test-drb June 2009

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

233 participants
404 discussions

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

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

15 years, 6 months

Pertec tape drive in CA

by drbob＠pacbell.net

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

15 years, 6 months

San Antonio pickup

by mtapley＠swri.edu

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.

15 years, 6 months

UNIX V7

by doc＠vaxen.net

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

15 years, 6 months

[OT] Virtualization (WAS: UNIX V7)

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

15 years, 6 months

[OT] Virtualization (WAS: UNIX V7)

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

15 years, 6 months

UNIX on PDP-11s

by bqt＠softjar.se

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

15 years, 6 months

TEACO Floppy drive Tester - any info available online ?

by ragooman＠comcast.net

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/ ]

15 years, 6 months

Transistor Substitution

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >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

15 years, 6 months

UNIX V7

by john_finigan＠yahoo.com

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.

15 years, 6 months

← Newer
1
...
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
...
41
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

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 June 2009