Print

[Mr. Tom]

Well, i was checking voltages on the board when my xbox shut itself off, and now refuses to turn back on. No frag, no error, nothing.

Damn that voided warrenty!

It took me less than 6 hours to destroy this xbox, thats a new record for me!

This post has been edited by Mr. Tom: May 7 2004, 05:51 AM

[Josh Adams]

Thank god for OzXodus I say!

They have cracked the v1.6 already!

http://www.ozxodus.com/modules.php?name=Ne...=article&sid=29 says:

QUOTE

Team OzXodus proudly announces another groundbreaking achievement for the Xenium. In less than a week from the first sighting of the new Version 1.6 motherboard, we have worked round the clock and now have our premium product, the Xenium, up and running. Once our new OS2 is inline and updated, the Xenium will truly live up to its billing as the premium chip on the market. For the meantime, Xenium solder less will not work as there is need to solder five jumpers under the mother board. For those of you who are interested, we have posted a picture showing clearly where the D0 is located. (Although it is no longer needed in the 1.6, it can still be used to toggle between LPC and standard flash bus interface). We have also included a video showing version 1.6 controlling the Xenium debug LED. We would like to take this opportunity to invite all of you over to our forums at www.ozXodus.com , where we will be discussing and working on all development and release issues exclusively. So if you want to hear news first , join us there! Xenium. Discover a whole new Xperience!

They also posted this photo of the new d0


And have uploaded a movie of  here!

I always had faith that OzXodus would come thru with the goods!

I would even consider myself an OzXodus fanboy now, congratulations to the team on their awesome work.

[mcw]

Damn.. can't play the video... But, hmm... now I wanna know what they jumpered on the back... But so far I haven't had one brought to me to mod, so I don't need to worry right now.

I haven't seen any topics in the OZX forums (the announcement says to join the forums for the latest - but they haven't even put the current announcement in... guess I'm too early)

[lenballs]

This is fantastic, was starting to get nervous I would have to turn customers away. Looks like I'll be purchasing some Xeniums.

Great work.  

[Mr. Tom]

Well let us take a moment of silence to honor the the brave xboxen whom didnt make it (mainly mine)

Do you mean there were 5 points to bridge? or 5 points to solder to?

This post has been edited by Mr. Tom: May 7 2004, 06:09 AM

[mcw]

QUOTE (Mr. Tom @ May 7 2004, 01:00 AM)

Well let us take a moment of silence to honor the the brave xboxen whom didnt make it (mainly mine) Do you mean there were 5 points to bridge? or 5 points to solder to?

Good question.. then I wonder whether they made it Xenium specific (i.e. soldering to specific components on the Xenium - don't think they would do that, but, hey.. in the current modchip race, you never know what someone will do)

And - will they announce it now, or just let the video sit for a while until the other teams come up with something?

Damn. So anxious.

[Mr. Tom]

QUOTE (_Cold_Fusion_ @ May 7 2004, 08:02 AM)

just a bummer they didnt explain how.. :/

They will, give it time. I mean really, how can they sell a modchip without explaining how to install it?

[echto]

Kudos to OzXodus.

[BenJeremy]

QUOTE (GR8R-X @ May 12 2004, 07:50 AM)

I know this post is a couple of pages old, but it has to be said... That label you have noted as a v1.4, I believe that sticker to be BS.  I don't know where it came from, but I have never seen one like it.  All the Xbox's I have done have had a serial sticker almost identical to the v1.6 picture.  The only difference is the serial number, man. date, etc.

Actually, I've seen labels like that, I'll have to check the three Xboxes I have at my house tonight to confrim.


Don't knock the guy. He posted PICTURES of said label. The label differences might not be too significant, other than the factory the Xbox came from (though I thought all new ones were out of China)

[lookformeb]

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ May 12 2004, 10:09 AM)

Actually, I've seen labels like that, I'll have to check the three Xboxes I have at my house tonight to confrim. Don't knock the guy. He posted PICTURES of said label. The label differences might not be too significant, other than the factory the Xbox came from (though I thought all new ones were out of China)

Agreed.  Seen tons of them.  GR8R-X, your opinion of it being a knock off quite ignorant...

BJ, you're right.. they do all come out of China now.  Curious though.. why do they use two different codes (05/06) for the same country?  Perhaps they have two factories.. i dont know.

[Exobex]

QUOTE (xbill @ May 12 2004, 02:44 PM)

That's why I was trying to get read-write permissions in linux, so I could change the raincoat.conf that contains the device IDs. I was wonding if the device could be a microcontroller with on-board flash.   Something like ST's uPSD325X series

It may be that the chip ignores any "identify device" commands.  When I was gathering flash types for raincoat.conf 0.7 I came across a manufacturer that offered versions of its flash with no device ID.

You'll have to use raincoat 0.5 or 0.501 to read the chip.  Raincoat 0.7 won't touch it if it has an invalid ID, no matter what you put in the raincoat.conf file.  This feature was added because noobs kept adding a 0x0900 flash line to their conf file thinking that it would somehow cure their bad soldering job.

[Red-vs-Blue]

Yes, I've read the thread.

No, I don't want to know if this is a V 1.6 box.

I am only posting this info for community use and historical purposes.

Just traded in my old xbox for the last Halo SE bundle at my local EB.  The old one was giving me memory write errors and crashing very occasionally.  Besides, they have a helluva trade-in deal on old games and for the bundle right now.

This may be the first reported Halo SE V 1.6.

MFG. DATE: 2004-04-04
SN 6012874 41505
PID 161 6012874 41505

K: 1.00.5838.01
D: 1.00.5659.03

My torx set is at home, but I will try to pop it open and get pics later in the weekend.

[oz_paulb]

QUOTE (xbill @ May 12 2004, 03:44 PM)

That's why I was trying to get read-write permissions in linux, so I could change the raincoat.conf that contains the device IDs. I was wonding if the device could be a microcontroller with on-board flash.   Something like ST's uPSD325X series

The point I was trying to make is that the command sequence that's issued in order to read the manufacturer/device ID is different, depending on the manufacturer.

I haven't looked at 'raincoat.conf' in a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if it just has a list of manufacturer/device IDs that are used to identify chips.  The problem is: how do you read the manufacturer/device ID in the first place, if the method is different across different manufacturers (there is some standardization, but it's not 100% standardized).

For example, to read the manufacturer/device ID on a specific SST chip I've used, you issue the following write commands:

CODE

Write 0xaa to Flash offset 0x5555   Write 0x55 to Flash offset 0x2aaa   Write 0x90 to Flash offset 0x5555

At this point, you can read addresses 0 and 1 to get the manufacturer/device IDs.

On a specific AMD chip, the 'identify device' command sequence is:

CODE

Write 0xaa to Flash offset 0xaaa   Write 0x55 to Flash offset 0x555   Write 0x90 to Flash offset 0xaaa

(again, reading from addresses 0/1 at this point will get the device/manufacturer ID)

On an Intel flash, you just:

CODE

Write 0x90 to any Flash offset

There are also differences in whether you read from addresses 0/1, or 0/2 (taking into account byte-mode vs word-mode.  Each Flash chip manufacturer seems to do things a bit differently.

(there is also a standard called "CFI" (Common Flash Interface) that tries to get around the incompatibilities, but it's not 100% adopted)

So, it's possible that 'raincoat' has code to support reading manufacturer/device IDs from several Flash manufacturers (using several methods), but it's unlikely that it supports all methods of reading device IDs.  As I said, I suspect that 'raincoat' has code to support Flash chips that were known to exist on the Xbox (the TSOP flash chips in pre-1.6 Xbox's) - there's a multitude of Flash/EEPROM chips out there that could be inside the 1.6 Xbox, which may/may not be compatible with 'read identifier' command sequences supported by 'raincoat'.

So, even if there were a writeable Flash inside the Xbox 1.6's chipset, it's not necessarily the case that 'raincoat' could be made to recognize it (even if you update the '.conf' file).  (unless, of course, you modified the raincoat source code)

But, as I said, my guess is that the BIOS memory inside Xbox 1.6 is ROM, so it's all a moot point.  I could be wrong, though...

- Paulb

[BenJeremy]

Actually, I will offer some hope that the Xyclops might be flashable....

...The project I'm working on right now involves a product that incorporates a FlashROM for pre-production, and well into production. It's a far more static device than an Xbox, which has had quite a few kernel revisions over it's life cycle already, and expects to have a few more down the road.

The move to a Masked ROM is costly up front - time and money are needed to prepare a part, and any changes in code means that you need to retape the part, introducing a lot of overhead. My product will probably see volumes near to what the Xbox has. Even so, we are rethinking the MaskedROM, as the unit cost savings may not be justified by the up front expense of masking.

In other words, M$ had a custom chip built, but if it's ROM, then any changes means they have to RE-ENGINEER the chip. Masking isn't overly complex, but it does impose cost and time penalties. The smart money might be on the fact that M$ custom built a flash interface into the Xyclops to hedge their bets on the engineering costs for the inevitable Kernel updates.


Anyway, just my 2 cents worth to the technical discussion here.

[BenJeremy]

OTP might be the thing they've done. It makes the most sense, with a custom chip, to take the low-risk route and maintain high volume savings.