Hi,
To get back to computers for a change...
While looking for some op-amp chips earlier I came across a
couple of 8751s (labelled Intel '80). A quick google search
failed to turn up a data sheet, anyone any ideas where I can
look?
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
>> all the ibm languages were available for the sys/34
>> and i have all of them basic,cobol,rpgii and fortran.
>
>Somewhat of a brash statement, as PL/I and APL were also
>"IBM languages". :-)
Sheesh... seeing the languages listed out... its like playing thru the
levels of TRON :-)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
I have asked in the past about a replacement card for my HP LJ-IIID
with little success (they are apparently somewhat rare). Several
people offered me ones that did not physically fit. Well now, I
have a *newer* old HP printer, an HP LJ-IIISi that takes the square
interface cards with the white/grey 3-row connector. Unfortunately,
the printer I got from OSU surplus (which seems to print just fine)
only has this truely ancient C2059A integral print server - no serial
or parallel, Novell only. :-( Worse, the firmware is particularly
obsolete and deprecated by HP.
So... if anyone has a spare interface card, I'm interested. Two, in
fact; one for me and one for a friend who needs to hook another IIISi
to his OS X Mac. The printer is on-topic (mine was manufactured in 1991)
at least.
Let me know cost/part numbers/etc off-list.
Thanks,
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
I haven't seen this announced here, so for those of you who
don't read alt.folklore.computers, Al Kossow has made available
a scanned copy of the Manual of Operation for the Harvard
Mark I. It's at:
http://www.spies.com/aek/pdf/harvard/MarkI_operMan_1946.pdf
Be forewarned, however, it's big-about 43Meg.
I have a real soft spot for this one. Back in college, I
was wandering the library stacks one day looking for something
interesting. A book caught my eye. It was a black hardbound
book about 2 inches thich with the simple title Manual of
Operation. Of course, my curiosity was piqued; I just had
to take a look. I'd never heard of the Mark I, but I was
absolutly enthralled. I credit that find with much of my
interest in the history of computing.
By the way, anyone know of an emulator for the Mark I?
Brian L. Stuart
after reading the subject line, i thought the article
was going to be about sledge hammers or making them
into wet bars (yes on the web - someone has made a vax
rack into a wet bar).
all the ibm languages were available for the sys/34
and i have all of them basic,cobol,rpgii and fortran.
i even have diag and ssp (system support program,
ibm's os for sys3x)
the two sys34's i have both have bad control storage
cards - a typical problem with 5 years in cold
storage.
otherwise i would be playing with them and not this
basic less sys/36.
the ssp and all languages for the sys/34 are not
compatable with the 36.
i did find the 3270 emulator for the 34 and i may have
pc support for the 34 - i know i have both for the 36.
i found out that one of my 34's came from the local
collage - which explains the "funtime" diskettes.
they are programs is basic that have printfiles for
many "pic's" and football and other text based games.
Bill
Message: 42
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: strange things to do with your IBM System/3x
(was Re: ibm
sys/36 5360 basic needed)
From: "Eric Smith" <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Reply-To: cctech(a)classiccmp.org
> I might, I'll have to check.. I know I have COBOL
and SSP and some
other
> crud...
When I was in junior high school, my friend Doug got a
job working on
RPG
code on a System/34. In his spare time, he translated
ADVENT [*] from
PDP-10 Fortran to RPG II [**] to run on the System/34.
I don't know if there existed a Fortran compiler for
the System/34, but
if there was, his employer apparently didn't have it.
COBOL would
actually be a more reasonable language [***] into
which to translate
ADVENT, and there was a System/34 COBOL compiler.
All of the text-handling code in ADVENT is
non-portable, because back
then
FORTRAN didn't have reasonable support for arrays of
characters. The
number of characters that would pack into any given
numeric type was
implementation-dependent. On the PDP-10, that was
five 7-bit ASCII
characters per 36-bit word, with one bit left over.
I think Fortran 77 fixed this problem, by defining an
actual CHARACTER
type.
Unfortunately I haven't been in touch with Doug in
over twenty years
now; I have no idea whether he still has a copy of his
RPG ADVENT.
Which is a shame, because it would be nice to try it
with the
Eraseerhead RPG II compiler, which is GPL'd:
http://rpg.eraserhead.net/
Eric
[*] The original Colossal Cave Adventure game by
Crowther and Woods,
written in Fortran for the DEC PDP-10. Named
"ADVENT" because
the TOPS-10 operating system only allows for
six-character
filenames
in SIXBIT code, which does not include lower case.
[**] Or maybe it was RPG III. I don't really know
what was available
on the System/34 back in the late 1970s.
[***} I'll bet you never expected to see "COBOL" and
"reasonable
language"
in the same sentence, without an "isn't" between
them. :-) Now
I'm
not saying that I *like* COBOL, but there are
definitely some
things
that it is better-suited for than Fortran IV.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Fred N. van Kempen <Fred.van.Kempen(a)microwalt.nl> wrote:
> - select the correct tape boot blocks
> (MT, TK etc)
Not for 4.3BSD-QJ0a. You simply write the stand file from my distribution on
the tape as the first file with 512-byte records. There is only one tape
distribution for all machines and flavors.
> - grab the correct kernel and/or RAM disk image
Neither for 4.3BSD-Quasijarus (or for any Berkeley distribution ever made for
that matter).
MS
Jochen Kunz <jkunz(a)unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> wrote:
> Well, I had to use some programm to write the tapes, dd(1), maketape, or
> somthing else. I made good experiences with maketape to write 2.11BSD
> tapes, so I stayed with it and it worked very well.=20
>
> [...]
>
> The same for dd(1). There may some implementation differences in dd(1),
> say on SunOS or AIX, that may produce unusable tapes. Therefore I used
> maketape. I had a glance at the code and it seams that it does
> everything proper on every UNIX and Unix-like OS.
> Don't forget the chicken-egg problem. If I have no 4.3BSD-Quasijarus
> running, I have to use some random foreign OS to produce distribution
> tapes. (Or I have to bother somone else to do it for me.)
But dd is a standard general-purpose tool, as opposed to a highly specialized
program for installing 2.11BSD.
> I learnd that the bs=3D parameter of dd doesn't set the block size of the
> tape with an ioctl, it is only the buffersize parameter that is used in
> the write(2) syscall.=20
On every system I have used the sizes of records written on tapes are
determined precisely by how much you write with one write or writev syscall, no
ioctl needed. But if some weird system does require a special syscall, I can
bet that dd on *that* system will make it. On each system its native dd utility
will always do the right thing, as opposed to some special program ripped out
of a 2.11BSD distribution and used for something it was never intended for (to
write dist tapes for a completely different OS).
MS
