on 19-Sep-01 10:41:29, Willi Kusche wrote:
>Hi!
>On 19-Sep-01, Ethan Dicks wrote:
>>I _think_ the Amiga 3000/16 had a 16Mhz 68881 and the A3000/25
>>had a 25Mhz 68882, but I could easily be mistaken.
> I'm composing this message on an Amiga 3000 that had its motherboard
>upgraded from 16 Mhz to 25 Mhz. Ever since the upgrade I occasionally get a
>video crash that makes the screen unreadable. But, the system keeps running
>OK. For example, if that video crash were to occur while I'm typing this
>message, I've learned that hitting right-Amiga and 'S' will save the message
>so I can finish the message after re-booting the A3000.
Sounds like the two PAL ic on the left side, under any zorro cards you may have
installed, they have a nasty habit of running hot, and makingen the screen
unreadable.
I changes mine and at the sametime removede the batteri for the RTC as it
was leaking.
Regards Jacob Dahl Pind
--
CBM, Amiga,Vintage hardware collector
Email: Rachael_(a)gmx.net
url: http://rachael.dyndns.org
Heller to everyone and Tony. ;-)
What do you do about a squealing CRT? I've got this nice terminal which is
working, but it emits a high-pitched whine which is not only unpleasant and
annoying, but quite scary, too. It feels as thoughit's going to blow in your
face any minute.
The terminal in question is a green-screen TECO VA120.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Ky?suke: Jag heter Kurre, Kurre Carlsson!
Jag: Det heter du inte alls!
Hi again folks,
My US 8032 turned up today (yay!). Since I can't modify the transformer
(unfortunately - it looks like the US one doesn't have dual primary taps
like the UK one), I've swapped it out with the 240vac transformer from my
other (still broken) 8032.
This machine has a wobbly screen, just like the 8032-SK (which was broken,
but I installed the working motherboard), the other 8032 (which was
working, until I swapped the broken m/b), and the 3016. In fact, the only
PET I've got which *doesn't* have a wobbly screen is the 2001. Well, it
does wobble, but only a tiny bit.
ISTR a discussion (mostly with Tony) about dried electrolytics maybe
causing the problem. However, I spoke to the chap in the US who said that
when the 8032 left America it had a rock-steady screen... Since I left the
big cap in place, it can only be the transformer which is causing the
wobble - can't it?
I genuinely don't know. That's the only part I've swapped in the new 8032.
Could a flakey transformer be making the screen wobble? How do transformers
go flakey anyway, if indeed they *can* co flakey? Or is the US chap telling
porkies?
Thanks, again, in advance.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.co.uk
> I am still looking for the Digital Alpha 233 MHz 21066A CPU. I am
> interested
> in buying it or swapping it for the following Alpha hardware:
>
> 1x Digital Alpha 233 MHz 21064BB CPU
> 1x Digital Alpha 266 MHz 21164AA CPU
Both of these are faster than the 21066A CPU. Perhaps you should look
for a motherboard for either of these processors instead of the 21066A
CPU.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Ethusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> > The ULA does a lot more than handle the display ;>)
>
> CPU clock generation (which would be useful). Address decoding (which I'd
> want to modify if I was changing the amount of RAM).
Very interesting -- how much RAM are you talking about adding that you have
to modify the address decoding?
> > Of course not ;>) But a ZX81 kit is still faster than starting from
> > scratch.
>
> Is it? It's not going to take long to wire-wrap a clock circuit and
> address decoder, and stick in the Z80. It depends _very much_ on how much
> of the ZX81 you want to use...
Which in turn depends on what the intended use of the finished device is.
Since I want a "general purpose" computer the ROM BASIC functions are very
convenient, and fast if called directly. Other applications of the Z80
would not need this code so a quickie Z80 board would be fine.
> > Try desoldering the RF modulator from a ZX81 board ;>)
>
> Well, I had never tried to do it before, so I grabbed a ZX81,
What, do you have a pile of these?
> unscrewed
> the case and attacked it with soldering iron and sucker.
>
> What's the catch?
In the US versions which have 3 thin wires, they sometimes become brittle
and break.
Tony (and others), a question: in your opinion, which microprocessor was
the most well-designed (even if not implemented)?
Glen
0/0
On another list someone mentioned that a PDP11 ran at about the same
speed as a 486-66.
I don't have a 486-66 but do have a PDP11/34 in the garage so I
suggested that if a 486-66 could be found we could have a race.
I tested the capacitors on the weekend and they were OK, still need
to test the RL01 drives and get them hooked up.
>From the cables in the cabinet and the terminator on one of the drives
I'm guessing that they are daisy chained.
A few questions remain.
What would be the best way to test the Power supply it is currently
off the chassis, does it need to be connected for testing?
Any suggestions for a fair race?
Recent additions: Unisys PW2 (Unisys ICON NETWORK), Microcom (apple
clone), SHARP PC4500
Collector of Vintage Computers (www.ncf.ca/~ba600)
Hello,
I have been offered a rather large collection of machines, including an
IBM PC with the original monitor, and an IBM 4965 with an 8" floppy drive.
The 4965 is mounted in a large white rack, with a power supply mounted at
the bottom, and the cover has been removed from the power supply, Anyone
know anything about these machines? It looks as though all the original
disks and documentation is there, but I am wondering whether its worth my
time to clean this up.
Zach
I remember a couple of months ago there was discussion on
the proper cable for a BA440 power supply (normal North
American three prong power cord but with a notch where it
plugs in to the power supply). Was there a consensus on
the designation (and any place in the US that sell them)?
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Our DECstation 3100 has been in a sad state recently. Both the monitor (that
old monochrome thing without a stand which was used with the VS2000 amongst
others) and the keyboard (LK201) had given up the gist (the monitor would just
make a flickery sound, without the CRT coming alive, the keyboard didn't blink
and the console would blink "??" when it reached test 3).
I plugged in a Nokia monitor, which worked, if you can live with the green
picture, and another LK201. That worked for a while, but when I managed to
boot it (NFS wasn't so cooperative this day), and reached X, the mouse just
stopped moving after a while. I rebooted it, and suddenly this keyboard had
died as well.
What the hell is going on? Is it possible to save the LK201s? We're running
short of DEC keyboards as it is, and we certainly don't need this.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five
steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same
principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful
feature, that.
- Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
Track the clock through the logic... there is a divide by 2 in there.
Also the 9080 250ns part was late in the game and hard to find.
If you want an 8080 that was really fast use a 8085-5 (5mhz)
or the later 80c85-6(6mhz). the latter was a nice part as it
was CMOS.
I still have a potload of 8080s and 8085s and my design favorite
for small systems is the 8085 over the Z80.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>Well, Allison, it appears you're right. The AMD 9080 was the one with
the 250ns
>clock (4 MHz) period, now that I've looked a couple of references.
Thanks for
>clearing that up.
>
>However, that doesn't explain what's going on in my iSBC8020-4's. I'll
have to
>figure that one out.
>
>Dick
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ajp166" <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net>
>To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
>Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:12 PM
>Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>
>
>> no, it was 2mhz.
>>
>> using 8224 the usual crystal was 18.435 (2.0483333*9).
>> there was a -1. -2 and -3 version of the part but the fastest was
3mhz.
>>
>> I used to sell upD8080AF for NEC and I had to know my competition.
>>
>> Allison
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
>> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
>> Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 6:23 PM
>> Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>>
>>
>> >BTW, the 8080 was a 2.5 MHz part, wasn't it? I've got a couple Intel
>> app-notes
>> >where they generate a baud-rate clock from 24.576 MHz and generate
the
>> CPU clock
>> >from that, at 2.4576 MHz for the CPU. That's on an i8080-2.
>> >
>> >Dick
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "ajp166" <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net>
>> >To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
>> >Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 2:31 PM
>> >Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>> >
>> >
>> >> Wrong!
>> >>
>> >> The I8080A is AS fast as the i8080. the i8080A-1 is faster but not
>> twice
>> >> as the fastest 8080[A] was only 3mhz and hte standard part was
2mhz.
>> >>
>> >> Allison
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: John Galt <gmphillips(a)earthlink.net>
>> >> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
>> >> Date: Sunday, September 30, 2001 3:57 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >"The i8080A is essentially twice as fast as the
>> >> > standard i8080 and COULD be used more easily with low-power logic
>> since
>> >> its
>> >> >demands aren't as stringent".
>> >> >
>> >> >Ok, that's a good start.
>> >> >
>> >> >But, I don't think "low power" TTL (transistor transistor logic)
had
>> >> >anything to do with the complexity of the code being executed on
the
>> >> chip.
>> >> >True? I had assumed
>> >> >that the references to the 8080 only being compatible
>> >> >with "low-power TTL" and the 8080A being compatible
>> >> >with "standard TTL" had something to do with the support chips
(Ram,
>> >> clock,
>> >> >etc) that could be used with the 8080 vs. the 8080A.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since I'm new to this mail list, let me explain why I would
>> >> >show up here and ask such a question to begin with.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm a chip collector. I am trying to document the differences
>> between
>> >> the
>> >> >different early Intel microprocessors. Not worried about massive
>> >> detail,
>> >> >just the major differences (PMOS, vs. NMOS, vs.
>> >> >HMOS, clock speed, transistor count, etc).
>> >> >
>> >> >The only microprocessor that I don't have a good handle
>> >> >on is the 8080 and the difference between the 8080 and 8080A.
>> >> >
>> >> >I also know that the 8080 was introduced sometime
>> >> >around April 1974. I have not been able to find an
>> >> >introduction date for the 8080A. Was it introduced at
>> >> >the same time? Does anyone know?
>> >> >
>> >> >I also need an Intel C8080 or C8080-8 for my
>> >> >collection. If you have one, I want it. I have been looking
>> >> >for one for months and have not been able to find one.
>> >> >If you have either of these chips in good condition
>> >> >(no desoldered parts wanted), I'm offering 400.00
>> >> >for the C8080-8 and 500.00 for a C8080.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you need a replacement for the C8080 or C8080-8 you sell me,
I'll
>> >> GIVE
>> >> >you a D8080A free as part of the
>> >> >deal.
>> >> >
>> >> >----- Original Message -----
>> >> >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com>
>> >> >To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
>> >> >Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 1:21 PM
>> >> >Subject: Re: 8080 vs. 8080A
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> This makes no sense at all, though it may be because I'm
>> >> misinterpreting
>> >> >the way
>> >> >> in which you've put it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have Intel boards that come in versions with the i8080 and
also,
>> >> >> optionally,with the i8080A, and, aside from the clock frequency
and
>> >> memory
>> >> >> access times, they're identical. The i8080A is essentially
twice
>> as
>> >> fast
>> >> >as the
>> >> >> standard i8080 and COULD be used more easily with low-power
logic
>> >> since
>> >> >its
>> >> >> demands aren't as stringent.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The i8080A will, AFAIK, replace the i8080 in all applications
>> without
>> >> ill
>> >> >> effects.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BTW, please turn off "rich-text" mode in your email editor when
you
>> >> >compose
>> >> >> messages for this group, as some folks' mail readers can't
>> interpret
>> >> the
>> >> >> rich-text/HTML format.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dick
>> >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> From: John Galt
>> >> >> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
>> >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:17 AM
>> >> >> Subject: 8080 vs. 8080A
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can anyone here describe the technical differences between
>> >> >> an Intel 8080 and Intel 8080A CPU?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The ONLY ref. I have been able to find seems to indicate that
there
>> >> was a
>> >> >bug in
>> >> >> the 8080 and as a result it would only work with low power TTL?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The problem was fixed in the 8080A and it would work with
standard
>> >> TTL?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does this make sense to anyone?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could anyone put this into laymans terms for me?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> George Phillips - gmphillips(a)earthlink.net
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
