Hey PA-RISC aficionados. Was there in fact a production PA-RISC
machine whose CPU was implemented with standard TTL chips? If so,
which one, and does anyone have one that they'd like to trade away?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Hello,
Could you possibly tell me a little more about the Pertec tape drive...Model #. etc. A photo would be very helpful. I maintain old equipment.
Thanks
Bob Burrell
Collectors -
Sorry to pester everyone with this again, but my friend John
Gold thinks he was contacted several weeks back by someone interested
in picking up his collection during a visit in June. I think the
potential collector was asking about what size trailer would be
needed to contain the collection. John has lost that contact
information of , so if it was someone on this list, please re-contact
him.
He can be reached at: jhgold (at) stic.net
I still have a rough list of the things in the collection;
let me know if you need more information about it. I don't have a
personal connection, though I have been to his house and seen parts
of the collection (and I'm pretty impressed).
--
- 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.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
>
> There are things I like about AIX, but I have a hard time considering it to
> be UNIX, and *I DO NOT LIKE* IBM's attitude towards support of tape drives.
First rule of administering AIX:
This Is Not UNIX. Deal with it.
Doc
Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
> (Sorry for keeping this OT discussion continue, but one of my questions
> are vaguely on topic)
This will definitely go back to on-topic... :-)
>> > These people think it's efficient to run a copy of Windows 2003 on a
>> > server (which needs a couple of gig of RAM to work well) and then run
>> > multiple VMs on that containing copies of Windows 2003 or other
>> > flavours of Windows. They think virtualisation is new and clever and
>> > it doesn't occur to them that not only is this wasteful of resources,
>> > but it's a nightmare to keep all those copies patched and current.
>> >
>
> I'm curious, what OS:es and software did virtualisation before
> VMware/XEN/Virtualbox and the like ?
The most famous would be OS/VM, I guess. IBM did that already in the 70s
(or was it even the 60s?).
There are an OS for the PDP-8 (put on the net by me, on ftp.update years
ago actually) called MULTOS-8, which creates a number of virtual PDP-8s.
Each normally boots and runs OS/8.
> Also, why is it wasteful of resources?
There is always overhead involved.
> And finaly, why would keeping virtual installations up to date be any
> harder than non-virtual?
Harder to keep track of all the virtual machines you (might) have?
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca" <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> > There are an OS for the PDP-8 (put on the net by me, on ftp.update years
>> > ago actually) called MULTOS-8, which creates a number of virtual PDP-8s.
>> > Each normally boots and runs OS/8.
>
> Click !! Dam the link is broken!
Oh! Sorry. That was just me assuming that everyone should know about our
ftp archive. I guess not, since so many other places seldom mention it,
even though you have lots of really nice and important stuff lying
around there.
A full url for MULTOS-8 is: ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp8/multos8
My main interest and concerns are on the RSX area, but I'm also
responsible for the PDP-8 stuff. I just haven't had time to do much
about it for years...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
> I didn't include any of the tape controllers because they do TMSCP, not
> MSCP. It's possible that I'm being overly pedantic.
True. About pendantic, I don't know... TMSCP and MSCP are very similar,
but there are few differences as well. The device drivers usually share
the port code part, and just have a different "upper" end.
>> > And the RQZX1, which talks both SCSI and floppy.
> I've never seen one. Someone once told me that they didn't do MSCP
> which caused me to lose interest. But if they do, I should keep an eye
> out for one. The usual resellers seem to think they're made out of
> solid Rhodium.
I have one. They talk MSCP and TMSCP. They have SCSI and a floppy
interface to connect disks. It's a quad card, so bigger than most other
SCSI controllers out there for Q-bus, but it's nice.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I picked up this TEACO CD 2-3 floppy drive tester for only $5 at the
recent hamfest here in Pittsburgh and like to get it working again. I
did a search and found some old postings on here from 10+yrs ago, but
without any leads to any info for this tester. I hope somebody might
have a clue about this tester and some leads on finding a manual.
http://tinyurl.com/l9o5gn
thanks
=Dan
--
[ = http://www2.applegate.org/~ragooman/ ]
>
>Subject: Re: Transistor Substitution
> From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell)
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:53:39 +0100 (BST)
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
>>
>>
>> Okay: I admit it, I am sometimes pig-ignorant about basic hardware
>> questions. :/
>>
>> I have a couple of DEC machines which I need to replace a few components
>> on, and also stock up spares of others. With the transistors and diodes,
>> however, I often can't find a direct replacement - and don't know how to
>> figure out what a modern substitute is.
>>
>> For a 2N3009, for example, I can find basic information and a datasheet
>> online easily enough - but as for choosing a functional, available
>> substitute for it, I'm honestly not even sure where to begin.
>>
>> Is there a basic resource for determining modern equivalents for older
>> transistors and diodes? Can someone helpfully provide me with a clue
>> here? :)
>
>It depends on what the transistor is being used for.. In general
>transsitors used in the logic (particulalry low-speed ones, for things
>like lamp drivers) and transsitors used in linear PSUs are fairly easy to
>substitute. Transsitors used for high energy pulse work (SMPSU choppers,
>horizontal output transsitors in monitors) are a lot more critical, and
>the data sheet may bot help.
>
>Basically, you need to get the following right :
>
>Tpye/polarity (NPN or PNP etc)
>
>VOltage ratings high enough to stand voltages in the circuit (if the
>ratings of the substitute exceed those of the original, you should be OK)
>
>Current ratings (particularly Ic, collector current). Again, if your
>substitute is better than the original it should be OK
>
>Gain (hfe and all its varients) is not too critical in most classic
>computer applications, particularly for switich transiustors which are
>driven hard into saturation. But try not to use a transistor of too low
>a gain.
>
>Max frequency (Ft, etc) is something you should look at in logic
>transistors, particularly in higher speed circuits, clock oscillators, etc.
>
>But my experience is if you pick something of the same polarity and
>similar characteristics, it'll work in most classic computer circuits
>(except for SMPSUs and horizontal output stages). Probaly 99% of
>small-signal transistors can be replaced y 2N3904 (NPN) and 2N3906 (PNP) :-)
>
>Diodes are evem more generic. Most switching diodes can be replaced with
>1N4148 :-). For PSU rectiifers in linear PSUs (again, SMPSUs are another
>story), choose something with sufficient votlage rating (PIV -- peak
>inverse votlage) (2*sqrt(2)*output voltage should be safe, say 3 times the
>output voltage or more) and sufficient current rating (If, forward current).
>When there are similar diodes of different PIV ratings, I normally buy
>the highest. It's not much more expensive, and I'm on the side of safety.
>
>-tony
Way too much information.. What he needs to know is what can he buy now that
should work to replace a 2n3009?
Answer: the 2N2222A (metal can not the plastic PN2222) has the same or close
enough FT, Ic and breakdown voltages. It would be my first choice if I could
not purchase/salvage the exact part. Also the 2n2222A is available and usually
cheap. I buy them usually in for groups of 25 for about $0.08US each.
DEC used a lot of 2n2907, 2n2905. 2n2219, 2n3553 and 2n2222A equivilents under
different marking schemes. These parts are still very common.
To assure the substitution it would help to know how that 2n3009 was used
but from working on a lot of DEC gear the 2n2222 is a good bet.
The only case where they type transistor is a bit fussy is some of the faster
flip chip cards (logic) and SMPS.
FYI: Older DEC machines like straight-8 and friends used a lot fo the ceramic
epoxy parts similar to the 2n3638 and 2n3563. Those are ceramic headers with
a block of epoxy covering the die and are prone to popping the epoxy and the
symptom works when cold or mechanically intermittent.
Allison
Liam Proven wrote:
>These people think it's efficient to run a copy of Windows 2003 on a
>server (which needs a couple of gig of RAM to work well) and then run
>multiple VMs on that containing copies of Windows 2003 or other
>flavours of Windows. They think virtualisation is new and clever and
>it doesn't occur to them that not only is this wasteful of resources,
>but it's a nightmare to keep all those copies patched and current.
>They think that encapsulating SCSI over TCP/IP is an efficient way to
>connect servers to disk farms.
I'm generally on board with what Liam said, in spirit at least. But I do
look at these two issues differently: They are both "outboard" fixes to
long-standing problems with NT and they make life easier in the trenches.
iSCSI makes up (in a clumsy way) for a lack of a "first class citizen"
network file protocol in NT. Since you can't run SQL Server over something
like NFS, it is about the only way to get it on a networked storage device.
And if you want some of the nice "storage virtualization" features like
volume snaps and clones, you pretty much want network storage.
Virtualization may waste resources, but CPU and RAM are the cheapeast
part of the stack now.
What you get is easy recovery of whole system images,
plus the ability run a bunch of legacy setups that ran on
dedicated machines 5 years ago on one new box.
That actually saves resources.
I guess what I am saying is, I'll take some slightly hacky ways to improve
life with an OS that I can't easily avoid, over the alternative
of just having to use said suboptimal OS with no extra help.
