Karl Maftoum <karlm(a)blitzen.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> be able to tell me what "Power-on error 1000" means? and how to test out
> the touchscreen?
Joe thinks that that is "batteries dead", and I can't remember. One
other thing you may want to do, assuming this is the sort of 150 with
a 9-inch (~23cm) screen, is to get a can of compressed air and blow the
dust out of the touchscreen sensor holes -- part of the power-on
self-test checks out the touchscreen (if present) and if some of the
sensors don't see the IR light it will fail with some other code (F000?
-- it's been a long time!). The computer will continue to work (maybe
even the touchscreen will!) after this though.
Yeah, there's also a 150 with a 12-inch screen that is tiltable. That
is a 150C aka Touchscreen II and it has later ROMs that know about
more devices. I don't really know how to tell the difference between
a 150A, a 150B, and a 150A with the later B ROMs (yes an upgrade was
available).
-Frank McConnell
At 01:27 AM 4/15/99 +1000, you wrote:
>
>Today I dusted off the HP150 I picked up the other week, when I saw it I
>actually believed it was only a terminal, but it had a HP-IB interface
>which made me pick it up. Discovering that it is a non-IBM compatable 8088
>based machine with a touch-screen was nice :-) Not having any drives with
>it renders it useless as a computer, but I am interested in getting it
>working as a touch screen terminal, does anyone have the docs for this? or
>be able to tell me what "Power-on error 1000" means?
The N-cell batteries in the back are dead and it's lost it's CMOS settings.
and how to test out
>the touchscreen?
There are built-in tests. I don't have my manual handy so I can't tell
you exactly how to get to them but they're in the menu at the bottom of the
screen.
I have some floppy and hard drives and prnters that will work with the
150 if you're interested. I have docs and software for it too but I don't
have time to make copies.
Joe
>
>Megan: I haven't forgotton about the VSV-11, I have holidays next week so
>I'll fire it up and see if it still works for you, been a busy fortnight
>:-)
>
>Cheers
>Karl
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>Karl Maftoum
>Computer Engineering student at the University of Canberra, Australia
>
>Email: k.maftoum(a)student.canberra.edu.au
>
>
At 01:52 PM 4/14/99 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
>October 2-3. If you don't come you'll wake up on Monday, October 4th,
>with much regret.
If we had any sort of advertising budget I'd suggest that people who don't
want to keep their non-Y2K compliant computers (say pre-1989) should bring
them to give away at the swap meet portion :-)
--Chuck
>
> As I understand the charter (and please correct me), this list is for the
> discussion of any computer-related item over 10 years old. This includes
> hardware, software, peripherals, storage media, preservation, repair,
etc.
>
> While I'm not particularly interested in old application software, I
> don't think anyone would mind a discussion of it here.
>
> -tony
>
These old computers aren't much good without the software. I'd welcome the
discussion as long as it's not the same old "Linux is great, MS sucks"
rant. There are more appropriate places for that discussion.
Personally, I found the PICK messages to be enlightning and informative.
Discussions of that nature are a real asset to the group.
Just my $.02
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
I think it is now safe to say that the State of Massachusetts is the enemy
of Classic Computer enthusiasts everywhere!
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9904/07/computers.potholes.ap/
"We want people to take those computers out
of the attics, get them out of the landfills and
make use of the good parts," said Rick
Lombardi, spokesman for the department.
"And God knows, we have plenty of potholes
to fill in New England."
This is sickening!
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
Tony wrote:
>> Tony said, on processor design, you can either have one flip-flop to each
>> machine state (like a P850) or microcode. Again there are intermediate
points.
>> I claim you can do quite well by numbering the machine states in a suitably
>> chosen binary code and having one flip-flop to each bit. Logic for changing
>> flip-flops is often _easier_ than when you have one flip-flop per state. (I
>
> Although, of course, the advantage of one f/f per state is that you can't
> get glitches when you decode the outputs of the flip-flops.
Because you don't decode them, right?
As Tony probably remembers, my final year project at university was a GPIB
interface for a Trend papertape reader (no, it isn't finished yet - ten years
on!). My original design used a flip-flop for each machine state in three state
machines.
I recently looked at using fewer flipflops. I recall one of the state machines
had six states. Using three bits, one could define the two redundant states in
such a way that this was also glitch-free. Additionally, one of the state
variables was an input, not a flipflop...
>> have done both designs for the same circuit BTW). If you put this logic into
a
>> ROM, this becomes in a sense a microcode ROM, but you can do it
combinatorially
>> as well...
>
> A ROM _is_ combinatorial logic. I don't want to get into a silly argument
> over this, but I have great difficulty finding a conceptual difference
> between a combinatorial circuit built from a pile of AND, OR and NOT
> gates and the same circuit built (albeit using a lot more transistors) in
> a ROM. To claim that a CPU using a ROM is microcoded but one with
> _identical_ internal states using simple gates as the feedback logic
> round the sequencer flip-flops is not is a very strange way of thinking
> about things.
Fair enough. Just another example of different places to draw boundaries, with
grey areas in between. I would call the ROM version microcoded, and the hard
wired version not, because the ROM version contains CODE. (I would agree that
the two machines are equivalent, one implemented using a store of (micro-) code
and the other using gates.) But your view is equally valid. Perhaps this
displays your hardware background and my more software-based upbringing.
To show how grey this is, if you use a ROM to implement the combinatorial logic
for a flipflop-per-state machine, would you call the code in this ROM microcode?
It performs that function, viz. to output signals based on the machine state
which control the operation of the machine including the selection of the next
state.
For that matter, remember your example on this list a while back, using logic
gates to implement Z80 instructions.
> Well, I might accept it once I'd drawn out the full schematics and
> figured out what it was going to do. The problem of what happens if it
> fails is another matter, though. As I said time and again, the time to
> try a different braking technique is _not_ when the car is skidding all
> over the place on a normal road.
I'm not convinced the braking technique is different, though. I would generally
try to brake thus: brake only just not hard enough to skid. If skid occurs,
start pumping. I claim this applies to both sorts of car, but skid is less
likely to occur with ABS.
I read once (in a sci-fi novel) about a braking system where the brake for each
wheel derived hydraulic pressure from a turbine on that axle. ABS wasn't the
issue there, but I claim this system is passive and intrinsically anti-lock. It
also has the advantage that a failure on one wheel doesn't affect the rest of
the vehicle (though with only a small number of wheels, as in a car, this may be
a problem). I wonder if something of this nature could be made to work usefully
for ABS...
Philip.
I did the same thing for an OSI system a few
months ago. Look in the list archive. In brief:
1) using the second set of pinouts in the comp.os.cpm
faq worked best for me.
2) build your converter on a Radio Shack Experimenters
board (part no. 276-168B). Works very well.
3) use 22disk version 1.31 or earlier. Newer versions have
timing problems with 8 inchers.
Hello. This 4000/300 has been dominating my computer room for a while,
and I love how it looks, but it'd be great if it worked.
The boot-diagnostic LED on the inside panel is stuck at 'F'. I don't have a
field service manual, so I don't know the exact meaning. I've checked all
of the boards inside to make sure they're snug inside, but no luck. Nothing
shows up on a terminal hooked up to the MMJ jack. The drives seem to
power up.
Anybody have any ideas? I'd love to have another VAX running here.
Thanks in advance.
--
<cstone(a)pobox.com>
<boards? My strategy was this:
< 1.) Debug the chassis.
< 2.) Install components from a working 8/M.
< 3.) Replace componets from the working 8/M with questionable
< components.
< 3a.) If the replaced component failed: Fix it.
< 3b.) If the replaced component worked: Move to the next one.
This is a good plan. Pay attention to debug the chassis though as there
can be latent bugs like bad connectors.
<BTW, the "best" tool I've found for working on PDP-8s is the Radio Shack
<scope probe. Its more than fast enough to look at the signals. I suspect a
<Logic Dart would be better but I've not had enough funds for that toy yet.
For the PDP-8 any cheap logic probe will do if it can see 50nS pulses.
or you can make one with 7404, a oneshot (7412x) and three leds. the
oneshot is to strecth the fast ones to light a led.
Allison
First, thanks for the references. I will look into the "apparently hidden
board" in a day or two. For now, I have some of the information that I
need regarding the 11/45, thanks to those on this list.
As with the 11/45 listing, these are readability oriented, given R to L.
The 11/44 had this set: (all numbers begin with M, save the G7273)
7090
empty
7093
7094
7095
7096
empty
7098
unsure of occupancy of this slot
8743
empty
empty
7982
7273, in the top two thirds, with 7297 in the lower third of this slot
7297
7295
7294
5904, these three are located in the middle third of the slot
5904
5904
9300
unsure of occupancy of this slot
empty
9202, in top third, and 7258 in bottom two thirds of the slot
some Emulex card
unsure of occupancy of this slot
9302, in top third, and some Emulex in bottom two thirds of the slot
The tape drive for this unit is a TS11.
How much power should I expect to supply in order to run the CPU, TS11,
two RM02's (with a whopping 67MB capacity, and at this size, we'll never
run out of available storage), and the terminal? Do I need the services of
an electrician?
William R. Buckley
