OK, the 840AV has one of those mini-centronics-style
connectors on the rear for the network transceiver.
I have some "Asante FriendlyNet Thin Adapter"s that will
mate with this and work -- for a 10Base2 network!
The Asante box has an RJ45 on the rear. The cable that
mates to the network connector on the 840AV has that
funky mini-centronics on one end and an RJ45 *plug*
on the other.
This choice of connectors -- and the "Thin Adapter"
moniker -- suggests that I could plug the RJ45 *plug*
end of this cable into a hub directly?
Is this true? Or, just wishful thinking (and an unfortunate
choice in connectors on Asantes part)?
On Aug 7 2006, 17:10, Don wrote:
> The Asante box has an RJ45 on the rear. The cable that
> mates to the network connector on the 840AV has that
> funky mini-centronics on one end and an RJ45 *plug*
> on the other.
>
> This choice of connectors -- and the "Thin Adapter"
> moniker -- suggests that I could plug the RJ45 *plug*
> end of this cable into a hub directly?
I have a few of those. No, sorry, the RJ45 isn't a 10baseT connection.
It's more like an AUI connection, but with a different connector.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
> The best processor is going to be different based on the person
>you are talking to. Everyone has their own idea as to what
>features are important, and fond old memories of working on
>an ancient (wasn't then) OS tend to sway their decision.
That was implied, but I'll reiterate: What platform (includes implementation) do you think was really neat and why.
P.S. The VAX had problems quote was mostly to illustrate that all computers can be dissed. Somebody asked why: mostly implementation.
The original VAX was very instruction-heavy, but DEC did it right and started offloading to "heavy microcode" (read emulator). However, some
VAXen designed in 1992 were still using Q-bus for main expansion. 'Nuff said. Implementation. There are other little bits like this.
>Yes...but there's an easier way.
>
>Leave input-device set to keyboard and output-device set to screen, and
>simply unplug the keyboard. When it can't find the keyboard, it
>switches over to ttya for input and output on its own.
The point I was pontificating and pondering as a possibility presumes, perhaps, prior persons
preselecting port 1 or 2 for the console, and since the OBP was directing output there, you wouldn't
get output on the screen, which was the initial problem in the post,
Patrick Finnegan writing on Chuck Guzis' commentary:
{ I like that analogy... and in order to add on the rooms, they had to
get rid "of some of the more "interesting" parts of the original, like
the "POP CS" instruction.}
{Some are a horrible nightmare: the intel chip for example, and to a
far far lesser degree, MIPS.}
I quite agree that the 'shack' expanded into the current 8086
conglomeration but we must consider its success. It's practically the
'only' thing left for the masses to experiment with. Those of us still
in pre-PC era(well, trying to stay there - getting harder and harder
these days!), and I do enjoy fiddling-around with my Coleco ADAM and
coding the Z-80, can only wonder and ponder, what-if...
Keep on computing!
Murray :)
> Didn't you get the memo?
>
>"The Network is the Computer"
AHA! Back on topic. They sold you both, and it worked, and it was pretty open-standard.
Another Sun-(kina-sorta-related) question - have a Sun labeled Archive 150MB QIC, and I was trying to read some of the CV tapes
that Josh had, but I was having big problems with errors and the tape going slack. I've been trying to figure out what's up, as his QIC24
60-meg is reading them just fine. Any ideas? (the roller is in good health)
>MacOS's poorly named OS9, which I tend to refer to MacOS9 so there's less
>confusion.
Just be Olde Schoole and say "Mac System 9"
Less to trip the toungue with.
Same with VMS.
Hi
During a clean-up, I came across one copy of a Mizar Digital Systems /
Hamilton Standard Digital Systems (aka Mostek) MDX-SIO2 board for the
STD-Z80 bus.
If anyone wants it, sing out or I'll be throwing it out.
Cheers
Jason
>The terminal style IRIS must have been more or less same height and
>same depth, but it isn't as wide as I think it has less space for
>boards. I have never seen the rack, but I have also seen it mentioned
>in the Old IRIS FAQ.
No, about the same depth but it didn't have the drive bays in the top so it was noticeably shorter. It could go on
the desk (terminal system, not rack).
> I've already aquired a couple of Personal IRISes, an Indy and an Indigo2, so
>I'm all set on the playing-around-with-IRIX front :)
Aahh yes - but IRIS x000 don't run IRIX, they run GL2-W with the MEX windowing system. Verry different, verry interestink...
Might I suggest 4D1-3.3.2 (IRIX 3.3.2) on a PI - 4D1-3.x had a NeWS based windowing-system, among the few NeWS systems
released standard (I'm not even sure which SunOS Sun's NeWS came with - SunOS 3 was SunView, SunOS 4 was OpenWindows
(NeWS+X11, but not strictly NeWS).
IRIX 5.3 should go on one machine (5.3+XFS should you be lucky enough to find it). This will allow you to run COFF binaries.
The other one (R4k) should run an IRIX 6.x release.
The 3000 with GL2-W3.6 would fit in quite nicely...