test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by mbg＠world.std.com

>In a box of Stuff, I got 2 cartons of BASF 8".... one of which is >marked "RT-11 V3 System DO NOT OVERWRITE!!!". Congrats... been a while since I've seen one... > All this absurd and useless detail aside... I am wondering if >there is a 'Minimum Set' of files, which placed on a floppy(ies) >would boot a PDP11... and, I am assuming, it would require Sysgenning? It's been so long since I saw a V3 kit, I've forgotten whether it was a version with split monitors and device handlers, or if the monitor had to have the system device built in (and the table for all other supported ones as well). If the latter, than you'll probably need to locate a file with a name of the form RXMNSJ.SYS (for RX01 MoNitor - Single Job). This file, with SWAP.SYS and PIP.SAV and you should have enough to start. You'll have to write the bootstrap on it, which, if I remember correctly, was done with .R PIP *DX:A=DX:RXMNSJ.SYS/O *^C (I don't think DCL was available yet... maybe CCL, but it is clumsy). If the former, then you'll need: SWAP.SYS RT11SJ.SYS DX.SYS PIP.SAV (and the bootstrap, written as mentioned above). > Is there available on the Web this info? There is a faq - I've forgotten where it is located... > Also, I have an 11/73 with RT-11SJ V5.0.... it has an 8" drive. >What would I have to do to make a bootable minimal floppy on this >machine? In other words how few files can one get away with to wake >up a PDP11 with only an RX02 clone as it's mass storage? By V5.0 time, the split monitors/handlers had been long accomplished, and DCL was around, and PIP had been split, so you'll need the following: SWAP.SYS RT11SJ.SYS (or RT11FB.SYS or RT11XM.SYS) DX.SYS (or DX.SYS or DXX.SYS) (plus any other device drivers you want) DIR.SAV DUP.SAV PIP.SAV RESORC.SAV And creating a bootable floopy is as simple as: COPY/BOOT DX0:RT11SJ.SYS DX0: (or substitute RT11FB or RT11XM) 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 | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

27 years, 11 months

Question: Godbout/CompuPro ram boards

by jimw＠agora.rdrop.com

Can anyone confirm this vague memory, or set me straight? I seem to recall that one (or more) of the Godbout/CompuPro ram boards used a 2kx8 static RAM part that had the same pinout as a 2716 EPROM, and could support 2716s in place of some/all of the RAM chips. True or false? And if true, was there any special configuration that needed to be done for the 2716s? -jim --- jimw(a)agora.rdrop.com The Computer Garage - http://www.rdrop.com/~jimw Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174

27 years, 11 months

Top 10 Holy Grails of Classic Microcomputer Collecting

by SUPRDAVE＠aol.com

I'd also add the apple lisa. In a message dated 10/5/98 5:52:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time, kaikal(a)MICROSOFT.com writes: << ust for the hell of it, I thought I'd make a list of the Top 10 Holy Grails of classic microcomputer computer collecting. This is the "Rembrandt in the Attic" sort of stuff. These are roughly in my opinionated order, but somewhat randomly ordered: 1. The Altair prototype that was to be the cover photo for Popular Electronics but was lost in shipment 2. Xerox Alto 3. Mark 8 4. Scelbi 8H 5. Kenbak-1 6. Micral 8008 7. Apple I 8. An unassembled Altair 8800 Kit 9. Busicom Japan Intel 4004-based Calculator 10. IBM 5100 >>

27 years, 11 months

kits, definitions, prices...

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

Caution: long-winded blather follows. Read at your own risk. :-) On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Doug Yowza wrote: ] ] On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Bill Yakowenko wrote: ] > I learned the definition of microprocessor to be a single-chip CPU, and ] > a microcomputer to be a computer based on a microprocessor. But I never ] > questioned it. Why is that a useful definition? ] [...] ] > I have my own ideas about which things are micros and which are not, but ] > in retrospect, the definition that I was taught is not a useful one; it ] > does not classify things into categories that I can use to any benefit. ] ] Exactly. Naming things is just a way to classify them, to separate one ] kind of thing from another. So, the first time a term like ] "microprocessor" is coined is due to necessity -- a new thing came into ] being and it needed a name. Applying that name to things that follow is a ] convienient way to establish a relationship to the original thing. Must it be things that *follow*? If another company had independently developed a single-chip CPU before Intel, (say they killed the project because some marketer popped in from the future and convinced them that Wintel would eventually kill it anyway) could you not bring yourself to call that thing a microprocessor? Isn't it the thing's physical properties that should matter, and not its intellectual ancestry? You are not a patent lawyer on the side, are you? :-) ] As far as I know, the name "microprocessor" was first given to Intel's ] 4004. It was just shorthand for "this new thing that has a high level of ] logic integration that gives you a bunch of stuff needed to build a ] general purpose computer." Calling anything else a microprocessor, to me, ] is just a way of saying it's a CPU that is in the same class as the Intel ] 4004: general purpose, highly integrated, commercially available, etc. Actually, it is not clear to me now if you consider that the defining characteristic of a microprocessor is that it descended from the 4004, or that it be single-chip. 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-chip. 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? Maybe the significant bit was that the entire CPU was in specialized VLSI, and not made from parts so small and generic as to be re-wirable into something else altogether (ie: SSI/MSI). I mean, being reconfigurable is not in itself a bad thing, but if you are using parts that are so small and generic, maybe you have not achieved the level of integration that brings big cost benefits. If we count the non-genericity of the CPU chips as being the relevant feature of a microprocessor, then it is just an accident of history that the first things we called microprocessors were single-chip. Suddenly I like that definition a whole lot more than the one I grew up with. I generally dislike it when people try to redefine words for their own (usually political) purposes. But in this case, it seems we don't have a widely agreed-upon definition to begin with, so I don't feel too bad in changing sides. ] If somebody made a two-chip CPU that had all of the other characteristics ] of the Intel 4004, you'd have trouble calling it a microprocessor, because ] it would be missing something. Maybe you'd call it a two-chip ] microprocessor. If it were special purpose instead of general purpose, ] maybe you'd call it a special purpose microprocessor. But once you make ] something different enough from the 4004 that you need to add a bunch of ] qualifiers, you might as well just call it a CPU or come up with a new ] name. Actually, until ten minutes ago, I would have had trouble calling the two-chip thing a microprocessor because it broke the definition I learned as a kid: single-chip. But even the characteristic of being similar to a 4004 is relevant to the extent that you are careful in choosing which way it has to be similar. The first 4004's were probably in ceramic; should that be part of the definition? Probably not. Why did we care about the 4004? Is being implemented on a single chip really the important bit? Or 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. I can see that explaining why computers suddenly became cheap and ubiquitous could be useful. But the "single-chip" definition of a microprocessor is only circumstantially related to that. If the 8080 and its cousins had actually been multi-chip implementations, things would have progressed exactly the same way. (And pigs with wings *would* be eagles, dammit! :-) ) So, when is it useful to distinguish single-chip from, say, dual-chip? What kind of practical decision would someone make based on that? ] -- Doug Cheers, Bill. 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.

27 years, 11 months

Help: Identify my board

by oajones＠bright.net

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 the back of the circuit board is etched "PWB1001480-03 REV H." If you want to see what the board looks like click on my link below. http://www.bright.net/~oajones/myboard.jpg --Alan -- Computing since: 1982, VIC-20, CoCo, PC, CP/M Military Computers: COMTRAN 10, Nida 250 Amateur Radio since: 1971, WN8JEF, KA6EXR, N8BGR, AA4ZI BASIC, dBASE, Assembly, C++ mailto: oajones(a)bright.net

27 years, 11 months

Top 10 Holy Grails of Classic Microcomputer Collecting

by kaikal＠MICROSOFT.com

Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd make a list of the Top 10 Holy Grails of classic microcomputer computer collecting. This is the "Rembrandt in the Attic" sort of stuff. These are roughly in my opinionated order, but somewhat randomly ordered: 1. The Altair prototype that was to be the cover photo for Popular Electronics but was lost in shipment 2. Xerox Alto 3. Mark 8 4. Scelbi 8H 5. Kenbak-1 6. Micral 8008 7. Apple I 8. An unassembled Altair 8800 Kit 9. Busicom Japan Intel 4004-based Calculator 10. IBM 5100 Kai

27 years, 11 months

Corrections to trivia

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< We have no way of knowing what *would* have happened if Intel hadn't < invented the 4004 or if MITS hadn't invented the Altair, all we know is < what *did* happen. Therin lies the point we do not all know what did happen. There were many things that did happen that were unsuccessful or poorly marketed. < I've never read Intel's versions of the events -- all I have to go on ar < artifacts. I'm not aware of any computer artifacts that support the ide < that somebody else enabled cheap computers to be made before Intel did. By time PCs roamed the earth most of the players had died or were crushed. Intel was a very aggressive vendor even then. They played the you want 8205... then you buy OUR 8080 and 8224 and 8228 or forget it. That was when AMD and NATIONAL Semi and half a dosen other were also making 8080s. If anything it was intels competitors that drive the proce of the chips down so inexpensive computers could be made. Then ther ewas the manufaturers wars pushing the end price down. < etc. That would seem to completely destroy the relevance of the F14 < computer as far as microcomputers are concerned, but it does nothing to < deminish the importance of the 4004. True intel did that with the 8008, then the 8080 then the 8085 and the 8088 and the 80286... < At no point did I mention Intel's long-term success. This discussion al < along has been about the Big Bang that led eventually to cheap computer As a point the big bang nearly killed intel. In the early 80s intel was one of theose giving 10% across the board pay cuts (even managers!) due to the market pressure on them. < computer was the Big Bang. Did I misunderstand you? I'm saying that th It was White Sands, intel was the public display. Allison

27 years, 11 months

New Finds

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< Today I walked into a thrift store and found a stack of Popular Science < Popular Mechanics, and others going back to 1974. I got real excited It was the Popular Electronics January 1975 issue. I still have the copy that arrived at home in the tradition of PE at the time in early December. Allison

27 years, 11 months

Corrections to trivia

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< Do I have to invoke the magic words "PDP-8" here? :-). Cheap enough < that thousands made their way into high schools in the early 70's, and < cheap enough that several did buy them for use at home. < < You don't need to be a "micro" to be affordable! Thank you Tim! In 1972 I was offered a PDP-8I used (clean) for $2000 I should have save for I'd just bought a new truck ($2100)... Allison

27 years, 11 months

Apple power supply problems

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< right int he middle of the circuit board. it's still hot several minute < later! thankfully the computer itself is ok although it did reset my mai < computer on the same electrical outlet. provided i didnt destroy the who < bloody thing, what could be causing the problem? Shorted chopper transistor on the high voltage side and/or shorted shorted rectifiers. Allison

27 years, 11 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