>This may help a bit, not sure if it is for the IIc or not but it is for the
>II :
>
>http://www.oldskool.org/disk2fdi
>
>there is a trial version for which you need 2 drives and a pay version for 1
>drive. Also there are instructions for a cable you need.
I think there's a freeware program called ADT (Apple Disk Transfer?) which does
the job with the standard Apple serial card. When I was looking, there were two
versions for two different cards.
The only card I had at the time was a software bit-bashed card which was not
supported and ran at a max of 300bps (perhaps 1200) - obviously that was not
going to cut it, so I built my own card (not a standard apple card either :-(
... And wrote simple programs on each end to transfer the images - worked very
well.
Regards,
--
dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Vintage computing equipment collector.
Hi
I assume you already have a serial light/breakout box.
One can't even begin to deal with serial without one.
I know that Heathkit would do nasty things like invert the
status of handshake lines, for their printers.
Dwight
>From: Hal <hal(a)hal.demon.nl>
>
>Hello Folks,
>
>It's not that old, but i am searching for a Canon BJIF-3020 serial board
>manual. It's a serial board for in a Canon BJ-300/330 printer.
>
>Can't get it to work on my Alpha box, so i guess the serial settings of the
>printer are incorrect. But i cant find a manual anywhere (have the original
>BJ-330 user and programmer manual, but that doesn't provide any solution)
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>
Hey
I just found this post; what are the odds your friend still has a LAPC-1
card?
Thanks.
- - - -
MPU-401/LAPC-1
Hans Franke cctech(a)classiccmp.org
Thu Jan 9 12:52:45 2003
Previous message: MPU-401
Next message: H89, REMark, Sextant
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I just taked to my friend. The cards are LAPC-1s. He still
has two new units, and he'd be willing to part for 40 Euro
each (~42 USD), plus shipping. So if someone still wants to
build a early 90s game PC, just drop me a note.
Gruss
H.
On Apr 21, 12:08, Torquil MacCorkle, III wrote:
> > Dude, you don't own the disks. You have no right to sell them.
True, and there's another factor: SGI's licence for the software on
those CDs prohibits them being passed on to another person except when
transferred with a machine licensed to use them. SGI have occasionally
been known to get shirty about that.
> What am I supposed to do if it becomes obvious I am not going to be
able to
> track the guy down? (which it has, except for the new idea of trying
name
> lookup directories, I do know his name and his former city and
state.)
> I appreciate the advice (although it seems I have been
> misinterpreted) and hope everyone doesn't think I am some kind of
miserable
> lying bastard. This was an honest mistake.
I realised that from your post. I'd suggest that you take reasonable
steps to track down the owner, and if that fails, keep them. If the
owner were really desperate to have them back, he'd probably have
contacted you (assuming *he* has *your* contact info). Anyway, you
might need them yourself, if you get an SGI machine without CDs (like
the Octane you mentioned elsewhere).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
>From: steve <gkicomputers(a)yahoo.com>
>
>--- Keys <jrkeys(a)concentric.net> wrote:
>> Can you believe this?
>>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4123637908
>
>
>Thats probably a record high, but it did have an
>original box, was in great shape, and some good ad
>copy didn't hurt. Seems like there were Altairs on
>ebay every week for years, then nothing for several
>months, pent up demand I guess.
>
Hi
I wonder if the buyer thought that the words, "powers
up" means that it is fully functional? All it means
is that some LED's came on and there was no smoke.
Dwight
Hello, I have been searching for the system disks for the Otrona for a couple of years now. Do you still have these disks? I would appreciate any help you can provide. Regards, Don
One of the precision instrument companies in Kansas City just shipped in some old equipment to the computer surplus.
There was a HP64000 with a HP64203A for 8085 module
2 HP 9133 units
a Hazeltine 1420
a Tek 4025
Any interest, my garage is full
Thanks
Mike
On Apr 20, 23:53, John Allain wrote:
[ Pete wrote ]
> > Hi-res 35mm is probably better than that. Kodachrome certainly
> > is; it can resolve a couple of thousand lines per *millimeter*
under
> > ideal conditions.
>
> Can this be backed up with published information?
Good question.
I can't find any actual figures on Kodak's website. The figure I used
is one I saw in a couple of places on the web, and in some old notes
(see LP Clerc, Photography: Theory & Practice, sec.349). I used to be
really into photography, and about 30 years ago, and I did a 3-year HND
course which included a lot of theory.
I've seen references to about 1/10th or even 1/20th of that in various
places, too. That seems too low, but there could be several reasons
for that. Firstly, it used to be the case that only Kodak would
process Kodachrome -- one of the reasons professionals used to use it
only for special purposes, preferring Ektachrome because it could be
processed locally (and therefore quicker, and with "adjustments").
That's no longer the case, but I don't know if Kodak have changed the
process (quite likely) or just made it available to other processors.
I do know that professionals could get a different service from Kodak
than normal users (because I could, via the college I studied at) and
that could make a big difference to the results. We used to reckon a
35mm Kodachrome slide roughly comparable to a 6x6cm Ektachrome. Not
that Ektachrome's at all poor: want a good colour print? Take an
Ektachrome slide and make a Cibachrome print. Except I don't think you
can get Cibachrome any more.
The low figures I've seen for Kodachrome have been on pages where it's
compared to other colour films, and I think they're suspect, because I
don't think they're the result of optimal (or even close) conditions.
I'd be prepared to believe that 2000 lines/mm is a theoretical figure
based on grain size. If so, that won't be the true figure for a real
exposure in a real camera, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. A
"good" lens on a 35mm camera typically has a resolving power no better
than 150-200 lines/mm (ref LP Clerc again, and MJ Langford, Advanced
Photography).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
On Apr 21, 9:50, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:03:36 +0100 (BST)
> ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
>
> > > Moreover, 3.1M pixels in the camera aren't 3.1M pixels in the
final
> > > image. It depends how they're used, but in the camera, you
> > > typically need three pixels, one for each of R, G, and B, to get
one
> > > RGB pixel in the image. Some techniques use even more (the Bayer
> > > algorithm uses 4).
> > Argh!. You mean they fiddle the figures? I'd assumed that a 'pixel'
> > was an RGB triad, not a third of one. So you mean you may only get
1
> > million points in the image from a 3.1M pixel camera?
> Yes. E.g. with Bayer you have four sub-pixel per color pixel:
> R G
> G B
> So you get 640 x 480 = ca. 0.3 M "true" color pixels with a 1280 x
960
> "Mega pixel" sesor. The image processing firmware of the camera
> interpolates this later to 1280 x 960 RGB pixels.
Exactly, and that's what my (nasty cheap) digital camera does. Looking
at the source for parts of gphoto suggests that's common, so I wouldn't
be at all surprised to find it's the norm, even for higher-end cameras.
If you were a camera manufacturer, and your competitors claimed
1.3Mpixels, would you be more honest and claim 0.4? But I don't
actually know.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York