The remains ( mostly just the PCB's ) from an early Fairchild Sentry test system were junked today.
The PCB's are brimming with early ( 1974 datacodes ) Fairchild TTL ic's. ( (9xxx and 93xx )
Also ECL of course, but I don't do that !
Any worth looking for, in particular w.r.t. to keeping old PDP's running ?
Jos Dreesen
I posted not too long ago looking for a framebuffer driver that seemed to be missing from the Solaris distributions I have for my Voyager. Well, I finally opened up the machine and found something quite unexpected.
I had assumed (as had others, according to statements) that the color and monochrome components (screen and framebuffer) would be physically incompatible, so it would be impossible to mix and match. *Wrong!* In fact, I found I have a color framebuffer, which was talking to the monochrome screen. What's really strange is that OpenBoot seems to have created a new name - bwthree - to describe the framebuffer!
I don't suppose anyone has a monochrome framebuffer with which you might be willing to part company? Or perhaps a color screen? -- Ian
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Ian S. King, Sr. Vintage Systems Engineer
Vulcan, Inc.
http://www.livingcomputermuseum.org
Finally, you can run a PDP-11 on OS/2, even if you can't run OS/2 on
your PDP-11.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Ersatz-11 V6.0 PDP-11 emulator
Date: Wednesday 03 November 2010
From: John Wilson <wilson at dbit.com>
To: Info-PDP11 at dbit.com
...
- OS/2 version. "Finally!" I hear you say. OK I know
there isn't much overlap between the OS/2 crowd and
PDP-11 folks, or between the OS/2 crowd and anyone,
really -- but *I* like it better than Windows, so there.
YOU don't have to use it! OK OK, just let me breathe.
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:52:40 -0400
From: David Ryskalczyk <d235j.1 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Information about Tektronix 4107A/4109A graphic terminals
> A little OT but speaking of vintage Tek: I have a bunch of their Service
> Scope 'magazines' from the late 60's; can I assume that these exist
> elsewhere and I can dispose of them if and when?
>
> mike
>
Have you checked BAMA? http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/
I'd offer to scan them (I have an Epson GT-15000 scanner with ADF) but
an currently overloaded with DEC documentation to do.
--Dave
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Didn't see anything there, but it looks like they're available on CD, so no
sweat. Going to read 'em first anyway before I throw 'em out; some
still-relevant interesting tips in those old magazines.
mike
On 4 Nov 2010 at 9:39, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
> TI ASC???
TI's Advanced Scientific Computer. The only reason I was aware of
the ASC (and Burroughs' BSC) was because of some proprosal-writing I
did for ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting)
proposal. We didn't get the contract, but part of your "homework" was
to become familiar with competitors' products.
>From my often-faulty memory, the ASC was roughly based on the IBM
S/360 instruction architecture with a rather arcane (at least it
seemed so to me) vector box. 32 bit single-precison/64 bit double-
precision with the S/360 style (8+24, normalized to 4 bits) floating
point representation.
I just did a check and there's some stuff on Bitsavers on it.
However, I don't see anything on the BSC there.
When we talk today about selling thousands and millions of systems,
it was a very different world where vast amounts of money and
manpower were put into the hope of selling 10 systems worldwide.
One aspect of these supercomputers that's often overlooked is the
amount of R&D that goes into peripherals to keep these things fed.
TI had a special horizontal-spindle disk drive; STAR had some work
done on a super-speed drum and a very wide tape-used-as-movable drum
called SCROLL. I don't think that CDC's EBAM was ever considered for
STAR (maybe early on), though I do recall seeing a rack of EBAM units
sitting in the hall at ADL.
By then, Jim Thornton had moved on to other things and was trenching
around the parking lot at Arden Hills, burying coax for his 50Mbps
network experiments.
--Chuck
On 2010-10-29 19:00, "Chuck Guzis"<cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2010 at 0:11, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> Next question: Does the VAX not have virtual memory any more now that
>> I've pointed this out? Or do you need to redefine virtual memory in
>> yet a new and strange way to exclude the PDP-11... :-D
>
> I think that using memory address spaces to qualify the "virtualness"
> of memory is following the wrong animal.
I think that virtual address space is intimately connected to virtual
memory, and you cannot have one without the other.
If your program vrites data to address 0, and reads it back, and get the
same data back, and another program on the same machine, at roughly the
same time, write to address 0, and reads the same data back, and that
data is different than the first programs data, then I'd say you have
virtual memory.
> I would define "virtual memory" as the ability to fool a program into
> thinking that it has more physical memory than is actually present.
> So, can a PDP-11 with 16K of memory appear to a program as if there
> were 32K present?
Certainly. If we just disregard that the code needed to implement this
thing might need more memory than 8K. The program that we intend to fool
must have atleast 8K of physical memory, to which we can read in and out
pages. With 16K that would leave just 8K for out demand paging software...
Well, actually, this is a bit too simplified. An instruction can
potentially refer to 4 pages, so we would need to be able to have four
pages to be able to fully fool a program. That would mean minimum 32K of
physical memory to use for the user program. And then some for your
kernel. But you'd probably be able to come in under 56K, while fooling
the program that is has 64K. With less than four pages, you could get
into a situation where mapping in one page means you have to map out
another, which the instruction refers to, and when you restart the
program you'll just get another page fault, ad infinitum... :-)
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
Good morning / afternoon / evening people.
For long enough now my PDP 11/70 (decdatasystem 570) has sat around
without the side panels ('skins') or the lower front cover (the long,
usually blue panel with the air vents).
Can anybody assist with clothing this magnificent beast? I ask now because
I _had_ a 11/60 cabinet for this purpose reserved with a dealer, but they
scrapped it a few weeks ago (just when I wanted to collect it).
I'm in the UK by the way before people read too far. In the north
actually, but am very willing to travel for the right bits. Cash waiting,
if thats what you want.
According to the 11/60 document MP00166 (the 11/60 in this case being
housed in the same H9504 high-boy corporate cabinet), the part numbers are
as follows:
Side skins: H9504-CA
Front cover: H9504-Rx (x denotes the colour / logo config but I'm not
bothered... it can be resprayed)
If somebody had the whole cabinet, I have a trailer!!
The side panels can also be found on many expansion cabinets / tape
systems (for example they are used on my TS11) and, by the looks of it,
early VAX.
I'd be very appreciative if anybody can help me out. Condition is really
unimportant as I have a paint sprayshop handy.
Thanks in advance!
..Adam..
Was there ever such a thing as a 74x00 series LED driver that did proper hex
decoding and not simply BCD? I can't seem to find that there was.
The topic of why split octal was used on some early micro-computers came up
on a list. After doing a search for a TTL LED driver that does hex, the
answer is probably that there were no single chip option for hex displays.
Split octal was just easier.
This kind of joins in with the TIL311 discussion. It was a TTL compatible
hex display, but expensive at the time.
-chuck
Watts Humphrey, known as the "father of software quality testing" died a
few days ago. He was 83.
Watts was a keynote speaker at VCF East 5.0 (two years ago.) He worked
on the MOBIDIC ("Mobile Digital Computer") and on the Fieldata spec
(which became ASCII), and which both happened at the Army base that's
now our museum.
Favorite story that I enjoy telling: Watts explained how, when MOBIDIC
was finished and mounted in its 30-foot truck (late 1950s), the Army
insisted on testing it like any other military vehicle. So they drove
the computer-truck to the Aberdeen Proving Ground. On two test laps,
the computer itself came through with flying colors both times. Also on
both laps, the truck broke down!
Here are some obituaries:
Press release -- http://tinyurl.com/2fwdu27
Carnegie Mellon -- http://www.sei.cmu.edu/watts/
SD Times -- http://tinyurl.com/243shql*
*
Anyone out there have one of these? I have one of each, but one is
broken and has an incomplete set of ROMs (which appear to be one of
the early versions -- maybe 1.0!). I do have a complete set of version
8.2 ROMs, dated 1985.
Someone posted photos of a 4107A a while ago at
http://picasaweb.google.com/glen.slick/Tektronix4107A#5300179266366767714
.
The 4109A we have is fully intact, but the 4107A has front panel
damage. Also, we're not sure whether or not we have keyboards and
mice.
Any information, including owner's and service manuals, would be
greatly appreciated.
--Dave