topics may also be directly-linked to active Cemetech topics. If you are a Cemetech member with a linked United-TI account, you can link United-TI topics here with your current Cemetech topics.

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. Calculator Tech Support => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
Extra RAM page trouble
United-TI Archives -> Calculator Tech Support
 
    » Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
critor


Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
Posted: 04 Oct 2009 05:32:19 pm    Post subject:
I'm done opening all my 5 TI-84+(SE).

I've checked the RAM/CPU combo chip, and included them in the table.


Everything is matching up to now Smile


We'll see tomorrow, with new serials reported Neutral
Thank you guys for all those tests.


Link to the data-table:
http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopi...st&p=137113

Link to the chips photos:
http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopi...st&p=137137

Last edited by Guest on 04 Oct 2009 05:34:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 04 Oct 2009 05:42:20 pm    Post subject:
How do you know which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips and which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips?
Back to top
critor


Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
Posted: 04 Oct 2009 11:38:57 pm    Post subject:
ztrumpet wrote:
How do you know which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips and which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips?



Only by opening the calculators...

And you can't open your friend's calculator of course :biggrin:


My guess is:
* TI-84+(SE) manufactured by S with 1.00 boot code, have the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2
* TI-84+(SE) manufactured by S with 1.02 boot code, have the TI-REF 84PLUSB/TA3
* TI-84+(SE) manufactured by P with 1.02 boot code, have the TI-REF 84PLCR/TA1
(and for the 3 last days, I think I've been guessing quite well Neutral )


But it'll be very helpful too, if you report us some serial+test during "critic" periods.
The important think for the moment, is to determine more precisely "when" the changes did happen.
Back to top
thepenguin77


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 02:36:37 pm    Post subject:
Well I've got some interesting updates.

S-0607H FAIL (I tested this a few times to make sure)
P-0308K FAIL
K-0308J ???? Just another number for organizing purposes. But manufacterer K?

Still working on that other H, it also failed.

Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 02:40:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
critor


Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 03:17:13 pm    Post subject:
thepenguin77 wrote:
Well I've got some interesting updates.

S-0607H FAIL (I tested this a few times to make sure)
P-0308K FAIL
K-0308J ???? Just another number for organizing purposes. But manufacterer K?

Still working on that other H, it also failed.



Very interesting information.


So the S-0607H did fail.
Maybe the S-factory sarted including the new TA1 chip, before production was transfered.
To be sure, it would be interesting to open that TI-84+, and look at the chip.

P-0308K did fail, that's coherent.

K-0308J did fail.
It's interesting to know there has been another manufacturer.
Note we have no TI-84+ manufactured between 06/2007 and 03/2008.
Maybe calculators manufactured during that period, comes from the K-factory.



I've updated the table -> http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopi...st&p=137113

Other tests for H-L revisions (2007-2008) are very welcome.
(because that's where the problems are... to check other H-revisions... a L-revision did strangely pass the test too, serial unknown for now... to check if there are other calculators manufactured by K...)

Other revision tests are welcome too - to confirm (I hope) our hypothesis.


If there wasn't that L-revision which did pass the test, I would say:
hardware revisions H and above don't have the 128K RAM chip

That calculator (if ever found back) really needs to be opened...


By the way, a big thanks to everybody who conbrituted to our tests or analysis. Smile
I would have done nothing without you.

Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 03:30:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:00:14 pm    Post subject:
Critor, we would have done nothing without you. Thanks for the big push!
===========================================
I checked the L that passed again. It did not. I mis-recorded it. Sorry
I was not able to "look at" my teacher's calc ( #8 ) today. Mabey tomorrow...
Here are the ones I tested.


Code:
# |Serial           |128K RAM test   |LCD FPS test   |Boot Code   |CPU   |Type   |OS    |ALCDFIX|Date (approx.)
  |                |(OK/FAIL)      |(120/240/280)  |(1.00/1.02) |(MHz) |(BE/SE)|      |      |
 --+--------------------+----------------+---------------+------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------------
1 | 2635016775 P-0509M |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.9  |SE    |2.43   |No    |9-9-09
2 | 1142038377_K-0906B |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.4  |BE    |2.40   |Yes   |8-07
3 | 2154083172 S-0505D |PASS         |120         |1.02      |14.6  |SE    |2.30   |No    |???
4 | 2375092915 S-0307G |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.3  |BE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
5 | 2365063662 S-0207G |PASS         |240         |1.02      |15.1  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-07
6 | 2375073100 S-0307G |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.6  |SE    |2.40   |Yes   |8-07
7 | 2508109508 P-0408L |FAIL         |120         |1.02      |15.9  |SE    |2.43   |Yes   |8-08
9 | 2335046124 S-0507H |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
10| 2518146239 P-0508M |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-08
11| 2395046321 S-0507H |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
12| 2478028453 P-0108K |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.6  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-08


For now, it seems that all TI-84+ made in the P-factory fails the extra-RAM test, and the S made H. There is also a K manufacture.

Note: There is an underscore before the K on #2. #2 also was bought in 07, yet is a "B" with a really low serial number. Wierd?
Also note: My calc (the first on this list) was already on the main table.

It just occurred to me: We don't have any "I"s.

Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 04:08:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
critor


Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:09:57 pm    Post subject:
ztrumpet wrote:
Critor, we would have done nothing without you. Thanks for the big push!
===========================================
I checked the L that passed again. It did not. I mis-recorded it. Sorry
I was not able to "look at" my teacher's calc ( #8 ) today. Mabey tomorrow...
Here are the ones I tested.


Code:
# |Serial           |128K RAM test   |LCD FPS test   |Boot Code   |CPU   |Type   |OS    |ALCDFIX|Date (approx.)
  |                |(OK/FAIL)      |(120/240/280)  |(1.00/1.02) |(MHz) |(BE/SE)|      |      |
 --+--------------------+----------------+---------------+------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------------
1 | 2635016775 P-0509M |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.9  |SE    |2.43   |No    |9-9-09
2 | 1142038377_K-0906B |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.4  |BE    |2.40   |Yes   |8-07
3 | 2154083172 S-0505D |PASS         |120         |1.02      |14.6  |SE    |2.30   |No    |???
4 | 2375092915 S-0307G |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.3  |BE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
5 | 2365063662 S-0207G |PASS         |240         |1.02      |15.1  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-07
6 | 2375073100 S-0307G |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.6  |SE    |2.40   |Yes   |8-07
7 | 2508109508 P-0408L |FAIL         |120         |1.02      |15.9  |SE    |2.43   |Yes   |8-08
9 | 2335046124 S-0507H |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
10| 2518146239 P-0508M |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-08
11| 2395046321 S-0507H |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
12| 2478028453 P-0108K |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.6  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-08


For now, it seems that all TI-84+ made in the P-factory fails the extra-RAM test, and the S made H. There is also a K manufacture.

Note: There is an underscore before the K on #2. #2 also was bought in 07, yet is a "B" with a really low serial number. Wierd?
Also note: My calc (the first on this list) was already on the main table.



Thanks!

I'm updating my table.


I couldn't find any information about a K-manufacturer (although it does exist).
Here is a small list of TI common manufacturer locations:

I - Taiwan
K - ?
N - China
P - China
S - China
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:12:27 pm    Post subject:
Wow!
Cool info. Where are the "I"s and "N"s?
Back to top
calc84maniac


Elite


Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 770
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:15:52 pm    Post subject:
Also, when I was asking around for the last letter (not including the rest of the serial), I was unable to find an E or I either.
Back to top
thepenguin77


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:36:12 pm    Post subject:
critor wrote:
thepenguin77 wrote:
Well I've got some interesting updates.

S-0607H FAIL (I tested this a few times to make sure)
P-0308K FAIL
K-0308J ???? Just another number for organizing purposes. But manufacterer K?

Still working on that other H, it also failed.



K-0308J did fail.



Sorry if I wrote it wrong but I did not have time to test the K-0308J so it is unknown (but probably a fail, I'll test tomorrow), I just was giving a time stamp sort of thing. But the K had an underscore before it and it was engraved and written in white.

Edit: I think I've seen an "I". But I may be wrong.

Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 04:39:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:36:34 pm    Post subject:
What chip do you think the K manufactures have?
If you tell me how and I can convince me friend (Who's RAM I've wiped 3-4 times Smile ) I will open his calc up and check.

Edit: I'll check tomorrow if it was written in white or black.



Post 300!

Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 07:45:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
critor


Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:39:42 pm    Post subject:
ztrumpet wrote:
Wow!
Cool info. Where are the "I"s and "N"s?


I and N are for other TI calculators.
I couldn't find any on a 84+.

calc84maniac wrote:
Also, when I was asking around for the last letter (not including the rest of the serial), I was unable to find an E or I either.


Maybe they're very rare collector TI-84+ ...
Or maybe E- and I-revisions were never released, and only existed as internal beta.


Table updated -> http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopi...st&p=137113


That K-factory is really stranged... manufacturing a B-harware in 2006.


Anyway, thanks ztrumpet, for rechecking the L-hardware.
With that correction, there is no problem any more.


Any TI-84+ with hardware H and above is failing the X-RAM test.
I'm not sure (because some H-calculators would need to be opened), but we may assume they're all using the new TA1 chip.

Step 1 (completed): determining which calculators have the problem.
Step 2 (completed): determining where the problem comes from (TA1 chip)

Step 3 (to be completed): determining if the 128K are still there, in the TA1 chip
Step 4 (to be completed): finding a way of accessing those 128K (if they do exist...)
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:45:24 pm    Post subject:
I don't know what happened for that "B from K". It's just wierd. I might be able to open it up...
Are the ones at the begining of the table without a revision on purpose?

Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 04:47:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
thepenguin77


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:52:19 pm    Post subject:
As far as K's go. I've seen K revision O and K revision (none).

Maybe I's and E's were omitted because they look like 1's and 3's?
Back to top
critor


Member


Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 05:05:12 pm    Post subject:
ztrumpet wrote:
I don't know what happened for that "B from K". It's just wierd. I might be able to open it up...
Are the ones at the begining of the table without a revision on purpose?


The serials without a revision, are in fact the 1st hardware version.
So serials ending with A are the 2nd hardware version.
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 07:43:11 pm    Post subject:
thepenguin77 wrote:
As far as K's go. I've seen K revision O and K revision (none).

Maybe I's and E's were omitted because they look like 1's and 3's?

Revision O!!! Neutral
Back to top
Mapar007


Advanced Member


Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 365
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 10:32:17 am    Post subject:
I thought M was the highest till now...
Back to top
ztrumpet


Active Member


Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 04:56:07 pm    Post subject:
I'm pretty sure M is the highest.

Here is my table again, with my teacher's calc ( #8 ) in it.

Code:
# |Serial           |128K RAM test   |LCD FPS test   |Boot Code   |CPU   |Type   |OS    |ALCDFIX|Date (approx.)
  |                |(OK/FAIL)      |(120/240/280)  |(1.00/1.02) |(MHz) |(BE/SE)|      |      |
 --+--------------------+----------------+---------------+------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------------
1 | 2635016775 P-0509M |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.9  |SE    |2.43   |No    |9-9-09
2 | 1142038377_K-0906B |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.4  |BE    |2.40   |Yes   |8-07
3 | 2154083172 S-0505D |PASS         |120         |1.02      |14.6  |SE    |2.30   |No    |???
4 | 2375092915 S-0307G |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.3  |BE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
5 | 2365063662 S-0207G |PASS         |240         |1.02      |15.1  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-07
6 | 2375073100 S-0307G |PASS         |120         |1.02      |15.6  |SE    |2.40   |Yes   |8-07
7 | 2508109508 P-0408L |FAIL         |120         |1.02      |15.9  |SE    |2.43   |Yes   |8-08
8 | 2144005137 S-0405C |PASS         |120         |1.02      |14.4  |SE    |2.30   |No    |???
9 | 2335046124 S-0507H |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
10| 2518146239 P-0508M |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-08
11| 2395046321 S-0507H |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.7  |SE    |2.40   |No    |8-07
12| 2478028453 P-0108K |FAIL         |240         |1.02      |15.6  |SE    |2.43   |No    |8-08

By the way, the lettering on this K ( #2 ) is just like the other P's and S's.
Back to top
thepenguin77


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 08:55:19 pm    Post subject:
ztrumpet wrote:
By the way, the lettering on this K ( #2 ) is just like the other P's and S's.


Are you sure? Because those K's give really weird Revisions. A "B" long after it was produced, one with no letter also long after those were produced, and a letter "O". I think something is different with the K's.
Back to top
calc84maniac


Elite


Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 770
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 09:33:16 pm    Post subject:
Maybe the "O" is a zero?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Extra RAM page trouble
    » Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 9 of 11 » All times are UTC - 5 Hours

 

Advertisement