>
>Subject: Re: Old MS-DOS & WIN Software
> From: Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:26:47 +0000
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>Madcrow Maxwell wrote:
>> Well, IMHO, Win95 was rather close to a real multitasking system, at
>> least for Win32 programs. Maybe not as good as Linux or even NT, but
>> it got the job done and got it done significantly better than 3.x
>
>My main problem with it was that it tended to disintegrate over time and
>eventually would need a reinstall as functionality would start to break and
>free disk space would mysteriously vanish...
That was a FAT problem with crashes and power fails. Also some apps that
allocate space and never return it. FYI: the worst offenders were MS apps!
There are patches that can be applied and last version (b) was better.
But in the end FAT is not robust.
>All modern OSes (MS-based and otherwise) seem to suffer from that, but Win95
>was the worst.
>
>> And before people go bashing 95 anymore, I want to go on record as
>> saying it's one of the few M$ products I actually like. It runs well
>> on even a 486 with only 8 MB of RAM
>
>Not for program development it doesn't. Been there, done that! I can believe
>it works well enough for WP and the like though.
The environment descrived is too small. While a 486/66 is fine "ve found that
16mb or better 32mb of was more effective than faster cpu.
>I'd say it was the point where the downward spiral of ever-increasing
>application bloat started though. I don't remember Win 3.x apps or even apps
>on other platforms being as colossal as the typical Win95 app was, and it's
>all gradually got worse since then. I'm not sure whether Win95 itself is the
>root cause of that or not - probably not, but it's strange that it happened
>around that time period.
Bigger OS and fancier apps with inefficient compilers that drag truckloads
along for the ride needed or not contribute. Whats scary is when I see apps
written in script languages that compile to some intermediate form that isn't
native then we know it's convenience rather than efficientcy.
Allison
>cheers
>
>Jules
>
>Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:13:10 -0800
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>On 12/13/2005 at 1:52 PM Allison wrote:
>
>>STD really is the Z80 processor bus. A good choice would be SS50 (SWTP)
>>as it's 6800/6809 based.
>
>Hmmm, maybe originally, but I've seen STD bus cards for just about any 8-
>or 16-bit CPU you could imagine. Didn't Fujitsu put out a 6809-based STD
>bus PC? I think they called it the FM-7 or some such.
>
>And STD bus is still in use.
>
>Cheers,
>Chuck
Indeed, it still is. But there are many choices and in the end it would
depend if you wish to use boards native to that bus. If you not using
board native to the bus then there is no compelling reason other than
convenience in seeking protocards and connectors.
In the past I've used PC XT (ISA-8) bus as it's 8bit data/20bit address
and enough pins for anything. the convenice was there are/were bare
busses (or you can cut up an old mainboard) and protoboards were cheap
and fairly large.
Allison
The Dr. Neherlab (of the Dutch Telecom, PTT) had in the end of the 70ties their
own developed bus system. I was there and have such a (6800)based system
still in the attick. My first home-built system, 1978).
There were 8k bytes (with 2114) memory cards, 16k (2716) EPROM cards, and
*different* CPU cards. I remember the 6800-based (obvious), but there was also
a Z80-based card. Keep the memory boards in the backplane, swap the 6800
for the Z80 CPU card, and the system works (with other software of course).
To be that versatile, the CPU boards had extra logic to make the bus interface
always working (for example, the 6800 is synchronous in the bus transfers).
Their system used the DIN41612 connectors (IIRC), It is the same connector
used on VME modules, and has 32 pins in one row. With the 2- or 3-row version
you have sufficient pins (96) for even a 68000-based bus system.
That system also carried the power supply over the bus. I remember that pin #1
and pin #2 and pin #31 and #32 were used for +5V and GND.
Hell, why not use the VME 3-HE bus pin designation for you own design?
If you want a reliable, robust system, do not use card edge connectors.
The VME connectors are superior. Besides, Eurocard boards with at one short
edge drilled holes for DIN41612 3-row is pretty standard stuff. And if you want to
build a small system, and have "dedicated" card for memory, (flash)ROM, and
do not forget I/O !! - my humble opinion is Eurocard is the best choice.
BTW, the female 3-row counterpart for DIN41612 also exists in a version to connect
to flat cable! So, take some 20 cm of flat cable and pinch that female part on the
flat cable, et voil?, you have the backplane / bus ! For improved noise immunity
perhaps not the best solution, but then it is fairly cheap that way.
my 2 (euro)cents,
- Henk, PA8PDP.
________________________________
Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org namens Roger Merchberger
Verzonden: di 13-12-2005 19:03
Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Onderwerp: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
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.
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.
> > > 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. ;-)
>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! ;-)
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate."
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein
zmerch at 30below.com |
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.
> This is one place the law needs to be changed. Because copyright law is (by
> consititutional mandate in the U.S.) designed to advance "the useful arts
> and sciences" by making works available and by making sure that they end up
> in the public domain. ...
> Frankly, if its out of print, the copyright owner has decided that it is not
> worth it for them to distribute it. At that point, for the copyright
> holder to prevent distribution is unacceptable, even if it is legal.
On the whole, I tend to be sympathetic to this view. This is one small
place where I have the opportunity to "put my money where my mouth
is." I just recently signed a contract on a book. One of the things I
asked of the publisher is that if they ever take it out of print, then I
can request that the copyright revert to me. My intent is that the book
not disappear. I would either release it through a self-publisher like
Lulu or just make it available on the net. It turns out that certain other
details (like third party translations) get a little more complicated but
not in a way that harms my objectives.
So at least in one area, some of the players are pretty sane. But then
again, books have generally been the most sane part of the copyright
scene. If only software and music thought of their products like we
think of books...
Brian L. Stuart
>
>Subject: WordPerfect for DOS 5.1
> From: Al Hartman <alhartman at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:02:17 -0800 (PST)
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>Not necessarily true...
>
>My Wordperfect 5 for DOS came with a Bitstream Font
>engine that added Bitstream fonts to WordPerfect for
>DOS.
Worked well too.
>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...
WP6 was really good and I have it on the system still.
A friend uses WP8 or 9 as Word is not optimum for legal
briefs and the like.
Also WPis available for Linux and thats a very good thing
for the non-gui desktop user.
Allison
>
>Subject: Fancy Font?
> From: Al Hartman <alhartman at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:14:12 -0800 (PST)
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>Anyone ever use this?
I still ahve it for CP/M works ok.
teamed up with ROFF (CPM runoff) it's handy.
>BTW... Anyone got an AST SixPak Plus they are willing
>to part with? I built an XT for old times sake, but it
>only has 256k.
>
I have a sixpack with the permium pack (more ram) I haven't
decided what I may do with.
Allison
>
>Subject: Re: Old MS-DOS & WIN Software
> From: Madcrow Maxwell <madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:24:11 -0500
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>Well, IMHO, Win95 was rather close to a real multitasking system, at
>least for Win32 programs. Maybe not as good as Linux or even NT, but
>it got the job done and got it done significantly better than 3.x
Yes, though not nearly as good as NT. It reallys shows pain when
there is networking activity and multiple tasks.
There were three multitasking (non unice) paths from DOS. Win95, NT3.51
and OS/2 and NT is the only remaining technology line of the three that's
semidecent.
>And before people go bashing 95 anymore, I want to go on record as
>saying it's one of the few M$ products I actually like. It runs well
>on even a 486 with only 8 MB of RAM (already an almost obsolete config
>by the time Win95 came out) and has one of the cleanest, nicest GUIs
>around (bested at the time only by NeXT and OS/2 WPS)
As someone that maintained W95b in a business environment for 5years
and as a user it's ok. W98se was better but more bloated. If you built
the hybrid of 98 internals and 95gui it was decent. However it's problems
were that if it swaps things sometimes get nasty and FAT16/32 was not
robust. Also if an app went off in the woods the OS was doomed. It
certainly was serviceable and ran on fairly light platforms usefully.
After W98se the bloat was unmanageable.
Allison
Anyone ever use this?
That ad for the Zebra Disk System a few posts back,
was done on an Imsai Computer using CP/M 2.2 with a
Z80 Board in it.
I processed the text using WordStar and put in
commands VERY similar to HTML to output text to an
FX-80 F/T Printer with a program called Fancy Font...
Which I guess would be called a RIP, but it wasn't
PostScript.
Later, we moved to the IBM PC Version of this program
I ran on either an Eagle XT Clone, or an XT Clone I
was using.
Further on... I was using an Atari-ST Upgraded to
2.5mb with a Magic Sac Cartridge (Mac 512 Emulator) a
20mb Atari Disk Drive, and Epstart to get my Epson
FX-80 F/T to emulate an Imagewriter using Adobe Type
Manager for better font handling.
THOSE were the days... When squeezing "Letter Quality"
out of old Dot Matrix Printers was FUN!!!
I remember drooling over Don Lancaster's articles that
married an Apple Laserwriter Controller Board to an HP
LaserJet. I ALWAYS wanted one of those. Never did it.
Now, I have SEVERAL LaserJet IIIP printers, the Adobe
Postscript Cartridge AND the Pacific Page Cartridge.
Neither of which seem to work well with Windows XP or
MacOS X.
Oh well...
BTW... Anyone got an AST SixPak Plus they are willing
to part with? I built an XT for old times sake, but it
only has 256k.
I have to find one of those controller cards that will
support a 1.44mb FDD also... Maybe at the Trenton
Computer Festival next spring...
Al
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Glad to oblige..
Here's some websites with pics...
http://www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/zintface.htm
(I made both the Label and Ad in this page.. LOL!)
http://www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/slvr-fdd.htmhttp://www.outlawnet.com/~jboatno4/welcome.htmhttp://www.timexsinclair.org/unsorted/TS-ZebraDiskSystem.html
My friend Tom still has one of the black FDD-3000
Systems (all in one case). I may get it from him at
some time.
I don't have a TS-2068 anymore, but I DO have a
prototype of a U.S. ZX-Spectrum, and a Spectrum
version of the FDD Interface.
So, I could run such a system using my Spectrum.
Al
--- cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote:
> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 21:08:27 +0000
> From: Adrian Graham <witchy at binarydinosaurs.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Amdek 3" Floppy Drives
>
> Hi Al,
>
> On 12/12/05 01:04, "Al Hartman"
> <alhartman at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I still have a couple here with the OS for that
> system
> > on them.
>
> Have you got any pictures of the units? I don't
> think I've heard of that
> subsystem at all!
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Adrian/Witchy
> Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
> Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private
> home computer
> collection?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>Subject: Re: CUBIX/6809 updates
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:12:21 -0800
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>On 12/13/2005 at 1:03 PM Roger Merchberger wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Maybe not 80-100, but how about STD bus?
>
STD really is the Z80 processor bus. A good choice would be SS50 (SWTP)
as it's 6800/6809 based.
If you use a 100pin connector with odd or alternate pins as ground then
the backplane can be ribbon cable with IDC connectors!
Allison
