The PROM in my 9114B committed suicide this morning, letting the magic smoke out. It was marked with part number 09114-15521, does anyone happen to have dumped the contents so I can program a new one? Thanks.
Thanks JayI'm am not trying to use DS/1000 just trying to get the 7974 loader going.Grant
-------- Original message --------Grant wrote....------------------------Hi all, i am looking for a loader rom set for my 21mx and does not seem tobe around at the usual places, I am hoping to find a leed.Here is what i am in need of.12992L consisting of12992-8001191740-8007091740-8007191740-80072there is a set of 91740 on bit savers but with a suffix of 67-69 ?------------------------Pretty sure I have a binary copy of all known 12992's, the ones I use I justburn out to a set of blanks. The 7974 loader rom uses the boot loaderextension firmware for DS/1000. Are you actually running ds/1000?? I haven'tseen anyone get that up and running.I'll see if I can dig up the bin (or an already burned chipset).J
This eBait item:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/202989416368
has a number of VAX-11/785 manuals, including /785 Hardware User's Guide. A
bit outside my scope, but /785 docs are very rare (Bitsvers only has prints)
so a VAX person should grab this and then scan them.
Noel
As part of my project to create a Field Programmable Gate Array
implementation (FPGA) of the IBM 1410 Data Processing System based on
Automated Logic Diagrams (ALDs), I decided to look at using the
Instructional Logic Diagrams (ILDs) to guide my testing, rather than
using the ALDs directly.
The ILDs are written completely in ?positive logic?. Going in, I sort of
expected a pretty imperfect match ? that the ILDs would not have all the
signals, and be somewhat superficial in their treatment of the logic.
For the IBM 1410, the circuits were:
AND, OR, Inverter, Indicator (Lamp), Single Shot,
Latch (Reset/Set), Trigger (Flip Flop)
To my surprise I found that the ILDs are *VERY* accurate, and a great
testing guide, providing a second view of the logic ? a kind of
redundancy check against my entry of ALD data into my system. They are
good enough that they have given me considerable confidence that I can
use them to help ?fill in the blanks? related to the handful of ALD
pages I am missing, and also for some of the IBM 1414 peripheral
controllers for which I do not have ALDs.
In 1962 IBM published an article in the IEEE Transactions ?Information
Processing ? from Engineering Drawing to Manufacture? by R. K. Grim that
describes how the data the ended up generated ALDs was entered and the
ALDs produced, but it does not mention where the ILDs come from. They
are definitely artwork ? not machine generated per se. The article did
not address ILDs.
I have corresponded with IBM to see if they might have, in their
archives, the data from these 1960s era engineering systems, but it
seems that they do not (or have lost the pointers to them.)
It seems that the SMS automation was first done using an IBM 709, then
they later added IBM 7090 and IBM 1401 systems (which of course could
not have been there for the original design of the IBM 7090 and 1401,
which used the SMS system), using tape files. The article also describes
future plans to use a 1301 disk drive attached to an IBM 1410 for remote
(tele-processing) access (which was supported by the IBM 1410-PR155
operating system.
The accuracy of the ILDs is such that I expect that they evolved along
with the design of the machine and entry of the data used for the ALDs.
I?d expect that doing it after the fact, from the ALDs, would be quite
error prone ? besides the one difference I have found is in the signal
names, which do not always exactly match those used in the ALDs, but are
close enough that the intent is obvious. But I don?t know the timing:
which came first ? the ILDs or the ALDs, or did they perhaps begin
together in some form and co-evolve?
In summary, it seems to me that one could do a pretty decent positive
logic implementation of IBM machines of that era using these ILDs. This
was a real eye-opener.
If there are any old-time IBMers that read this, I'd love to hear any
enlightening information or stories about this process.
JRJ
A friend kindly searched and found an interesting paper from 1973,
Programming by semantic refinement
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/390014.808298> JB Morris - ACM SIGPLAN
Notices, 1973 - dl.acm.org.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/390014.808298
While an interesting paper, it's going the opposite direction (essentially,
going from an English language description down to a final programming
language).
But, using the L1 (highest level language), L2, ..., Ln (lowest level
language) concept, I can phrase my concept better ... so ...
Most programmers write at, say, the level of L3.
They might write something like:
mem [foo].head = something
My "raising the semantic level" would be:
#define HEAD(x). mem [x].head
...
HEAD (foo) = something
With a fair set of macros like that (HEAD, TAIL, etc), the program is now
effectively written in a "new" language, L2 (a higher level language than
L1).
Being written in L2, the resulting code is more readable to everyone,
partially because they aren't continually seeing the implementation of how
".head" / "mem" work/interact.
In effect, the programmer has added a feature (linked list handling,
perhaps) to L3 ... for that particular program, seemingly extending/raising
the level of the language.
It's that concept that I thought I saw sometime in the early 1970s :)
thanks,
Stan
I have the urge to get my Amiga?s back up and running. I?m still trying to find my main Amiga A3000, but have found my A500 and my A600. The problem is, I don?t remember the last time I powered these on. It?s been a long time since I?ve had time. In the case of the A3000, I think it?s been about 17 years. My Atari TT030 has been even longer. :-(
Any advice about powering them up?
Of course another fun challenge will be to figure out where on earth all my Amiga floppies are.
Zane
>this tool is really similar to "rdfind", which compares file sizes and
>content, independently from file name, and is able to create a list of
>correspondence, delete duplicate files, and create symbolic links to the
>single instance.
>This can work on large amounts of files, even on complex directory tree.
Sounds good, don't know that I saw that one (tend not to look too hard
as I enjoy creating stuff, and what I do is usually smaller, easier to
use - at least for me - and more reliable).
Didn't want to go into a lot of detail as this isn't exactly classic
computer related.. although I expect a lot of classic collectors are
like me and have use for it.
Couple things I implemented in DFF which I don't know of in other tools:
It uses an "index" file - first attempt just used the output of windows: DIR/S
but I found it got big and unworkable fast, and changed from one version of
windows to another. DFF creates its own which is small and consistent,
having only the DIR names, and file sizes + names.
This is normally a temp file, but you can Keep it, just Build it without
processing, and process it later. You can also have DFF append to it so you
can deal with as complex dir structure as you like, by /BAing it in various
places. It can deal with files in arbitrary directory trees on multiple drives
quite easily.
You can also have it place and END marker in the file, which means that
anything you append will be treated differently. Anything before the END
marker is scanned and reported as you expect. After the END marker, files are
considered as possible duplicates, but not checked and reported separately.
And since the "index" file is a text file, you can add to it, change it and
retrieve it's content very easily - you don't need special programs provided
by the tool maker to do unusual things. Same is true for it's output.
You can also have it list:
- All files (dups have a dup instance number see below)
- Only duplicate files
- Only single files
- Under each directory, you can get it to list where all the duplicates
are (full path)
This combined with the END marker makes some fairly powerful things possible.
(Show me any files occurring here which are not also occurring there).
Each instance of duplication is assigned a unique "duplicate instance" number
which is shown next to all files which are part of that "duplicate instance".
I thought about an automatic "delete duplicates" feature but didn't implement
it as I am organizing a lot of data, much is duplicated, it's final resting
place may not be one of the original locations and I want control over how the
final archive is organized.
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal site: http://dunfield.maknonsolutions.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
this tool is really similar to "rdfind", which compares file sizes and
content, independently from file name, and is able to create a list of
correspondence, delete duplicate files, and create symbolic links to the
single instance.
This can work on large amounts of files, even on complex directory tree.
Andrea
Sorry, can't respond easily because I read the list on the web, can't deal
with the flood of email from it, and can't respond via the web interface.
>I'm not clear on what "duplicate" really means. Perhaps you can clarify
>things for me.
>
>Duplicate in name and/or size?
>Duplicate in content?
>
>There are lots of duplicate file finders for Windows and some of them
>are quite sophisticated, being able to compare the content of files with
>different encodings and provide "almost the same" type of information.
Duplicate means exact duplicate size and contect, name does not matter.
(I copied lots of stuff around, sometimes renaming it and want to find
all the dups). Yeah, lots of nifty tools, but I needed one where I could
easily control what it looks and and process it's results (text files).
Also had to deal with VERY large sets of data (terabytes) and do it all
in a fairly reasonable time.
So I just wrote one. I'm a bit unusual that way - tend to write stuff that
does exactly what I need instead of trying to use something that sort of
comes close but often also does a lot I don't want.
>Downloading http://dunfield.maknonsolutions.com/dos/sw/ddw2020.zip
>gets flagged by Windows Defender on Windows 10 Pro (1909)
>as "Worm:Win32/Spybot".
Not for me, it's something I compiled from my own source myself, is packed
with UPX - maybe Windows Def doesn't like that but it raises no alarms on
the Win7 Pro system I'm testing on. Have no control of Windows Defender ..
just one of many reasons I don't use Windows much. Not the first time good
clean code of my own has triggered false alarms.
FWIW, I just downloaded DDW2020.ZIP from the site, and it exactly matches
my original one. Contents also exactly match my original files, here is
a DIR listing:
Directory of R:\DDW2020
2020-06-24 09:08 PM 3,255 DDW2020.TXT
2020-06-24 09:08 PM 23,584 DFF.EXE
2020-06-24 09:08 PM 23,584 EDT.EXE
2020-06-24 09:08 PM 31,907 EDT.TXT
2020-06-24 09:08 PM 6,688 FDF.EXE
2020-06-24 09:08 PM 9,760 VLT.EXE
6 File(s) 98,778 bytes
Note, Windows did warn me that this file is not commonly downloaded and
wanted to "discard" it, but I used "Keep" - no defender or antivirus
alarms triggered.
Dave
PS: Noticed and fixed the spelling of "Download" - may need to reload to
see due to browser cache.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal site: http://dunfield.maknonsolutions.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
