Hi Tony,
>> The thing about Sinclair machines is that they are masterpieces of
>>design....
>
>I am not convinced they are good designs. We've had this discussion
>before on this list, but I will never be convinced that leaving out a
>couple of chips to save a few pence is a good thing if the result doesn't
>work properly.
Quite, but my point was that whoever designed them (Sir Clive or whoever)
REALLY understood what they were doing!
Although that said a lot of the design ideas could have (probably were) cribbed
>from books like "The Cheap Video Cookbook" etc....
>Never had a System 1, always wanted one. I've got some of the later
>Systems in racks, including the 6809 version...
Likewise, I'd love to get my hands on a System 1 - I've never even seen one "in
the flesh". I wasn't aware that they developed the "System 1" further, I'd
always thought/assumed that Acorn quietly dropped the system after the "Atom"
popped up.
<Mk 14>
>I have the tape interface. I think I saw the PROM programmer at an
>electronics show, so at least a prototype existed. Never saw any of the
>others.
One of my teachers at school was the only other person I've known who had a
Mk14 from new. I'm pretty sure he never managed to get any of the add ons other
than the tape interface, though ISTR he'd ordered the VDU and PROM programmer.
I think he ended up cancelling the orders due to non-delivery, the launch of
the VDU board was delayed several times ISTR. :-(
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
Hi,
I'd like to know how people here store their junk parts, as I'm looking
for an efficient method myself. For the past several years, I've been
keeping them in ziplock bags in a plastic box, which is falling apart, and
also is useless for storing anything small.
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
As usual I don't know the guy, Contact him directly.
I could help pick up and ship if that's a problem with the guy.
Francois
----- Original Message -----
From: william rice <rice0067(a)tc.umn.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.marketplace
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 3:50 AM
Subject: FS Next stuff in Minneapolis
> I have a bunch of next stuff that must go
> 030 cube boards $25 (2)
> 25mhz '040 cube 16/1gig with monitor and cable and keyboard $250
> 25mhz 040 color slab 24/380 17" sony monitor soundbox, cables,
> keyboard $250
> next laser best offer (3)
> external hdd 1gig $25 (2)
> black dove fax $5 (1)
>
> sgi iris 3130 complete $50
>
> all these are for sale in minneapolis.. I will ship if I have to tho...
> make reasonable offers if you dont like the price.. I just want to get
> rid of this stuff
>
> bill
>
1) For anyone needing to make travel plans or prepare items for exhibit -
there are now less than three months until the start of VCF III!
2) Down that same track, (since I just had the above revelation a few
days ago) there are some new pictures on the 'Computer Garage' website
that I've been shooting as I'm going thru machines and systems... "Field
stripping the RX02" makes up one quick little photo set... There are
others as well.
3) And for those of morbid curiosity (or those just in need of a good
theme for a nightmare B^} ) Hidden in the pages (but not too hidden) of
the 'Garage' are some shots from within (one of) the 'Computer Garage'
Warehouses!
Sorry, no panoramas from within the 'Garage' itself... Yet! <snicker>
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
>>> Coming soon to www.computergarage.org - the CBBS/NW on-line archives
>>> Coming to VCF III (2-3 October 1999) - CBBS/NW live!
I've snipped much of the original message, so I hope you can wade through
the several threads interwoven under this general (off-) topic in the
embedded comments below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk <Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>
>> Well, in my case it was supposed to lead to the development of a really
>> open hardware platform.
>>
>> As for Allison's comment that SPARC is to "high end" I have to disagree.
>> The SPARC architecture was initally a lot less complicated than the
PDP-11
>> architecture. It is the funky MMUs that get in the way.
>
>I'm reluctant to enter this rather heated debate, but:
>
>Has anyone tried to build a SPARC - compatible processor out of standard
SSI and
>MSI chips?
>
>Has anyone any thoughts on how easy, or otherwise, it would be?
>
>Philip.
>
>
>PS since I'm in here:
>
>Dick - it's all very well to choose a bus because it is a popular, de facto
>standard, but if you don't conform pretty closely to the standard, you may
as
>well not have a standard at all. And what other reasons are there for
choosing
>ISA?
>
>Tony - OPEN doesn't mean everything is documented. It means you can
connect
>what you like to it. And know what to do to get it to work.
>
>Chuck (wasn't it) suggested having an OPEN hardware architecture for which
>anyone can build periphereals and CPU cards which, if they conform to the
OPEN
>spec, will be guaranteed to work. I think this is an excellent idea.
>
Yes, and then someone jumped in with the notion that everyone who produces
hardware for such a bus should make every detail of his product available to
whoever wants it, including his competitors, and then, of course, decried
the use of custom logic even though the equivalent SSI/MSI version would
take a PCB a couple of acres in size . . . well, that's a bit of a hyperbole
. Would you believe square meters?
>
>However, there is nothing wrong with using undocumented cards on the
OPEN-spec
>bus which happen to work because they were designed for the system on which
the
>spec was based. Win-win! Those like you who want a fully documented
system can
>have one. Those like Dick who want to be able to use cheap cards from the
50p
>bin at that shop in Notting Hill can do that too. As I said, win-win.
>
When I suggested that it might be advantageous to be able to use boards
which are available from that 50p bin I wasn't thinking of myself. There
are people who have complained bitterly about the $2 cost of this and that,
and it's their interests I was considering. I use cheap stuff when it's
available, but I normally don't have to leave my house to find it. I've
actually never had a copy of the ISA spec, nor has it been a problem, though
I've designed 20+ boards in use even today for the ISA.
My position is that it's not necessary to have anything open. It's
generally straightforward to build something that works on the ISA as it is
for most any widely used bus. Since it's not in the interest of any
commercial manufacturer to build products as open as Tony Duell would like,
though it might have worked in the past (that's DISTANT past), it's unlikely
we'll see that happen. If you want a bus to use under public scrutiny, it
will be only a matter of time before someone finds a way to try to make bit
of money that way, and the "open-ness" will fade.
>
>P.
>
I'm not the one who is concerned (a) about whether "the bus" is open or (b)
about whether it's standard. I find it hard to buy cards which do what I
want yet don't adhere to some standard, however, so I buy stuff that's
commercially available, or build stuff that's compatible with what I have to
run with it.
>
>PPS I am concerned about the report that the open software movement is
losing
>momentum. Does anyone have any more news on this? I read quite recently
that
>Intel is trying to negotiate with some of the Linux community to get Linux
>available for their next generation of processors right from the start.
The
>difficulty seems to be NDAs, not surprisingly. I hope they solve it (e.g.
no
>disclosure until launch date, free thereafter).
>
>P.
>
The reason the open software is losing momentum is that the people who do
the work don't mind pitching in but do mind doing the work for people who
won't do their own work. These folks are finding that getting paid helps
their inclination to do useful work. OTOH, many of those who provided the
"momentum" though not willing to do the work, are not willing to pay others
for it either. As an example, look at LINUX, and then look at the state of
its documentation.
Dick
Hi Gang:
This is a longshot, but I am looking for a schematic (or even a pinout)
for an LH Research power supply, model number IM203. It's 120VAC to 5
VDC@8A, 12 VDC and -12 VDC both at 1.5A.
There are two terminal strips (unlabelled) on the supply, one with 4
screws (AC input, by inspection), and one with 7 screws for the outputs.
It's not working (nothing obvious like rectifier or fuses) and I'm trying
to figure out why. I emailed the company without a reply.
Any info appreciated,
Kevin
--
Kevin McQuiggin VE7ZD
mcquiggi(a)sfu.ca
please see embedded comments below;
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com <Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>
>
>>>And as I invented the term in this thread I get to confirm that Tony is
>>>using the correct definition :-) "Open Hardware" is hardware that is
>>>documented well enough such that anyone can recreate it from the
>>>documentation. This includes VHDL specs, PAL equations, etc.
>>
>> Are you guys familiar with the "Open Hardware Certification Program" (I
>> haven't heard it mentioned)?
>>
>> They've got a list of their own requirements at
>> <http://www.openhardware.org/conditions.html>
>
>
>Thanks, Tom, very interesting URL. I wasn't familiar with it, but it is
quite
>close to my view of "open hardware". I would tend to extend this so that
not
>only are devices supplied with enough info to write drivers, but they are
also
>supplied with enough info to connect them to computers using other buses.
In
>many cases this is the same, but it would help to have a definitive list of
>(say) what features of the bus they need / don't like / can take advantage
of.
>
>To return to Chuck and Tony's definition, yes, very laudable. But I don't
think
>you should _impose_ the requirement that everyone who builds hardware for
the
>open system should make everything public. And I like Dick's idea of
taking an
>existing standard, in the same way that Linux (for example) took the UNIX
>system, so that there is already a wide range of stuff available for your
>system. And users can build as open or closed a system as they like.
>
>Dick, I'm not sure what you meant by buying stuff "that does what you want
but
>doesn't conform to some standard" - that seems to be the opposite way round
to
>our discussion, which was about defining an open bus, and whether kit you
buy
>(which _does_ conform to the standard) will work with the bus we've
defined, or
>whether the differences between our open definition and the standard will
>prevent it.
>
What I meant by that comment was that if you decide on one standard, but a
function you feel you have to have doesn't, or you don't want to buy the
available hardware for some reason, e.g. cost, particularly in the case
where you have another potential solution, e.g. you have something that can
be made to work, you shouldn't be prevented by the standard, or by the lack
of information, from adapting what you want to use. Likewise, if you like
the majority of the signal set on ISA, except you don't like the way
interrupts work, you should be able to make that suit you. Then, supposing
you would also like to use a different interconnection arrangement, say, the
one used with VME, perhaps, then that should be OK too.
The bad thing about any standard is two-fold (at least). First, it prevents
integration errors by ensuring tbat you can plug whatever adheres to the
standard into a standard system and expect it to work, and secondly, itmakes
sure that maufacturers build cards that will work with others' cards.
Unfortunately, the resulting debate in standards committee meetings often
doesn't concern itself with how well something works as much as which mfg
has the largest installed base of "nearly" standard hardware. The problem,
you see, is that in a SCSI standards committee, a single vendor, e.g.
ADAPTEC, with enough installed base to overwhelm the market can defeat the
whole standard.
One point I was driving at was that since the interrupt scheme on ISA is
unpalatable to many, it can be ignored so long as cards being used don't
exploit that feature. There are plenty of video cards which don't use it.
There are simple ways of converting cards which do use it to use the
opposite sense if that's deemed appropriate. It's still easier to patch an
existing board than to reinvent the whole thing.
>
>ISA is a standard - of sorts. You can adopt it, and reap the benefit of
the
>standard, because a lot of kit will work with your system. Or you can
reject
>it, and said kit won't work with your system. You seemed to be suggesting
the
>adoption of a partial ISA standard. And some ISA kit will work with it,
and
>some won't. Fine for true open hardware, since you can tell what will and
won't
>before you buy it. But difficult to use the existing ISA kit with your
open
>bus, since it is the existing ISA kit that is not open, so you can't easily
tell
>whether the ISA card you had in mind will work on the modified bus. So why
>bother with ISA at all?
>
It would not be my choice to adapt cards about which I didn't know enough to
accomplish the task. However, given that much is known about ISA, including
its flaws, I find that signal set a good starting point. If you switch the
connector to be a DIN 41612 type, it's still a decent signal set, and if you
invert the interrupts, and perhaps make them level sensitive rather than
edge triggered, it might even be better. It's just that THIS PARTICULAR
existing "convention" if not standard, will lead to much easy-to-adapt
hardware, thereby leading to a useable test environment virtually right
away, while with other types, more effort is needed.
>
>On this point I agree with Tony. Edge connectors in slots, while fine for
the
>volume market, doesn't help the homebrew hobbyist. So if we choose an
existing
>bus on which to base our new open bus, choose one with indirect connectors,
like
>VME. True, few hobbyists will homebrew _everything_, but by the Chuck/Tony
>definition of open, they should be able to, if they wish.
>
>A system aimed at homebrew also makes it easier for designers to publish
designs
>which other people then build. Kits can be made of standard parts and not
>require custom PCBs. And when the bugs have been ironed out, then the PCB
>design can go off to the mass production plant...
>
>Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
On Wednesday, July 07, 1999 8:50 AM, Allison J Parent
[SMTP:allisonp@world.std.com] wrote:
> I'd like to know how people here store their junk parts, as I'm lookin
> for an efficient method myself. For the past several years, I've been
> keeping them in ziplock bags in a plastic box, which is falling apart,
> also is useless for storing anything small.
I like ziplock bags for small components, hardware, etc... They keep
everything sorted, they keep dust and dirt out, you can see through them,
and most importantly they're cheap. I dump the baggies with similar items
in to cardboard boxes and put them on shelves in a closet. Currently, I
have three closets that are FULL of this kinda stuff.
My refrigerator just went bad and I'm thinking about making a storage
"locker" out of it. I'm gonna paint it to match my equipment racks, and put
different handles on it to make it look more "industrial". It has built in
shelving, it's sealed against dust, it's on casters so it's easy to move,
and it's already paid for... :-)
The hardest items to store are "books" and "documentation". They take up a
lot of room, they're heavy, they're very sensitive to handling, and they're
often irreplacable. Books deserve the best possible treatment and need to
be kept on good quality book shelves. Prints, booklets, and other small
documents go in hanging folders in a filing cabinet.
Complete systems go in the garage / workshop. This 14' X 25' building is
where I keep the goodies.
Everything gets tossed in to a spare bedroom. I use the (RSS) Robertson
sorting system to keep things organized. I just throw it in a pile and it
magically sorts it's self out. Whenever I go looking for something, it'll
ALWAYS be on the bottom...
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
In a message dated 7/7/99 5:39:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
John.Honniball(a)uwe.ac.uk writes:
For the Texans here, Houston has an Ikea store.
Coincidance. I just spent $219 this past weekend for a
set of Sten shelving. 9ft by 6ft with a corner piece. 4 shelves
high. 20" deep. pain in the butt to put up.
Works good.
<< > I'd like to know how people here store their junk parts,
Well, for larger items, such as desktop microcomputers,
I can recommend a range of wooden shelving from Ikea
called "Sten". Ikea is a Scandanavian furniture
supplier (mostly in flat-pack form) but I doubt it's
available outside Europe.
>>
