< cables from the plates to the machines. Bore a 3/4" hole in the top plat
< the wall in the attic, or in the bottom if from the basement (as mine is
< and you can pass even the BNC through. Make sure to put foam sealant aro
Been there and done that.
< Not sure if F connectors were around back then, or if they were very muc
They were but BNC is later than the original eithernet which used
expensive and hard to assemble Type N.
< use. Also it makes things much harder to disconnect. That's why they
I can understand quick disconnect. Also It may have been an artifact
of the WANG loop drops that used RG58/59 and BNC.
< probably didn't use PL259 and SO238 combos since every had their fill o
< threaded connectors from the twinax days.
They are just plain too big.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 1998 9:55
Subject: Re: Microvaxen bits etc.
>> >>While I'm at it, AUI-10Base2(or t) transceivers are also getting rare,
>
>Odd.. Why on earth should those be rare? Or don't people use AUI ports any
more.
Short answer is no. They don't. Not around here anyway.
Most network cards produced these days don't have AUI ports on them.
Unfortunately all my big (and some smaller) Digital boxen only have
an AUI on their ethernet adapters.
>You _might_ be able to raid the 10 base T interface chip, or the
>10 base 2 transceiver chip + isolated PSU + transformers off a PC
>ethernet card, make a PCB, and build your own transceiver. A lot of cards
>(at least the old cards I hack about with) use standard chips like the
>83C92 (10 base 2) or 83C94 (10 base T). The data sheets for the chips
>give the application circuits, and most of the bits can probably be
>raided off old ethernet cards.
If I get desperate enough. I have no shortage of 10Base2 + AUI 16 bit PC
cards.
I'm really gonna have to find a pinout for the AUI connectors. And how to
connect them.
I have found a source for new txcvrs in Adelaide (finally) but it's rather
more than I had
intended to pay, when a s/h one would do.
>
>If you can find some old 10 base 5 transceivers (thickwire), then by
>changing the connector, they'll often work on 10 base 2 networks. It's
>not 'official', but it seems to be OK.
Probably, but they are pretty rare as well.
IIRC, I think the difference is only in the signal level injected into
the cable, it's somewhat lower for thick cable due to the lower loss of the
RG8. Modern
ethernet transceivers are rather more sensitive, so unless you had maxed out
the distance to
the full 180 meters or thereabouts, it should work just fine.
Cheers
Geoff
Computer Room Internet Cafe
Port Pirie
South Australia.
netcafe(a)pirie.mtx.net.au
(My other home)
Tony Duell wrote:
> She'd explode faced with this dining room, then. There's about 15 systems
> that I can see without even trying. Along with printers/monitors/etc. The
> total number of processors is probably over 1000.
How many are you counting for the DAP?
Philip.
Just found a TBar Explorer, a serial data monitor model 5915-10
>from all I can see.
Its working but I'm looking for schematics and manuals for it.
Remarkably it seems to be of 1985 vintage!
Allison
There may have been an advanced BASIC or something on a cartridge, but I
think the ROM BASIC was in the M/B's ROM.
-Jason
***********************************************
* Jason Willgruber *
* (roblwill(a)usaor.net) *
* *
* http://members.tripod.com/general_1 *
* ICQ#-1730318 *
* /0\/0\ *
* > Long Live the 5170! *
* \___/ *
************************************************
----------
> From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: PCjr with no disk drive?
> Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 1:15 PM
>
> At 09:08 AM 10/29/98 -0800, Sam said:
>
> >The PCjr had BASIC in ROM and didn't require a floppy to boot.
>
> Was the BASIC in a plug in cartridge and optional?
>
> Joe
>
>
The PCjr has become a 'project' for me lately. I've been trying to find
out all I could. I finally decided to add one to my collection and this
past weekend went out and came home with 3 all for $1.50 plus a
Commodore Vic-20 to boot. Here's what I've been able to find:
The PCjr came in two flavors:
the entry (model 4) and enhanced (model 67):
Configurations
4860-004 - System unit w. 64kb, 62 key IR keyboard, two cartridge slots
4860-067 - System unit w. 128kb (includes 64kb memory and Display
Expansion feature), 62 key IR keyboard, two cartridge slots, 5.25 inch
360kb FDD and adapter
more details can be found at:
http://www.can.ibm.com/helpware/4860.html
There is also a fairly informative site at:
http://www.pcenterprises.com/catjr/
--
Dan Rector
At 05:22 PM 10/29/98 -0600, Doug Yowza wrote:
>
>For your next aniversary, buy your wife a wireless LAN. I don't miss the
>wires a bit.
I recently built a new home, and I thought I was being so forward-thinking
by wiring it with Cat5 - then I started reading about the low-cost
wireless devices coming down the pike. I did install an Aironet
bridge back to the office, though, delivering T-1-ish speeds through
the 4 1/2 miles of air, and allowing roaming PCMCIA wireless nodes at
home at the same time. ObCC: Some of my collection will be connected over
this link. :-)
- John
> I was wondering through a trift store the other day and found a odd
>keyboard. It's labeled "CompuNET 2000" and looks like a regular 101 key
>keyboard for a PC but it has two extra cables with miniture phono plugs on
>the ends. One with two contacts and the other with three. It also has two
>phone jacks on the back of the keyboard. There are a couple of extra keys
>on the board. One is marked PHONE and the other is marked LINE. Some of
>the numeric key pad keys are marked REDIAL, MUTE, VOL, OPER, etc. anyone
>know what this is for?
It is - surprise! - a keyboard-phone. Those extra cables go to a
headset, and the numeric keypad works as a DTMF dialer.
Tim.
I would say it's probably more than 1%...but, is anyone here
familiar with sound waves, and what human speech looks like waveform
wise?
>
>On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
>
>> Even the task of parsing the input stream to separate the words from
each
>> other has remained an elusive goal. That is a loarge part of why the
>> current "dictation" systems remain unsuitable for transcription,
closed
>> captioning, aids for the deaf, etc. Even now, the best systems
available
>> require intense interaction between the speaker and the program.
>
>Yup, it's a *very* difficult problem. Basically, there's not a
>straight-forward mapping between sound waves and what we hear. Even
once
>you do all of the relatively simple signal processing and word
>recognition, you're left with the basically impossible task of context
>analysis (which requires almost all of our brain to get right, and we
>still blow it about 1% of the time).
>
>-- Doug
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
