>
>Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: Jos Dreesen <jos.mar at bluewin.ch>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:20:15 +0100
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>
>Am dinsdag, 13.12.05, um 16:45 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb
>dave04a at dunfield.com:
>>>
>>
>> Possibly - Although Cubix was originally designed to be the OS for my
>> main
>> computer, and by that fact is pretty close to what I envisioned. It
>> was however
>> done 25+ years ago, and there is room for improvement. I'd wait until
>> some
>> more people have gotten into it and see what feedback develops.
>>
>
>A workaround for the floppy dataseparator would be very nice...
>
> Jos Dreesen
Theres a design on the net for a decent digital one that was from
a NEC apnote. Someone found it a while back and I didn't copy
the URL. If no one finds it I can with extreme pain scan the
apnote published by NEC and also appeared in EDN May 13 1981.
If that isn't available there is a simple but usable data sep that was
used on the IBM XT FDC based on a TTL counter chip or two.
Allison
Does all cctech traffic get dup'ed to cctalk? I am subscribed to both
lists and seem to be getting lots of duplicates.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
>
>Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: Roger Merchberger <zmerch at 30below.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:03:10 -0500
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Warning: I did not top post! There are further responses inline with the
>reply. ;-)
>
>=-=-=-=-=
>
>Firstly, I'd like to mention that I've always wanted to build my own
>homebrew 6809 system... altho I've been thinking of designing my own buss
>system (around 80 pins or so) so other CPUs could be used if desired. I was
>thinking of a multi-board system with a 6-7 socket backplane. I want it to
>be educational to others (read: see-thru Lucite case & lotsa Blinkenlights!
>;-) at the same time that I learn from it, too.
>
>For a few reasons, S100 is not an option: I want the system smaller /
>easily portable (I'm guesstimating in inches: 6x6x9, with an external 5V
>only switcher), and I also want it to be easily buildable by a hobbyist.
>Trying to dremel an S100 cardedge would seem to be quite a bit of work for
>not a lot of gain - but square boards with a pair of 40-pin IDE connector
>(for example) edge-soldered on would be pretty easy to do at home.
>
>I do have a question:
>
>Are there any 80-100 pin buss structures already in use I could copy that
>might fit my bill? I'd rather do something that might be compatible with
>something else out there if it's similar enough to what I want to accomplish.
Not that some busses are processor specific so if you using CPU XXXX busses
X,Z and Q may not be usefully available to you.
On the other hand if your going small, at most you need an addres, data and
control busses and for most 8bitters thats easily fit into less than 40 pins.
I've done this before and a 8+ pin connector with odd or even pins all ground
makes for a simple blackplane (IDC connectors on a wide peice of cable).
>I'm hoping to take lots of pictures & basically make the design free on the
>web as I do this, mainly to show people if an idiot like me can make a
>computer, so can you! ;-)
>
>Oh, and for the record: Cubix looks *kewl*. ;-)
>
>Rumor has it that Scott Stevens may have mentioned these words:
>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:15:48 +0000
>>"Dave Dunfield" <dave04a at dunfield.com> wrote:
>> > > I think cubix was a good idea, but this 15 years too late for
>> > > me as I
>> >
>> > What a co-incidence ... CUBIX is 20+ years old, so it should
>> > have been perfect :-)
>
>And it's never too late for good ideas. ;-)
>
>> > > realize in hindsight that 128k of
>> > > memory - split code and data is needed for any real work.
>
>Them's fightin' words. 64K w/OS-9 got me thru High school & my first year
>of college, before I got my CoCo3 & 128K (later to 512K) but I still had a
>maximum 64K code space - and that kept me working until the mid-90's. Other
>than running (crawling) Autocad, my '386 was the 'toy' and my CoCo was the
>workhorse. Once I got an EISA 486-66 server from my (then current)
>employer, did I consider the CoCo my secondary machine.
I didn't cross the 64k barrier until 1981. Even then I rarely use it all.
>> > > This the crummy 8088 has but not the 6809.
>> >
>> > Funny, I've done LOTS of "real work" in <64k 8-bit CPUs. Even
>> > now a lot of my command line utilities are compiled in 64k
>> > "tiny" model (Referencing stuff known here, Anyone notice that
>> > ImageDisk, my Simulators and the various other transfer
>> > utilities that I've done are all .COM files) - I used to think
>> > 64k was lots of memory... and I still do!
>
>Unless you're running Windows. ;-)
Here's the kicker. Winders sucks up a whole hell of a lot of
space but an App that uses it wisely can be trivial in size.
>>64K is a HECK of a lot of memory if your code is all in assembly.
>>I've worked on projects where the limited program memory in the
>>micro, i.e. the 16K of program memory available on-chip, was a
>>godsend- it served as a brake on futher 'feature creep' requests
>>from the folks in marketing. ("yes, we can include new feature
>>'x' but it means doing away with the lookup table that feature 'j'
>>you requested last month uses.")
>
>A few of those microcontrollers have 128K of flash on 'em now.
>
>I want my CoCo on a chip! ;-)
I sure a Xylinx mumblefrap with all the right goop could get you
that. However with 8k srams, 8keproms and a amazingly small
handfull of parts.. As drawn by Dave 27 chips gets you 48k ram,
OS in 8k Eprom, 2 serial ports, FDC that can handle 4 disks
(360/720 5.25 or 720k 3.5" and 8" is basicaly there). If you
recognize that the six 8Ksrams can be replaced with one 64k sram
you knock off 5 chips and the FDC portion is 10-11 chips alone
(basic 765 with ttl around it). If one could find a smc9229 FDI
or mod the circuit for 37C65 that chip count gets much smaller.
I happen to have some 64k srams and the majikal super rare
custom FDI so the chip count will be under 20. As small single
board systems go that is a very small chip count with out using
PALS/GALS.
Allison
>Laterz,
>Roger "Merch" Merchberger
>
>--
>Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate."
>SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein
>zmerch at 30below.com |
When I worked for Zebra Systems in the 1980's, we were
selling a Floppy Disk System for the Timex/Sinclair
2068 (which also worked for the Sinclair ZX-Spectrum
with a different Adaptor), that was basically a
seperate Z-80 Computer with 64k of RAM and could run
CP/M in 80 Column Mode on an RGB Monitor plugged into
the Controller Unit.
At the time, Timex Portugal who made these units...
Gave us a choice of 5.25" Disk Drives, 3.5" Disk
Drives or 3" Disk Drives made by Amdek.
They pushed the Amdek drives the hardest on us.
And I BEGGED Stewart to go with either NO Disk drives
as we could buy them cheaper in the U.S. and add them
to the Controller ourselves... Or, go for 5.25"
Drives.
For reasons I don't fully understand... Stewart opted
for the Amdek 3" Drives.
They were plenty reliable, but... We couldn't get
media for them from anywhere but Timex Portugal, which
meant importing large orders of blank media from
overseas. Rather than getting them from a domestic
source as we did our 3.5" and 5.25" media for our
Coco, Atari-ST, Amiga and other products.
To this day, I think we would have sold MANY more
units had we gone to another media format than 3"
Amdek disks.
I still have a couple here with the OS for that system
on them.
I have a ZX-Spectrum Bus Adapter here, but no drive
controller or drives.
Al Hartman
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I have a retail boxed Generic copy of MS-DOS 3.3 sitting here on my
bookshelf, in pristine new condition. I won't part with it, but I might be
willing to make a copy of the diskettes if I can do it on my Z-100 (none of
my other machines still have 5.25" disk drives), and, I guess I should add,
if the disks are still good. Please note, it is MS-DOS, not PC-DOS. Not
sure if this matters to you or not. Please contact me privately to pursue
this.
------------------------------
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:00:01 +0000
From: Mark Firestone <pdp11_70 at retrobbs.org>
Subject: PC-DOS 3.3
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <439D9E81.30109 at retrobbs.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
I don't suppose anyone has a copy of PC-DOS 3.3 they'd be willing to
part with, or make disk images for me? I have to restore an application
on a PS/2 model 30 that requires it, and we've lost the disks (probably
about 10 years ago...)
Anyone? Please?
Thanks,
Mark
*******
>
>Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: dave04a at dunfield.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:37:44 +0000
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>> I'm hoping to take lots of pictures & basically make the design free on the
>> web as I do this, mainly to show people if an idiot like me can make a
>> computer, so can you! ;-)
>>
>> Oh, and for the record: Cubix looks *kewl*. ;-)
>
>Would you be interested in collaborating on such a page - With the recent
>interest, I've been thinking about putting a web page detailing the construction
>of a 6809 system capable of running CUBIX ... If I can get you to do most of
>that work, that would be great! :-)
>
>Dave
>
>--
>dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield
>dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
>com Vintage computing equipment collector.
I've gone and started something. ;)
I'd be willing to be in on this too.
Allison
>
>Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: "Jeff Davis" <jdaviscl2 at soupwizard.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:09:36 -0800 (PST)
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On Sun, December 11, 2005 6:57 am, Dave Dunfield wrote:
>> Highly recommended as a "fun project" if you like the idea of building a
>> functional and unique computer (note: I mean really building, not "putting
>> a PC board in a box").
>>
>> If you have questions after all that, I am happy to answer them. If there is
>> enough interest, I would also consider putting together a page specifically
>> about CUBIX and building a machine to run it
>
>Building a 6809 CUBIX machine does sound fun. I've been looking for a smaller
>project I can work with over time; I keep getting older computers (mostly sun
>or macintosh) and fixing them up, but then they're cleaned up and running and
>I get bored with them.
It's why I build too.
>I'm not a hardware design guy though, and wirewrapping is out for me. I can do
>board stuffing and soldering, so if anyone else is going to design a
>"reference" pcb that people can go in on and order in some quantity to reduce
>costs, I'd be up for that.
Wirewrap is ok to a point. If the chip count is too high I think harder
about doing it. the hands and eyes arent what they used to be.
>Dave, are there any areas of CUBIX that you have plans to improve or features
>to add, but don't have time? If I'm going to build a little system to
>softwarily tinker with, I might as well make something useful out of my
>tinkering.
I'd considered it for my self but the cost for boards demands a commitment
in cash up front I cant justify for a one off version. Marketing a board
requires a stable parts supply so what's layed out can be built by everyone.
That always leads to being in the kitting business which is a remarkably
time/money consuming process.
You can ask Bob (SparetimeGizmos) about this. His kitted systems are
nicely done and I suspect there are more than a few hours invested in
getting it all together and supporting it. If you want a really super
ELF (COSMAC 1802) or a 6120 (PDP8 in CMOS clothes) he's got two
winners there.
Allison
yup, the 2inch drives were built into the Minisport,
which had some pretty nifty firmware feature, which
was able to exert control of the command line of
another computer connected by a serial cable.
--- cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org <cclist at sydex.com>
wrote:
> On 12/11/2005 at 9:22 AM Lance Lyon wrote:
>
> >Amstrad CPC's used 3" diskettes (180kb capacity).
> >
> >cheers,
> >
> >Lance
>
> Smith-Corona PWP's used 2.8" diskettes and didn't
Zenith offer a 2"
> diskette at one time?
>
> --Chuck
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>Subject: Re: WordPerfect for DOS 5.1
> From: Doc Shipley <doc at mdrconsult.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:36:31 -0500
> To: General at mdrconsult.com, "Discussion at mdrconsult.com":On-Topic and Off-Topic
> Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Allison wrote:
>>>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.
>
> I think this is a regional thing, at least to some extent, but it has
>changed a little. (I'm "primary tech nerd" for a lawyer friend, so I
>have the latest skinny)
Same here. I'd heard most had gone with PDF. If all else fails the
paper version still rules.
> WP is still the common application of choice, but where most
>electronic documents were submitted as WordPerfect documents 3-5 years
>ago, PDF is now the preferred submission format. This has a lot to do
>with the perceived security of a PDF document, and the fact that it's
>mostly application-agnostic.
>
> Please note that I said _perceived_ security! I do know it's not
>difficult to alter a PDF. The public, for the most part, doesn't.
Yep rodger that. It's far harder to do a file compare to the original
and be sure you r getting an unalterd PDF.
Word however, you have to be careful as it's possible to see previous
versions and changes!
Allison
>
>Subject: RE: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: "Robert Armstrong" <bob at jfcl.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:38:37 -0800
> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>> Same problem as the S100, tho - how do you chisel out an XT
>> board edge connector at home...
>
> I've had fairly good success (the SBC6120 and Elf 2000) using stacking bus
>connectors, similar to PC/104. They aren't quite as general purpose as a
>real backplane, but you don't need fingers and you don't need gold plating.
>
>Bob
This is a solution I've used as well that is cheap and has few negatives
if any. One advantage is the connector is not married to any bus.
I've used multiple 20, 34 and 40wide ribbon with IDC connectors for a
bus (alternate grounds and power) that performs well at decent speeds.
If one cable is not enough pins then use two side by side. It's
advantage is common, cheap and you can taylor bus width to your needs.
Since the "back plane" is short typically the problems of ringing and
cross talk are minimal and adaquate grounds keep it clean.
Allison
