As much as I would love to get this stuff directly myself, I would much
prefer that you send them to Don Maslin, the CP/M boot disk archivist,
>from whom I (and many others) can obtain copies.
Kai
> ----------
> From: Doug Rich
> Reply To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 1997 9:27 PM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: Northstar Software
>
> I was a northstar dealer for many years and have a box (about the size
> of a
> case of paper) full of northstar software on original disks. I am not
> sure
> what to do with them. I would like them to be of some use to someone.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Doug
>
> Remember... No mater where you go... there you are!
>
At 04:07 PM 6/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>>What worries me is that in a lot of cases, the older machines are more
>>useable than the modern Wintel equivalents. This applies both to a new
>>user (somebody who just wants to write 2 page letters does _NOT_ (or
>>should not) need a 166MHz Pentium with 16Mbytes of RAM), and to 'hackers'
>>who want to understand their machines. It's possible for one person to
>>complete understand both the hardware and software of most classic
>>computers - something that (IMHO) is not possible with a Wintel box.
>
>>Same here. In reality I use my s100 crate, ampro, and sb180 to produce
>>8048/9 and 8051 code as they really are faster and easier to use. Also
>>being as I have them interconnected it's easier to blast proms in the
>>s100 crate. Efficient, very! I've had nearly 20 years to refine the code
>>and tools! I have the advantage of having source code for those tools so
>>and long latent bugs are easily squashed. This is not doable on PCs.
>
>>I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro! Faster than the PC
>>overall.
>
>For a while there, I was thinking maybe I'm in the wrong group.
>
>I see a LOT of traffic about restoring and collecting old computers,
>and the typical member here is one who has a large collection of
>different machines, but except for a rare question about boot disks,
>there isn't much said about using these machines. When I turn on my
>99/4A or Geneve, it isn't primarily to bask in a nostalgic glow, but
>to write something or balance my budget or do some programming.
>Certainly the nostalgic glow is there, and it adds a dimension to
>the computing experience that peecee devotees cannot understand. But
>it IS my primary workhorse, not just a desk queen.
>
>Don't get me wrong; I love to hear about these old machines, so keep
>those messages coming. But I would like to hear from others out there
>who use their obsolete machines (I prefer "non-mainstream machines")
>for practical, everyday, household computing uses.
>
>In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
>few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
>suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
>everything you want to do.
>
>--
>**********************************************
>* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
>* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
>**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
>
I do use my old machines now and then, but if anyone here has never ran a
modern MAC or PC, they have NO idea what is bieng missed. web pages in full
photo quality color, realistic games, PPP connections, Realaudio etc. I am
not a member of the dark force, I just have a multitude of machines, and I
have EXPERIANCED running them, from an apple ][ +, C=64, IBM XT, and a 586-133.
we must have an open mind about this, as there are some who still never ran
anything NEW, and pass judgment about how bad a machine is when they have
never used one.
Thought someone may be interested.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "News User" <tbinet(a)ic.net>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2.marketplace
Subject: Apple III computer & Monitor FS
Date: 25 Jun 1997 12:57:25 GMT
I have an Apple III computer & Monitor III for sale with Manuals
and software for sale, or Trade. Please let me know if you are
interested.
Robert
Please respond to:
rdoerr(a)bizserve.com
--
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
> From hacking Commodore 1541 disks, I have seen that it used a system as you
> mentioned above, and in block 0 of each file the first 2 bytes was the load
> address if it was a program file, or data in a sequnetial file, and each
> block had pointers to the next block. too bad that ms-dos is not as simple..
But MS-DOS _is_ that simple. It just stores the linked list in a
different part of the disk than it stores the data...
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
> Does anyone have information / know where I could find information on
> building a computer using 2901's? I know they were fairly common and
> I have (I'm almost positive) a few of the bare chips laying around
> home.
Find an old (early 80s) copy of the amd or motorola data books.
These are bipolar 4 bit slices and can be used to make a fairly fast
cpu (10mhz) of variying designs from 4 bit to over 64 bits. Warning
microcoding can be habit forming. You will also want 2909/10/11 microcode
sequencer chips. Those are less common.
It's rather fun designing a cpu to your specs, hten of course you'll write
all the other code too as it's one up design.
Allison
thanks to a pointer originally posted on this list i met up with someone
yesterday who bequeathed me his old Z-100 (Heath/Zenith pre-pc era dual CPU
system). it took me a while to replace a bunch of the keyboard switches
(they were gunked up with glue) and some bad video RAM, but now the system
hums along nicely. he had souped it up in a number of ways (except no hard
disk, darn) and had tons of software. i'll undoubtedly have extra and will
post a listing of duplicates at some point in case anyone's interested. he
included lots of cp/m stuff including cp/m85 and cp/m86 and, interestingly,
mp/m. so thanks for the pointer guys!
(P.S. i've noticed a markedly improved signal to noise ratio on this list
lately so people are thinking twice before hitting the "send" button with
meaningless chatter or flaming comments - let's keep it up!)
tx.
- glenn
+=========================================================+
| Glenn F. Roberts, Falls Church, VA
| Comments are my own and not the opinion of my employer
| groberts(a)mitre.org
chemif(a)mbox.queen.it wrote:
>At 13:54 23/06/97 -0800, you wrote:
>>> On another note, has anyone ever seen (or have) a Basis-xxx? I know it
>>> has a number in the name, but I can't remember it. It was an Apple ][
>>> clone that also ran CP/M I believe? Something like that. I'm sure
>>> someone knows about it. I only knew one guy who ever had one, but I
never
>>> saw it. It was a friend in high school back in 1989.
>>
>>I believe these were designed/built in Europe, probably Germany.
>
>In Italy there was Lemon computer building Apple-clones.
>Has anyone heard about them?
Were they actually called 'Lemon's'? That certainly doesn't have a
positive
connotation in North America!
In Canada, a company built Apple II clones called 'Pineapples'.
There were probably other fruit-named clones as well!
--
Clark Geisler
I monitor this mailing list (some might call it lurking) because of all the
now-classic machines that I used to own. If I had the room, time, and skill,
I might be a collector like most of you, but for now I must be content to
watch. I'm glad to see that so many people are still getting use out of these
machines. There are certainly times when I wish I understood what was going
on inside a Windows 95 box as well as I understood the various Kaypros, the
Geneva, the Timex-Sinclair, the Model 100, or the other machines I once used
on a daily basis. I suppose that even my Mac SE would qualify as a "classic
machine" by now.
On the other hand, let's not go overboard and say that you can do as much with
those lean, mean computers of yesteryear as you can with today's bloated and
overpowered desktop Cadillacs. Despite the processing power and overhead
devoted to being more user friendly, today's machines are better at doing most
kinds of real work. Okay, if you're just writing business letters or
balancing your checkbook, a Kaypro is going to work just as well as a Dell
Pentium. But that's only one extreme. When I was working on my dissertation,
I wrote a cluster analysis program for my Kaypro II because it was the only
machine I had. It took months to write and debug the program (written in
S-BASIC), and every time I ran the analysis it took two days--literally, 48+
hours of grinding away. I could do the same thing in seconds using SAS and
the P133 machine on which I'm typing this. In fact, I do this sort of thing
for a living, and there are so many things that would be a major project on a
classic machine which I do now just as a matter of preliminary exploration.
And it's not just statistics. Writing reports is much easier with a mouse and
multitasking. Getting data from dBASE II to Perfect Calc and then moving the
summary table to Wordstar or Perfect Writer was a considerable chore.
Yesterday I zapped a bunch of Quattro Pro tables (based on SAS output) over to
a Word document, and everything showed up with no trouble, formatting and all.
Those are programs written by rival companies, but they can talk to each other
just fine.
Others have mentioned that it takes more skill and intelligence to use classic
software than to point and click. I don't disagree with that, and I'm proud
of what I was able to get those machines to do. Learning to use those kinds
of computers has given me a better outlook about later ones, and I still tweak
my current set up much more than most people (and certainly more than our IT
department would like me to). But then, I remember a lot of people in my
Kaypro User's Group who never figured out how to use the modems in their 2Xs.
Friendlier interfaces have opened up the benefits of computing to a lot of
people who would never have put up with CP/M. After all computers are
_supposed_ to make your life easier. If that means they require less
intelligence and skill to use, that means they're doing their job.
--Dav
david_a._vandenbroucke(a)hud.gov
>From: steve <steve(a)kennard.keme.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: PET
> Hi you lot, glad the group is in a positive mood!!!
> Ok can you help ? a few months ago I found a Commodore P500 seriel NO. WG00837
?????
Well if you collect Commodres, you are a very fortunate person!
> What the heck is it????
> Its made in W.Germany
> Any Idea??
> Steve
All I can do is give you the U.S. perspective on this machine, since I
haven't heard any stories on the European distribution of P-500s.
A few years back I picked up one (P-500) as well, with people telling me
it was a B-128, I didn't look at the back and was surely perplexed when
I needed to hook it to my 1702 and it came up in 40 column color when I
turned it on, so I did some research and asked around a few places (on
Q-Link, and a query to the Chicago B-128 users group). I received two
or three stories that were pretty much the same.
Back in 1982 Commodore re-vamped it's entire product line in order to
replace the aging PETs and to eventually phase out the then looking more
limited VIC-20. The line consisted of the Commodore 64 and Ulitmax, for
games/home/education use and the B-128 and P-500 for education/business
and as an upgrade option for people who purchased alot of PET (IEEE-488)
equipment.
In its rush (given the home computer wars), Commodore sent a bunch of
demo units of the B-128 and P-500 to dealers (yeah, I know that sounds
strange, it was a different Commodore back then) these units were not to
be sold as they still needed to get their FCC certification (for low
radio interference). Well some of these dealers were offered quick cash
for the demo units (even though they had no manuals or anything) and of
course, they jumped at the chance. The FCC heard about these sales of
uncertified equipment and told Commodore to immediately cease any sales
of them and face stiff penalties. Commodore promptly recalled them (at
least the ones they could get). Well they finally certified the B-128
but I guess being that the Commodore 64 was so popular they abandoned
the P-500 entirely and it is said they destroyed all reamining P-500s.
At the time I talked to the CB128UG (1990?) they said I was the third
person in the world ever to report having one, and their estimation was
that there are ten in existence. (they would have known since they were
lent ALL documantation on the B-128 series from Commodore when they gave
up that B-series computers).
Ok the P-500 has a 6502 type processor (you know, like the 64) and 128k
of RAM, it has a SID sound chip (also on the 64 and B-128), a true
RS-232 port, cartridge port (I know of no carts avalable for the B
series) and IEEE-488 port. But unlike the B-128 it sports a 40 column
VIC-II chip, two joystick ports and ROM coding that supports the
datasette drive (the B-128 also has a connector but no programming to
use it). Both computers could accept an optional 8088 co-processor
board and make it capapble of running CP/M 86.
The RS-232 port has one pin designated (on both B-128 &P-500) for a
high-speed networking system that never went into development (but was
put in hardware, just in case) the guy from CB128UG was pretty impressed
with the stats on it which I forgot.
So to sum it up, the P-500 is essentially the Color PET or P-128 that
Commodore had talked about. Kinda a cross between the SuperPET/B-128
(128k, IEEE-488, true RS-232, Co-Processor), and a 64 (SID, VIC-II,
Joysticks, color).
Jim Butterfield made a memory map for the B-128 and has some programming
examples for the B-128 in Transactor issues which might get you some
information, but there are differences. My unit has a RAM problem and I
haven't been able to explore it too much, also the ROMs are pretty much
porototype and it runs like molassas, so I dunno how much good that
would do me when I eventually fix it...
If you do find out ANYTHING more (or even have a manual on it) I would
surely be interested in what you find out!
Larry Anderson
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Visit our web page at: http://www.goldrush.com/~foxnhare
Call our BBS (Silicon Realms BBS 300-2400 baud) at: (209) 754-1363
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
At 09:45 PM 6/24/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> us, rather than simply because a machine is physically attractive,
>> technically impressive, or financially successful.
>Actually, some of the real dogs are just as fun and important. The Lisa,
>for example, strikes out on all three (OK, two strikes and one foul) of the
>above mentioned catagories, but is still a fascinating machine.
Hey, waitaminnit.... The lisa is one of the best looking computers around!
I think it's design is a classic! (Also, I think it was technically
impressive -- I remember being very impressed upon seeing a demo in a little
back room of the St. Francis hotel just before it was announced.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
sinasohn(a)crl.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
