At 06:06 AM 10/18/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Hi:
>The bus is Intel Multibus. Look in Intel documentation for Multibus or
>80/10A.
>Paxton
>
>
Hi Paxton,
Thanks, I will look.
-Dave
>>To further complicate matters, within digital the CPU is identified
>>differently based on whether it has PMI memory installed or not.
>>(And, of course, it matters whether the PMI comes before or after
>>the CPU in the backplane!) So, for example, you may find a 18 MHz
>>CPU with non-PMI memory called a 11/73, but with PMI memory it's called
>>a 11/83.
>In fact... you could find the system with PMI memory, but installed
>in the wrong place, and it will be identifed - by software - as an
>11/73B. If you put the same memory in the right place, it will be
>identified as an 11/83.
And if you put the FPP in your pocket instead of the CPU board, it
won't be identified by the software either :-). Your point is good
though - you've got to put PMI memory in the right slot or you don't
get the advantages!
>>If, indeed, you have the 11/84 capable version, you'll also need the
>>KDJ11-B and the 11/84 backplane, along with PMI memory, to have a
>>real 11/84 CPU.
>But the board with Qbus memory in the qbus of an 11/84 system box
>should work...
There are lots of never-officially-supported combinations which
do work.
>I've also taken one of the KDJ11-B 18mhz boards, removed the 18mhz
>clock and replaced it with a 20mhz clock... the boot ROM correctly
>identifies the clock speed, and the system runs rock solid...
Maybe you mean MHz? :-). Sorry, ads where sellers claim
spectacular milliHertz performance are one of my pet peeves. (Along
with specs calling for compatibility with the ASC-2 character set
and construction plans calling for DB-9 connectors!) Though it would
be an interesting exercise to construct a Pentium II-type computer
based on relays just so that it does top out around 300 milliHertz!
One thing I never understood about metric prefixes is how come
many of them are misused or, even more mysteriously, not used. For
example, everybody around the world uses the term "metric ton" when
the perfectly acceptable (and SI-preferred) term "megagram" is
exactly equivalent (and to my ears sounds better!) And why say
"ten thousand metric tonnes" when "10 gigagrams" is available?
Tim "but let's keep the Metric Buttload" Shoppa. (shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com)
I found my first 8080 computer, an Intel single board 80/10A. I have no
documentation. Is there a name for the physical bus at the bottom of the board
so I can search for its description? The power connections I can trace OK.
There is a 86 pin edge connector at 0.156 inch spacing, and another 60 pin
edge connector at 0.1 inch spacing.
The jumper pins on the board are numbered only, there are 80. Some I have
figured out already.
Once I find all the power connections (on the 86 pin connector), assume +/-
5 volts and +/- 12 volts, I will try it and test the serial connection
(8251). 8 of the jumper pins look like to set the serial clock frequencies.
It looks like there is current loop as well as RS-232. Haven't found any
jumpers for this yet. There is a single 2716 eprom, don't know what is in
it- a monitor or some control program that may not use the serial port at
all. There are 2 8255 parallel ic's going to top connectors.
-Dave
The problems your mention is exactly what we had - over & over again.
Perhaps our failure rate was due to the fact that all our Eduquests came
through the grocery receipts program, we never actually bought one. And
through that program, getting repairs was a hassle and they always
needed repair.
>there's nothing wrong with eduquests at all. in fact, the model 55 is
quite
>nice. the only problem is lack of many slots inside and only one bay
for a
>hard drive as well as if the monitor or power supply fail, that's
expensive. i
>like how the inner tray slides out with your system board and
everything on
>it. very handy.
>
>
>
>In a message dated 10/18/98 9:43:39 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>maxeskin(a)hotmail.com writes:
>
>> Thanks. Actually, my school just got rid of a lab full of eduquests
>> to another school, and we still have one of them in the basement.
>> These seem like OK machines, though never tried to use them. They're
>> like PS/2 Model 25s only bigger. They have microphone and headphone
>> jacks on the front, along with a floppy drive. They're all 486s with
>> 16 MB RAM, IIRC. What was wrong with these?
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
there's nothing wrong with eduquests at all. in fact, the model 55 is quite
nice. the only problem is lack of many slots inside and only one bay for a
hard drive as well as if the monitor or power supply fail, that's expensive. i
like how the inner tray slides out with your system board and everything on
it. very handy.
In a message dated 10/18/98 9:43:39 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
maxeskin(a)hotmail.com writes:
> Thanks. Actually, my school just got rid of a lab full of eduquests
> to another school, and we still have one of them in the basement.
> These seem like OK machines, though never tried to use them. They're
> like PS/2 Model 25s only bigger. They have microphone and headphone
> jacks on the front, along with a floppy drive. They're all 486s with
> 16 MB RAM, IIRC. What was wrong with these?
I know that. The post that I was correcting was the one with the list of
numbers and what computer they were for:
> > 5168 XT286
> >
> > >5100, IBM Portable
> > >5110, similar with optional (?) 8" flops
> > >5120, bigger screen, built-in 8" flops
> > >5140, Convertible
> > >5150, PC
> > >5155, Portable PC
> > >5160, PC/XT
> > >5180, PC/AT
Notice that the PC/AT is listed as a 5180, not 5170.
--
-Jason
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#-1730318
----------
> From: Phil Clayton <handyman(a)sprintmail.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: IBM 5120 at the local thrift store
> Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 12:44 PM
>
>
> This machine is an IBM 5126 and it is an AT (286) class machine, read my
> last post again its an Automobile Analyzer, not a desktop computer.. I
> didn;t make the number up, its on a metal ID tag sticker on the side of
> this unit, : Says "IBM 5126" I checked it out very closely..
>
> Phil..
>
>On a system/34, stick something through the slot, and pull the cover
>off. The silver thing inside the slot is one end of a catch, which
>attaches to the frame. Pushing on the silver thing swings the catch
>away.
This, I believe, is the reason I've found several sets of keys in
various large-scale (i.e. megagram) hauls I've made :-).
Tim.
Thanks. Actually, my school just got rid of a lab full of eduquests
to another school, and we still have one of them in the basement.
These seem like OK machines, though never tried to use them. They're
like PS/2 Model 25s only bigger. They have microphone and headphone
jacks on the front, along with a floppy drive. They're all 486s with
16 MB RAM, IIRC. What was wrong with these?
>
>Never in the 17 years I've been involved in educational computing did
>the government ever encourage the use of Apples. As far as I know, the
>only way the gov't bore any of the price tag for computers in education
>was through grants (platform independent) or at the state level through
>negotiating volume pricing (all manufacturers included). Also, in
>Virginia in 1988 and 1990, the state had an initiative to get a
critical
>mass of machines into grade levels 5-8. Some of the state money for
>education was distributed in hardware form. There were 2 contracts -
>one to Apple and the other to the winner of the DOS machine bid
(Tandy).
>I think IBM challenged the outcome of the bid process but Tandy
>received the contract in the end. Each district then specified which
>type of machine they wanted. Apple II GSes or the Tandy 1000TL. In 90
>the Apple offered was the new Mac LC (with no hard drive). The number
of
>machines you received depended on your school's enrollment. This was a
>departure from the usual method of basing state aid on the district's
>financial index.
>
>In the 80s Apple was much more committed to Computers in Education than
>any other company. IBM made several abortive attempts, and formed
>their Eduquest division to handle the market. The machines were
>under-powered and the software was deadly. Apple asked teachers what
>they wanted, IBM told us what we should have. Apple also made its
>Appleworks software (WP, SS, DB) software available to schools at an
>extremely reasonable price. IBMs prices were out of sight. And based
>on market share, educational software manufacturers concentrated their
>best stuff on the Apple platform. As the percentages changed so did
the
>mix of available titles. The Mac only label was common in the 80s;
now
>you rarely see it.
>
>The IIes were real workhorses in the schools - impossible to kill. The
>GS, which was supposed to replace them, really didn't offer too much
new
>for us other than a 3.5" drive. The Appletalk built-in network was
>supposed to be a plus - and it was for printing - but using it for
>program sharing was a painfully slow process. I remember telling the
>Apple rep that I wasn't sure what the future would be, but it wouldn't
>be running at 2 MHz and it wouldn't be black and white (as the Macs
were
>at that time). I taught BASIC and even Pascal on those old Apples
until
>88 when we bought Tandys. One lab had Apple cards in them to run the
>old software.
>
>When Apple introduced its color Macs (1990?), they were so much more
>expensive than the similarly powered DOS machines that it was no
>contest, we joined the Wintel world. Also, we installed our first
>Novell network which helped the decision.
>
>On the West Coast, I think Apple was much more heavily involved in
>providing hardware to schools through grants. There were several
>showcase "Classrooms of Tomorrow?" And once a district invested in
>Apple the tendency was to continue buying the same product.
>
>The introduction of Windows 95 also did a lot to change encourage
>education to change platforms.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Slashdot.org has a story explaining that the UK school system can't
>>afford NT 5 and are considering another OS. In light of this, people
>>were bringing up Apple's success in schools in contrast to the current
>>situation. However, I have heard that the only reason why Apples were
>>common in schools was that the gov't bore some of the price tag to
>>encourage use of Apples, and Apple didn't pay as much attention to
>>education as is generally thought. Is this true? What were the
>>particulars of Apple educational licensing?
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Can anyone offer some insight on a basic four. Its a fridge size mini with
two disk packs (2324-200) and two 'external' double 8" floppies (3200A) and
I've heard 'business basic' mentioned in the same breath as this beast
(which now occupies a corner of my living room.... tea... anyone...
- Mike: dogas(a)leading.net
Never in the 17 years I've been involved in educational computing did
the government ever encourage the use of Apples. As far as I know, the
only way the gov't bore any of the price tag for computers in education
was through grants (platform independent) or at the state level through
negotiating volume pricing (all manufacturers included). Also, in
Virginia in 1988 and 1990, the state had an initiative to get a critical
mass of machines into grade levels 5-8. Some of the state money for
education was distributed in hardware form. There were 2 contracts -
one to Apple and the other to the winner of the DOS machine bid (Tandy).
I think IBM challenged the outcome of the bid process but Tandy
received the contract in the end. Each district then specified which
type of machine they wanted. Apple II GSes or the Tandy 1000TL. In 90
the Apple offered was the new Mac LC (with no hard drive). The number of
machines you received depended on your school's enrollment. This was a
departure from the usual method of basing state aid on the district's
financial index.
In the 80s Apple was much more committed to Computers in Education than
any other company. IBM made several abortive attempts, and formed
their Eduquest division to handle the market. The machines were
under-powered and the software was deadly. Apple asked teachers what
they wanted, IBM told us what we should have. Apple also made its
Appleworks software (WP, SS, DB) software available to schools at an
extremely reasonable price. IBMs prices were out of sight. And based
on market share, educational software manufacturers concentrated their
best stuff on the Apple platform. As the percentages changed so did the
mix of available titles. The Mac only label was common in the 80s; now
you rarely see it.
The IIes were real workhorses in the schools - impossible to kill. The
GS, which was supposed to replace them, really didn't offer too much new
for us other than a 3.5" drive. The Appletalk built-in network was
supposed to be a plus - and it was for printing - but using it for
program sharing was a painfully slow process. I remember telling the
Apple rep that I wasn't sure what the future would be, but it wouldn't
be running at 2 MHz and it wouldn't be black and white (as the Macs were
at that time). I taught BASIC and even Pascal on those old Apples until
88 when we bought Tandys. One lab had Apple cards in them to run the
old software.
When Apple introduced its color Macs (1990?), they were so much more
expensive than the similarly powered DOS machines that it was no
contest, we joined the Wintel world. Also, we installed our first
Novell network which helped the decision.
On the West Coast, I think Apple was much more heavily involved in
providing hardware to schools through grants. There were several
showcase "Classrooms of Tomorrow?" And once a district invested in
Apple the tendency was to continue buying the same product.
The introduction of Windows 95 also did a lot to change encourage
education to change platforms.
>Slashdot.org has a story explaining that the UK school system can't
>afford NT 5 and are considering another OS. In light of this, people
>were bringing up Apple's success in schools in contrast to the current
>situation. However, I have heard that the only reason why Apples were
>common in schools was that the gov't bore some of the price tag to
>encourage use of Apples, and Apple didn't pay as much attention to
>education as is generally thought. Is this true? What were the
>particulars of Apple educational licensing?
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
