test-drb December 2005

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

235 participants
580 discussions

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates > From: woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:05:58 -0700 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >I think a Floppy chip with a real built in data separator is the way to go. Find a37c65 or 9266. no big deal using raw ttl as then you can do ANY data rate. >Also a good dma is needed, as having the cpu do floppy I/O leaves >no margin for serial I/O. Not required. Small system, nice addition but pumps up complexity more than a bit. most of the S100 CP/M systems (and some of the SBCs) are non DMA and not even interrupts for serial IO. All polled. Not as nice but hardly serious. >The other thing is a NICE terminal to go with the system. I don't want >to boot windows or dos to run a terminal. For development work a PC is >a good idea until you get a OS running. I have a used Altos IV here, > from what the keyboard says but I don't know of how many years of >life the terminal may have left. Fix it, build one or find a VT220,320,320 whatever. myself I plan to buld a subsystem terminal but for the time being a VT320 or a DEC VK170 for those that know what that is. Allison

18 years, 9 months

Anyone interested in a group purchase of MCM68766 chips?

by ISC277＠CLCILLINOIS.EDU

Hey everyone, Are any of you interested in a group purchase of MCM68766 EPROM chips? These are used in M8189s and possibly in some other DEC equipment. I'm looking to upgrade my M8189 to a -BJ with these chips. Unfortunately the places that sell them are asking for a $150-200 minimum order. If you're interested, let me know. Julian

18 years, 9 months

Toshiba T3100/e memory upgrade

by dm561＠torfree.net

Has anyone upgraded the memory on a T3100 by any chance? ( 1MB standard, 5MB max) Looks like 4 standard 30-pin modules, 256KB or 1MB, but it doesn't recognize any of the ones I've tried so I assume there's something proprietary about them. Anybody have any info or experience? TIA, mike

18 years, 9 months

CUBIX/6809 updates

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates > From: woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:29:00 -0700 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >No way that would work, as I don't have a TTL level monitor here, or a >real keyboard... So unfornturnate, no material to build with. >Just PC stuff! I still not figured out the terminal design yet, but it >would have 3 over laping You could use a PC for a terminal >displays ... lowest level -- some sort of graphic display -- say 8 grey >or 8 colors -- 3 dots per >byte. Second level -- User Ascii with fixed colors and transparentcy. >Third level -- System Ascii >and borders and cursor pointers. Thats one way and likely the most complex hardware intense. Allison

18 years, 9 months

WordPerfect for DOS 5.1

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: WordPerfect for DOS 5.1 > From: Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:43:15 -0600 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >Allison wrote: >> A friend uses WP8 or 9 as Word is not optimum for legal >> briefs and the like. > >Why? At the time (5-7 years ago) it was the standard in the legal industry as it handled footnotes, citations and other aspects of legal documents better than work at the time. That may have changed, maybe. Allison >-- >Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ >Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/ >Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/

18 years, 9 months

WordPerfect for DOS 5.1

by alhartman＠yahoo.com

Not necessarily true... My Wordperfect 5 for DOS came with a Bitstream Font engine that added Bitstream fonts to WordPerfect for DOS. I was NOT limited to the Printer Fonts, though I had an HP LaserJet and a special WordPerfect Font Cartridge for that which added many standard fonts to the Printer as well... This functionality was later added into WPDOS 6.x... If I had to, I could do ALL of my current WordProcessing needs on WPDOS 5.x or 6.x, and I did for quite a while... Regards, Al Hartman > Allison wrote: > >> As to better docs... WordperfectV5/dos was better than any of the MS >> apps for that back then. > > > He wasn't talking about document creation, he was talking about > printing, for which he is right on the money. If you used Word > Perfect 5 for DOS, you were limited to the fonts your printer > supported. If you used Geoworks, or Ghostscript (I used a retail > package called "GOSCRIPT"), or Win 3.1, you could use any font you > want and the print subsystem would just rasterize it as graphics. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

18 years, 9 months

CUBIX/6809 updates

by dave04a＠dunfield.com

For the benefit of any one who is building up a 6809 based system and planning to run my CUBIX OS (or thinking about it): I have just updated the source code, documents, disk images and simulator for the CUBIX/6809 system which are available on my site. Main change is that I have ported my Micro-C 6809 compiler over to run native on the system. Languages currently included with CUBIX are: Assembler, Asp (high- level assembler), Basic, Forth, APL and now C. Due to the large size of the C documentation, the documentation diskette has been split into two physical disks (well... images for the simulator), "System/Utilities" and "Languages". The C compiler happened to expose an obscure stack corruption bug in the OS, so I have hunted that down and swatted it. I've also updated the simulator to include the ability to import/export text files as console input/output, and enhanced the debugger to include the ability to disassemble in either "6809" mode ("SWI" == "SWI"), or in "CUBIX" mode ("SWI / FCB xx" becomes "SSR xx") and a nifty "Step over" command which allows you to execute at full speed until the stack pointer returns to where you started. (The debug enhancements are brought to you courtesy of the stack corruption bug :-). Regards, Dave -- dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com com Collector of vintage computing equipment: http://www.parse.com/~ddunfield/museum/index.html

18 years, 9 months

looking for user manual of HP2113E or HP2117F

by henk.gooijen＠oce.com

All, thanks for the responses. I now know what to look for (21MX) on eBay. I am not in a hurry, I can wait, but I have http://www.manualsplus.com/ bookmarked. But the link to the pdf (Chapter 2) given by Bob is probably all I need to get going! thanks! - Henk, PA8PDP > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Glen Slick > Sent: woensdag 14 december 2005 1:54 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: looking for user manual of HP2113E or HP2117F > > On 12/13/05, Gooijen, Henk <henk.gooijen at oce.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am looking for the user manual (console operations) > > of the HP 2113E and / or HP 2117F. > > Anybody know a download site ? > > > > Two manuals that would be good to find are: > > 21MX E-Series Computer > HP 2109B and HP 2113B > Operating and Reference Manual > part number 02109-90014 > > -or- > > 21MX E-Series Computer > Technical Reference Handbook > part number 5950-3765 > > (you missed out on this one: > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8719876844 ) > > Neither of these appear to be currently available on bitsavers > You can find the 2113/2117 front panel schematics here: > > http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/hp/1000/1000_MEF_EngrRef/ > 92851-90001_Mar81_8.pdf This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a "reply" message. Thank you for your cooperation.

18 years, 9 months

PC-DOS 3.3

by pete＠dunnington.plus.com

On Dec 13 2005, 23:07, Jules Richardson wrote: > Jim Leonard wrote: > > You can't view them directly, but if you click on Reply To Author it > > does get the email to them. > > And what if you locate someone in a post from ten years back who's no longer > on that address? In the past, if the company was obvious in the email address, > I'd look up the company name and politely contact them to see if the person I > wanted to reach was still there but just on a different address. That's no > longer possible now either... > > What bugs me is that Google have taken a useful archive and taken > functionality away from the user. It's either Google Groups and not linked to > Usenet, or it's a Usenet interface and should have the same functionality. I agree with the sentiment, and if there was a choice I'd use something else too. I hate the "new improved" format for more reasons than have been mentioned. But presumably you've not noticed the "Unlock email address" link in each message? Look closely -- there's an ellipsis (actually, three dots, not a proper ellipsis) in each "From:" adddress, just before the "at". Click on that. If you get some completely indecipherable image, just click "Cancel" and get another, hopefully better, image. Once you enter the correct data, click OK and you get the post with real addresses. Yes, it's a pain, but it (mostly) works. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

18 years, 9 months

CUBIX/6809 updates

by henk.gooijen＠oce.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of woodelf > Sent: dinsdag 13 december 2005 23:35 > To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates > > Gooijen, Henk wrote: > > >but it would make the entry of an address (16-bit) cumbersome. > >You must enter it as an 8-bit high and an 8-bit low address. > >I'd definately would go for 16 switches in this case, and also > >16 LEDs for the address. Perhaps a matter of taste ... > > > > > But come to think of it,. was not the 6809 board first > designed for your PDP 11 interface?. More than ample switches > and lights. True. I was not thinking of the I/O hardware capacity, but in the physical console, already built. The "blinkenlight" project can control the full-blown PDP-11/70 console (just), but if you need even more LEDs/switches to control, the design allows you to stack several I/O boards! Each I/O boards gives 64 input pins and 64 output pins, so go ahead and wire that S/3 console :-) - Henk, PA8PDP This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a "reply" message. Thank you for your cooperation.

18 years, 9 months

← Newer
1
...
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
...
58
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb December 2005