<To my knowledge no flavor of unix runs on anything less than a 32-bit
<processor. There's a unix-workalike for the C-64/128, but that's not
Your knowledge is limited. Unix was started and lived for years on
PDP-11s (a 16 bit machine) in the form of V5, V6, V7 and 2.9BSD and
2.11BSD. I may add it was on other machines like the Interdatas.
<quite the same thing. Anyway, it's called Lunix. I haven't tried it yet,
There is also ELKS embedded kernal linux aimed at XT class(16bit) and
other small machines.
<but it's possible that Lunix could become fairly popular amongst the
<8-bitters. The point I was trying to make about running Minix (since you
Linux is is one form of popular free unix and was launched on PC hardware
that happens to be 32bit(386 and later).
Fitting unix on most 8bitter means a minikernal and swapping as most
8bitters have only a 64k address space unless some banking logic was
added or the CPU is only of the later z80 varients with MMU(z180 1mb, z280
16mb).
<generally run that on a PC anyway) is that it just simply makes more
<sense to run Linux or FreeBSD or some other supported operating system.
Minix is supported exactly the same way LINUX is.
<It's possible to run those operating systems with 8MB comfortably
<(provided you're not running XFree86)...all the text-based stuff runs
<just fine. Besides 8MB RAM doesn't exactly break the bank nowadays. :)
Well, my 386 is running it in 8mb with xfree86 and while not blindingly
fast it does run well. Not everyone has bundles of cash for their
computer.
I find the idea of not less than 32bits, 200mhz cpus and large memory
being a must to be patently retrorevisionist to the history of what was
done before those things were available.
Allison
<> Today I picked up a G.R. Electronics Ltd "Pocket Terminal" and I am
<> looking for some user information on it.
I have two of them, it's a mini terminal.
I have no data even though I know mine work.
Allison
I once saw one of these w/CRT and two floppy drives at a thrift store.
It looked quite old ;) I tried it out, coudn't really tell how to
use it, and didn't bother to take it. The thing on the screen looked
a bit vi-like. Another thing that's more complicated than it should
be...
> Yes, you read correctly. One of the local thrift stores turned up a
Xerox
>'MemoryWriter 630' for all of $8.00. Since I was in the market for
>something to fill out forms with, and curious about the MW series in
any
>case, I picked it up (with a grunt -- these are not light!).
>
> It's built very robustly inside, and appears to be based heavily on
the
>8085 chip. The design and layout resemble (no surprise) the Diablo 630
>series daisywheel terminals. A good vacuuming and a little oiling later
and
>it works just great. Original manufacture date is around 1984 (based on
the
>date codes I found on the components).
>
> No CRT on this one, though I understand that was one option. If anyone
>happens to have a user's guide, accessories, options, or diskettes for
this
>beast, please let me know.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Bruce Lane, Sysop, The Dragon's Cave BBS (Fidonet 1:343/272)
>(Hamateur: WD6EOS) (E-mail: kyrrin(a)jps.net)
>"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our
own
>human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe [SMTP:rigdonj@intellistar.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 2:44 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Seagate info
I just picked up a couple of old Seagate SCSI drives and I'm looking for
jumper information. (YES, these DO have jumpers.) I can't find a Seagate
site. Does anyone know of a site that has this kind of information?
[Kirk Scott] Try: http://www.blue-planet.com/tech/no-frames.html
I've gotten a lot of information help on older drives from them.
Kirk
scottk5(a)ibm.net
On May 2, 16:53, PG Manney wrote:
> The head had gouged its way through the entire thickness of the platter;
>
> Anyone ever seen a worse failure?
Not seen, but heard...
Some time ago, I had a little Seagate 50MB drive on running on the shelf
above a workstation. I knew it had a stiction problem, so I tended to
leave it running most of the time. So there I was, minding my own
business, as they say, and suddenly there was a very loud BANG. I couldn't
see anything amiss, but I shut things down anyway. Then I realised any
damage that was going to be done by whatever went bang had presumably
already happened. I wasn't going to find much out by staring at a blank
screen, so I powered everything up again. All came to life, but the
Seagate just reported disk errors. Tried reformatting; no joy. So I took
it apart. Every platter had huge circular gouges, and two of the heads
were in bits, mostly embedded in the walls of the disk chamber.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On May 2, 22:20, Joe wrote:
> Yes, I tried that URL. It said that that webpage was not
available!?!?!?!?
> I don't know about Impris but Seagate just bought Conner (who had already
> bought Maynard, who had already bought Irwin.) There goes a lot of their
> competion!
> >Uh, did you try www.seagate.com? They have information on even their
> >oldest SCSI drives, Conner drives, and Imprimis too.
They also have an ftp site (ftp.seagate.com, I think) which has all the
jumper info in text files. They also have zip files giving the info for
griups of drives, eg all the scsi drives, all mfm, etc. I use them so
often that I always have a reasonably up-to-date version on my server.
BTW, I find seagate's site and similar sites much more useful than TheRef.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
For direct to ugly...
Commodore PET
netronics explorer-85
intel mds800
minutman missle computer (lots of ways ugly!)
I can think of others but those were pretty ugly on an esthetic basis
and a few were ugly from a human factors standpoint (pet chicklet keys).
Programming the serial disk computer of the MMC was really nasty.
Allison
I am truly sorry for sending that huge file to the
mailing list. I had intended it for Daniel only.
Sorry for any inconveniences it may have caused.
Les
I believe KISS tends to apply in these cases. In general, I find
that I like blockier ones more.
I won't get myself started on modern case design, but I will say
that I do not find any of the "home computers" by Compaq, Toshiba,
Acer, and Sony to be very nice-looking.
Of classic computers, the TI 99/4a probably is in that vicinity...
>On Sat, 2 May 1998, R. Stricklin (kjaeros) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 May 1998, William Donzelli wrote:
>>
>> > Speaking of which, what are the ugliest machines?
>>
>> Apollo DOMAIN computers and every last intel based PC manufactured
since
>> 1993 and _especially_ since 1995. Except the new IBM GL machines
which are
>> actually kind of nice.
>
>I'm actually keen on the contemporary Compaq designs and the cool Acer
>designs with the neon colors and artistically drilled venting holes in
the
>dense pattern.
>
>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: 04/25/98]
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
