I've got a Xytronic 137ESD
(http://www.howardelectronics.com/xytronic/137ESD.html).
Which of these tips, keeping in mind I have the 137ESD, would be
appropriate for surface mount work?
http://www.howardelectronics.com/xytronic/tips.html
What temperature should I be set at for soldering? The number 630F
comes to mind, but I'm not sure.
What type of solder? I think I'm using 63/37, I think .015 OD.
Should I use flux? In what form? A pen? A syringe? A brush?
Any other standard accessories that might help?
Thanks
Keith
Does anyone have some Prodos and or other software for one of these? My
supply is locked up, and I don't know if I ever had Prodos.
The system I'm getting had its prodos floppy stepped on by a misque long
ago, and it was overwritten, so at a minimum I would appreciate that.
I could send the damaged disk and let you overwrite at my expense as an
alternative if media is a problem, or I can dig for some blanks in my pile.
thanks
Jim
Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
> > "Walter F.J. Mueller" <W.F.J.Mueller at gsi.de> wrote:
> > I've also implemented a PDP-11 on an FPGA. It is a full 11/70 with
> > split I&D, MMU and cache. No FPP so far. Available peripherals are so
> > far DL11, LP11, KW11L, PC11, and RK11. All I/O is channeled over via
> > 'remote-register-interface' onto a single bi-directional byte stream
> > interface, so the FPGA board needs a backend PC with a server program
> > to handle the I/O requests.
> Any plans on the FPP? It would be really nice and useful to have.
Hi Johnny,
sure, an FPP is on the 'todo-list', but it doesn't have the highest
priority. After having put the first version on OpenCores I'd like to
add a trace/debug unit (allowing hardware breakpoints ect), and add
a few more peripherals, especially larger disks. Currently I have
only an RK11 controller, good enough for proof-of-principle, but
not enough for real usage.
> As for traps and double errors, feel free to ask. I don't know if I have
> all the answers, but I might be able to figure them out. Besides, I also
> have access to one (or three) functional 11/70 machines.
I've tested much of the implementation against simh and xxdp's, but there
are still a few loose ends regarding corner cases. It be great to run a
few test programs on simh, a real 11/70, and my fpga implementation,
called now w11a.
> The 11/53 is a really slow machine. Not that helpful to compare with. But you
> seem to push a nice number anyway. But 50MHz... The J11 in an 11/9x machine
> runs at 20 MHz, which would suggest that you should only be able to push about
> 2.5 times the performance, unless you do some more clever tricks.
> (The 11/9x machine runs all memory as cache.)
I know, but the 11/53 is the only pdp-11 where I know the Unix Benchmark
and thus the Dhrystone results, so it became the reference.
Even though my implementation is quite different from the organization of
the original 11/70, it has essentially the same instruction timing as a
11/45 or 11/70 when expressed in clock cycles. The 11/45 or 11/70 CPU's
ran with a 150 ns clock period (ignoring clock stretching here), thus a
6.7 MHz clock. A register-register operation takes 2 cycles, a
"mov r0,(r1)+" for example 5 cycles.
Because the cpi (cycles-per-instruction) for 11/70 and the w11a is very
similar and both have a good cache the w11a should simply be 50/6.7 or a
factor 7.5 faster than a 11/70.
The 11/70 and the w11a have some pipelining, instruction fetch and
decode/operate can overlap for register destination instructions. The
J11 is more pipelined, here fetch, decode, and operate stage can overlap.
Therefore register-register instructions take 1 cycle in the best case,
a "mov r0,(r1)+" for example 3 cycles.
Therefore a 50 MHz w11a will not be 2.5 times faster than a 20 MHz J11,
maybe just 1.5 times faster. The w11a is intentionally implemented in a
quite simple and conservative way, prime goal was to get it right and
working, and not to get it fast.
At some later time maybe I'll try a really fast design, with separate
instruction and data caches and significantly more parallelism than
the J11 had.
> IIST is needed for RSX to be happy (the only OS that supports the 11/74),
> and you also need to implement parts of the memory bus behaviour with
> interlocking. You can ignore the MK11 box CSRs, even though it will look
> a little funny, but you do need separate DL11s for each CPU core, along with
> the rest of the I/O bus, or else things will probably not work. The 11/74
> is a shared memory machine, but not shared I/O bus.
I'm fully aware of this, the MP version will have one I/O bus per CPU and
a shared memory and asrb interlock, and caches with proper cache coherency.
It's true that RSX is the only OS that supports an 11/74. Unfortunately I
don't have an RSX11-M plus license. So the plan is to patch 2.11BSD to support
an MP system. Sounds like a long shot, but looking into the kernel sources
I concluded that a funneling or 'big kernel lock' type MP support seems to
be quite feasible. Will not scale well, but for a 'dual-core' this is likely
good enough.
Walter
Hello Everybody,
Does anybody happen to have the contents of the PDP-11 boot/diagnostics
proms 23-248F1 & 23-616F1 available in SIMH loader format?
These are the proms on the M9312 boot/termination card.
Thanks,
Ed
--
Dit is een HTML vrije email / This is an HTML free email.
<arcarlini at iee.org> wrote:
> Johnny Billquist [bqt at softjar.se] wrote:
>> > I wasn't aware that any prototypes ever were produced and
>> > came as far as
>> > being functional. I thought it was just paper work that had bee done.
>
> iirc CASTOR and POLLUX were PDP-11/74s that were actually used by one of
> the
> DEC PDP-11 software groups for a while. (Or maybe the PDP-11/74 was used
> for
> a while and then broken up to form CASTOR and POLLUX ... )
No, both CASTOR and POLLUX was running at the same time for a while.
CASTOR was used by the RSX development group while POLLUX was either
DECnet or field service. I can't remember which.
But I'm fairly sure that CASTOR and POLLUX were just 11/70mP systems.
>> > Nice to hear. Too bad the machine never got to production. It
>> > would have
>> > been a nice system...
>
> I've read somewhere that it was full of flat ribbon cables and would
> have been a beast to maintain.
Yes, that is one of the stories I've heard too. But that was related to
the mP systems. The 11/74 CPU as such could (I assume) be run in a
single processor configuration as well, just like the 11/70. In which
case, you'd just have an upgraded 11/70, which would have been nice.
Johnny
On 06/23/2010 22:14, Rob Jarratt wrote:
> Are you in the UK? I seem to need a mini-DIN connector which looks like it
> has 8 pins. I also believe the mouse connects to the keyboard, I am not sure
> if it has to be a special mouse or not, but if you have a mouse to go with
> the keyboard that would be even better.
>
> Thanks
I only have one mouse but 4 keyboards.. I can send you a keyboard but
not the mouse if you like.
I'm in West Sussex, contact me off list i guess
Roger
On 6/23/10 5:14 PM, Rob Jarratt wrote:
> Are you in the UK? I seem to need a mini-DIN connector which looks like it
> has 8 pins. I also believe the mouse connects to the keyboard, I am not sure
> if it has to be a special mouse or not, but if you have a mouse to go with
> the keyboard that would be even better.
It does not need to be a "special" mouse, but it DOES need to be a Sun
mouse. I say that because they're far more common in my world than
those other weird mice that PCs use. ;)
But yes, the mouse connects to the keyboard, and you will need one if
you intend to run the machine as a graphical workstation.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
