On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:04:58 -0500 (EST)
Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Roe Peterson wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 11, 2015, at 4:16 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/11/15 1:56 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
> >>>> netbooting NetBSD (install doable for that one.)
> >>>
> >>> You'll need to put something together that can talk to the raw
> >>> scsi interface and issue your own read commands. Are they common
> >>> command set drives?
> >>
> >> Should be. I don't believe CompuServe did anything too silly.
> >
> > What, actually, is the blocksize? 1024 or ?
> >
>
> 576 or 2304.
The "scu" utility, which is available for both NT and linux
environments can change the blocksize - and scads of other parameters
on most SCSI disks. It's powerful enough that you can brick a drive
if you're not careful ;)
I used to buy NOS Tandem SCSI HDD dirt cheap because they had a weird
blocksize that would make Windows/Linux systems barf. I would then
use "scu" to change the blocksize parameter of the drive to 512 - and do
a low level format. Then I'd have a "standard" SCSI HDD for a fraction
of the price of a "standard" drive.
Of course you could change the blocksize of a drive to 576 - or
anything you wanted - and then do a low level format for that blocksize.
You can pickup scu for NT and linux (including help and summary pdfs)
by anonymous ftp to my website via certain browsers or:
ftp bickleywest.com
user: anonymous
password: your email address
cd scu
....
Regards,
Lyle
--
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, B Degnan wrote:
> > via trial and error, and a lot of reading. I believe that loading the
> > bootstrap manually is a must; one cannot use or create tapes
otherwise.
>
> Only if your drum memory loses its contents. I don't know if SIMH has a
> concept of non-volatile main storage (drum, core). And for the LGP-30,
all
> registers are non-volatile, too.
When I fire up the SIMH and check 6300 we have
00000000
If the bootstrap came pre-loaded the first instruction of bootstrap should
be in 6300 and read
10000000
so, no unless the bootstrap is somewhere other than where I think it should
be, memory is completely blank when SIMH is loaded.
> > In order to enter instructions into memory I first learned how to
translate
> > code from the various actual papertape sources, for example...
> >
> > "flexowriter entry"> 6300 P 0000'
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > sim> d -a 6300 10000000
>
> Urks, that's sick... but SIMH should offer the possibility to enter the
> mnemonics and addresses (or anything else since everything is mapped to
> its four bit code) like
> sim> d -a 3w00 p0000 (or d -a 6300 p0000
sim> d -a 3w00 p0000
Invalid argument
The SIMH *should* accept mnemonics ... Believe me I tried EVERYTHING ...
but unless there are hidden command switches you have to convert your code
to machine format. Scoured the entire C source code looking for clues.
:-)
<snip>
> sim> g 3w00
g is not a legal command. You have to tell SIMH to execute with a "SET CPU
[command]"
>
> Anyways, SIMH is not very well suited for machines like an LGP-30 where
> the user interaction with typewriter and console buttons for operation is
> imperative. The SIMH version does officially work, but it is not really
> user friendly in this case.
Tell me about it. I have written to the SIMH user group, so far I have not
received a reply with tips/testing done to verify "officially work"
boundaries.
> But the best would be if you use a drum image with 10.4 (the monitor)
> already loaded, i.e. save the memory contents to a file and reload it on
> the next incarnation of SIMH (there's a "START" drum containing 10.4 in
my
> simulator package, and an "ACT5" drum with preloaded ACT-V and
> subroutines, these may be usable in SIMH, but I don't know).
>
> > repertoire. The hardest part is finding ways to enter Flexowriter key
> > input via a modern keyboard, using SIMH commands.
>
> By using a simulator that offers the right frontend to the user (i.e.
keys
> and buttons as required by the machine operations) *g*
>
> Christian
Christian....I am going to keep at it and then script a bootstrap that will
load in SIMH, or convert tapes to SIMH format so they can be imported. I
can see why you did what you did with your simulator. Makes a lot of sense
to use function keys.
Here is the bootstrap I am working to complete. I need to find equivalents
to the Flexowriter commands, I have finished the memory insert commands,
please send suggestions if you have them.
sim> [first cpu fill c6300 in IR?]
sim> d -a 6300 10000000
sim> d -a 6301 01000000
sim> d -a 6302 11016305
sim> d -a 6303 10000000
sim> d -a 6304 01000000
here is where I need to experiment, the code below is my first attempt:
6305 (skip)
6306 10106300
6307 10000000
6308 01000000
6309 (skip O.G.W.C flexo keys, still need to convert)
6310 00016346
6311 11116326
6312 10106322
6313 00000000
6314 10100000
6322 10116313
6323 11006309
6324 11016346
6325 10106307
6326 000wwwwj (entered into by flexowr., need to convert)
6346 0gwc0000 (entered into by flexor, need to convert)
Bill
> From: Chuck Guzis
> The point is that a lot of people were responsible for the development
> of mechanical computation (I include electrical and electronic in this
> definition).
Just like the Internet... :-)
> In fact, it could be argued that the ball-and-disc integrator was more
> responsible for the eventual Allied victory in WWII than Turing's work
> was.
Sorry, are you referring to his work on computers, or his work in code-breaking
too? If this latter, I would have to disagree.
Respected military historians have suggested (of course, such alternative
history is always speculative, one can't prove it) that the code-breaking work
of the Allies shortened WWII by up to two years. I doubt mechanical
fire-control computers (which is the primary military use of ball-and-disc
integrators, as I understand it) had that significant an effect.
> From: Johnny Billquist
> And once more noone mentions Konrad Zuse, which in my mind beat them
> all
Well, two things. (And don't get me wrong, I admire Zuse and his work.)
First, Zuse's work didn't really have much impact. You may disagree, but my
sense is that if that bomb that destroyed the Z1 had gotten him too, the
post-WWII world would still look pretty much like the real one.
Second, his early machines (Z1-Z3) weren't stored-program (in the sense of
'one memory holds both instructions and data'). Yes, yes, I know the Z3 can
(with a monstrous kludge) be Turing-complete, but it still wasn't
stored-program - which to my mind, is _the_ key aspect of a real 'computer'.
Interestingly enough, Babbage's machines weren't stored-program either; they
had separate instruction and data tapes, like Zuse's (although they had
conditional branching, which the Z1-Z3 didn't). Turing's invention of thex
stored-program in 'On Computable Numbers' was really a fundamental leap.
Noel
> From: Jason T
> I have two 11/05s and one key .. The key is made by Chicago Lock Co.
> and is stamped "GRB2."
Perfect description of my 11/10 key. I'm now 99% sure they are all the same,
but I think I'll have one made, and sent to the person nearest me, for an
absolute confirmation, before I produce a cascade of them. (Plus to which the
store probably needs to order more blanks - I'm not sure they have that many
in stock! :-)
> I'd like two please.
Added you to my list.
Noel
> From: Chuck Guzis
> So what's special about "electronic" computers?
> Isn't this just a mere technological refinement? Logic gates can be
> electrical, electronic, pneumatic, hydraulic and photonic
There's a saying that a big enough quantitative difference becomes a
qualitative difference. So electronic computing devices, because of their
speed potential, are of a qualitatively different order than anything that
involves moving matter around... :-)
> In the game of firsts, where does Torres y Quevedo's "El Ajedrecista"
> fit in?
Alas, can't answer that - I've heard the name, but don't know much about his
machine.
> From: Jon Elson
> Atanasoff and Beqrry did a GREAT job, but it wasn't actually
> a "computer" by the Turing definition.
Which is why I described it as the first digital electronic computing
device... :-)
Interestingly, one could add 'binary' to that description. The ENIAC of
course wasn't, and I don't think COLOSSUS was either, in its counters, etc
(but would have to check - does anyone know/recall).
> all that was left were some drawings in a few binders. They published
> NOTHING about the machine itself, and it was largely unknown for
> DECADES!
> ...
> .. as far as I'm concerned, Atanasoff and Berry are a VERY interesting
> footnote in early computing, but didn't actually contribute directly to
> the development of computers.
Well, there was a lengthy report written, but it was never circulated publicly
because Atanasoff was trying to file a patent, and the patent attorney (IIRC)
advised them not to publish until the patent application was filed - which it
never was, with WWII starting. There was a contemporary press release about
the device, which resulted in local coverage only.
The whole thing did come within a hair's-breadth of winding up where Zuse's
work did - a curiousity which did not have much impact on the world - but for
one stroke of chance/luck: word of the machine somehow reached a man called
John W. Mauchly, who came out to visit Atanasoff and Berry in June 1941, and
spent almost a week there, talking with them, and studying the machine, and
their written material.
He later tried to claim that it was no big deal, and the ABC didn't really
affect his thinking much - but that won't wash, you don't spend nearly a week
intently studying something you think is irrelevant junk. (And Mauchly's
letters to Atanasoff, written shortly after the visit, make clear that he
was much taken with the ABC.)
It's clear there is a very significant link between the ABC and the ENIAC -
and the influence of the latter is clear.
Noel
Update on my attempts to bootstrap the SIMH Royal Precision Electronic
Computer model LGP-30.
I have been able to get through a lot more of the simulator-equivalent
processing steps to match the input of the bootstrap programs via the
native Flexowriter. I have been able to discover the syntax and basic I/O
via trial and error, and a lot of reading. I believe that loading the
bootstrap manually is a must; one cannot use or create tapes otherwise.
Most SIMH's have some kind of software guide, the LGP-30 has none. I don't
think this SIMH has the bootstrap pre-loaded. I am unaware of anyone who
is using the SIMH simulator, although I have seen two non-SIMH LGP-30
simulators. One is in German.
In order to enter instructions into memory I first learned how to translate
code from the various actual papertape sources, for example...
"flexowriter entry"> 6300 P 0000'
becomes
sim> d -a 6300 10000000
where 6300 = memory loc in drum memory, 1000 = P, 0000 = accumulator
address (?). You can't store a "P" or "p" in memory. You have to convert
to its Flexo binary equiv. Same goes for all instructions in the LGP-30
repertoire. The hardest part is finding ways to enter Flexowriter key
input via a modern keyboard, using SIMH commands.
It's all pretty slow going to patch together what I think would be a
workable bootstrap install process, but I expect to have to try a number of
variations before I get any response from the machine. I have a bootstrap
but the hard part if the Flexowriter emulation. Who knows, maybe I will be
able to contribute a software guide from all of this. I will document what
I find and post on my web site, vintagecomputer.net.
Bill
Happy New Year, all!
Has anyone here gone through the process of reparing leaky NiCd damage
to an A4000 motherboard? I _thought_ I had removed the battery some
time ago but puttering around today, I cracked open the case to find
the battery still there and some damage around U891 (a 74F245) and
U850 (Bank 3 DIMM socket). I have washed off the residue but I may
have to pull a DIMM socket to get access to the vias under it.
I know the general process, but I'm curious if anyone has done this
specifically to an A4000 board and has any tips. As I said, I'm
probably going to have to pull the DIMM socket to get to all the
damage.
Barring success from running a dozen or so repair wires, would anyone
happen to have a lead on an A4000 motherboard? Everything else in the
machine should be good, the Daughter Card, the CPU card, etc...
It's my only A4000, so I'd like to get it back up and running, or
replace it if necessary.
Thanks for any tips,
-ethan
> From: Noel Chiappa
> I'm about to go back for two more: does anyone else need one/any? If
> so, please let me know
One thing I need to check, before I get a whole stack made: does anyone know
for sure if all 11/05's and 11/10's use the same key? (This is a standard,
flat 'Yale'-type key, not the cylindrical key used in the 11/45's, etc.) The
two I have do, but they came from the same place, and so might have been
re-keyed to use the same key.
Thanks!
Noel
> From: Jon Elson
> How about John von Neumann? Geez, I think he really ranks above Turing,
> at least as far as building real machines.
This is unclear, for a whole host of reasons.
First, you should look at Turing's ACE. Designed by Turing, at about the same
time as the EDVAC, it spawned the Pilot ACE which was an important early
British computer (commercialized as the Deuce). This machine is too large a
topic to go into here, but may I suggest Copeland's admirable work on the
subject, "Alan Turing's Automatic Computing Engine" - among other interesting
aspects, he claims (and makes a good argument) that the ACE is RISC machine
(the first).
Turing was heavily involved in early computer work from the end of WWII until
his death (e.g. at the start of that period, he attended the Symposium on
Large Scale Digital Calculating Machinery at Hardvard in February, 1947).
Second, when assessing the relative important of the contributions of Turing
and von Neumann, there are a number of things to take into account.
First, one needs to be aware that he and Turing were close colleagues; before
WWII, Turing spent a year at Princeton working with von Neumann (who wanted
to hire Turing as his assistant, at the end of Turing's year there). During
WWII, Turing spent a long visit in the US (from November 1942 to March 1943),
during which he spent a lot of time at Bell Labs, where when not doing
war-work, he discussed computing machine with people there, including
Shannon. So Turing's ideas on stored program computing devices were well
known to von Neumann - who in fact seems to have always credited Turing with
the idea (see Copeland, "Turing", pp. 130-131).
Second, the 'EDVAC Report', despite the fact that it had only von Neumann's
name on it, in fact reported on a series of design discussions between he,
Eckert and Mauchly - and the latter two were rather annoyed that their
contributions were not adequately recognized in it. (Again, see Copeland,
"Turing", pp. 130-131 - although this point is treated at greater length in
other sources I don't have the time to track down.)
So von Neumann's _original_ contributions to computers may not be as big as
some think.
Noel
