> From: Josh Dersch
> a currently non-working 1186 with an installation of the Lyric release
> of Interlisp-D installed on the drive
> ...
> I have made a disk image of the ad-hoc font disk I created
Might be a good idea to make an image of the entire Lyric hard drive, in case
that drive fails, we won't lose the bits.
Noel
Hello everyone,
I'm working to troubleshoot a 286 laptop style computer. I've kind of
hit the end of my knowledge and wondering if anyone has any insight.
The computer in question I've never seen run. So I don't know normal
behavior. There were a few caps inside that were leaking electrolyte, I
cleaned it all up and replaced them. A few traces look a little bit
corroded but test fine.
First thing I'm thinking, is did the BIOS eproms loose a bit or two of
data from age? Bit rot? I did read off the two BIOS chips (high and low
pair I assume.) I can see text like Copyright Pheonix Technologies 1988,
but I can see that for instance the first character of the text Copyright
is wrong, it's a P in one file and 9A in the other.
Second thing I hooked up Oscope and cut on computer. It never does a
floppy seek. When I poke around the 27c256 EPROM I see constant activity
on all address lines, and all datalines. This includes the OE pin as well.
Would a normal runnng computer hit the BIOS that much?
Any thoughts appreciated!
--
Ethan O'Toole
hmmm.... be careful of that core..... may contain launch codes <grin!>
Ed#
In a message dated 10/3/2015 10:02:45 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
linimon at lonesome.com writes:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 07:09:04PM -0400, Sean Caron wrote:
> Software preservation is definitely important
remember that with the latest US laws, that certain data (e.g. hard
drives, magnetic media) *must* be destroyed on the supposition that
they contain sensitive personal data.
If you don't do so, you can create yourself a legal liability.
(do NOT ask me about equipment sold by someone in South Austin
who is now out of business, who should have been wiping drives.)
mcl
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111410385883
10 left 27 sold.
Once they could have been used by someone. Now they can only be used as a
conversation piece hanged on the wall.
Thanks, this looks perfect. And indeed my tape is ID 5 (brainwaves anyone?).
Can you elaborate on the differences between E11 and SIMH? When is it the
same, when will it not be compatible?
Marc
================================
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 02:52:36 -0400
From: John Wilson <wilson at dbit.com>
My "ST.EXE" program (available from http://www.dbit.com/pub/ibmpc/util/
including source) runs on real DOS (not Windows) and can write from an
E11-format .TAP file (which SIMH uses a garbled version of, but they're
interchangeable for *even* record lengths which are 99% of the universe)
to a real tape. It works on my HP 88780, and my Qualstar 1260S and even
a DEC TZ30 or TK50Z-GA (which aren't quite full SCSI-1). Not picky at all.
"st wput foo.tap" should write your image out. You need a DOS ASPI driver
for your SCSI card, and you'll need to use something like "-f scsi5:" on
the command line (or set the TAPE environment variable) so ST will know
which SCSI ID (etc.) to use.
John Wilson
D Bit
===============================
> From: Fred Cisin
> Do you get any POST codes?
How about beep codes? (A lot of machines give them out when things are too
effed up to even display anything.)
Noel
Without taking the skids apart, rough counts are ,
terminals - 57
keyboards - 77
printers - 4
line printer - 1
servers - 3
misc parts - 1 skid replacement bases ect
all of the equipment is nice and white not yellowed so it looks good
He wants to move it as a lot. He does not give a price point.
Located in WI.
Cindy Croxton
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> From: Liam Proven
I am _very much_ in sympathy with the complaints here; I too feel that modern
computers are too complex, etc. (Although some of it, like the entire computer
turning into a single chip, were/are inevitable/unavoidable.)
I like the functionality of modern system, but I feel they are _more complex
than they need to be_ to generate that level of functionality.
However, one thing I am going to quibble with:
> This is a nice explanatory quote:
> The main reasons TempleOS is simple and beautiful are because it's
> ring-0-only .. Linux wants to be a secure, multi-user mainframe. ...
> It was simple, open and hackable. It was not networked. ... It was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> simple and unsecure. If you don't have malware and you don't have
> bugs, protection just slows things down and makes the code complicated.
Note the part I highlighted. If you want to have a system that's
network-capable, which is pretty much mandatory for a _really_ usable system
in this day and age, i) that means Web-capable, and ii) if it's Web-capable
today, it has to be able to handle what I dub 'active content' (JavaScript,
etc) - i.e. content coming off the network which contains code, which runs in
the local machine.
To paraphrase a certain well-known SF work, IMO active content is probably the
worst idea since humans' fore-fathers crawled out of the mud. It's
_potentially_ a giant, gaping security hole - one that in today's OS's is
responsible for a huge share of security issues. (There _is_ a way to have
systems which aren't as vulnerable, but it means having military-grade
security on everyone's machine - and no, I don't mean crypto; probably not
likely, alas.) I mourn the early days of the Web, when there was no active
content - just text, images, etc, etc. But no, they had to add all sorts of
flashy eye candy - and did so in a way that makes basically all modern
machines horribly insecure. But let me dispense with the soap box...
Anyway, the inevitable consequence is that if you want a networked machine,
it's _not_ going to be simple. Alas.
You're basically sharing the machine with _lots_ of other people -
effectively, every Tom, Dick and Jane out there in the Internet. In other
words, you need everything one normally saw/sees in a time-sharing machine.
(And I'm not talking about wimpy ones like Unix/Linux. I mean industrial
strength ones like Multics.)
Noel
Hello all,
I am looking for a CD caddy that is compatible with the DEC RRD40. Willing
to pay for the caddy + shipping; haven't had any luck with eBay et. al.
Thanks,
JP Willis
>> Not sure why you have VARCHARs for primary keys, why not use the
>> conventional auto-increment int so you can dispense with
>> the LastGeneratedArtifactID table.
>>
> Because my artifact ID's are not always just numbers. In some cases
> they may already be marked on an artifact (though typically not for
> manuals - but this is just the first of a set of such projects, and they
> *are* marked on many of my computer boards).
You can still force the artifact ID VARCHARS to be unique, and index them as
well, of course. There are at least a couple of reasons to have primary
keys that are independent of the "visible" key. First, if the user-visible
key ever changes (what if the inventory tag falls off and is lost?), that
will break all the links that refer to that record (or else you'll need
extra code to handle this). Also, there have been many times when some
aspect of a key that's directly tied to an external bit of information needs
to change format - numeric to character, or length change, or... This too
will break things.
> No, I don't need made up primary keys. The other tables have the keys
> they need to guarantee uniqueness - in some cases the PK is made of up
> two or more columns. I seriously dislike the current fad of inventing
> such keys when they are not needed.
I too used to develop new databases this way, figuring that since a certain
bit of information is guaranteed to be unique (or that I want to guarantee
its uniqueness), I'd use that for the primary key. After getting bitten
more times than not, I now almost always create an auto-number key whose
only purpose may be for internal linkage.
(I recently developed a project using Zoho Creator, which was a learning
experience to say the least. It's worth noting that an explicit ID field is
part of *every* data table that you can create there - there's no way around
it. And, it turned out that it was pretty darn helpful a lot of the time,
too.)
>> Another thing, although MySQL is fine but for this I think SQLite might
>> be a better choice of db. Its access methods are all in-process ie. no
>> external
>> dbms service to bother with, just a library to link in and the physical
>> database is a disk file (.s3db extension). It has a much 'lighter' db
>> footprint.
>>
> As I mentioned in another response, I truly dislike SQLite, based on my
> experience with it on my Garmin GPS.
I'm still not sure why - my experience has been very good. What bad
experiences have you had?
~~
Mark Moulding