I have an Amiga keyboard (pcb says A3000) where the four
keys 1, q, a and z doesn't work. The rest of the keyboard
functions well.
This happened after a longer period where I didn't use the keyboard.
Does anybody have any ideas of things to check out to try
to get this working again?
Regards Eivind
Hey folks. Is there anyone here that'd be willing to pick up a DEC
LA180 printer for me in Cambridge, MA, and sit on it for me for a little
while?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
[Resend with corrected Subject:]
Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> (in reply to a message from Fred Cisin) wrote:
>Steady on, old chap. Pop a few more dried frog pills and calm down.
Hah! Then I probably need some too ;-) Are those already on sale in the drugstore in Treacle Mine Road or do you still have to get them from the pharmaceutical institute of the Unseen University?
(Another appreciator of TP humor outs himself...)
>Joking aside, I have considered it. I honestly think a decent
>Win9x/NT-style DOS shell for Linux would help its adoption by Windows
> techies moving across.
This is somewhat akin to the ideas I've been pushing around for some years now. I'm thinking that porting a familiar OS to some 'obscure' (to the average DOS/Wintel user) vintage architecture could serve to keep lots of these machines in active service with the general public. (But then there wouldn't be so many around for us to hoard - so that's perhaps why it isn't done...)
Of course there would be a need for software portability as well, so you might want to include some sort of cross assembler or how-you'd-call-it in the package that, llke, takes a win32-x86 executable and turns out a win32-sparc (or whatever) executable. No idea if that's even remotely possible without excessive manual intervention...
> The main snag being that C21 Windows techies
>barely use the CLI at all and are not really skilled in it, whereas
>1990s or even 1980s MS techies probably know Unix already.
So don't contend yourself with just the CLI - you don't have to. There is an ongoing effort to create a FOSS Windows 2k/XP workalike named ReactOS. Currently that is targeted at x86 only but I'm holding high hopes that its code base will inspire such portery. "Windows" for all those systems that pack the horsepower to run it, including but not limited to those that once were NT's target platforms - Alpha, RS/6k (Siemens RM400), PPC (PowerStack) and Clipper (Intergraph) springing to mind immediately.
>But I'd love a DOS shell for Linux, yes. If I had the skills, I'd try to do it. Partly for the convenience, partly for fun, partly for the sheer joy
>of outraging traditional old-time Unix-heads. :?)
Well put. Any of these on ist own would make enough of a reason methinks ;-) Add the conservation and ongoing practical utility of vintage hardware to that and let's see where it goes.
Arno Kletzander
...sent from my HTC Magician PDA
--
NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zur?ck-Garantie!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> (in reply to a message from Fred Cisin) wrote:
>Steady on, old chap. Pop a few more dried frog pills and calm down.
Hah! Then I probably need some too ;-) Are those already on sale in the drugstore in Treacle Mine Road or do you still have to get them from the pharmaceutical institute of the Unseen University?
(Another appreciator of TP humor outs himself...)
>Joking aside, I have considered it. I honestly think a decent
>Win9x/NT-style DOS shell for Linux would help its adoption by Windows
> techies moving across.
This is somewhat akin to the ideas I've been pushing around for some years now. I'm thinking that porting a familiar OS to some 'obscure' (to the average DOS/Wintel user) vintage architecture could serve to keep lots of these machines in active service with the general public. (But then there wouldn't be so many around for us to hoard - so that's perhaps why it isn't done...)
Of course there would be a need for software portability as well, so you might want to include some sort of cross assembler or how-you'd-call-it in the package that, llke, takes a win32-x86 executable and turns out a win32-sparc (or whatever) executable. No idea if that's even remotely possible without excessive manual intervention...
> The main snag being that C21 Windows techies
>barely use the CLI at all and are not really skilled in it, whereas
>1990s or even 1980s MS techies probably know Unix already.
So don't contend yourself with just the CLI - you don't have to. There is an ongoing effort to create a FOSS Windows 2k/XP workalike named ReactOS. Currently that is targeted at x86 only but I'm holding high hopes that its code base will inspire such portery. "Windows" for all those systems that pack the horsepower to run it, including but not limited to those that once were NT's target platforms - Alpha, RS/6k (Siemens RM400), PPC (PowerStack) and Clipper (Intergraph) springing to mind immediately.
>But I'd love a DOS shell for Linux, yes. If I had the skills, I'd try to do it. Partly for the convenience, partly for fun, partly for the sheer joy
>of outraging traditional old-time Unix-heads. :?)
Well put. Any of these on ist own would make enough of a reason methinks ;-) Add the conservation and ongoing practical utility of vintage hardware to that and let's see where it goes.
Arno Kletzander
...sent from my HTC Magician PDA
I am in need of a Dell 316LT laptop. This would be from the late 1980s.
Ideally it works. If you've got one and you want to make a deal, please
contact me directly.
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:53:12 -0500
> From: "B. Degnan" <billdeg at degnanco.com>
> To: <cctech at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Visual 1050 hard drive setup
> > On 12/19/2011 05:30 PM, Damien Cymbal wrote:
> > > Does anybody have a Visual 1050 with hard drive setup? I am looking
> > > for any doc/pointers on how to get a hard drive configured under
> > > CP/M for this system.
> > >
> > I do have two of them with HD, haven't powered it for a little while so
> > memory is fuzzy.
> >
> > As I remember it used a different copy of the bios (boot disk) to configure
> > as the bios had to be aware of the hard drive. I can look at docs but
> > powering it up would take weeks to get to as other projects are in the
> > forefront.
> >
>
> That's correct. There is a special disk to set up the hard drive. I think you
> have to have this disk in drive A in order to read the hard drive, I don't think
> one can simply boot a 1050 to harddrive. I plan to work on this system over
> the next few months, I will document the process on my site when I do. I
> also am knee-deep in projects at the moment.
> Bill
Thanks for the initial responses Allison and Bill.
Here's a summary of what I have been able to cull together so far:
(1) The Z80 BOOT PROM code (version 1.2 at least, which is the source listing
I have) appears to probe the Winchester, for boot e.g.
- try to read Winchester
- check result
- if error, try floppy
- if OK, check Winchester label
- if bad label, try floppy
- if good label load system and boot??? (this part is unclear to me)
(2) Not all of the v1050 CP/M BIOS versions appear to support the Winchester.
Versions up to 1.1 do not appear to contain the WINCH.ASM module which I
am assuming is required for support. I do not have access to version 1.2, but
I see this module showing up starting in version 1.3.
I would assume that with the 1.2 BOOT PROM and the 1.4 CP/M BIOS I could
support the Winchester (barring any bugginess - Bill I believe you have v2.0
of the CP/M BIOS and not sure on the BOOT PROM).
What isn't clear to me at this point is how to install CP/M onto the Winchester
and get the label setup so that the PROM would boot directly from the hard drive.
