test-drb August 2008

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

202 participants
323 discussions

by pat＠computer-refuge.org

A few weeks ago, some people in here were talking about putting network cards in IBM PCs or XTs or something... As it happens, I ran across a box of 3com 3c503 network cards (AUI and 10BaseT ports, 8 bit ISA card). If anyone wants one, lemme know, I'm asking $5+shipping, and I'll have the box with me at Dayton if you want to harass me about them, then. Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

16 years

Wanted: PDP-11 MUMPS Software & Manuals

by hoelscher-kirchbrak＠freenet.de

Hi, I'm looking for Software & Manuals for any of the MUMPS implementations for the PDP-11, e.g. MUMPS-11, DSM-11 or M/11+. Can anybody help? Regards, Ulli

16 years

Minimal CP-M SBC design

by lynchaj＠yahoo.com

________________________________ Hi, all, I was staring at an SBC I have here with a 6MHz Z-80, some ROM, some RAM, and a 26-pin off-board bus for some Z80-PIO boards (this thing was built as a multi-parallel-printer switcher). I've been musing about what it would take to boot CP/M up on this. For user I/O, I was planning on a console serial port and a terminal/terminal emulator. I have IM6402s on hand, but I'd be interested in hearing if certain other chips are preferred, based on what BIOS code is floating around out there. I also have a 16550, but I don't think I have any Z80-SIO chips handy. For mass storage, I was planning on either Compact Flash or an SD card. I think I've seen both as I googled around for modern SBCs. Any of the media I have lying around is plenty large enough (I even have some 4MB CFs and a 2.5MB full-sized PCMCIA flash card on hand). I am a little unclear, though, about how traditional CP/M systems were set up for ROM and RAM. Was it common to use a "shadow ROM" in low mem at reset, then have the BIOS live at the top of memory? How did 64K RAM CP/M machines handle the BIOS? Did they temporarily ghost the ROM on top of RAM until some bit of code could read ROM and write RAM then bank out the ROM? Since I think I "need" at least 48K of RAM, I was planning on a pair of 62256s. I could easily do 56K of RAM low and 8K of ROM high, I think, unless there's some other arrangement that's obvious to try for a simple design. I've never tried writing a BIOS for a CP/M machine, but my understanding is that things are modular enough that once you know what I/O chips you have and at what I/O addresses, for a straightforward, non-clever design, the coding is equally straightforward and non-clever (but please feel free to enlighten me if otherwise). Thanks for any tips, especially from anyone on the list who has ever rolled their own CP/M machine. -ethan -- Ethan Dicks, A-333-S Current South Pole Weather at 4-May-2008 at 19:40 Z South Pole Station PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -74.2 F (-59.0 C) Windchill -105.4 F (-76.4 C) APO AP 96598 Wind 7.4 kts Grid 77 Barometer 691.6 mb (10194 ft) Ethan.Dicks at usap.gov <http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk> http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html -----REPLY----- Hi Ethan, Funny you should mention the subject, I am working on a very similar project. Last year, I made a completely home brew Z80 computer with prototype boards. It is a fun project and you can definitely build your own CP/M computer from scratch. It really is not that hard. This year, I am remaking the design using manufactured PCBs. I recently got my first batch of prototype PCBs and have been building up and testing them. So far, I have gotten the CPU, ROM, RAM, UART, and most of the glue logic working and tested. It is not complete yet as I still need to wring out much of the hardware and have not even started on the PPI or RTC. However, last year I was able to boot the previous system into its monitor and even boot CP/M. CP/M used a 32K ROM drive for drive A:, a 448K RAM drive for drive B:. I implemented an IDE port and a hard disk for drive C:. Those all worked pretty good. I built but never tested a floppy drive interface. The whole system is pretty simple, uses plain 74LSxxx chips, no programmable parts (except the EPROM) or hard to get parts. No SMT or funky technologies, just plain through hole DIP chips. I have all the software and am presently going through the library reinstalling it on the new system. So far, I have most of the easy stuff working. I do have the RAMless monitor working and next will be the regular monitor. Finally it will be the CP/M system and the RTC software. Anyway, if your interested, I am keeping a small Google group of files and photos at: http://groups.google.com/group/n8vem Thanks! Andrew Lynch

16 years

The Day the Infant Internet Uttered its First Words

by eric940＠gmail.com

As a tangent to the "first" computer on the internet, I reference this interesting link, showing the IMP log, along with the date and time of the "birth" of said [I][i]nternet. See: http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/first_words.html -eric

16 years

AT&T 7300/3B1's (was: Re: Who is vintagecomputermuseum?)

by mtapley＠swri.edu

At 20:05 -0500 8/17/08, Dave wrote: > I have to agree there. And $500 for a 7300 is a tad on the high >side. I had three of them (two 3B1s and a 7300) and reluctantly >parted with one. I became much less reluctant when the guy offered >me $300. The first machine is one I will keep even if the prices go >sky high, as it was given to me years ago by a classiccmp member (hi >Mark!), although for the life of me I have no clue where the mouse went. > > Does anyone have disk images of the 7300/3B1 OS distribution? Hi Dave, but IIRC, I just put you in contact with Robert, who gave you one of his. Though he got some of his from me, so it may have been indirectly one of my machines... If it were mine, and I'd given it to you, I'd have no objection to your selling it for as much as you can possibly get for it. My theory is, the more value it acquires (by somebody paying for it) the less likely it will be to get scrapped, hence the more likely it'll be to be preserved. On the other hand, I *know* you are a knowledgeable collector and know which end of the soldering iron gets hot without having to grab it, so I'm happy it's in your hands. One reason for me to take this philosophy is that I don't have time to do myself the things I'd really like to do with my collection - like imaging floppies! I have 'em, but not imaged. They are in climate-controlled storage - that's the best I can say for myself. I'll hunt for mice. I don't think I kept a spare, but if I did, I'll let you know. -- - Mark 210-379-4635 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Large Asteroids headed toward planets inhabited by beings that don't have technology adequate to stop them: Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.

16 years, 1 month

Mindset hard disk interface

by snhirsch＠gmail.com

Does anyone on the list know anything about this? I was given a Mindset with two plug-in modules: Mindset Host Adapter Interface Module Mindset Hard Disk Cartridge The former has a bus connector at one end and a DB37F on the other. No disk controller chip, just a bunch of TTL logic. I'm guessing either a proprietary bus or SCSI managed in software (a la Apple 2 Sider). The "Hard Disk Cartridge" contains a pair of EPROMs. Any information appreciated! Steve --

16 years, 2 months

Closed vs. open source timeline.

by andy＠smokebelch.org

So whilst the GNU project was announced in 1983 I've heard many examples being cited of the source to software being shared prior to this, E.g. IBM's VM up to vN.N. And indeed recall reading somewhere that up until a certain point in time the source to most if not all software was available. As vendors made their money from hardware sales and you were unlikely to be able to buy a clone or build a machine yourself, and so safe-guarding source code was not a major concern. Does anyone know if the history of closed/unavailable vs. open/available source is documented anywhere? Ideally in a book or journal that can be properly referenced. Regards, Andrew ---------------- Andrew Back a at smokebelch.org

16 years, 2 months

Help with PDP-11 Unibus Map Hardware / Software under RT-11

by jhfinedp3k＠compsys.to

Hopefully, this request is clear enough to be understood. Both the software and the hardware portion of the questions are independently important, so please answer one aspect even if you can't help with the other. Over the past 30 years of using PDP-11 software (RT-11 over 95%) and hardware, I have never had occasion to use a Unibus system with more than 256 KB of memory (such as a PDP-11/34). I would appreciate help in understanding the Unibus Map hardware which (if I understand its purpose correctly) is to convert 18 bit addresses given to a Unibus controller into 22 bit addresses for real physical memory for systems like a PDP-11/84 and perform DMA from / to the hard drive. Also helpful would be an explanation of the related software used under RT-11 along with exactly where the Unibus Map hardware is located on a real DEC system (on the CPU board I presume) since the identical CPU board is used for both the Qbus and the Unibus with both the PDP-11/84 and the PDP-11/94. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING if you don't use RT-11!!!!!!! By way of context, I have successfully modified the HD0: device driver originally written by John Wilson which obviously executes ONLY under E11. Last week, John mentioned in a private e-mail that it is possible to direct the HD0: "controller" (all references to hardware in quotes refers to E11 software) to ignore the "Unibus Map hardware". Since I execute under E11 using Qbus emulation in order to stay totally compatible with the real DEC PDP-11/23, PDP-11/73 and PDP-11/83 systems (all Qbus and all with 4 MB of physical memory) which I have available for comparison testing, user buffers in physical memory above 256 KB are often a situation which can't be avoided. Consequently, it had always been a high priority to have a 22 bit device driver for HD0: under E11 BECAUSE HD0: is TWICE as fast as MSCP (DUX.SYS device driver). In addition, I have also been able to write code that avoids the overhead of using the HD0: device driver which makes HD0: FOUR times as fast as MSCP and also allows for direct access of 2 TB of disk space via a 32 bit block number. Since I have an immediate application for a data base of 32 GB (I have a disk drive of 160 GB, so 32 GB is only 20% of its capacity - although under RT-11 15 years ago in 1992, 32 GB would have been only a dream), the code which I have written will actually be used quite soon. However, I would very much like the HD0: device driver to be able to execute under both "Qbus" and "Unibus" hardware. And while I can test the code for a "Qbus" and for a "Unibus" without a "Unibus Map", I am not clear about what is required for a "Unibus" with a "Unibus Map" such as a PDP-11/84 running under RT-11. Megan are you still watching the list? Allison, if you can't answer, can anyone but Megan help? Is anyone else familiar enough with the "Unibus Map" that you can suggest what RT-11 actually needs to do with the "Unibus Map"? A solution is to check the "hardware" configuration and refuse to allow the HD0: device driver to LOAD or .Fetch if the modified version is not executing under "Qbus hardware". By the way, if anyone who is thinking of a controller for the Qbus which is able to use SATA drives, I would be happy to modify an RT-11 device driver to an HD0: type device that is able to handle drives up to 2 TB in the same manner that DU(X).SYS can handle drives up to 8 GB. Anyone interested?? Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine -- If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the 'at' with the four digits of the current year.

16 years, 2 months

Making an RT-11 boot disk

by dbetz＠xlisper.com

I'm trying to use simh to create an RT-11 bootable RX50 disk and am following some instructions posted by Megan Gentry a while ago. I've created the disk image but am having trouble making it bootable. The copy/boot command claims it can't find the RT-11 image but it is clearly on the floppy (du0). Any idea what's going wrong? .dir du0: 10-Apr-99 RT11XM.SYS 106P 20-Dec-85 DU .SYS 8P 20-Dec-85 TT .SYS 2P 20-Dec-85 PIP .SAV 30P 20-Dec-85 DUP .SAV 47P 20-Dec-85 DIR .SAV 19P 20-Dec-85 RESORC.SAV 25P 20-Dec-85 EDIT .SAV 19P 20-Dec-85 MACRO .SAV 61P 20-Dec-85 CREF .SAV 6P 20-Dec-85 LINK .SAV 49P 20-Dec-85 LIBR .SAV 24P 20-Dec-85 FILEX .SAV 22P 20-Dec-85 HELP .SAV 132P 20-Dec-85 BATCH .SAV 26P 20-Dec-85 FORMAT.SAV 24P 20-Dec-85 SETUP .SAV 41P 20-Dec-85 SPEED .SAV 4P 20-Dec-85 DATIME.SAV 4P 20-Dec-85 LET .SAV 5P 20-Dec-85 SPLIT .SAV 3P 20-Dec-85 CONFIG.SAV 7P 20-Dec-85 SWAP .SYS 27P 20-Dec-85 23 Files, 691 Blocks 95 Free blocks .copy/boot du0:rt11xm.sys du0: ?DUP-F-File not found DU0:RT11XM.SYS

16 years, 2 months

TU-58s (was Re: Some progress with my PDP-11/73 system)

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: TU-58s (was Re: Some progress with my PDP-11/73 system) > From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:54:24 -0500 > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >On 4/11/07, Jerome H. Fine <jhfinedp3k at compsys.to> wrote: >> But I once had a project that >> used a real DEC TU-58. Not the fastest "random" >> access device!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >They work better as "sequential" access devices - being long and thin >and travelling in one dimension, go figure. We used to optimize file >order on our console TU58s to speed up the boot times on our 11/725s >and 11/730s. Since the file order doesn't change, one just builds a >TU58 with EXCHANGE with each file following the other. The console's >8-bit-micro must cache the directory block, since the tape didn't whip >back to the start between each file. > >Using unaltered console tapes from DEC resulted in, IIRC, about 15 >minutes from turning the key to booting the hard disk. Replacing that >tape with one of our own devising shortened that pre-boot time to well >under 3 minutes. > >I'd hate to rely on a TU-58 and no other block-addressable media on a >PDP-11, though. I survived a PDP-8 with a TD8E and TU56, but it was >somewhat tedious (cool to watch, though). TU-58s weren't as cool, >IMHO. So happens one of my "small" pdp-11s uses a Tu58. the system is a BA-11V with an 11/23 256k of ram, DLV11J and MRV11 rom(boot). Takes 10 minutes to boot, setup VM: then copy key files to and reboot. After that it's pretty decent even if I have to access a file on tape. Everytime I runs it with a bunch of kids of the current PC generations they go gaga and comment on how slow then I explain the amount of ram and storage then they are amazed it can be a functional machine with so little. They can't imagine a useful machine with 32kW of ram and 256kb of storage. On the flip side I've used that same Tu58 to bring up iron that had no removable storage. It's slow but very dependable. Allison

16 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
33
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 2008