Hello, all:
I just got my hands on a Hayes Chronograph. No box, but complete with
wall wart, and manuals.
It's fatter than I thought that it would be -- about 2x the size of a
standard Hayse stack modem. It has a calibration port on the back, as well
as a write-protect switch.
It works great! The time is wrong, but it works!
Rich
[ Rich Cini/WUGNET
[ ClubWin!/CW1
[ MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
[ Collector of "classic" computers
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
<---------------------------- reply separator
<Nowadays, it's really tempting to use an EPROM or Battery-Backed SRAM to
<hold the entire CP/M CCP, BDOS, and BIOS, and let the warm boot reload the
<CCP from there. That would certainly make the control-c quicker.
Nowadays! I did this back in early 81 using 2732s. I put a monitor, bios,
ZCPR2 and BDOS in that. The CCP and BDOS only eats 5.5k. It was set up
rather odd as the system runs from a small 2716 at cold boot with a monitor
and then by user command loads the 8k image into ram from IO addressed
"romdisk". The CTRL-C was very fast as it could do INIR copies from the
rom. A later version still running is 256k of eprom (27512s) had all of
cpm, loader, ASM, VEDIT, SID (and more). This version the boot EEprom
is at 0000 and is truncated bdos, bios and a loader. This was done so that
I could have it load CPM.SYS image for testing from the selected drive
including the ROMDISK. This is raw speed.
Allison
<I have never seen a Z-80A system that needed DMA for disk I/O. The require
<loop is simple enough to synchronize using the nWAIT line. The CCS and SD
<FDC's both did PIO, and since the OS didn't have anything better to do
<during disk I/O, the wasted CPU cycles, if there were any, were going to b
<wasted anyway.
Well I have several. What is the cpu doing? Running CPM and more. The
cycles it would ahve been doing PIO are now, supporting interrupts real
time, printer buffering and disk caching for the disk (hard and floppy).
Keep in mind CPM didn't rule out much so background tasks and even
multiprocessing were possible with CP/M-80 with a few minor limitations.
The big thing that annoyed me to the max with many of the boxen of the time
was that go to the disk ment stop typing and compared to my PDP8, PDP-11
experience this was stupid. PIO at 4mhz really limited the number of
interrupts yu could take while servicing a DD floppy (worst case a byte
every 27uS) or DD 8" (worst case a byte EVERY 13uS). Sure you could sync
a z80 to that but it was pretty much dead waiting for a sector to come
around. DMA was a solution, that and use of interrupts (mode 2) made for
a much smoother system that felt smoother and faster to the user. It was
particulary noticeable for apps that either ran overlays or like VEDIT
virtualized the file on the disk.
<few locations of memory as opposed to a large (2K) refresh buffer in the
<already small memory map. It's just that N* (and VECTOR) were not among
<them.
NS* didn't do a video board. Many people used a VDM-1 in it or the
VectorGrapahic card. In 1978 a ADM1A was ~$800, good TTY $400, VDM1
$199 (if I remember right). The SD systems board was better and looked
more like a parallel device.
<stated. I would not, however, pretend that the CCS or SDS stuff I liked t
<use was enough "better" that anyone would be making a mistake to use it.
I thought they were pretty neat too. thats why in '96 I got two CCS systems
complete and running!
Allison
<> So My Compupro RAM16 (64k static) in the NS* (system A) has all banks
<> enabled and if we hit e800H the FDC forces phantom/ and the ram16 is
<> deselected for that address.
<
<Ah... I see... Now, the 4FDC does not have any connection to
<pin 67, so it is not using phantom. But it should be easy to
<implement... Can I just take the /CS (-NOT- chip select) pin
<from the 2708 and wire it to 67? Maybe I need to -NOT- it first?
You could but it would be bad juju. the normal drive for phantom/
is either an open collector driver (7406, 7438) or maybe a driver
like 74126, 241, 244... to be active only when active low.
Also you don't want that phantom/ going low from some other card from
asserting CS/ on the 4fdc.
Allison
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ethan Dicks [SMTP:ethan_dicks@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 3:00 PM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: Data I/O programmers (was Re: EPROM sideline)
>
>
>
> --- Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com> wrote:
> > "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
> > > The OLD Pre-Unisite (model 2900 ??) programmer from DataI/O...
> >
> > You're thinking of the model 29 (and 29B). They've been out of support
> > for quite some time, and they recently removed the last technical info
> > (such as family and part codes) from their web site.
>
> Does anyone have this info? I have an old programmer under the bench that
>
I've just bought an old Data i/o series 22 programmer but it lacks a manual.
Data i/o have indeed removed all tech support for older models from their
website. Does anyone know an alternative site still offering manuals?
--
Arlen Michaels amichael(a)nortelnetworks.com
Nortel Networks, Ottawa, Canada
voice (613) 763-2568 fax (613) 763-9344
Phantom was a common signal, but it really didn't take long before many
vendors were simply copying the EPROM into memory, with a flipflop that
enable the EPROM simply toggling off when the most significant location in
the EPROM was accessed. That way it didn't matter much whether you had
PHANTOM implemented or not. The EPROM was generally not enabled for a WRITE
to memory, regardless of where it was writing, so copying the EPROM into RAM
was pretty straightforward. The only thing PHANTOM had to do was disable
the RAM board's output buffers, and it was common enough that it generated a
wait-state or two as well, since the EPROMS were pretty slow.
Nowadays, it's really tempting to use an EPROM or Battery-Backed SRAM to
hold the entire CP/M CCP, BDOS, and BIOS, and let the warm boot reload the
CCP from there. That would certainly make the control-c quicker.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: allisonp(a)world.std.com <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Northstar Horizon
>> > My solution was far more reasonable. Map it <VDM1> at 4000h and set a
bit
>> > to enable it (small hack). That way it used no TPA space and was still
>> > faster than using a TTY. I later set up one of the NS* controllers
that
>> > way for a full 64k space. Of course I had to write my own drivers but
it
>> > was pretty trivial.
>>
>> And hack the RAM board to be disabled when the VDM1 is enabled?
>
>Ah, ever hear of phantom... part of the MDS-A and VDM IO hack was to set
>them up to output Phantom, in both cases it was just a jumper required.
>The disable was simpler, MDS-A has a rarely used sector interupt enable
>latch and the VDM used a bunch of bits for windowshading, something I
>considered useless and removed from the board (a few socket level jumpers)
>and I had the bit I needed for enable. If they were enabled phantom was
>generated, if they were not ram was there.
>
>Allison
>
>
I have never seen a Z-80A system that needed DMA for disk I/O. The required
loop is simple enough to synchronize using the nWAIT line. The CCS and SDS
FDC's both did PIO, and since the OS didn't have anything better to do
during disk I/O, the wasted CPU cycles, if there were any, were going to be
wasted anyway.
In any case, there were a few video boards, notably the one from SDS, which
didn't chew up a bunch of memory space. There were some which only used a
few locations of memory as opposed to a large (2K) refresh buffer in the
already small memory map. It's just that N* (and VECTOR) were not among
them.
What's better is not so easy to establish anyway, since what's better to one
person may not be at all acceptable to another. The N* Horizon was a pretty
popular product. I didn't like it because of the reasons I've already
stated. I would not, however, pretend that the CCS or SDS stuff I liked to
use was enough "better" that anyone would be making a mistake to use it.
What persuaded me, however, was that the price of the CCS or SDS stuff was
lower overall. What's more, I liked the MSC9391 HDC, which was too tall to
fit in most boxes the size of the N* Horizon, including, by the way, the
Altair and IMSAI. Those Integrand boxes with drive power and lodging built
into the box that powered and housed the backplane were pretty decent,
though, and they'd hold the double-high card from MSC. There was even
enough room for an extra Power-One PSU (+12, +5) for the HDD so it worked
out for my needs. That was another factor which drove me in a direction
away from the prepackaged systems.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: allisonp(a)world.std.com <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, November 02, 1999 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Northstar Horizon
>On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> That was my point, exactly. One shouldn't have to hack a new machine in
>> order to make it what one wants. That's doubly true when you can buy
what
>> you want for less and not have to hack it.
>
>
>Well since the bus was not very standard, and the industry evolving...
>
>The key was what was better, and at the time I did my thing better was a
>limited choice. A year maybe two that choice was far greater but some of
>the fundimental design issues I was really taking aim at were not being
>solved except by a limted few. IE: spinning in PIO to do disk IO to me
>was plain dumb. CPU cycles were in my eyes being wasted. I really didn't
>care if it was memory mapped or IO mapped realative to that waste of CPU
>as a resource. In 1977 I wanted reliability NS* had it. In 1979 I wanted
>storage space and more speed and I started working on it. The DMA (of
>smart) boards I wanted however were still wanting or way out of line for
>quite a while.
>
>Allison
>
The same thing was "wrong" (meaning that it irritated me and offended my
sense of how things should be) as with the N*, in that they used memory
space I wanted to use. Consequently, I never seriously used, nor did I ever
promote them. It was no big deal, but at the time I thought that it was.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Dameron <ddameron(a)earthlink.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Northstar Horizon
>At 10:52 PM 10/31/99 -0700, Richard wrote:
>>There certainly were a few vendors whose systems were as much off-center
as
>>the N*. Just take a look at Vector Graphics' systems, for example. I
once
>>owned a couple of those, with their memory-mapped video refresh memory.
>
>What was wrong with their "flashwriter", at least for that time, late
>1970's? It was very similar to the Processor Tech's "VDM", and cost a whole
>lot less than a text VDU. You could move its location in memory if desired,
>but had to have matching drivers.
>-Dave
>
