However, Linux can do some things on a 386 while NT will barely run.
I would expect that NT may have some bugs that cause, say, divide by
zeros on certain hardware. It's very difficult for Linux to have a
bug last very long. I have never had any problems running Linux but
I stil can't get it to install on some machines because of crappy
distributions. I'll do it manually soon enough...
>
>I wouldn't be so sure. Linux will stress a system far more than
>W3.11/WFWG/W95 will. I've experienced a number of systems that would
quite
>happily run BGP (Bill Gate's Products) that wouldn't reliably run
Linux.
>Typically the problem is memory that is marginal and is quite often
seen as
>compile errors (especially rebuilding kernels).
>
>However, I must admit that I never have problems with stability of
either
>of linux or NT....
>
> Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au
> Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 9479 1550 Fax: +61 3
9479
>1999
> La Trobe University | "If God had wanted soccer played in
the
> Melbourne Australia 3083 | air, the sky would be painted green"
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Where are you located?
Regards,
Jon
---------------------------------
>We have some old 486 computers that we don't use anymore. Can you use them?
>Marvin J. Wakoff
>Wakoff, Andriulli & Co.
>mwakoff(a)njcpa.com
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
>
><META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
><META content='"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=GENERATOR>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>We have some old 486 computers that we
don't use
>anymore. Can you use them?</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Marvin J. Wakoff<BR>Wakoff, Andriulli &
>Co.<BR><A
>href="mailto:mwakoff@njcpa.com">mwakoff(a)njcpa.com</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></
HTML>
>
In a message dated 98-09-01 03:35:51 EDT, you write:
<< > On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, James Willing wrote:
>
> > Apple PN: 342-0135B (eprom in some sets, masked rom in others)
> > 342-0134A (???)
> > 342-0133A (???)
> > and... 370-6502 (a 6502 processor ?!?)
> >
> > My first inclination without opening up any of my boxes (that I can't get
> > to at the moment anywho) is Apple IIgs upgrades... Can anyone confirm or
> > deny this? Most of the parts are dated 1982... >>
these are the chips needed to turn an original apple //e into an enhanced //e
model.
david
>>> See my web page for a history of the UCSD P-System.
>>Hmm letmesee... only Pascal ? What about the otherlanguages ?
>
> I don't think I have any other languages for my Terak's
> P-System, and I don't know much about who developed those...
> Did UCSD develop any beyond Pascal?
At least Fortran and Basic - While the Basic compiler
never got wide usage, the Fortran was quite popular
among the number crunchers to get some of their
apps running on the A2
Gruss
H.
--
Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
HRK
Hmmm... Ok, based on what information was forwarded to me (thanks, and you
know who you are!) the box is not all what it appears to be. It does
appear that the box contains one set of original LISA parts (two eproms and
a state machine) which I'll have to figure out what to do with (lots of
folks wanted some, and now it seems I only have one) and a LOT of sets of
other parts.
Can anyone put meaning to these?
Apple PN: 342-0135B (eprom in some sets, masked rom in others)
342-0134A (???)
342-0133A (???)
and... 370-6502 (a 6502 processor ?!?)
My first inclination without opening up any of my boxes (that I can't get
to at the moment anywho) is Apple IIgs upgrades... Can anyone confirm or
deny this? Most of the parts are dated 1982...
-jim
---
jimw(a)agora.rdrop.com
The Computer Garage - http://www.rdrop.com/~jimw
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
At 04:26 PM 31-08-98 -0700, Sam Ismail wrote:
>Use Linux instead. Its far less picky about its hardware (and a whole
>lot more stable too, not to mention just a better OS).
I wouldn't be so sure. Linux will stress a system far more than
W3.11/WFWG/W95 will. I've experienced a number of systems that would quite
happily run BGP (Bill Gate's Products) that wouldn't reliably run Linux.
Typically the problem is memory that is marginal and is quite often seen as
compile errors (especially rebuilding kernels).
However, I must admit that I never have problems with stability of either
of linux or NT....
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)latrobe.edu.au
Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 9479 1550 Fax: +61 3 9479
1999
La Trobe University | "If God had wanted soccer played in the
Melbourne Australia 3083 | air, the sky would be painted green"
My collection of documentation has taken a dramatic upturn in the last few
weeks. It just occurred to me that I could have the very thing somebody's
looking for. Who knows?
So, in an attempt to be unselfish, I am going to catalogue the docs I have
available and make information from them available to anybody needing it.
Just ask.
And, for the record, I'll try to be quicker than I have been getting that
CT Voice Processor manual copied and mailed to Sam. (:
I'll make the listing available at
http://www.slash.net/predicate/
Hope it'll be useful!
ok
r.
I'd be very interested to know if you have copys of an old magazine called "Micro Cornucopia". I did a summer internship there when I was in high school.
Tony
--
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:04:26 Seth J. Morabito wrote:
>[...]
>> When did the downward trend in magazines occur, or was it a steady
>> process?
>
>Old computer magazines are another passion of mine. I a large
>bookshelf full of BYTE magazine, from around 1976 to 1993, and
>leafing through these magazines is like looking through the layers
>of sediment in an archeological search. It's immensely fascinating.
>
>BYTE started out as a single-signature stapled magazine. The September
>1975 issue is 96 pages. These were the days of serious homebrew
>systems, and Byte catered to that crowd exclusively. There were articles
>about writing assemblers, about microcode, about CPU design, about MMU
>architectures, and about CP/M internals. The typical reader was putting
>together a home-made or kit-bought S100 machine, and wanted to stay in
>touch with their fellow hackers. Those were truly glory days, 1975 to
>1980, although I was too young to participate. I was busy playing in
>a stream somewhere over summer vacation :) [I guess I'm trying to make
>up for lost time by being so interested in classic computers now]
>
>BYTE stayed about this size, right up through 1980 or so. If you were
>around to remember it, there was a HUGE burst in Home Computing mania
>right around 1981. Computers were suddenly everyhere, and everyone seemed
>to have access to an Apple II or a Sinclair or (later) a Commodore 64.
>With the introduction of the IBM PC, computers gained "business"
>acceptance, and the wave crested. Anyone remember the 1982 TIME Magazine
>"Man of the Year" going to "The Computer"? That raised a few eyebrows.
>
>It was right around that time that BYTE swelled into a behemoth 400-page
>magazine. It was like hefting a book, and the spine was a good 3/4"
>thick. Every article had something good in it. There were in-depth
>articles about Smalltalk and the coming of Object Oriented Programming.
>Serious reviews of new commercial computer products. Buyer's guides.
>And still, plenty of technical articles, and source code for programs.
>
>It wasn't until 1985 or so that BYTE got back down to smaller proportions,
>and had fewer articles. They focused more PC clones, the brand-new
>Macintosh, business applications; less on hard-core internals. The techie
>articles were still there, just in fewer numbers, and the readership
>of Byte was pretty mixed, technical and business computer users.
>Computer literacy was still not what it is today, so there weren't as
>many clueless newbies. There would be plenty of time for that later.
>
>In my very humble opinion, it was around 1987 or 1988 that computer
>magazines started seriously heading downhill. BYTE remained a very good
>magazine, right up through 1993, but after that, it was fully devoured by
>"Business App-Itis", and became pretty un-interesting.
>
>These days, the only computer magazine that's anything like what
>Byte used to be is "The Computer Journal", published by Dave Baldwin.
>Unfortunately, it's quarterly instead of monthly -- there's just not
>that much demand for S100 information these days :)
>
>-Seth
>--
>"It looks just like a Telefunken U47! Seth J. Morabito
> You'll love it." - Frank Zappa sethm(a)loomcom.com
>
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Allison J Parent wrote:
Hello Allison,
> I meant simply:
>
> >>>B MKA0 <cr>
>
> It could be any device from 0->7.
OK, I have tried >>>B MKAn for values 0->7 and ended with a quick 84 FAIL
in each instance.
Likewise, I have tried >>>B MUAn for the same values with the same
results, excepting n=0. In that instance, I first see the
-MUA0
displayed and sometime later:
%VMB-F-ERR, PC = 00000765
%VMB-I-STS, R0 = 000008C2
84 FAIL ^^^
In this case, however, ^ this value is different from the other instances.
> < By the way, about how long should the boot from tape take, and what are
> < the TK50Z indications that it is 'doing its thing'? I tend to assume
> < that the flashing green LED means that it is reading.
>
> Assume slow, slow, slow.
>
> < ?? 1 00C0 0000.7004 *** WHAT IS THIS??? ***
>
> Unterminated ethernet (BNC)?
Likely so, as it is not terminated.
> < TPC 0202.0001
> < FFFFFF03 01000001 FFFFFF05 FFFFFF05 FFFFFF05 FFFFFF05 FFFFFF05 FFF
>
> those ending on 05 are not occupied scsi addresses.
>
> I believe the one that comes up ffffff03 is the tape, the 010000001 is a
> new one on me.
>
> All the other tests I'm ingoring right now. Try the TK50 again with the
> SCSI tape disconnected and see that the pattern is. It should all be
> xxxxxxx05. Also I think the default address for the tape is 7 not 0.
I tried it with the T 50 disconnected and the change was that the
01000001 value became FFFFFF05 also. With it connected but powered down,
I got FFFFFF03 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF ...
Right now, I am trying again to boot from the TK50 after setting MUA0 as
default via T 51. I entered just 'B', and it has tried -DUA0, -MUA0, -ESA0,
?54 RETRY, and is now on ESA0 again. I'm not sure how long this will go
on, but it looks like it is skipping MUA0 on this go round. Yes, it is.
It is cycling between -ESA0 and ?54RETRY.
Could the TK50 drive itself be faulty, or d\the tapes themselves?
- don
