test-drb August 2006

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

216 participants
517 discussions

by tarsi＠binhost.com

Forgive me if this has been done, but has anyone ever attempted to create a registry of collectors on the CComp lists? A sort of virtual directory of people on the list, their particular collection/hobby interests, and perhaps contact information? I'd be interesting to have such a tome for looking up quick access to someone's specific knowledge if need be. Nathan -- -------------------- www.nathanpralle.com --------------------

18 years, 3 months

HP 21xx diagnostics

by jdbryan＠acm.org

I am trying to determine the revision date codes of three HP 2100/21MX diagnostic binary paper tapes in my possession. If anyone has the "Diagnostic Configurator Reference Manual" (HP number 02100-90157) with a print date later than August 1976 and earlier than January 1978, please check Table A-1 in Appendix A for the revision codes for the following diagnostic serial numbers: DSN 111202 -- 7900/01 CARTRIDGE DISC -- 12960-16001 DSN 111303 -- 7905 CARTRIDGE DISC -- 12962-16001 DSN 146100 -- PAPER TAPE READER-PUNCH -- 12597-16001 It's also possible that the revision codes are listed in the corresponding diagnostic operating manuals from that time period; these are the part numbers: 12960-90003 12962-90001 12597-90031 (I have the Configurator manuals before and after the above dates, and the DSNs bracket the ones I'm trying to identify.) -- Dave

18 years, 3 months

Imaging DEC uVAX MFM drives

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Imaging DEC uVAX MFM drives > From: J Blaser <oldcpu at rogerwilco.org> > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:11:25 -0600 > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > >Since I don't have (at least to my knowledge, yet) a functional VAX that >might do the trick, I've removed each drive and attached it to a known >working WD1002-WA2 controller [2] running on a 40Mhz 386 box, with >Debian Linux. I'm just using the dd command to image the drive to a >file, which I'll burn off to a CD when I've got everything imaged. This will not work with DEC RDxx drives that have been formatted with RQDX1/2 or RQDX3 controllers (Qbus 11 or MicroVAX). >For kicks, if I boot linux and try my dd command, it croaks with this >type of message: > >hda: read_intr: status=0x59 { DriveReady SeekComplete DataRequest Error } >hda: read_intr: error=0x10 { SectorIdNotFound }, CHS=0/0/1, sector 0 > >I get the same type of results when I use dd's seek=n option to other >blocks (sectors). > >Strangely, it almost appears that there is no low level format on the >drives, doesn't it? I'm not smart enough to make that call though, and >it seems strange that *all three* drives show this same result. Is it >possible that the original owner somehow 'bulk erased' the drives? I >did, at least, expect to find formating marks. There may not be a recognizeable format which is the same as saying no format using PC hardware. The drives may be fine and even bootable. >Is there something I've missed, trying to image these 'DEC' drives? Did >I miss some not-so-obvious jumper somewhere (though I diligently >examined all documentation I could find)? Surely, they're just good-ol' >MFM drives, right? I've tried this it never worked using WD1003/WD1006. >[1] I'm imaging three different drive types: RD23-A (71MB Micropolis >1325), RD54 (159MB Maxtor XT-2190), and a Rodime RO-202 11MB drive from >an AED WINC-08/05 RX01/RL02 emulation system. 71MB Micropolis is RD53 (all full height 5.25 are RD5x). All half height are RD3x (st225 and St251) The Rodime is nonDEC, it's likely from a third party. >[2] Yes, I still have every computer I've ever owned, including two >AT-class 286 machines made by Novell in the mid 80's. > >[3] Attempting to use the WD1002-WA2 in two different and more modern PC >motherboards with onboard IDE interfaces proved a no go. Even after >disabling the IDE controller (both primary and secondary) and the floppy >controller in the BIOS there were some general flakiness, and I couldn't >ever get the systems to recognize the MFM controller. The problem is the older controllers will often not work as the newer machines are too fast. You would have to slow down the ISA bus access (older bioses have a tweek for that.). Also the 1002 may require a driver that is incompatable with newer machines (IDE is closest to the wd1003). However, PC hard disk cards in general will be incompatable with DEC controller formatted drives. Third party controllers like the AED you may have a shot but, most of them used proprietory controllers. Your attempt to image the content of the drives will be unsuccessful using PC hardware. Allison

18 years, 3 months

Imaging DEC uVAX MFM drives

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: Imaging DEC uVAX MFM drives > From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:04:30 -0700 > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > >On 8/29/2006 at 1:47 PM Zane H. Healy wrote: > >>I suspect, but this is only a guess, that the issue is the way the DEC MFM >>drives are formated. There are only two ways that I'm aware of to format >>an MFM drive for use on a VAX. One is with a MicroVAX/VAXstation 2000 >>(formatter is built into the ROM's), the other is with the Field Service >>Diagnostics (customer diagnostics can't format drives). Many ways to format media on DEC systems. One is a suitable controller and (rqdx2/3)on a PDP-11 qbus machine runnig XXDP diags. The uVAX2000 has formatter in rom (RQDX3 compatable). uVAX-II with diagnostic/formatter disks (Rx50) and the RQDXn of choice. The later uVAX-III I think also had more diagnostic capability. >Bingo. Even back in the old PC XT/AT MFM days, you couldn't always take an >MFM drive formatted on one manufacturer's controller and use it as-is on >another's. Generally you had WDxxxx (compatable), WD RLL mostly compatable, and "other" mostly all over the map but may be compatable with WD1003 style. The S100 market and controllers were a similar problem. Since controllers were TTL/CPU and PALS usually the formats were not alike but formatting was usually not a problem. SCSI is far easier to live with even older near sasi format (Amprolb). Allison

18 years, 3 months

Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote: > > For the record, I think Jay is doing a GREAT job , > and more people who > > might be intimidated by this thread but who agre e > should speak up and > > say so. > > Well, I don't feel intimidated by the thread. But I > do think Jay is > doing a good job managing the list; I don't agree > with everything he > does/says, but I agree with most of it, and I thin k > he's probably doing > a better job than I would in his place. > > If Jay says the list rules have changed, the list > rules have changed, > and it is not for us to gainsay him. classiccmp i s > a tremendous > resource, and it seems to me more than a trifle > arrogant for us to try > to tell Jay how he has to run something he's > *donating* to us. > > If you don't like it, go start your own list. Mak e > it good, and I > might even subscribe. :-) > Right with you there der Mouse. Jay, as a relatively new member I have found this list useful and interesting, but if you do decide to do a mandatory "time-out" (and I hope you don't) I will understand, as I'm sure will many of us. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

18 years, 3 months

Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule)

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- "Nathan E. Pralle" <tarsi at binhost.com> wrote: >> snip << > collect a DEC), but I > could easily see a "pre-1984" list and a "post-198 4" > list for those who > would rather glean only that subject matter that > pertains to their > particular hobby interests. > > Nathan > I think that is a good idea, except that my interest lies in the TRS-80 (1980 to 1988ish) and the Amiga (erm.. mid 80's to present) so there would have to be a list that still combined everything as it is now (100 emails a day isn't so bad.... unless you have a family/partner to spend time with). Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

18 years, 3 months

New version of GTTY for PDP-8s, etc.

by lbickley＠bickleywest.com

I recently added a RK8E/Rk05 and a RX8E/RK02 to my PDP-8/F and had ample opportunity to use GTTY as my console/paper-tape interface. As a result, I have upgraded GTTY as follows since it's last "official" release: Changes since release 0.92 1) Added ability to output a CR, wait for echo, etc. before uploading PT image files. Aids in handling paper tape uploads to OS/8 programs (such as PIP, BUILD. etc.). 2) Tabbing is now supported. Added option to specify tab size. 3) Proper handling of CR on "Enter" (bug fix). 4) Option to support CF/LF on "Enter" for DOS. 5) Minor bug fixes. 6) Documentation improvements This latest version (0.96) of GTTY can be obtained from: ftp://bickleywest.com/gtty96 or by anonymous FTP: ftp bickleywest.com Name: anonymous Password: [email address] cd /gtty96 Cheers, Lyle -- Lyle Bickley Bickley Consulting West Inc. Mountain View, CA http://bickleywest.com "Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

18 years, 3 months

CCtalk "rules" etc.

by dm561＠torfree.net

And if you want to argue with Jay about what you think this list should be, why not take it off-list. m

18 years, 3 months

CCtalk "rules" etc.

by dm561＠torfree.net

--------------Original message: Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:20:40 -0400 From: "Evan Koblentz" <evan at snarc.net> Subject: RE: Statement & apology (was Re: 10 Year Rule) For the record, I think Jay is doing a GREAT job, and more people who might be intimidated by this thread but who agree should speak up and say so. ---------------Reply: Not intimidated, just didn't want to add any more to the noise, but yes, count me in as someone who thinks Jay is doing a great job! Also kudos to the moderators who give their time to separate the wheat from the chaff, which wouldn't be necessary if people would remember what the real purpose of this list is, specifically mutual assistance and support of and preservation of things related to "classic" computers. And thanks to all the people wading through the cr*p who have the sense to refrain from joining in. A 10 year rule makes little sense to me; by that criterion every generic beige box I pass sitting on the curb would qualify; on the other hand there were DOS & Windows machines which I _would_ consider classics. Why all this obsession about "rules"? Although there are doubtlessly some subjective differences of opinion, I think everyone on this list has a pretty good idea of what's classic and what's not; is common sense and a little self-control really in such short supply here? C'mon guys, let's be a little more "professional" and keep (make?) this list refreshingly different from most of the other noisy lists out there. And remember that some people have to pay connection charges, and that every time someone gets annoyed enough to unsubscribe that's potentially a resource lost to all of us. mike

18 years, 3 months

10 Year Rule (was Re: Recommendations for operating system)

by jim.isbell＠gmail.com

On 8/29/06, Zane H. Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote: > My > *KEY* complaint is people not changing the subject when the subject > of the thread drifts. I know I've missed out on threads that I'm > interested in due to this, and I've gone far farther than I have time > in threads that I've become disinterested in due to this. Amen and Amen. This causes me to lose a lot I am sure. And I can see why it happ-ens. I could change this subject line to "Subject Line Veracity" but then those following it would get lost. Its a "damned if you do and damned if you dont" situation. Jim Isbell "If you are not living on the edge, well then, you are just taking up too much space."

18 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
52
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 August 2006