>As this forum is based upon Classic Computers I have a
>theoretical question for you all.
>Which do you prefer, the original system or an emulation?
For me, the real machine is more important. An emulation is a poor
replacement (especially if it has to run under Microsoft-anything).
But with some hardware being in very short quantity, an emulator
can fulfill a need.
I'm in the process of working on a pdp-10 emulator, but that is
not to say that I would turn down real hardware... my only problem
right now is lack of space. I definitely could not handle a KA,
KI or KL... but a KS? Good possibiliy... the disks are another
problem, however.
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
BSD derived boxes have the ^T status available... see below from my
Freebsd 2.2.7 box (AMD 586/133)
Script started on Tue Oct 20 08:42:46 1998
#134 i4got:/home/pechter>^T load: 0.22 cmd: ksh 15420 [ttyin] 0.03u 0.06s 0% 472k
Script done on Tue Oct 20 08:42:54 1998
Bill
(wishing for both Tops-20 and Vax/Vms on my pc)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill and/or Carolyn Pechter | pechter(a)shell.monmouth.com |
| Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in |
| a James Bond movie -- Dennis Miller |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> terminals...sometimes I wish capitalism was never invented...
> Well, since only essentially capitalist countries have ever invented
> useful products of any kind and computers are useful...
Hmm so where you put in war time Germany ? It was organized
more like the later SU but the same time a whole lot of
inventions and 'fist' things hapened ?
> Of course, the US is more socialist every week since 1933.
Geeee - come on - its maybe becoming more and more fuzzy,
but socialism is way, way the other direction.
Gruss
H.
(And to come on topic again: did you know that they had
some real neat computers in the east before they switched
to strict cloning in the 80's ?)
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
>>> BTW, would you say 'kilobyte' is a misnomer? THe number it
>>>signifies isn't 10^3, it's 2^10. For a feeble attempt to get back on
>>>topic: was kilobyte always accepted as 1024 bytes?
>> What drives me crazy are the marketroids who round-up twice
>> in order to inflate the capacity of hard drives.
> What annoys me is the 1.44Mbyte floppy disk. The only way to get that
> capacitiy is to define 1Mbyte = 1000*1024 Bytes. Ugh!
> The famous 65K memory chips/boards of years gone by grated on me as well
> (they were, of course 64K boards with 65536 locations).
Just remember the Ataris: 64XL, 130XL, ST260, ST520, ST1040 :))
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
>> In rummage through the dark recesses of my garage (too densly packed to let
>> in light) I again ran across an IBM AT motherboard that used the piggyback
>> memory chips. Were there any other computers that used these things?
> The Apple /// 128K memory board used 32 pieces of standard 16K DRAM, and
> 16 pieces of 32K (stacked 16K) DRAMs.
> Several TI calculators including the TI-58 and TI-59 use stacked DIPs for
> RAM.
> The HP-41CX calculator uses stacked DIPs for ROM and RAM.
The first Atari ST520+ and 260+ used stacked chips. Atari
decided short before delivering the first units that they
had to double the RAM size (Never woundered why the 260+
had 512K and the 520+ had 1Meg ? 260 -> 260 decimal kBytes
and 520 -> 520 decimal kBytes, both numers are rounded in
favour for the marketing .) Ther have also been real
260s and 520s with 256K and 512K.
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
> < It's certainly *possible* to add intelligent I/O channels to an x86 mach
> The hottest machine I've played with was a hacked xerox XP12 laser printer
> controller. It was a 8mhz 8086 and a 8089(IOP). It could beat any 8086
> system cold (using s100 and multibus systems as standard). Later I would
> see a 8086 multibus system with two 8089s running CPM-86 and it was far
> faster than the then new AT.
Thats it - I still go mad when people are ranting about the x86
architecture (kind of popular) but they never tried to understand
the features, or they never seen the whole family. In fact, Intel
designed the 86 as part of an chipset in a very mainframe like
way - A general purpose CPU: 8086, a specialized floating point
add on: 8087 and a versitale IOC: 8089. A structure as found on
most mainframe at this time (Remember, also IBM offered their
customers to get specialized add ons to improve floating point
performance on the /370). Since IBM used only the CPU and FPU,
the actual PC design is exact like a Mainframe without an IOC:
Just painfull slow.
Gruss
H.
P.S.: The hate-segmentation-rantig against the x86 also drives
me mad - the segmentation sceme used is a very good compromise
between usability and performance. Loosing up to 15 Bytes
per segment isn't realy a drawback compared to granularities
of 4 or 8K today ...
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
>>> Oh well. It would have been an interesting idea.
well I'd be interested, but the big problem's transport at the moment.
Give me a couple of months and then ask again :)
>> > Yeah, and given the geographic spread of the people that did reply, even
>>a
>> > pub meet would be out of the question.
>>
>> Jep, just for 3 hours would be a bit short - I'll think
>> you have to change your horrible pub opening hours.
well rumour has it that they might be changing. At the moment all you
need to do is find a good pub with a decent landlord who isn't bothered
about closing at the official times. It's not difficult!
cheers
Jules
< performance on the /370). Since IBM used only the CPU and FPU,
< the actual PC design is exact like a Mainframe without an IOC:
< Just painfull slow.
My pet peve is the IBM PC when launched was clocked at a rather poor
4.77mhz when most of the s100, multibus and generally everyone else
that went with 16bits were looking for 8mhz or faster if possible.
It saved a few dollars but not enough. At least DEC had a z80 in
there to also do IO (instead of the IOC).
< P.S.: The hate-segmentation-rantig against the x86 also drives
< me mad - the segmentation sceme used is a very good compromise
< between usability and performance. Loosing up to 15 Bytes
< per segment isn't realy a drawback compared to granularities
< of 4 or 8K today ...
To me segmentation was just another bag on the side to get 16bits to
address more.
The other half is that MMU granularity makes sense for its time but with
modern OSs eating megabytes for the kernel Even segments don't allow
enough.
Allison
>> This item description on eBay says it all:
>> 36111353 Collectible IBM PS/1 Type 2011
>> BWAHAHAHAHA!
>> Kai
> Sorry to differ, but from a collectors point of view the 2011 is
> unique. I don't know how rare it is but it is certainly rarer than the 5150.
Yep, collectors are more different then dogs and cats....
> The item offered is of course useless because the power supply is in the
> monitor unit. IBM calls it a 286 work station and it functions fine in that
> capacity with a good display.
And IBM sold tonns of them - at least over here.
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
well, i have no schematics, but i do have a spare power supply board if anyone
needs it.
In a message dated 10/17/98 9:45:31 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
nerdware(a)laidbak.com writes:
> My 128k Mac went south on me. When I first got it a year ago, it turned on
> and
> the screen came up and asked for a floppy. Not having a system disk that
old,
> I
> just put it in storage until I came across one.
>
> Needless to say, next time I turned it on the floppy made funny noises and
> kept spitting the disk out and no video.
>
> Does anyone have a schematic for the little beast so I can get it cooking
> again? If I have to, I can use my Mac Plus for my history presentations,
but
> I
> would rather use the original, if possible.