test-drb January 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

189 participants
897 discussions

by dogas＠leading.net

From: John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com> >It looks like one of their founders or primary programmers >is now at an embedded OS company as seen at ><http://www.gensw.com/PAGES/ABOUT/STEVEJ.HTM>. Thanks John, I got some emailing to do... - MIke: dogas(a)leading.net

25 years, 11 months

100 year archiving

by jpl15＠netcom.com

Without going into a lot of extraneous detail.. I am on several comittees and groups etc., involved in the restoration and preservation of films, sound tracks, and video media. All the high-techsolutions notwithstanding, one of the long-term archival methods is still an optically-recorded signal on stablized mylar or estar-based photographic film of some kind. With the proper care in processing the film life is forcast to be in excess of 500 years, and all that is required to 'read' it is a light source and a photo-responsive device.. plus the algorithms to recover the intelligence from the data stream. In the case of purely analog info, an audio amp, speaker, (and knowing the language) are the only recovery criteria. Data is a little more complex, but hopefully in 2100 somebody will be able to translate. Unless we've managed to reduce ourselves to cave-man status once again. ;} Cheerz John

25 years, 11 months

Disasters and Recovery

by mark_k＠iname.com

On 18 Jan 1999 Eric Smith wrote: >Note that there are three important considerations to long-term data storage: >... >2) A suitable mechanism for the data recovery has to exist, or be > constructed. Sufficient technical specifications of the media format > has to be preserved to allow the preservation or construction of the > mechanism. >... >The second consideration may actually require the use of media that is not >optimal for the first consideration. For instance, other forms of optical >WORM discs might have better longevity than CDR, but the technical >specifications are not as readily available. Full description of the media is available, at least for several "standard" types of WORM disk; see e.g. http://www.ecma.ch/ -- Mark

25 years, 11 months

Vax available (kind of)

by cmcmanis＠freegate.com

More information on the VAX 6000 at Bermans in California (408) 955-7908 This is a VAX 6000/330, sitting next to it is a TU81 Plus tape drive mounted above an RA-82. All in the "low" grey/white DEC cabinets (two cabinets total). Sitting on top of the TU81Plus are two boxes, one marked VAXStation 4000 - 60 and one marked BA42A, the latter has a SCSI connector so I presume it is the disk for the VAXstation. They are _not_ in this week's auction so I don't know what happened there. If you're interested call them, not me :-) --Chuck

25 years, 11 months

Zenith / Dos 2.11

by adavie＠mad.scientist.com

Can anyone help this guy? A -----Original Message----- From: Reddzz(a)aol.com [mailto:Reddzz@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 6:45 AM To: adavie(a)mad.scientist.com Subject: Dos 2.11 I have a Zenith Z120. Model ZWG-121-32. I, Not knowing what I had, loaded dos 3.3. I did not make a backup copy of the original dos. I need dos 2.11 so I can boot up the system & get it up & running again. If you cannot help me please respond as well so I can continue my search. If you know someone that could possibly help please forward this e-mail to them or get back with me. Thanks for your help in advance. Respectfully, Jim Hill

25 years, 11 months

IBM thingy!

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

> >I went computer scrounging today and found a brief case style tool box with some kind on IBM tester in it. I have so idea what it is but it has an 8" floppy disk drive in it! I got the floppy disk too. It has a NICE handset with a 4 line LED display and a full keyboard attached by a cable. There's also a lot of strange looking connectors and adapters with it. The main box has an "IPL" button and three connectors labeled "PIO", "S LOOP" and "R LOOP". The quick reference chart only calls it a "MD". There's a tag on it that says "TYPE 910x 002". Anyone know what it is and what it's for? > > Joe I powered up the THING today. It says it's a Stand Alone Terminal Exorciser, PN 08309930, date 01/84. It passes the self test and brings up a menu that lets you select 327X Tutorial, 327X BSC, SDLC/SNA or R-LOOP. Selecting the R-LOOP option brings up another menu for 8775 Device or 3276 Device. That's as far as I can get in the menu, after that it asks for a CU address or will autoscan for it but of course there's nothing connected so it doesn't find what ever it's looking for. Does anyone know any more about it? Joe

25 years, 11 months

thoughts on UNIX and older systems

by dburrows＠netpath.net

>> Personally a VMS node suits my liking. >> >Mine too, but I haven't gotten all the parts for my VaxStation 3100 yet. > I have a few 3100-30's here for spares. What parts do you need? Dan

25 years, 11 months

TK50Z-GA EPROM

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

>>The main difference is the power consumption. The CMOS version takes a >>much lower supply current (even when selected). >> >>There may also be differences in the access time (but fast enough CMOS >>EPROMs exist) and the programming algorithm (but that only matters to the >>programmer). >> >>They are essentially pin/function compatible. > > Erm, correct me if I'm wrong ('cause I may very well be) but at least in > comparison with 4xxx CMOS vs. 74xx TTL, not only do the require less power > to do their job, but they can also *provide* less power on their outputs to > other chips' inputs, right? Hmm. You're comparing CMOS with TTL. The traditional EPROMs are not TTL but NMOS - very similar components (at the transistor level) to CMOS, but fewer different sorts available. NMOS uses enhancement mode FETS and depletion mode FETS of N-channel polarity. CMOS uses enhancement mode FETS of both sorts. In theory, depletion mode FETS could be fabricated by the CMOS process, but I've never heard of it being done except perhaps for NMOS-compatible outputs etc. So I don't envisage a difficulty here. The newer designs of CMOS parts should compensate for any inherent disadvantages with CMOS technology. Philip.

25 years, 11 months

OT? On Programming (was: Re: Computers for children)

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Jan 17, 19:01, Cameron Kaiser wrote: > Subject: Re: OT? On Programming (was: Re: Computers for children) > Pete Turnbul wrote: > ::I'd guess elm (which is what pine was originally based on) is smaller, > ::sleeker, and simpler. Not a bad thing... > My original choice of elm was basically because you got to pick from: > > * cat $MAIL > * mailx > * elm cat?? You don't use dd? ;-) > Hmm, let me think ... uh ... let's try elm. Sounds like a reasonable choice :-) -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

25 years, 11 months

Disasters and Recovery

by roblwill＠usaor.net

But, when you consider things, most people wouldn't have seen what we consider a "hard drive" for probably 40-50 years, if not more. By that time, computers will probably be the size of, if not smaller than a 1999 hard drive. The computer in the time capsule will probably seem like the ENIAC does to those who are accustomed to today's compact desktops and laptops. I just thought of something else: Is a modern, voice-coil-driven (heads) hard drive even alignable? The old drives with the stepper were, but they usually operated on the principle of a floppy drive (in the way the heads moved, at least). In a modern drive, if the heads would somehow "un-align", all you would normally have done is get the data rescued, reformat the drive, and put everything back on, or, what *most* (not necessarily people on this list) people would do, is just get the data rescued (if their job, or life, depended on what was on the drive), trash the mis-aligned drive, buy a new one, and re-install everything. -- -Jason Willgruber (roblwill(a)usaor.net) ICQ#: 1730318 <http://members.tripod.com/general_1> -----Original Message----- From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 7:34 PM Subject: Re: Disasters and Recovery > >We're talking 100 years here. Computers didn't even exist in 1899, and >now you can wear one on a ring. I think aligning a 1999 hard drive, a >physical item that is still very visible by the naked eye, will be among >the more mundane tasks in 2099. > >Of course, the point is pretty much moot anyway. > >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: 01/15/99] > >

25 years, 11 months

← Newer
1
...
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
...
90
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 January 1999