test-drb April 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

170 participants
1190 discussions

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I think that what occurred was that a group of list server messages were at Try line breaks...PLEASE! the reso ot that line scrolls around the side of the tube and under the desk. ;) Allison

25 years, 2 months

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

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< I've got issue 2, Vol 1 of PC World dated Mar 83 .Compaqs Portable Comput <was reviewed in this issue, and the reviewer mentions that IBM had introduc <the PC 1 1/2 years earlier. Thanks for the validation. At 46 Iwas there and am still young enough to not be siffering from alzhimers. That and I have the same mags and adds. ;) Allison

25 years, 2 months

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

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I believe (guessing because I've learned memory doesn't serve as it once <did) The load is two clock ticks and the indirect, indexed jump is five, s <that's 3.5 microseconds, give or take a tick. it's less at 4 MHz, which i <what the 65C02C is rated, though it readily will run at 4.9152 (24.576 <MHz/5) over a wide temperature and voltage range provided the clock is <phased correctly. the divice-by five yields a 40/60 h/l which must be <inverted to give a little longer phase-2 than phase-1. The point was apparently missed. Of course I can take a cmos z80 and blow that out of the water using a 6 or 8 mhz clock. Heck using a 1989 version of the z80, the Z280 at 12.5mhz I can get the execution time way down. In the time frame before 1982 (as a marker) there werent any 4mhz 650c02s and there were 4mhz z80s and pdp-8s were still produced. In that context the the example represent programming style rather that absolute speed as they didn't vary that much over all to represent a great diffferece unless you needed a characteristic that was specific to a given CPU. I'm not slamming the 6502 or it heirs as it's also a very popular embedded CPU still. For that fact so are the Z8 and Z80 heirs. Just from that it's possible to conclude they all had desirable enough characteristics to keep them in the running. As a CPU the 8051 is ok, I use it. As a controller it's without question a popular part still. But as a general purpose cpu, it's a really bad C or Pascal compiler host/target. Allison

25 years, 2 months

PICK OS

by jolminkh＠nsw.bigpond.net.au

Max Eskin wrote: >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) > I have never played with PICK, but I have played with Prime "Information" which is sometimes described as a PICK like operating system. I have a PC version somewhere but in that form it is not a true OS. It is started as a DOS application. As someone else has said, not much use except for multi-user database applications. The PC version is only a toy.

25 years, 2 months

Heathkit H-8 again

by bluoval＠mindspring.com

It was a 16 button keypad, with numbers 1-9, decimal point, and math operators and two others I couldn't make out. Could someone tell me what these keys were?

25 years, 2 months

Micropolis 1518 Jumper Settings

by edick＠idcomm.com

There's a pretty slick controller for ISA by Lark Associates which is capable of lying to the PC in a way which actually convinces it you have two physical drives. This makes using such large beasts much easier. I've not been able to get good mileage out of my Miniscribe 9760 or my Maxtor 8760 since it ( the controller ) gave up the ghost. My WD controllers won't help with making it old-bios-compatible. Dick -----Original Message----- From: jpero(a)cgocable.net <jpero(a)cgocable.net> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Micropolis 1518 Jumper Settings >Date sent: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:46:00 -0500 >To: jpero(a)cgocable.net >From: Jeff Kaneko <jeff.pat(a)mindspring.com> >Subject: Micropolis 1518 Jumper Settings > >Hi Jeff and to cc follows: > >> >> Attached is all of the information that I have; I haven't been able to try >> this because I'm stuck without a capable ESDI controller. > >Thanks! But same old hat again, it's same thing you see on the >blue planet's website. > >There are few ESDI controllers that can do 24MHZ and *MUST* >able to do up to 4096 cylinders. Nice thing about all ESDI >controllers for Peecees, LBA built right in for greater than 528MB! > >> Looks like you should set for 512 bytes/sector, 83 spt, *hard* sectored. I >> wish I knew that Ultra 12f-24's were so damned rare . . . > >Really? What about it and why it's bit rare? > >And I really beg to anyone on this list to pool their experiences to >"pull" up the ESDI performance because I'm getting subpar >performance for a "high" end hd like 1538 with 71 sectors (1518 is >83 sectors) both hds should have screamed instead of plodded >along. About 600KPS out of that 1538, yuk. I got over 800kps on >that same controller with a Miniscribe 3180E on that paltry 36 >sectors. > >Is there's a controller card that does much better than this Ultrastor >12F24?! Oh, I've one computer based on EISA. > >Oh, anyone knows of same HDAs that uses SCSI interface board >in place of ESDI, I want to know what model it shares same HDA >for each? 1518 and 1538. > >> >> >> Jeff > >Wizard

25 years, 2 months

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

by edick＠idcomm.com

referring to your questions regarding the execution time > >Execution time for an 8E (1973) would have been under 8uS if both instuction >used indirect addressing. As written it would be 7.6uS. Now the 6502 at >2mhz would have done it in what? > I believe (guessing because I've learned memory doesn't serve as it once did) The load is two clock ticks and the indirect, indexed jump is five, so that's 3.5 microseconds, give or take a tick. it's less at 4 MHz, which is what the 65C02C is rated, though it readily will run at 4.9152 (24.576 MHz/5) over a wide temperature and voltage range provided the clock is phased correctly. the divice-by five yields a 40/60 h/l which must be inverted to give a little longer phase-2 than phase-1. I've imbedded a few comments in the text below. 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 10, 1999 5:58 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><I knew somebody woudl come up with a good example. That 6809 code is ><probably the closest thing I've seen in a micro. The 8051 uses a similar ><approach, pointing to the table with the datapointer and uses the > >The 8051 is very ugly in other places. It has a sufficiently varied instruction set that you don't really have to use what you don't like. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that it's been around since the early '80's and is still the most popular architecture out there. What's more, it's not nearly as ugly as the PIC architecture. >Then there are the NEC uPD 78xx series that are similar in register layout >to z80 but code wise, not close. They have a table lookup instructions for >that exact task. They are targetted as rom based controllers and code >efficientcy is a requirement but often controller don't need to preocess >the kinds of things a PC (or other general purpose computer) would. > >The z280 has a load address inscrtuction that makes the setup for an indexed >jump easier. > >The PDP-11 did it on one instuction but it has some very powerful addressing >modes. Indirection and indexing are natural to that part. > >However in CPUs righer in register than the 6502, the task would be done >far differently. It's a different programming style and it does impact >code structure. For example a set of operations that can be done requiring >multiple (say a dozen) 16bit parameters to be passed are easily done on >even 8080 but the 6502 has to do that as indexed list in ram and pass >the pointer to the list if you want to be efficient. It's possible to >structure a problem such that any cpu looks good or bad. Generally an >application is far more than a trivial few instructions. > >Look at the PDP-8 which is both register poor and has an instruction set >that small is far from adaquate to describe. Yet it performs tasks >efficiently in small amounts of core that some cpus can't. > >The 6809 example would be in PDP-8... > > / enter here with uart data > DCA pindex / store index value at pindex > JMP I,INDEX / indirect jump via index (could have been a JMS, jump > / subroutine!) > >Execution time for an 8E (1973) would have been under 8uS if both instuction >used indirect addressing. As written it would be 7.6uS. Now the 6502 at >2mhz would have done it in what? > >< They (DEC) did make the uVax-II as a chipset for interfacing to their ><BI-bus, I believe, so that might qualify as well. The DEC chipset probabl ><didn't sell for what a 6809 costs, even the faster part, and certainly not ><the $0.86 I last saw on the 4MHz Rockwell 65C02. > >?????? UvaxII was not for interfacing the BI, that was a dedicated chipset. >The uVAXII was a single chip (extended FPU and DMA were companions). UvaxII >was only remotely related to BI bus. The statment doesn't parse. > ><I'm not surprised that it was in the 6809 that this instruction came up. ><The 6809 showed lots of promise at first, but once it was in hand, one ><clearly could see that it would be MUCH easier going with the MC68008 if on ><had to use an 8-bit bus. I never had the opportunity to write in a > >the 6809 was a bridge part while waiting for the 68K. Still it was a good >part. I found them both (6809 and 68K) to be a disappointment. I guess there was too much wait, and it wouldn't have mattered what they put out. ><high-level language for the 6809, but I was told it should have been quite ><easy to write a high-quality efficient compiler for it because of its ><repertioire of instructions and addressing modes. I turned out literally > >Nearly as good as the PDP-11. FYI both the 6809 and the 68k had heavy >PDP-11 and vax influences. > > >Allison >

25 years, 2 months

Micropolis 1518 Jumper Settings

by jpero＠cgocable.net

Date sent: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:46:00 -0500 To: jpero(a)cgocable.net From: Jeff Kaneko <jeff.pat(a)mindspring.com> Subject: Micropolis 1518 Jumper Settings Hi Jeff and to cc follows: > > Attached is all of the information that I have; I haven't been able to try > this because I'm stuck without a capable ESDI controller. Thanks! But same old hat again, it's same thing you see on the blue planet's website. There are few ESDI controllers that can do 24MHZ and *MUST* able to do up to 4096 cylinders. Nice thing about all ESDI controllers for Peecees, LBA built right in for greater than 528MB! > Looks like you should set for 512 bytes/sector, 83 spt, *hard* sectored. I > wish I knew that Ultra 12f-24's were so damned rare . . . Really? What about it and why it's bit rare? And I really beg to anyone on this list to pool their experiences to "pull" up the ESDI performance because I'm getting subpar performance for a "high" end hd like 1538 with 71 sectors (1518 is 83 sectors) both hds should have screamed instead of plodded along. About 600KPS out of that 1538, yuk. I got over 800kps on that same controller with a Miniscribe 3180E on that paltry 36 sectors. Is there's a controller card that does much better than this Ultrastor 12F24?! Oh, I've one computer based on EISA. Oh, anyone knows of same HDAs that uses SCSI interface board in place of ESDI, I want to know what model it shares same HDA for each? 1518 and 1538. > > > Jeff Wizard

25 years, 2 months

Tutti 0.2a Tomy Tutor emulator relased

by ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 755 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990410/82c36d8e/at…

25 years, 2 months

PICK OS

by geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au

---------- > From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com> > To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> > Subject: PICK OS > Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 6:30 > > 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. IIRC, it is a dedicated O/S for use with a database system. Sort of a bootable database program for want of a better description. I (briefly) owned a Fujitsu computer that had PICK installed, it came out of a public library and was a very solid box, that weighed a LOT. (It had a ups built into it!) Fujitsu bought it off me! True! They were still supporting some in service and wanted some parts, offered me twice what I paid for it. (I rang them to get some info on the machine and they called back an hour later with a cash offer.) Never had more than a cursory look at the O/S, but I gather it's quite good at what it does, but it doesn't do much else. Multi terminal time share system. TV station I used to work for also had a PC based Pick System, the logging program (used to create the "logs" actually a plan of the order and length of programs that re to be put to air) ran on that and nothing else it seems... >It seems to take a novel approach, That's a fair description. It seems to be dedicated to just one task. I think there are other things it can do, but it's fairly limited... That's the limit of my knowledge, others on the list will doubtless know far more... Cheers Geoff Roberts VK5KDR Computer Systems Manager Saint Marks College Port Pirie, South Australia geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au

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