< Does anybody know if the H8 and H-89 were software compatible? I know
< CP/M was available for the H-89 (as well as HDOS), but I've only heard
< rumors of an H-8 CP/M -- maybe they're the same?
They were somewhat software compatable in that the both ran 8080 based
software. The H89 was z80, the H8 was 8080, they had differenet IO port
and memory maps. Both had different disk formats.
CPM for both could be the same in the sense that the CCP and BDOS were
always the same... The bios however was likely very different as that
is the part that interacts with the IO and disks.
Allison
< the other 480 of them will hit the scrapers. Then I just have to
< figure out what to do with the remaining 220 recorders that haven't
< been claimed yet.
Are these basically portable audio recroders or something special?
Please describe them.
Allison
>It looks like the vt62 could be equipped with an additional printer
>unit. Is this correct?
It takes the same thermal printer as found in the VT55...
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Hey All,
Got this weekend an Intel 8085 System Design Kit (in original box)
with manuals and a Dec vt62.
It looks like the vt62 could be equipped with an additional printer
unit. Is this correct?
Regards,
Ed
Light haul at the thrifts today, but a couple of nifties:
"Computer Technicians Handbook, 3rd Edition" by Art Margolis - $0.95
Magnavox RGB 80 composite monitor - $4.95
Wyse 60, no keyboard - $4.95
Large PC board etching kit, unopened - $1.95
Aaron
< > Can someone help identify this board? It has a 8085AH CPU in the A9
< > socket. On the right the board says "Intel (C) 1977 MADE IN USA." On t
< > back of the circuit board is etched "PWB1001480-03 REV H." If you wan
< > to see what the board looks like click on my link below.
Processor for a Intel model 220 development system is a good possibility.
Unfortunately the copyright date on intel board has little to do with
design and manufacture date.
Allison
I second your opinion Sam.
Marty
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: What was the first Unix micro?
Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet
Date: 10/7/98 11:42 PM
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
> OK, I'm getting tired of the arguments about who made the first
> microprocessor. Fine. Maybe God did -- it's called DNA and as an
> atheist I don't grant credit to anybody.
Oh, ok. God forbid we discuss computer history on this list, Ward. We'll
just go away now so you can fill up the list with your pointless one-line
replies.
Sam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever onward.
Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 09/21/98]
------ Message Header Follows ------
Received: from lists2.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com
(PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm))
id AA-1998Oct07.234233.1767.68426; Wed, 07 Oct 1998 23:42:34 -0400
Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
by lists2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with SMTP
id UAA08061; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:21 -0700
Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8])
by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP
id UAA29970 for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998
20:40:16 -0700
Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com
[204.247.247.54])
by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.1+UW98.09/8.9.1+UW98.09) with ESMTP id UAA13
302
for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:15 -0700
Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (dastar(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com
[204.247.248.254])
by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA03164
for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981007203816.10432B-100000(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 20:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers"
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: What was the first Unix micro?
In-Reply-To: <361C2218.3E448C98(a)cnct.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
< It looks like the only characteristic that a multi-chip implementation
< partially breaks here is "highly integrated". Then again, a two-chip
< implementation is not necessarily much less integrated than a single-chi
< Now I wonder why this level of integration matters. Is there something
< that a two-chip implementation can't do, and a single-chip can? Did
< people really care about this level of space-savings to the extent that
< it was worth introducing a new word into the language?
The key is the limits of IC gate density of the moment. Now we can have
lterally millions so complexity is very high. Back when (1970-71) teh
semi houses were hitting the ceiling at about 1000 gates/2500 raw devices
to a chunk of silicon. So splitting a function across two chips was not
unresonable idea. It's was a reflection of *manufacturability*.
< Actually, until ten minutes ago, I would have had trouble calling the
< two-chip thing a microprocessor because it broke the definition I learne
< as a kid: single-chip. But even the characteristic of being similar to
< 4004 is relevant to the extent that you are careful in choosing which wa
< it has to be similar. The first 4004's were probably in ceramic; shoul
< that be part of the definition? Probably not. Why did we care about th
< 4004? Is being implemented on a single chip really the important bit?
< was it cost, ease of use, small size, ...? A two-chip implementation
< could very well have been important to us for exactly the same reasons
< that the 4004 was.
The 4004 was significant at several levels. It was relatively low cost
commercial product. It had a return address stack. It had a fairly
large number of registers (for that time it was a very large number).
There were other chips to facilitate low cost construction of dedicated
systems. Being few is packages and low in numbers of pins made PCboard
consturction cheap. the PMOS process used was low power compared to TTL
or DTL of the time. Each one of those elements were significant relative
to computer systems of the day regrdless of the type!
< So, when is it useful to distinguish single-chip from, say, dual-chip?
When talking at the archetecture level or when interfacing.
< What kind of practical decision would someone make based on that?
COST, number of pins, flexibility. The LSI-11 for example was the WD13
chip set, with differnt MICROMS it was the Alpha Micro or the WD
microengine. Same chips some containing differnt microcode. If you have
a LSI-11 and the rare but manufacured WCS you could acutally add
instructions to your LSI-11 to suit specialized needs. This is not
doable with most single chip implmentations.
< BTW, was the 4004 really the first in the Intel series of 4004, 4040,
< 8008, and 8080? I seem to remember that something in this sequence
< actually happened in non-ascending order, like maybe the 8008 preceded
< the 4004, or the 4040 came out last, or ...? It could make sense; you
< could imagine scaling back an existing design to penetrate some niche
< market with a cheaper part.
One method that I have used for years with equipment that blows fuses is to
put a light bulb in line with the incoming power. Depending on the actual
correct load of the equipment determines the wattage of the bulb needed. On
normal operation the bulb will light to about 1/4 to 1/2 of normal then dim.
(typical inrush - charging caps.) If the bulb lights near fully it is
taking the load instead of blowing the fuse. At this time you can use a
meter and find the defective component. Usual caution applies the equipment
is floating if the bulb is in line with neutral.
Dan Burrows
dburrows(a)netpath.net
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foust <jfoust(a)threedee.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Apple power supply problems
>At 08:34 AM 10/8/98 -0700, Marvin wrote:
>> Running it a short time with
>>the fuse shorted out heated up the chip and I was able to feel where the
>>problem was. Troubleshooting vs normal operation :).
>
>And sometimes when you do that, the dead chips will notify you
>of their new condition by blowing their tops.
>
>- John
< seems though, everybody wrote assembler code so that either the s/w chec
< to see which processor was used or wrote straight 8080 asm code to just
< cover everybody without having the extra CPU checking code taking up spa
< Most commercial language interpreters and compilers, especially from Hea
< handled 8080-based machines for sure.
Generally true but, not absolutley so.. however some bios used Z80 code
to do disk io or used 8080 code tricks that do not run on z80.
Come from having aboth an 8085 powered s100 (explorer 8085) and a slew of
z80 systems.
< Allison, for the H8 there were at least two third-party Z80 CPU boards m
< (I can look up the mfgrs if anybody wants) and a Heath-made Z80 board.
I'm well aware of them and helped several friends bring them up.
< Early on when the Z80 became rather popular, the original 8080 CPU boar
< was of course found to be lacking in performance compared to the TRS-80'
< N*, Kaypros, various S100's and other contemporary CP/M Z80 machines.
< Hence, the little cottage industry, so to speak, which sprang up to dea
< with making Z80 boards. A 4 MHz CPU by DG Micro (I think that's the name
I went to z80 in early 1977 as the 8080 already had a case of impending
doom being limited to 2mhz and fewer instructions. The better instruction
set of the z80 was enough in itself.
< really was a performer up against many other machines. The H-89 was a Z8
< machine when it first was introduced around 1980 or thereabouts.
Yes, h89 was mid 1980, by then the z80 had permutated the software
for cpm systems. Consider that S100 system ahd all pretty much gone
z80 by 1978 and the few non z80 systems were either dual processsor
like Compupro 8/16 or oddball the Autocontrol AC85 (8085/5mhz). The
ZCPR CCP replacement and widespread use of z80s made for major software
like languages to be 8080 compatable at the expense of performance
while the system would have a bios written using z80 extended.
Allison
