test-drb August 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

161 participants
565 discussions

by edick＠idcomm.com

A couple of weeks have elapsed since someone on this list asked for documents on the WD1002-05 Winchester/Floppy controller board. I have scanned my "preliminary" document and can make it available via email. It's "cooking" into final form on another machine right now, but I'd expect that since there are 44 pages the picture (TIF file) will be something just under 1 MB/page. This is a really big file and I may reduce its volume by converting it to compressed PCX format. If you want this document, please let me know how you'd like to have it formatted. Dick

27 years

FPGAs and PDP-11's

by IVIE＠cc.usu.edu

><A Stretch-8 would require too much time spent on hacking -8 software for m ><taste. Why not just build the equivalent of one of the DEC 18-bit family ><members > > Several reasons. [SNIP] I would want a > machine that would fit in nx4 or nx8 format parts. Bear in mind that some really interesting parts useful for this sort of thing (high-speed synchronous SRAMs, for example) come in x9 flavors to support parity on x8 byte machines. Roger Ivie ivie(a)cc.usu.edu

27 years

Fw: WANTED: 88110 docs -- specifically MC88110UM/AD

by geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au

Hi all, If anyone can help this guy, please contact him direct, I just fwd the msg >from the ng he posted in.... ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Briggs <briggs(a)ninthwonder.com> Newsgroups: misc.forsale.computers.workstation,comp.sys.m88k,misc.forsale.computers.othe r.misc Sent: Sunday, 29 August 1999 9:05 Subject: WANTED: 88110 docs -- specifically MC88110UM/AD > I'm starting work on free OS port for Data General 88k systems. I'd > like to locate the user's manual for the Motorola 88110 processor. A > kind person has loaned me one for a while, but I'd really like to have > my own copy to use/mark up/whatever. It's no longer in print and not > available from the Motorola Literature Center. I already have the 88100 > and 88200 docs. > > If you have this book or know someone who might have this book getting > dusty on some shelf somewhere, please contact me. I'm willing to pay > something for shipping and something for someone's trouble in digging it > up and mailing it. > > Thanks, > -allen >

27 years

tek4015

by jritorto＠nut.net

does anyone have a pointer to programming information for this beast? I want a nice Mandlebrot set on my tek to amuse my guests. :-) jake

27 years

PDP era and a question

by edick＠idcomm.com

Whether this is correct or not, the real problem lies in that the data is available in the clear by virtue of the fact the unmodified data travels into the FPGA in a predfined way, allowing a simple and direct copying process to be set up. No reverse engineering is needed, just a rote copy. 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, August 29, 1999 1:05 PM Subject: Re: PDP era and a question >> > Anyway, the real point is that certainly for Xilinx FPGAs, if you buy the >> > official tools you get a program to 'reverse engineer' a bitstream back >> > to the CLB map. Converting that to a schematic is still a non-trivial task...

27 years

PDP era and a question

by edick＠idcomm.com

please see my embedded comments 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: Saturday, August 28, 1999 11:27 AM Subject: Re: PDP era and a question >> >Please note, I am not saying that the FPGA manufacturers should support >> >all the possible choices of machine and OS. Just that I wish that _one_ >> >of them would provide enough information for me to support them myself. >> > >> The reality of the matter is that these device vendors, of whom I would >> assume it could be said they're in a good position to make such a >> determination, have decided that it's worth their effort to invest the >> effort and money in creating support tools for the PC running Windows 9x and >> not the PDP-8S or whatever, running something else. This is not my >> preference either, since I like and trust DOS much more than the WINDOWS >> varieties, but then, they no longer put out tools for the MAC either, not >> that I'd use one even if they were free. >> >> > >You are missing the point. I am not asking that the FPGA companies >produce/support tools that run on <whatever>. I am simply asking that >they allow me to create said tools. > Unfortunately, your desire to do that is in the toiled right along with the manufacturers' competitors' wish to learn what changes were made in order to field the last batch of "enhancements." Their perception is that too much detail about the parts' configuration details is too much detail about the inner workings of their product. It's their intellectual property, so if they wish to be able to protect it in court when someone steals is by whatever means, they have to show they've applied due dilligence throughout their operation to protect that information. If they don't, they run the risk that a competitor's lawyer will say, in court, that this information was not valuable enough to protect in the one instance, so why are they upset that someone acquired it through other means. It's a valid point. That's why many vendors don't give "free" copies of software anymore. The courts have found that if your product is valuable enough to prosecute someone for "stealing" it, then it should be so valuable that it can't be given away. Now, I'm not sure I buy all that, but that's the direction things seem to run. > >Think of microcontrollers for the moment, particularly the Microchip PIC. >I use that chip a lot. Now, I can either use the (free) Microchip >assembler/simulator that runs on PCs, or I can take the databook off the >shelf and write my own assembler/simulator. The necessary information is >given to do that. > >There is another reason I want this information. I want to create >self-modifying circuits, reconfigurable CPUs, etc. And I can't do that if >I am forced to use the manufacturers tools for every change in configuration. > > Not all vendors will give you all the necessary information to do that. Most makers of microcontrollers will, though. >Most (all?) of the existing work on such systems was done using the >now-discontinued Xilinx XC6200 series. Those were fully documented (I >have the data sheets). > > >[...] > >> >There was a _supplied_ program that would take a configuration bitstream >> >and turn it back into a CLB + interconnect map - essentially a >> >disassembler. Of course turning that map into a schematic was a lot of >> >work, but the 'secret' part was there. >> > >> >But no way would they tell us what any of the bits in the configuration >> >file actually meant. >> > >> >I am told they might have supplied some documentation under an NDA, but >> >that's no use for open-source software, of course. >> > >> Well, it's not likely that you'll encounter much cooperation in your effort >> to convince the world to share its secrets. These days, when patents are of > >Hmm... Since the architecture of the FPGA is already pretty well >described in the databook, releasing exactly how the bitstream configures >the chips is not giving that much more away. > >[...] > >> I'm surprised that there was a commonly available scf2xnf (or whatever it >> was called) translator, since that essentially reverse engineered your >> product for your competitor, but it would surprise me even more for the >> vendor to provide you the ability to see how they've enhanced their parts if >> that's reflected in their configuration files. > >The Xilinx tools I used (admittedly a few years old now) had a program >that let you edit the CLB/interconnect map yourself. And a program to >turn a bitmap into whatever file (xnf?) that this program would work with. > >Of course reverse-engineering a schematic from the CLB map is at least as >hard as reverse-engineering a large board of TTL chips. So it's not that >much help in copying a competitor's design. > Back in the early '80's I found that dirt simple. I can remember many a trade-show where my partner would, after we had examined a new product, buy me a cup of coffee and hand me a couple of extra napkins so I could draw a schematic of what I perceived the "new" product to be. Knowing how things worked and what the various TTL parts did made that into child's play. As a result, our products were almost always "better" than theirs. > >Any changes in the internals of the part (as it appears to the user - say >extra interconnect resources) were clearly visible using these tools and >were (IIRC) documented in the data sheets. As I said above, the data >sheets I have are reasonably details on what the chip contains and how it >works, but don't give the information to actually use it. > > >> Nevertheless, perhaps you need to back away from your devotion to the >> absolute notion of fully open source in favor of a really efficient, >> particularly cost-efficient, PDP whatever you want to build. If you need to > >I don't particularly want to make a PDP-anything. And if I did, I >certainly wouldn't use an FPGA... > You'd only do that if you intended to make your version better, faster, and less costly, along with less trouble to repair. > >If I use FPGAs (myself, for one of my own designs), I would want to >exploit the fact that they are reconfigurable parts. In other words, to >change bits of the circuit as the machine is running. Not just use them >as a replacement for a lot of TTL. > >> have sources in order to fix what you consider to be an annoying bug in the >> software tools with which the FPGA is to be devised, I'd point out that > >Hmmm... I've spent far too many long nights as a result of bugs in FPGA >tools. I'd much rather be able to see what they're doing to my circuit. > Well, if you're getting paid on time and materials, then it's someone else's worry, isn't it, if they specify a device with buggy software support. If you have your way, you specify a product which doesn't have those problems. > >> noone else is able to fix it either. Sometimes it's necessary to live with >> those "bugs" which annoy you most. > >Ah... But I have this ingrained objection to 'living with bugs'. If I >have a product (hardware, software, whatever) that doesn't work as I want >it to (or doesn't work correctly), I modify it. Period. > Perhaps that has more than anything else to do with your inability to find work. If you're so prone to get caught up in "fixing" what others don't even perceive to be broken, that you can't work with those tools, perhaps it's your outlook that needs fixing. In any case, perhaps a look in your own closet is warranted. I know I wouldn't hire someone who was not at all concerned about protecting intellectual property I had bought and paid for and who felt that it was more important to make a board easy to clone that it was to make it lower in cost and more reliable. Don't you think your outlook has some questionable perspective issues? If you're an engineer, your job is to solve the problems which confront you today with the resources at your disposal today, and not to lament the fact that someone built the XYZ round instead of square so it would stack neatly, and not to dream up technology which isn't yet commercially viable. Today's software isn't bug free, nor is it "open" enough to suit you. That is what's on the table, though. Refusing to use current hardware/software because it's not "open" enough isn't going to put a roast on the dinner table next Sunday, either. Maybe your talents would be better spent figuring out a better way to do what "the boss" wants, rather than trying to figure out a better thing to do. It's pretty apparent you have a good understanding of how the things work. It's also apparent you're capable of making the necessary leap. If you figure out a better way to do something on one of those computers you don't want with that OS you dislike, and sell it to .001% of all the users out there, you'll be wealthy beyond your wildest dreams. (You'll also develop different priorities where intellectual property is concerned!) OTOH, if you make an improvement to all the PDP-anythings still in use out there and sell it for 10x what it's worth, you'll still be as poor as ever. (well . . . maybe not poor . . . but the tax collector still won't remember you by name.) I haven't seen an FPGA (yet) which has "soft" configuration which can be changed on the fly. I think Triscend (www.triscend.com) may be heading in that direction, together with their 805x core. I've read a little about it, but as far as I know, the way to change it is to reset and reload the part, perhaps from a different configuration file. One thing I find shameful about the FPGA makers is that they have all this secrecy about one aspect or another of THEIR intellectual property as pertains to their parts, yet they do absolutely nothing to protect YOUR IP as it sits in a completely visible medium. If they would at least provide a feature to allow you to flash in a persistent encryption circuit not detectable from the outside but permanently associated with a given design . . . >-tony >

27 years

PDP era and a question

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<PDP-11 is certainly doable in the 4010 part, but I don't know if I could d <it and the 11/70 MMU or if I'd end up using two parts. These parts are Definately two or more to do 11/70 or the J11 (similar) as the MMU is a lot of registers (memory cells) and the CPU is not short on them either. <"slow" (50Mhz) which is a hell of a lot faster than a lot of -11's :-) In reality when you get the end of the design you find the interconnect delays internal to the chips will have you far slower. The J11 run with something like a 16 mhz clock for the early parts and the crop in the 11/93 I'd guess are closer or faster than 30mhz. <> What architecture? Microcoded or gates? Microcode requires an <> assembler, but might be quicker in the long run. < <Intel sued several people over the alleged use of Pentium microcode, <legally gates would probably be safer, also microcode == memory and memory <eats gates rapidly (even though the Xilinx have some cool features to avoi <that) and intel lost to nec as V20 microcode was actually wider! Microcode would be in external EEproms or some such to get the wide words needed to make the cpu fast. <Sounds like the definition of a hobby to me. :-) I'm going to do a PDP-8 o <my evaluation board, and after that will look at helping out on a PDP-11. Better place to start. The PDP-8 is not register intensive nor does it have many states that make sequential logic complex. The -8 has three 12 bit register and may be a temp (PC, MQ, ACC and MA(a temp)). The base PDP-11 (11/20, LSI11, T11) has 8 16bit registers plus flags and maybe temps for internal use. See why PDP-11 is more complex for FPGA? The base 11 has nearly 18bytes of ram never minding other flipflops needed! Hope this makes it more sense of the scale of complexity. The PDP-11 is the most CISC of the 16bitters and is only exceeded by the VAX. Allison

27 years

Dell "Oldest PC" winner on zdnet

by jeff.kaneko＠juno.com

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 17:10:37 -0400 (EDT) Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> writes: ><> Is this the same Computer museum that parted out some PDP monsters ><> for saleable souveniers? ><> ><> Allison ><> >< ><I have a hazy recollection of that event, but I don't think(?) it is >the ><same one. This one exists in conjunction with Coleman College - >computer ><training. >< > >I'm happy to hear that. TCM does not rank high on my list of, things to >do to historical items. Preserving history, understanding it is very >difficult and an active wholsale destruction of any machine for money >is the same as tomb raiding for gold. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's pretty much what my local scrapper does . . . . Jeff ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

27 years

FS cheeep-Lotus Aproach 2.0 for Windows, new in box

by rhblake＠bigfoot.com

Still have a sealed copy of Lotus Appraoch 2.0 Database for Windows....and no use for it. It says it has both 5.25" (1.2mb) and 3.5" (1.44mb) disks. It states 286 or higher, Win 3.0 or higher, hard disk, EGA or better video, mouse, 2 mb RAM minimum.. It says it's compatible with files from dBase III & IV, Paradox, FoxPro, Oracle SQL 6.0 and SQL Server databases in native format.. It also states that's it's network compatible with Noverll Netware and Netware Lite, MS Lan Manager, Banyan VINES and LANtastic networks. Allows grpaihics imports in BMP, TIFF, PCX, WMF and EPS. $5.00 plus whatever the postage would be and it's yours. Drop me a direct note if interested.

27 years

Free DMF32 Dist Panel

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com

Cleaning up the piles of stuff here, and decided to find something a good home rather than tossing it into another pile: Free to the first to offer to pay shipping ($3.20 USPS priority mail inside the US): A genuine DMF32 distribution panel, DEC part number 70-18754. Perfect for anyone with a DMF32 but without the cab kit! No cables included. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927

27 years

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
...
57
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

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 August 1999