finally got a bootable disk, and my $10 wonder does work, and rather
well at that. Now all I need are a 5.25" disk and a 3.5" disk drive
that will work with it, and I'll be happy as a worm in a . . . well, er,
Apple.
Still reading about old VW's and old Ford tractors here on the list,
rather than stuff more apropos to the subject. 'Nuff said about both
items, now let's get back to 8 bit machines and VAXen.
Gary Hildebrand
bummer, none of them are the right bit for N64 :( it looks kinda like an
inverst Torx, I was told it's a "television" bit?!?!
At 10:16 PM 1/22/02 -0500, you wrote:
>If anyone wants to see what the Radio Shack set of security bits looks
>like, I put a scan of them at
>
>http://orchard.washtenaw.cc.mi.us/~paul/SECBITS.JPG
>
>Paul R. Santa-Maria
>Monroe, Michigan USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ethan Dicks [mailto:erd_6502@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 22 January 2002 17:18
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> Subject: RE: VAXstation newbie
>
> I have VMS 5.0 on RX50 diskettes. We had a MicroVAX-I that we bought
> new at work ($10,000) and another that we bought shortly
> thereafter and
> upgraded to a MicroVAX-II ($17,000 for hardware and VMS
> license upgrade).
> We continued to receive MicroVMS and VMS distributions on floppy until
> some point after 5.0, when DEC switched us to TK50 (good
> thing, too... the
> RX50 distro is a wad of disks).
Gods; I thought installing/upgrading from TK50 was bad enough, but floppies?
Eek. I remember the first time I watched an install from CD though - wow! :)
That must've been around 5.4 or 5.5.....
a
On January 23, Eric Dittman wrote:
> > > This sucks!!! Something you might want to consider is using OpenBSD for
> > > your server. I've been using Linux for over 10 years now, and while I think
> > > it's a pretty good desktop OS, and OK as a server, if I want a stable secure
> > > server I'll use OpenBSD! Of course OpenBSD sucks in that it doesn't support
> > > multiprocessor systems!
> >
> > That's why you go with NetBSD.
>
> I seem to remember the difference between NetBSD and FreeBSD
> was NetBSD's goal was to run on anything, while FreeBSD's goal
> was to run on x86 systems. Has that changed?
Sorta. The FreeBSD evangelists started trying to port to other
architectures some time ago. Sun funded their UltraSPARC port if
memory serves, because some suit at Sun had heard of FreeBSD but not
NetBSD...and NetBSD would have been a MUCH better choice because it
was already 64-bit clean, already had lots of relevant device support,
the team had relevant architectural experience, etc etc etc...Later,
the FreeBSD folks ported their stuff to Alpha. The last time I played
with it, about 1.5yrs ago, it was slow and very unstable.
I've always drawn the lines like this: NetBSD does things portably,
and runs on buttloads of different processor architectures. FreeBSD
specializes in PeeCee hardware, and all their effort is [was] focused
there, so it's more featureful and has more device support on x86.
So the lines are blurring, and for primarily political reasons.
We don't even want to TALK about OpenBSD. The whole reason for the
very existance of that OS was a petty argument between a bunch of
egotists in the NetBSD core group, and OpenBSD was started out of
childish spite. Reminds me of clark.net. Pardon me whilst I throw
up.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
On January 22, Doc wrote:
> > > > Is it just me, or is there something not-so-subtly ironic and
> > > > gratifying about a 450mHz desktop with a working 5.25 floppy drive
> > >
> > > I think it's amazing that a 0.45Hz system doesn't have data overrun
> > > problems when reading from a floppy controller :-)
> >
> > He shoots, he scores!
>
> Umm, so, how long do I get to take flak for a typo?
Until we get bored with it. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
On January 22, Tony Duell wrote:
> > Is it just me, or is there something not-so-subtly ironic and
> > gratifying about a 450mHz desktop with a working 5.25 floppy drive
>
> I think it's amazing that a 0.45Hz system doesn't have data overrun
> problems when reading from a floppy controller :-)
He shoots, he scores!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
> containers. I half expected to find some ex-colleagues preserved in
> aspic. "Oh, John? No, he never _really_ left. No one ever does".
Aspic isn't a preservative, it's a sauce...
Haven't you ever had Lark's Tongues in Aspic?
;)
-dq
Once again, Wizard wrote:
>Soothe...
Sure, Bevis...
>I was trying to see your thoughts on PPros,
>keep in mind that PII and PIII are based on P6 which is PPro's
>original design.
Not the original design, the implimented design. Do pay attention: the PII
was in most respects a reduced cost implimentation of the PPro with updated
fab technology.
> Also PPro boards relied on 72pin simms which is not
> that great of a bandwith and capacity,
Wrong...both of my PPro machines (Intel PR440 motherboards) use ECC EDO
DIMMs. The IBM, Digital, HP and many other PPros used DIMMs as well.
Also...once you understand computer architecture fundamentals a bit better,
you'll figure out that modern processors are generally not tied to a
particular memory subsytem. You can do all sorts of things to trade off
between cost and speed.
For example, my DEC Alpha PC64 uses 4 standard 72-pin ECC SIMMs for a
128-bit wide (+ECC) memory bus, which is in practice quite fast.
And as far as capacity, 128MB 72-pin SIMMs are pretty common. Not bad
capacity considering their obsolescence.
> SDRAM has best density and
> good bandwith, also still good cost even cost has recently risen.
You actually want to compare performance and density of memory technologies
that are years appart. Clearly, the DC-3 was the crappiest airplane of all
time, because the 767 is so much better.
> That the reason for later machines w/ PII/PIII, Xeon and it's
> relatives P4 northwoods /w DDR (not the 1st generation P4), athlons.
> still stands
Ummm...random buzzword generator? Not even remotely intellegable.
Or is it that you think it's remotely relevant to compare the PPro to chips
which are 2 or 3 generations newer?
D00d! The 386 b10wz compared to my P4. Duh.
> Most of my scorn lies w/
> PPro's chipsets more than CPU themselves. Same w/ celeron. It is
> okay but...
First...what's wrong with the 440FX? Or the 450GX? Or the 450KX? Or the
440LX (also, BTW, used for your vaunted PII)? Or the Micron, Via & SiS PPro
chipsets for the PPro? And the last time I checked, most motherboards
supported PII, PIII & Celeron. So what exactly is wrong with the BX, etc.
that is specific to the Celeron such that it earns your "scorn" <snicker>?
Details, that is...not nonsense like we've gotten till now.
ObBigGiantClue: you can't ding a chipset for not supporting technology that
didn't even exist when the chipset came out (like AGP or SDRAM).
Second...make up your mind. Is it the processor you criticize (with no
detail, of course, in all previous postings) or the chipset. You do realize
they are different animals, right?
Hi all,
Im looking for DC-100 cartridge tapes to use with my Tek 4041 GPIB
controller. I think HP also used to use them a lot? Dont care about the tape
length, just the mechanical size.
Anyone (preferably in Australia) have a small number surplus to requirements?
Cheers.
--
Mike McCauley mikem(a)open.com.au
Open System Consultants Pty. Ltd Unix, Perl, Motif, C++, WWW
24 Bateman St Hampton, VIC 3188 Australia http://www.open.com.au
Phone +61 3 9598-0985 Fax +61 3 9598-0955
Radiator: the most portable, flexible and configurable RADIUS server
anywhere. SQL, proxy, DBM, files, LDAP, NIS+, password, NT, Emerald,
Platypus, Freeside, TACACS+, PAM, external, Active Directory etc etc
on Unix, Win95/8, 2000, NT, MacOS 9, MacOS X