🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #3137

Re: "SetCPU FASTROM" weirdness

#3137
From: Dave Haynie
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 1990 20:00
46 lines
2629 bytes
In article <3164@usceast.UUCP> yarnall@usceast.UUCP (Ken Yarnall) writes:
>I have a few questions about SetCPU.  

>First, I when I envoke "SetCPU FASTROM", the path command doesn't seem to
>work correctly.  Path will set the path correctly in the current Shell, but
>if I fire up another Shell (by double-clicking the Shell Icon), the second
>Shell doesn't inherit the path.  

The SetCPU patches affect this -- specifically, the string patches that change
"Workbench" to "Fastbench".  

>If I specify "SetCPU FASTROM NOPATCH", everything is fine.  Is this a known 
>bug?  

It's a known conflict.  Path inheritance needs the Workbench string around
somewhere, and when SetCPU changes it, you lose that capability.  I suppose
the patches could be massaged a bit to find which "Workbench" string is
the problem, but I'm taking a different approach in SetCPU V1.6 (currently
in the works).

>I *like* the FastROM patches -- they keep my disk drive from clicking!  I would 
>like to be able to use the Patches with impunity...

I like the NoClick feature too, but some other folks don't.  For instance,
those who have drives that feature doesn't work with.  In SetCPU V1.6, the
only patch built into the program is the KEYPATCH trick, since you really
need that for proper operation with Cherry keyboards.  However, you have
the option of loading a patched ROM image instead of the one from directly
from ROM.  This is different than loading a KICKROM -- no reboot takes
place, but SetCPU will only load it if the ROM image is the same version as
the one in your system.  Small patches like the "Fastbench" patch or the
NoClick patch will work just great this way.  And if you add enough patches
to break something, you can't hold SetCPU responsible for it!

>On a lesser note, does it make any difference when SetCPU is run, relative to
>SetPatch?

Shouldn't -- the FASTROM changeover should be completely transparent to all
software, except for the patches.

>ken

-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
                    Too much of everything is just enough
Technical Details
Message-ID: <10433@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
References: <3164@usceast.UUCP>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: "SetCPU FASTROM" weirdness
Message-ID: <10433@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 29 Mar 90 20:00:30 GMT
References: <3164@usceast.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 46