test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by manney＠hmcltd.net

Available is Lotus 1-2-3 V1.1 for UNIX (5 1/4" and 3 1/2" media) WordPerfect 5.1 for UNIX Make offer to manney(a)hmcltd.net

27 years, 7 months

Poly 88

by amichael＠nortelnetworks.com

I have a Polymorphic CPU/8 board and a Video Terminal Interface, both looking a little beat up and, of course, without any documentation :-( I'd really appreciate copies of manuals so I could get them going again. The Tiny Basic sounds great too and I'd love to have the files to try to burn some eproms. Arlen Michaels ----------------- On Tue, 09 Feb 1999, Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org> wrote: > Dwight Elvey wrote: > > > > Hi All > > I have an old Poly 88 ( the first single button frontpanel S-100 ). > > It has Tiny Basic in PROMs. If any out there would like to > > fill the two empty sockets on their CPU board, let me know and > > I'll have the parts read out. > > If you need docs on the Poly 88, let me know as I have the masters for > quite > a few of the Polymorphic board manuals. I don't think I have Tiny Basic in > Prom, and I would love to get a copy of the binary file! Also, I have > quite > a few of the CPU, Video, and Disk controller boards, although most seem to > be missing a few parts (they look like production boards that didn't quite > get built up all the way.) > > Marvin > > -- > Arlen Michaels amichael(a)nortelnetworks.com > > >

27 years, 7 months

Intel in hot water again, interesting reading!

by edick＠idcomm.com

The solution's simple . . . don't use an intel processor. Goodness knows they're overpriced! Has AMD started doing this? Dick ---------- > From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net> > To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> > Subject: OT: Intel in hot water again, interesting reading! > Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:48 PM > > FYI > > > > > <http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/scoop-top.gif> The Scoop > > http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif > ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif> > >http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif > ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif> > >http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif > ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif> > >By Fred Langa > >By Fred Langa > > > >InformationWeek > > > >You probably saw the original coverage of Intel's announcement that it would > >embed an individual serial number in each Pentium III and Celeron chip. The > >96-bit ID can identify the user's PC to any software that knows how to ask. > > > >Immediately after the announcement, various consumer watchdog groups went > >ballistic. Epic, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, launched a > >boycott of Intel, calling it the "Big Brother Inside" campaign. Epic says > >the processor serial number, "would likely be collected by many sites, > >indexed and accumulated in databases...The records of many different > >companies could be joined without the user's knowledge or consent to provide > >an intrusive profile of activity on the computer." > > > >Intel immediately backed off a bit by announcing that although the serial > >number would ship enabled on every chip, Intel would provide equipment > >manufacturers with a small software applet that could be used to prevent > >access to the number. However, the software must work (it hasn't been tested > >yet); it must be properly installed on each PC; and it must be run after > >every reboot. > > > >Epic says that because this approach "relies on a software patch that must > >run each and every time that a user turns on the computer, it is susceptible > >to tampering by other software programs." So, Epic's boycott is still in > >place: The group insists that Intel should disable the processor serial > >number at the hardware level, where it will stay disabled until the PC owner > >turns it on. > > > >To further muddy the waters, the processor serial number may not be very > >secure. CMP Media's Electronic Engineering Times quoted cryptography expert > >Bruce Schneier, who talked about the prospect that the serial numbers can be > >forged or stolen: "A system is only as secure as the smartest hacker," he > >said. "All it takes is for one person to defeat the tamper resistance. > >There's always someone who manages to unravel the protection. There isn't a > >copy-protected piece of software that hasn't been stripped of its > >protections and posted to hacker bulletin boards. This won't be any > >different." (For the full story, go to "Intel ID Protection Scheme Called > >Insufficient.") > > > >Of course, there are legitimate and useful purposes for this kind of ID, > >especially for resource-tracking within an enterprise. Indeed, some > >workstation manufacturers already include similar functions on their > >enterprise-ready boxes, and some enterprise software products use these > >serial numbers for licensing. But Intel is attempting to broaden this > >practice to an unprecedented degree by putting the ID number on every chip > >and enabling it by default. Toss in only weak assurances of the serial > >number's security and only a weak turn-off option, and you're got a > >firestorm of protests. > > > >Last week, I conducted an informal online poll among the readers of Windows > >Magazine. The reaction was eye-opening: Out of hundreds of posts, virtually > >all were vehemently anti-Intel. And in that huge majority, most people swore > >their next PC purchase would be AMD-based, until and unless Intel either > >removes the processor serial number or allows it to be disabled in hardware. > >One reader suggested the clever idea of resurrecting the old "turbo" switch > >approach and placing a simple serial number enable/disable button on the > >front of every PC. (You can read more on the controversy and see reader > >reaction at Windows Magazine: Big Brother Inside?.) > > > >I was amazed at the absolute intensity of the reader posts. It's as though > >the processor serial number was the last straw for many people: Intel's > >history of high prices and other public relations fumbles (like the > >floating-point math bug) seem to have built up a huge reservoir of > >resentment that's now spilling over. I think we're seeing the start of a > >strong anti-Intel backlash, analogous to the anti-Microsoft fervor that's > >changing the operating system landscape. > > > >Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows Magazine. > >Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via subscribe(a)langa.com > ><mailto:subscribe@langa.com> . You can contact him at fred(a)langa.com > ><mailto:fred@langa.com> or via his website at http://www.langa.com > ><http://www.langa.com> . http://www.techweb.com/ <http://www.techweb.com/> > >

27 years, 7 months

UZI

by ckaiser＠oa.ptloma.edu

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 509 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990212/1cfe0993/at…

27 years, 7 months

E-Over Pay strikes again! original Altair disk sells for $102.50!

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

At 09:36 AM 2/10/99 -0800, Sam wrote: > >That does it. I'm pulling out an old dot matrix printer from my >collection and an Apple //e. I'm then going to design a label that looks >just like the one on the disk in that auction and print a bunch up. Then >I'm going to figure out how to make it aged a little (or why even >bother...I'll just say its in "excellent condition"). I will then sell >these disks on ebay every other week. > >Don't say I didn't warn you. No, don't say excellant condition, just say unknown condition. That way no one can say that you ripped them off. Just remember that they're hard sectored disks with 10 sectors. I just found a box of them in a surplus store a couple of days ago. Joe

27 years, 7 months

E-Over Pay strikes again! original Altair disk sells for

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I haven't seen a V7.x VMS source kit, but the V6.1 kit that I have comes o <2 CDs which are pretty much full. Makes interesting reading on cold winter <nights... < <Interestingly the licence you sign before gaining access to the source CDs <says something along the lines of "I promise never to sell/give/other thes <CDs away". I doubt anyone would give them away as the license to see whats on them was at last call well over $3000(US)! The distribution kit fits easily on one CD though. Allison

27 years, 7 months

OT: Intel in hot water again, interesting reading!

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

FYI > > <http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/scoop-top.gif> The Scoop > http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif> >http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif> >http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif> >By Fred Langa >By Fred Langa > >InformationWeek > >You probably saw the original coverage of Intel's announcement that it would >embed an individual serial number in each Pentium III and Celeron chip. The >96-bit ID can identify the user's PC to any software that knows how to ask. > >Immediately after the announcement, various consumer watchdog groups went >ballistic. Epic, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, launched a >boycott of Intel, calling it the "Big Brother Inside" campaign. Epic says >the processor serial number, "would likely be collected by many sites, >indexed and accumulated in databases...The records of many different >companies could be joined without the user's knowledge or consent to provide >an intrusive profile of activity on the computer." > >Intel immediately backed off a bit by announcing that although the serial >number would ship enabled on every chip, Intel would provide equipment >manufacturers with a small software applet that could be used to prevent >access to the number. However, the software must work (it hasn't been tested >yet); it must be properly installed on each PC; and it must be run after >every reboot. > >Epic says that because this approach "relies on a software patch that must >run each and every time that a user turns on the computer, it is susceptible >to tampering by other software programs." So, Epic's boycott is still in >place: The group insists that Intel should disable the processor serial >number at the hardware level, where it will stay disabled until the PC owner >turns it on. > >To further muddy the waters, the processor serial number may not be very >secure. CMP Media's Electronic Engineering Times quoted cryptography expert >Bruce Schneier, who talked about the prospect that the serial numbers can be >forged or stolen: "A system is only as secure as the smartest hacker," he >said. "All it takes is for one person to defeat the tamper resistance. >There's always someone who manages to unravel the protection. There isn't a >copy-protected piece of software that hasn't been stripped of its >protections and posted to hacker bulletin boards. This won't be any >different." (For the full story, go to "Intel ID Protection Scheme Called >Insufficient.") > >Of course, there are legitimate and useful purposes for this kind of ID, >especially for resource-tracking within an enterprise. Indeed, some >workstation manufacturers already include similar functions on their >enterprise-ready boxes, and some enterprise software products use these >serial numbers for licensing. But Intel is attempting to broaden this >practice to an unprecedented degree by putting the ID number on every chip >and enabling it by default. Toss in only weak assurances of the serial >number's security and only a weak turn-off option, and you're got a >firestorm of protests. > >Last week, I conducted an informal online poll among the readers of Windows >Magazine. The reaction was eye-opening: Out of hundreds of posts, virtually >all were vehemently anti-Intel. And in that huge majority, most people swore >their next PC purchase would be AMD-based, until and unless Intel either >removes the processor serial number or allows it to be disabled in hardware. >One reader suggested the clever idea of resurrecting the old "turbo" switch >approach and placing a simple serial number enable/disable button on the >front of every PC. (You can read more on the controversy and see reader >reaction at Windows Magazine: Big Brother Inside?.) > >I was amazed at the absolute intensity of the reader posts. It's as though >the processor serial number was the last straw for many people: Intel's >history of high prices and other public relations fumbles (like the >floating-point math bug) seem to have built up a huge reservoir of >resentment that's now spilling over. I think we're seeing the start of a >strong anti-Intel backlash, analogous to the anti-Microsoft fervor that's >changing the operating system landscape. > >Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows Magazine. >Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via subscribe(a)langa.com ><mailto:subscribe@langa.com> . You can contact him at fred(a)langa.com ><mailto:fred@langa.com> or via his website at http://www.langa.com ><http://www.langa.com> . http://www.techweb.com/ <http://www.techweb.com/> >

27 years, 7 months

Hard Drive Partitions

by manney＠hmcltd.net

I have a couple of old WD hard drives I'm trying to revitalize. They say they have no partitions, but when I try to lay in a partition, they say there's no room. Would a LLF take care of this (vide recent discussion)? Thanks manney

27 years, 7 months

Recent aquisitions

by spc＠armigeron.com

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1870 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19990212/db3ce2ec/at…

27 years, 7 months

E-Over Pay strikes again! original Altair disk sells for

by dougdu＠MICROSOFT.com

True enough I'm sure. MITS also produced a "mini"-floppy controller that was also a two board TTL set. The first board (computer interface) was the same board as in the 8" set (except for different RC values), the second board was completely different. I have the MITS docs for the "mini"-floppy system and it is documented as a hard sectored using 16 sectors per track. I also have an Altair Mini-Floppy BASIC disk and it is also hard sectored with 16 sector holes. - Doug > -----Original Message----- > No. The original disk for the altair before they became > Pertec Computers > was an 8" system using two boards of TTL. I know I built > three of them in > that era and debugged a few more. All if the later Pertec > machines with > minifloppies had a board that used a 1771 plus a raft of ttl. > > I might add the Pertec controller was sold before the Pertec > aquired MITS. > > > Allison >

27 years, 7 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb