test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

AMD 9511, 9512, Intel 8231, 8232 wanted, will tradeNational MM57109

by edick＠idcomm.com

You're absolutely correct . . . I actually got out my old AMD MOS Microprocessors and Peripherals data book from 1985, and found that the 9511 is a stack oriented (like the HP calculators, I guess) arithmetic processor capable of 16 and 32-bit floating point operations, while the 9512 is capable of 32 and 64-bit operations. The 9511, it seems is capable of many more functions, being somewhat reminiscent of a "scientific" calculator, while the 9512 is capable of none of the transcendental functions which the 9511 supports. Both are stack-oriented, therefore ideal for RPN implementation. My steel-trap mind moves closer and closer every day to being a sievel . . oh, well . . . it's HELL getting old. Dick ---------- > From: Gary Oliver <go(a)ao.com> > To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> > Subject: Re: AMD 9511, 9512, Intel 8231, 8232 wanted, will tradeNational MM57109 > Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 12:36 PM > > >From my copy of "Floating Point Program Manual Am9511A/Am9512:" > > Am9511A Arithmetic Processor > > Distinctive Characteristics > --------------------------- > 2,3 and 4 MHz operation > Fixed point 16 bit and 32 bit operations > Floating point 32 bit operations > Binary data formats > Add, Subtract, Multiply and Divide > Trigonometric and inverse trigonometric functions > Square roots, logarithms, exponentiation > Stack-oriented operand storage > ... > > Am9512 Floating Point Processor > > Distinctive Characteristics > --------------------------- > Single (32-bit) and double (64-bit) precision capability > Add, Subtract, Multiply and Divide > Compatible with proposed IEEE format > ... > > > The 9511 is very much like a calculator with a 32 bit operand > stack of up to four items. Operations work on the top or top > two items on the stack. Some operands (such as PUPI "push PI") > push a new item on the stack. > > At 4Mhz, a FADD takes (worst case) about 92 uSec and an FMUL > (worst case) at 42 uSeconds. Wasn't too shabby when software > took 5 to 10 times as long on a Z-80. Plus it was possible to > get some other work done while the 9511 was off crunching a > number or two. > > We still use the 9511 on an old (very old) legacy product, although > they will eventually disappear - AMD is certainly not making them > anymore and there are very few left on distributor shelves or even > in "part surplus" houses. > > Gary > > At 10:18 AM 1/27/99 -0700, you wrote: > >The 9511 was the floating point unit, and the 9512 was for 64-bit integer > >arithmetic, I believe. I've actually got one of each of these from back in > >the old days. They were sort of a calculator for your computer, in that > >they could be operated faster than the cpu could perform the function . . > >MUCH faster. > > > >Dick > > > > > >---------- >

27 years, 8 months

Gordon Bell computer books on-line

by joe＠barrera.org

>I've just come across a site that has on-line copies of several >of Gordon Bell's (with others) books on computer architecture, >etc. (My apologies if I'm repeating something, I don't recall >seeing this posted here recently though). > >A menu leading to the books is located at the following site: > >http://beta.ul.cs.cmu.edu/webRoot/Books/Saving_Bell_Books/ They are also available on http://research.microsoft.com/users/gbell/Pubs.htm -- along with a lot more modern stuff just in case you're wondering what Gordon is up to these days.

27 years, 8 months

Televideo 802 computer?

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

Does anyone have one of these? I found a manual for one of these yesterday and it looks pretty cool. Joe

27 years, 8 months

Gordon Bell computer books on-line

by aknight＠mindspring.com

Hi, I've just come across a site that has on-line copies of several of Gordon Bell's (with others) books on computer architecture, etc. (My apologies if I'm repeating something, I don't recall seeing this posted here recently though). A menu leading to the books is located at the following site: http://beta.ul.cs.cmu.edu/webRoot/Books/Saving_Bell_Books/ The books that are available at this URL are: Computer Engineering Computer Structures: Readings and Examples Designing Computers and Digital Systems High Tech Ventures I was particularly interested in seeing the Computer Structures: book, as it had been previously noted here on the list that there was coverage of the HP9100 calculator. It turns out that the chapter in Bell's book is taken verbatim (with credit) from the HP Journal article that describes the HP9100, so there isn't any additional info. or analysis on the 9100 by Bell. There is a description of the Olivetti Programma 101 calculator/ computer in the same chapter though. And, of course, descriptions of many, many other early computer architectures. Enjoy! Alex Calculator History & Technology Archive Web Page http://aknight.home.mindspring.com/calc.htm

27 years, 8 months

Old DEC stuff

by mopar+＠pitt.edu

All, I have some old DEC equipment that I would like to get out of the garage. I would prefer if someone would take the whole lot. If I can't make those arrangements I may be willing to piece things out. The list is following my sig. Jerome -- Jerome A. Marella University of Pittsburgh - CIS Systems & Networks 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15238 mopar+(a)pitt.edu (412) 624-9139 Fax (412) 624-6436 http://www.pitt.edu/~mopar The list of stuff: 2 x 11/750 w 14Meg an 11/730 in pieces 3 x RA81 tu78 tu80 various extra boards - I will make a complete list if anyone likes print sets: 11/730 field maintenance 11/750 pcs module ka750 mos memory array comet memory unit tu77

27 years, 8 months

TRW Swapmeet Wants/Trades

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<> You know, those 30-pin SIMMs will be valuable eventually! You should sav <> every one you find. < <I'm sure they're valuable now to people who have old 286 or 386 <motherboards that use old 30-pin SIMMs. What about all the 486 boards (I have a few!) that use 30pin simms. I also have a older Pentium board that take a mix of 30 pin and 72pin simms! I tried recently to get 4mx9 30 pin parts and 16mb(4 of them) would be about $65... 16mb 72pin parts are going for $19 around here new! Yet I can find the 1mx9 parts for $3 used/tested. I happen to have a very tiny 486slc/33 board that only can take 4simms (and must have 4!) so I either have 4mb or 16mb as choices. I need a minimum of 8mb so I can run useful stuff and a have just a few (dozen) 1mb parts! such is industry. Allison

27 years, 8 months

IBM PC-JX (was: Reiability of wrong media)

by guerney＠uq.net.au

Tony Duell said: >That sounds _very_ much like a PC-jr. It has connectors for audio and >composite video (RCA sockets) and BERG headers for RS232, 2 joysticks, >CGA (TTL RGBI) monitor, lightpen, cassette, keyboard. No printer port - >that was an optional 'sidecar' module. I think we have established now that this _is_ basically a PC-Jr ! Except: it has a different model number it is black it has a 3.5" disk in the main unit, not a 5.25" drive, and room for another it has a printer port on the back of the main unit (DB-25 type connector) the video ("display") port on the back of the main unit is a DB-15 type connector it was not sold in the USA I have not mentioned before that it does have the two cartridge ports in the same place under the floppy drive at the bottom of the main unit. Unless anyone else wants more details, that is all I expect anyone wants to know about the "JX". The only doubt about its designation that I have, is that it does not say "JX" (or anything other than IBM) on it anywhere! I have had one keen enquiry about the unit from a US collector, so unless the freight charges work out too much, and if the trade is a fair and interesting swap, it looks like it will have a new home. Phil

27 years, 8 months

DG Aviion input devices (was RE: HP Keyboard and cable)

by netcafe＠pirie.mtx.net.au

-----Original Message----- From: R. Stricklin (kjaeros) <red(a)bears.org> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Wednesday, 27 January 1999 9:08 Subject: DG Aviion input devices (was RE: HP Keyboard and cable) >On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Anthony Eros wrote: > >> I recently acquired a DG Aviion 410 minus keyboard and mouse. Does anyone >> have leads on tracking these items down? > >Apparently any number of (although not all) standard AT-style PC keyboards >will work with the machine. That is my experience also. A cheap clone keyboard didn't want to play, however, a genuine IBM AT Keyboard seems to work perfectly. >As far as mice go, mine looks like it's probably just a quadrature-style >mouse, although my Aviion isn't working yet and I can't verify this. >Note that for all their outward similarity, the DG mouse is not interchangable >with a Sun mouse. Erk. I was hoping they were. Darn. Anyone in Oz got a source for DG Aviion style mice??? Cheers Geoff Roberts Computer Room Internet Cafe Port Pirie South Australia. netcafe(a)pirie.mtx.net.au

27 years, 8 months

Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

"Help! I've started replying and I can't stop!" (Last one, I promise!) On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, "Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote: ] > ] I personally feel the 10 year "rule" is useful as a guide, however, I also ] > ] consider that there are several machines that rightly qualify as "Classic ] > ] Computers" that are less than 10 years old. There is a particular "grey" ] > ... snippage ... ] ] > Unless the list-maintainer gets active, "on-topic" is by concensus. ] ] If I may add here - he _is_ active - not acting as teh big boo-boo ] doesn't mean beeing non existent - After all, I guess nobody wants ] a dictatoric on/of topic thing. And being existant doesn't mean active either. Has he nipped any single thread, ever? If he never acts to control off-topic messages, then I feel safe in saying he is not active, at least in defining "on-topic". I'm not bitching about that, BTW. Just pointing out that it is up to us as a group to define that. ] > 1. Ten years is just a guideline. If something is only 9 years old, ] > I won't much mind hearing about it. I might even like it. But if ] > it is only two or three years old, there must be a surviving ] > users-group or something. Go find it, or start your own, but please ] > don't clutter up my mailbox with it. ] ] THere are 'surviving' user groups for machines that are ] _way_ older than 9 years - and before getting deeper into, ] this is not a user group ! ] ] And for the mailbox thing - what about a filter ? No, serious, ] from my simple point, all this /11/ stuff is useless (help, no, ] no, I didn't mean is - pleeeeease :) and just adds trafic. But ] I also read them, or at least open them and have a look, since ] sometimes, beside stupid facts, how to configure a special card, ] or device, there are beautiful insights and stories - and BTW, ] the 11 is not classic (since still available new, or at least ] have been sold new less than 10 years ago) nor there is no other ] support - there are _plenty_ of specialised lists, user groups ] and news areas. I even learned to love this PERQ thing (now I ] just need to get one :). Yup, someday I'll have to figure out mail filters. As of now I'm still using plain old Unix (UCB) mail (a classic!). And while there is plenty of on-topic stuff that I skim over (like you, I don't own a PDP-11), there is also plenty of stuff that really doesn't belong here. It is easy enough to skim over. But it would be easier and better to just post messages on the right lists. ] > 2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's ] > just an indisputable fact. :-) ] ] Boooo - shuld I throw my Apple II PC into the garbage ? Um, I meant PC as in "IBM PC". You know, the same way everybody else has meant it for the past fifteen years or so. :-) Besides, even if it were not a classic computer (which I won't dispute), you could still treasure it. ... snippage ... ] > 3. Guns, cars, schools, Star Trek, and politics are not classic computers. ] > (This is not to disparage people interested in those things, just to ] > point out that those discussions belong on other mailing lists.) ] ] Guns ? Depending. Okay, I'll bite. Give me an example of a gun that is a classic computer. And I don't want to hear about computers controlling guns, or computers designing guns, or computers owned by gun companies, or computers used in anti-gun legislation. In those cases it is the computer, and not the gun, that could be relevant here. ] Cars ? At least related somewhat. Okay, by that measure, everything on Earth (and almost everything not on Earth) is related somewhat. Shall we make this into the "everything" mailing list? Absolutely everything is on-topic, because we can always stretch far enough to find _some_ relation? <sarcasm> Heck, we are *people* talking about those things, and *people* made those classic computers, therefore everything anyone says is related. Cancel all the other mailing lists! Route all their traffic here! It is all on-topic now! </sarcasm> ] Schools ? Hey, this discusion was _very_ on topic at all ! ] Thats where our next collectors generation is growing, and ] it's part of our mission to take our idea of old technik ] use and preseravion to them. Themes like that is waht this ] list makes so different - it's not just 'put this IC into ] that socket' type of mails, it's about real people doing the ] real thing in the real world, with all interactions. Not just ] technik dummys. Nope, MOST of this was way off-topic. How bad teachers are, how great Uncle Roger's girlfriend is as a teacher, how the schools are underfunded, how funding isn't the problem, blah, blah, blah... Maybe your filter saved you from it? ] And for the Star Trek part - Of course, ST had no infuence ] to the idea of computers et all - you're right (BTW1: when ] was the last occurance of ST in this list ? BTW2: OT: I'm ] still searching on data for the Star Wars premiere) *Everything* has influence on everything else. It is not all on-topic. ] > 4. Simply having origins in something that is classic does not make a ] > thing classic. Otherwise *everything* would be classic. ] ] But looking at the origins visible in a new product is still ] a _very_ on topic thing - otherwise we would just ignore the ] world of the last 10 years. And it's one of the most interesting ] things about this hoby, to see how the things have evolved, ] how small and insignificant (at this time possibly good) decisions ] have breed new monsters (see A20 gate :). The advantage of an ] historian is not only to review a specifig period, but also ] trace the ways leading there, AND leading from there to 'now'. Yes, it is very interesting. There are thousands of other mailing lists full of interesting stuff too. But they are not classic computers. I suspect you'd like comp.arch more than this list. Which is not a bad thing, as long as you don't confuse the two. If I wanted to read comp.arch (as I sometimes do), I would just subscribe to it (as I also sometimes do). But despite some overlap, there is a clear difference between the two. ] > 5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off ] > in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is ] > not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use, ] > there will be other places to discuss it.) ] ] If we go for an 'exact' date, I think the mfg date of the ] specific unit is the only possible anchor - just think of ] machines like the A2 - acording to your definition it wont ] qualify. I would even go one step further and use the date ] of first production as base for the rule (as often done ] within the list - best practice rule). Just remember that ] new machines always have been escorted by a increased ] attention and speculation (no, not today :). This event ] itself is classic and part of the history, and the acording So the release of any new machine is automatically a classic event? I hope I'm misunderstanding you here. ] machine. No mater if the Mac is still in production or not, ] the small guy, saying "I'm glad to be out of this bag" ] _is_ classic, without any doubt. Er... huh? ] > 6. Do I really need to add "IMHO" here? :-) ] ] No, as always, we interprete anything we want into your ] words :) Very convenient. It will save me a lot of typing. :-) ] To get to an end: I still think the 10 year thing is a ] thump rule, not a law - and as rule we don't need _exact_ ] fixings, since this would just force the development of ] pseudo exact exemptions (Do I have to mention all these ] laws, where our beloved politicians want to do is best, ] and most exact as possible, and then spend the next 10 ] years to add sub laws without even touching the problem ?). I wasn't suggesting an extreme policy. Going a little off topic is fine. Going way off topic is okay once in a while. But we should at least be aware when we've done that, so we can exert a little self-control, and not go way off-topic all the time. ] And, to say it once more, I don't think this list ] 'unmaintained' - our 'boss' is just _not_ one of ] the I-know-it-all-and-I-will-rule-them guys. That's what I meant by "not active". He is not ruling with an iron fist (or with any sort of fist at all) so we define what we want to talk about, by consensus. I didn't mean to disparage him. After all, he pulled our collective niblets out of the fire, n'est ce pas? ] Gruss ] H. ] ] -- ] Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut ] HRK And On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, "Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote: ] > As for the rule itself, I agree that ten years after last manufacture ] > implies classic status - that is, the item is an antique. However, ] > that requirement of time is not necessarily the most prudent for some ] > items. In some cases, classic status might be applied to an item ] > available only two or three years ago. Such cases might be ] > rare but, justified by the circumstances. ] ] To look at similar things, what about cars: wasn't the ] VW Käfer already a classic, _years_ befor the production ] in Germany ended (and in fact, he is still in production ] in Mexico!). ] ] So, when is a classic car classic ? Basicly there is a ] 20 year rule (at least over here), that applies on the ] date of first usage of this particular unit. Yes, let's look at cars. A 1979 Pinto is classic, but a 1980 Pinto won't be until next year. (Pardon my ignorance here; I have almost no idea when Pintos were actually made.) By that logic, your Apple 2 may or may not be classic, based on its exact date of manufacture. Is this the position you want to take? Okay, I'm falling asleep at the wheel here. I'd better go nap. ... lots of snippage ... Good night all, Bill. ] Gruss ] H. ] ] -- ] Ich denke, also bin ich, also gut ] HRK

27 years, 8 months

Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote: Subject: Re: Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule. ] > <1. Ten years is just a guideline. If something is only 9 years old, ] > < I won't much mind hearing about it. I might even like it. But if ] > ] > I happen to like that. ] ] So do I. 10 years should be taken as a guideline. If you happen to have ] just rescued some unbelievably cool machine - say a supercomputer - that ] happens to be only 8 years old, I don't think anyone will flame you for ] mentioning here. Of course, nobody gets flamed for being only slightly off-topic. But we should at least be clear about what "off-topic" means, so we can recognize how far off we've gone. ] There are better places IMHO for mainstream stuff like PCs, Macs, ] Windows, Linux, etc. Not to say that there aren't some real experts on ] all of those here, but you'll get better answers elsewhere. And even if you could get better answers here, I submit that it is rude. I am here because of an interest in older computers. The whole point of having distinct mailing lists for distinct topics is to get information to the people who want it, and not add to the collective information overload. *Please* go to the right list with each question. ] > <2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's ] > < just an indisputable fact. :-) ] > ] > I draw a line based on two things early 386 or older and uniqueness. There ] > are many clones but a few were very unique and interesting of themselves. ] > An example is the Leading Edge Model D I have or the Kaypro ProPC both Xt ] > class and a bit different. ] ] As I've said before, I have great difficulty in calling a no-name ] PC-clone a 'classic'. Especially when what you actually find in the case ] depends on the week that it was made. Even if it's 10 years old. ] ] Some clones will be 'classic'. The first Compaq probably is. Things like ] the Torch Graduate (A PC-compatible add-on for the BBC micro) is. ] ] And the non-clones (80x86 boxen that run MS-DOS, but which are not PC ] compatible) can be classics IMHO. Things like the Sirius, Apricot, HP150, ] Sanyo, etc... Okay, I'll agree that you think they are classic. :-) ] > <5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off ] > < in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is ] > < not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use, ] > < there will be other places to discuss it.) ] > ] > Humm. This one is tough. We talk about VAXen and the MicroVAX is only ] > about 14-15 years old and some models do persist but they are uniquly ] ] Rememeber that DEC sold PDP11s until a couple of years ago, and that ISA ] cards with CPUs that execute the PDP11 instruction set are (IIRC) still ] in production. Yup, PDP11's are classic. The ISA cards emulating them are not. ] However, a lot of us think of the PDP11 as being a very classic machine. ] It also happens to still be in serious commerical use in a lot of places. ] There are probably more PDP8's out there in control systems than a lot of ] us realise. PDP11's are still in serious use. But is it not well past its prime? How many had Dec manufactured in the last year? Ten years? When you want to buy a computer from Dec, do they offer you a choice between a PDP8 or an Alpha? ] > The keys are OLDness, UNIQUEness and desireability. I'm sure there are ] ] Of course what's desirable to one person may not be desirable to another. ] I can't see why I'd want an Altair, but I'd go quite a way to get a Xerox ] D-machine. I suspect that for others on this list that would be reversed. ] ] -tony A lot of people want the latest PC, too. And prices on PC's are generally higher; doesn't that indicate greater desirability? Even to people on this list, how many can honestly say that the most expensive computer that they own, as measured in the price that they actually paid, was not a PC or Mac? (I can, but I strongly suspect I'm an exception.) Desirability does not make a computer a classic. Age does. Rarity doesn't make a classic, but excessive commonality could preclude it. (Which I think is the source of my bias against PC's and Macs). Bill.

27 years, 8 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