Hi,
I went scrounging again today and came home with a HP 13037D Storage
Control Unit Option 100. It's dated 1984 but the only reference that I
could find to it is in the 1977 HP catalog. It lists the 13037A and says
that it's a micro-processor based controller that offers a high level
interface that simplifies the design of the CPU I/O card. And that multiple
drives and CPUs may be connected to the SCU. Big whoppee! What does that
mean? Can anyone tell me more about it? I assume that it's for the old HP
MAC (Multiple Access Controller) interface. It has an HP-IB port and
several cables that have card edge connectors. I doubt that I need it so
if anyone has a need for it contact me directly.
Joe
You wrote...
> I went scrounging again today and came home with a HP 13037D Storage
>Control Unit Option 100
Off the top of my head without checking the manuals for accuracy.....
The 13037 was HP's bid to get away from having a different controller in the
backplane for each different drive. Previous disc interfaces were particular
to fixed head, moving head, drum, etc. In addition, the interfaces in the
card cage always took more than one slot as I recall. There is a 13037A, B,
and C that I know about, I have nothing that refers to the D model. With the
13037, one interface card goes in the card cage. Cables go from this to a
rack mount box (about 5 inches tall, about 28 inches deep). Inside this
rackmount box was a separate microprocessor board and additional disc
interfaces. The drives in turn were connected to the rackmount box.
The particular features of the 13037 stuff was that more than one system
could be connected to the rackmount microprocessor, but mainly different
types of discs could be connected. The 13037B could do 7905, 7906, and 7920
drives. The 13037C added the capability to do both MAC and HP-IB drives. I
have it on good word that the A and B models were junk (comparatively), and
that the C model was the "one to get". I might have a spare manual on the
13037, I'll have to check. I do have a 13037C under refurb at the moment.
Regards,
jay West
Hi
I'm trying to interface an ADM-3A with an IMSAI 8080 using an
IMSAI SIO card (revision 3). Has anyone had experience with this
combination? I'm trying to ascertain baud rate, parity as well as
the relevant settings on the SIO's two sets of DIP switches.
Thanks!
Brian
Regarding that spam from the fellow selling computer parts...
First, let me say that I've been actively fighting spam since I first got
a dial-up 'net account in 1994. I've seen a lot of spams, and I've gotten
to where I can usually tell when someone may have made an honest error in
judgment, as far as advertising their new business, vs. actually doing
intentional spam.
The spam from Mr. Holtzclaw had the feel of an honest error to it. Here
are the actions I've taken.
1). I have traced back the spam to its source, and notified the ISP
involved (jaxn.com was indeed the source). Their AUP specifically prohibits
spamming, so I would not be surprised if Mr. Holtzclaw starts looking for a
new provider very soon.
2). I have sent a note to Mr. Holtzclaw, something I almost never do,
explaining -- POLITELY -- about spam, about what he did, and where to find
web resources that explain what spam is and why it is a Bad Thing.
I'll keep the group updated with any responses I receive. Oh, and I also
sent a message to our (perhaps justifiably) overzealous member who wanted
to fire off a DoS attack on the responsible mail server. I have asked him
not to do so, as fighting abuse with more abuse never gets anything done.
Onward we go...!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
http://www.bluefeathertech.com // E-mail: kyrrin(a)bluefeathertech.com
Amateur Radio: WD6EOS since Dec. '77
"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our
own human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
<Nor me. I've been called a 'hardware hacker' on many occasions, and I
<have no worries about accepting that title (even though I consider I'm a
<_minor_ hardware hacker). The rest of you can decide if the title is
<appropriate.
I've been called a Hardware, software, RF, microwave and audio hacker
in the most genuine 1974 terms. Tot hat all I say is, it what I do.
The evolved one does not fit me nor are them many others from the slang
english. Another that has been applied was my, avocation is my vocation.
Allison
No Sellam, no one took the time to reverse engineer TSB....
This manual is called 2000E IMS (Internals Maintenance Specification). It
was written by HP, and I'm pretty certain it was used to train new
programmers who were to work on the TSB code itself. It's just way too
detailed (and most of it printed too nicely) to be someone just doing some
reverse engineering.
I'll probably get to scanning a few parts of it in next week.
Cheers!
Jay West
<Since this is something that's only got to work once, I thought I'd put th
<SRAM on a small scrap of perf, along with a PAL to fiddle with the timing.
<The reason for not fiddling with the nWAIT line is that it doesn't time
<right with the instruction fetches, such that the peripherals will see the
<RETI opcode. If this gets too involved, I'll simply have to suffer throug
<doing it from the parallel port on the PC, but I already have some code
<written many years ago (in BASIC) which does the job nicely, and I'll
<probably never use it again.
Seems like the hard way to get there.
<alignment until these repairs are effected. The code was written for an
<S-100 box I used back in the '80's which ran a 12MHz (hand-picked) CPU
Why 12mhz? Reading the bits directly?
<I found that the wait line doesn't work for this sort of thing. It's got t
<do with the way the peripherals work. Switching the clock rate does work,
<though.
It's a way to do it. just dont get clock spikes.
<>I hacked one to 8mhz and then put it back, it was never as solid in
<>operation.
<>
<Their RAM timing was stupid.
It was very reasonable as a 4mhz board. Pushing to 8mhz was too much and
also the rest of the signals smeared out. Mine BTW was a AMPROLB with the
SCSI option.
<What's a TCJ?
The Computer Journal. They are too short on cah to publish but they do
offer back issues.
<I never saw much advantage in using Z-80 with mode-2 interrupts anyway. I
<guess it's just a matter of style. I like simple interrupts, and if it get
<too complicated, use another system to handle the I/O that makes it
<complicated. It's much easier to use three computers than to figure out ho
<to use one with three interrupts. I guess I'm lazy . . .
For many things mode 2 is much to much work. For others it's the only way
to fly. Then again so few CPM machines even used interrupts at all (remember
waiting for the disk to stop before typing?).
I modded my AmproLB for minimum power consumption instead by replacing all
I could with CMOS. The board itself is now under 3.5W power consumption
most of it in the SCSI loads and Floppy.
Allison
please see comments embedded below
regards,
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: Saturday, August 07, 1999 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Z-80 hack
><I've got a little job to do which would be easy with an AMPRO Little-Board
><like the REV-0 boards I have got, except that it's too slow. I was
thinkin
><that the easiest way to do this thing is to take a Z-80H from the selected
><12MHz capable ones I have, team it up with a 64Kx8 SRAM, and a set of the
>
>The number of mods to get a LB to run at 12mhz would be better invested in
>building a new board from scratch.
>
Since this is something that's only got to work once, I thought I'd put the
SRAM on a small scrap of perf, along with a PAL to fiddle with the timing.
The reason for not fiddling with the nWAIT line is that it doesn't time
right with the instruction fetches, such that the peripherals will see the
RETI opcode. If this gets too involved, I'll simply have to suffer through
doing it from the parallel port on the PC, but I already have some code
written many years ago (in BASIC) which does the job nicely, and I'll
probably never use it again.
I'm working on restoring a dozen or so 8" floppy drives which malfinction in
one sense or another, to the extent that I can't verify/adjust their
alignment until these repairs are effected. The code was written for an
S-100 box I used back in the '80's which ran a 12MHz (hand-picked) CPU
together with some fast SRAMS. I don't want to fire up the S-100 stuff
right now, and the AMPRO provides sufficient packaging to allow me to
install a mezzanine board on the processor socket. My HDC adapter sits
there anyway, and the code is on that drive. It steps through the process
of troubleshooting the logic on Shugart 800/801 boards, Siemens 100-8's, and
a few others I don't have to deal with today. The timing probably isn't
even that critical, but I prefer to handle the job this way since I've given
away the hardware I previously used. The thing I have to build is just a
port in and a port out, to monitor and control the signals to/from the drive
without having to read and write. This also allows monitoring of the
signals at various test points in the circuit without having to use the
'scope, which only does half the job.
>
><'A' type peripherals, provided I switch the clock to 4MHz each time I see
a
><IORQ* or an (M1* & I/O*) or a RETI on the data bus during M1*, resetting
th
><higher speed on the next M1*.
>
>there is a wait line for this kind of stuff. I'd upgrade to faster
>peripherals 6 or 8 mhz ones are still available.
>
I found that the wait line doesn't work for this sort of thing. It's got to
do with the way the peripherals work. Switching the clock rate does work,
though.
>
>The FDC, SIO, CTC, RAM(and timing chain) all have Tacc that are way to slow
>for even 6mhz.
>
>I hacked one to 8mhz and then put it back, it was never as solid in
>operation.
>
Their RAM timing was stupid.
>
><Have you ever tried something like that? What am I overlooking here?
>
>Basic design. Many of the utilities are timing sensitive. Catch TCJ and
>order some back issues for the 8mhz mod. The back issues are still
>available.
>
What's a TCJ?
>
>Also get issue 79, the P112 board may really be what you want.
>
><I used to do things like that with the 65xx and 68xx parts all the time,
bu
><never with a Z-80 because of the peripherals and the mode-2 interrupt,
which
><the AMPRO board probably doesn't even use.
>
>The ampro does use mode 2, otherwise there is little point to using z80
>peripherals.
>
I never saw much advantage in using Z-80 with mode-2 interrupts anyway. I
guess it's just a matter of style. I like simple interrupts, and if it gets
too complicated, use another system to handle the I/O that makes it
complicated. It's much easier to use three computers than to figure out how
to use one with three interrupts. I guess I'm lazy . . .
>
>allison
>
>
<I've got a little job to do which would be easy with an AMPRO Little-Board
<like the REV-0 boards I have got, except that it's too slow. I was thinkin
<that the easiest way to do this thing is to take a Z-80H from the selected
<12MHz capable ones I have, team it up with a 64Kx8 SRAM, and a set of the
The number of mods to get a LB to run at 12mhz would be better invested in
building a new board from scratch.
<'A' type peripherals, provided I switch the clock to 4MHz each time I see a
<IORQ* or an (M1* & I/O*) or a RETI on the data bus during M1*, resetting th
<higher speed on the next M1*.
there is a wait line for this kind of stuff. I'd upgrade to faster
peripherals 6 or 8 mhz ones are still available.
The FDC, SIO, CTC, RAM(and timing chain) all have Tacc that are way to slow
for even 6mhz.
I hacked one to 8mhz and then put it back, it was never as solid in
operation.
<Have you ever tried something like that? What am I overlooking here?
Basic design. Many of the utilities are timing sensitive. Catch TCJ and
order some back issues for the 8mhz mod. The back issues are still
available.
Also get issue 79, the P112 board may really be what you want.
<I used to do things like that with the 65xx and 68xx parts all the time, bu
<never with a Z-80 because of the peripherals and the mode-2 interrupt, whic
<the AMPRO board probably doesn't even use.
The ampro does use mode 2, otherwise there is little point to using z80
peripherals.
allison
Basically what I meant is banks of two. There's two SIMMS in a bank, with 2
banks, totaling 4 SIMMS.
If you install three 2 MB SIMMS, instead of getting a 6 MB memory reading,
you'll get a 4 MB reading and a memory error.
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Olminkhof <jolminkh(a)nsw.bigpond.net.au>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, August 06, 1999 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: IBM PS/2 P70-386 SIMM needed...+ a couple other things...
>
>
>Jason Wrote:
>>I need a 2MB SIMM for an IBM PS/2 P70-386. I know they go in in sets of
>>two's, but for some reason, I have a spare SIMM that I found. Does anyone
>
>
>I've never heard of this "sets of 2" stuff on these.
>They use the same simms as the desktop model 70 . . ie with presence
>detect circuitry.
>
>Hans
>
>