test-drb November 1998

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

185 participants
940 discussions

by fauradon＠pclink.com

Gives me an idea: Let's all think very hard about removing morrons from the internet. Francois ------------------------------------------------------------- Visit the desperately in need of update Sanctuary at: http://www.pclink.com/fauradon/ >> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, MLIN Public Account wrote: >> >> > Princeton University Mind-Matter Experiments Reported

25 years, 8 months

Classic != IBM AT

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

> Lawrence Walker wrote: > >> Both the model 25 and 30 came out in 8086 and 286 versions. The 25 had 2 >> 286 models. 25-286 and 25LS. The models 50 and 60 were also 286s' > > The models up to (but not including) the 50 series were ISA and after that were > microchannel. The 25 came out originally as an XT class machine with an 8086 > processor ( see http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/8525.html ) and the 286 version of > it was only one version that I'm aware of as seen at > http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/8525286.html > > The LS may be an aftermarket version, much like putting a Reply motherboard into > one. > > All the info on the vintage IBM machines can be found starting with the index page > at IBM Canada (eh!) at http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/vintage.html Thanks for the reference. I have bookmarked it. Thanks also to everyone who has pointed out the model 25 and the 286 versions. Both well after my time - when I left IBM there were just the 30, 50, 60 and 80. I think I had heard of the 25 though - perhaps that will teach me not to open my mouth quite so wide. No thanks to whoever said the 8088 and 8086 were the same thing. If that's the case, the Pentium and the 80386 are the same thing :-) Philip.

25 years, 8 months

Anyone have a PC/XT MFM controller? (was:Adaptec HD controller access?)

by roblwill＠usaor.net

O.K. Now that I found out a bit about the controller, I've found that I have a slight problem: 1.) The Adaptec 2070 is an RLL controller 2.) The Seagate ST-506 5MB HDD is an MFM HD. 3.) Even if the card was MFM, I really don't feel like doing anything in hex. Now for the questions: 1.) Does anyone have a spare PC or XT MFM HD controller laying around? If you do, what would you want for it (please send me a personal email). I do agreee that the WD controllers are more direct, but any controller that'll work should be fine. 2.) How do I get an external floppy to work with the XT? I have a cable and P/S salvaged from a 4869 (think that's the model #) IBM drive (case and drive are long gone) connected to a full-height IBM drive. I have the 4869 cable connected to the port on the floppy controller. Thing is, it dosen't work. Do I have to change a jumper on the controller board, or do I need to change the DIP settings on the M/B (If I need to change DIP's, just tell me, and I can check the setting list on IBM's site). 3.) Anyone have an external TRS-80 disk box (with P/S)? It dosen't necessarily need to have a drive in it, because I want to use it to house the IBM drive in (I was thinking of using a Disk II box, since it would probably match better, but they don't have a P/S). ThAnX, > > Ding ding ding!!! > > Hold on! > > I got the info off the HD bible and I found what we need to know: > > Most WD, SMS/OMTI use C800:5 > few did use C800:6 > > But the Adaptec 8 bit card use weirdest way to do LLF process: > > C800:CCC > > and you have to input the needed info in hex. > > Honestly, I prefer WD 1:2 or 1:3 controllers, the good ones are > XT-GEN kind. > > Jason D. > > PS: How did I know something is still wrong because I was been there > before. Oh, those 8 bit adaptec MFM cards have highest failure rate! > email: jpero(a)cgocable.net > Pero, Jason D.

25 years, 8 months

DEC troubleshooting

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< Yes, they did, with red tags on them supposedly describing the fault < to help someone diagnose and fix the boards. But many of them simply < ended up in salvage, which many of us used to visit each week to < find stuff for our home systems. At that time (more than a decade salvage was for "excess" and junked. Boards there were either plentiful and therefor costly to store the excess or they were out of rev. Also boards or FRUs that were not in reve and not upgradeable were salvaged. Sometimes there were boards that went through the depot repair cycle twice and were considered unreliable. < I miss salvage... As the cost of materials and the economics of depot repair became attractive so there was less and less material going to salvage. Also the liability issue. What killed it was a few employies abusing the system. I built a lot of boards up for my early 11s and a few others from material gotten from salvage. The boards I got were easily fixed or like the M8044s by filling the unpopulated rows I upped them from 16kw to 32kw. They were in salvage because no one wanted 16kw cards anymore. That allowed me to have 256kb of ram in my first 11/23. The cost to deliver service has always been a problem and during the 80s is was something to be managed as margins could be tight. People wanted uptime, low cost and systems were smaller so they expected their bills to shrink accordingly. Designing a product for seviceability and service product that was manageable was quite challenging. Allison

25 years, 8 months

DEC troubleshooting

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

At 04:48 PM 11/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >> Sure. Tell the customer he/she will be down an extra hour while >> you extend the board to find the fault, desolder the chip >> and replace the 10 cent bus driver. Nope. Swapping was reality in the field >> when I was there. > >I must agree here. Doing component level debugging just makes no sense in >the field. > It may not make sense time wise but it does when you consider the cost of sparing circuit boards instead of component parts. I worked in field service for Burroughs Corp and a private company that supported TI and IBM mainframes and we ALWAYS did component level repair. We didn't even have spare boards. >> Board level (early 80's DEC) was (unfortunately) >> replaced with shotgunning and option swap out by many in the late 80's. > >Did the boards not go back to DEC for rework? I later worked as an electronics technician for a company that had been sending industrial controller boards back for repair. The flat rate cost was $800 per board. I was hired to repair the boards and they saved the cost of my yearly salarly in the first month. Joe > >William Donzelli >william(a)ans.net > >

25 years, 8 months

Classic != IBM AT

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< Do I not recall correctly that the 8088 was in fact half of a two chip < set and that the 8086 was 'self contained', and that IBM elected to not < the other half. < - don Huh? The 8088 is for all intents and purposes the same part as the 8086. the prformance hit for the 8bit vs 16 bit data bus averages around 20%. The reason the is the prefetch que is 6 bytes on the 86 and 4bytes on the 88 as a measure to "tune" it. The instruction sets are identical and the supporting chips are exactly the same (86 will need more bus buffers). Oh, and the FPU the 8087 worked with either part and sized it's bus accordingly. I've done designs using both and they can almost be drop in for each other (same for the 80188/186). Allison

25 years, 8 months

Macintosh System (fwd)

by dastar＠ncal.verio.com

Here's a guy who wants to sell his Macintosh 128K (slightly upgraded). Please reply to the seller only. Reply-to: walk(a)me.unlv.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:14:44 -0700 From: Raymond Kozak <walk(a)me.unlv.edu> To: dastar(a)verio.com Subject: Macintosh System My mac is the original 128k series with a 512 upgrade. Is there any uinterest in these old systems? Thanks RCK --- Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Always being hassled by the man. Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0 See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! [Last web site update: 11/02/98]

25 years, 8 months

DEC troubleshooting

by mbg＠world.std.com

>I must agree here. Doing component level debugging just makes no sense in >the field. Even less so nowadays -- people can't stand to have their systems down for a minute let alone 15 or so... >Did the boards not go back to DEC for rework? Yes, they did, with red tags on them supposedly describing the fault to help someone diagnose and fix the boards. But many of them simply ended up in salvage, which many of us used to visit each week to find stuff for our home systems. At that time (more than a decade ago), scrap and salvage at digital was a way for employees to get hardware, usually at the board or FRU level... I remember finding lots of boards which basically said that they were dead, and I found that they had been misconfigured (some options had 1=off and 0=on for switch settings). When I configured them correctly, they worked just fine. Then there was the core memory option for my 11/10... it simply said 'bad' on the red tag... I examined the board and found a transistor hanging on by only one lead... I found a replacement, soldered it in and the board worked fine... I miss salvage... 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 | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

25 years, 8 months

PR_Princeton_92.html

by roblwill＠usaor.net

Seems like it. It's even out of date! ---------- > From: Doug Yowza <yowza(a)yowza.com> > To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> > Subject: Re: PR_Princeton_92.html > Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 7:34 PM > > On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, MLIN Public Account wrote: > > > Princeton University Mind-Matter Experiments Reported > > Did we just get spammed? If so, that's the most off-the-wall spam I've > seen yet. I'm adding it to my collection of Classic Spam. > > -- Doug >

25 years, 8 months

Classic != IBM AT

by roblwill＠usaor.net

If that would be the case, would it be possible to replace an 8088 with an 8086 to make it faster, or would it not work, because of a possible 8-bit instead of 16-bit bus on the M/B? -Jason *********************************************** * Jason Willgruber * * (roblwill(a)usaor.net) * * * * http://members.tripod.com/general_1 * * ICQ#-1730318 * * /0\/0\ * * > Long Live the 5170! * * \___/ * ************************************************ ---------- > From: Roger Merchberger <zmerch(a)30below.com> > To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> > Subject: Re: Classic != IBM AT > Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 7:38 PM > > Yes, to say that the 8088 and 8086 were the same is incorrect, but they > _basically_ had the same core and everything... it was just the data bus > was 8 bit on the 8088 and 16-bit on the 8086. They were fully compatible > program-wise, just that the 8086 was faster as it could push 2x data over > the 8088. > > Comparing the 80386 and the Pentium wouldn't be fair, tho. Comparing the > 80386SX (with the 16-bit data bus) and the 80386DX (with the 32-bit data > bus) would be a lot better comparison... as again, the chips were fully > compatible, but the DX's were faster due to the larger data bus. > > Just the way I seem to remember it... > > Roger "Merch" Merchberger

25 years, 8 months

← Newer
1
...
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
...
94
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb November 1998