test-drb April 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

170 participants
1190 discussions

by roblwill＠usaor.net

There's probably a BASIC program on it that would be loaded from ROM BASIC. What the name of it would be, I have no idea. Try "DIGS.BAS", or maybe "TEST.BAS". -- -Jason Willgruber (roblwill(a)usaor.net) ICQ#: 1730318 <http://members.tripod.com/general_1> -----Original Message----- From: SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com <SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 7:01 PM Subject: IBM diagnostic cassette <?> >picked up two neat items at the hamfest today. the first was two clean amiga >500s and a IBM diagnostic cassette ver 1.02 with a part number 6081562. looks >like it only has 5 minutes of tape on it. i presume its only for the 5150. >how would one run this tape? >

25 years, 2 months

PICK OS - I know it well...

by jlwest＠tseinc.com

My company has specialized in the Pick OS for about 17 years. Matter of fact, I spent a lot of time writing some portions of the operating system for several of the implementing manufacturers as an independent consultant. The "virtual" assembler on Pick is truely unique - the entire instruction set is geared for byte oriented string searches on delimiters, etc. Very bizzare, but I loved the assembler on it. In addition, due to the way the virtual assembler was implemented, porting the Pick OS to a different hardware platform was childsplay, and typically took about a week at most. Yes, I have the PC version, as well as full source code to Reality 2.5D (a Microdata -> McDonnel Douglas implementation on the M1600 systems). I'm sure I have OS load tapes for many of the other platforms too (LSI11, Honeywell DPS6 [those two weren't really called pick, they were called Ultimate OS, but it WAS pick], General Automation, Prime [called INFORMATION on that platform], ADDS [mentor OS], Universe [a variant of pick that runs on top of Unix], Revelation [a variant running on DOS], there are MANY others). Contrary to what others have mentioned, it virtually NEVER had built in networking. Picks strong suit was database management and multiuser handling, it's weak point was communications and networking - it REALLY stunk at those last two. Ah - but it's database manager was the greatest thing around for business data management. Also, it was VERY extensible - the only problem was that any extensions had to be written in assembler. The virtual assembler on pick was largely undocumented and something of a black art. The PC version was not a toy - I had a small hand in it as well. The virtual code was 100% identical to the pick OS code used on many of the mainframe versions - the only difference was the machine dependent monitor code which implemented the missionary instructions. Other than that difference (which isn't visible to the user or programmer) it was identical to the other "r83" type implementations. I had no idea there was pick interest here. If someone wants a small writeup of the OS architecture and progression through history, I'd be happy to resurrect those brain cells :) Jay West -----Original Message----- From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 5:07 PM Subject: PICK OS >I saw an interesting book at the library today about something called PICK >OS. I didn't get to look through the entire book, but I read enough to see >that it refers to directories as dictionaries. It seems to take a novel >approach, but I know nothing about it. Haven't even heard of it. Does >anyone here know more? Does anyone here have the PC version (mentioned in >the book)? > >--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com) > >

25 years, 2 months

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

This is gates, not macrocells. I imagine it could be done with just a CPLD, like one of the mid-sized ~384 macrocells including the steering logic and instruction sequencer. It only needs eight 8-bit registers including the impending operand register. -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 9:46 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><You can build your own in an FPGA for something on the order of 2500 gates > >Gates or CPLDs? Big difference there. I do ahve a few 3030s here and can >get 4000 seris. But why would I do it. This would depend on the available resources. The Xylinx parts tend to come up short on routing resources. Last time (hopefully) I worked with the old 3000-series parts we were always having to cut and jumper our boards because the routing resources weren't there to preserve our pinout. I also found the 3000 series doesn't integrate well. It's best if you can partition a function to fit the FPGA. Sharing logic cells uses too many pins. It's easier and perhaps more efficient to replicate some functions versus sharing them from either the internals of one LCA or from a common external source. >then again I have an early 80s project that was a z80 built in 2901s... >at a time where a 10mhz z80 was an extreme machine. > >Allison >

25 years, 2 months

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, Allison, you're going to force me to venture into the archives and fetch the data sheet. I'll get back to you on the precise numbers after I've looked them up, but for now, I recall that the normal memory cycle was three clock ticks long. That's the cycle, not the stroke into memory. Your assertion "The memory active portion of the instruction cycle was far shorter, typically 300ns at 4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle)" is ABSOLUTELY correct. However, it took three clock ticks in order to generate that cycle. IIRC, the entire M1 (opcode fetch + refresh) cycle took 4 or 5 (?) clock ticks, which made it the longest cycle. Memory cycles other than opcode fetches took 3 ticks and I believe I/O cycles took 4. The theory was that one execute a bunch of memory cycles to load up the internal registers of the Z-80, of which there are plenty, and then execute scads of register-register instructions which are faster, in order to accomplish a given computational task. It didn't easily work out that way, a notion which wasn't lost on the designers of the 6502. The MOS-Technology people who first implemented the 6502 architecture, recognized that although the Z-80 had plenty of registers, it still wasn't enough, so they shortened the memory access cycles. In fact, they used a whole addressing mode focused on the lowest page in memory, as, MOTOROLA had done, and they opted for an 8-bit stack pointer, which gave them the ability to execute stack-oriented operations faster than the Z-80 and its kin could do so. It could look at its zero-page as extra-fast memory, or slow register space. In any case, a stack operation took one clock tick + one clock tick per byte. A zero page operation, depending on the operation in question, took one clock tick less time than that same instruction operating on any of the rest of memory. A load or store took two cycles, and an indexed load or store took three. Today, we're equipped with cheap VERY fast large, SRAMs which would make it much easire to make a solid and objective test of the two processors. Unfortunately, there's little reason to do so, since neither is of any commercial interest. The testing I did was many years ago, and my emphasis was on which one worked faster in raw speed in a DRAM environment in which the affordable DRAMs were of the 200 ns flavor. I've never been comfortable with my final conclusion that the Z-80 was faster, except for the observation I made along the way, that most tasks simply couldn't be done realistically on the 6502 because the tools weren't available. Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? 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: Sunday, April 11, 1999 4:35 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><I have to disagree with your comparison of the 2 MHz 6502 with a 4 MHz ><Z-80A. My thought here is that the 4MHz Z-80 used in the conventional way ><had a memory cycle of 750 nanoseconds (3 clock ticks), while the 6502, at > >No it did not. The memory active portion of the instruction cycle was >far shorter, typically 300ns at 4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle). the rest of >the time the cpu cares not if memory is there. Now if your depending on the >CPU for refresh it's longer but then again if you used something else it >still has to be done and takes some about of time/logic. > ><had to go in order to utilize the memory bandwidth most effectively. The ><The 6502 could be interfaced quite easily by using an asymmetrical clock, ><with a short Phase-1 (the period during which addresses and control signal > >The same can be done with the Z80 (the cmos parts it can be very effective). >I've used that trick to get a M1 read/ that has the same length as Mread/. > ><In any case, what I determined was that the Z-80, in spite of its ><complicated hardware requirement, was potentially the faster processor. > >I always get upset with this term as it's hard to quantitize unless standard >programs (sieve, fp-ops...) > >Allison >

25 years, 2 months

8080 - 4004 - 8051 Historical Software Source Site! (fwd)

by donm＠cts.com

Forwarded for any that may be interested. - don ========================== Path: nusku.cts.com!mercury.cts.com!socal.verio.net!nntp.ni.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!feeder.qis.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: "Steve J. Quest" <Squest(a)mariner.cris.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.emulators.misc,comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.os.cpm,comp.software-eng,comp.sources.wanted,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.misc,sci.electronics.components Subject: 8080 - 4004 - 8051 Historical Software Source Site! Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Date: 10 Apr 1999 15:30:38 PDT Organization: AVR Technologies - Des Moines, Iowa, USA Lines: 75 Sender: Steve J. Quest <Squest(a)mariner.cris.com> Message-ID: <7eojee$ru(a)chronicle.concentric.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: mariner.concentric.net Summary: Archive for MCS-51(tm) software including BASIC-52 and BASIC-51 Keywords: MCS-51,80C52,8052,8051,Tiny BASIC,SOL,SOLOS,SOL BASIC,Altair 8800,MOS Kim-1,Kim-1 SBC,VIC-20,Sinclair ZX-80,Sinclair ZX81,MONITOR,MCS-51 MONITOR,MONITOR-DEBUGGER,BASIC CODE,8051 MONITOR X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970930; sun4m SunOS 4.1.3_U1] Xref: nusku.cts.com alt.folklore.computers:5704 comp.arch.embedded:5952 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:7730 comp.emulators.misc:2024 comp.lang.basic.misc:1906 comp.os.cpm:749 comp.software-eng:2694 comp.sources.wanted:166 comp.sys.intel:3530 comp.sys.misc:133 sci.electronics.components:3996 ______________________________________________________________________ Steve J. Quest Presents: The Code Archive! Now software for 8080 - 4004 - 8051 Tiny BASIC! http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX 4 000 000 4 44 0 0 0 0 44 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4444444 0 0 0 0 0 0 4444444 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 000 000 4 4004 MICROPROCESSOR http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#i4004.zip -------------------------------------------------------------- 88888 000 88888 000 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 88888 0 0 0 88888 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 88888 000 88888 000 8080 MICROPROCESSOR http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#Poly88_TinyBASIC.zip -------------------------------------------------------------- 88888 000 5555555 1 8 8 0 0 5 11 8 8 0 0 0 5 1 88888 0 0 0 555555 1 8 8 0 0 0 5 1 8 8 0 0 5 1 88888 000 555555 111 8051/8751 Single-Chip MICROCOMPUTER http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#tb51-32.bin.gz http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#tb51-32.hex.gz -------------------------------------------------------------- -- -<Squest(a)concentric.net>------\ ( ( | ) ) Amendment1 Congress shall make ===============================> /_\ no law abridging the freedom Pirate Shortwave Broadcasting-/ /\_/\ of speech, or of the press.

25 years, 2 months

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<Well, Allison, you're going to force me to venture into the archives and <fetch the data sheet. Since I use z80s and kin often the data sheets for the z80 (all dozen or so) starting with the 1977 ones are at hand. It helps that in my history is applications engineering time at NEC microcomputers (they sold the uPD780 a z80). <4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle)" is ABSOLUTELY correct. However, it took thre <clock ticks in order to generate that cycle. IIRC, the entire M1 (opcode <fetch + refresh) cycle took 4 or 5 (?) clock ticks, which made it the <longest cycle. Memory cycles other than opcode fetches took 3 ticks and I <believe I/O cycles took 4. Don't ignore the fact that there are such thing as propagation delays internal to the chip in the 50-80nS range or that some edges chaged on the rising edge and some on the falling ones. <The theory was that one execute a bunch of memory cycles to load up the <internal registers of the Z-80, of which there are plenty, and then execut <scads of register-register instructions which are faster, in order to <accomplish a given computational task. It didn't easily work out that way <a notion which wasn't lost on the designers of the 6502. There are many schools of thought. the PDP-8 is and the 6502 have the sparse hardware idea in common. the z80 is really a CISC machine and reflects the more complex instruction set and the 8080 history. < <The MOS-Technology people who first implemented the 6502 architecture, <recognized that although the Z-80 had plenty of registers, it still wasn't <enough, so they shortened the memory access cycles. In fact, they used a I don't feel that is a right way to say it. I'd go with... The mos technology people with a limited silicone real estate (silicon costs alot then) fewer register and a instruction set biased to use memory more. That heritage comes from the 6800 which is a more similar part. <done, and they opted for an 8-bit stack pointer, which gave them the abilit <to execute stack-oriented operations faster than the Z-80 and its kin coul they werent! Not significantly. in most cases the time to actually execute isn't that much different. <do so. It could look at its zero-page as extra-fast memory, or slow <register space. In any case, a stack operation took one clock tick + one <clock tick per byte. A zero page operation, depending on the operation in <question, took one clock tick less time than that same instruction operatin <on any of the rest of memory. A load or store took two cycles, and an <indexed load or store took three. The idea of zero page was straight from PDP-8 too. The zero page was a way to solve the problem of too few registers. The TI9900 too an entirely different path to solve that problem. Which problem? Silicon real estate. registers are memory and that memory eats silicon. back in that time frame you had some hard choices a with regard to that. The Z80 was somewhat remarkable as there were 208 bits of storage inside the processor for just user programable registers and bits. <Today, we're equipped with cheap VERY fast large, SRAMs which would make i <much easire to make a solid and objective test of the two processors. <Unfortunately, there's little reason to do so, since neither is of any <commercial interest. In 1979 I had several tubes of 85nS 4kx1 rams that made a dandy memory. They were static. I still have some of them. then in 1980 I got some slow static 16kx1s that were only 70nS (2167) and built a z80 system that pushed a 6mhz part to 7mhz. fast rams were available. My NSbox had 2116s that wer 300ns and only 32 filled the memory space on one board. that was 1981. <Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? Never. There could have been one but I'd wonder about code efficientcy. Then again I've never seen one for 9900 bit that as CISC a machine if there ever was one. Allison

25 years, 2 months

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, the policy here in the U.S. seems to be to skip the outgoing inspection and replace it with a warranty. The terms of the warranty make it void if you open the box, so the buyer returns it for a replacement or refund, and the maker then gets to do the outgoing inspection on the incoming trip back. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 2:47 PM Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote to Allison: >> > The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint >> > about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a >> > bunch of stuff/mods. >> >> While I agree, I kinda doubt that Allison has EVER plugged in ANYTHING >> before she "opened the box and added a bunch of stuff/mods". So, she >> might not see that as quite the negative that you do :-) > >You mean there _are_ people who plug things in without pulling the case >and checking that it's built correctly? They must be mad... > >Of course once you've got the lid off, you might as well fix whatever the >original designers got wrong ;-) > >> >> > The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said for >> > the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not. >> >> While velcro is certainly extraordinarily convenient, particularly to >> those bothered by screwdrivers. But, as an occasional professional auto >> mechanic, I hardly felt that half a dozen screws made something hard to > >I've also never seen the point of 'screwless' cases. If I'm going to be >fixing/modifying something I'm going to need a logic probe (or better an >logic analyser), multimeter, soldering iron, pliers, cutters, etc. Having >to use a screwdriver as well is no big problem.. > >> open. But it is true that RS had a very bad attitude about it. They >> actually had anti-tamper paint on one of the screws! One of the local RS > >Some machines had a label over one of the screws. What Tandy didn't >realise was that it was possible to get the label off in one piece >without tearing it, and then stick it back after you'd done the mod... > >> technicians had an interesting slant on that: Since RS's policies >> apparently didn't explicitly mention modifications, only that the tamper >> seal must be intact, he would happily do the various warranty mods (there >> were SEVERAL for the early EI), IFF you provided him circuit sketches for > >I never put Tandy UK to the test (I always fixed my Model 1 myself). >Although the local shop did get me some of the parts either free or for a >nominal charge for me to do a couple of official mods myself. > >> all mods, and put a dab of the anti-tamper paint (he would provide it) on >> the screw after you made the mods. He said that if the store manager >> balked at seeing additional stuff through the slots of the "unopened" > >:-) :-) > >> case, just start talking about "building boats in bottles". Apple's >> attitude of "go on in!" was much more refreshing. > >Although, IIRC the Apple ][ Techref did mention that doing the Eurapple >mod (50 Hz video) would void the warranty. It appeared that you could >open the case and stick in expansion cards with no problems, but if you >took a soldering iron to the motherboard you were on your own. Again it >didn't bother me. Both the Apple ][ and TRS-80 had excellent tech manuals >available, so fixing them yourself was the easiest thing to do. > >-tony >

25 years, 2 months

Fwd: Metric conversions..??

by cfandt＠netsync.net

Well folks, here's a break from the looong-running threads which have been rolling along the past couple of days. Saw this on one of the many other reflectors I subscribe to and I thought this group would appreciate the humor break too. The same 'Sorry about the bandwidth' apology stands from me too. :-) >Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:17:03 -0400 >Reply-To: MODSTEPH(a)ACS.EKU.EDU >Sender: Boat Anchor Owners and Collectors List > <BOATANCHORS(a)LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV> >From: N5AIT Allan Stephens <MODSTEPH(a)ACS.EKU.EDU> >Subject: Metric conversions..?? >To: BOATANCHORS(a)LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV > > Well, it DOES include megacycles... Sorry about the bandwidth, but >figured if anyone would appreciate these, y'all would. > > 73, Al N5AIT > > >Here are some of the rarer metric conversions not carried in standard >reference works: > >1 million microphones = 1 megaphone >1 million bicycles = 2 megacycles >500 millinaries = 1 seminary >10 cards = 1 decacards >1/2 lavatory = 1 demijohn >1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche >453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake >1 trillion pins = 1 terrapin >1 million billion piccolos = 1 gigolo >10 rations = 1 decoration >100 rations = 1 C-ration >10 millipedes = 1 centipede >3 1/3 tridents = 1 decadent >10 monologues = 5 dialogues >5 dialogues = 1 decalogue >2 monograms = 1 diagram >8 nickels = 2 paradigms >2 wharves = 1 paradox > >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- >To subscribe: listserv(a)listserv.tempe.gov >and in body: subscribe BOATANCHORS yourfirstname yourlastname >To unsubscribe: listserv(a)listserv.tempe.gov >and in body: signoff BOATANCHORS >Archives for BOATANCHORS: http://www.tempe.gov/archives >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Sorry to a few of the list members who are not native English speakers. There are a few strange colloquial or American expressions. Ask in private email. However, even I am not sure what a "demijohn" really is except for perhaps a 1/2 bath in a house. Have fun! Regards, Chris PS: A "boatanchor", for the ones who are not amateurs or radio collectors or otherwise in-the-know, is an affectionate label attached by us to any large, heavy vacuum tube (valve) operated radio receiver or transmitter or sometimes test equipment. I have about a dozen boatanchors (50-100+ lbs) in my collection and, by golly, I was really sore after hauling them over here to the new house ;)

25 years, 2 months

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, that was a surprise! I doubt it was around in time to do any good for the processor when it was used in home computers. It still lives in those video games, though. Thanks for the pointer! Now, if we could just find an adequate ANSI-C compiler which isn't wedded, through libraries or other objects, to one specific environment . . . Dick -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser(a)oa.ptloma.edu> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 6:39 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) >::Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? > >As a matter of fact, yes. :-) > > http://www.von-bassewitz.de/uz/cc65/ > >-- >-------------------------- personal page: http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ -- >Cameron Kaiser Database Programmer/Administrative Computing >Point Loma Nazarene University Fax: +1 619 849 2581 >ckaiser(a)ptloma.edu Phone: +1 619 849 2539 >-- "I'd love to go out with you, but I'm rethreading my toothbrush bristles." -

25 years, 2 months

Conversions etc.

by jpl15＠netcom.com

I may have posted this one before... 1 millihelen = the amount of beauty required to launch just one ship. 1 New York Second = the elapsed time between the light turning green and the guy behind you laying on his horn and screaming at you. The difference between Theory and Practice is much closer in theory than in preactice. "'Yields Falsehood' when appended to it's quotation" yields falsehood when appended to it's quotation. Okay, sorry. I'm just all happy 'cause my Pr1me booted.. Cheers John

25 years, 2 months

Jump to page:

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