In a message dated 11/25/2002 7:04:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rschaefe(a)gcfn.org writes:
<< The thrift store finally marked it down to something reasonable (%50 off
of
$1.99-- took 'em six or eight weeks to get here from $45.00. Bah!), so I
picked up an OS/2 3.5" upgrade. I was pretty excited to get it, I've
always wanted to try OS/2, but it won't install. Looks like the media's
crapped out, it looks cloudy in places, like something's growing on it. :
( I don't suppose anyone knows if IBM has a replacement program? I'd
really like to run it on my P70. Assuming I can find a set of SIMMS for it-
- the previous owner must've thought they were made of gold the way he
ripped up the sockets getting 'em out. :( >>
yes, there's a replacement program..within 90 days of purchase, and it was
dated too. If you can find an OS/2 2.1 CD that would be a better bet as you
can make the disks.
--
Antique Computer Virtual Museum
www.nothingtodo.org
While going through the warehouse today a came across a 59 page document
titled OSI Challenger SYSTEM PROSPECTUS. It sold for $1 and looks like it
was printed before May of 1977. It has allot of technical information in it.
At a local thrift picked up a Commodore Minuteman MM3S calculator with
square root key for 99 cents. Good shape (looks) but not tested yet.
At another place got a Monteverdi TV Sports 825 model E825A with one
controller for it. They had two controllers there for $2.99 each but one
was broken into pieces, so I left it. Also there was no power supply or
instructions with it.
Also at the warehouse I picked up a TI2500 in the box that I had there and a
Laser 50 PC that was billed as a educational computer and had 6 modes you
could work in. It's missing the battery cover on the back.
>I've since pulled all the boards, installed a M7625-AA (KA655) and
M7621
>(MS650) 8MB memory card by themselves, and got a chevron prompt. I also
got a memory error and a
>message stating normal startup is not possible. 'show memory' showed
0MB of ram installed. I tried >another 8MB board with the same results.
I also tried 3 different 16MB boards, but the LED display >showed 'F',
and of course, I didn't get a chevron prompt.
You know that the over-the-top connector used on the KA630 and
the KA65x are different? I don't know exactly what failure
you see if you use the KA630 OTP with the KA65x - but you may just
have found out!
It seems odd that a PSU could cause this problem and I'd be surprised
if *all* your memory boards are faulty (I've never found a dead one
even after they'd spent quite a while floating round the lab).
Antonio
The thrift store finally marked it down to something reasonable (%50 off of
$1.99-- took 'em six or eight weeks to get here from $45.00. Bah!), so I
picked up an OS/2 3.5" upgrade. I was pretty excited to get it, I've
always wanted to try OS/2, but it won't install. Looks like the media's
crapped out, it looks cloudy in places, like something's growing on it. :
( I don't suppose anyone knows if IBM has a replacement program? I'd
really like to run it on my P70. Assuming I can find a set of SIMMS for it-
- the previous owner must've thought they were made of gold the way he
ripped up the sockets getting 'em out. :(
Bob
In a message dated 11/25/2002 4:54:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jrkeys(a)concentric.net writes:
<< Also at the warehouse I picked up a TI2500 in the box that I had there and
a
Laser 50 PC that was billed as a educational computer and had 6 modes you
could work in. It's missing the battery cover on the back.
>>
I got one of those with carrying case and everything. Looks like a tandy 100
type computer.
--
Antique Computer Virtual Museum
www.nothingtodo.org
> Ops, I meant to say that I am looking for a vt420 print set, not vt440 (if
> that even exists).
>
> --tnx
> --tom
As far as I know, there isn't such a beast as a VT440 (to bad, it would
probably have been a very nice terminal).
As for finding any kind of a print set, good luck, the VT420's are new
enough that DEC didn't seem to release much in the way of doc's.
Zane
Did any Tektronix equipment use tapes that are compatible with HP DC100
tapes? I found a couple of unused tapes that have a Tektronix label but no
part number that I can see. They look pretty much the same as an HP DC100
tape. I suppose I could just try them in an HP 2645A I picked up after I
clean up the tape units, but it would be nice to know whether or not they
really should work first.
Also, anyone use HP 9144 tape drives, or have one they are not using? I
found a couple of unused tapes for those units.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Going through my storage locker I ran across the card cage with cards and
some connecting cables from a Z8000 system.
I am interested in selling this. So I am offering it to the list first before
it goes to ePay.
If anyone is interested please contact me for information or offers at
innfosale(a)aol.com
About 10 cards in the cardcage with backplane. I can't get to it to identify
them at the moment. Zilog 1982 copyright on the backplane.
The original looked a lot like the 8000 system 31 in Australia about 8 years
ago. This was salvaged from my scrapper partner at the time and has been in
storage since.
It is now in Astoria, Oregon 97103, USA. I can quote shipping prices.
Paxton
I did a lot of productive work on an Osborne I, with a 52-character wide
display, but it was a bit of a PITA. Personally, I like a display that can
show 60 characters, as that corresponds to a typewritten line with the
margins I use. On an 80-column display, I get too much wasted space on the
right. 64-columns is a good width, and is what I use on my HP 200LX palmtop
(which can display 80x25, 64x18 and 40x16).
OTOH, the 104-character wide mode on the Osborne (with an external monitor,
of course) was useful for SuperCalc spreadsheets.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Barr [mailto:stanb@dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:25 AM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: 8 bit vs other Computers.
Hi,
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) said;
> >
> > Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
> >
> >
> > For a real word processing you need 80x24 upper/lower case display,
>
> I also disagree with the display size issue. I did a lot of word
> processing on my TRS-80 model 1 (with lowercase mod)> It has a 64*16
> display.
Me too. And my Tatung Einstein with 80 column display card and running
ZCPR3 qualified on all counts.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
>From: "Sellam Ismail" <foo(a)siconic.com>
>
>On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, ben franchuk wrote:
>
>> I did not say General purpose computing can't be done, just that it is a
>> very small amount of memory for most user programs. It is really hard
>> work to have a useful programs written on the small 8 bit machines, and
>> fit in 32k or 48k of memory incuding the OS.
>
>I find it rather odd that such a comment would be made in the face of tens
>of thousands of applications software and games that were developed on
>dozens of 8-bit computer platforms having anywhere from 4K to 64K of main
>RAM where the operating system and application shared that memory space.
>
>?
>
---snip---
Hi
The only thing I miss on a 8 bit machine is the lack
of space for large data sets. I've never ran out of code
space in my 15 year ( when I was doing embedded stuff ).
Then I could never understand what happened to all the
space that most of today's compilers use. I've always used
a combination of assembly and Forth for embedded stuff.
I had to work with a few applications written by others
that were in C and found it very difficult to stay
within RAM limits for even simple applications. When I first
saw languages like SmalTalk, looking at the description, I
thought that finally someone was doing something right.
They talked about the efficiency of reuse and such ( concepts
that are natural to Forth ). Then I tried it and found that
it was more bloated than the C programs I was dealing with.
The other thing that bothers me is that today we have
computers that can run several thousands of times faster
than an 8080 IMSAI. Still, it takes 5 to 10 minutes to
boot that machine. My IMSAI boots faster than I can reach
>from the reset button to the keyboard. I'm told that is
is because the machine has to figure out what the I/O
looks like on each boot ( of course, MS rejected OpenBoot
for PCI boards that could have improved the boot time ).
I find that applications written for these new and more
powerful computers that have been doubling in capabilities
every year are becoming garbaged up at a rate that is
faster than the computer get better.
I doubt there is anyone that works for MS that even knows
if 50% of the software that they release is even being
usefully run under any condition ( maybe even 80% ).
I believe that there complexity will eventually bring
them to the point that even hiring the entire graduating
class of computer science students will not fix.
Just my ramblings
Dwight
