Hi
My employer is moving house and need to clear out some old stuff. We
have ported to many, many Unix systems over the years and have kept some
of the machines.
Available is:
1x IBM RS/6000 big and beige
1x Bull DPX/2
1x Concurrent Computer Corporation in rack
1x Sperry unix machine
1x NCR (same as above, other label)
Possibly 1 VAX 4000 and possibly one Alphaserver 2000.
Pickup only. We will remove hard drives since they contain source code.
In a few weeks, this will be gone.
A few pictures here:
http://www.update.uu.se/~pontus/slask/jobb_vind/
Items are in Uppsala, Sweden.
/P
Come one come all!
Its the day of reckoning.
I finally have some storage on loan from a company called Funsoft!
Hopefully by the end of the night I will have Linux installed and a
portal to the internet to which people can connect and play on it!
http://www.twitch.tv/conmega
-Connor Krukosky
Does anyone have a PDP-11/03 or LSI-11 with the KEV11-C CIS
(Commercial Instruction Set) option? It may have also been known as
DIS (Dibol Instruction Set). It apparently consists of two microcode
ROM chips (MICROMs), 23-004B5 and 23-005B5.
Last month I posted here about building a circuit to dump the contents
of MICROMs:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22368471 at N04/albums/72157662054690240
I've dumped the base LSI-11 instruction set chips and the EIS/FIS
chip. I've partially disassembled the former:
https://github.com/brouhaha/lsi11uc
and verified that the latter matches the EIS/FIS microcode source code
provided with the KUV11 writable control store support software. I'd
like to dump the CIS microcode ROMs as well. The resulting dump would
be usable by anyone with a KUV11. I'm contemplating developing a
MICROM replacement board, which would be useful for those without a
KUV11.
I've made more progress with the WD9000 Pascal Microengine microcode
than the LSI-11 microcode because someone provided a photomicrograph
of the CP2161 control chip and I was able to dump the PLAs. I should
be getting a photomicrograph of the CP1621 control chip of the LSI-11
soon, and will be able to do the same for it.
I was trying to archive a bunch of 8 inch floppy disks. Everything was well
until I tried an Inmac brand disk. It had severe sticky shed problems.
Since it was a non-important disk it wasn't that bad. Baking might solve
the problem so before continuing with the rest of the Inmac branded disks
with more valuable content I searched internet for knowhow on baking.
Then I found this article
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-359998950/the-new-non-baking-cu…
on a cure for the sticky shed without baking the tape.
I haven't read the article in ARSC since I am not a member. But maybe
someone knows what this is about?
/Mattis
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Brian L. Stuart
<blstuart at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I'll be glad to loan them to you for the good of the community and history.
That would be great, thanks! I'll email you my contact information.
Could you please post the markings of the other 40-pin chips as well,
and/or a photograph?
Best regards,
Eric
On Sat, 1/30/16, Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a PDP-11/03 or LSI-11 with the KEV11-C CIS
> (Commercial Instruction Set) option? It may have also been known as
> DIS (Dibol Instruction Set).? It apparently consists of two microcode
> ROM chips (MICROMs), 23-004B5 and 23-005B5.
Eric,
It turns out my quad height LSI-11 card has the 23-004B5 and 23-005B5
chips on it. The full markings are:
DEC
3025D
23-004B5
8030 B
and
DEC 3026 D (or maybe B)
23-005B5
8015 C
I'll be glad to loan them to you for the good of the community and history.
BLS
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> > Win-98 SE ... it would have been nice if it recognized USB storage
> > devices natively.
>
> There is that package you can add (my copy is in a self-extracting
> archive,
> called "nusb23e.exe") that recognizes USB drives, etc. I run a number of
> USB
> devices (memory sticks, mice, etc) on my 98SE's and they all work fine.
Thanks for the tip - I wish I'd known about that 15 years ago!
From: "Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinedp3k at compsys.to>
>> >mark at markesystems.com wrote:
>>
>>> QUESTION: Is it even possible to run Win98SE on a current
>>> Intel I7 CPU with SATA hard disk drives? I realize that it might
>>
>> Almost certainly not, at least practically. Even if you can get it to
>> boot and install, it will have no idea how to handle any of the modern
>
> Then I am really confused. I have two older systems that
> are able to run 64-bit Windows 7, an E8400 and a Q9550.
> Both take SATA drives which are still available. The mother
>
> I can also still boot from both system using an old DOS 3.5"
> floppy media and run Ghost 7.0 with these old SATA drives,
> but as far as I can understand, using the device drivers on the
> floppy drive.
I believe that Win98 tries to use its own drivers for disk, but if it can't
find any that work it just uses the ones built into the BIOS. Performance
suffers, because all disk I/O becomes blocking, but it still works. With a
modern disk with built-in cache, one probably wouldn't even notice the
difference (except for the floppy).
> Is it likely that either of these two systems be able to run
> Win98SE with the SATA hard drives, in one case 500 GB
> each and the other system has 1 TB drives. In that case, it
I would expect that you could successfully boot and install Win98, although
you couldn't use all the drive in one volume (FAT32 is good for a little
over 100 gig); I've never tried partitioning up a terabyte drive and running
Win98 on a appropriately-sized partition, but it seems like it might work
OK. As above, the BIOS will take care of the fact that Win98 never heard of
SATA, and also abstract the USB keyboard and I think the mouse to look like
AT-type devices.
As I mentioned, though, it won't know about the video adapter, so that will
run in VGA 640x480 16-color mode; the sound card won't be available either,
nor the network interface. VirtualBox simulates all nice period-style
hardware for those things.
> As I mentioned, the only two applications I would run would
> be the DOS variant of Ersatz-11 and Netscape 7.2 for e-mail
> and newsgroups.
I suspect that both of those would run on Windows XP, and VirtualBox handles
that extremely well.
From: Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com>
> I didn't mention that I've got 98SE running on an 820 chipset
> (RIMM/RDRAM is silly cheap now) with a Tuallie 1.4GHz in a Powerleap
> slocket. It doesn't much agree with the Crystal CS4622 audio, but
> perhaps that's just a matter of finding the right driver.
As I predicted... :-)
>> Windows 98 was supposed to support a maximum of 2GB of memory, however
>> it has a bug in the Vcache driver which causes problems unless you limit
> Exactly what I've done with 440GX system. Using a different XMS driver,
> I keep a 1GB RAMdisk there.
But it runs quite nicely in just 64 or 128 meg, which was much more typical
of a machine of that period.
> On faster, more modern systems, I use VirtualBox. Just not worth the
> extra trouble finding drivers--but I suspect 98SE will run on P4 systems
Yup, that's what seems to work best for me.
From: "js at cimmeri.com" <js at cimmeri.com>
> The one thing I'm not seeing mentioned
> in re VirtualBox is that what if you
> have a legacy Win 98SE system with
> hardware in it, like a GPIB card or
> sound card? Or if you have software
> that talks to hardware via serial or
> parallel ports eg. eprom burners, Zector
> ZVG vector graphic driver for MAME, etc.
Yup, that's true. VirtualBox will provide one or two com ports (optionally
mapped to the real host ports, or just pipes to other virtual machines), but
it doesn't support the parallel port. And as you've pointed out, any
specialized hardware won't work at all (because the backplane doesn't really
exist).
> The other hassle is having to
> essentially rebuild an Win98 (or any
> other) machine from scratch in order to
> try to replicate an existing setup. I
Also true...
From: Josh Dersch <derschjo at gmail.com>
> everything else, you're SOL. I could see it being possible to modify
> VirtualBox to support parallel port forwarding or other exotic hardware
Wow! I guess it is open source, but that would be quite a bit of work, I
expect. If you do it, let me know - I've got an old Needham's PROM
programmer that would be nice to have working again.
From: John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com>
> No one has mentioned the Windows Virtual PC, a Microsoft product,
> that lets you run Windows XP apps in a virtual environment under
> Windows 7 Pro, letting XP apps run in their natural window on
> the 7 desktop, or you can run the virtual XP machine desktop
> in its own window.
I used an earlier version of Virtual PC on XP, and found that it worked
fairly well, although it was very resource intensive. So many applications
failed to run correctly on Win7 that Microsoft felt compelled to make a very
tightly integrated version for that operating system (Pro or greater only);
it was pretty neat how tightly integrated it was. That's how I ran
QuickBooks and a couple of other recalcitrant programs, but it wasn't a
panacea. In particular, applications that had several programs running
simultaneously, especially if they communicated via DDE (DDEML) were still
broken, and the tight integration was always a little scary to me. (If I
fired up a "stand-alone" XP machine, it would always want to log off or shut
down the one that had been running some other application, and because of
the Draconian security, I was never sure that I'd be able to get it back...)
> It will also run Windows 98, with a few gotchas:
This is what I did with the earlier Virtual PC on top of XP, and it worked
fairly well. Like VirtualBox, it's free, but I find that VirtualBox tries
to do less integration "magic", and therefore feels like a more stable and
clearly delineated product.
I've seen no mention of Virtual PC on Win8 / 8.1 / 10 - does it still exist,
and is that "XP-mode" feature still available?
~~
Mark Moulding
I have got a HP 9000/217 machine with a standard video card. This card has a monochrome composite output (resolution is as low as about 512x400, but I might replace it with a higher resolution card). A small 9" HP monitor that I used for testing only shows me 2 or 3 bands of the image and cannot capture the signal properly.
All I have are modern TFT monitors which usually have VGA and/or DVI inputs, no separate R-G-B or monochrome jacks.
What is the preferred way to connect "old" composite video signals to a modern TFT monitor without losing too much sharpness? I understand that interpolation is an unavoidable problem.
Searching the internet did not give me a clear answer. Do you have any recommendations?
Thank you, Martin
Has anyone found a source for replacement ribbons, or even re-inking
supplies, for the Commodore VIC-1525 printer?
This printer was manufactured in Japan by Seikosha for CBM, and was also
sold in the USA by Radio Shack, re-badged under the Tandy / TRS-80 brand.
For reference - The VIC-1525 employs an odd two-cassette ribbon system,
that uses a continuous-loop ribbon only about 24" in total length. One
cassette contains a spring tensioner mechanism, with the second cassette
holding the inking roller and (friction?) gear.
The ribbon loop is strung side-to-side between the two cartridges, with the
front strand passing in front of the print head, and the rear strand
passing through the ribbon advance clutch.
Google turns up nothing, except for some homebrew recipes for making new
ink.. and one site offering exorbitantly priced NOS ribbons that are just
as likely dried up.
Thanks for any & all input..
I know Chuck Guzis has written about this, but I don't see that he's done
so publicly in the last few years, so I thought I'd ask here about his and
others' views on the perennial question of whether (some) 3.5" DSHD disks
can be reliably used in DSDD-only drives. The oft-repeated claim is that
writing can appear to work just fine, but that even a few months later read
errors will occur.
On <http://www.retrotechnology.com/herbs_stuff/guzis.html> Chuck was quoted
as (actually, correct me if I'm wrong -- it's a little hard to be sure this
was Chuck's words) as saying "Usually, they're just fine, with the error
rate approximately the same, whether or not 2D or HD media was used." Just
before that, he said "I think that the overall quality of DSHD 3.5" media
isn't what it used to be, so that might contribute to the general
impression that 3.5" HD diskettes used as 2D aren't reliable. I have
problems enough finding reliable 3.5" DSHD floppies used as such." Chuck et
al., what's your feeling now, both on the overall reliability of HD disks
in DD drives, and on whether it depends on how recently the disks were
produced?
Elsewhere on the page (I don't recall now if it was Herb or Chuck that said
it) it was conjectured that HD disks that have never been formatted as HD,
-OR- disks that have gone through a good degaussing, will have better luck
retaining data. What does everyone think about this? And would an
electromagnetic library security system (the kind that's like a tube
through which checked-out materials are put; often with a caution not to
put tapes or floppies through it) be a suitable degausser?
--
Eric Christopherson