OK -- I'm making progress. Thanks to John Wilson at Dbit, I found out
that the TK50's I'm using may not actually be "standard" SCSI, but a
bastardized implementation used only for VS2000's.
With that in mind, if anyone's got a TK50Z-GA in working condition
(NOT the -FA, which is what I have) that they feel like parting with, I
would be happy to buy it.
Thanks in advance.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho,
Blue Feather Technologies -- kyrrin (at) bluefeathertech [dot] com
Web: http://www.bluefeathertech.com
"...No matter how we may wish otherwise, our science can only describe an object,
event, or living thing in our own human terms. It cannot possibly define any of them..."
I have the above drive. It was shipped to me
bolted in an enclosure. During shipping, it
was badly shocked, shearing off the mounting
bolts and damaging a couple of components
on the electronics board. A couple of resistors
and caps had their leads cut. Some creative
soldering fixed that. One diode was smashed.
It was on of those little clear (glass?) diodes.
Are those called zeeners or something that
starts with "z"? Anyway, I didn't have a
replacement, so I just removed the leads and
left it at that. Later I decided to go ahead and
try the drive, and it worked. If somebody has
the schematics, the silkscreen next to where
the diode was is "C1" (it is in one corner of the
board). Are there often nonessential components
in older hardware? Is it actually nonessential or
is some signal being compromised or some
other component being overstressed?
Bill Sudbrink
Or maybe just "CUS".
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Christopher Finney <af-list(a)lafleur.wfi-inc.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 02, 1999 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Sickening Documentation
>
>
>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Ward D. Griffiths III wrote:
>
>> Well "CompaqUS" is just _too_ ugly.
>
>I dunno..."COMPUS" has such a nice ring to it...
>
>
Hello, all:
"Mike" <dogas(a)leading.net> wrote:
>The AIM-65 (single-board, full keyboard, LED display and 20-column
>printer on-board), SD Systems Z-80 starter kit, Motorola MEK6800, VIM-1
>(predecessor to the SYM-1).
>
>>I have a full doc set for the AIM-65 if anyone needs any info on this
machine.
If you look on the documents page on my ClassicCmp, I have posted scans
of the AIM doc set. I still have to do the User's Guide, though.
[ Rich Cini/WUGNET
[ ClubWin!/CW7
[ MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
[ Collector of "classic" computers
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/classiccmp/
[ http://highgate.comm.sfu.ca/~rcini/pdp11/
<================ reply separator =================>
<From: Maurice Hamm <maurice.hamm(a)wxs.nl>
<To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers" <classiccmp(a)u.washingto
<Subject: datapoint 1800 (1980 )
<--------------E36421B1C418E750A3FFE34F
<Content-Type: image/gif; name="img1.gif"
<Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
<Content-Disposition: inline; filename="img1.gif"
Hey! sending that binary was annoying and rude. Ask first.
You may find that there may be someone familiar with datapoint here.
Allison
sans label too. One speculated that it is the early ones
<which were sent out without labels. Don't know why.
The early ones did have labels. Some however were wither lost or tossed.
also MITS did private lable some of theirs for other companies that were
bundling systems.
Allison
This is just a guess, but the Quantel line printer made by Teletype is probably a Teletype Model 40 from your description. I don't have any docs on it, but they should be readily available.
Barry Watzman
>> The dynamics of the microprocessor market is more complex than you think
<>> If MIPS was so good it would ahve pushed out x86. Alpha is a 64bit cpu
<>> targetted at high end systems and the MicroVAX (32bit) was already well
<>> established and faster than 386/486.
<
<I have to disagree with this, Allison, one of my points being: The value /
<speed / whatever of a Microprocessor means little versus the *marketing* o
<a processor / computer.
to a point that is true.
<The lowly Motorola 6809 at 2 Mhz outperforms a
<10Mhz 80286... by far. It also *smokes* the 6502. And other than Xenix 286
<(super-expensive), OS-9 is the most powerful OS available for these
<processors, and at a reasonable cost (When I bought my copy - $139.)...
the 6809 was pretty neat and close to PDP-11. It was however, slow!
Smoking a 6502 is not a contest, 16bit math and a few other things
the 6502 has trouble with impair it. Comparing it to a 286/10mhz,
sorry, no way. The 286 wasn't great but it was faster. Is OS-9 better
than DOS yes, Xenix, no. Is OS-9 better developed than most intel/ms OSs,
very likely. are there OSs for intel parts that show them better, yes.
The 6809 was still a mile behind the PDP-11 (either the T-11 chip or the
F11 cip pair and way behind the J11 chip).
Like you said marketing... who outside of us remembers OS-9 and the 6809?
Was the coco a better machine... no. It was good for it's time but the
system was still a grafted together set of pods and cables typical of many
of the trs-xx products.
People noticed the PCs and the like when they started to look competent,
complete and somewhat stable in operation. The contents of the box cpu
wise was more determined by the software development community than the
chip makers. IE: the guy in the lead for that time generally had the most
and best software widely available at low or no cost. That's why AppleIIs,
TRS-80s and PC are like house files for their respective times. No matter
how good or bad software to make them do useful work often drove them
forward.
Allison
