<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.
Error. Highend meaning it's not a simple or low complexity system. SPARC
may be RISC but that has little to do with system implmentation only the
instruction set and internal processor design. It's still 32bit, comples
set of control signals, high speed and nontrivial design.
When you say architecture are you refering to the SYSTEM or the CPU
or maybe the memory each has oe and can vary widely. I'd argue that
a LSI-11/03 system is easier to usnderstand than a SPARC system on the
whole despite the more complex CPU of the PDP-11. The PDP-11 at the
system level is not one archetecture, the 11/03 is trivial compared to
the 11/70 with cache and multiple busses. That would be a good example
of the difference between system implmentation and CPU archetecture too.
In that case the 11/70 is highend and the 11/03 is lowend.
Allison
Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillte
more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in any
way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than half
a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 8:22 AM
Subject: Ed Roberts
>Dick,
>
>
> I found the article that tells about Ed Roberts. See
>"http://www.grocerybill.com/altair/index.html"
>
> Also the auction for the 8" floppies just closed. I got $30 for the box
>of 3M floppies and $17/box for the others. There were only two bidders but
>you can get their address at
>"http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=122887882".
>
> Joe
>
>
>
<I need a driver for the DAS1200 of
<Keithley (card of data adquisition).
<
<Somebody knows if or it exists in MINIX
<or where to look for information?
Check in the generic C warehouses on the net. I do know that the GPIB
card Keithley sells (sold) came with C drivers for DOS and likely
adaptable for other OSs. I'd sincerely doubt that anyone has ported that
board to Minix as of yet but under unix(linux or ?) or dos it's quite
a bit more likely.
Allison
<> PDP-11 could be that architecture for several reasons:
<> 1) It has lots of software available for it.
<
<What it doesn't have is a free OS :-(.
Write one! However unix is $100 for the universal license (PUPs) and
it's not out of the question to port some other OS to it or even create
one. UZI unix kernel is for z80 but is small enough and written in C to
port to any of the PDP11s.
What make porting to PDP-11s more difficult is the devices (mostly tapes
and disks) are not always well enough documented (MSCP!) unless you find the
right book. However the RAW cpu is widely known. For those that would want
to play with PDP11 cheap find an old RQDXn controller and pull the T-11
chip. It's a 40 pin, 8/16 bit bus, PDP-11 that needed minimal glue
for ram, rom and IO.
<Does anyone know what DEC's restrictions are on these buses now? At one
<time they were patented by DEC, and you could only (legally) homebrew a
<certain number of cards per machine.
I thought copyrighted, and in either case for non commercial use it's
likely not an issue. Besides the CPU all you need is ram, rom, IO, storage
and for qbus thats totals 4 cards! With some of the 11/23B cards there is
2 serial ports and rom on the cpu so you only need ram and storage. Of
course a falcon (KXT-11) is complete save for storage with cpu, ram, rom
serial and parallel io and QBUS.
The Qbus, Omnibus are open and the specs for them were widely available
along with DEC even making WW boards for them. DEC also had some nice
chips to make the bus interface easier but Heath didn't use them in the
h11. its very common to find old machine with custom boards in them.
Allison
Heads Up Folks....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:29:34 -0400
From: Ken Simpson <W8EK(a)fdt.net>
To: BA Swap List <baswaplist(a)foothill.net>
Subject: More Nostalgia type books FS
[snipped a dozen Ham Radio catalogs and course books.. old ones]
Sinclair Cambridge Program Library - Volumes 1-4
General/Finance/Statistics
Mathematics
Physics & Engineering
Electronics
1977 = $ 8
Prices do not include shipping from Florida.
All books are in good condition.
E-mail to W8EK(a)fdt.net
Thanks.
73,
Ken, W8EK
Well . . . what could possibly be more "open" than the ISA. It's capable of
pretty much anything that the PDP-11 could dish out, AND you can get paid
for taking the boards away from a lot of places. Almost any function you
care to have is available if you don't want to try to improve on what's
available, and the structural components are commonly available. The same
could, I guess, be said of the VME in the smaller form factors. In all my
years of hardware scrounging, I've never seen any architecture more prolific
than the ISA, and in that time I've seen maybe a half dozen Q-bus cards for
cheap. Now, I'm not saying it has be cheap, but you would gather that as
the primary requirement from what most folks seem so spout about in this
forum, e.g. "What??! A dollar for a 1956 Rolls, in solid gold! Too much!
I'll offer a nickel . . ."
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:49 PM
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 too "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.
>
>--Chuck
>
>At 11:20 PM 7/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>> Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
>>
>>Off topic?
>>
>>William Donzelli
>>aw288(a)osfn.org
>
>
Before you go off picking a bus because the cards look "neat" shouldn't you
agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion of
why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> Too highend.
>
>Yes, but the highend SPARC stuff tends to become cheap - SPARCstation 1s
>these days are almost free. Anyway, some of the older SPARC boxes have
>really nice 9U VME cages.
>
>By the way, the SPARC architecture really is open - there are lots of
>things SPARC that are not Sun/Solaris.
>
>William Donzelli
>aw288(a)osfn.org
This will draw alot of flames, and may upset certain people.
Please send personal attacks to me directly.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:20:38 -0700 Kai Kaltenbach <kaikal(a)MICROSOFT.com>
writes:
> Classic computer collecting is rewarding on so many levels. And in
> so many senses, we have a collector community relationship that rivals
those
> of much more established hobbies. That's why it's so important, as the
> hobby begins to reach maturity, that we not lose sight of our
fundamentals.
But you've missed the one 'fundamental' that uniquely gives our hobby
its true appeal: Our hobby exists (existed) purely for its own sake.
No strings, wire, or unneeded baggage. It existed purely for the joy
of computing at its most base level, and the aquisition of knowledge
of the science.
> Lately, there has been a disturbing trend towards isolationism and
> elitism among our flock, up to and including outright hostility. This
has
> got to stop.
Hostile? Yer damned right. We're on the defensive now. The
'marketplace'
is poised to fundamentally change what I perceive as the original charter
of the computing hobby.
> Now, as Dennis Miller says, I don't want to get off on a rant here.
> As much as anyone else, I'd like a world full of retired aerospace
> engineers with garages full of free Altairs. I'd also like the IRS
> to abolish my income taxes and give me a free Ferrari. It's just not
> going to work that way, folks.
You hit a raw nerve here, buddy boy. I don't *want* garages of free
Altairs (or whatever). All I want is to be able to purchase the material
that is of interest to me at a *reasonable* price. Now the retired
Aerospace
Engineer thinks he can make a fortune off his old computers. Piss.
> Lashing out at people who want to publicize our hobby is like
> sitting in the nosebleed section of your hometown baseball stadium
> and hoping to god that your team loses big so you can afford better
> tickets next year.
This to me, clearly says you have no clue as to what is at stake here.
Hello Tony:
In a message dated 7/1/99 8:03:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk writes:
> I still want to know why my old Williamson (15W RMS)
> sounds a _lot_ louder than the '240W' PC speakers
The clue is in your mention of RMS. Your PC speakers are rated by PMPO,
"Peak Music Power Output," and this 240W rating is for both channels
combined. Your Williamson is 15W _per_channel_, for a total of 30W RMS.
Since PMPO usually represents about 5 percent of the true RMS output, each of
your amplified PC speakers is good for about 6W RMS, for a total of about 12W
(with huge distortion at that output level). Even this rating of the PC
speakers is probably grossly exaggerated.
There are Watts, and then there are Watts.
At least, this is the case with the speakers we sell in our shop. ;>)
Glen Goodwin
0/0
> Please remember that this list is international. And that not all of us
<> have well payed jobs, or even jobs at all. I couldn't consider spending
<> twice my _annual_ income on an Altair. Heck, I have to stop and think
<> before I spend my weekly income on common 8-bit micro.
<
<!!!
Even some of us in the US have had really bad years where trade, free or
very nearly so was the only possibility.
There are very few machines I'd pay much for and what "much" is varies
with my fiscal health. Most thankfully were gotten for free or minimally
the effort needed to collect them. Maybe it's also my slightly different
twist, I'm collecting machines I could never afford (but wanted to have)
when they were new.
Also there is the matter of my preference for systems that work, and having
the Altair I know enough to not bother with that one.
<Germany, Japan, or whatever developed country we may live in? Are foriegn
<electronics and computer industries (again, assuming that many of
<us are in the industry) really in that bad of shape?
The industries in many of the foreign countries are quite healthy but the
admission price (education REQUIRED) is far higher so it's not as easy to
get in. That also does not allow for retired, people that don't wish to
work in electrotechnical fields for a living and for some reason far to
many women.
Allison
