>Jim Strickland
>jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
>
>Does being designed around XT class hardware count?
>
Certainly is a laudable argument. How many XT systems
are manufactured today? I can't imagine any myself, save
for embedded systems. So, i'll vote for the term classic
as applied to the presence of an XT foundation.
William R. Buckley
Stupid question: I'm trying to install TCP/IP on my PDP-11/73 running RT-11
V5.4 and am trying to choose the proper driver. Does the PDP-11/73 CPU
have a Processor Status Word?
Also, if you've got a driver for TSX-11 do you have to have corresponding
driver for RT-11 installed?
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
Actually, there was a thingy called PC/IX which ran on those non
memory-managed systems. I actually managed to snag a copy a few years ago.
Jay
At 04:28 PM 1/22/99 -0500, cswiger wrote:
>Spotted this in a Linuxtoday.com article on the latest
>linux kernel:
>
>"On somewhat of a tangent, there is continuing work to
>support a subset of the Linux kernel on 8086, 8088,
>80186, and 80286 machines. This project will never
>integrate itself with Linux-proper but will provide
>an alternative Linux-subset operating system for
>these machines. "
>
>Hmmm, I do have *a* 'C' compiler running on one of those
>Compaq luggables...
>
> Chuck
> cswiger(a)widomaker.com
>
OK, I'm almost ready to downgrade my PDP-11/73 to a DEQNA since I've got
plenty of Doc's for it :^)
Does anyone have the switch settings for DELQA ethernet card such as they are?
BTW, for a PDP-11 is there any real difference in the two cards?
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
Well, every computer I have that has 1 MB or more or RAM. Which is a total
of Hmm.. 4. All my others only have 640k. two are IBM's, one's a toshiba,
and the other's my P200.
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
>>
>> Every computer that I've ever owned, When it does a memory test of "1
>> megabyte", the listing is always
>>
>> 1024KB......OK.
>
>I can't work out if you're agreeing with me or not.
>
>However, 1024KB _is_ 1 Megabyte. It's 1024 * 1024 (=1048576) bytes.
>Unless 'every computer that you've ever owned' defines 1KB as 1000 bytes
>(hint : none of mine do that).
>
>-tony
>
>
>If so, how does 1474560 become 1.44M, not 1.47M?
>The only way is to mix the terms, and use 1024000 as a meg! That is
>NEITHER the power of ten, NOR the power of two. In addition, it is NOT
>what they then use to measure memory!
Heck, I don't know about PCs... they do strange things. In pdp-11
land, we all talked about powers-of-two for memory and disk space,
and knew full well that the actual count of bytes was going to be
different.
1 Kb is 1024 bytes. 64 Kb is 65536 bytes. 128 Kb was 131072 bytes.
and so on...
Worked the same way for disks... RT-11 architectural limit for a
disk volume is 32 Mbytes. That's
65536 (blocks) * 512 (bytes)
---------------------------- = 32 Mb
1024 * 1024
It all just seemed to work properly *in the ole days*, PCs screwed
things up... :-)
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
At 01:01 AM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I wonder if it could marquee "I wish I were an Alpha."? Just a thought.
I wish I were an Alpha brand computer,
and not a cheap taiwanese pc.
cuz if I were an Alpha powered server,
I would not be stuck with WinNT.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
On Jan 21, 15:15, Don Maslin wrote:
> Subject: Re: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
> > Don't forget that '720K' 5.25" disks also exist, although they're not
> > common on IBM PCs. By that I mean 80 track, double density, double
sided,
> > 300 oersted coercivity. Most of those do not have the reinforcing ring
IIRC.
And they're pretty common on non-MSDOS systems. I far more 80-track DS
drives than 40-track of any flavour.
> > > 720K 5.25" v 360K 5.25": again, an issue of testing/certification,
> > > similar to SS v DS. At least for a while, they were manufactured the
same,
> > > but were tested/certified for 48tpi or 96 tpi.
> >
> > I have had very little success in formatting 48tpi disks in 96tpi
drives.
> > As I mentioned earlier, this includes name-brands like 3M..
>
> Interesting! I have never had a problem using even generic 48tpi disks
> at 96tpi.
> - don
Nor have I, usually. I tend to treat all double-density 5.25" disks the
same. Some of the old ones I have were converted to be "flippy" 40-track,
and some time ago I found one such without a label. Not knowing whether it
really had been formatted flipped, I tried it out, using the
by-now-standard 80-track DS drive and a two-step circuit, and found it had.
"OK, so that's a flippy", I said to myself. A little later, I re-read the
catalogue -- and got a different listing! I had inadvertantly catalogued
side two, with the disk right-side-up -- and realised that the tracks must
not line up, so side two had two sets of data, going in opposite rotations,
with the tracks interleaved!
So I have a three-sided 40 track disk :-)
> > > 3", 3.25": Many newbies will get sloppy in reference to 3.5"
diskettes,
> > > without realizing that there actually were 3" and 3.25" diskettes.
3"
> > > were used by Amstradt, some non-US Canon?, and Amdek add-on drives
for Coco
There are also 2.5" disks, though the only ones I've seen were made by TDK
for an early digital camera. Anyone remember the make? Canon?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Every computer that I've ever owned, When it does a memory test of "1
megabyte", the listing is always
1024KB......OK.
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Reiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes
>> Find me an authoritative reference that defines a megabyte as 1024 * 1024
>> bytes and I'll eat a pancake.
>
>I don't know how 'authoritative' you need, but will an IBM TechRef do?
>
>The PC/AT one that I've just picked up says :
>
>
>M (1) Prefix mega; 1,000,000. (2) When refering to computer storage
>capacity, 1,048,576 (1,048,576= 2 to the 20th power)
>
>Also
>Mb 1,048,576 bytes.
>
>Incidentaly, it also defines
>
>Gb 1,073,741,824 bytes (=2^30 ARD)
>
>Can you find a reference (other than an advert :-)) that defines it any
>other way?
>
>Anyway, I might accept that 1Mbyte = 10^6 bytes, particularly if you
>happen to have a decimal or BCD machine :-) (this is classiccmp). But I
>don't see any justification for making it 1024000 bytes. And that's the
>only way you can have '1.44Mbytes' on a HD 3.5" disk
>
>-tony
>
>