>> The 8101 dual-port 256bx4 RAM is no longer available, but Jameco has a
5101
>> which looks like a likely sub.
>
>Check the timing specs; the 5101 might be slower.
To run at 8080/2mhz it needs to be 600ns or better. In 1975 5101s were
typically
1000ns or the fast ones at 850.
>
>Also, 8101 is just a different marketing designation for 2101, just like
>8702 for 1702, etc. The 2101 should be easier to find.
>
>Apparently Intel's marketing people didn't think that engineers would be
>able to figure out that their standard RAM, ROM, PROM, and EPROM
>products would work with the 8080, so they introduced 8xxx-series part
>numbers for them.
No, not quite. It was a marketing thing to "bundle" parts with like numbers
to indicate compatability for sales. The best of those was the 8205 that
was really a 74138 but intel kept claiming it was a similar but gltich free
part. I cracked one open to prove a point and th intel part was a TI 74138
die. Kitting, the name used by those in the trade back then was intels way
of insuring they didn't get cherry picked for the 8224 and 8212 while AMD
got the 8080 order along with someone else getting the ram order.
Allison
>.. very close. Apparently there was a process difference.
>> Though intel did at times morph one part/process into another.
>
>According to the 1980 Component Data Catalog, the specifications for
>the 3205 (p. 2-22) and 8205 (p. 6-45) are identical. DC, AC, and all
>the graphs.
By 1980 intel was shifting to mos/Hmos/HmosII and by then those
parts were way down the the process scaling and 32xx were nearly
extinct. In 76, that was not the case. Keep in mind my comment that
intel did morph parts into one another.
Allison
>I don't think this was an accident, nor was it a mistake. The only
>reference I've ever heard/read made to a bipolar fab under Intel's
ownership
>has been from you. It's not unlikely that I could have missed it, being
I worked for their competitor from 79 to 84 so I'd have to know that.
I never said they had a lot of capacity, they did however do bipolar
as a supporting technology.
Allison
>I suppose one could use a hex format, but I've never seen anything under
>CP/M other than binary. Normally it's loaded into memory and then saved to
>disk.
The common file format for ASM output and LOAD input as well as DDT
was intel HEX format. it would be logical to puch tape in that format
as it had checksum. I'd add that the OS enforced no format for PUNCH
and READER devices other than you could present 8bit and recive 8bit data
if you cared to.
Allison
>> What is the punch format used for a paper tape that would be used on an
>> Altair or IMSAI? Is it straight binary or something like the Intel Hex
>> format?
>>
>> The reason why I'm asking is because I'm toying with adding a virtual
>>paper tape punch/reader to Claus Guiloi's IMSAI emulator.
>>
>>
>> Rich
>> However no one ever supplied the 3000 two bit slice other than intel.
>
>I don't know if they ever actually supplied them, but I have a 1978
>Signetics 'Bipolar and MOS microprocessors' Databook that lists the
>S/N3001 microprogam control unit and the S/N3002 Central Processing
>Element. AFAIK they are equivalent to the Intel parts.
>
>The UK availability chart on the inside cover seem to imply that the
>3000-series were available from Signetics in the UK.
Sig was the second source for many and made few if any.
>The same book also lists the 2901-1 4-bit bit-slice, the 8x300, the 8080,
>SC/MP-II and the 2650. And a number of peripheral devices.
>One other 'fun' item in the book is the 3000KT8080SK. This is a kit (PCB
>+ components) to make an 8080-compatible CPU using 3000 bit-slice. I
>would _love_ to see the documentation (which included schematics and
>microprogram listings) for this kit ;-)
It's been years but I've seen the intel version of that kit. I ahve the
signetics
catalog but never met anyone that could get half the parts in it.
Allison
Has anybody heard of an OS called "PC-MOS"?
I'm supposed to pick up a system on Saturday that runs that OS and was
wondering what the heck it is.
Thanks,
Steve Robertson <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
In a message dated 5/24/00 10:05:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard(a)idcomm.com writes:
> I've never encountered that version 6.3. I've got a few sets of install
> disketted for DOS 6.21, which was made up for DELL, specifically without
the
> compression support in it or among its utilities. I, havning spent much
> time testing the more popular compression schemes, am an avid user of
> compression. I've found it to be no more problem-prone than plain-vanilla
> DOS, yet the maintenance tools (scandisk) seem to work better on compressed
> volumes than on uncompressed. Compression does seem to enhance disk
> subsystem preformance. If you have a solid backup regimen, you should
never
> have to worry about data loss just because you use compression. I found
> that DRVSPACE yielded about a 15% performance increase and had no added
risk
> of system failure. I also found that the risk of data loss was actually
> lower (based on my substantial but still relatively small data sample)
than
> that with uncompressed data, probably due to the more effective error
> management tools.
>
I use pcdos 6.3 and 7.0. much better than msdos i think, and i prefer the
editor. how in the world can one realise 15% performance increase running
disk compression? logic would indicate a degradation since you are running an
extra task to compress the hard drive not to mention less memory space in the
UMBs to load the compression driver high. i do not use any sort of disk
compression and never recommend it to anyone. i supported end users, and
there were too many times when users compressed their hard drives, and ended
up hosing them. only option to them was fdisk and reinstall. K.I.S.S.
DB Young ICQ: 29427634
hurry, hurry, step right up! see the computers you used as a kid!
http://members.aol.com/suprdave/classiccmp/museum.htm
Mult-user clone of MS/PC-DOS, was from a company called TSL (The Software
Link).
hth,
-dq
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Robertson [mailto:steverob@hotoffice.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:13 PM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Question about PC-MOS
Has anybody heard of an OS called "PC-MOS"?
I'm supposed to pick up a system on Saturday that runs that OS and was
wondering what the heck it is.
Thanks,
Steve Robertson <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
-
> I was talking about Intel's 5 volt '08. They may have been
>called 2758 or 2508, I don't recall. As far as I know,
>Intel never specifically made a 5 volt 1Kx8 EPROM die, only
>the 2Kx8. TI was first out with a single rail '08 and was
Yes they did. early 2758 was half good 2716. Later it was
small die 1k as there was market demand.
>doing in the 2708 sales from Intel. That is when Intel started
>relabling the half bad 2716's( Yes, I know that the pinout are
the 2708 was a different pinout from the 2716.
>to do with what we were talking about? ). Early on these half
>bad parts were cheaper than 2716's but later in their life,
>they were list as being more expensive.
EBayism struck, later they were nearly out of production and Rare.
But the products that needed them lived on. hance the high price
near end of life.
Allison
>Dwight
>\
>> Yes, but ... the 5-volt parts were costing on the order of $100 per
piece.
>> I bought a bunch for a project and still remember the "sticker-shock,"
>> though it wasn't any better a year later when I had to buy 2732's. In
the
>> latter case, I sold them for $25 each to a west-coast surplus vendor who
>> turned around and sold them for $80 each.
I paid $11 each for a handful of 2508s in late 1976. A year later 2716s
were 12$. 2732s were much later and more costly, in 1979(late) I paid
a whopping 15$ each.
> I find it interesting that after the 2716's were out for a while,
>and the price had dropped to someplace in the $5-$10 range someplace,
The halfgood part 2758 was used on the IMSAI IMP-48 in 1977!
>the intel 2508's were still in the high $30's. This always
>amused me because there was no difference at all between the
>Intel 2716 and the 2508 other than the 2508 was a half bad
>2716. I call that real good sales to take bad parts and get
BZZT! 2708 was three voltage and the 2716 was 5V huge
difference in pin out too.
The problem was many vendors were gouging for them and STILL!
Allison
