>
>Subject: Re: Releasing OS/2
> From: woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:14:24 -0600
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Allison wrote:
>>
>>What I'd like to see is a comparison of OS/2 to say DRI Concurrent386
>>and Win3.1 or Nt3. I picked the latter two as I know them well. I have
>>both concurrent386 and OS/warp 3 but never used them. Maybe I'm missing
>>something and I'd like to have an idea of and how practical their use
>>would be in the present as part of my PC based supporting systems.
>>
>>
>Lets not forget OS/9 for the 6809 , just for a reality check of
>multi-tasking.
My original intent was limited to OSs that were operable on PCs. If
there is OS/9 for PC then by all means but I'd suspect comparison would
be to unix/linux rather than Dos/win.
While I'd not mind seeing that I have no real 6809 hardware other than
a COCO-II that is sans case. Found it on the side of the road with smashed
case but fully intact and operable.
While 1+ing the question we can add 8bit multitasking for Z80 other than
MP/M to look at.
Allison
Hey folks, last night I recieved the message below. This guy posted an
identical message to Erik's www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum page as well.
I have no information about the credibility of the seller. It's certainly
not the "largest computer collection in the world" but it should be an
interesting discussion. ;)
- Evan
_____
From: INFO at FKI.BE [mailto:info at fki.be]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 6:18 AM
To: news at computercollector.com
Subject: LARGEST COMPUTER COLLECTION IN THE WORLD (?) FOR SALE
Hi there,
I am selling my complete collection of computers (over 570 different ones).
If you are interested in some computer(s) from my collection, just mail me
at info AT fki DOT be (replace AT by @ and DOT by .) and I'll add you to the
list of possible buyers. I will then mail you back explaining how I intend
to sell the computers.
As you can see from my 100% positive feedback on Ebay (member ChaosDM) this
is not a scam, but a serious sale. I don't
want to go through Ebay directly, because listing 570 different items
separately would take AGES!
Anyway...the list of the collection can be seen here :
<http://users.pandora.be/F-242/Computers.htm>
http://users.pandora.be/F-242/Computers.htm
There are a LOT of very and ULTRA rare items in there
For example :
A GOLDEN C64 WITH COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE!
A LOT OF ARABIC MSx's
A LOT OF RUSSIAN COMPUTERS
ETC...
Cheers,
Dimitri Kokken
Belgium
>
>Subject: Re: Releasing OS/2
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:37:43 -0700
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>On 10/14/2005 at 5:11 PM Allison wrote:
>
>>While 1+ing the question we can add 8bit multitasking for Z80 other than
>>MP/M to look at.
>
>Molecular was running MT software simply by using a CPU card for each user.
One approach. I ran a multiprocessor Z80 system back in '81-82 with one
difference idle processors (or processors idling) could take on tasks
>from the system exec.
>
>That Durango system (that I'm STILL trying to give away) was designed from
>the ground up with MT in mind. Since the 8085 can't do dynamic address
>relocation very easily, we simply put the MT facilities in the compiled (to
>a sort of P-code) BASIC. File access control and data sharing was a part
>of it. Except for the very lowest level system utilities, all programs
>were written in it. A 5 MHz 8085 could support 5 users quite comfortably.
>Added memory was 1K pages, mapped through 64x9 bipolar RAM.
I've done a memory paged 8085 system, interesting.
I have to ask, how does all of this fit with the question?:
How does OS/2 warp V3 compare to other PC OSs like CDR Concurrnet386 or
win3.1?
Allison
>Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:25:03 +0000
>From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp at gjcp.net>
>Subject: Re: MPX-16 census
>der Mouse wrote:
>>>I've never heard of anybody making more than double-sided PCBs at
>>>home (I would love to be proved wrong!).
>>
>>
>> I can't *prove* you wrong. But I've spoken with someone who claimed to
>> have done it, and when I started asking questions, talked a good enough
>> line that I found it believable. As she described it, you need
>> epoxy/fibreglass mix, which you cast a thin sheet of. You then sand it
>> smooth, copper-plate it, and etch. Slap on another coat of epoxy and
>> fibreglass, let it cure, sand it smooth, copper-plate, and etch.
>> Lather, rinse, repeat.
>>
>> The hard part is of course quality control (and plated-through vias,
>> which you can get somewhere with by drilling holes before doing the
>> last copper-plating). And registration of the layers. But with
>> patience and attention to detail...after all, anyone doing this is
>> considering time to be worth a great deal less than money, or the job
>> would simply be shipped off to a commercial pcb fab house. :)
>
>It's the sort of thing I can see our Mr Duell doing though.
This is a topic that interests me. The most useful sounding site
I've found so far is this one
<http://www.thinktink.com/stack/volumes/volvi/pcbproto.htm>
IIRC, they recommend drilling your boards before etching so that you
can use the hole locations to help with your layer registration.
They also have an interesting ink and electroplating system to create
plated-through vias.
(As an aside, I found another site one time where a fellow had
replaced the pen in a plotter with a drill and was using it to drill
boards with an Apple II(?) driving the thing.
<http://rich12345.tripod.com/PCB/> It would be an interesting
project if one could make it interpret Excellon drill files.)
However, the information on greater than 2 layer boards is thin.
They seem to imply that you can etch seperate thinner boards and then
laminate them together, but there's no detail on what kind of board
would work for this. There's an obscure reference to not fully cured
fiberglass or some such.
The implication is that, e.g. one could make a total .062" thick
board with four layers out of three boards laminated
together--perhaps three .020" boards. The two outer boards would be
double sided circuit boards and the center would be a separator with
plated-through vias and "doughnuts" at the plated-through holes to
make contact from one board to the next.
I'm curious about what one would need in terms of board or additives
to laminate multi-layer boards together. A standard fully cured
board isn't going to stick, I don't think.
Building multi-layer boards out of raw fiberglass/epoxy mix and
copper plating it oneself does not sound like a viable home project.
At least, not for me.
Jeff Walther
I've been trying to contact you...
Are my emails getting through or vanishing into the ether?
Direcway is notorious as a conduit for spammers and is often
blocked without warning, but it's my only option here in the
country other than dialup :(
-Charles
I finally (re)found my copy of "How to Build A Working Digital Computer" by
Alcosser, et al, published in 1967. This is the "paper clips and spools"
computer - definitely worth a look - http://www.sideslip.net/digital_compu/
. It's a scan of a copy from a dying book so parts of it are not too pretty
but I think its all there.
Enjoy -
Jack
>
>Subject: Re: Releasing OS/2
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:55:01 -0700
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>On 10/14/2005 at 9:28 PM Allison wrote:
>
>>I have to ask, how does all of this fit with the question?:
>
>You asked about Z80 MT outside of MP/M. I pointed out that there's more
>than one way to skin a cat. In particular, MT does not have to be an
>integral feature of the OS itself.
I did not ask about Z80 MT as a direct part of the question on OS/2. In
fact any comments made were along the lines of scarcasm while we are talking
about OS/2 lets let in the world of other OSs even the 8 bit ones that
are not relevent to OS/2. Maybe for once I was too subtle?
As to Z80 MTasking OSs there are several but I elected to layer a task
executive on/under CP/M V2 as I had it and there was nothing to say
it wouldn't work. Its big value was using all those idle cycles waiting
for keystrokes. I did it back around '81-2. and it was an interesting
exercise in hardware and software.
The real question, the one I'd really like to know more about,
was and is:
I have OS/2warp3 how does it compare to Concurrent386 and win3.1 in
the PC realm? I have both OS/2W3 and CC386 but never installed them
for no real reason. What have I missed?
Allison
> While surfing the Unisys websight, I found nearly NO mention
> of either<br>Burroughs or Univac.<br><br>One more reason to
> like IBM.<br><br>William Donzelli<br>aw288 at osfn.org<br><br>
>
> And what did you expect? I worked for Unisys, and for Sperry
> before. I am surprised Unisys is still in business, since
> they don't seem to know what market to get into.
Can you still buy a system that supports Poll Select? I love that
protocol.
> This whole discussion about the volatility of storage reminds
> me of a conversation I had recently with a friend who's a
> professional archivist. I asked her what medium was used for
> archival storage--CD-ROM, DVD, etc.?
>
> Paper. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Sorry to steal your thread, but...
I have been talking with my state's historical archiving group. They are
very interested in some form of digital media for archiving, and are now
aware that paper (and microform) still offer the best solutions. They
are back to the issue of digital archiving for a new reason, space. They
would like to have some form of high density storage (higher than paper)
and they can accommodate a shorter shelf life if they can get it into
the 10+ year range. They are exploring a digitization program with
long-term remote storage of the original material in a storage facility
(off-line storage if you will), and a technology refresh program to
re-format the digital storage as mediums change (like the recent move
>from CD-ROM to DVD-ROM).
Does anyone know if there are optical formats that can reliably deliver
10 year shelf-life? How does one achieve it (different types of cd-r
chemistry, using cd-rom, etc)?
--- On Fri 10/14, William Donzelli < aw288 at osfn.org > wrote:
From: William Donzelli [mailto: aw288 at osfn.org]
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Unisys, shame on you
While surfing the Unisys websight, I found nearly NO mention of either<br>Burroughs or Univac.<br><br>One more reason to like IBM.<br><br>William Donzelli<br>aw288 at osfn.org<br><br>
And what did you expect? I worked for Unisys, and for Sperry
before. I am surprised Unisys is still in business, since they
don't seem to know what market to get into.
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!