Hello, all:
I'm wrestling with a chip storage problem and wanted to get ideas from
others as to how to store and track ICs in my "stock".
Right now, I have ICs of various types stored in a mixture of anti-static
tubes and black foam. Unfortunately, it's impossible to find any particular
chip because most of them are mixed-up and the tubes aren't identified.
So, I realize that there's a problem here. I need to number the tubes and
re-sort the chips. But, while I'm going throught this I wanted to get some
ideas for "a better way." Does anyone use a formal inventory system? How do
you track the tubes and chips?
Rich
Rich Cini
ClubWin! Group 1
Collector of Classic Computers
Web site: http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
/*****************************************/
From: Michael Passer <passerm(a)umkc.edu>
>Unfortunately, a compatible won't work with the Robin upgrade; it
consists
>of boards that are installed in the VT-100 cabinet itself.
>
>--Mike
I do it all the time. The VT180 card can be modded for standalone.
It requires power, connectors and a simple source of reset.
Allison
On Dec 16, 1:00, Chuck McManis wrote:
> At 08:08 AM 12/16/00 +0000, you wrote:
> >You did remember to put the pack cover back in the drive, yes?
>
> After the first attempt, yes :-) The "latch" on the top isn't too springy
> so I'm wondering if the safety isn't being released. I'm going to have to
> look at that mechanism a bit more closely to find out.
:-) I had one like that -- it took a lot of fiddling to get it right.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
I wrote down the inventory of modules in the 11/34 and its pretty standard:
CPU + FP11
128KW MOS Memory
Programmers Console
9312 Boot/terminator
RL02 interface
SLU+Realtime clock interface
DR11-C interface (DMA capable?)
9302 "far end" terminator.
Unlike my first one this has sort of a bent screen unit above the
programmers console rather than the black dress panel. (looks like it got
impacted at some point). Further it has the FP11 but doesn't say PDP 11/34a
on the front as the older ones used to, presumably this became "standard"
at some point.
I of course will take a functional CPU over a "pretty" box any time :-)
All in all a very nice box.
--Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Claude <claudew(a)sprint.ca>
>I have been offered the components for a Dec "Robin" system. Person says
>he has everything except the VT-100...
A DEC VT180 (Aka Robin) without VT100 is just a disk box, a VT180 board
and the cables and connectors to insert it in vt100.
What it is is a Z80 /64k board with 4 serial ports and FDC. You basic
CP/M
engine. What it needs to work, power, interface to terminal, reset from
vt100.
The VT100 supplies power, reset and the interface between the two.
That board can be made to run standalone with any standard DEC tube or
similar.
As CP/M systems go it was a decent one. It's weaknesses were, only
single sided drives and bios was for DD 40 tracks (172k per drive). The
upside
was it was a soild machine and fast {for the time} at 4mhz.
>Anybody wanna speculate what are my chances of finding a clean no screen
>burn VT100 terminal/keyboard these days...and in Canada...???
Good possibility.
Allison
Hi
I have been offered the components for a Dec "Robin" system. Person says
he has everything except the VT-100...
Anybody wanna speculate what are my chances of finding a clean no screen
burn VT100 terminal/keyboard these days...and in Canada...???
Thanks
Claude
Personally, I consider all VAXen minicomputers, except for the 9000's, which
I definetly agree are mainframes (use MCM technology, can be serviced
without bringing down the whole system, etc.). But then again, I'd call just
about any dedicated UNIX box (aka "workstation") a minicomputer too... I
personally make the distinctions based not so much on physical size, but on
the architecture, software, etc. For example, the smallest VAX is still a
minicomputer to me because it uses a bus used only by DEC, a DEC processor,
and runs a DEC-created operating system (I'm only talking about the OS that
it was originally meant to run, please don't think I'm trying to leave out
UNIX, BSD, or Idris, to name a few).
Will J
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
UNIX dates and 2038.
I'm willing to bet that there will be people looking at atmospheric,
rainfall, snow cover, and other long term datasets that were created long
ago :), 40 years, and some of there data formats are probably platform
dependent. There are people still running IBM emulators that run old
emulator code that runs old code that probably controls missiles and planes.
The problem is not going away, everybody is hoping not to spend money for
data their company will probably loose or discard before 2038.
It all comes down to a question of self interest. Most company managers
plan not to be in business in 20 years and their compensation is tied to
this quarter.
1. If I were an astute computer manager I would convince my company
that it was actually intelligent to outsource all my computing and problems
and then quit before the ramifications are known.
2. I would then go to work for somebody else and convince them to
insource the computing because of security risks associated by outsourcing.
3. I would then quit and go to work as a consultant and lecturer on the
perils and pitfalls of computing.
4. I would then write a book on the theoretically best system, which is
of course doesn't exist.
5. Finally I would write a book on my life in the golden age of
computing.
I know that I will have computers in 2038 that I have now.
Mike
mmcfadden(a)cmh.edu
On Dec 16, 16:50, Mike Kenzie wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Turnbull" <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 8:27 PM
> Subject: Re: The debate on what per say is a mini...
>
> > In the end, we found it better to switch one off.
> > Moral: there is such a thing as overkill, and such a thing as
> > over-engineering.
> The second machine when it detected trouble with the primary
> would power off the first machine (Shoot The Other Node In
> The Head). It was quit impressive but had me thinking of
> VMS and MVS and wishing everyone would talk to each other
> instead of reinventing the wheel.
Yes, I must admit when we sat down to discuss the supposedly-failsafe
servers at a meeting, I couldn't help thinking "VAX" and "cluster".
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
