Hi,
> And I think there was an ARM-2 development system on an
>ISA card. Never seen it, though.
There was also an Atari Jaguar on an PCI card, Creative Labs' "Jaguar
Blaster".
They seem to be pretty thin on the ground though, I'd love to get one....
TTFN - Pete.
Hi,
> There's at least the Janus card, which implements a basic Atari ST
>on an ISA board ...
That name sounds familiar, it's likely the one I was thinking of.
One of my friends has one (the one I sold all my ST gear to around '92/'92
as it happens) but even though he's mentioned the name to me several times
I'm a bit hazy on it.
For some reason "Spectrum" or some (probably incredibly vaguely) similar
sounding name also lingers at the back of my mind....
> .... i own the 68000 version, but it seems, there was an 68020
>version available too.
I *think* there may also be a "TT-on-a-card"....but don't quote me on that
(I've never checked).
> A DOS based driver is available, that handles all the I/O handling via
>the PC. I always wanted to get that driver ported to OS/2 (running Atari
>SW in a OS/2 PM-Window is definitely amazing :)), but never got any
>technical information ...
I've toyed with the idea of getting one of these cards on several occasions,
but since the drivers won't run under NT based operating systems they're not
of any use to me whatsoever. :-(
TTFN - Pete.
Is there anyone here with a running Apple ][-class system who
would be willing to cut some boot floppies of Apple DOS 3.3 and/or
ProDOS and send them to me? I finally got a good composite video
monitor and I'm in need of a diversion. This would be for a ][+ and
a //e.
Thanks,
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
> ----------
> From: John R. Keys Jr.
> Reply To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re-finding more items as I open boxes
>
> Found the following while unpacking in the warehouse:
<<<<<clipped>>>>>>
> Took some other goodies home to play with like the 20th Annv. MAC,...
>
---
20th Anniversary Mac? You booger... I may have to grab it when
you're not looking.
;-)
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 90581
Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
>
>Subject: 8-bitters and multi-whatever
> From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:49:03 -0400
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>So I was poking around at bitsavers after snagging those TI databooks, and
>stumbled across some files pertaining to TurboDOS. I'd read about that
>before, might even have some manual or other on it someplace, but I've
>never had the pleasure. I do have one box that was supposed to be a
>multi-user system, that being my TeleVideo 816, which had TurboDOS as an
>option but the one I have came with something called MMMOST, which I wasn't
>all that impressed with. A guy was talking about sending me a tape but that
>never happened.
>
>I remember hearing about one or two other packages that were similar (never
>mind MP/M, which I've also not messed with and don't get the impression I
>want to bother with really), but have never had the pleasure of running any
>of them.
>
>A while back I *almost* got a hold of one of those "z80 network in a box"
>systems, it wasn't S-100 but something else I can't recall, I think that's
>the one I have the book on, but I never did snag it.
Multibus, very nice bus and expensive cards. I have a few multibus cards.
Intel used it in their MDS800 and a few otehrs as well.
>Unfortunately instead of RS232 Televideo has something else going there
>(RS422?), not easy to interface too, and they distribute their "network"
>out amongst what other Televideo boxes you have, which in my case is none.
>I guess with an S-100-based system you could always add more cards, and
>somehow or other make it work.
>
>And speaking of the networking aspect of it, do any of you guys know how they
>did it? I recall one time getting a glimpse of some system or other that was
>S-100 but also had a set of connectors at thet op of each card, which is
>what they used for their inter-processor linking rather than trying to push
>it through the bus. The reason for this is not apparent to me.
Many ways to do it, using a commmon port or a pool of common memory for
in box networking and serial ports as well. There were also ARCnet, pre
Ethernet and even Ethernet.
>I've also seen some "CP/M networking" stuff referred to that was supposed to
>work through serial ports, which pretty many machines had, althogh they
>appeared in at least one case to be using diodes to wire-OR RS232 signals,
>which doesn't strike me as too terribly robust. And what software support
>there was for this wasn't real apparent.
That was a poor mans networking. Basically the serial ports were used as
CD/CSMA bus and there was some protocal like Ethernet but slower and could
use the usually common async chips. I have such a net going for my CP/M crates
and all.
>I dunno, I've just got this fascination for assorted 8-bit parts talking to
>each other through some smallish number of wires, I guess it's easier to
>deal with than some of the big iron you guys handle regularly, which I can't
>afford to go get never mind housing. And I've seen multiple processors used
>in stuff already, as in some musical equipment that passed "event
>information" from one chip to the next with only a couple of pins, or the
>daisywheel printer that had _four_ 804x procesors in it for different
>functions.
This is not a new thing.
>TurboDOS is neat, and has some good design aspects in it, but there's too
>much legacy stuff in there for being able to run CP/M software, stuff I'd
>leave out if it were me and too much emphasis on the same old Console /
>Printer / Disk Drives in the system, as opposed to something different or
>unique. I found the same thing to be the case when I looked at FORTH, too
>much of the usual stuff, and that was supposed to have been used in some
>control applications? I must've missed something there...
???? Whats the question or point?
Allison
http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-HARRIS-DISKRITER-COMPUTER-
PARTS-REPAIR_W0QQitemZ170147139531QQihZ007QQ
categoryZ4193QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
and notice the 2 mangy mutts at the head of the bed.
Yup, I sure want to lay my face exactly where they
left their fleas, and worse (if you can imagine that).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
So I was poking around at bitsavers after snagging those TI databooks, and
stumbled across some files pertaining to TurboDOS. I'd read about that
before, might even have some manual or other on it someplace, but I've
never had the pleasure. I do have one box that was supposed to be a
multi-user system, that being my TeleVideo 816, which had TurboDOS as an
option but the one I have came with something called MMMOST, which I wasn't
all that impressed with. A guy was talking about sending me a tape but that
never happened.
I remember hearing about one or two other packages that were similar (never
mind MP/M, which I've also not messed with and don't get the impression I
want to bother with really), but have never had the pleasure of running any
of them.
A while back I *almost* got a hold of one of those "z80 network in a box"
systems, it wasn't S-100 but something else I can't recall, I think that's
the one I have the book on, but I never did snag it.
Unfortunately instead of RS232 Televideo has something else going there
(RS422?), not easy to interface too, and they distribute their "network"
out amongst what other Televideo boxes you have, which in my case is none.
I guess with an S-100-based system you could always add more cards, and
somehow or other make it work.
And speaking of the networking aspect of it, do any of you guys know how they
did it? I recall one time getting a glimpse of some system or other that was
S-100 but also had a set of connectors at thet op of each card, which is
what they used for their inter-processor linking rather than trying to push
it through the bus. The reason for this is not apparent to me.
I've also seen some "CP/M networking" stuff referred to that was supposed to
work through serial ports, which pretty many machines had, althogh they
appeared in at least one case to be using diodes to wire-OR RS232 signals,
which doesn't strike me as too terribly robust. And what software support
there was for this wasn't real apparent.
I dunno, I've just got this fascination for assorted 8-bit parts talking to
each other through some smallish number of wires, I guess it's easier to
deal with than some of the big iron you guys handle regularly, which I can't
afford to go get never mind housing. And I've seen multiple processors used
in stuff already, as in some musical equipment that passed "event
information" from one chip to the next with only a couple of pins, or the
daisywheel printer that had _four_ 804x procesors in it for different
functions.
TurboDOS is neat, and has some good design aspects in it, but there's too
much legacy stuff in there for being able to run CP/M software, stuff I'd
leave out if it were me and too much emphasis on the same old Console /
Printer / Disk Drives in the system, as opposed to something different or
unique. I found the same thing to be the case when I looked at FORTH, too
much of the usual stuff, and that was supposed to have been used in some
control applications? I must've missed something there...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
http://www.dovebid.com/assets/display.asp?itemid=smi26204
Lot n? 2028
Lot of the following: 6-6in Wafer Loader Conversion Kits - Type 3: 3-6in
Wafer Loader Conversion Kits - Type 2, 7-Digital - VAX Workstation systems,
most with peripherals (visual controllers, monitors, keyboards, printers,
cables), 5- 9.1GB SCSI Hard Drives: All items 10 year old condition good
working condition when removed from tools 2 years ago. (palletized and ready
for loading)
(location : Corvallis, OR).
--
Stephane
Paris, France.
We've just acquired a Motorola Exormacs system, which is sadly without its
floppy drive cable (40 pins on the Exormacs side, 50 on the 8" floppy unit
(Exordrive III I believe).
I suspect the floppy side is just straight-through to the drives, but can
anyone confirm that, and does anyone know the pinout on the system unit side
of things?
Worst-case we'll have to reverse engineer it, but maybe someone knows (we've
got no floppies for the system and no useful manuals unfortunately)
cheers
Jules
>
>Subject: Re: Portable PDP-11 (was Re: Does anyone use RT-11?)
> From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:55:56 -0500
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On 9/10/07, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> > "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >On 9/9/07, Allison <ajp166 at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> >> One day I plan to get a T11 up and running wtih RT but with non-DEC
>> >> drivers for terminal and storage as a small toteable -11.
>> >
>> >I'd like to hear more about this...
>>
>> I have a lot on paper plus the ever important T-11 manual.
>
>Very handy.
Required! ;)
>> However
>> it has stopped at that phase mostly due to other projects having
>> my interest.
>
>Fair enough. I think most of us have a variety of projects cluttering
>our foreground task.
>
>> ... only 8KW ram, 8KW Eprom and a DLART for serial IO.
>
>Certainly minimal, though today, 28KW of RAM isn't a stretch.
At the time I was just hacking and wanted to use the smaller parts I had
for simplicity reasons.
>> The display is really the harder part at least for portability and power
>> consumption. However for this one I was considering packaging along
>> the lines of the Kaypro totables and wall power. Part of this recognizes
>> the T-11 uses a fair amount of power (Z80 NMOS is similar) and most of
>> the parts around it will not be CMOS so battery operation is not easily
>> accomplished.
>
>Understandable.
>
>> >As for storage, obviously some flavor of FLASH is great for most
>> >things...
>>
>> None of the above for cost or availability reasons. I'd opt for IDE
>> using one of the many 40-500mb drives I have.
>
>That's certainly a larger device than I'd envisioned (my initial idea
>was a "pod" the size of a modem or smaller, with an external
>display/keyboard/host port).
>
>> >While textual LCDs are cheaper and easier to interface to, the largest
>> >one I've seen is 4x40. A graphical LCD panel with a SED1335 or t6963
>> >of a size of 640x200 would be perfect for 80x25...
>>
>> I planned on text. However it's possible to get LCDs used for laptops
>> but the logic to drive them is non trivial.
>
>Yes. I have a 640x400 laptop display, with specs, that ran me about
>$10 a few years back. If I ever decide to learn VHDL, I might try to
>interface it to my IOB6120, but, yes, it takes a bit of work to talk
>to those.
I ahve three of them, monchrome. They are easy enough to drive but the
little "gotchas" are nasty. First one is the display is really two
640x240 segments running in parallel top and bottom so there are two
"video" data paths running concurrently unlike a CRT. If your doing
bit mapped (1BPP) that's some 40k of total memory to address, oh and
that has to really two memories or a funny dual output scheme to feed
the display. Doing character only simplifies it some if you don't
mind doing some logic twice (font, bit shifter, memory).
>> >Back to the T-11, though, if I recall its capabilities correctly, it
>> >doesn't have an MMU, and it would be difficult, if not impractical, to
>> >design an external one that resembles, say, the MMU on an 11/23...
>>
>> Correct on the OS and software. However the MMU is very buildable
>> and not near as hardware intensive as would seem. For an example
>> look at the T-11 interface in the VT240. It takes a few 16x4
>> bipolar rams and some loose logic to implement the paging (2 74189,
>> 3 74ls257 and a bit of TTL glue) to make a a compatable (mostly) mapper.
>
>Interesting. I suppose it couldn't be _too_ complicated, then, since
>it one like it does fit on a few square inches of 11/34 CPU board.
Basic circuit is the same.
>I even happen to have a small pad of 74189s.
Same here.
>
>> One of the things I've given consideration to in recent years is a nonDEC
>> and non *nix OS such as CUBIX as that would translate reasonably from
>> 6908 to PDP-11. This arises from the fact that RT-11 has a very
>> primitive filesystem compared to CP/M and an OS that is not encumbered
>> would be easier to work with.
>
>Hmm... from what I've seen of CUBIX, it sounds feasible for a PDP-11
>host, and it certainly gets around the issue of what OS to distribute,
>but I would think that porting CUBIX could be an entirely independent
>project (focusing on whatever display and mass-storage interfaces are
>available).
The OS can be logically seperated from the mass storage and addressed
as a series of logical blocks so that going to floppy, IDE or whatever
is easy as most do (or can do) 512byte sectors as a consistant thing.
That divorces the CHS/LBA thing from the os.
> > >So, Allison, does any of this sound like what you had in mind... ?
>>
>> You envision what sould like a Laptop. I can't easily fabricate that
>> but a toteable like Kaypro, Osborne and a few others is very doable.
>
>I hadn't specifically been requiring a laptop shape, more of a tiny
>luggable - on the order of one of the modern Tektronix LCD-screen
>digital scopes.
totable. ;)
>> The basic machine description is a 128kW using 32kx8 static parts (8pcs),
>> Boot roms/ODT, MMU, two serial, parallel (PC conpatable for printer)
>> and IDE disk. Things like OS in Eprom have surfaced to my idea pool
>> to consider especially if it were not RT11 (CUBIX influence). Terminal
>> logic would be VK170 (base VT52 on a dual size card) and a monitor in
>> the 7-9" size.
>
>OK. I'm not sure I get the "VK170" reference. Is that some sort of
>DEC or 3rd party embedded product?
VK170 was a DEC Qbus/Ubus card that did RS232/423 IO and had outputs for
RS170 video or Video/Hsync/Vsync and took a parallel keyboard to serial
(used LK02 or similar). The bus edge connector was power only so it
could even be externally mounted as a minimal VT52 (80x25). It's in
the Microcomputer handbooks.
>Thanks for sharing your design ideas.
They aren't patented. ;)
Allison
