--- Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> wrote:
After I wrote:
> >I just bought the bare [Quest Elf] board.
>
> It was available as a kit but rarely did I ever buy the kit if I could get
> the bare board. I had (and still have) a very deep junk box.
In high school, I had enough of a junk box to build most of the Elf with
scrounged parts (I did screw up and stick in some 4001's instead of the
4011's the first time I assembled the Elf. It didn't work so well ;-)
Now, my junk box is *much* deeper. I could probably assemble an entire
PET PCB and Amiga PCB, just from spares. Thankfully, I don't have to.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
That was the traffic signal control system they wrote software for before
they got the MITS contract. They mumble its name briefly in the dialogue.
"TrafficNet" or something, I forget.
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: LordTyran [mailto:a2k@one.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 5:18 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: WTF?
I'm watching Pirates of Silicon Valley on TNT right now (yes, I'm so lame
I have my computer in front of the television) and Bill Gates is working
on a box... the dialogue infers that it is supposed to by an Altair,
but it's just a big box with four blinking lights (alternates - 2 red,
2 green) and reading paper tape.... next scene he's working on a PDP-8/?
(I I think, but I'm not up on my PDPs... not so much working on it as
having the machine open on his table... no soldering iron, manuals,
cards... I could have made the scene a lot better with the stuff in my
basement...)
Oh well.
Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
"It's you isn't it? THE BASTARD OPERATOR FROM HELL!"
"In the flesh, on the phone and in your account..."
-- BOFH #3
<I don't doubt that it was possible to build quite a good computer from the
<board selection that the CompuPro line had, at one time or another. I
<bought about ten combinations they recommended, however, and not a one of
Try this,
STD Compupro s100 crate.
CPU-Z Z80
Ram17
MPX-1
DISK1
DISK3
InterfacerII
Runs killer, no repairs needed depite the boards last being powered in '92.
<Once there was a standard, I don't believe that any other single
I could never figure it out. If anything after working with Multibus,
Qbus and Omnibus s100 was pure anarchy though somewhat tolerent of bizzare
variations.
<manufacturer did more to undermine the standard than CompuPro. Their board
<were not all claimed "compliant" to the standard and even those about whic
<that claim was made often had little footnotes disclaiming certain things
<and indicting where they felt their board didn't comply precisely. Since
<that set a model for others, even if they didn't originate the practice,
Based on the manuals I have (fairly complete) and expereince they were
pushing IEE696 and no question their interpretation was somewhat off.
Then again my NS*, Computime and CCS systems don't come close either.
IEEE spec was pretty late in the game and was influenced more by the
intel cpu timings (8085 and 8086 series).
<non-compliant boards were proliferated throughout the S-100 world, spreadin
<non-interoperability throughout. This lead people to throw up their hands
It was already there, that was what IEE696 was supposed to fix long after
the barn emptied and burned. Like none of the Teltek (or Konan) cards
work in NS* crates due to some lines being grounded and the expectation of
address mirroring on IO.
<at the prospect of continuing to use S-100 systems in favor of the
<relatively risk-free SBC's which were becoming VERY popular, e.g. Ferguson
<Big Board, Ampro, et. al. and offered CP/M standard media compatibility at
<the disk level and all the basic features built-in.
That part I can't agree with more. S100 interoperability was at best
terrible and generally systems integration was a true challenge. My
Ampro and SB180 systems are compact, fast and worked (and still do) as
advertized! Bus based systems are flexible, but without well established
standards it can be tough to make them work with third party boards.
My qbus and multibus experience also shows with a good solid specification
it's still possible to produce a third party board that is marginal.
<The IEEE Std.696 board scheme couldn't survive if it wasn't sincerely
<implemented.
True.. it required lot of stuff including timing specs that most Z80s
didn't meet. It's worst fault was the adption was near the end of the
S100s life span when there were already a flooded market of non conforming
boards. While I was a user and adopted it S100 was a terrible bus!
Allison
I don't doubt that it was possible to build quite a good computer from the
board selection that the CompuPro line had, at one time or another. I
bought about ten combinations they recommended, however, and not a one of
them worked, so I sent them back. I still have a couple of their
motherboards in various cardcages. I will say one thing against the
CompuPro line, though, and I doubt it can be denied.
Once there was a standard, I don't believe that any other single
manufacturer did more to undermine the standard than CompuPro. Their boards
were not all claimed "compliant" to the standard and even those about which
that claim was made often had little footnotes disclaiming certain things
and indicting where they felt their board didn't comply precisely. Since
that set a model for others, even if they didn't originate the practice,
because they were at the bottom of the price scale, their non-standard and
non-compliant boards were proliferated throughout the S-100 world, spreading
non-interoperability throughout. This lead people to throw up their hands
at the prospect of continuing to use S-100 systems in favor of the
relatively risk-free SBC's which were becoming VERY popular, e.g. Ferguson
Big Board, Ampro, et. al. and offered CP/M standard media compatibility at
the disk level and all the basic features built-in.
The IEEE Std.696 board scheme couldn't survive if it wasn't sincerely
implemented.
(now I'll get off my soapbox . . .)
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: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Compro, S100 & 8" drives
><That's a risky proposition. CompuPro produced some of the best but much o
><the worst S-100 hardware ever made. It seems that Bill Godbout would buy
><couple of boxcar loads of j-k flipflops and the next 5 boards his guys
><produced would be made from them. Nobody cared if they worked. People
><bought them because they were cheap. Interoperability was never a concern
><for Godbout. If it worked with ONE of their other boards, that was good
><enough.
>
>I have two systems and spares for two more and am using some of them in
>other systems, all work. From some 10 systems I aquired and parted out to
>several here. Those 10 systems ran a small company and I know their
history
>and the original owner would also argue they were solid. Generally the
>later IEE696 complient boards are very good and my experience over 20 years
>says they were one of the better vendors. HOWEVER::: The 696 complient
>boards often did not work in systems that were way off the spec or were
>pre696. My ALTAIR and the NS* systems are amoung them for the most part.
>the NS* mis uses a few lines so the timings are off and a few liknes are
>ground that would be otherwise assigned. Standard S100 problem till about
>'83-84ish.
>
>The most interesting and scarce bord they did was the MPX-1 an IO
>processing slave. I'm running one with a DISK-1 and DISK-3 in a z80
>system to offload the IO (most of the bios) and it's really a sweet deal.
>
>Allison
>
One other item, aside from speed to be considered when using this part, is
the current it will sink. The LS variety was slower, basically because it
used a slower technology. The 8T97 used essentially the same technology
internally as the SCHOTTKY parts the various vendors sold, but it had
stiffer outputs, i.e. could sink/source more current. Almost any part which
was as fast and would source/sink as much current, will generally bring
about the same behavior in the rest of the circuit. If the edges become too
steep, as you might see in the form of too much ringing or
overshoot/undershoot, soldering little 1/8-watt resistors in series with the
outputs will help. I'd say start with 47 ohms and go as far to the smaller
side of that as you like. Fairchild actually made a version of their
"F-series" logic with 33-ohm resistors built in to minimize problems from
both ground bounce and output edges being too steep. One other thing that
helps somewhat is to solder a small (<.001uF) high-frequency cap between
power and ground on the IC, straight across the back. The leads are long,
but it will maintain enough local storage to help with the ground bounce.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 21, 1999 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: N8T97N IC, what is it?
>>
>> Jim:
>>
>> The 8T97 was also recently discontinued by Jameco.
>>
>> How does the propogation delay compare to the LS367? Tony said that
the
>> 8T97 has an 8us delay. ISTR that the reason to use the 8T97 was that it
had
>> a shorter delay.
>
>
>Yes, you're right. The same Signetics data book lists the 74LS367 as
>having a typical propagation delay of 10ns. Incidentally, if I claimed
>8us for the 8T97, that was a typo, I meant 8ns, of course.
>
>Anyway, the 74F367 (I looked in the Philips databook) claims a typical
>delay of 5ns, so that should easily replace the 8T97 (provided decoupling
>an layout is OK - these FAST chips like to cause ground-bounce, etc).
>
>
>-tony
>
<That's a risky proposition. CompuPro produced some of the best but much o
<the worst S-100 hardware ever made. It seems that Bill Godbout would buy
<couple of boxcar loads of j-k flipflops and the next 5 boards his guys
<produced would be made from them. Nobody cared if they worked. People
<bought them because they were cheap. Interoperability was never a concern
<for Godbout. If it worked with ONE of their other boards, that was good
<enough.
I have two systems and spares for two more and am using some of them in
other systems, all work. From some 10 systems I aquired and parted out to
several here. Those 10 systems ran a small company and I know their history
and the original owner would also argue they were solid. Generally the
later IEE696 complient boards are very good and my experience over 20 years
says they were one of the better vendors. HOWEVER::: The 696 complient
boards often did not work in systems that were way off the spec or were
pre696. My ALTAIR and the NS* systems are amoung them for the most part.
the NS* mis uses a few lines so the timings are off and a few liknes are
ground that would be otherwise assigned. Standard S100 problem till about
'83-84ish.
The most interesting and scarce bord they did was the MPX-1 an IO
processing slave. I'm running one with a DISK-1 and DISK-3 in a z80
system to offload the IO (most of the bios) and it's really a sweet deal.
Allison
Sellam doesn't like the movie because he's an early Apple devotee, and the
movie portrays Steve Jobs as an acid-dropping, drug-pushing, commune-living,
personal-conviction-abandoning, illegitimate-daughter-fathering,
beyond-workaholic, universally-disliked-yet-adored, employee-abusing,
god-complex-nurturing, business-disrupting idiot whom one expects to have
his employees drink hemlock-laden Kool-Aid at any moment.
Oh, and Wozniak is portrayed as a small, fuzzy bunny.
Does that about sum it up?
Kai
p.s. the Microsoft contingent gets off rather lightly by comparison, with
Bill Gates shown as merely a shrewd, somewhat ruthless, absent-minded
businessman with personal hygiene issues. Paul Allen is indistinguishable
>from Wozniak in the film, just standing in the background of shots, and has
about 30 seconds of screen time. Steve Ballmer, however, is played by
Krusty the Klown from the Simpsons.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail [mailto:dastar@ncal.verio.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 11:33 PM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: That awful show on TNT
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
> > I'm virtually apoplectic about this garbage that some of you may watched
> > tonight on TV (I certainly did NOT watch it).
>
> For the benefit of those of us who don't get American TV, could you
> please explain what this programme (show?) was and what it got wrong?
Its a "story" (fictional) about the early days of Apple vs. Microsoft. I
don't even want to talk about it really. Just know it was horrible in
every way possible.
If anyone dares to pipe up and say they actually liked it I swear to you I
will unleash such a torrent of rage upon thee so please don't. Keep it to
yourself for your own good.
Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 05/25/99]
<I just bought the bare board. I may have mis-remembered the price. I
<know I got the CPU chip and 1822 RAMs from Hughes-Peters here in Columbus.
<also got the RCA VIP docs from them, too, when a friend cleaned out his fil
<cabinet.
It was available as a kit but rarely did I ever buy the kit if I could get
the bare board. I had (and still have) a very deep junk box.
Allison
