Well, you'd have to be careful to avoid mixing up the timing in the system
intrinsics to be "postulated" and the contest-specific code. How would that
be handled?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.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
>It was thus said that the Great Mike Ford once stated:
>>
>> >Ooh! A machine code competition. I'm in! I'll do the 6502 and whoop
>> >EVERYONE'S ass!
>>
>> And then you woke up. First what are the rules, 6502 or 65C02, code in
Rom
>> or Ram, what is the code supposed to do?
>>
>> My vote goes for something with some graphical element so we can "see"
what
>> is happening. (spinning ball, etc.)
>
> I would vote against that because the hardware available might make a
>difference. For instance, moving an object on a 6502 based system, the
C-64
>will probably win both the speed and size catagories, simply because of
>hardware assist. Besides, if this is to match code/speed size between
CPUs,
>then not all machines are capable of graphics.
>
> The Roman Numeral one sounds interesting. To make it fair, I would
assume
>that there exists a routine, CHROUT, that takes as input the character in
>the main accumulator and displays it on the output device. The output
>device is a simple TTY like device that supports TAB, CR (which returns the
>print head to the start of the line, and advances to the next line) and BS.
>
> The code for CHROUT is NOT to be counted towards speed or size, but I'd
>probably allow the call to CHROUT to be considered.
>
> Contest open for any CPU anyone would care to write code for.
>
> -spc (Hows that for a contest?)
>
The subject just about says it all... I just rescued one from the Paxton
auction, and one of the filler panels in the lab module section is missing.
Anyone got a spare? (or some neat modules? or some docs... or....)
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
If one were going to put an FDC in place, the easiest probably would be the
WD3765, since it has built in cable-drivers and receivers as well as
clock/data processing hardware. You connect it directly to the cable, as I
recall. It otherwise behaves as a uPD765 (i8272).
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
><Western Digital disk controllers are a little harder to get, so I'd
><change it to 'a disk controller of your choice' which means you can use
><an 8272 or whatever (trivial to get off an old PC card).
>
>1793s are common enough and cheap too. If I went with the 765 (8272)
>I have to claim unfair advantage!
>
><Considering you can make a serial port in a couple of chips, this is not
><a major design task....
>
>But it's overhead is trivial and well enough understood as to mean little.
>
>IT would be more of a challenge if each person supporting a processor had
>to use a different one. That would be a true learning experience.
>
>As to hardware... I cheat. I have SBCs for most common cpus.
>
>1976 imp48 8048 (cute little sbc with tape IO, TTY, relays)
>1977 8048 from byte 8048 (this was an 8035 with a mini front pannel)
>1980 8051 8751 (basically a 8051 SBC with monitor)
>1978 SC/mp ISP8A500 (sc/mp I)
>1979 National TBX 8073 (SC/MP II with tiny basic)
>1977 COSMAC ELF base 1802 (quest board)
>1976 6800d1 6800
>1977 kim1 6502
>1983 Telvideo 905 R65c02 (card from terminal, good as SBC!)
>1978 8x300 proto 8x300 (signetics)
>1981 SDK78 7800 (nec propritary)
>1981 78pg11 Protoboard 78pg11 (NEC propritary)
>1979 Tk80 8080
>1980 explorer8085 8085 (base card has 8085, ram and rom)
>1980 Computime CPUZ z80 (s100 card with 1k ram, serial, eprom z80)
>1981 Vt180 Z80 (z80, 64k, 4 serial, FDC, Eprom, RTC)
>1981 Hurikon MLZ92 Z80 (Z80, mmu, 64k ram, eprom, serial,FDC)
>1978 INtersil sampler (6100, 256w ram, rom, serial)
>1982 29116 proto 29116/2911 proto for bitblitter
>1982 Z8001 proto z8001 (z8001, 16k ram, 16k eprom, serial)
>1982 Falcon T-11 (pdp11 chip, ram, parallel, serial, rom)
>1979 SSS technico TI9900 (9900, ram, rom, serial)
>1986 Advice 78032 (uVAXII, serial, 96k ram, 512k rom)
> The advice was used in 87 to assist the MV2000 design!
>
> All are classics, only the Advice wasn't available in '83.
>
> Now if I wanted to get exotic, I have a load of 2901/2911s with date
> codes pre 1980. Also 29116s (pre 83). Also enough raw 8748/9 and 8751
> parts to do a major hack (maybe 50 or 60 of each). the 8749s are the
> slower 1982 parts that only run at 11mhz (instruction cycle time of
> 1.36uS) However with the prior to 1982 limit sthere are no sortage of
> choices.
>
> I'm not above using multiple cpus to do the task or mixing several
> different ones.
>
>Allison
>
I'll be shipping a few floppy disk drives soon, and want to minimize
the shipping damage to them. So, is it better to ship them with the
drive door open or closed? And with or without a floppy inserted?
Bill.
--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The final connector, J6 is 50 pins.
> >
> 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?
It could be a custom host interface. Among other anomalies, I don't see
any terminating resistors.
> 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.
Can you scan that data sheet or send me a photocopy? I'd pay for
copying/mailing.
> 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate.
Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk.
> 8MHz is a common enough clock for the 8x300 series of CPUs as well.
OK.
> What bothers me, if this _is_ a SCSI controller is that there seems to be
> no way of setting the device address.
No place that I can see.
> My guess is that it's a sort-of WD1001 clone.
OK. That makes sense. In fact, when I read the recent debates of
WD1001's, I thought of this board. I didn't think I could find it
as fast as I did. It could have been packed a lot deeper than it
was.
Thanks for the insights.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>I recently found an ancient copy of QNX, which seems to be a light unix like
>OS.
>
>Looking on the WEB, I found that current versions are still around, but
>marketed as a "Real Time" OS. The 80's documentation I have says nothing
>about real time.
>
>My dumb question: What is a real time operating system?
It's not a dumb question! It is, in some respects, a very controversial
question.
In very general terms, a real time operating system is what is used when
a response from the computer to an external event is required in a
"timely" fashion. For example, if it's a fly-by-wire jet,
and the pilot pulls the control stick back, you don't want the
computer to delay in making the control surfaces move because the co-pilot
is doing some lengthy navigational or fuel consumption calculations at
the same time.
For a multi-tasking operating system, this generally means two things:
1. When an external stimulus comes in, there has to be some way of
making sure it will interrupt tasks of lower priority.
2. After the higher-priority task is started, it has to finish in a
fairly predictable amount of time.
Depending on the nature of the real-time task and/or the person defining
"real-time", you also often find some further requirements. There are
also folks who split the definition into "soft real-time", where it's
OK if you're occasionally late with an answer or occasionally take too
long to respond, and into "hard real-time", where the computer is never
ever allowed to be late in responding or answering.
Traditional Unices are not, by any measure, real-time operating systems.
There are Unix-like OS's that are called "real-time operating systems", but
many of the "hard real-timers" will disagree with this.
A more modern approach to "real-timeliness" considers not only the
main CPU, but also subsidiary CPU's and systems. For example, if
a response to a stimulus requires doing any disk reads or writes, you
may need to thoroughly know the worst-case response time of the disk
drive. Modern disk drives (or even many disk drives from a decade ago)
have microprocessors in them and for a truly safety-critical application
it may be necessary to thoroughly review and qualify the firmware that's
in the disk drive to be sure that it will always respond in a certain
minimum amount of time.
Some real-time operating systems can be pressed into service as
general-purpose multi-user OS's. For example, RSX-11M. Others
make quite nice single-user development platforms - for example RT-11.
Modern network-in-the-kernel OS's are very difficult to turn into "real-time"
systems with much functionality. You ever have a NFS server go down
and tie up a campus full of workstations for minutes at a time?
--
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
Do not get in touch ith me on these but rather see them on eBay and
contact the seller. I know the seller and that the profits from these
items get turned into donations to a group known as Ky Industries for
the Blind (KIB) so that they can purchase keyboards, ram and monitors
for machines they build from donations for those with sight impairments,
and occasionally others with other disabiliies.
_____________________________________________________________________
Rick Mayes <rmays43(a)yahoo.com>
Leitchfield, KY USA - Saturday, April 17, 1999 at 17:38:53
I have the following oldies but goodies at www.Ebay.com
item number title
92355306 Hewlett Packard 86, CPU, dual 5-1/4" floppy
92353685 Apple II PLUS, CPU, dual 5-1/4" floppy drive
92350927 Apple IIe, CPU, dual 5-1/4" floppy drives
92348416 6 Diablo HyType II Multistrike Film, ribbons
92251130 MacIntosh SE, CPU/Monitor
92248010 Hewlett Packard, HP 71B Mini Computer
92246567 COLORADO 250 MB Tape Back UP Drive
Would the fellow that needs a ST-225 HD please email me I have one
for you for whatever the shipping will be.
Thanks, Rick
<CP/M wasn't bad for its day, and I was rather fond of it at the time
<(compared to some of the feeble crap that other companies were putting
It still isn't. I run a lot of stuff here using cpm and have a few
projects going to add things I feel are missing like hierarchal directories.
<out, such as Ohio Scientific's OS-65D), but I'd have to concur with
<your assessment of it.
Keep in mind that comments of it's being not an OS but a FS is subtle but
totally lost of the flamers.
<I've provoked some major flames myself by calling MS-DOS a feeble excuse
<for a program loader. But in reality I have to admit that MS-DOS is more
<functional than CP/M. However, MS-DOS loses if you compare functionality
<per byte of memory consumed. By that metric, hardly anything that I've
<seen would even come close to DEC's OS/8.
Yep!
Allison
<If one were going to put an FDC in place, the easiest probably would be th
<WD3765, since it has built in cable-drivers and receivers as well as
<clock/data processing hardware. You connect it directly to the cable, as
<recall. It otherwise behaves as a uPD765 (i8272).
<
<Dick
IT's 37c65, I have them too along with 9266 and a bunch of others I've
used.
To prove processor speed or implmentation that list of boards I have are
sufficient resource for the task. Dog knows why I'd need a floppy to
do a coding race.
Allison
On Apr 18, 4:53, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> > If double-sided, then
> > open with no disk is fine, so long as the mechanism can't be jolted
into
> > letting the upper head hit the lower one. This is pretty well true of
most
> > 3.5" drives, and they're usually shipped like that.
> I've seen plastic shipping inserts for 3.5" drives. To be safe, I'd try
> to get one of these inserts for shipping the 3.5" as well. Maybe a local
> computer store would have some.
I've got half-a-dozen bright yellow ones, somewhere. I once asked why Sony
stopped shipping drives with them and was told it was unnecessary; I
suspect it just saved money. I'd suggest soft card is better -- the point
is to stop the brittle ceramic heads banging into each other and possibly
chipping.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
