On May 24, 18:34, Tony Duell wrote:
> Old _working_ ST506 hard disks, however small in capacity should be kept
> IMHO. They may be useless in PCs, but there are plenty of machines that
> can use such drives but can't use IDE/SCSI/whatever. And it's getting
> ever harder to get working ST506 drives.
Having just spent several days obtaining a suitable 20MB ST506-interface
hard drive, I completely concur with Tony. The 3.5" versions seem to be
particularly hard to come by around here.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
I snagged a Tandy 2000 30Mb harddrive this weekend!!! The actual drive is a
Quantum Model (?)204(?). It is stinking huge (not mainframe huge but
desktop huge)!
Can anyone tell me about this drive? Is there an easy way to connect a
newer HD to this machine?
Arfon
----------------------------------------
Tired of Micro$oft???
Move up to a REAL OS...
######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ #
#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /##
####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /###
###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |####
##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|####
# ######
("LINUX" for those of you
without fixed-width fonts)
----------------------------------------
Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com
Slackware Mailing List:
http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html
<Oh, hard cards. I was envisioning separate drives. Were there any of
<these?
Yes. The hard cards were made up of seperate drives but were sold
standalone too. For most the card/drive combo made sense as early one
most were upgrading from floppy only to adding a hard drive and not all
of those systems had enough drive bays.
Allison
<Of course, there are also machines with floppy drive systems that cannot d
<a low-level format. The most classic 8" floppy drive systems (specifically
<the IBM 3740) can't format floppies, for example. There are also 5.25"
Most of the S100 and other 8" systems could but the DEC and IBM systems
didn't as was the case for some of the systems like AES data.
<floppy drive systems that can't format - for example, the RX50 on a DEC
<Q-bus or Unibus controller. (On some Rainbows, it is possible to low-leve
<format RX50 media directly.)
Rx50 format can be fomatted by any system (usually s100, or cpm based) with
a WD 179x or later controller as it is a slightly bastard format that only
that chip can do.
Others like the older intel MDS800/200 systems with the DD drives (m^2FM)
could format but nothing else could read that format.
This ignores the system that used a standard LLformat but had a odd file
structure so data interchange was impossible.
Allison
< That's an interesting question! I wonder what the difference in the
<software is? I don't think I've ever heard of a CMOS AIM 65. The BASIC
<comes up as ver 1.1. I didn't see a version on the assembler. The ICs
<containing the assembler and BASIC don't have any special markings. They'r
<PN is the same as the PN of the two standard ROMs except one digit is
<different.
Same here. The AIM was out of production before the CMOS process was in
production as I remember... back then CMOS was stll expensive too, less
incentive to use it in the AIM.
Allison
A CD-ROM. It tells about HyperGuide, and that it can either be installed on
the HD (taking up 12 MB), or it can be run from the CD-ROM. It also has
software much as Music Box, which is a primitive form of Windows CD Player.
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: DatEXT CD-ROM questions
>On Tue, 25 May 1999, Jason (the General) wrote:
>>It's a Tandy MPC System software CD - Came with an OLD Sensation.
>
>Hmm...does the Windows setup program expect floppies or a CD-ROM?
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
>
On May 25, 21:47, Tony Duell wrote:
> Subject: Re: 68020 vs 68EC020
> >
> > An A1200 question: what's the difference between the 68020 and 68EC020?
>
> I believe the 'EC' version is for Embedded Control, and lacks some of the
> functions of the plain 68020 (probably MMU-related or something).
I'm not sure of the other details, but "EC" = "Embedded Control", as you
say. According to my Motorola cribsheet, it's a 68020 with only 24-bit
addressing, without the dynamic bus sizing, ands restricted speed range.
It does have the co-pro interface, though, and probably most if not all of
the instruction set (the crib sheet doesn't get very detailed).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On May 25, 23:13, Sipke de Wal wrote:
> Max Eskin wrote:
> > There have been 3.5" ST-506 interface hard drives?
> >
> Yep, They where put on a frame that included the MFM-controller (or RLL
> for that matter). This frame was put into a full length IBM-PC slot.
>
> They were sold as "Hardcards with usually 20MB (MFM) OR 30MB (RLL)
> capacity.
Only one of the 3.5" drives I've had was sold as, or for, hardcards -- they
were much more commonly sold just as hard drives.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
>> Q-bus or Unibus controller. (On some Rainbows, it is possible to low-level
>> format RX50 media directly.)
>You say 'some Rainbows'. I thought this was just a software
>consideration, and that the hardware of all 'bows was capable of
>formatting blank disks. Since the 'bow disk controller is just a WD179x
>chip (IIRC) on one of the micro's buses, it seems hard to figure out a
>way to stop it from formatting, although anything is possible.
On a Rainbow, a dedicated Z80 does the floppy I/O; the formatting
code has to be in the Z80's firmware (which, indeed, is a "software
consideration".). In some revisions of the Z80's firmware,
the format option for RX50's isn't present (it returns an error).
I'm currently looking for the "RX50 FAQ", put together by Charles
Lasner most of a decade ago, in hope that it discusses which firmware
revisions are/aren't capable of formatting. So far I've turned up
about 30 pages of Charles's notes on RX50 interleave issues, but
nothing about the Rainbow firmware!
--
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
What I meant was not that the AIM65 was CMOS, but rather, that the ROCKWELL
version of the CMOS 6502 was different from the NMOS version sold by MOS
Technology. One way of telling whether the assembler is written for the
NMOS or the CMOS version, would be to have it assemble a source file with a
few of the CMOS instructions in it and see how it handles them. What's
more, the unimplemented opcodes in their CMOS processor were all implemented
as NO-OPs while the NMOS version had that widely known (or at least
heard-of) set of odd-ball (undocumented) instructions Hans Franke wrote
about a month or two ago. You just have to look at the processor to
determine whether it's a CMOS processor, but the assembler could be for
either processor.
The BASIC is probably the version for the NMOS part. I assume that the
early release number is all one needs to tell that. Anything made after
1983-84 could go either way.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: AIM 65 question
>Dick,
>
> That's an interesting question! I wonder what the difference in the
>software is? I don't think I've ever heard of a CMOS AIM 65. The BASIC
>comes up as ver 1.1. I didn't see a version on the assembler. The ICs
>containing the assembler and BASIC don't have any special markings. They're
>PN is the same as the PN of the two standard ROMs except one digit is
>different.
>
> Joe
>
>At 08:31 AM 5/25/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>NOW . . . The interesting question is whether the firmware versions you
have
>>support the ROCKWELL CMOS versions or only the NMOS parts. Rockwell made
>>the AIM 65 its evaluation system for their entry in the 6502 market, but
>>their CMOS version is the one whose instruction set I thought was the best
>>of all of them. If your AIM boards have the assembler and BASIC
interpreter
>>for the CMOS version, that's something to hang onto since it's still
current
>>as far as the compatible cores are concerned.
>>
>>Dick
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
>>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
>><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
>>Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 4:15 AM
>>Subject: Re: AIM 65 question
>>
>>
>>>They are. Two are optional BASIC and the other is optional Assembler.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>At 10:49 PM 5/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>These 24 pin chips sound to me like ROM's.
>>>>
>>>>William R. Buckley
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
>>>>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
>>>><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
>>>>Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 2:59 PM
>>>>Subject: AIM 65 question
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I picked up several AIM 65 computers. I've noticed that some of them
>>>>>have two 24 Pin ICs in the lower right corner and some have five.
Anyone
>>>>>know what the difference is? Also some have only two of the 19 pin ICs
>>in
>>>>>the top right corner and other have eitht ICs there. What's the
>>difference
>>>>>there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone know of a site where I can find out more about these and the
>>>>>commands to operate them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
