Someone posted something on the “ forgotten machines” discord that bonks the iphone discord app. Can’t even run it, comes up for a second then disappears. Posting here because i can’t run discord so maybe someone can help?
Can someone take a look?
Sent from my iPhone
Hi Philip,
I have found your inquiry on
https://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/2015-March/005247.html.
I have a Problem Solver Systems (PSS) RAM65 card that I would like to get
working in my IMSAI 8080, but I can not find any manuals for it online.
Does anyone on the list have a manual they could possibly scan for me.
Much thanks in advance.
Philip
I have the same board but now information. In meantime did you get a manual
or information about the RAM65?
It would be glad if you can chair the information to me.
Best regards
Martin (Germany)
Computer rescue opportunity came in through vintagecomputer.net.
northstar horizon. Contact me through vintagecomputer.net use contact
form, ask for details.
Thanks
Bill
I have a RL02 that someone drilled the pop rivets on and removed one of the inner rails. I have no idea why -- this RL02 sat on a shelf above a corporate cab, so in their application I guess it didn't need it, but they left the other rail on! I do not have the missing inner rail, it was nowhere to be found when I purchased the system. I need to find a replacement so that I can rack the drive, as I have the outer rack rails for it.
I would like to purchase/trade for/whatever the inner rail, or a junk parts bucket RL drive.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Last month, I got to speak at VCF SW on aspects about the history of
personal computers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF6Ofrr6_0
(I botched a couple things, a link to corrections is in the Description)
I brought up the 1968 book "How to build a working digital
computer"(Alcosser). I was wondering about opinions here on that book -
was it at all influential at the time? Or is anyone aware of actually
building the system it describes?
And - any thoughts on "digital computer" vs analog? I'm aware of early
Heathkit analog computers. Is it fair to say quantum computing is sort of
a return back to analog computing?
I recently heard someone make a comment that we're near the end of the
"3.3V era" (maybe this was in the recent X16 talk, where some of the
challenges of the recent retro-remakes is exploring back to the 5V era and
how it's getting more difficult to find modern-make components that support
that).
Has no one explored a "tri-state" system? (discrete regions across 5V?)
- Steve
(v* voidstar tech, not to be confused with voidstar labs)
Hello All,
I was trying to buy tickets for VCF-West and the ticketing system (through
CHM) seems to be down. Anyone have more info or an ETA on repairs? Thanks.
-Ali
I came across this today: “Electronics engineer builds 1986 Macintosh Plus
clone”. Is there some reason one would want to do this? Not sure what the
point is but it proves it can be done!
Happy computing.
Murray 🙂
I will never forget Windows ME. Bleargh!
Dave
I wrote PC BIOS code for Phoenix Technologies from 1996 to 2023, we had to suffer through every Windows release as old stuff broke and had to be fixed.
________________________________
From: Fred Cisin <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 6:05 PM
To: David Wise <d44617665(a)hotmail.com>
Cc: Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
Sorry,
I can never remember which is which between Windows 2000
and Windows ME ("Millenium Edition")
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, David Wise wrote:
> I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.
>
> Dave Wise
> ________________________________
> From: Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 5:21 PM
> To: Murray McCullough via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Cc: Fred Cisin <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
>> I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
>> – US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM’s version
>> thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
>> 8-bit machines could do!
>
> Ah, but there is so much more to the story, which deserves an entire
> chapter in the history.
>
> More than you wanted to know? : (but even more details available if you really want them)
>
> Tim Paterson, of Seattle Computer Products was developing 8086 hardware,
> but CP/M-86 was delayed. So, he wrote a temporary place-holder to use
> instead of CP/M-86 until CP/M-86 became available. That was called
> "QDOS", "Quick and Dirty Operating System". Later it became known as
> "SCP-DOS" and/or "86-DOS"
>
> Then came the "culture clash" between IBM and Digital Research
> (previously known as "Intergalctic digital Research"). That has been
> documented elsewhere; some claim that there was not a culture clash, nor
> an error.
>
> So, Microsoft (possibly Bill Gates personally) went down the street to
> Seattle Computer Products, and bought an unlimited license for 86-DOS
> "that we can sell to our [un-named] client"
>
> Tim Paterson, who later opened "Falcon Technologies" and Seattle Computer
> Products both also retained licenes to be able to sell "the
> operating system". Note that the version was not specified, as to whether
> such license would include rights to sell updated versions; that error
> (failure to specify whether future/derivative products were included) has
> been repeated elsewhere (cf. Apple/Microsoft)
>
> Microsoft also hired Tim Paterson to maintain and update "MS-DOS".
>
> Microsoft sold a license to IBM, where it became PC-DOS.
> And, it was available through Lifeboat as "86-DOS"
>
> In August 1981, when the PC (5150) was released, IBM started selling
> PC-DOS. But digital Research was not happy with IBM selling a copy of
> their operating system.
> In those days, selling a copy was legal, if the internal code was not
> copied. (hence the development of "clean-room reverse engineering")
> It wasn't until the Lotus/Paperback Software (Adam Osborne)
> lawsuit that "look and feel" became copyrightable.
>
> So, IBM agreed to also sell CP/M-86 IN ADDITION to selling PC-DOS.
> . . . and sold UCSD P-System.
>
> But CP/M-86 was STILL not ready, so everybody bought PC-DOS, many of whom
> planned to switch to CP/M-86 when it became available.
> But, when CP/M-86 was finally ready, the price was $240 vs $40 for PC-DOS.
> There are arguments about whether IBM or Digital Research set that price.
> Although, if that price was IBM's idea, then why did Digital Research
> charge $240 for copies sold through other sources (such as Lifeboat)?
>
>
> Initially MS-DOS and PC-DOS differed only in name and trivial items, such
> as "IO.SYS" and "MSDOS.SYS" being renamed "IBMBIO.COM" and "IBMDOS.COM"
> When changes were made, Microsoft's and IBM's version numbers were
> separated.
> Thus 1.00 was the same for both
> IBM released PC-DOS 1.10, and Microsoft released MS-DOS 1.25
> 2.00 was the same for both
> 2.10 VS 2.11 (IBM needed trivial changes to 2.00 to deal with the
> excessively slow Qumetrak 142 disk drives in the PC-Junior and "portable"
> 3.00 was the same
> 3.10, adding network support and the "network redirector for CD-ROMs
> 3.20 VS 3.21, adding "720K" 3.5" drive support
> 3.30 VS 3.31, BUT 3.31 was the first to support larger than 32Mebibyte drives!
> 4.00 and 4.01 IBM/Microsoft did not provide third party vendors enough
> advanced warning, so Norton Utilities, etc. did not work on 4.00 (NOT
> 4.00 did not work with Norton Utilities!)
> 5.00
> In 6.00 each company bundled a whole bunch of third party stuff (such as
> disk compression) and each got them from different sources.
> When Microsoft's disk compression was blamed for serious problems caused
> by SMARTDRV, Microsoft released 6.20 (repaired and reliability improved
> from 6.00).
> Then 6.21 and 6.22 as a result of Microsoft's legal case with Stac
> Electronics.
>
>
> Please note that MS-DOS/PC-DOS ALWAYS had a version number, a period, and
> then a TWO DIGIT DECIMAL sub-version number. THAT is what is stored
> internally. Thus, 1.10 is stored as ONE.TEN (01h.0Ah), 3.31 is actually
> THREE.Thirty-ONE (03h.1Fh), etc.
> If there had ever actually been a "1.1" or "3.2", those would have been
> 01h.01h (1.01) and 03h.02h (3.02), etc.
> "1.1" was NOT the same as "1.10", nor "3.2" the same as "3.20", otherwise
> VERY minor changes would be confused with serious changes, as happened
> when some people called 4.01 "four point one".
>
>
> Later still, Seattle Computer Products was on the rocks. There was some
> speculation that AT&T might buy it, to get the DOS license (and not have
> to pay royalties per copy!). After some legal animosity, Microsoft did
> the right and smart thing, and bought Seattle Computer Products, thus
> closing that vulnerability.
>
> Windows originally started as an add-on command processor and user
> interface on top of DOS. Windows95 made that invisibly seamless, so the
> user never saw a DOS prompt without explicitly asking for it. Windows 95
> still contained DOS (7.00), but the user never saw it.
>
>
> Gordon Letwin at Microsoft developed OS/2. But Microsoft sold it off to
> IBM, and it became known as an IBM product.
> Microsoft used some key technology from it in developing WindowsNT.
> Within Microsoft's offerings, NT competed with non-NT windows, such as
> Windows95, Windows98, and Windows2000.
> Windows[NT] Vista, XP, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 continued, and the old Windows was
> "deprecated'.
>
>
> Naming a version after the year it is released is great for sales in the
> first year, and a serious liability in subsequent years, unless there is
> actually going to be a new version every year (as automobiles do)
>
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
Did not show up on the list, so I am forwarding another copy;
sorry if there are duplicates
On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
> US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM's version
> thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
> 8-bit machines could do!
There are conflicting reports that list that price as $25,000, $50,000, or
$75,000, although there is suppoirt for each
for example:
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=99
"for $50,000 or $75,000, depending on how the cost is calculated."
The price that IBM paid Microsoft is stated variously as $25,000, $50,000, to
$430,000
Great detail, but a few items are arguable:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-rise-of-dos-how-microsoft-got-the-ibm-pc-os-…
"By most accounts, Nishi was the one most strongly in favor of Microsoft
getting into the operating system world. Allen said in his autobiography Idea
Man that Gates was less enthusiastic. Allen called Seattle Computer Products
owner Rod Brock and licensed QDOS for $10,000 plus a royalty of $15,000 for
every company that licensed the software."
"In Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM, Sams is quoted as saying Gates told him
about QDOS and offered it to IBM. "The question was: Do you want to buy it or
do you want me to buy it?" Sams said. Since IBM had already had decided to go
with an open architecture, the company wanted Microsoft to purchase QDOS.
Besides, Sams said, "If we'd bought the software, we'd have just screwed it
up."
"According to Allen, under the contract signed that November, IBM agreed to pay
Microsoft a total of $430,000, including $45,000 for what would end up being
called DOS, $310,000 for the various 16-bit languages, and $75,000 for
"adaptions, testing and consultation."
In contrast, the TV "Pirates of the Valley" made the false and absurd claim
that bill Gates cold-called IBM to convince them to get an operating system!
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
