test-drb January 2009

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

218 participants
340 discussions

by marvin＠west.net

I'm starting to put stuff up for sale again on the Vintage Computer & Gaming Marketplace. New stuff I put up include the 13 1950-51 Radio-Electronics magazines that have the Simon Relay computer series, Omnitronix RS-232 for Vic-20/C64, and other such stuff. I plan on putting new stuff up daily. http://marketplace.vintage-computer.com/ If something doesn't sell in two weeks, I usually just stick it in the store. There are some interesting things up for sale by others as well.

15 years, 3 months

chip identification

by rescue＠hawkmountain.net

Trying to ID some chips I pulled from various pieces of equipment. I have a cpu? I pulled out of a modem ... Signetics SC80C31BCPN40. This would appear to be an Intel 8031 based cpu. But does it have an internal ROM/etc that would preclude its reuse ? I have 3 chips now in the trash pile... I believe they are OTP EPROMs (and since used, are no good). MX 27C1000PC-70, ATMEL AT27LV256A, and AtMel AT27C010-70JC. Lastly I have what I think is EEPROM. SST PH29EE010-150-4CF. I believe this to be a 1Mbit EEPROM. Searching google for chip part numbers is paramount to useless due to all the chip vendors advertising.... there has to be a better way.... So, beyond looking for better ways to search for chip data/datasheets, can anyone confirm the identification of the above chips ? Is an 8031 cpu 'fun' to play with ? :-) -- Curt

15 years, 3 months

Orthogonality and contrivedness

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: Orthogonality and contrivedness > From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> > Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:57:30 -0800 > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >On 4 Jan 2009 at 13:40, Tim Shoppa wrote: > > Try programming an 1802 for a while. You'll know you're really into >> it when it seems "contrived" that all those other processors can >> only use a single of their registers as a program counter :-). >> Twisting my mind to switch to 1802 mode and back is a interesting >> experience. > >Well, at least the PC on the 430 is a regular register, operable by >any applicable instruction of the set. Doing a decimal add to the PC >must certainly yield interesting results! > >I'd always considered the 1802 to be in a unique position in the >70's, in that it was a (comparatively) low-power CMOS design. No >doubt this was aided somewhat by its simple architecture. Was 1802 >RCA's one and only veture in the microprocessor world? In the 70s CMOS was mostly RCAs game and calling card. They never got the density very high till mid 70s. There was 6100 (aka PDP-8 in cmos) and the 1800/1801 then the 1802 and 1804 and 1805 The 1800/01 was the base of the family and took two chips to complee the processor. The 1802 was the first CPU from RCA that took only one chip and the 04/05 added minor improvements and brought rom on the chip. If memeory serves RCA also had a mini that has a similar archetecture. The odditiy of the cosmac is once you program with it enough it's PHI SEX and GLO. Seriously it's fairly efficient once you get used to it. If it were made with current processes, the number of clocks per cycle dropped it would likely still have staying power. >> The smaller PIC's make perfect sense once you realize they're >> Harvard architecture. Bigger PIC's, I never really grokked. > >The Harvard architecture really falls down in uCs because of lack of >space to store read-only constants. Small PICs have to resort to all >sorts of oddball tricks to accommodate this for things such as lookup >tables. (Use a "return from subroutine with immediate value" >instruction). Upper PICs include instructions to access program >memory and AFAIK, all AVRs have them. Which doesn't make them >strictly Harvard architecture anymore. Had the ROM area included a >space in data memory for constant storage, it might have done the >trick. Yes, there's EEPROM, but it has a different purpose and is >not easy to use. Most all of the Harvard machines have a way to load a constant or acccess a table in rom. Started with the TMS1000. >The 430 drops the charade and adopts a Von Neumann architecture, >relying on the read-only nature of ROM to enforce the separation >between code and data. > >> To me it's perfectly obvious that the MSP430 is PDP-11 like, and >> in some ways even more orthogonal than the -11. The CP1600 was >> substantially less orthogonal, more Nova-like with some >> of the registers obviously intended for index use. Never tried that one. > >How many Nova programmers would have killed for 16 registers? To me, >what distinguishes the CP1600 was its inefficient use of instruction >memory (Yes, I know about the 10-bit ROM, but still...) > It was aimed at a rom based systems and back then rom was A)bulky, B)expensive silicon. ALlison >Cheers, >Chuck

15 years, 3 months

RSTS/E question and media.

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: RE: RSTS/E question and media. > From: "Paul Koning" <Paul_Koning at Dell.com> > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:38:33 -0500 > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >> > ...you'd need a sync DDCMP interface (for a Q-bus system like that >it >> would >> > be a DMV11). More to the point, it looks like the Micro-PDP11 >> support >> > appeared in V8.0, and I suspect there may be some other small >details >> > specific to the 11/53 that are later still. >> >> Right, so I'd need to plumb the 11/53 into say an Alpha via a serial >> connection. Sync... so I'd need to get a PCI sync card too, for the >> latter. > >Or later yet (V10.x?) there's async DDCMP, I'm not sure how clearly >accessible but I'm pretty sure it's in there. > > paul DDCMP can run over sync or async lines it was commonly done async for slow lines and sync for fast lines the division was around 19.2kbaud with the sync cards favoring the faster than that rates. I used to run DDCMP async at 2400baud though the Mill gandalf switch to a Vax host in the the Mill. Worked ok in the days when 2400 was fast and 9600 was fastest and expensive. Allison

15 years, 3 months

RSTS/E question and media

by ken＠seefried.com

From: Andrew Back <andrew at smokebelch.org> > Right, so I'd need to plumb the 11/53 into say an Alpha via a > serial connection. Sync... so I'd need to get a PCI sync card > too, for the latter. Ugh. Is this something you could do with a low end Cisco (2500 class) and the apropos IOS image (Enterprise, with support for DECNet)? Sync serial is built in. KJ

15 years, 3 months

Offer- VGA and SoundBlaster Card collections/last chance

by wpileggi＠juno.com

Couple of months ago, I offered up my classic VGA (ISA, PCI, AGP) card collection and Soundblaster (ISA, PCI) card collection(s). I had several take me up on my offer. I still have a lot left, if you have any interest, please email. Most went for shipping costs + small fee. Thanks. Bill KA3AIS ____________________________________________________________ Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD! Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL1131/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007

15 years, 3 months

Anyone know what these boards are?

by rborsuk＠colourfull.com

Anyone know about these boards? ebay # 170291194981 Rob Rob Borsuk email: rborsuk at colourfull.com Colourfull Creations Web: http://www.colourfull.com

15 years, 3 months

Orthogonality and contrivedness

by shoppa＠trailing-edge.com

Chuck writes: > I work with both PICs and AVRs (my current project uses an > ATMega128), but both instruction sets seem to me to be more than a > bit contrived. The AVR less so than the PIC, but still on the "odd" > side of the ledger. Try programming an 1802 for a while. You'll know you're really into it when it seems "contrived" that all those other processors can only use a single of their registers as a program counter :-). Twisting my mind to switch to 1802 mode and back is a interesting experience. The smaller PIC's make perfect sense once you realize they're Harvard architecture. Bigger PIC's, I never really grokked. > I'm not a 430 evangelist (and suspect that it will never enjoy the > popularity of the PIC or AVR, which is a shame). I'll work with any > instruction set, but I know what I'd prefer to use. > > It's curious that the MSP430's instruction set is close to the GI > CP1600, where the PIC is descended from the very different 1650. To me it's perfectly obvious that the MSP430 is PDP-11 like, and in some ways even more orthogonal than the -11. The CP1600 was substantially less orthogonal, more Nova-like with some of the registers obviously intended for index use. Tim.

15 years, 3 months

ACS Altos 3068

by afra＠aurigae.demon.co.uk

Hi there, Am I the only person on the planet that still has one of these machines ? The perticular example I have has 4M of ram and a 70M disk, and is running SysV unix. Acording to the documentation and the back of the machine, it has a SCSI-1 interface however I have never been able to get this working. I think I heard somewhere that the SCSI required a later version of the OS, I'm not sure exactly what version of unix I have, looking at my /etc/issue, seems to be SysV R2.2, does anyone have a later version ? Also I have heard that the source code for the OS was available, would anyone have such a beast ? Cheers. Phill. -- Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric ! "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush.

15 years, 3 months

In the Christmas spirit

by jgessling＠yahoo.com

What IC is this, who, that I see On bench's top, is resting? Whom old timers greet with joy, while others are sleeping? This, this is the 4004 Whom collectors guard, make dealers sing: Haste, haste to bring it laud, The chip, the son of Intel! etc...

15 years, 3 months

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 January 2009