> From: Al Kossow
> "Straight-8" seems to be a fairly modern name coming from collectors
My _guess_ is that that probably happened because there is no formal 'model'
for that first one (unlike the first -11, which got re-named the -11/20
BITD), and people recently picked that to disambiguate them from all the
other -8's.
But what I _don't_ know is _why_ that particular name? I was hoping some
-8 collector knew...
Noel
Hi, everyone:
In addition to the classic computers I play with, I also have a
collection of 1930 vintage radio equipment catalogs and magazines
collecting dust on my bookshelf.
Is there a similar mailing list for vintage radio guys? These books I
have need a new home ....
Cheers,
Brian
--
Brian McIntosh
Columbia Valley Maker Space Communications Guy
info at cvmakerspace.ca
250 270 0689
At 09:03 PM 20/12/2018 +0100, Carlo Pisani wrote:
>ok, I give up.
>a forum with a bazaar should be more appropriate
>frankly this mail list looks like spam, and it's going irritating
>since it's difficult to follow and to handle
True. I don't have time to read all messages either. Haven't yet looked into the archive, and if it's searchable.
>but I am really tired to repeat myself about the
>http://www.downthebunker.xyz/ project
>
>probably in 2019 we will definitively close it to new members, and that's all.
This site looks interesting. But after looking for basic expected things like 'make new account', login, etc
and not finding them, I tried "New Red Pill?" and discover it's about making an account. And it's closed.
Are you complaining about lack of participation in the site? While not accepting new members?
Where have you announced it?
I'll post about it on eevblog forum (46000 members worldwide) if you will open membership first.
Also I'd suggest not being so obscure with titles and headings. Sure they are cute, but it doesn't
help newcomers understand how the site works. Especially if English is not their first language.
I too want a web forum venue for hunting, acquiring and dispersing vintage computing gear, with
a restoration/collector slant, ie not about the money, ie I'm poor, ha ha.
A mailing list is NOT an appropriate context. It has no categories, is ephemeral, chews local storage,
has no hot-linking, and demands more real-time attention than I can spare.
eevblog gets close, but misses the mark:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/ Not focussed on vintage computing, no subcategories.
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/vintage-computing/ Not focussed on buy/sell/swap/give.
Guy
>Il giorno gio 20 dic 2018 alle ore 20:05 Electronics Plus via cctalk
><cctalk at classiccmp.org> ha scritto:
>>
>> Interesting thought!
>> I don't send newsletters, or bother people in any way. I hate getting spam.
>> I encourage people to use the RSS feeds https://elecshopper.com/rss/
>> If you like, you can change the spreadsheet to say "Items Wanted" instead of "HP Items Wanted" and change the column headers accordingly.
>> Whatever you guys are looking for, I am willing to try and hunt.
>> I belong to 2 subscription broadcast services for dealers, and I regularly email almost 500 recyclers for stuff.
>> Just let me know.
>>
>> Cindy
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Grant Taylor via cctalk
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 12:48 PM
>> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>> Subject: Re: Want/Available list (was Re: Old HP stuff)
>>
>> On 12/20/2018 10:25 AM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote:
>> > Fill it out as you think of stuff, and I will share it with the dealers.
>>
>> I may be odd, but I'd be interested in Cindy / Electronics Plus
>> leveraging their existing mailing list.
>>
>> Assuming that it's Mailman (I don't remember) I'd be curious to see
>> categories that are brand names, and possibly sub-categories that are
>> model lines.
>>
>> That way people could subscribe to the list and pick the categories they
>> are interested in receiving announcements to.
>>
>> I think it would also give Cindy / Electronics Plus some indication of
>> what brand / model like people are interested in.
>>
>> Just a thought. ??\_(???)_/??
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Grant. . . .
>> unix || die
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>
I'd definitely be interested to hear if the DECheads on this list know
the specifics, but I'd gathered that it came about once other models
were introduced and the need arose to differentiate between, say, a
PDP-8/e and a "straight" (i.e. vanilla) PDP-8. The car connection
probably made the particular phrasing happen (of course, they
originally photographed it in a Volkswagen, but they couldn't very
well have started calling it a "flat-4!")
Does anyone know where the 'Straight 8' name for the first PDP-8 model came
from? Obviously, it's probably a play on the car engine configuration name,
but how did the connection get made? Thanks - I hope!
Noel
> From: Bill Degnan
> It's pretty well researched at this point to be true to state that the
> first two PDP 11 models were the 11/10 and 11/20. It just takes a while
> for this to work its way through academia.
Some places got the message a while ago:
http://gunkies.org/w/index.php?title=PDP-11&diff=11528&oldid=11525
Note the date.
I was reading the 1970 "pdp11 handbook" (note the title - all the pictures
show machines labelled "pdp11") and read about it there.
> From: Paul Koning
> I'm curious about that 1 kW read-only memory. What technology is that
> memory? At that size and that date I suspect core rope, but that would
> be pretty expensive (due to the labor involved).
I think that's what it must be. It's the MR11-A, about which I can find very
little - it's in the 1970 "pdp11 handbook", p. 46, but I can't find anything
else.
It says there "2-piece core with wire braid, 256 wires, 64 cores". Reading
between the lines, it sounds like the customer could 'configure' the contents
(perhaps using the "2-piece core), DEC didn't do it.
If anyone knows anything about this memory, that would be really good.
Noel
On 12/21/18 2:51 PM, Jim Carpenter via cctalk wrote:
> The PDP8-LOVERS mailing list predates alt.sys.pdp8 by a couple years. I
> just checked the archives and the earliest usage of 'straight-8' is from
> Charles Lasner in an e-mail introducing himself to the still new mailing
> list on August 10th, 1990. . .
>
> A quick check shows that it was common for cjl to use the term 'straight-8'. . .
Well, in the original edition of Ted Nelson's _Computer Lib_ (copyright 1974),
on p. 47 (under the heading "Those Adorable Infuriating R.E.S.I.S.T.O.R.S."),
there's a photo with the caption: "Steve at the old straight 8."
>> people recently picked that to disambiguate them from all the other
>> -8's.
So my assumption (that it was recent) seems to be incorrect; I heard that it
was in use in the 60's to differentiate it (e.g. for knowing what spares to
take). Alas, with the origin that far back in time, we'll probably never find
out what the connection was.
> From: Bill Degnan
> The original PDP 11 was sold in two model options, although the numbers
> did not appear on the faceplace, very clearly the model options were
> called PDP 11/10 and PDP 11/20. ... The fact that the name does not
> appear on the front panel has caused every DEC historian to miss this
> factoid.
Yeah, it tripped me to. Although after I sent that email, I went back and
looked, and it's called '-11/20' on all the documents I can find, including
the prints.
I'll check in the DEC archives (available on BitSavers), but I suspect the
"PDP-11" on the front panel was the result of something getting dropped in the
process of doing the panel, not the reasult of a name change by DEC.
Noel
> through (I think) the PDP-7; at least, this PDP-7 internals image
> .. seems to show System Modules at the top, and FLIP CHIPs at the
> bottom.
After groveling through the 'PDP-7 Maintainence Manual' (F-77A), this seems to
be accurate. In "Module Identification" (pg. 6-5), it refers to both types; the
example on the next page uses a 4303, a 4000-Series System Module.
What's interesting is the physical layout; all System Modules at the top of
that image, and FLIP CHIPs at the bottom. No doubt this is partially for
mechanical reasons (the two used different backplanes), but I wonder about the
division into sub-systems; were the two types interspersed among each other in
individual sub-systems (rewquiring running wires from the top to the bottom),
or were sub-systems exclusively one or the other (so that the top of the bay
is one sub-system, and the bottom another)?
No doubt I could answer this by studying the prints, but time is short; perhaps
someone who worked on the one at the LCM and already knows the answer can
enlighten us!
Noel