Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
> "Ensor" <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk> writes:
> > I gave away almost all of my Apricot collection (and software) some
> > time ago, however you should find something useful over
> > at "www.actapricot.org".
> Thanks! That looks like just what I need...
> Anyone got an Apricot Xi?
Sorry no, but I found some interesting stuff on that page as well so I'd like to thank too.
I recently was given the remnants of an Mitsubishi Apricot MS530, which is (was?) a PC-inside-a-monitor solution similar to the Apple Performa 5200. You guessed it, the interesting innards (mainboard and addon cards) were missing and what I have here now is a VGA monitor with a somewhat overgrown power supply, (speakers?) and lots of extra space in the housing. It was used as such by the previous owner and is supposed to be working.
It's not of much use to me in this state, so if anybody has the missing innards (or an identical machine with dim/fried/otherwise unsatisfactory monitor portion), there are the usual two possibilities:
-You want to build yourself a working machine, you can have the case/monitor for free, or
-you want to get rid of the loose parts, I'll take them off your hands,
provided we can figure out to get the stuff where it needs to go (to or from my place in Germany).
Hoping for something to work out,
Studentische Hilfskraft Informatik Sammlung Erlangen
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger geh?rt?
Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
"Bob Bradlee" <caveguy at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:28:07 +0200, Arno Kletzander wrote:
> > On the ISDN side, just two phones (one missing its local power supply
> > too - duh), one or two PC cards and an NTBA so far.
BTW, I forgot to mention the built in ISDN ports in some of my Sun kit - SS10 and SS20, I think.
> Somewhere in storage I have an old Adtran box that takes a T1 (pri) line
> in and breaks out a bunch of POTs ports and 2 ISDN BRI lines that will
> source other equiptment.
> I know the MAX 4004 boxes will source a PRI out on the second channel if
> you want to to put one inline with a PBX and skim some channels off the
> top for data or dialup. At one point in time I had a ISDN PRI split out
> to 7 pots lines, 8 private dialup lines, and a 512k data channel with a
> class c address block (256 IP addresses) assigned before I gave up the
> office about 5 years back.
If I understand correctly, the equipment mentioned above will still require some sort of dedicated hookup to a telco provider in order to transport packets between two local devices. We don't have that and we don't need/want to get it (we have POTS service and DSL over POTS).
I was/am just looking for a simple solution for interconnecting my packratted ISDN devices for some testing and fooling around, like room-to-room intercom, using ISDN between computers (like a slow-speed LAN) or playing back audio from a computer through an ISDN phone.
Thanks for your suggestions anyway...
Stud. Hilfskraft Informatik Sammlung Erlangen
Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
On 28 Jun, 2007, at 04:59, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:23:32 -0700
> From: "Billy Pettit" <Billy.Pettit at wdc.com>
> Subject: What are the really unusual or weird computers?
> To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> <5BC121186B788C48A0EE35A16FD0D34D29C6E2 at wdscexbe01.sc.wdc.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> This thread has been a real disappointment. Almost all of the
> have been about computers using standard microprocessors - off the
> components. Yes a few had non-vanilla flavored OS's, or idiotic I/O
> schemes. A few were even painted different colors from PC Beige.
Then you are not reading all the replies.
> But nobody got into the really weird internals that have made the
> so fascinating. Go back to the real early days, like the Atlas,
> that let
> you build your instruction set from scratch using micro-code.
> Nobody seemed
> to remember that most of the late 50's and early 60's used 40 bits
> as a
MOST????? STANDARD????? Rubbish! IBM 7094 - 36 bits. ICT
1301 - 48 bits. CDC 6600/7600 60 (or was it 64?) bits. CDC SC17 (not
sure exact era) - 16 bits. Elliott 903/920B/905/920C/920ATC - 18
bits. Many of the BCD machines used 4 bit words I believe. Mid 60s
ICL 1900 - 24 bits. What used 40 bits?
> What about the MicroData machines with a build your own
> instructions on the fly?
Tell us more please. Microcoded or 'Extra code' ?
> And then there were the ultra-strange like the G-15 - 29 bit word
> size, all
> instructions were modified moves through arithmetic logic or I/O
> The I/O devices were actually part of the internal logic - no
Actual physical memory, access my DMA from the device or just memory
mapped I/O ?
> Burroughs had some fascinating ideas on virtual memory in the 5500
> Seymour Cray lived weird and unusual in most of his designs.
> Several people
> have developed machines to run high level languages in native mode:
> ADA at
> Rational, APL on the Star 100, LISP, COBOL, etc.
> There's not much unusual about putting some glue logic around a $3
> chip. We've all done it. How about the truly weird machines?
> anyone remember when logic didn't come in million transistor packages?
Remember? I am restoring/maintaining an ICT 1301 which has individual
Germanium transistors, wire-OR, four and gates to a PCB, one flip-
flop one a PCB, a clock derived from the timing track of the last
addressed drum store, a core store unit weighing half a ton an stores
just 2000 x 48 bit words (plus 2000 x 2 parity bits). Its got Ampex
TM4 mag tape drives (not industry standard 7 or 9 track, these are
ten track units with hubs the same design as professional audio tapes
and the 2 and 3 inch wide video tapes once used by TV broadcasters).
Its got readers and punches for 80 column cards and 5, (6 or 7?) and
8 track paper tape, its got a 600 line per minute barrel printer with
120 print positions. The mag tape transfers are done by DMA but the
rest and unbuffered peripherals, if you want to print a line on the
printer, you check to see what character is in line with the hammers,
see if you have any of them in your line, and fire those print
hammers which match, then wait until the print barrel moves on then
repeat until you have printed the whole line. Then you look up where
the paper advance mechanism currently is and select the next sprag
and release current one. If you want to page feed, release all the
sprags and count the 60 lines as they go past.
To punch a card, in software, turn the 3 phase contactor on to start
the motor, wait until its at the correct speed, activate the picker
knives to start the card in motion (sideways), look to see which if
any of your 80 columns need a hole in the first (10) row, wait until
that row is under the punch bail, fire those interposers, repeat for
the 11 row, then the 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 rows. Then feed the next
card and at the same time get ready to verify the card you just
punched. Wait until the 10 row is under the check reading wire
brushes, read them in and see if they match, repeat for all the other
eleven rows, if anything fails to verify, send the card (and the
following one) to the reject hopper, stop the punch and inform the
> Come on people: there were computers long before there were
And some of them still work and have 'design council' award winning
control consoles 4 feet wide and 2 and a bit feet tall, consume 13KVA
three phase and weigh about 5 tons.
> And many of them were wonderfully different and creative.
Indeed. And some of them almost make you cry because so much more
could have been done with the same amount of electonics. My machine
has been modified to implement an index instruction. Previously all
indexing and indirection had to be done by program modification, and
even now subroutine return is done that way (see my previous e-mail).
I have one machine in 'conserved' state, unmolested, unrepaired non-
runner, and one with extra tweeks and darn right mass rewiring which
runs and I can't stop thinking about how it could be improved, yet
somehow manage to stop myself doing so. There are so many gaps in the
instruction code and spare bits in the instructions etc. The only
modification I am working on plugs into an extension port lashed up
by a previous owner. This is to capture the data from the machine
onto modern media. May replace with an RS232 interface later to drive
a teletype and/or pen plotter, and/or a parallel inteface for a
Anyone got a spare plug for the i/o port of the Flexowriter, or for
an IBM keypunch (model 836) or spare patch leads for the patch panel
(4mm with a ball in them).
Anyone got a spare Ellliott paper tape reader, preferably 1000
characters per second but a 300cps unit would do. My machine
originally had two readers but somehow I only ended up with one of them.
Anyone got any spare 'ICL Standard Interface' peripherals I could
plug into the vacant port on the machine?
Anyone in the UK want an Elliott surface grinder which leaks
hydraulic fluid or want an Alba shaper (a planing machine for steel,
a brutal thing, takes out about 1/16 - 1/8 at every stroke, comes off
bright red). Or a really old pillar drill, large capacity, looks
prehistoric. All three phase of course.
Again in the UK, anyone got any punched card trays, the steel type,
preferably with the racks too, but the trays only would be a help.
Willing to pay (reasonable) price for any of the above.
Classic computer collector, classic car collector, machine tool
collector/user (for the prior mentioned hobbies), and for a job,
programmer of CAD and graphic software and printer/plotter drivers
for Apple computers.
Lately I've been tinkering with a Commodore SX-64 and I found this little
gem in the manual:
SPECIAL DESKTOP CONTROLLER
Commodore will soon introduce a special device that controls the screen as
you move the controller across a desktop. This new controller will be an
optional enhancement for Commodore Software products, such as the MAGIC
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
> "NewTek" was an Amiga company, "NewTech" was the Mac clone company.
> - John
For those interested, I put up all the information I have several years
ago on my website...
I'd love to own one of these. I hope I come across one in my travels.
>Subject: Re: Drum vs. Core
> From: Kevin Handy <kth at srv.net>
> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:04:24 -0600
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2007 at 19:51, Roger Holmes wrote:
>>>>> That processor benchmarks about the same as an IBM PC/AT (!)
>>>> [somehow I cannot see running 100 terminals off an AT]
>>> Was it really that slow! We really put up with a lot back then.
>> Terminal speed can mask a lot. How many ASR33's did IIT run IITRAN
>> to using what, a 16K foreground partition on a 128K 360/40 running
>A lot of the increased speed has been eaten up by the
>Graphical Interfaces. Consider that most home
>PC's today operate faster and have more memory than a
>Cray-1, and can barely keep up with e-mail.
>We used to have 30+ users on a PDP-11 with max 4Mb
>memory, and now dedicate a Dual Core system with more
>than a Gb to a single web surfer. And using an 8 core CPU
>machine (PS3), just to play games.
>How large would a PDP-10 system have been that had
>anywhere close to the disk/ram/... of a single PlayStation3?
>Technology has really shrunk things down.
The BOCES LIRCS system (LINY Ca1970) was a PDP-10 running tops-10
64kW then later 128W of core with a 128K swapping drum. Number
of users on an average day was 300 (TTYs) with a PDP-8i handling
switching and a few other tasks. Disks were four of the removable
multiplatter washing machines (RP03) three active and the fouth holding
the backup pack. It was a very reponsive machine unless there
was contention for the disks (reads/writes).
It's size in an airconditioned false floor room was 5 "racks" wide
for the back row (mostly core boxes) and the front row was CPU, and
Spent better part of a year there as a student just hacking on the
machine like most fo the other students that had access with one little
difference, I was hacking via a Hazeltine 1200 glass TTY and had access
to the programmers console and tty(asr35).
On 2 Jul, 2007, at 18:02, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote:
>> When I was at university (71-74), the college's mainframe
>> still used a drum from program overlays (probably really the virtual
>> memory backing storage, but possibly just dumping and restoring the
>> whole program between time slices. The machine was no slouch, it was
>> serving about a hundred terminals and running a couple of batch
>> streams as well (Maximop and George 2).
> I take it that this was an ICL 1905E (probably at Swansea or QMC).
Yes, QMC. It got upgraded to a 1904S whilst I was there. Maybe it was
the 4S which had 100+ terminals, there was certainly a large increase
whilst I was there. Initially most were printing terminals with
lights inside, not Teletypes, can't remember the maker's name. There
was also just two CRT terminals, on which you typed a load of lines
and told the computer to read it. You could edit small programs on
screen but on the priniting terminals you had to give it commands to
change character and to step through your code. Later on we got Data
Dynamics terminals, an acoustic box (to save the ears) around a naked
ASR33 or KSR33 Teletype. Then we got the fairly standard 'glass
teletypes', though by then I was mostly using the IMLAC graphics
Do you think the drum got kicked out when we went over to the 4S? I
never got to see the 4S. It was all hands off. All changed when I got
to Marconi-Elliott Avionics, the training consisted of - there's the
computer, here's how you turn the thing on, there's the mylar tape
library, the bootstrap is at 8181, get on with it.
> That processor benchmarks about the same as an IBM PC/AT (!)
> [somehow I cannot see running 100 terminals off an AT]
Was it really that slow! We really put up with a lot back then.
> Originally on the 1900 series the drum was considered a different
> type (ie needed different programming) from an Exchangeable Disk
> (EDS) or
> Fixed Disk (FDS), but, by the time we at City acquired Swansea's old
> 1905E and drum (and some EDS30s), new Executives appeared with
> UDAS (Unified Direct Access) where the drum was programmed just the
> same as a disk. These Execs, unlike the previous versions, were
> (I think they were still, however, written in engineers assembler
> which used
> numeric op-codes rather than the mnemonics of PLAN or GIN5).
Interesting. Maybe it was like my school maths teachers who forced us
to use fountain pens instead of ball points because it slowed us down
so we thought more about what we were doing and so made less
mistakes. At Marconi, the hardware test programmers/engineers always
used a different language than those of us in the utility software
group, and we provided the higher level language compilers for the
applications writers to use.
> Each overlay was (most of) a 128 word disk sector ... tight modular
> was rather forced! ... it also had to be position independent on a
> with no real architectural support for such - and you had only
> minimal use
> of the Datum/Limit registers in Exec mode.
Very difficult. I had always assumed the executive lived at a fixed
position in memory. Maybe it used relativisers, 1300 style, where
every instruction could specify what block start address should be
added to it, but maybe that would slow down loading the overlays too
much. I wonder if any of the concepts in the 1302 executive got re-
used on 1900. Obviously not the code itself, very different
architectures, just sharing the 'standard interface' and the concept
of the executive itself.
> The drum was, I think, 512K characters (128K 24-bit words). We put the
> Exec overlays and the Maximop overlay file on the drum - I'm not sure
> what else. It probably was too small for the Maximop swap file.
> George II
> and the main compilers and consolidator (ICL's name for the link
> were probably also on the drum. George had little to gain fromsuch a
> as it did not use overlays except that job wrap-up and start
> reloaded the
> full code, some of which got overwritten during processing - British
> systems of the era tended to use a "job description" at the start
> the interspersed "control cards" typical of IBM.
> We got rid of the drum at the start of our transition from ICL to
> Honeywell -
> it took up too much space in the machine room and the Level 66 was a
> BIG machine (physically).
Maybe ICL had been bumping up the maintenance charges for old kit
they really did not want to support any more. Keeping engineers
trained up on kit for a handful of customers is not very cost
effective, and the older engineers who knew the old kit keep getting
'promoted' into management.
I have a box full of TOPS networking software and some hardware (Flash
Cards for the PC, and connectors for the Mac) that I don't want to put
in the dumpster.
If you would like this box, and can come pick it up in Philadelphia
PA.... It's yours!!!
Email me off list.