test-drb June 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

164 participants
610 discussions

by edick＠idcomm.com

I'll pass on PDF email, thank you very much. I know it's of limited interest to many of the die-hard retrocomputing persons in this interest group, but for your info, if you're interested, the version of the Arcobat Viewer (Acrord32.EXE) which I'm using nearly every day is a nearly totally reflex-operable program which allows me to view, scale, SEARCH, print single-sided, or, with a freebie plug-in, print duplex, which is double-sided in two passes, in full living color . . . the important feature for this discussion being SEARCH. If this were just a bitmap imbedded in a framework of some sort, you wouldn't be able to search for text would you? How do you suppose, in light of what you know, this is done? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 9:23 PM Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents >It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated: >> >> Well? . . . now you see why we disagree. This doesn't just extend to you >> and to me, but rather to lots of other people who use documentation >> differently. > > Five months ago we had a similar discussion, this time about what formats >to use when emailing people (started because of complaints about messages in >HTML which were annoying several people on this list, myself included). >Part of the problem, as you state, is that different people have different >needs from documentation, and there are two aspects to documentation (or any >``printed'' material in general): content and presentation, or as Marshall >McLuhan would say, ``message and media.'' Both are important (``the medium >is the message'' anyone?) but for this crowd, it seems that the message >tends to be more important than the medium. > > As an experiement, I downloaded a PDF file (for the record, I have a PDF >viewer for Linux). Can't save the document as text, but I could print it to >a file. So I did that. Ended up with PostScript. Took a look at the >postscript and discovered that what I ended up with was basically a large >bitmap embedded in PostScript. Sure, I also have GhostView, but the output >looks like an okay scan of a rather mediocre photocopy. Nice. > > To be fair, the PDF in question appears to be just that though---an image >encapsulated in PDF. I tried finding a word that I know exists in the >document but oddly enough, the computer couldn't find it. > >> . . . and you'll have to do more than shout to convince me that's (meaning >> the fact every page is a document apart from the one major unit to which it >> belongs) not a big part of why the LINUX doc's are so impenetrably muddled. > > Linux's docs are so impenetrably muddled because programmers in general >don't like writing documentation (``The source is the documentation,'' is >too often the excused used). Heck, there are problems with comments IN THE >SOURCE CODE not being updated, so expecting any external documentation to be >up to date is asking a bit much (not that I like this any). > > -spc (So Richard, want me to start replying to you in PDF format?) >

25 years, 6 months

Old bits

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Jun 8, 11:48, Charles E. Fox wrote: > I received several boxes of old parts, I hope someone might be > able to tell me something about them. > > 1- Seagate ST-251 > 3- ST-4384E (94186-383H). > 1- Control Data 94166-182 > 1- Miniscribe 3053 ST-251 is an early 5.25" ST412-style (ie buffered step) 42MB (formatted) MFM drive, 820 cyl, 6 hd, 17 spt, 3600 rpm. ST-4384E is a 319MB (formatted 34 spt, 384MB unformatted) 5.25" ESDI RLL drive, 1412 cyl, 13 hd, 34 spt, 3600 rpm, voice-coil actuated. CDC 94166-182 is an ST4182E, 5.25" 151.8MB (formatted 34spt, 182MB unformatted) ESDI RLL drive, 969 cyl, 9 hd, 34 spt, 3600 rpm, also known as a Wren 3, and sold under the Imprimis brand. Miniscribe 3053 is a 5.25" ST412-style 42MB (formatted) MFM drive, 1024 cyl, 5 hd, 17 spt, I don't have the speed but it's probably 3600 rpm. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

25 years, 6 months

Disk Drive Documents

by edick＠idcomm.com

We're not in a hurry, yet, so we should look for a format suitable for everyone. The reason document publishers like PDF is that it allows you to view the document, print it, print excerpts, search, and so on, yet doesn't let you extract text from it. Of course, you can output it to PCL, convert the PCL to BMP, convert the BMP to TIF, then run it through an OCR processor to create clear text. The reason I like it is that it allows me to keep the OLD data books I have in my technical library on the shelves gathering dust except when I want information that's not in the new ones. I tolerate that it only works under WINDOWS, and I tolerate that it won't process other file formats, and I tolerate that I can't extract a quote when I need to. It has served me well, though, I have to admit. The problem I see is that since the PDF is so easy to process for the average Win95 user, even though that may not include everyone in this forum, there's a PDF viewer for LINUX, just as there's one for various other *NIX types. I don't know whether ther's one for OS8 or whatever the PDP8 users have, but I see a potential problem when it comes to finding a "better" tool. There may be a tool which YOU like better, for whatever reasons, and there may be one which I like better for whatever reasons I have, but it's unlikely someone will host a site on which we can put this document set in half a dozen different formats. (BTW, there's another manual, now, i.e. the MITSUBISHI 4894, or whatever they called their DS 8" drive back in the late '70's.) As for finding a "home" for this data, I think the "unofficial CP/M site" might be the place, though I've not yet contacted the site owner. Many CP/M-ers will at one time or another need this data. In any case, I'll agree that each of us will have an approach to "using" our computer which may not suit someone else, and those who have a preferred format for openly presented technical data should make their preferences known. The people who actually prepare the data and present it for use will probably have the final say, though and there's no guarantee that I will have any more to say in the final choice than you. 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: Sunday, June 06, 1999 7:36 PM Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents >> >> First of all, let me say that I'm in complete agreement with your notion >> that the doc's don't have to be put out in only one format. It's just that >> I've been so extremely satisfied (ask anyone who knows me and they'll tell >> you that's not easy!) with the PDF for document publication that any other >> way simply hadn't arrived here yet. > >PDFs might be fine for publishing a newly-created document (although I >would still prefer something where I could trivially extract any ascii >text using standard tools), but I don't see the point for a collection of >scanned images. > >> With the Acrord32 program under Win95, you can print the pages you want and >> skip the rest, you can search for specific words and phrases, and you can > >I think this is one of the big differences between how we use our >software. I prefer to have one program to do searching (grep). One to do >formatting (*roff, TeX, etc). Another to handle double-siding, etc. That >way, I aways use the same program from the same task. > >You seem to prefer to have a single program to (say) read .pdfs and do >anything you like to them. > > >> print double-sided whether you have a duplex printer or not. You can >> generate extremely good-looking documents with almost no effort. You just >> can't edit them or such, and that's fine with me. I've seen some truly >> terrible PDF documents, obviously scanned from bad source documents or with >> a really dirty scanner, and not cleaned up as I'd probably be inclined to do >> if any of these documents turned out to be "bad" or difficult to read. The >> ones I've seen which were bad were posted PDF's of CP/M documents which I >> probably ought to be glad I could get in any form. > >This is not the point. Obviously I'd rather have the document poorly >reproduced than not at all. But if a document is only available in a >format that I can't read, it's not going to be a lot of use to me. > >> >> What I would like to avoid, here, is getting in a position where we evaluate >> the product on the basis of the tools used to generate it. I use WIndows95 > >That is not what I am doing... > >However, it is helpful if documents, particularly documents about old >computers, are available to as many people as possible. This may well >mean not using the latest/greatest (proprietry) tools. > >Most people here are technically knowledgeable. All of us would know how to >expand one of the standard archive formats in our OS of choice and print the >individual files it contains. Most of us can install new programs to handle >strange formats -- if they exist. > >> because it's a convenient tool for doing what I do with it. I use DOS where >> it's convenient and when I see a version of, say, LINUX that's got current >> documentation I'll look at it again too, since there are supposed to be some > >Eh? The documentation that comes with linux is an order of magnitude >better (at least) that that which comes with Windows... > >> things that it does very handily as well. I agree about the documentation >> angle, but I don't agree that being free makes a product better. It just > >Sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said (in private e-mail) that I am not >going to pay for the second-best when the best is free, I didn't mean >that linux was better _because_ it's free. I meant that linux happens to >be the best tool that I have yet found for the sort of work that I do. >And the fact that it's free is a bonus. > >Having got the best tool, I sure am not going to pay for something that's >less useful to me... > > >> improves the price-performance comparison factors and helps with motivation >> to try it. I do believe that publishing the scanned documents as completely >> as possible is desirable, so that when you run into that "see figure 8a on >> page ..." you'll have that as well. If you only need to print sheet 14 of >> 39, that's what you should be able to print, not the entire document when > >A .tar.gz of scanned bitmaps allows you to do all that, in a totally >OS-independant way... > > >> If there were a good PCL or PostScript viewer, widely distributed enough > >Ghostview seems to work reasonably to view postscript, and it's available >for most OSes AFAIK. > >But postscript files, especially those of bitmapped images, tend to be _very >large_ files... 10-20 times the size of the equivalent .gif... > >> that a substantial number of potential users would have it at their >> disposal, that would also be useful distribution format. If it could be >> hammered into a Word97 document, that might be a candidate. What's > >No. Word97 (or any other Word) is even worse the pdf. At least there are >pdf viewers for other OSes. And the format is _documented_ somewhere. I >have never seen a full and complete description of a Word file. As far >as I'm concerned, such files are useless... > >[Note : people who e-mail me .doc files without warning normally get a >.dvi file in return. And if they want to know what it is, they can darn >well read Volume B of 'Computers and Typesetting'] > >> important is that a large number of potential users have access to the >> format that's chosen. > >What's important IMHO is that _all_ potential users can have access to >the format. And that means picking a format that is fully documented, one >that can be read on as many computers as possible. > >For text, either plain ascii, or one of the many formatting/markup >languages that uses ascii source with embedded commands (TeX, html, >*roff, etc). That way, you can read it on _anything_, even an ASR33 :-) > >For graphics, one of the many file formats that have proper >documentation. > >> >> Comments and suggestions are welcome! > >The above are just suggestions. There will be no flames from me (although >I will be disapointed if I can't read them) no matter what format the >files appear in (if they appear at all). After all, if you're providing >information, you get to pick how you do it. > >I just feel that cutting off some potential users is a Bad Thing. > >-tony >

25 years, 6 months

11/44 -> RL02 further...

by jpl15＠netcom.com

After writing the last message, I wrenched the machine out of the rack onto a table and found that: Slot 14 had a jumper Slot 13 did not. So after three or four boot-ups with various clip leads installed, I have taught myself that the jumpers are not needed in 13 and 14 if the RL11 and Emulex cards are in them. And: woo-hoo! I have the cards in the slots I wanted them to go in, and the machine boots and runs as normal. Mebbe tonite I'll drag up some RL02s and see if I can get them talking to the RL11. I still am not sure about the driver modules: from whence they come (distribution kit?) and how they get integrated into RSTS. Does one just copy them into the working directory? Does a partial SYSGEN need be done? Are they already there, just hiding? Thanks... John

25 years, 6 months

11/44 -> RL11

by jpl15＠netcom.com

Hello ListFriends... Further along the path of getting RL02s attached to my 11/44 system: Given a stock 11/44 in a KD11-Z minus the CIS and FPP modules: the last two slots, 13 and 14 are SPC slots. In my system, there are two more backplanes installed and in use. Memory slots 11 and 12 are occupied by G7273 double grant cards. As configured [and working fine], slot 13 has the Emulex TC12 (which is a quad-height module), and slot 14 hosts an M9202 bus jumper and a grant continuity card in "D". OK: I want to put an RL11 (hex height) in slot 13 and move the Emulex card to 14. I did this twice... once with the RL11 in 13 and the Emulex out of the box, grant card in it's place... the error message on boot was: ?20 MPC=15 The second try was removing the grant card in 14 and inserting the Emulex therein.. the error message on boot was: ?22 CPU HUNG Restoring the system back to Emu in 13 and grant card in 14 restored the system to normal. I am currently dragging the box out of the rack to check the NPR jumpers, the RL11 doc is pretty specific and clear on what to do... but I have no Emulex docs so I'm kinda lost there. Am I barking up the right tree(s) so far? Bonus question: the system is configured with (3) M5904 MassBuss cards which I am not going to use right now.. if they are removed, other than the grant cards needing to be installed... is this going to cause havoc? Thanks y'all Cheers John

25 years, 6 months

**RARE** "Altair-like" HP1000 minicomputer K00L K00L Vintage! <grin>

by jlwest＠tseinc.com

Now that's the SECOND time I've seen someone list an HP1000 on Ebay calling it an "Altair-like HP1000". Sheesh! That makes me wretch..... :) Then again, perhaps I should just get a magic marker, write "Altair" on the front of all my HP's, and retire to the bahamas. :) Jay West

25 years, 6 months

GRiD disc mysteries (Was: GRiD 15XX answers!!)

by arfonrg＠texas.net

>> HARD DISK GUYS, explain this: >> I put the GRiD's CONNER CP3104 (100MB drive) in K6 Desktop and I could not >> get DOS to load onto it. I put it in a 486 machine (IDE not EIDE) and DOS >> loaded fine. >> I put a 402Mb Conner drive into thr GRiD and forced the geometry >> using a setup program and I kept getting a BOOT DISK ERROR. WHY????? > >Probably because it was formatted under a different geometry. I would >suggest fdisk'ing the drive (delete and re-create the primary >partition) on whatever computer you want to install it on, then re-format >it under DOS. Nyet! I downloaded the seagate/conner disk utilities and uesd it to zero write and verify the disk using the correct geometery. Then I fdisked and formatted (I did this to both the OEM 100Mb and the replacement 420Mb disc) and loaded DOS. No dice. I can't figure it out. The oddities I noticed were: 1) when I loaded DOS onto the 100Mb drive, the COMMAND.COM and a few other systems files would give me write errors when they were written to the disc. All the other files in the DOS directory went on fine. Note: I was using a K6 with built in IDE controller. Maybe it was the difference between IDE and EIDE? 2) The 420Mb drive took DOS installs from both the K6 machine (EIDE) and my 486 machine (IDE) but, the GRiD wouldn't boot from it. I am clueless about this. ---------------------------------------- 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

25 years, 6 months

Old bits

by edick＠idcomm.com

It looks like you've got a standard WD PC/AT HDC (WD1003-WA3) which will turn out compatible with the Miniscribe 3053 and the ST-251, The big ST drive, the 4384 is an ESDI type more or less equivalent to the MAXTOR 4380E. I believe the CDC (same actual MFG as the Seagate, just the prior owner's label before Seagate acquired them) is about half that size. If I remember corretctly, it's half-height as well. I believe I have several of these, but in non-functional status. Though the interfaces "look" the same, i.e. same cable connectors, DON'T CONNECT THESE ESDI DRIVES to am MFM controller. They won't work. The 3053 is another one I've tossed out/given away. Once they don't work, the application being for MFM and where a relatively small drive goes, I don't usually attempt to fix them. These two are both half height MFM types of about 50+ MB capacity unformatted. Check for precise details on www.theref.com, but IIRC, they have close to 1K cylinders and either 5 or 7 heads. The ESDI drives need an appropriate controller e.g. WD-1007 of any subtype, or even the 1005 or 1009. These are really excellent examples of their type, so I'd hope you can get them going. The WD controllers can deal with the large number of cylinders so that's not a problem. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Charles E. Fox <foxvideo(a)wincom.net> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 9:53 AM Subject: Old bits > > > I received several boxes of old parts, I hope someone might be able to >tell me something about them. > > Hard drives... > >1- Seagate ST-251, 3- ST-4384E (94186-383H). >1- Control Data 94166-182 >1- Miniscribe 3053 > > Plug in cards... > >5- WDC1985 - WD1003-WA2 These look like they might be HD controllers.(I >hope) > >Several Zenith Data Systems cards, including a cpu card with an 8088. These >look as if they may have been a PC Clone built on sort of a backplane. > > There were about twenty pounds of other cards, but these seem to be the >most interesting. > > > Regards > > Charlie Fox > > > Charles E. Fox > Chas E. Fox Video Productions > 793 Argyle Rd. Windsor N8Y 3J8 Ont. Canada > email foxvideo(a)wincom.net Homepage http://www.wincom.net/foxvideo >

25 years, 6 months

Fw: hp 9000 32M of mem cards free

by danburrows＠mindspring.com

Spotted this on a newsgroup. The usual contact them as I know nothing about it. Dan -----Original Message----- From: Tomato Man <akerson(a)shell.clark.net> Newsgroups: dc.forsale.computers Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 8:04 AM Subject: hp 9000 32M of mem cards free >8 x 4M memory cards for an HP/Apollo 9000 series 400, 425, 433, 400dl, > 375 or 380. Free to good home. Feel free to trade me your equally > worthless stuff for an old PC. > >Cards are 8"x2", 40 chips each, DataRam brand.

25 years, 6 months

GRiDCASE 1520 update

by ds_spenc＠alcor.concordia.ca

Greetings, I got the (assumed) GRiDCASE 1520 doing something today! In fact, it's running an Apple ][ emulator right now. :) The hard drive was totally hosed. Seized. Dead. On a hunch, I opened up the Toshiba T1200 (which I can't use without appropriate power supply) and extracated its HD. I was happy to see that the Toshiba's drive used the same connector. I guess it's a standard laptop drive. (Isn't it fitting that my very first working laptop was also (more-or-less) the very first laptop? :) ) When I cracked open the outer case, I was even happier to see that the Toshiba's drive was also 20MB and made by JVC. Toshiba's drive: JD3824G01-4 GRiD's drive: JD3824G00-2 I figured they'd be the same drive, but methinks I was wrong. With the Toshiba's drive in place, the GRiD now powers up the drive at the appropriate time, and I guess the drive passes whatever test it needs to pass, and then the GRiD is able to boot from floppy. But I haven't been able to access the HD yet. It just makes unpleasant noises when I try. I don't have the proper SETUP program for the GRiD, but shouldn't FDISK be able to tell me what's there anyway? Or is the busted SETUP possibly the only thing wrong now? Gah! Anyway, the GRiD didn't complain about the clock not being set, even after an hour of being turned off. But the clock also didn't advance in that time. The battery says it's non-rechargable, but I'm still hoping it will recover. :) BTW, what a freaking pain working in the Toshiba is, compared to the GRiD! Plastic framework that goes all over the place, multiple different screw types in annoying places, etc. Getting the case open with no instructions was easier, but once inside it's harder to deal with. Or maybe I'm just used to the GRiDCASE's innards now. :) -- Doug Spence ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca http://alcor.concordia.ca/~ds_spenc/

25 years, 6 months

← Newer
1
...
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
...
61
Older →

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 June 1999