test-drb April 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

170 participants
1190 discussions

Program Challenge (was Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing)

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

You'd normally expect that the winner of any such contest would be the most recent processor, wouldn't you? So, if the cut-off date was 1982, any processor that was released in late '82 should probably beat any that was already available in 1979. Of course, if the 1979 processor had a much faster version available in 1983 (like a higher clock rate), that faster version wouldn't be legal with the 1982 cut- off, because that wasn't around in 1982. So, I suggest that one way of judging cleverness of software hacks is that they let an older processor beat a newer one. Judging that way, we don't even need a cut-off date. But anybody coding for a 1999 processor won't have any way to win. Of course, then we need clear evidence when each processor became available at each clock speed, and we can argue about when the chip was *really* available (as opposed to being orderable, or just having the spec available). Bill.

26 years, 1 month

Need PDP boards identified

by danburrows＠mindspring.com

> M7904 - Not listed in the Field Guide > Hex-Height > 40-pin ribbon cable sticking out the side M7904-00 RK611 DRIVE INTERFACE,HEX > NDLV-11 > netcom products, inc. > copyright jan. 1979 More than likely another DLV11 clone. It is amazing how many different ones I have encountered. > MSI-11 (c)1978 > Andromeda Systems Inc > faded sticker on handle says 'MUX1' and 'MUX3' the rest is to > faded to read http://www.andromedasystems.com/ if all else fails >A two board set from Plessey Peripheral Systems connected via a 50-pin >ribbon cable. The top board (P/N 703580) has 8 LEDs and a 10-pin >connector. The bottom board (P/N 703570) has 4 26-pin connectors and a >roughly 66-pin connector (not sure its exact size). The only thing I can >think of is some kind of drive controller. The MMI has a few listed and has them described as memory module.

26 years, 1 month

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

Yes, but there were three versions, at least, one being the Rockwell, one being the MOS-Technology , and the third was the Synertek/Western Design Center version. The VLSI Systems version was different from the Rockwell, but I don't know whether it was a completely different one or whether it fell in with one of the others. UMC made one, as did MITSUBISHI, however. I don't know where they fit in either. Do you? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 3:14 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Allison J Parent wrote: > >> The 6502 series ahd all sorts of undocumented opcodes and they tended to >> change with later versions. > >The 65C02 version effectively ended the regular 6502 undocumented opcodes >since it added a few new instructions and some new addressing modes for >existing instructions that took on the opcodes of some of the previously >undocumented ones. > >Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out. > > Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0! > See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! > [Last web site update: 04/03/99] >

26 years, 1 month

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<Wow, you have a TMS1000 based micro? What the heck is it? ;) Kids... TMS1000 was a 4bit single chip cpu from the 70s aand it was used to make toys, games and even timers for microwaves. A system around that chip might be a phone with memory and redial or a VCR timer. It did not have an external address or data bus nor were there eprom versions. I have numerous products with tms1000, COP4, uCOM4, uCOM75 series single chip CPUs. Allison

26 years, 1 month

Apple HAL XEBEC controller

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 17, 12:26, Richard Erlacher wrote: > Subject: Re: Apple HAL XEBEC controller > Xebec made a number of "specialized" bridge controllers, which fit between > the host adapter, which is what you've described, in this case possibly > intended to go to a compatible version of their 14xx-series controllers > which, in turn, provides a SCSI interface to an ST506 drive, which you > apparently have on hand. Yes, though AFAIK all the Xebec controllers of that era are SASI, not SCSI. > It is likely that the 26-pin connector is to the Apple II version of SCSI > which was put out back then on a 25-pin DB-25 connector. Sounds logical. Anyone got the pinouts? -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

26 years, 1 month

OT: Religious Festivals (was:Re: Fwd: H8 Enthusiasts)

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

> Just back from Warschau (Poland) - Thanks. And BTW: since Karfreitag Where? Oh, you mean Warszawa. Warsaw. ;-) > (Easter Friday sp?) I'm a proud owner of a H8 - I went to Swizerland The Friday before Easter is called Good Friday. I've never managed to work out what "kar" means in your name for it. My favourite, though is Ascension, which I understand you call Himmelfahrt... > with an empty car an came back with some kind of a wight problem, > including an H8 and an Compupro 286 (an S100 286 wit 4 Z80), just > to find aout that I had no Swiss power adaptor at hand (thy use a > different connector)... Sounds fun! Philip.

26 years, 1 month

Memory feature ?

by lwalker＠mail.interlog.com

While browsing I ran across a post which set me giggling. It was from a Power Mac user who was fed up cause his 200mhz 192Meg machine kept coming up with "out of memory" errors. In the replies it was stated that OS 8.1 and 8.5 were known to have "memory leaks". Heh, heh, heh. I'm reminded of the 4k memory in my Vic-20 or Gates' oft-quoted statement regarding the more than enough 640k MSDOS. ciao larry lwalker(a)interlog.com Collectors List and info http://members.xoom.com/T3C

26 years, 1 month

How to read recalcitrant floppies?

by mike＠delos.rain.com

On 17 Apr 99, at 11:52, Ethan Dicks wrote: > Are there any tools to go divining on DOS floppies that work better than > an endless succession of "R"etries? There's a new program called Lost and Found that's supposed to be able to recover data from problem disks. I haven't actually used it myself, but you can read the manufacturer's claims at www.powerquest.com. ----------------------------------------------------- Mike Newman INTERNET: mike(a)delos.rain.com Aloha, Oregon USA -or- mikewnewman(a)earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~mikewnewman ----------------------------------------------------- I met a mine foreman who has a piece of coal with a 1909 gold sovereign in it. I saw an ammonite, apparently squashed in the fossil footprint of a sandal.

26 years, 1 month

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

Because of unbelieveably foolish, inane, silly comments like the one you just made, the investigative nature of this problem has been pushed aside if favor of what's really just a game. You've already admitted that you don't even have the totally irrelevant processor you initially claimed you'd use, not that it matters, since that comparison is of no value or interest with respect to the problem at hand. Just read the subject of the email you've been answering. I'm not interested in getting into the equivalent of a virtual computer "tractor pull." I can leave that to the rednecks with the room-temperature IQ's without feeling any loss. However, since the late 1970's there's been this nagging question about the relative merits of two essentially opposed approaches to computer architecture, and a serious attempt to make a comparison without the underlying motive of trying to sell hardware or software has really never been made. I suppose it's because it really doesn't profit anyone to make this comparison at this juncture, except perhaps the incipient 12-year-old lurking within us all. Your comparison would be accurate, perhaps, if it took only a couple of days' effort and parts we all probably have lying about anyway to build that formula-1 car you refer to, but if a person wants to perform a valid test, there has got to be suitable hardware. Now, there are lots of plain-vanilla-flavored microcomputers with a Z-80 at their hear. However, almost all the 6502-based computers were really designed for the video-toy market and only find themselves able to serve as computer only as an afterthought. The Apple-II is probably a prime example. It would be acceptable to run a comparative exercise on the two processors if some valid basis for the comparison could be determined. Hans Franke came up with a proposed means for evaluating the validity of each arrangement. Unfortunately, this requires a test system be prepared, with a suite of test software and some specialized hardware. It also requires that each system-under-test be equipped with compatible hardware. I find this proposal valid, but quite a way off the mark, in that it makes the test almost completely hardware dependent. My take on this test would be to permit development and execution of the algorithm ultimately deemed most appropriate for this test on whatever hardware the programmer has at his/her disposal. It should be as limited in its hardware requirements as possible, i.e. it should not matter whether the program is written for a TIMEX Sinclair, or a CRAY MPX with simulation capability. The sum total of the resources involved in the code limited to an amount of memory common to all the contestant systems, and a console interface common to all as well. Code for interacting with the system console need not be considered, so long as it is entered with a call to a routine requiring NO preparation prior to the call. That means you must call a routine to make the console I/O preparations before calling the console I/O routine itself. The time for the first call and return made within the contestant's code is to be included in the competition, but subsequent action is not. However, the called console I/O code must be provided in order to show that no task-related effort is being made by the console handling routine. This is simple with a terminal, but not so simple with a device having resident video and keyboard I/O. Hans Franke suggested this test be performed on a system like the KIM-1. It is probably achievable in one. It must be so limited that no one system can outperform another just because of its resources. The comparison is between the processors, not the systems in which they reside. The code applicable to the contest can be evaluated for its consumption of processor cycles and relative timing computed from that. However, a lowest common denominator with respect to resources must be applied in the strictest sense. All of this monitoring and calculation can be eliminated, however, if each contestant simply builds a simple system with a full compliment (whatever that is determined to be) of memory, and both of the subject processors can use only 64K of memory. The resources implicit in the processor design shouldn't be an issue as that's part of what's being compared. Consequently it must be inherently permissible to use as much stack as needed without being penalized in any way, provided that falls within the designated limits. Again, such limitations go away if everybody runs their processor in 64K of RAM/ROM with only the one I/O device. Doesn't this make more sense than having a "tractor-pull" between computers? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 12:10 AM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote: > >> I want to distance myself from the majority of this nonsense. Building a > >Well, since you launched us all into this nonsense its pretty hypocritical >of you to want to back away from it now. > >> simple computer with a processor, a ROM, a full compliment of RAM, and a >> serial console interface is a 10-minute design and a 90-minute fabrication >> task. If it's designed to fit already existing firmware/software, it's even >> more or less practical to fit it into that firmware or software's >> understanding of what the hardware is that fits with it. That means that an >> operating system might be straighforward to accomplish in a day or two if >> there's software in the form of a decent monitor or OS to support it. > >Sure! Let's have a driving contest to see who can drive the fastest, but >first we all have to build our own cars. THAT MAKES AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF >SENSE! > >> implementation. I'm sure most people in any way familiar with the things we >> had to do back in the '70's will agree, that, from a hardware standpoint, >> building a single-board system with 64K SRAM, Whatever size of EPROM you >> like, overlapping it and disabled when copied into RAM, and a serial port is >> a no-brainer, requiring , as I previously said, about 90 minutes to >> wire-wrap. It might take longer if you have to find the parts. If you use > >Sure, and open heart surgery is a pretty straightforward operation for an >experienced doctor, but we're not all experienced doctors. > >Dick, you're amazing. > >Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out. > > Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0! > See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! > [Last web site update: 04/03/99] >

26 years, 1 month

Apple HAL XEBEC controller

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 18, 4:51, Sellam Ismail wrote: > Oops, sorry. I misread that. I'll let you off :-) I do that all the time... > > looks like it's just boot/driver code, so I think there must be some other > > way to format the (winchester) drive. > > You are correct. Generally the Xebec interfaces were used with the Sider > hard drives (at least those are the only drives I've ever seen them > used with) and they came with utilities on floppies for partitioning and > formatting the drive. I've seen Xebecs with all sorts of drives (but not on Apples). But unlike Adaptec SCSI copntrollers, the Xebec ones never stored the drive geometry on the drive, so you had to put it in a file to be read by your code (or hardwire it into your code, which is a bit limiting). I remember writing a pile of 6502 code for a BBC Micro to handle that. > I don't think this is SASI since the actual hard drive is a ST-225 or > equivalent. More like MFM. Well, sure, the drive would be MFM (or whatever the particular Xebec controller was intended for). I don't have the Xebec controller that came with this particular Apple interface; I was just hoping I could use this Apple interface with one of the spare Xebecs I have in the junk box. > I don't think I have the pinout, but then my > Sider manuals are stored away somewhere, and I don't know that they would > necessarily have any technical info for the Xebec card. > > Are you wanting to use it to hook a hard drive up to your Apple ][? Yes. I should have been clearer; I have the Apple-to-Xebec interface, and a couple of Xebec SASI controllers from elsewhere, and a few MFM drives. What I need is the pinout of the 26-pin connector on the Apple-to-Xebec interface, so I can figure out if my Xebex will connect to it. I wonder if an Adaptec ACB4000 would work? I've got a couple of those, too. Was there a standard pinout on Apple SCSI/SASI boards? Perhaps it's the same as the Mac 25-pin SCSI? -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

26 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2025

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 April 1999