Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: Clint Wolff <clintw(a)colorado.cirrus.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Q-Bus and Unibus to ATA info
>On the other hand, I have been pondering the development of a ATA
>drive controller that emulates MSCP (and possibly TMSCP).
I'm sitting on the layout of one ;-))
Problem is, you pay appr 100$ license fee for MSCP, and another 100$ for
TMSCP.
cheers,
emanuel
>This is a valid viewpoint, though I think, ultimately, the question to be
>answered pivots around which processor was potentially the most efficient of
>all its resources, including time. However, just the raw speed got a lot of
>discussion. In 1983, the 4MHz 6502 was "old hat" and the 8MHz Z-80H was
>readily available. However, AFAIK the peripherals for the Z-80H were not,
>and, in fact, I didn't ever see them. Somebody said they were out there at
>some point, but I've never seen them offered for sale.
Of course, in the "real world", there are many other considerations
to systems design other than processor speed and the "my CPU can beat
up your CPU" arguments that are familiar to us from our schoolyard days
(and seem to continue interminably here.)
This is, for example, why the number of 8051-descended CPU's that have
been shipped in the past 20 years is in the billions. (OK, very low
billions, but it's there.) (1 billion == 10**9, to not confuse the
folks who were educated outside the US of A.)
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
It has to be close to the 1000 because of thee chipset used. However, the
chipset deals with the drive-side of the controller, and not at all with the
host interface. Consequently, the DAVONG folks, whose documentation for
this baby is lying, even as I type, in my lap, accompanied by the four 360K!
diskettes, did not see fit to describe this product in much detail in their
user manual or installation guide.
They didn't even tell you much about the hardware with which you presumably
bought this baby. The usual assumptions were made, i.e. that you bought the
system interface (which uses a SCSI-type 50-contact connector, hence the
conclusion that it was SCSI, which it isn't) so they didn't include the
signal definitions for the cables. The odd thing about the box is that
there are numerous connectors. There's a power connector, a DA-15, an
external drive connector on a DB-25, a drive control cable connector which
is a DC-37, and one of those common 50-pin SCSI-1 connectors seldom seen on
SCSI equipment except in pairs. There's no ID switch for the controller.
Why they'd provide power from one powered box to another isn't clear.
That's how it is though.
It's likely from a functional standpoint that the controller works more or
less like a WD-1000-series controller of the earliest type, i.e. without the
WD1010 chip. These had a different arrangement of the registers, probably
just inverted, as I recall, from that of the WD1010-chip type. They use a
varactor-tuned VCO, just like the WD1000's and again unlike the smaller
board with the WD1010 chip. The fact they use the Signetics microcontroller
does suggest that these would be similar to the WD1000, but the WD1000 used
an 8X300, which maxxed out at 4 MHz while the newer and "improved" 8X305 was
called that because it had a few more instructions and features, and
operated at 5 MHz.
For now, that's all I've got about this DAVONG controller.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Ancient disk controllers
>> Connector J2 and J1 are together on one side of the long end (J1 is
34-pins
>> with half of them grounds, J2 is 20 pins with pins 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 and
20
>> grounded). J3, J4 and J5 are in line on a short end, 20 pins each,
similar
>> ground pattern to J2. J2 through J5 appear to have connections to a
Motorola
>> AM26LS32 and a TI AM26LS31 which I take to be some sort of analog chip.
>
>Those are almost certainly ST506-like data connectors (for up to 4
>drives). The 26LS31 and 26LS32 are differential line drivers/receivers
>which can be used for these signals.
>
>> The final connector, J6 is 50 pins.
>>
>> J1 appears to be the control cable for an ST506 drive, J2-J5 appear to be
>> data cables for talking to four drives. The interesting chips on the
board
>> include a N8X305N processor, some N82S181N ROMs, an N8X371N with leads
going
>> right to the 50-pin connector, and five socketed WDC parts copyrighted in
1980:
>
>Which pins are used on the 50 pin connector? Could it be pinned out as a
>SCSI port. Or is it possibly some custom host interface? For example I
>have here the data sheet for the WD1001 controller. It uses essentially
>the chipset you mentioned. It has a 50 pin host connector, but it sure
>ain't SCSI.
>
>> WD1100V-03, WD1100V-01, WD1100V-04, WD1100V-05 and WD1100V-12. There is
a
>
>I have data sheets for those chips...
>
>-03 : Adress mark detector
>-01 : Serial/Parallel converter
>-04 : CRC generator/checker
>-05 : Parallel-serial converter
>-12 : Improved MFM generator.
>
>> crystal at 20Mhz in the analog section of the board and an 8Mhz crystal
by
>
>20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate.
>8MHz is a common enough clock for the 8x300 series of CPUs as well.
>
>> the processor. In the middle of the board are three vias that are
labelled
>> as if they are configuration pads, in an inverted-L, labelled "1", "2"
and
>> "3", with a "W" above them,
>
>What bothers me, if this _is_ a SCSI controller is that there seems to be
>no way of setting the device address.
>
>My guess is that it's a sort-of WD1001 clone.
>
>-tony
>
It's like I wrote a few days ago. There was a bit of confusion about what
was what. Several different forces at WD were shuffling for turf,
apparently, and the prize, in this case, was the 1000 designation vs the
1001. They had data sheets about a 1000-08 controller but that never made
the price list. I have several of the OLD (meaning with the 8X300 + WD1100
chipset) tuned for handling ST506 drives, but none for 8", though I tried to
order them through distribution. Western send me several versions of the
small board with the 1010, 1014, and 1015 chips as samples, but I couldn't
get any of their offering for the 8" drives. I didn't need them, so it
didn't really matter.
I don't know how far back you remember, but the 8T31 is what they called an
interface vector, in the 8X300 doc's, and what it really is, essentially, is
a 74373 with built-in decode logic. It can work in either direction so you
can use it in both input and output applications. The part is described in
the OSBORNE series on microprocessors, in case anyone is interested.
The 8X300 is a true RISC. it has 8 instructions and, on the original
version, each one took 300 ns. on the version which was current in 1980, it
was customarily used with an 8MHz clock which meant each instruction took
250 ns, and in 1981 they trimmed it down to 200 ns with their 8X305. These
processors showed up in lots of tape controllers and the like, perhaps an
occasional SMD, and at least one LAN application, though I don't know what
the protocol was.
Hello:
I recently acquired a Convergent Technologies system model CG-1000
miniframe system. Tried hooking up a dumb terminal with no luck. The
system appears to be trying to boot from the hard disk but my guess is
that the operating system has been deleted :(. Does anyone have any
technical information on this system?
I gather from searching the web that this system ran a flavour of Unix
(RTOS?). Any and all info appreciated. Thanks.
Here's some system specs for the curious:
68010 10 MHZ cpu
2 Meg ram
2 - ST251 hard disks
Archive Corporation tape backup
5 1/4" floppy drive
2 - RS232 ports
1 - RS422A port
1 Parallel port
Front panel says "Motorola Information Systems 6350"
Regards
Pat Del Vecchio
I have been using a CMD technology (http://www.cmd.com) CQD-2xx/TM
SCSI <--> QBUS controller in my microvax II, and have been quite
happy with it. It emulates MSCP and TMSCP, so no additional drivers
are required. Unfortunately, at $800, it is about $800 more than I
paid for the computer (sigh).
The only down side is, Ultrix 3.1 won't work with a drive with more
than 1.2Gb or so, but with some partition magic it works just fine.
Also it will talk to my Archive Python DAT tape drive.
On the other hand, I have been pondering the development of a ATA
drive controller that emulates MSCP (and possibly TMSCP). There
is a DEC document that describes MSCP (I don't have the part number
handy). Does anyone have a copy they would give/sell/load to me?
Thanks,
clint
>
> I don't know if anyone noticed a USENET posting from the Ukraine about a DEC
> Hobbyist site. It has pictures AND a bunch of files about connecting ATA
> harddrives to a Unibus or Q-Bus system. I was interested in the idea of
> using modern HD's so I ftp'd the data and have put it on my FTP site (the
> one in Ukraine is, not surprisingly, painfully slow to respond)
>
> ftp://digital.dp.ua/DEC/ Original site
>
> ftp://zane.brouhaha.com/pub/dsu/ <- ATA files from original site
> ftp://zane.brouhaha.com/pub/dsu.tar <- tar of above files
>
> It looks interesting, but it also looks like it will take someone a lot
> better with the Hardware side of things than I am to make use of this info.
> >From briefly looking at the Q-Bus adapter, it looks as if the chips are all
> Soviet, which would probably make this more than a little difficult to use.
>
> Zane
>
It's true that may be more interesting when you have different vehicles, but
if you're trying to determine which of two is faster, don't you focus on
those two? Having lots of variations in the hardware only tends to muddy
the water.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
>
>> If you really want to see a drivers only contest, watch IROC racing (was
>> just on ESPN this afternoon) - a dozen identical cars, and in 40 laps,
the
>> pack spread out to a few car lengths. The winner was a Pontiac. So was
>> the loser, and every other car in the race. I think that it is more fun
to
>> watch an event where the vehicles differ.
>
>> We really need two sections of the whole competition - one section with
>> fixed platforms, and one section permitting custom hardware.
>
>Sounds like Formula 1 and Formula Volkswagen (Back in the 70's a
>very popular over her - all cars based on VW Beetle).
>
>Gruss
>H.
>
>--
>Stimm gegen SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/de/
>Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/
>Votez contre le SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/fr/
>Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut
>HRK
>> >> And i'd probably try to locate Lassiter and see if my some miracle he
>> >> could repair the board, etc.
>>
>> >I don't get the reference.
>Neither do I, and I'm the one who wrote it...
>> I'm not sure I do, either. Maybe he means Charles Lasner, a frequent
>> contributor to alt.sys.pdp8 (aka PDP8-LOVERS) up until a few years ago?
>Bingo, Thats who I meant.
Is Charles still with us? I haven't heard a peep from him since
the mid-(Lasnerian)-90's. (Bonus points to anyone out there who was reading
alt.folklore.urban back when "Lasnerian" was coined!)
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
<> processor. The more rudimentary the processor, the more points you get.
<> I choose the 4004.
<
<You have a _home micro_ based on a 4004? What the heck is it?
TMS1000 chip.
Allison
>> Well, I didnt say that I would pay $100... Or that it was a great price.
>> But it might be a fair price.
>>
>> And i'd probably try to locate Lassiter and see if my some miracle he
>> could repair the board, etc.
>I don't get the reference.
I'm not sure I do, either. Maybe he means Charles Lasner, a frequent
contributor to alt.sys.pdp8 (aka PDP8-LOVERS) up until a few years ago?
>> But, thats just me. To me, having a PDP8/e is the ultimate dream machine.
>> That, and having the room to store a PDP8/e...
>A PDP-8/e isn't all that large. Some of the peripherals can cause a
>space problem...
Even the disk drives are rather small - a fully configured system
with multiple RK05's, DECtapes, a few ASR33's, and one of the fixed head disks
weighs well under a half-ton, making it a "small" system by the standards
of many :-).
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
