I got around to taking a mess of 262X terminals in poor condition and
mixing/matching parts to get two clean good working units. This means I have
a lot of bits & pieces of junk left over. I already kept some bits for spare
parts, so the rest of this is going to hit the trashcan. Note - amongst all
these pieces, you could not make a good terminal just with these items -
there's little incompatabilities and/or missing parts.
I figured I'd offer the pieces in case someone had one of these with a
broken bezel, missing set screw, etc.
2628A terminal parts: brown bezel/faceplate, main logic board w/2 94020A
ports, very white top & bottom cover (no pedestal), power supply.
2821P terminal parts: printer unit, yellowed top & bottom cover, pedestal,
brown bezel/faceplate, power supply.
In addition to the above - two crt tubes that fit either unit, both have a
fair amount of spottage under the glass
The above is all going in to the trash today, which will be picked up
thursday afternoon. So... let me know if you need any cosmetic bits asap!
Next on the list... 264X parts may be made available...
Jay West
>
>Subject: Re: Public Service Announcement: AVOID "bobsbid1"
> From: woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 11:33:54 -0600
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
>
>> William Donzelli wrote:
>>
>>>> Why would you buy audio tubes, or valves as we call them over here,
>>>> from eBay, when they're cheap enough in Maplins?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because a 12AX7 (ECC83) made by ICC and an identical 12AXY (ECC83)
>>> made by
>>> Telefunken makes ALL the difference.
>>
>>
>> Mmm. To the gold-plated speaker cable brigade, perhaps.
>
>But I think the reason the cable makes a difference is you got all the feed
>back in a transistor amp ( less in a valve ) and any noise on the speaker
>cables like ac hum? and other noise will get fed back to the amp
>..
>
>>
>> Gordon.
Ugh, never mind.
Allison
Hi,
J?rgen Keller recently cracked how to access his 9133XV combined hard drive
and floppy drive unit from his HP-85 - see full article here:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/articles.cgi?read=562
I would like to check with other 9133XV owners if their drives also had the
same A/B/C jumper, I suspect this was only present on certain revisions of
the drive.
If it seems to be on all revisions this is excellent news as these drives
often crop up on the second hand market.
Regards,
John
>From: J?rgen Keller To: John S <john_a_s2004 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Extended Mass Storage ROM
>Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 20:16:55 +0200
>
>Hi John,
>I'm very happy that I have a working connection to my PC. It makes much
>more fun if you can feed your HP-85 with some nice programs...
>
>If have no explanation why I could not initialize the drive with my
>HP-85. Perhaps, the 86 Mass Storage ROM is more advanced. Anyway, the
>main point for me is that it works now. Hopefully it helps others to get
>their drives working.
John wrote:
>>I suspect that not all 9133XVs have this jumper. Did you want to post a
>>message on classiccmp cctalk, I know several people there have this drive.
>
>I'm currently not subscribed to cctalk. May I ask you to post the
>information? Perhaps it sheds some light on the jumper question.
>
>Have a nice weekend,
>Juergen
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez wrote:
>
>> by the numerical scientific computing community. I even know
>> why, but I don't want to star a language war.
>
> Aw go on, tell us... I for one would love to know why, if only to see
> if it's worth brushing up my rather rusty FORTRAN "skills".
Ok, you asked for it...
1) There is an inertia factor, of course, with all those superb routine
libraries in FORTRAN (LAPACK, SCALAPACK and all that stuff at the
legendary netlib)
2) FORTRAN has been optimized for many decades to do just one kind
of task: computations involving arrays of floats, with
a very specific fetch/multiply/add to accumulator/increment pointers
sequence. This is a very regular task and the optimizations in
FORTRAN are directed to do this very efficiently. C compiler optimizers
must address many other possibilities (C is a much more "general
purpose" language). Thus, like it or not, for numeric computations
involving matrix/vector float operations, FORTRAN is usually
slightly faster than C. Of course, if you program a fast
Fourier transform in FORTRAN, it might actually be slower because
some of the operations don't fit the structure described
above: you have to negate bits in pointers to form the "butterflies"
(the basic FFT block). Why, even the storage scheme in FORTRAN
reflects numerics-specific thinking: 2D matrices are stored
column-wise, an appropriate choice if you know that en numerics,
matrix/vector multiplication is best thought of as a weighted
sum of the columns of the matrix, with the weights being the
elements of the vector. C, being designed by non-numerics people,
stores numbers row-wise. If you program numerics in C, you must
always store matrices transposed to get around this fact.
So, short explanation: FORTRAN is faster for array numerics, which
forms the core of scientific numeric computing, simply because
that's what the optimizer expects to find. C, having a more
general purpose, considers many other possibilities and is
less "tuned" to the needs of numerics.
Carlos.
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez email: carlos_murillo at ieee.org
Dean of Engineering, Universidad Autonoma de Manizales, Manizales, Colombia
----
"Western civilization... thought like the greek, organized itself like
the romans and believed in itself like the hebrew." -- Ortega y Gasset.
>
>Subject: OS/2 vs Win3.1
> From: Bert Thomas <bert at brothom.nl>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:15:19 +0100
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Allison wrote:
>> How does OS/2 warp V3 compare to other PC OSs like CDR Concurrnet386 or
>> win3.1?
>
>I don't know anything about Concurrent386, but comparing OS/2 Warp with
>win 3.1 is like comparing pigs with streetlights.
>
>Win3.1 is a graphical shell around DOS. To overcome DOS' memory
>limitations is uses some more advanced techniques of the processor, such
>as protected mode. However, win3.1 programs are 16-bit. Win3.1 itself is
>16 bit. Win 3.1 only allows cooperative multitasking. That means that a
>another program can only get control if the running program gives it up.
>This is a very short summery of Win3.1
>
>OS/2 2.0 and higher are 32-bit operating systems. However, compatibility
>with older OS/2 applications was considered very important and therefore
>parts of the kernel and all device drivers are mainly 16 bit. Only
>recently some 32-bit device drivers were written.
>
>OS/2 has its own graphical subsystem - a very advanced one. It can run
>DOS programs in 'virtual dos machines' or VDM. A special mode of the 386
>processor allows a task to act as if it where a real mode task. Anything
>that task does can trap the processor and thus can be handled by
>exception handlers. OS/2 is very strong is this area.
>
>OS/2 has its own file system with some special features like "extended
>attributes".
>
>OS/2 has dynamic priorities for tasks, that makes it more responsive.
>For example, a task that has focus in the GUI is slightly raised in
>priority. Or when a background task was blocking for something it might
>receive a slight priority boost when that something becomes available.
>
>OS/2's time critical priority is handled "soft realtime". I've used OS/2
>in the past for process control, dosing in particular. For such
>applications realtime behaviour is very important as a lattency of 1 sec
>or more is disasterous for the product being manufactered.
>
>I can go on and on, but if you want to know more let me know and I write
>it down later on.
>
>Regards,
>Bert
Thank you. I'd been wondering why OS/2 had a following and that was it
about OS/2 that made it worth following. It would seem that it's 32bit
core and task management do make it distinct.
Since I have the complete Warp V3 kits with bonus packs 1/2/3 I'll have
to put it on one of the 486s and see.
Any good sites for apps, tools and drivers?
Allison
>
>Subject: Re: OT: Language for the ages
> From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic.com>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:33:58 -0400
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>>>>>> "William" == William Donzelli <aw288 at osfn.org> writes:
>
> >> Is it? Given that we don't have 20-20 prescience, how about 20-20
> >> hindsight? Could you implement C on any computer with sufficient
> >> memory?
>
> William> In 30 years, our processor-memory model might be a thing of
> William> the past.
>
>Why? It's 60-70 years old already and shows no signs at all of going
>away.
>
> paul
I've exprimented with a rather simple microprogam state machine where
there is no ALU or other logic. Just one huge eprom with all the
possible results of two factors. The machine reduced to a fetch
instruction, lookup results (the factors are addresses to the eprom),
return result. At a 50,000ft view its a standard Von looking thing,
close in there is none of the usual hardware. So I would be suggesting
that which externally conventional in programming the implmentation
could really be off the current map.
Allison
On Oct 15 2005, 11:03, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> Tony Duell wrote:
>
> > outputs of the 11/44 PSU,. There's a 5V rail (120A or so) for the
logic
>
> That's not a power supply, that's a MIG welder.
Possibly. The PSU in my Origin 2000 is for spot welding, I think: 5V @
85A, 12V @ 22A, and 3.45V @ 375A. There's one in each module.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
>
>Subject: Re: OT: Language for the ages
> From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp at gjcp.net>
> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:02:32 +0100
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez wrote:
>
>> by the numerical scientific computing community. I even know
>> why, but I don't want to star a language war.
>>
>> Carlos.
>
>Aw go on, tell us... I for one would love to know why, if only to see
>if it's worth brushing up my rather rusty FORTRAN "skills".
>
>Gordon.
This is opinion and observation over 36years of computing I've been
hands on with.
The term "large frame" is any computer that is not a micro but includes
examples like the LSI-11 which was the cusp of mini to micro.
Micro is specifically anything that exists as a chip fromthe basic 8bitter
8008, through the non racked Pentium.
Fortran is definately one of the languages. There are many languages
based on or spawned from it. FOCAL comes to mind as a varient. Just
about any multipurpose cpu has Fortran for it. Considered a large frame
language by many but the major micros have compilers too. The legacy
of Fortran is is number crunching in all its forms which covers a lot
of ground. The most strongly held ground I've seen is numerical modeling.
BASIC is another widespread language. Likely the second most(runs neck and
neck with fortran) widely ported to micro and large frame processors. The
legacy of BASIC is one language, billions of dialects. BASIC runs from
interger minimum subsets to full bore structured languages with data typing
to the fully visual forms that do not look like BASIC at all.
Those two alone run close to assembly in frequency of occurance for any cpu.
For "systems work" it would appear C is it. Though C is a common cross
compiled language for wide variety of embedded cpus. The biggest assumption
I've seen with C is that it's likely in or around a unix (or unix like)
environment for use or development. Since the mid 80s that is less so.
Once you get past those the what language for what work tends to stratify
based on application and preference.
Allison
William
<snip>
There are plenty of extremely valid 2nd chance offers. In the surplus
business, it is extremely common to buy a lot of one item, and if one of
the auctions does extremely well, only a foolish seller would not try to
take advantage of the deal. I use them all the time, and yes, they do work
enough times that I keep using them.
<snip>
I've been the buyer in two such transactions myself, I was glad to have the chance.
<snip>
I have said it before - I will say it again - pissing off a dealer is one
of the dumbest things a collector can do.
<snip>
I couldn't agree more, it's right up there with pissing off food servers, doctors & auto mechanics!
BTW what is the name of your eBay business?
Brian Hanson
>
>Subject: Re: Releasing OS/2
> From: Scott Stevens <chenmel at earthlink.net>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:21:53 -0500
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:11:19 -0400
>Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>> My original intent was limited to OSs that were operable on PCs.
>
>Well, then. Definitely FOCAL running on a PDP-8 emulator. On a PeeCee.
Nah, taks all the fun out of it. Focal running on the 8f, blinkin lights!
Allison
