its an all-in-one ms-dos (not pc) compatible, like a
Lisa but more square. Can anyone suggert a strategy
for finding something exceedingly dopey and uncommon?
Viewable on old-computers.com. Japanese computers in
general intrigue me, but many just werent sold here,
at least not to any great extent. The AS-100 was, but
apparently not too many.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>Subject: Re: Fw: Deck of IBM PLAYING CARDS GOES FOR $325
> From: Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:38:02 +0000
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> On 12/19/2005 at 1:02 PM Roy J. Tellason wrote:
>>
>>> Costs more.
>>
>> Probably the reason
>
>Not sure that it's purely the cost of colour ink versus text. An IC typically
>has extra information other than the basic part - manufacturer logo, family,
>date code etc. which it would be hard to colour code completely. And if you're
>having to print some of the data as plain text, it probably makes sense to do
>it all that way.
>
>> All I'm talking about is paint
>
>that's OK until it falls off :-)
>
>cheers
>
>Jules
Paint likely signifies a special test or other qualification activities.
Allison
just a note... CPLDs are easier because the EEPROM config is inside the chip (no external hardware and an easy to use interface). The cost of this is available logic density though. You will always get more FGA logic space available then you will with a CPLD. Of course, you can always add more CPLDs, but one FPGA and a 8 pin dip eeprom is less PCB real estate.
best regards, Steve Thatcher
-----Original Message-----
>From: woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2005 2:26 AM
>To: General Discussion at null, On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>, null at null
>Subject: Re: repairing early HP calcs
>
>Chris M wrote:
>
>>I dont own any. But according to a recent Circuit
>>Cellar article, early ics can be easy to implement in
>>a FPGA. Dont have the issue in front of me, but the
>>guy needed to mimic if you will a crt controller.
>>Therefore could the chips used in the early HPs (maybe
>>up to and including the 41 series?) be readily
>>emulated by an FPGA?
>>
>>
>>
>CPLD's are a better part as most FPGA's require pre-load from rom.
>Still you need the original hardware and docs to create a FPGA design.
>Some designers played often some nasty tricks with hardware.
>I think for example in the TRS 80 /I a 7400 with a defective unused
>gate was used because it was cheaper than a working 7400.
Stan Barr <stanb at dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> (...) Open Firmware - a superset of ANS-Standard Forth used for
> detecting and setting up the hardware etc. on Sun, Apple and some
> IBM machines. It can be accessed from the console as well, allowing
> you to probe and set up hardware manually should you need to, or
> as a normal Forth of course...
This seems like a good time to tap into the collective knowledge on this
list once more...
I have a question regarding Sun OpenFirmware that's been bugging me for
some time now. I'm still struggling for a setup that allows a Sun to netboot
off a Windows 9x PC (just get a bootstrap, no fancy NFS exports required).
I'm making do with SuSE Linux 7.0 dual-boot right now, but that's not it.
What I'm imagining here is to have a look at the code that is responsible
for the netbooting operation of the Sun. Why does it have to obtain the
machine's IP, that of the tftp server and what else via rarp? I'm by no
means a Sun expert yet, but as I've understood it, you can define your own
FCode commands and store them in NVRAM, so one could modify the boot code to
use parameters stored in environment variables, either if a flag
"use-stored-IP?" is set or as a fallback if there's no rarp server around.
I've already got myself a Forth book and the FCode manuals from Sun, and I
had a look at some commands with "see". "see" however often spits out
hexadecimal codes in parenthesis amidst of Forth words and I've yet to
understand what they mean; the manual addresses the problem only far enough
to tell that this doesn't happen if words are defined with the "headers"
directive.
If somebody has been involved with FCode stuff far enough to give me some
initial guidance, please contact me. Thanks in Advance.
Yours sincerely,
--
Arno Kletzander
Stud. Hilfskraft Informatik Sammlung Erlangen
www.iser.uni-erlangen.de
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
On Dec 19 2005, 11:26, Jules Richardson wrote:
> That made we wonder... what's the oldest *operational* digital
machine owned
> by anyone on this list? Although I suppose it's hard to define
'machine' -
> something with RAM, I/O in some form, and at least one CPU (what the
heck do
> you call a CPU when it's no longer central?)
My PDP-8/E from about 1972 won't even be close to the oldest, but it is
running. Running right now, in fact, though I think it has an
interrupt problem, with an RX02 and an ASR33 (which is probably older
than the -8 is).
Apart from that I have a Motorola MK6800D2 from 1975, a PDP-11/03 from
1975 or '76, and a KIM-1 designed in 1975 but probably made about 1977.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
As I was sitting here thinking, I remembered that the
Black versions of the TS-2068 had a different name
than the Timex/Sinclair Versions...
The Black unit with the Spectrum ROMS was the TC-2048.
The TS 2016 and 2048 were never made. I think the
savings in the RAM chips didn't make sense in the
additional costs of changing assembly lines, and
stocking different units.
There may have also been a TC-2068 that was the same
as the TS 2068 with the same ROM as the TS-2068. But,
the TC-2048 used a Spectrum ROM for sure...
Regards,
Al Hartman
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I know this is an old message, but TS 2048 Computers
WERE made by Timex Portugal. Zebra Systems, Inc. had a
couple of them.
But, I don't think we ever sold them.
They also had black cases like the Spectrum, and I
think had Spectrum ROMS as well.
It's well over 15 years, so my memory is very fuzzy.
Regards,
Al Hartman
> From: Glen Goodwin <acme_ent at bellsouth.net>
>
> Sellam, I think you must be mistaken. The TS2048
was never
> produced.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>Subject: Re: Oldest machine (was: Re: Good haul of old pc stuph)
> From: Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:57:11 +0000
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Allison wrote:
>>> Subject: Oldest machine (was: Re: Good haul of old pc stuph)
>>> From: Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:26:08 +0000
>>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>>>
>>
>> PDP-8F manufacture date 1973. Running!
>
>That's what we like to hear! :)
>
>> However will the owner of that nice looking PB250 step up.. he's back around 1961.
>
>Ahh, that's earlier than our Marconi TAC then (1963 IIRC, although designed in
>the late 50's).
>
>Not sure what we have that's earlier and qualifies. The Elliott 803 is late
>1950's (1958 I think) but has a core fault so doesn't count as working until
>someone finds the time to fix it! It's probably the earliest complete machine
>that we have though; prior to that we just have small bits of some of the
>earlier famous* machines.
Whirlwind, SAGE, IBM, Univac, SperryRand Frieden are names that come to mind.
>from the time orf Eniac to 1960 there were a great number of companies and
machines some quite unique other more functional. The IBM 500 and 700 series
are examples of the latter.
Allison
I'm rather bored, so I thought I might try and hack together a small project
OS compatable with at least DOS 1.x or similar, is there any decent resource
for information on dos compatability and how to achieve it, or is it left as
a reverse engineering exercise for 'the reader' ? :)
Hi Ethan,
Hope you're keeping yourself amused down there!
At any rate, the trick to finding information on the Intel USB chip is
knowing the shorthand used to talk about the darned things. Since they're
not in production, this is becoming a lost art, it seems.
Try googling on 8x930xx - you'll get a number of good hits, including the
complete schematics for the Intel USB prototyping kit.
If you want chip docs, try googling on 8x930ax and one of the hits will be:
http://www.suid0.net/fhtw/doc/specs/ic/bridge/i8x930ax.pdf
which is the user's manual for the chip, all 16 chapters and 4 appendices
of it.
Whatever you discover, let me know--I still have most of a case of these
things...
Cheers,
Chuck