Of course everything I've dragged home in the last few months simply pales
in comparison to the prototype Apple //c I brought home today.
I was on my way back to work in the early afternoon and was trying to
decide if I should stop at my favorite thrift store on the way which would
put me in traffic, or if I should cut across the hills to get back
quicker. I thought to myself that there may just be something at the
thrift store that would make the trip worth it, so the thoughts of finding
something cool won over my need to get back to the office. This is one
case where I'm glad I let my irrational urges get the best of me.
The first thing I saw when I got to the electronics section was an Apple
//c, and I thought to myself, "Hmmm...do I want another //c?" (since I
have like 3 already). But when I picked it up I noticed something strange
about it. The case was smooth instead of having the normal texture. I
flipped it over and noticed there was a small green sticker on the bottom
instead of the normal grey one with the Apple //c wording and part
numbers, etc. The sticker read "Apple Computer Inc., PCSD MFG, 3087 North
First Street, San Jose, CA 95134" then the words "Prototype" and "Test
Equipment" with check boxes next to each. "Prototype" was checked off.
Of course phrases like "holy shit" went through my head. The label also
had a serial number of "P1160" and at the bottom was "WARNING: PROPRIETARY
PRODUCT". Now this was too cool for words to describe (<--- isn't that
deliciously nerdy?)
When I got home I opened it up along with a regular production //c and
started comparing the motherboards of the two. There were several minor
differences. Some silkscreen lettering was different and there were a
couple minor component changes, but nothing significant and for the most
part the board layout was identical.
I pulled out the power supply on the prototype and the production model
which unveiled the following:
Prototype Production
--------- ----------
TERI MAIN LOGIC MAIN LOGIC
820-0115-0 820-0115-C
(c) 1983 APPLE COMPUTER
APPLE COMPUTER (c) 1983
Was "TERI" the codename for the Apple //c?
A couple other interesting differences: on the prototype, there was a
small board with the labeling "Apple Computer Network SKA156-00" in the
place near the serial port where on the production model is a simple
transistor pack. The "network" board simply has transistors on it. Also,
at location C19 on the proto is a 74LS161 whereas on the production there
is a 1.8432 Mhz crystal. On the proto, the CHAR GEN EPROM is socketed and
the system ROM is an EPROM with a sticker which has "v1.0 5/19 5F85"
written on it. Lastly, for the motherboard product number (all Apple
components have a product number in the form of xxx-xxxx-x) the proto had
6xx-xxxx-whereas the production has 612-0128-E.
Oh yeah, the proto had a spider living in the connector of the power
supply. Spiders find the stupidest places to spin their web. What the
hell did he expect to come crawling through there!? I was just going to
flick him off into the room but if my wife found him a couple days from
now she would've fainted, so I did away with the poor little sucker.
R.I.P.
Here's where you envious types shoot yourself: I paid $2.98 for it.
:)
I've found some of the best stuff in thrift stores, but this beats all.
It will be proudly displayed right next to my prototype Apple //gs at the
next Vintage Computer Festival.
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: 05/03/98]
I'm "just about" finished with an emulator for a Control Data
3300 computer (you might ask "why" - I'll explain later.)
But I'm looking for diagnostics tapes (instruction, floating point,
mass storage, memory, etc.) Also, other operating systems would
be interesting (I was dumb back in the 70's and didn't make copies
of all my old stuff...) such as Master with MATS or MSOS or Realtime
Scope. (I have no problem reading 7 track tapes.)
I'm building this primarily to resurrect an obscure language, also
developed at OSU, called "Oscar". It was a numerical person's
dream interactive system for it's time (way before common graphics
terminals, alas) including all sorts of large precision arith and
rational number management (ratios of integral fractions) which made
matrix manipulations a lot easier. Oscar ran under OS-3 and hence the
need for the emulator. Besides, it's fun. (And I have source for damn
near all of the OS-3 system, languages and tools (I was "with it"
enough to make copies of those at least.) The original 3300 at OSU was
"decommissioned" back in the early 80s, so this part is even "on topic!"
It's a bit depressing (and humiliating) to see that my entirely-C-based
emulator (i.e. NO assembler "optimization" on my part) runs at nearly
the speed of the original machine on a lowly 66 mhz 486. (1.6us/cycle
where instructions USUALLY took 2 cycles, for fetch and memory reference.)
It'll probably scream on a reasonable Pentium-class system. (By inference
will we be writing emulators in 15 to 20 years that emulate 400 mhz Pentiums
and Power PCs at the full speed of day? Boggles the mind...)
I'm emulating most CDC periphs (as far as I can without real "iron") so
the emulator should handle virtual 604/607 tape drives, disk controllers,
501/512 printers, card readers, punches, etc.
I realize this may be a bit "off topic" with respect to the other
"mainstream" collectable computers (dec/hp/etc.) but, hey! it's
what I learned on way back when. And the computer was far too large
to ever think of "owning" one.
For reference, the 3300 was a 3rd generation computer (no IC's - all
Germanium transistors) with memory that came in chunks of 8k words
(24 bits) all the way up to 256k words (LOTS of boxes.) Each 8k
took half a 7 foot tall by 6 foot wide rack (IIRC). I think
very late in life they had 32k modules... 24 bit ones-complement
math with a "reasonable" two-state architecture (program/system
mode) that actually worked (OSU's may have been the only one that
really challenged it, though, running timesharing software on it.)
Any and all software for the beast would be welcome. For reference,
anything for the 3150, 3200, 3300 or 3500 would be welcome, as well
as any CDC docs on these machines. I've got quite a few, but some
of the more obscure controllers (3317 terminal control, for example)
eluded me. Information on 3600 or 3800 (a sort of "48 bit word" 3300
and 3500) would also be welcome, as these two lines shared a lot of
peripherals and controllers.
And of course, assuming anyone else is as silly as me and wants to
play with this mess, I'm happy to make the source/executables available
(it's Linux based.) It's not "ready for prime time" yet, but soon...
Thanks for sharing the bandwidth,
Gary
<What's that got to do with it? Diodes are analogue parts - the output
<(current) is a continuous function of the input (voltage), not a
<discrete one (to me the difference between an analogue and a digital
Yes, but they don't (generally) amplify.
<component). In fact, Allison, you were saying only a few days ago that
<you don't need any amplification to make an analogue _computer_ (with
<which I agree - although some of your examples I wouldn't call
<computers).
I still hold that amplification is a factor in the equation that an analog
function may contain but it is not required.
----||----+---------+------>
| |
| |
V ---
input === diode ---
| |
--------------------+------>
This is an analogue function, take a shot at the equation it solves.
<For non-electronic digital computers, where do Facit mechanical
<calculators lie? I have one (which is driven by an electric motor but
Computers, mechanical, fixed program.
<For pneumatic computers, I think some pipe organs of the turn of the
<century came close - you could program some buttons to set various
<combinations of ranks for fast selection during performance. However,
<the more complicated schemes of this nature (popular around 1920) used
<electrical as well as pneumatic logic elements.
pipe organs were an example of repetitive but generally simple logic.
I might point ot that when they went electronic they used lots of
flipflops to generate octave and also diodes and tube to do keying
(gating). They were likely one of the earliest users of large numbers
of bistable and monostable elements in one system other than computers and
electronic measuring instruments.
You've not seen a modern production line that uses air logic. I've worked
on one that was used to produce pharaceuticals that were in flamable bases
(ethanol). There was some fairly complex logic in that system. Working
with it is like designing with relays.
Allison
> <Are you thinking of 'Digital circuits are built from analogue parts' ?
>
> Not a valid concept. both OR and AND gates can be done using totally
> non amplifying devices (diodes).
What's that got to do with it? Diodes are analogue parts - the output
(current) is a continuous function of the input (voltage), not a
discrete one (to me the difference between an analogue and a digital
component). In fact, Allison, you were saying only a few days ago that
you don't need any amplification to make an analogue _computer_ (with
which I agree - although some of your examples I wouldn't call
computers).
> It was Vonda that postulated that digital was analogue with a precision
> of two states, true and false. The realm of analogue is one of infinite
> precision but possibly of limited accuracy. The digital realm is one of
> limited precision and absolute accuracy.
That is an excellent concept. Thank you - I'll remember that.
For non-electronic digital computers, where do Facit mechanical
calculators lie? I have one (which is driven by an electric motor but
could conceivably use any motor) which has algorithms for optimised
decimal multiplication and non-restoring decimal division. It is not
programmable, but it is pretty complex - and all done mechanically.
For pneumatic computers, I think some pipe organs of the turn of the
century came close - you could program some buttons to set various
combinations of ranks for fast selection during performance. However,
the more complicated schemes of this nature (popular around 1920) used
electrical as well as pneumatic logic elements.
Philip.
On May 5, 11:37, Daniel A. Seagraves wrote:
> [Adding RX50 to the Supnik emulator...]
>
> Yeah, it'd be a Lot Of Work(tm).
It certainly would. Even the RT-11 driver (which is about the simplest
I've seen) is fairly complex.
> Those talk MSCP, and there's little/no documentation on how it works.
> (I think...)
It's basically a message-passing protocol, unlike most of the earlier DEC
disk stuff where you can poke the hardware registers to "make things
happen". To oversimplify, with MSCP you make a message containing
instructions, put it in a memory buffer somewhere, tell the controller it's
there, and it does the rest with DMA, returning a response message.
The relevant documentation is "MSCP Basic Disk Functions Manual",
AA-L619A-TK, and "Storage System Diagnostics And Utility Protocol",
AA-L620A-TK, which in turn are parts of the UDA50 Programmer's
Documentation Kit (QP-905-GZ). My copy is version 1.2, April 1982.
It's not good bedtime reading; the plot's a bit too convoluted and the
characterisation is weak :-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
[remove indy. from email address to reply] University of York
In a message dated 98-05-05 22:56:32 EDT, you write:
<< Speaking of sealed originals, I found some original still shrink-wrapped
Osborne software today, with the original Byte Shop price stickers on them
no less. They were basically some accounting packages by a company called
Computronic that made software for the gamut of the machines of the era
(TRS-80, Apple, Atari, Commodore, Xeroex, Osborne, Kaypro...that was the
list of machines on the package). I also got a shrink-wrapped copy of
WordStar circa 1981, a shrink-wrapped copy of Microsoft Multi-Tool Budget
and a shrinkwrapped copy of Desktop Plan II by Visicorp. Vintage
shrink-wrapped software is still out there, you just gotta look for it.
Sam >>
i agree, my list is small, but i do have os2 1.1 which came in two seperate
boxes wrapped together and includes sidekick 2.0 which i paid $3 for. i also
got a never opened 1.3 which i did open just to look at but i never used, and
several boxes of the ibm pc 3270 emulation program entry level version 1.22
david
Philip Belben:
>Sam Ismail:
>
>> The party agrees that unauthorized copying or disclosure will cause great
>> damage to MICROSOFT."
>
>Hey! Let's all start copying Basic 80! Or other Microsoft stuff!
>Perhaps we can cause great damage to Microsoft!
>
>Wait a bit... somehow I don't think we'll do any damage unless we
>persuade people to buy our copies in preference to the originals.
Oh? You know somewhere you can buy the originals?
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
<Whether the distributed monitors and drivers are enough to run it
<depends strongly on your application! Under an emulator - where
If your developing with RT-11 for a specific task then sysgening is
needed. If you need to run BASIC, DECUS-C, MicroPower Pascal, write
assembly code files or edit text then the stock monitor are just fine.
Sysgening to simply move to a different varient of PDP-11 cpu or disk
however is not required. The typical example of sysgening RT-11 I've
done was to use a console that wasn't DL (standard PDP-11 serial line
unit) compatable.
RT-11 was designed as both a development enviornment and a realtime
executive for embedded applications. It's pretty flexible and small
so it's good for lots of other stuff. It weakness (there is one) is
that it does not use a scatter-gather map for storage so storage space
can be poorly used due to device fragmentation.
<I interpret "no source code" quite differently, mainly because I have
<the source kits!
Same here, V4, V5.0, V5.1, V5.4 I may even have 3.xx. Heck I've been
running RT11 since '79 on one thing or another Q-bus.
Allison
Wow, anyone desparate for a Horizon should check out recent posts to
comp.sys.northstar. No fewer than six systems from three different
individuals have been offered there in the past couple of days. And
some AFAIR are free for pick up or the cost of shipping.
--
mor(a)crl.com
http://www.crl.com/~mor/
>
>>
>> Well, this kind of comes from a rant of mine... ya see, on my
computer, I
>> origionally had an AMD InterWave chip on my sound card, but found
that it
>> was STB made. It was made in Dec. 1996. I called about it in Dec.
1997,
>> and NO ONE at their technical support knew ANYTHING about it. And
that's a
>> year after it was made!!!
>
>Don't get me started on Tech Support, or the lack of it.
>
>When I call Tech Support I will have made some attempts to check the
>obvious, gather evidence, and solve the problem. In particular :
>
>I'll have checked the 'bleeding obvious' - that it's plugged in, that I
>
>I'll have read all available documentation, including, but not limited
to
>the user manual, tech/service manual (if available), schematics, data
>sheets on the chips, command reference, processor instruction set,
>language standards, etc as appropriate.
>
>I'll be sitting in front of my machine with a 'scope, logic analyser,
>software debugger, etc at the ready
>
>Alas this seems to mean that I know more about the product than the
>company that sold it to me. Tech support seems to consist of either
>telling me to check I've inserted the disk correctly or reading the
user
>manual to me very, very slowly (I am not kidding...). I am fed up with
You've got to be gentle w/tech support. For one thing, they're
nothing more than figureheads for the company, also, they are
treated fairly poorly, according to PC World. Most have no desire
to spend 8 hours reading assembly listings. There's just no
encouragement, like with teachers. In the end, they just get tired.
>> Anyway, lets call, e-mail, fax, walk up and talk to, etc. people
at
>> various companies and talk about tech support, etc. for old OLD
products.
>> (Like calling up IBM... "Hello, I've got this 8" disk here, it was
new in
>> package, and it was not free of mechanical errors. I want my money
back!")
>
>IBM are better than most, at least for providing parts/manuals. They
may
>claim that a machine never existed (IBM UK told be there was 'no such
>thing as a PC-jr'), but they can often find all sorts of things given a
>part number or forms number.
>
>> Or saying that we found a bug in the 4K MS tape basic, etc. ;-)
>
>Sending in bug reports (and even better, fixes) for ancient products is
>great fun :-).
Have you ever gotten a response?
>
>Agreed.
C'mon d00dZ, 1've got \/\/1nd0ze 98 beta on ftp.aol.com/max/42342/!!!
Let's get some c00l \/\/aReZ, Man!
>-tony
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
