Ok, how come when I'm using a windows95 based telnet client I get all
sorts of wacky-assed errors when I'm using PINE, like "Folder closed due
to access error" and "Folder reduced to 0 bytes" and "error this" and
"error that". Basically stuff I never get when I'm using ProComm Plus.
Why is this? Why is a bug-free telnet session such a chore under Windows?
This is not just with the lame windows telnet either. I thought getting
CRT would clear this up but it happens with that too. What's going on
here? Any help would be greatly apprciated, especially in private e-mail.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame me...I voted for Satan.
Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
[Last web page update: 05/05/98]
On May 9, 22:12, Frank McConnell wrote:
> I think the real contemporary stiffies for those early drives didn't
> have the spring to pull the door closed. But I've never actually seen
> one -- they didn't last very long, in fact by the time we got a loaner
> demo 150 at that PPOE (early-mid 1983) the diskette stiffy doors were
> fully automatic.
The first Apricot computers in the UK, and Sony wordprocessor systems, both
used single-sided stiffies, with the catch for the shutter. They did have
the spring, though. I've still got a few. The Sony systems used a
proprietary format that I never had details of, but the Apricot used a
variant of MS-DOS with 9 sectors per track, but only 70 tracks (315K/disk).
The Apricot disks were a delicate shade of disgusting red, to match the
colour of the company logo, but the Sony ones were the blue that became
"standard".
> > The HP 150's touchscreen is pretty cool. Is there a driver for it that
> > emulates a mouse? IIRC, this Mac-like box predates the Mac, doesn't
it?
i had one for awhile, but missing the keyboard, so I gave it to someone
else (who had a keyboard). Anybody got a system disk they could make an
image of?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
I got a line on two 8050 floppy drives for the PETs. I want one; would
anyone be interested in the second one?
Rich Cini/WUGNET
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
Collector of classic computers
<<<========== Reply Separaator ==========>>>
>> Yes, we should have "levels" of experience. So that a Level 1 job could
be
>
>Does this need to be done formally? I mean, when, for example, I bought
>the service manual for my monitor, or the IBM techrefs, nobody bothered
>to check I knew what I was doing with them. They just took my payment and
>sent the manual.
Not really formally, perhaps semi-formally. All pages would be rated, but
we're not going to have an exam or anything.
>While we need to be not responsible for how the information is used, I
>think that should be the end of it.
Yes, but just to give an aprox. guide. For instance, if someone wants to
fix their old mono monitor, and they have a Level 2 hardware experience,
they wouldn't want to read the Level 5 document, especially if they're
busy, and don't want to spend too much time. It could also be used to give
people a basic feeling of what they can-and cannot do.
>Perhaps you could enlighten me. I know of only one way to fix a PCB -
>look for obvious failures/shorts, power it up and start tracing signals
>with a logic analyser. Is that the easy way or the hard way, and what is
>the other way.
That's the hard way. There are 2 easy ways that I know of: 1) Take it to a
shop or 2) Get a new one.
Tim D. Hotze
I understand the economic logic of no longer supporting products
that aren't being sold (aren't making money) and that are deemed
obsolete by being two generations behind today's products. But
at that point, the company has decided that any ill will caused
by this decision isn't worth the cost or aggravation of continued
support. Certainly some companies turn over continued support
to third parties - when the third party thinks there's some money
in it. But what about a non-profit organization for products that
absolutely no one wants to support? Just send them the docs
and let them archive them. Companies donate old office equipment
to good causes, why not old docs or source code?
- John
Jefferson Computer Museum <http://www.threedee.com/jcm>
>On the other hand, since DEC, HP and Tektronix have all helped me with
>parts/docs for totally ancient machines, I am recomending those companies
>to others.
Exactly. This machine's a Compaq. Now, at the time, I solemnly thought
that they were the best PC's available. Now, since then, I've had problems
with the videocard, BIOS, busses, etc. When I contact their tech support,
in general, they'll give me any solution that costs money, or charge me
money for their time.
>Be careful here.
Ditto.
>Some companies believe that they _are_ responsible for the information,
>and any use to which it may be put. On several occasions I have been
>refused a service manual because 'If you try to repair it and make a
>mistake you could be killed' No amount of telling them that it's even
>more dangerous to do the repair without the service manual worked.
OK. So we'll need to say something like "No longer NEED be responsible for
information." They need to share it, not give it.
>It appears that there are too many lawyers who are there to put the blame
>on somebody else when the customer makes a mistakes. I am not happy about
>this, but....
>
>Some companies will release 'safe' information (software sources, CPU
>board schematics', but not 'dangerous' information (schematics of
>monitors and PSUs, for example).
I see. We'll need a disclaimer: "Anyinformation you recieve here could
ultimately be harardous to your heatlh. DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY
WHILE READING A TECHNICAL DOCUMENT." (Last sentence lighthearted.)
>If we do convince companies to release information, we'd need to have
>some proper legal document which removed any responsibility from the
>company. You use this info and hurt yourself - it's your fault.
Yep. Does anyone know how the GPL was made????
>> 2) Central orginazation. Something like GNU, but less proffesional. It
>> would contain all archives collected, as well as user-made enhancements,
>> notes or other docs. (For example: Getting a ST 251 to work under
>
>You'd need to make it very clear which notes were 'official' and which
>were 3rd party.
Ditto. Also, we'd need to prioritize companies. Companies that were most
likely to give us info first, and then less last. So that if we had 5 or 6
industry juggernauts giving us information, then possibly a company like
Sharp just might.
Tim D. Hotze
Hi All -
This is somewhat off-topic (maybe way-off-topic, depending on how you feel
about Macs), but I've been trying to find some 30 pin, 8 or 16 meg simms
for my girlfriend's Quadra 700. Anyone know of a source?
R.
--
Robert Arnold
Managing Editor
The MonkeyPool
WebSite Content Development
http://www.monkeypool.com
Creator and Eminence Grise
Warbaby: The WebSite. The Domain. The Empire.
muahahahahaaaaa
http://www.warbaby.com
Dreadlocks on white boys give me the willies.
I'm not too familiar with the older DEC VAX hardware, but I've ended up
with a MicroVAX 2000 and a few strange parts.
H3104 -- 1 38-pin centronics on one side, 8 MMJs on the other
(I'm guessing a terminal adapter of some sort)
EE730 -- 1 DB9 and 1 DB15 on one side, 3 MMJs on the other.
( I don't have a clue what this is)
BC16C -- a 25ft cable with a centronics on each end
( I'm guessing this connects the H3104 to the MV2k)
What are these things? The middle item seems most puzzling to me.
Adam
----------
Adam Fritzler
afritz(a)iname.com
http://www.afritz.base.org
----------
>On Fri, 8 May 1998 Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk wrote:
>
>> The electronic one was interesting mainly for its display. It was
>> fluorescent (greenish digits sealed in a long glass tube), but not
>> 7-segment. Instead, there were (I think) nine segments, all of strange
>> curly shapes, which made up digits much easier to read than the angular,
>> blocky, 7-segment types. But I can no longer remember how these were
>> arranged, nor even any details like the manufacturer of the calculator.
>>
>> Does anyone know of machines with such displays?
>
>Somebody was describing this same calculator to me yesterday. It was the
>Sharp EL-8 and had a 9-segment display.
>
>> At what date were they made?
>
>Weren't these the first microprocessor-based calcs (4004) from around
>1974?
>
The EL-8 was Sharp's original portable calculator from 1971 (in Japan in
late 1970) and cost $345 back then (for your basic 4-function
calculator!) The display is listed in my reference book as a flourescent
-type tube display.
I don't believe it used the 4004 chip - relatively few calculators
actually did use the 4004.
--Larry
>More seriously, we need something like 'This information is provided in
>good faith, and is believed to be accurate. However, neither the original
>manufacturer or <%group distributing it> can take any responsibility for
>errors or omissions. Some of the procedures described in this documation
>can be dangerous and should only be performed by suitably qualified
>personnel'
Yes, we should have "levels" of experience. So that a Level 1 job could be
done with anyone that knows how to wield a screwdriver... (things such as
adding RAM, a hard drive, or add-in card.), while a Level 5 should only be
done with someone who's had lots of electronics experience. (Such as fixing
a broken PCB or motherboard, the hard way). We could have tutorials to get
a Level 1 to a Level 5, but it would still be their responsibility.
>BTW, what _are_ the qualifications for computer repair? :-). My PERQ 1
>says 'Only qualified personnel should remove covers'. Nowhere does it
>state what the qualifications are, so I assume I have them :-)
Actually, I always thought that it was who ever could pay them enough money
to become a "solution provider." Seriously, we should have the Levels as an
internal rating system. I haven't seen such a system, but has one like this
ever been used? (It's better to use a pre-existing system then to develop a
new one, especially if the old one does what you want.)
>-tony
Tim D. Hotze
