The hobbyist DECnet is actually working - we have now five distinct
locations connected and six or seven machines online 24x7 with a couple
dozen more that are turned on occasionally. Here's a SHOW NETWORK -
OpenVMS Network status for local node 2.1 LEGATO on 15-DEC-2005 18:40:09.95
Area Cost Hops Next Hop to Area
1 4 1 SVA-0 -> 1.13 MIM
2 0 0 (Local) -> 2.1 LEGATO
11 4 1 SVA-0 -> 11.1023 A11RTR
60 10 1 TCP-0-0 -> 60.664 PDXVAX
Node Links Cost Hops Next Hop to Node
2.7 CODA 0 4 1 SVA-0 -> 2.7 CODA
2.100 PETEY 0 10 1 TCP-0-1 -> 2.100 PETEY
Total of 2 nodes.
You can see a full list of the nodes and descriptions here
http://www.jfcl.com/Computers/dcn.pdf
We've been using Johnny's HECnet mailing list to communicate
http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html
If you'd like to hook up we'd love to have more nodes!
Bob Armstrong
-----Original Message-----
>from: Robert Armstrong [mailto:bob at jfcl.com]
>I'm interested in setting up a network of hobbyist DEC machines linked
>together in a DECnet phase IV network. Why? I suppose there's no
>really good reason, but it seems like it would be fun to be able to do
>"SHOW NET" or "NCP SHOW ACTIVE NODES" and see a whole long list of
>machines that aren't mine :-) Besides, it would be a good way to share
>access to real, non-simulated, VMS/RSX/RSTS and even, maybe, TOPS-10
>or 20, machines.
>
> Does anyone else agree? Is anyone else interested in participating?
>
> I know I'm not the first to think of this; in particular, I've had a
>few email discussions recently with Johnny Billquist about HECnet,
>
> http://www.update.uu.se/~bqt/hecnet.html
>
>At some point I'd like to link up with HECnet, but right now Johnny is
>having ISP problems and it sounds like HECnet is down to one or two
>nodes.
>
> Are there any other hobbyist DECnet associations that are going
> strong?
>
> As for technology, it seems like the best thing would be to use the
>Internet as our communications medium. Nobody wants to pay for
>point-to-point leased lines anymore, after all. Multinet, TCPware, and
>even DECNet Phase V all have the ability to send DECnet traffic over IP.
>Right now I'm leaning towards Multinet - they have a free hobbyist
>license program, and Multinet can create point-to-point virtual DECnet
>circuits using UDP packets that can be routed over the Internet.
>They're simple to set up and administer.
>
> I have a fair amount of Internet bandwidth available at my location,
>and I can set aside a VS4000 VLC or model 90 to serve as a dedicated Phase
IV
>routing node.
>
>Bob Armstrong
Frankly, I'm not sure how well this would end up working... Maybe I'm
just bitter because the last "alter-net" I participated in (the C-64
Q-Link and BBS revival) never really got very strong. Still, the DEC
community might be able to support a small network. You never know.
>
>Subject: Re: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:26:04 -0800
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>On 12/15/2005 at 9:05 PM Allison wrote:
>
>>It's seriously incomplete. What data book is it?
>
>Rev 1. of the Datasheet, circa 1983--about 16 pages. The Intel 8272A from
>the Microprocessor and Peripherals 1983 databook looks to be a literal copy
>of it.
Oh, that one, I have it too. Yes, it's brief to the point of error.
Hint, Intel is the second source.
>Has anyone ever seen a uPD7265? I haven't.
>
I have two, and documentation.
Allison
>
>Subject: Re: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:43:09 -0800
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>On 12/16/2005 at 12:49 AM ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>> Any PC controller that can do 720k 3.5" format can do
>>> 8" as it's the same data rate. it's not what chips was
>>
>>I don;'t think you mean that!. The 720K 3.5" format is the same data rate
>>as the 360K 5.25" format. You mean any controller that can do the 1.44M
>>3.5" format (or for that matter the 1.2M 5.25" format), surely. Those are
>>the same as the 8" data rate.
>
>Yeah, he did--sort of. This assumes that the data separator can be
>jiggered to deliver separated FM data at the same rate that it delivers
>3.5" separated MFM data. i.e., 8" FM has the same data rate as 720K 3.5"
>MFM.
>
>Although, I'm still puzzling over my databook's definition of pin 21, it
>says "500 KHz for FM and 1 MHz for MFM" but makes no mention of write data
>rate (i.e. mimifloppy vs. 8"). Could this be simply something left out?
It's seriously incomplete. What data book is it?
If anything it also forgets 250khz (older FM 5.25).
Look at the schematic from apnotes, the authors did make an effort to
unhide information. It's just a matter of following the logic. Having
more of the text would help but with slowpoke scanner 31 pages would
take at least 4 hours.
Allison
Of the one pie-tin of HHC chips I had in my office area (yea, it's a mess -
so sue me! ;-) there were 26 (of of approx 140+ total) of the 68766 flavor;
about 2/3 were unmarked as to speed, most that were marked were 350ns, and
I have a few (read maybe 2 or 3) 300ns. If you *need* 300ns parts, you'll
have to specify that speshul. ;-)
Digging through the attic last nite, I found where the boxes of the rest of
the chips are, (about 10Kg / 22 lbs worth) so given time, I can supply as
many as needed by hoards of geeks I'm sure just can't *live* without having
a few of these. ;-) I'm thinking of making some into Xmas ornaments! ;-)
OK, not really.
Anyway, here's the prices (All in US$):
Cleaned, Erased & programmed with your custom code:
First chip: $8.00
Each additional: $4.00.
[[ Order 2 of the above, and get 2 Cleaned & Erased chips free. ]]
Cleaned & Erased:
First chip: $3.00
Each additional: $1.50
[[ Order 2 of the above, and get 2 extra chips free. ]]
Straight outta da bag:
First chip: $1.50
Each additional: $0.75
Shipping & Handling: $3.50 US, $5.00 Western Europe,
Other areas: Ask.
This includes double-bubble-wrap bagging & static bag.
Items are shipped US Postal Service Priority Mail, so you can see I don't
make any money on the shipping.
By the way, I can still make Panasonic HHC Basic chips as well, same prices
as the "Custom Programmed" chips above.
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy...
zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"
>
>Subject: RE: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
> From: Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:02:06 -0800 (PST)
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
>
>any clue who actually made 8" controllers for PC's?
> One of my APC's has a controller board and external
>5.25" drives made by Butler Flats Associates. Not sure
>what capacity the 8" drives have (haven't played with
>them much yet), but I believe the resident controller
>used a 765 chip. The Butler Flats boards used some
>Western Digital chip. Funny.
>
>--- Barry Watzman <Watzman at neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> ...And there were 8" controllers for
>> early PCs.
Any PC controller that can do 720k 3.5" format can do
8" as it's the same data rate. it's not what chips was
used it's how it was used.
Allison
>
>Subject: Re: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
> From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell)
> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:49:19 +0000 (GMT)
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>> Any PC controller that can do 720k 3.5" format can do
>> 8" as it's the same data rate. it's not what chips was
>
>I don;'t think you mean that!. The 720K 3.5" format is the same data rate
>as the 360K 5.25" format. You mean any controller that can do the 1.44M
>3.5" format (or for that matter the 1.2M 5.25" format), surely. Those are
>the same as the 8" data rate.
>
>> used it's how it was used.
>
>-tony
We've been through this already Your two hours behind. ;)
Yes, the data rate for 360k 5.25 is 250kbS, same for 3.5" 720k
and ALSO 8" SINGLE DENSITY. I'll bet you read that assuming
double density. Look at the table I put up.
Really, I have many systems with floppies, most all with 765 based
controllers of my design. I've supported others in their design.
While my typing is subject to a coordination problem and crappy
PC keyboards my main fun is leaving out just enough to see someone
jump to say.. but but but..!
Allison
RE:
"In the US, the doctrine of first sale states that whether the EULA allows
transfer or not, the item may be transferred. "
That is not correct.
What people don't understand is that the EULA and copyright are independent
and provide different sets of rights and restrictions to the buyer
(licensee) and seller (copyright holder and licensor).
The buyer (of a copy of a program under copyright laws), who is also a
licensee (under the EULA) is bound by the most restrictive provisions of
BOTH the copyright laws and the EULA.
Thus, if the EULA prohibits resale, that prohibition indirectly but very
effectively over-rides the first sale doctrine of the copyright law.
Essentially, the buyer is subject to two separate sets of terms (those
imposed by the copyright laws, and those imposed by the EULA), and cannot
violate either of them.
Should the buyer resell his copy of the software in such a situation, he
indeed would not have directly violated the copyright law (because the first
sales doctrine permits resale), and he could not be prosecuted for any
violation of the copyright law.
However, if resale was prohibited by the EULA, then he has violated the
terms of the EULA, to which he [presumably] agreed and therefore became
bound by. Consequently, he could still be the subject of legal action
because he violated the EULA, even though he did not violate copyright laws.
The EULA is a contract between the buyer and seller, and it's violation is a
civil case between the buyer and the seller.
However, there is an interesting "catch" here that applies to software which
does not apply in the case of other copyrighted works like a book. Software
cannot be used without making a copy of the software (e.g. duplicating the
copy of the software which resides on the disk drive in the memory of the
computer). Such duplication is a violation of the copyright laws UNLESS the
person doing the copying has permission from the copyright holder. The EULA
***IS*** that permission. Thus, because software cannot be used without
also making a copy of it (unlike a book, which can be read without making a
copy of it), use of the software in violation of terms of the EULA (or
without agreement to the EULA) automatically becomes a violation of the
copyright laws.
What this means in practical terms is that if software is resold in
violation of the EULA, then the seller has violated the EULA. The seller is
therefore subject to legal action for violating the EULA, while the buyer
will be subject to violation of the copyright laws IF HE ACTUALLY USES THE
SOFTWARE (because use will require duplication of the software, and the
buyer will have no authorization to perform such duplication).
Copyrighted books differ from copyrighted software in not one but two
important ways: First, there normally is no EULA. Second, a book can be
used without also, in the process, making a copy of it, while use of
software, by definition, also requires making a copy of the software.
Hi Patrick
Please excuse the direct communication; I got your email address from posts on
the Classic Computers message board, hope you don't mind.
I am trying to locate ROM dumps for a couple of H88 / Z89 machines I have. In
the H88, the MTR-89 (444-62) ROM is dead. In the Z89 the MTR-90 ROM has been
removed (444-142).
Can you help me, or direct me to a place where I can obtain dumps of these ROMs?
I am also interested in CP/M resources for these machines. Currently both
machines have the hard-sectored controller and the disks I do have are HDOS
only. Do you know where I can obtain images for CP/M disks?
Once again, apologies for the direct contact and thanks for your time.
Regards,
Robin England
robin.england at dial.pipex.com
>
>Subject: RE: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:29:46 -0800
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>n 12/15/2005 at 3:21 PM Allison wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Subject: RE: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
>>> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:30:29 -0800
>>> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>>>
>>>On 12/15/2005 at 1:18 PM Allison wrote:
>>>
>>>>;) your assumption is double density. 8" SSSD is not that fast.
>>>>I never said formats were the same or even dive interface only that
>>>>the data rates fly.
>>>
>>>Nope. I'm just going by the 765 data sheet:
>>>
>>>"Pin 19 - CLK - Single-phase 8 MHz (or 4 MHz for mini-floppies)
>squarewave
>>>clock"
>>>
>>>IOW, if you supported 3.5 DD (or SD) floppies, you weren't going to be
>>>able to do an A1 8" floppy without changing the clock.
>>
>>;) You know not the part you speak of. Question, what it that clock used
>
>>for? Hint data rates are NOT tied to it.
>
>....unless you count WRITING :) -- or is it your contention that FDC's not
>be capable of writing data?. AFAIK, neither NEC nor its licensees has
>changed the relationship between the write clock and the 4 or 8 MHz clock
>input.
Save for wrtclk controls that pin21 not the clock on pin19
>>Could a 765 running off of a 4MHz clock, given the proper data separator
>read 8" A1 diskettes? Maybe, but there are some other things tied to the
>clock that might have an effect, such as the length of the VCO sync-up
>period. Could it write or format them? No way--it's just not built that
>way.
It is built that way as the clock supplied on Pin21 is the write clock
and the RDW pin22 is the read clock. I've done it, not by plan but by
error. Ran well enough but when playing with step rates and heal load
times the they were off by *2, oops!
The format is controlled by counting the writes. The VCOsync is timed off
of the pin19 clock most cases even at double the length it works as that
was the difference between the 765 and the 765A. Not an issue for 8",
sometimes a problem for dense formats on 5.25" (10sectors of 512bytes),
big issue for 3.5" though there was the 7265 tuned for that (no index gap
written on format).
>>Not even close 765 is a wholly differnt animal. The Read operation needs
>>RDW and the write must have WC. Both are independent of the chipclock.
>
>Where be this WC pin on the 765 you speak of? I don't see it. Heck, I
>don't see it on the 179x, either.
Look for PIN21, The current data sheet has WCK. Older ones have WC.
The 179x write is clocked off of main clock with a divisor selected by
fm or MFM so 179x pin24 not only drives the internal uengine its direct
control of the write shift logic.
there are some very distinct and fundemental differnce between the WD
177x, 179x and the 765. the most basic is that the 765 has both head
select and unit select logic and also handles Ready and Fault.
>IMOHO, I note that it's the newer smaller drives, not the 8" drives that
>step faster, so, using your logic, it'd be the 8" drives, not the 5.25"
>that needed the slower clock.
Some do. Some don't. Depends on the era, as 765 is now 25 years old.
A lot of drives have come and gone a few lasted a while. CDC 8"
drives were pretty happy with 4mS step rates but buzzed like a
banshee at 6mS.
I have the distinct advantave of having supported the part in the field
as "factory" for over two years and playing backup for the product
engineer reponseable for the part for another two years while at NEC.
Any question I didn't have answers to were likely propritory. So
between having all the docs and a tube of them it's been the FDC of
choice since 1980 for me. When I have the 6809 CUBIX system going
that will make the 8th unique design using the part (765A) never
minding having used the 9266, 37C65 and 37C665.
Allison
