>Would anybody have the dip switch and jumper settings for a M8190-AE,
>that's a KDJ11-B from a 73 or 83. My 11 was upgraded from a 53.
All I know is the console baud rate settings on the one dip switch
at the front of the 11/83 cpu board.
Switches 6-8 control the baud rate selected. All off lets the remote
panel select work.
6 7 8
- - - 300 baud / remote switch select
1 1 1 38.4K "
1 1 - 19.2K "
1 - 1 9600 "
1 - - 4800 "
- 1 1 2400 "
- 1 - 1200 "
- - 1 600 "
where "1" is down/on and "-" is up/off.
--
Kees Stravers - Geldrop, The Netherlands - kees.stravers(a)iae.nl
http://www.iae.nl/users/pb0aia/ My home page (old computers,music,photography)
http://www.vaxarchive.org/ Info on old DEC VAX computers
(Mirrors: http://vaxarchive.khubla.com/ and http://vaxarchive.sevensages.org/)
> Date: 21 Apr 2001 3:1:14 +0100
> From: "Iggy Drougge" <optimus(a)canit.se>
> Subject: Odd old Xerox equipment
>
> computer equipment. Today, I happened to notice a very sexy
> Xerox machine. It was a black, rather fat tower with a very
> black front with relief stripes. On top of it sat an equally
> black diskdrive, its front as black the computer. I
> think it would fold down to reveal the actual slot. The back
> featured a number
> of very large blanking plates for graphics (I think a D15) and AUI.
> What kind of system was it, when was it released, what OS did
> it run? Can I marry it?
What a find!! Snap it up right now! Sounds like an 1186 to me,
since the company is an AI company. In their attempt to remarket
the Star Xerox redesigned the 8010 hardware and came up with the
"Dove", which was marketed as the 6085 "Documenter" or the 1186
"Artificial Intelligence Workstation". I think the only difference
in the hardware was the 1186's processor board had a floating-point
unit - other than that they were identical machines differing only
in the microcode and software. The 6085 ran the "ViewPoint" system,
originally know as "Star" and later renamed "GlobalView" :-) You
don't have any access to the guts of the machine from ViewPoint,
it's a closed system that's specifically designed to write documents,
send email, all that boring "office" stuff - there was no development
environment that you could access via ViewPoint, so it's not that
much fun to play about with. When you've done one document you've
done them all :-) The development environment was usually installed
in a seperate volume on the machine, and went by the name of "Tajo"
or "XDE" - this was another window-based environment with all the
good stuff like a Mesa compiler, debugger, file browser etc (guess
which environment I used the most!). If you knew the magic runes you
could set up the debugger/development volume to "debug" the VP volume
and be able to swap between the two, but it could be a bit of a pain
because a clean VP boot would take around 15 minutes :-/
Xerox attempted to market VP standalone after it was clear they'd
missed the boat as far as mass adoption of Star (another 914 it
certainly wasn't) - they had a version running on Suns, my memory's
a bit hazy now, I think the project was called "Salient" and involved
the use of the "Portable Common Runtime" - basically a Mesa virtual
machine(?). They also had a version for Windows - I think it originally
ran on a separate Mesa processor card and then later they implemented
a complete software Mesa VM to run VP/GV on. Unfortunately they still
didn't get many sales, and the rest is (literally) history. Star RIP.
[Incidentally I still use it on my laptop, Star still gives Word & co
a good run for their money! There's at least one corner of England
that is "forever Xerox" :-)]
The 1186 was much more straightforward - the processor was microcoded
for InterLISP-D, which took up the whole machine. Ran like a dog, but
was very nice to play around in (assuming you could handle all the
brackets) because of the GUI. Personally I liked Mesa way better.
A bit of Xerox folklore for you :-) Aparrently the 6085/1186 case was
designed to look like the Xerox Tower in Rochester, NY... can't see
much resemblence myself, other than it's tall and thin(ish). What do I
know though, I'm just a dumb programmer not an "artist" :-)
Cheers
Al.
PS always on the lookout for old Xerox stuff myself - unfortunately
I'm stuck in Bath (UK) and they're are hard to come by as Bill Gates
fans on this list :-)
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, you wrote:
> I just noticed a story about you and your hobby in the new Archaeology
> magazine. You're becoming more famous everyday.
Yes, I look forward to reading it myself :) This was written by Christine
Finn who has also written a book on the Silicon Valley from an
archaeologist's perspective. She spoke at VCF 4.0 and will probably be at
VCF 5.0 doing a book signing if it releases on time.
The book is a really great read and focuses on the Silicon Valley beyond
just talking about it's amazing high tech culture. Look for it this fall,
called Artefacts: The Material Culture of the Silicon Valley.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
This was on the Mac Evangelist. Anyone qualifies, respond to original
post, not me.
larry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [FYI] Macs to Donate
From: "Steve Chambers" <schambers(a)sarnoff.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 03:09:06 +1000
Folks,
A while back I had posted a message here about some Macs that my
company (Sarnoff Corp.) can donate to any registered non-profit
organization. The person who was responsible for arranging for the
physical transfer never followed up with the contacts I provided him.
That person isn't with the company any more and I can now proceed
with this donation. So if there are interested parties out there:
1. you MUST be in the local area (Princeton NJ) because you are picking
this stuff up yourself
2. you MUST be a registered non-profit organization and be able to
provide proof of that to me
3. You need to arrange pickup of the equipment ASAP. Preference will
be given to people who can pick up the equipment the week of April
23-27.
You will need a 12-foot u-haul (or equiv, perhaps larger) for all the
equipment we have. We will bring it to our loading dock but it is up
to you to get it in the truck. Below is a partial list of equipment
to donate:
a number of working and non working 6100/7100/8100/7500/8500 Macs. A
few older ones as well. A number of PowerBooks in the 100 series.
Several monitors of the 17" and 21" variety, all working as well as a
couple of smaller ones. Note that there are not as many monitors as
Macs by half.
3-4 Laserwriter-II printers all (presumably) in working order. A
boatload of cables, keyboards, mice, transceivers, phonenet
connectors, batteries, PowerBook ac adapters and the like to go with
the aforementioned computers. *PLUS* A _Large_ inventory of Apple
Service Parts to repair printers, desktop Macs and PowerBooks.
All working Macs have an OS on them but nothing else. The OS is the
one that was on it when it was last used and all that was done was
our software and settings were removed, so the OS on these Macs is
probably not complete, but is sufficient to boot the Mac.
There is a *LOT* of stuff here folks. There also is the possibility
that some more CPUs and monitors will come available at a later date.
Please respond via email only (no calls please) with some info on
your organization and how soon you can take this off our hands.
On a personal note, I recently experienced a hard drive crash and
have lost the email addresses of the people who have responded to the
previous requests. So if you have contacted me before about this do
so again as I don't have the contact info any more!
cheers!
Steve
--
Steve Chambers, Systems Analyst
Apple Certified Macintosh Technician
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE)
Microsoft Certified Professional + Internet (MCP+I)
Sarnoff Corporation
Reply to:
lgwalker(a)look.ca
" We still have Sparc Station 2, HP730's and Decstation
5000/'s colour and mono X-terms.
The sale is over and the room is closed but if you're
serious, make us an
offer and we can arrange to meet. "
I just received this in an email. I hate having to make a
first offer on machines that I'm not real familiar with.
They Came form a University Physics department.
What would be a fair price for these machines?
What should I look for?
Which one is the most interesting?
Hi,
I have a Solaris 2.6 Ultra-10 at work and I want to prevent users from logging into my machine. I dont want
to run in single-user mode. Is there a way to disable rlogin or telnet over to my machine?
Ram
On April 22, jpero(a)sympatico.ca wrote:
> Even '030/'8881 at blistering 40Mhz, full '040-25 trounces it due to
> both built in cache w/ low losses and efficient CPU and FPU built in.
> But that IIfx was out way earlier than '040 did. Another example,
...except for the fact that the IIfx has about a half dozen other
processors in there doing all sorts of other stuff to offload that
'030. It was the first Mac, for example, that could go about its
business formatting a floppy disk and give its (then single-tasking)
OS back to the user because the format was running on a separate
processor.
-Dave McGuire
On Apr 22, 14:54, Brian Chase wrote:
> Under section 4 of the paper, it is explained that 3Mbps was used because
> of the nature of their minicomputers. Some other sources around the web
> say that the first implementation done at PARC was done in 1973. My
guess
> is that around that time, most minicomputers wouldn't be able to deal
very
> well with a firehose of data streaming in at 10Mbps.
>
> The IEEE 802.3 standard didn't come about until a number of years later.
1974-ish: Experimental Ethernet 3Mb/s
1980: DIX Ethernet 10Mb/s
1982: DIX Ethernet Version 2 10Mb/s
1983: IEEE 802.3 Ethernet 10Mb/s (10base5)
1985: IEEE 802.3a Thin Ethernet 10Mb/s (10base2)
1990: IEEE 802.3i 10baseT Ethernet
1995: IEEE 803.3u 100Mb/s Ethernet 100BaseTx, 100baseT4, 100baseFX
1998: IEEE 802.3z 1000Mb/s (Gigabit) Ethernet
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On Apr 22, 15:18, ajp166 wrote:
> From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
> >AFAIK it is not backwards-compatible, at least in the sense that no
> >10Mbps ethernet controller supports the 3Mbps data rate (at least, I've
> >never seen one that does).
>
> Neither have I. Also Eithernet AKA 802.x was never that slow. The
> 3 mb/s stuff I'd always called ARCNET.
ARCnet is different, it's a proprietary system, not at all the same as the
original 3Mb/s Ethernet, which is sometimes referred to as "Experimental
Ethernet". BTW, ARCnet is 2.5Mb/s, not 3Mb/s. Instead of CSMA/CD access
control, it uses a token-passing system, rather like Token Ring or FDDI,
although it's a bus (like thick Ethernet) not a ring. Which is why its
other name is Token Bus :-)
The original Experimental Ethernet is very similar to 802.3 in many
respects, including the topology, CSMA/CD, and several other things, but
not in details like addressing, packet framing, packet length. I think it
uses 75-ohm devices rather than 50-ohm, but I've never seen a live 3Mb/s
system, so I can't be sure. It led directly to the DIX (DEC-Intel-Xerox)
consortium's Ethernet specification, which in turn led to the 802.3
standard. If you want to read the original spec, the relevant paper is at
http://www.acm.org/classics/apr96/
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
