Nano-PEB & Super Cart with 4A DOS = COM1 WORKS!

[Omega-TI]

In case anyone is interested I confirmed today that 4A DOS works just fine with the COM1 port of the Nano-PEB. So I guess you can use TI-W or BA-Writer to edit your documents, and then use 4A DOS to print them or send to the PC.

 

Just type: SETPRINT COM1.BA=9600.DA=8.PA=N

(I suggest putting that in the autobatch file)

 

Then when you use the TYPE or OUTPUT ON commands the data will spit out just fine.

REMIND-ME! also works with COM1 of the new Nano-PEB.

 

I still cannot get seem to get CFHDXS1 to work with the Nano though, I must not have the pinouts done correctly. If anyone can send my the exact pinouts, I'd sure be appreciative!

Edited October 9, 2013 by Kevan

[+arcadeshopper]

http://home.vodafonethuis.nl/fgkaal/Hardware/hw_ti99hdx_nanopeb.html how bout the author's web page?

 

For connecting your nanoPEB serial interface to a COM port of a PC you can use a standard RS232-cross cable. The connected signals of the nanoPEB's serial port is as follows:

#1 - Not connected

#2 - RXD

#3 - TXD

#4 - Not connected

#5 - GND

#6 - Not connected

#7 - RTS

#8 - CTS

#9 - Not connected

so ti-pc

2 - 3

3 - 2

5 - 5

7 - 7

8 - 8

Greg

[Omega-TI]

 

 

#1 - Not connected

#3 - TXD

#5 - GND

#7 - RTS

#9 - Not connected

so ti-pc

3 - 2

7 - 7

 

Thank you so much!

I'll try to get some time in the next couple of weeks to open her up again and make the necessary changes.

[Asmusr]

In case anyone is interested I confirmed today that 4A DOS works just fine with the COM1 port of the Nano-PEB. So I guess you can use TI-W or BA-Writer to edit your documents, and then use 4A DOS to print them or send to the PC.

 

Just type: SETPRINT COM1.BA=9600.DA=8.PA=N

(I suggest putting that in the autobatch file)

 

Then when you use the TYPE or OUTPUT ON commands the data will spit out just fine.

REMIND-ME! also works with COM1 of the new Nano-PEB.

 

I still cannot get seem to get CFHDXS1 to work with the Nano though, I must not have the pinouts done correctly. If anyone can send my the exact pinouts, I'd sure be appreciative!

 

Do you have a real com port on the PC or a USB to serial converter? I had problems with the latter, but managed to solve them.

[Omega-TI]

 

Do you have a real com port on the PC or a USB to serial converter? I had problems with the latter, but managed to solve them.

 

I'm using a USB to serial converter on the small laptop (the one in the chair).

I can port stuff over to Putty okay, but for some reason with the pin configuration above I get all kinds of garbage.

What did you do to get CFHDXS1 working?

[Asmusr]

For some reason I have to 'initialize' the port by opening a terminal emulator on the PC (I use TeraTerm). I wrote about it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ti99-4a/conversations/topics/81395

 

Note that I don't have one of the new nanoPEBs, so it might be another problem you're having.

[Omega-TI]

For some reason I have to 'initialize' the port by opening a terminal emulator on the PC (I use TeraTerm). I wrote about it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ti99-4a/conversations/topics/81395

 

Note that I don't have one of the new nanoPEBs, so it might be another problem you're having.

 

Hey, it's worth a shot. I'll see if I can locate a Terminal program first and go from there. Thanks. At this point I'll try anything.

[+Lee Stewart]

NanoPEB v1.0 has these restrictions:

The port connector is a modern DB9 in DTE (data terminal equipment configuration).

The only handshake signals supported are DTR and CTS.

 

I do not know this for a fact; but, I would think that, because the NanoPEB v2.0 is using a 16C550 UART, all the chip-supported signals would be present and that, if you truly expect hardware handshaking, you would connect one port's RTS to the other's CTS, i.e., 7—8 and 8—7, not 7—7 and 8—8. That said, you should probably wire the cable as a null modem by shorting 1, 4 and 6 (CD, DTR and DSR) as well as 7 and 8 (RTS and CTS) on each DB9 and only pass RD (2), TD (3) and SG (5) through, i.e., 2—3, 3—2 and 5—5:

*

   2───────3
   3───────2
   5───────5
   4─┐   ┌─4
   6─┤   ├─6
   1─┘   └─1
   7─┐   ┌─7
   8─┘   └─8

*

...lee

[Omega-TI]

 

NanoPEB v1.0 has these restrictions:

 

I do not know this for a fact; but, I would think that, because the NanoPEB v2.0 is using a 16C550 UART, all the chip-supported signals would be present and that, if you truly expect hardware handshaking, you would connect one port's RTS to the other's CTS, i.e., 7—8 and 8—7, not 7—7 and 8—8. That said, you should probably wire the cable as a null modem by shorting 1, 4 and 6 (CD, DTR and DSR) as well as 7 and 8 (RTS and CTS) on each DB9 and only pass RD (2), TD (3) and SG (5) through, i.e., 2—3, 3—2 and 5—5:

*

   2───────3
   3───────2
   5───────5
   4─┐   ┌─4
   6─┤   ├─6
   1─┘   └─1
   7─┐   ┌─7
   8─┘   └─8

*

...lee

 

 

Ahhhhh sooooo, that sounds like that just might be the ticket! Thanks Lee!

 

I'll try to find set aside some time to play in the next week or two and make the appropriate modifications.

[Omega-TI]

 

NanoPEB v1.0 has these restrictions:

 

I do not know this for a fact; but, I would think that, because the NanoPEB v2.0 is using a 16C550 UART, all the chip-supported signals would be present and that, if you truly expect hardware handshaking, you would connect one port's RTS to the other's CTS, i.e., 7—8 and 8—7, not 7—7 and 8—8. That said, you should probably wire the cable as a null modem by shorting 1, 4 and 6 (CD, DTR and DSR) as well as 7 and 8 (RTS and CTS) on each DB9 and only pass RD (2), TD (3) and SG (5) through, i.e., 2—3, 3—2 and 5—5:

*

   2───────3
   3───────2
   5───────5
   4─┐   ┌─4
   6─┤   ├─6
   1─┘   └─1
   7─┐   ┌─7
   8─┘   └─8

*

...lee

 

 

Well, I tried this.... I blew out the COM1 port on my Nano, now I cannot even print. <SIGH>

I was really looking forward to using CFHDXS, but that's when it blew. Everything was working fine with the modified cable, afterwards NOTHING. We tried multiple computers, multiple USB adapters and the cable is good, the USB adapters are good, but the Nano's comport is toast.

 

The Nano does not appear (at least to us) to have any isolation between the IC and the DB9 is that normal?

[slinkeey]

I think the MX3232 is designed to directly drive RS232. Then again, I also believe it is only used on the RX/TX lines.

Edited October 16, 2014 by slinkeey

[Omega-TI]

I think the MX3232 is designed to directly drive RS232. Then again, I also believe it is only used on the RX/TX lines.