I just found drivers for the Sound Source today. It turned out that one of
the people on my ICQ list also has a Sound Source. I loaded the Win 3.1
drivers in my P70, fired it up, and it works!
Now my next 'project'. I have an old Covox Speech Thing that I've had
sitting around for quite some time. Just for the heck of it, I plugged it
into the parallel port of the P70, fired up the P70, loaded windows, and....
A garbled mess of undefinable static came out of the speaker...
I'm guessing that this means that it works, but has nowhere near the
capabilities of the Sound Source.
I remember that someone had emailed me, saying that they had the drivers for
the Speech Thing (I know that Sputter is supposed to drive it, but have no
clue how to set it up because I don't know the port address of the parallel
port on my SupersPORT...) I lost the email of the person that said they had
the drivers (HD crash - *stupid windoze*). Do you remember who you are?
ThAnX,
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
Can anyone help me with any technical information on HP SketchPro digitiser. Product number 45911B. I have the device but nothing else. Even to know the DIP switch settings would be a big help.
Thanks
David
In a message dated 6/7/99 5:25:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jlwest(a)tseinc.com
writes:
> Geez... I didn't know all machines with switches and
> lights had the same architecture <grin>.
Who cares about the messy details ... think I'll put a zx81 in a box with a
bunch of switches & leds & post it on eBay:
*** RARE British prototype computer with 1KB RAM / advanced BASIC built in"
***
Should be good for about $200, eh?
Regards,
Glen Goodwin
0/0
At 07:47 PM 6/7/99 -0700, Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
>
>Has anyone heard of the HP1000 anyway, at least in a home/hobbyist
>context? It looks more like an industrial-type computer to me, something
>that would have never seen the inside of most private homes, unlike the
>Altair or IMSAI. . .
Ok, so call me odd (you would not be the first)... But I have a pair of HP
1000F CPUs (aka HP 2117F).
One of the early systems I used in school was a timeshared BASIC system
that ran on HP CPUs, so there is a sentimental attachment here.
Pictures on my web pages...
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
Hi,
I picked up an old IBM AT the other day and found a strange card in it.
It's a full length card with an 8 bit ISA plug. It has two Burr Brown
DAC800P-CBI-V ( D to A?) ICs on it along with a large IC marked TSC
7109CPL. (I have no idea what that one is.) There is also a small flat
sealed Yuasa NiCad battery in the top corner of the card. It has 37 pin
male connector on the back and it's marked "copyright 1983 MBC". Most of
the ICs are dated 1986. It looks like it may be some kind of D to A
convertor card. Does anyone know what it is for sure?
Joe
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. Consequently there are differing needs which I believe need to
be addressed. This won't happen if all we do is trash the other guy's
solution. We need to find an adequate accomodation which has the potential,
at least, of meeting almost everybody's needs with an increase in work as
the scarcity of the need increases. Now, that may still not make you happy,
but it will at least try to prevent leaving you, or anyone else high and
dry, don't you agree?
. . . 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.
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 07, 1999 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>>
>> Now, I don't want to go off chasing another rabbit, but there is one
point
>> about published documents that I would like to make. That's that I think
a
>> complete document should be archived as a complete document. Lack of
this
>
>Archived as a complete document != is only one file once unpacked...
>
>> unity is the reason or at least a majorly contributing factor in why the
>> LINUX documentation is so screwed up, out of sync with itself, and out of
>> sync with the software to which it applies. If people can fiddle with
>> individual pieces of a document in its "library" then it's not long
before
>
>RUBBISH!!!.
>
>The reason linux documentation is in small pieces is to make it easier to
>keep it in sync with the software.
>
>Look, I rewrite some bit of linux. I also rewrite the appropriate
>documentation file (man page or whatever). You download them and install
>them. Your on-line manual is now updated to include the changes I made to
>the software.
>
>Otherwise it would be _impossible_ to keep the documentation up to date.
>
>> it's corrupted. That's a positive feature for the single-document
>> indivisible archive approach I prefer. Once you have possession of a
copy,
>> you're at liberty to fiddle with it all you want, but not at the source.
>>
>> I spent the better part of a year trying to get complete documents from
>> Sunsite and other loci when I had the urge to learn about LINUX. It
seemed
>> that EVERY PARAGRAPH was a separate file . . . what a PAIN. There I
sat,
>> 50 computers, 35 TB of storage available half a dozen available DS3's for
>> internet traffic, and I had to type one character for every ten I
>> downloaded, or so it seemed.
>>
>> There's got to be a better way. Please tell me what it is.
>
>Err... Buy a book on unix (Linux includes almost everything you'd expect
>to find on a unix system). Buy some of the better books on linux.
>Download the archive files of documentation. Download some of the
>complete manuals from the LDP. What more do you need?
>
>-tony
>
I freely admit that I'm not a UNIX expert, or even knowledgable to be
dangerous. I've driven vi and grep a few dozen times and installed drivers,
etc, and typed 'make' followed by a bit of other text, but the way I use
documents, is that I read everything I can about the subject and remember
it, largely verbatim, for LONG periods of time. Few people do that, but I'm
one. When you do that, the most obvious thing about the subject and about
the documentation is the inconsistency in the documentation. I'm a stickler
for precise documents. Maybe this is not part of your reality, but it's how
the world works for me.
I've avoided UNIX for all the years, since I was in college in the VERY
early '60's, not that it was an issue back then, and, clearly, though I have
had nearly a dozen dedicated machines running it right here, and I don't any
more, I've concluded that that's not what I want to study. I don't remember
things as well as I did when I was a student, perhaps due to overflow, and
maybe I'll do things differently in the future, but that's the approach to
documents that I can best grasp, so I've staked that territory out for
myself.
It doesn't matter to me that few or many people use the information in
question. I've had it for 20-25 years in some cases and never even used
some of the items myself, but recently, I've seen numerous posts and
received inquiries about one or another of these documents. Clearly,
someone wants to use them. If you don't need this data, you won't serve
anyone by looking it over. If you do, I suppose you'll have to satisfy your
curiosity somewhere. The computer where the data's stored won't care, and I
won't even know. When I see data available somewhere, I consider whether I
want it, and, if so, I find a way . . .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>I did that, and as you say, they're generally just reductions to CD of the
>>published e-docs, except that they're permanently mixed together out of
>>logical or chronological sequence, so you can't track progress of a given
>>feature set. I wasn't after info on UNIX, I was after info on LINUX.
>>However that's not what THIS thread is about.
>
>If you're already familiar with UNIX, then your point is well taken. If
>you're not, and wish to use Linux, you should get familiar. They are
>almost the same in many instances as far as user interface is concerned.
>
>>I'm not sure clumsy is what it is, but it's inherently solvable if not
>>elegant. If I can break out parts of the document into PCL, then I can do
>>that into POSTSCRIPT as well, and so can you. If the guy down the hall
>>can't, he can ask for help.
>
>I won't be using these docs if they ever are made, so I'll shut up now :)
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
You wrote...
>Has anyone heard of the HP1000 anyway, at least in a home/hobbyist
>context? It looks more like an industrial-type computer to me, something
>that would have never seen the inside of most private homes, unlike the
>Altair or IMSAI. . .
Er... uh.... yeah, I agree with the above poster ;)
HP1000's probably aren't of interest to any collectors, so don't tell anyone
if you see one ;)
Nope, never heard of the HP1000's ;)
Probably just industrial things, never used for general data processing ;)
If you ever see one, I wouldn't be interested, but let me know anyway, k?
<GRIN>
Jay
please see (non-combative) comments embedded below.
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 07, 1999 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>> All of this suggests that Word documents are a complete non-starter, and
>> however convenient PDF is in some ways, it shouldn't be the *only* format
>> provided. I think we're all agreed on that? I'd also submit that
>> PostScript is less useful than either. There are few systems that can
>> handle PostScript but not PDF; all can handle ASCII+GIF; it can be a real
>
>Hmm... Well, if it's level 1 postscript you can print it on an old Apple
>LW2NT printer, and those are pretty cheap and common now. They're also
>dead easy to fix :-).
>
>Maybe I was being a little biased, as that's the printer(s) I have here,
>so I have few problems with postscript. On the other hand, postscript is
>hardly suitable as a medium for distributing documents (IMHO).
>
>Are there really more machines with modern PDF views than ones that can
>run ghostscript? I thought that was available for virtually all
>modern-ish OSes, and anyway, source is available so porting it should be
>possible.
The problem with PS is that it's not trivial (or achievable with freeware)
to display, scale, search, or selectively print portions of it, is it? PDF
allows all these. True, that's no help if you can't run Acroread.
>> pain extracting individual pages from PostScript, especially the
>
>True. I think I was suggesting (but not seriously suggesting) a separate
>postscript file for each page.
>
>>
>> PDF is nice because it can preserve the original layout, with diagrams in
>
>This is great if you're the sort of person who believes layout is more
>important than content. It can be a right pain if the user wishes to
>alter the layout for whatever reason.
Perhaps not the art of the layout, but the order in which things are
presented certainly can make the different between a very informative and
easy-to-use document and one which is impenetrable. That doesn't mean it is
MORE important than the content, but it's important enough.
>> the right places etc, but for many purposes having the diagrams separate
>> (and viewed in a separate window) is actually a nicer way of working --
>
>Agreed...
>
>Actually, I've just thought of something.
>
>I have the shop manauls for some old (1960s) Citroen cars. Like all Citroen
>products, these manuals are unconventional.
>
>You open them in landscape format. The top part is then a 'book' of
>diagrams (only). The bottom part is the text, which refers to the
>diagrams by number.
>
>Actually, this is _extremely_ convenient when you're working. You can
>keep a particular diagram open while you read the text that goes with it.
>Or turn up a different, but related, diagram.
>
>The same thing could apply to computer manuals. How many times have you
>found yourself flipping between a circuit description and the schematic.
>I suspect that's one reason why DEC used to publish the printset
>(schematics) and maintenance manual (description) as separate books.
>Many times I've wanted to keep both open at once.
>
>One other thing to consider. Given separate text and diagrams, it's easy
>to (automatically) combine them into one document. It's much harder to
>separate them again.
>
>[...]
>
>> There are plenty of document formats that don't keep everything in one
>> file. Why should that be a requirement? There are probably more systems
>
>In fact whenever I've written a large document, I've always split it up
>into separate files. Makes it a lot easier to manage (like splitting up
>source code into separate files, I guess).
>
>[PDF]
>
>> [1] unless I discover that the "text" within it isn't OCRed or typed, but
>> scanned bitmaps, in which case I'll likely throw it away again.
>
>YES!. A PDF file shouldn't be used as a way of grouping a number of
>single-page bitmaps together.
>
>-tony
>
I don't like those minimal-effort-PDF's which look like faxed documents,
badly aligned with the page boundaries, and looking like poorly rendered
dot-matrix images either, but I think it's highly important, for the
confidence of the user if not out of respect for the originator, to put
forth a creditable presentation of the original document. Making it barley
readable means nearly illegible which is nearly worthless. OCR'ing,
however, invites editing, reformatting, and other sins, which , out of
respect for the document's originator, and probably still owner, should be
avoided. Besides, having what is, for all intent and purpose a complete
de-facto facsimile (not fax) of the document in question as opposed to an
edited and possibly corrupted copy is a great confidence builder the third
day you're trying to effect a repair in which you NEED the document. That's
another reason to make the file monolithic in my view.
That, in fact, is the case here. I have two laser printers and three
ink-spitters, and a pen plotter, none of which speak PS. They even require
different dialects of PCL. There's even an impact printer from the
DOT-Matrix (for multi-part forms) which doesn't speak either.
The only language common to all my printers is ASCII. All but the TOSHIBA
Dot-Matrix printer speak HPGL if they're prodded.
How can the needs of the many be met without disabling resolution of the
needs of the few, and vice-versa? Who will do the work? From which of
several source formats?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Jun 7, 18:30, Max Eskin wrote:
>> I recommend PostScript at least as an option, since it's inside every
>> laser printer and many inkjets.
>
>obNitPick: My laserprinter doesn't have PostScript, only PCL. Lots of
>lasers don't, and not many inkjets, at least in my experience. I drive my
>laserjet from a PostScript raster engine (not Ghostscript) running on one
>of my unix machines.
>
>
>--
>
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of York