>
>Subject: Re: New pcb design for S-100 prototype board available
> From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:38:18 -0400
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>> Grant Stockly wrote:
>>
>> > Someone built one of my Altair replica PCBs and went to great lengths to
>> > make sure the date code on the ICs was older than 1975. They also
>> > sourced the old brown cylindrical resistors.
>
>I've been known to do that, but for much more trivial examples - when
>I built my 1976-design Elf, I did the best I could on chips (my CPU
>and memory were of the period, but I have not yet tracked down a 74L00
>for the clock divider circuit), but I was happy to have a bin of
;) L00? I bet I have a few that are pre ELF.
>vintage brown cylindrical resistors for the pullups. I had to
>compromise on the regulator - the oldest one I could find in my junk
>bin was an LM340T.
I have a shopping bag of those resistor, really! the LM340 was period
and valid but, I have 7805s that are date coded 7951 (last week of '79).
Somewhere I came across a few baggies of them as they are handy.
I also have 1uS 2102s, 5101 and other old ram.
>Obviously, the computer doesn't care, but I wanted something that
>would have looked as if I had made it when I first got into computers
>as a kid. A complete indulgence to nostalgia.
:) they dont care. I tend to build new hardware using that old stuff
as I've had it for that reason, that is to build with.
>
>-ethan
>In the beginning it was *interesting* working with different vendor
>implementations of ATA. For example, Maxtor, initially swapped the
>order of the words in the "total number of sectors" field in the
>IDENTIFY command return.
I remember back when 386's were over our "capital expense" limit ($1000) at
work, we would piece together 386's for the engineers to get them the best
machines. We were buying Conner 80MB drives at the time, so we built this guy
a machine with a Conner-80MB in it, and a few months later he was running low
on space and wanted another drive, so we bought *another* (same model)
Conner-80MB.
No matter what I tried, they would not work together either way around as
master/slave. Looking at the model#, one was "rev-A" and one was "rev-B". We
wound up throwing a Maxtor 80MB in with it - with *either* Conner drive and
a Maxtor, it worked fine. Found it quite humorous that two drives from the
same manufacturer wouldn't work together, but both worked fine with a
competitors drive.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
For any North Star Advantage owners...
I have scanned the complete NorthStar Advantage Technical
manual and posted it to my site (look under the North Star
Advantage listing).
This is a BIG book, and a very large (30M PDF) scan. It
contains full technical descriptions, schematics etc. for
the North Star Advantage computer.
Dave
--
dave06a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html
Tony Duell wrote...
> The right way to get better depth of field for oblique shots is to tilt
> the lens (!).
> [...]
> The problem is that no digital camera has a tilting front.
In the interests of completeness, I should say that this isn't strictly
speaking true. Canon make EOS mount tilt/shift lenses, which will work on
any of their digital SLRs (three of them, 24, 45 and 90mm IIRC.) In fact,
their APS-C sensor DSLRs are in many ways ideal - the smaller-than-35mm
sensor size means you're unlikely to see any vignetting even at extreme
ends of the available movements.
(For the uninitiated, a lens intended for tilt/shift, such as the TS-E
lenses or anything made for a technical/view camera, needs to project an
image circle significantly larger than the imaging plane (film/sensor), to
allow for moving the projected image around as you move the lens. The
extreme ends of the movements on the tilt/shift FD mount lens I use on my
film camera are marked in red - this indicates you're going to start
seeing vignetting if you tilt/shift this far because the image circle no
longer covers the whole film area. Because most (not all) digital SLRs
use smaller APS size sensors (~25mm longest edge IIRC rather than ~36)
this is less of a problem.)
That said, the Canon TS-E lenses are considered 'speciality' lenses and
priced accordingly; unless you're going to make a living out of
architectural photography not really a serious recommendation.
My recommendation for a cheap digital starter kit for doing what you want
would be the bottom of the range Canon digtal SLR (EOS 400D in Europe,
'Digital Rebel XTi' I think in USA - identical camera, but US market
apparently demands a 'cool' name like 'Rebel'.) Buy it body-only, and buy
the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro lens as well.
The EF-S is a beautiful lens at a very reasonable price; top-notch
quality, the effective focal length given the smaller sensor in a DSLR is
around 90mm, which is pretty reasonable for what you're looking to do, and
most importantly it can do true 1:1 macro for when you want the photos of
individual chips on that motherboard. It's also compatible with the Canon
ringlight flash if you find yourself doing a lot of macro.
The only caveat is that being an EF-S, it's not compatible with
full-frame DSLRs or film SLRs (EF-S lenses take advantage of the smaller
sensor & mirror size in DSLRs to extend the optics further back into the
camera; if you could mount them on a film cam (which you can't, the mount
prevents it,) the back of the lens would smash the mirror.
Oh, that reminds me, in a conversation a while ago possible sources of
weak acid solutions were being pondered. I meant to mention then, but it
didn't seem worth an entire post - photographic stop bath is a weak acid
solution, and readily available (in the UK, your high street Jessops still
stocks most photographic chemistry, for the timebeing at least.) 'Normal'
stop bath is acetic acid based I believe, you can also buy odourless (or
more accurately 'less obnoxious odour') stop bath which is usually citric
acid based.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Walls at home in Leeds
EMail & MSN: tim.walls at snowgoons.com
At 04:23 PM 6/3/2007, Rod Smallwood wrote:
>
>Your server (the VAX 4000-200) does have to be running DECnet. Er no it
>doesn't and isn't. I attended a 1976 DEC engineering meeting where this
>was discussed. It just my personal memory has a long access time.
>Download and run was around long before Decnet was thought of.
I'm not sure why I'm responding to this troll, but I can't resist.
The server must be running a MOP listener. That's the protocol that the
client uses when you boot the ethernet device. MOP is a DECnet
protocol. For many versions of VMS, the way you get a MOP listener is
to install DECnet. For VMS 7.0 and later, there's a separate MOP
listener that provides just that part of DECnet.
>There's no Decnet or any other normal network involved.
Crap. You MUST have a network to run a Local Area VAXcluster. You know,
a *Local Area Network*?
LAVC booting uses DECnet to boot. You can't make any of this work
without a LAN, without DECnet.
I suppose you'll keep flailing around hoping that something will work,
blaming others for your mistakes. Enjoy yourself.
>I am also
>beginning to suspect that the whole cluster thing is another GRH (Giant
>Red Herring)
Huh? Nope, if you followed the very detailed directions you've been
given, you could diskless boot the server. You could then try to get a
disk set up and booted. Not a red herring at all.
>Whats actually happening is an old diagnostic tool is being
>used to download and run a program on a remote system to exclude the
>disk drives from the test.
LANCP is not an "old diagnostic tool" it's actually fairly recent.
Using CLUSTER_CONFIG as you're supposed to will use it to set up the
client download. Did you try that? Probably not.
-Rick
I'm having a bit of a clear-out, in order to make enough room to work in
:-)
The first item I've found that I don't want is the power supply from an
11/04 or 11/34, DEC part no. 70-13323-00. This is the big black box
that goes on the back of the BA11 enclosure, and includes the two fans,
the cables, etc, but not the power regulator bricks (it has space for
four). It was in working order last time I checked.
It's very heavy, so pickup from York only (unless you really want to
spend a fortune on carriage).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
On 5/30/07, Gordon JC Pearce <gordon at gjcp.net> wrote:
> I have a digital camera that is now (and in fact, as of last friday) 10
> years old ;-)
Mine is quite safely "over the line" - my first digital camera was a
QuickTake 150
http://manuals.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Manuals/cameras/0306677Qck…
I picked it up at the Dayton Computerfest (same place as the Hamfest,
but was in March or August of each year until they stopped having it a
little while back). I first encountered one in 1995/1996, then bought
one for myself for a whopping $35 a few years later when I had the
chance. All I'm missing is the closeup lens.
> The image quality is *definitely* not as good as an SLR, or even a
> pointy clicky Instamatic. Great for grainy lo-fi shots though.
With 1MB of fixed, on-board, Flash ROM, and no media socket, the QT150
holds 16 pictures in "bad" mode, or 32 pictures in "worse" mode. It's
always 640x480, which, by itself, isn't the worst thing in the world.
The problem is the amount of lossy compression it needs to fit 16
pictures into 1MB translates to "a lot".
The other significant problem I see with this camera is that because
Apple bundled some 3rd-party software with it, they never made the
software available for download. The pictures are "QuickTime
Compressed PICTs", meaning that the outer wrapper is a standard Mac
PICT file, but the payload can only be untangled by an Apple QT
library (I tried many unsuccessful workarounds). If you don't have
the QT150 install disks, I don't know that you can load any other
package to gain them. OTOH, once you have loaded that library, all
apps on the machine (Photoshop, ImageViewer...) can manipulate the
pictures.
I'd hold this camera up as an example of a) an evolutionary dead-end,
and b) the fact that Apple wasn't always spot-on-the-mark. In its
era, it was a passable camera - one button to take a picture (no
manual settings beyond a timer or compression factor), but all the
other offerings of the day, and even Apple's QuickTake 200 (a rebadged
Fuji DS-7 if my research is correct) had removable storage, allowing
one to effectively ignore memory limitations to the extent of one's
budget. Being a fixed-focus camera, it's terrible for close-in shots.
Your choices are to position the object a few feet away so that it's
in focus (and perhaps too small to be clear), or to snap on a fixed
magnifier lens and squint through the eyepiece to attempt to focus
closer in. At the place I first encountered the QuickTake 150, we
never could get sharp pictures with the close-up lens.
I used the QuickTake 150 more than any other digital camera from 1995
through 2003 (when I upgraded to a DSLR). If you ever get the chance
to play with one, I can recommend it, but only to see how far digital
cameras have come in the past 10 years (it was discontinued in 1997).
The horrible lossy compression makes it nearly unusable for any sort
of "busy" subject matter.
-ethan