test-drb May 2002

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

246 participants
947 discussions

by dougq＠iglou.com

> They don't scratch. And no reasonable keyboard has the lettering put on in > such a way that it would rub off in a washing machine. If that were the > case, the legending would rub off in normal use. Nearly all decent keys > are two-part moulded. The best keyboards are... but some use silkscreening, and worse, all the laptops I've seen in the last few years except for perhaps the iBook abd the PowerBook (I'll check the Powerbook when I get home) use decals... and yes, they sure do rub off from normal use. Now, if lusers would wash the grease of their hands a few times each day, those decals would stay in place a little longer... -dq

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] RE: transistor counts again"

by dougq＠iglou.com

> > I find that hard to believe. The 4004 was part of a chipset containing > > the 4001 (ROM), 4002 (RAM) and 4003 (I forget exactly what, some kind of > > I/O?). The 4001 and 4002 parts were used in lots of 4004 or 4040-based > > designs. > > And according to Ted Hoff, it was quite by accident that it ended up with > part number 4004. Coincidence and all. Most companies that manufacture stuff just choose a starting number for what they anticipate might be a series of things. Then they just add one. Some of you might remeber a YES album from the 80s titled '90125'... the title wasn't known in advance, as they'd decided the title would simply be the same as the Atlantic Records serial number that would end up being assigned to that album once it was finally scheduled for manufacture. Additionally, that decision came at a time when the band wasn't called YES< but CINEMA, but that's veering way OT. Anyway, eventually, either marketing comes in with their own ideas about numbers, or the lawyers do: The Intel iAPX286 microprocessor had the part number 80286, by which it was more colloquially known. The Intel iAPX386, a chip for which I have the "confidential" pre- liminary specifications, would have had the part number 80386. But in a successful effort to wiggle out of the technology- swapping agreement they had with AMD, they decided not to produce the iAPX386. Instead, they produced the 80386, which also "coincidently" had the part number 80386. FWIW, the iAPX386 specification did not include the virtual 8086 mode that was present in the 80386. I always wonder what amazing things might have been put on that silicon instead of V8086 mode. Yes, V8086 mode is very useful for PeeCees, but of little use for modern, non-DOS-related operating systems. -dq

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] Test post and DEC Unix question

by erd_6502＠yahoo.com

--- Rick Murphy <rmurphy(a)itm-inst.com> wrote: > At 03:49 PM 5/14/02 -0700, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > >I'm trying to break into (my own) DEC Alpha running Digital Unix V3.2... > Use: > >>> b -flags 0,1 dkc0 Why the 0? I did this (Thanks, Doc!) >>> b dkc0 -flags 1 ... and I got in just fine. > Once you're in single-user mode, "mount -r /" to remount the root... Right. I know what to do once I'm in. The only thing that threw me about Digital Unix vs other stuff I've used is that if you _don't_ use vipw to edit the passwd file, you have to manually run mkpasswd to update the hashed password file (I'm used to a shadow file, or, for older stuff, _just_ the /etc/passwd file and nothing else). > ...mount -a to get everything mounted... In my experience, if you intend to go from single-user mode to multi-user (i.e., you don't reboot from single-user), it's safest to not leave anything mounted that isn't mounted when you got your prompt. I'm not saying this is the case for Digital Unix, but for older BSDish stuff I used in the past, if you, say, mounted /usr/home while in single user mode, then ^D to exit your shell and allow the system to start up, but haven't unmounted /usr/home first, the startup scripts complain about a busy mount point or some other complaint. I always leave the system the way I found it, which is / mounted read-only, everything else unmounted. What you suggest might work these days, but I cut my teeth on 4.0BSD and Ultrix 1.1. This is just my first experience with Digital Unix on an Alpha. Still curious about the "0" in your sample line, though. Thanks for the tip, -ethan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] Sol computer emulator, Solace, updated to version 3.1

by frustum＠pacbell.net

I've just updated my Sol-20 web site with the latest version of my emulator for the Sol, Solace. Solace runs only under win32 OS's (or OS's that can emulate a win32 system, such as Wine under Linux or SoftPC on the Mac). Here's a link to the Sol Archive: http://www.thebattles.net/sol20/sol.html Follow the links to get to the emulator, which is now at version 3.1. Source code is included. What's new since 3.1? + emulation of sound for the P.T. Music System software + sound effects. Just as irritating as a real Sol. Idea from Bob Stek. + support for source-level assembly language debugging in the built-in debugger. + in the debugger, there is now a splitter bar that lets you decide how much of the screen is used for disassembly vs command history. + a few bug fixes, including suppressing the annoying bell sound every time a command was entered into the debugger. ----- Jim Battle == frustum(a)pacbell.net

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] HD repair techniques?

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Tothwolf [mailto:tothwolf@concentric.net] > The drives are both a Conner CFS1275A, 1.2GB, 3 platters, 6 > surfaces. I'm > starting to suspect the top surface of the upper platter is the servo > surface, due to the behavior of the drive when it failed. Can anyone > confirm if this is the case, or if these type of drive even > use a servo I don't know much about the drive, but I think I may have another spare floating around (dead, of course, but it's been years, and I can't tell you the mode of failure). Let me know if you need more parts, and I'll check. > surface? The 1275A doesn't quite yet meet the 10 year rule, > but with all > the experts here, I figure someone is bound to know more about these > drives then I currently do. I think I took the brunt of the assault with my car post, don't worry ;) Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] List confusion? (was TRS-80 Model 1)

by acme_ent＠bellsouth.net

> From: Sellam Ismail <foo(a)siconic.com> > Err, you're right. This new list is too confusing. Hmm, the idea as I understood it was pretty simple. cctalk gets everything, cctech has the OTs filtered out. Right? Glen 0/0

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] Re: Keycap cleaning strategy

by fmc＠reanimators.org

"Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> wrote: > When cleaning keycaps on real IBM PC keyboards (5150), all of the keys > EXCEPT the space bar pop off easily. But if you remove the space bar, > than reassembly of the space bar is more work than the combined total of > the other keys. The OmniKey's space bar is a bit more difficult to take off and reattach too. So when reassembling, do the big keys with supporting widgetry first. You may find it helps to do this before putting the keyboard back in its shell too, especially for the space bar which is right up against the shell. -Frank McConnell

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] [CCTECH] Keycap cleaning strategy

by lists＠subatomix.com

I'm going to clean a Sun 3 keyboard today. Its keycaps are filthy. The strategy I've used in the past for the keycaps is: * Goto the kitchen. There is a double sink there. * Fill one sink with hot, soapy water and the other will cold, non-soapy water. * Dump the keycaps into the hot sink and let them soak for a while. * Slosh the keycaps around a bit. * Transfer the keycaps to the cold water. If necessary, wipe grime from each one as it is transferred. * Arrange the keycaps for drying. Dry them with a hair dryer. * Test for dryness by tapping a table with a keycap. If any water drops appear on the table, repeat the previous step. I have a dishwasher, but I don't trust it. -- Jeffrey Sharp The email address lists(a)subatomix.com is for mailing list traffic. Please send off-list mail to roach jay ess ess at wasp subatomix beetle dot com. You may need to remove some bugs first. _______________________________________________ cctech mailing list cctech(a)classiccmp.org http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctech

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] transistor counts again

by bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca

Looking for information on 16x4 ram (74F219), I came across the the discussion of how many transistors are in a 6502. Did anybody ever get a answer to that? A simple 16 bit cpu like the the toy/2 runs at about 3300 transitors. A a simple stack machine about 3500???. Does anybody have the transistor count for the PDP-8 chip 6100? or the forgotton PACE-16 cpu by national. The SCAMP and PACE chips don't seem to have a web page up anywhere on the web! -- Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu * www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html

22 years, 2 months

[CCTALK] scanners & circuit boards...

by dwightk.elvey＠amd.com

Hi Two factors here. One is that the scanner doesn't have a lot of the right wave length light. Two is that even a piece of paper will absorb +99% of any of the UV that would erase it. As long as there is something over the windows ( almost anything ), I wouldn't worry. When I was at Intel, we placed some 1702A's in direct sun light for several weeks without data loss. A few seconds in a scanner would most likely have little effect. If you are concerned, put some black electrical tape over any windows. If you don't believe that will block the light try doing it on a separate EPROM and put it under an eraser light ( you'll see what I mean when I say that even a piece of paper is quite effective, even in a strong UV light ). >From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> > >So long as you cover the windows of any UV-eraseable parts with somethng truly >opaque, e.g. a bit of aluminum foil under some cellophane tape,I think you'll >be OK, Jeff. > >Dick > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net> >To: <cctech(a)classiccmp.org> >Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:09 PM >Subject: [CCTALK] [CCTECH] scanners & circuit boards... > > >> What's everyone's thoughts on placing circuit boards directly >> on the bed of a scanner for imaging? Any possibility of damage to >> the board from the light or other parts of the scanner? I've done it >> before with good results but not with anything truly unique. >> >> Jeff >> -- >> Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File >> http://www.cchaven.com >> http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757 >> _______________________________________________ >> cctech mailing list >> cctech(a)classiccmp.org >> http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctech >> _______________________________________________ >> cctalk mailing list >> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org >> http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >cctalk mailing list >cctalk(a)classiccmp.org >http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk >

22 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
...
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
...
95
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb May 2002