> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ethan Dicks <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Anyone Care About RT-11
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> In-Reply-To: <3CC7778C.D5B157B3(a)compsys.to>
>
>
> --- "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinepw4z(a)compsys.to> wrote:
> > ...I also acquired some RK05 packs with old RT-11 distributions that I
> > hope to make available as soon as I can find a controller for a Qbus
> > or someone with both a working RK05 and something more
> > recent such as an RL02. From the RL02, the final step is to
> > make copies available via a CD.
>
> I have an RKV11D, numerous Qbus boxes and processors (this one came
> attached to an 11/03, but I have lots of KDF11 stuff and one KDJ11
> that I have yet to power on (it has a BA213 handle which I haven't
> removed yet, and it does not fit into a BA11N or BA23 as-is). I
> also have RLV11s and RLV12s and RL02 drives in close enough proximity
> to be useful. I haven't fired up the RK05 in several years, so I'm not
> sure about the state of the rubber parts, etc., but it's all accessible
> and somewhat easy to reassemble. It worked the last time I used it.
>
> I presume the RK11D does, but I wasn't sure how interchangable they
> were fron a driver standpoint (Unibus and Qbus drivers can have issues
> with mapping registers being handled differently, etc. Assumptions of
> intercompatibility are unwise; we had completely different drivers for
> our Unibus and Qbus products back in the old days).
The RKV11D is really an RK11D with a different bus interface.
Sort of a built-in Qniverter.
Unfortunately the designers skimped on the extended address bits,
so the RKV11 is 16-bit address space.
I think that hardware hacks to add two address bits to make the RKV11
compatible with the RK!1 have been published, but I don't remember where.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenstein(a)ucsd.edu
>Why whould it have been left behind in my 11/750 though? Shouldn't it
>have been taken when the contract ended?
They should have collected it when
the machine came off maintenance. Someone
probably forgot. Not too uncommon
towards the end.
Antonio
One of these with the Digital label is going for ten bucks
on E-Pay, with a thirty-buck buy-it-now and a ten buck S&H.
Too high, but these are pretty obscure and getting moreso.
Anyone got a pile of them?
-dq
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doc [mailto:doc@mdrconsult.com]
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote:
> > It gets a lot of raised eyebrows at my current orkplace, but then
> Is this related to the Gollum phrasing?
Read the alt.sysadmin.recovery FAQ.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
Following an earlier thread on AIM-65, I would like to announce the
availablility at www.aconit.org/hbp/AMI-65 of source files which
assemble to the AIM-65 ROM monitor.
The sources generally follow the PDF scans also on that page execpt in a
couple of instances where source code changes were necessitated by bugs
in the assembler. Hopefully I will fix the assembler soon and the
original sources will then assemble clean.
Also included on that page is a 6502 assembler (C source and DOS
executable) slightly modified from a version picked off the net.
-- hbp
>On closer inspection, the VAX 11/750 board that I have marked "Property
> of DEC, Not For Sale" is an M0006 - a Remote Diagnosis board. What can
> you people tell me about it?
This was used by DEC to dial in to the
computer over a telephone line and
manage it as though someone were
typing at the console. It used an
unpublished protocol between the
kit at DEC's end ad the box at your
end.
Technically the box still belongs to
DEC ... or maybe COMPAQ ...
or soon HP.
The support engineer at DEC's end
could do whatever he liked to your machine,
but everyhting he did was recorded
by the support centre's systems.
Antonio
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Ethan Dicks wrote:
>
> > --- Doc <doc(a)mdrconsult.com> wrote:
>
> > > I was 35 when I found that the entire English-speaking
> > > world doesn't "put stuff up" (put stuff away).
> >
> > I don't think we "put stuff up" (except for curtains, wallpaper and
> > posters ;-), but here, we talk about cars and dishes that "need washed"
> > (as opposed to "needs wash*ing*" or "needs *to be* washed").
>
> What really drives my (Massachusetts-born) Spousal Equivalent up the
> wall is when I'm [about to, going to] "fixing to" do something.
Oh, we have a great one around here- "take and leave", as in
"take and leave your car here, and we'll fix it". It's likely
related to the usage as in "he's taken to drinking", which
around here becomes "he's took to drinkun". A drinking buddy
who was a mechanic would flame on when he'd hear that phrase.
"Fair to middlin'" is my usual response to the casual how-are-you.
It gets a lot of raised eyebrows at my current orkplace, but then
we have many transplants there, and I'm local.
-dq
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Moyers [mailto:rmoyers@nop.org]
> They don't pay those costly License fees and support contracts
> out of ignorance. todays mainframes are exteamly muscular,
> having taken advantage of the same technical advancements
Indeed. I would probably buy one regardless of the cost that the
power bill would cause me. :)
> Well, i had assumed most would know that a box that typically
> served 5000 seats or more was powerfull even as most might
> not know what it is that really sets these things apart.
That's exactly where the misunderstanding came in, I think. It's
taken as obvious, for the most part, but your statement that the
entire campus full of hardware would be emulated on a single peesee
seemed to say differently.
At any rate, it makes much more sense now.
> Channel I/O for example, translating to terms and concepts
> more familiar to those without OPER console time, imagine a
> "PC" where every orifice was pumped by its own dedicated
> DMA controller, where you can have 65535 of these devices.
> and fill em all up with no load on the CPU.
Not having much time on mainframe systems, myself, I still imagined
something like this, and you can pretty much infer it from talk of
the things.
> Remember when the mickysoft press release parroting nattering
> nabob computer press was declaring the death of the mainframe ?
They're not still doing it? That surprises me.
> and very humorous events like when the idiot press would read a
> product release about NT being ported to an FSIOP card, and run
> to print "NT Ported to the mainframe ! "
I would like to see that, actually -- the article, I mean.
VM/NT -- Heh. I wonder what the "error number" is for all of the
NT IOPs in the machine simultaneously jumbling up their RAM.
> A FSIOP card, File Server I/O Processor, is a PC on a card that
> plugs into the mainframe so that it can share mainframe DASD
> (disk) or have a faster channel for I/O to PC based middleware,
> it certainly isn't NT running on the mainframe in the manner
> the hapless readers of these sorry articles was led to believe.
I suppose such a product would be good if you need it. It could do
better than to run NT. Maybe they should "port CP/M" to the mainframe.
> As for CPU power, PC's are certainly as fast per CPU in a general
> sense as a mainframe, but without the I/O capacity could never
> hope to replace a mainframe anytime soon.
I don't know exact numbers, but honestly, the CPU in a modern peesee isn't
the weak spot at all. Generally there's some kind of bottleneck (or five)
that needs repaired in the design.
> The PC running something decent does rival the power of a
> mainframe or a supercomputer of yesterday however,
I wouldn't doubt that it might compare for certain (probably single-user)
non-io-bound applications. I'm not sure I can make that conclusion for
a supercomputer at all. When is "yesterday" in this context? :)
> utter garbage that at last time i checked w2k needed 64megs
> of ram for the installer to run ? how absurd !
Actually, I'd have expected it to need more than that.
> Compare with the size of bsd/linux/unix that will still run on
> a machine with 4megs or compare with a mainframe nucleus
> and you see that they on the other hand, have stayed small
> tight and fast. and assembler is still very mainstream
> on the mainframe where thruput of massive loads is still
> the focus.
Your comment about mainframes having "stayed small" is oddly amusing,
but perhaps it's because I got no sleep yesterday.
> mips or so emulating 360/70/90 instructions is testament
> that the lowly PC has become very muscular in its own right.
Indeed. I'm sure there are some tasks to which a peesee is well suited,
but the problem is -- aside from the common operating environment --
the baggage in the design, still hanging around from the beginning.
(probably not too well-thought-out back then ;) They probably should have
done something ground-up by now to take advantage of newer cores, bus
technology, etc.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
From: Jos Dreesen <jos.mar(a)bluewin.ch>
>Industrial prototyping, which is what you do, is NOT hobbyist
electronics.
>I still stand by my opinion that handling the modern devices is beyond
hobbyist
>means.
Ok, so you say. I just got done building two 50mhz frequency counters
using SMT parts. The board is 1.8x2.1 inches and the display is 4 digit
module with .375" 7 segment leds. The assembly includes 6 transistors
(SOT) and a 74HC4017 (SMT) plus the Amtel (20pin dip) micro and
associated chip resistors, caps and diodes. The resistors were the
large 1206 (.11x.06") parts. There were a total of 5 through hole parts
if you count the crystal and display. With a low power magnifier,
standard
weller 3/64" tip, .022 silver bearing solder, and a pair of #3 tweezers
it went
together quite fast.
The last time I built an equivelent frequency counter it was 4 74192,
2x74273,
4x7447, 4x man3a leds, 2x74390, 2x 7400 plus all the caps, resistors and
transistors and if didn't fit on a 2x2" board or only draw 60mA! At that
time
(1984) that cost me nearly 40$ in chips alone and I had to make the
board.
If anything, for those willing to adapt I'd say there are possibilities
available
now that never were. Lets face it, back in say '84 the thought of using
a
micro for a trivial task was sorta over the top, they weren't all that
cheap
or all that flexible. Now with basic stamps, PICs, amtel and the like a
really
good selection of flash rom parts at attractive prices and fast enough to
do serious tasks or cheap enough to do dumb thing like PC keyboard to
serial or parallel ascii.
One of the things going on in the ham (amateur radio) community is
packing PICs, DDS and a simple transceiver in an altoids tin
(3.5x.75x2.25").
Oh and people still build boat anchors too.
Allison
Anyone seen one of these buggers before?
It's a Yangtech Electric Co. Ltd. VIP Model PC800 desktop computer. Made in
Taiwan. Looks like a 8088 or 80286 Intel CPU, but I can't seem to find chips
with significant marks. Has one 20MB MFM HD on it, a 5.25 and a 3.5 floppy.
Durn thing doesn't boot, and I can't find docs or anything on it. Any
information is handy...likely it's not a significant find, but I'm intrigued
nonetheless.
Thanks,
Tarsi
210
