Zane Healy proclaimed...
>Basically I've got a really stupid question, does the external SCSI bus
>HAVE to be terminated? If so any idea's on how to go about doing that
>without finding a DEC terminator?
The only "stupid" question is the one you keep to yourself. ;-)
To answer; yes, you must have termination at both physical ends of a SCSI
bus for reliable operation. If the DEC terminator you mention is the one
I'm thinking of, I've looked on the insides and have not been impressed.
They're simple passive terminators, suitable for short runs and low speeds.
What device is it you're seeking termination for?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Lane, Sysop, The Dragon's Cave BBS (Fidonet 1:343/272)
(Hamateur: WD6EOS) (E-mail: kyrrin(a)jps.net)
"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our own
human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
<megahertz (the Cyrix PR233's only 187.5) and actually benchmarking and
<performing like an Intel at a higher speed?
<>Besides it's checkes out on mine at 16 using norton, QAFE+ and a few
<>others.
<OK. If there's one thing that I've learned, what chip manufacturers put
<chips means nearly NOTHING. It's the software, RAM, bus and how they wor
<together that makes performance/lack thereof.
What on the chip is the design maximum (which may be exceeded by over
clocking at some risk), however the system design, wait states, bus
interface and a host of other design factor can slow the cpu down.
The cached (486) and highly piplined (pentium and friends) are more
variable as the clock speed is only an indicator of performance and if
the code runs with a log of cache misses the speed can really drop to
nothing. I know as the external cache croaked on my 486/25 and I ran
for a bit with the internal cache turned off and the performance was
worse than a 286/12! With the internal cache running it was only about
10% off the performance of the 64k external cache. Just to give you and
idea.
<>Look up ELKS.
<That's one, but there are many others. You could recompile them to be
<optimized for a 386, though.
Funny I have unix v7 running on a PDP11 with only 256kb of ram. it can be
done.
<><>Windows 3.1 does run on it with the 1meg.
<>Runs good and most software that will fit in 1meg runs ok. Swapping is
<>heavy though so a fast disk helps.
<Yeah, but how much Windows 3.1 software fits on a meg? I'd say at least
<I ran Windows 3.1 from 1993 to 1997, and I'd have to say that most progra
<that I ran were fairly large, most in double-digit MB's.
IF you mean running netscape, that monster wants a minimum of 8m just to
run and will still crash if pressed. Wordperfect for windows runs great,
as does Word3.0 in 1meg. There are a lot of older packages that run real
well in winders3.1 and 2meg or less.
<>3.0 is ok but it will not run some apps at all!
<Yeah, and Windows 3.1 won't run a lot of apps. It really all depends on
<owner, what they want to do, how they want to do it, and what SW they
Windoes 3.0 was not widely supported and it was upgraded to 3.1.
<already have. BTW, where can I get a lisence+docs, disks for Windows 2.x
<I need one for the above computer...
Why? For historical points but it was a dog and buggy as hell.
<Really? 3.3?
Yep!
<BTW, did you ever get that Linux box working? I just started
<w/Linux in Jan. and since then, I've installed, removed, reformated and r
<7 or so distributions. If you want, I can help, although I doubt my
<usefulnes past my own machines...
Yes I did with help from a few people. The system it's on is a 386DX/33
with 128k cache and a 420mb IDE and a CDrom. I'm not running X on it as it
only has 8megs and a low end VGA board currently. I'm not that
enthusastic over it as somea re.
Allison
I acquired a TRS-80 VOXBOX last week. It is in the original box
with cable, interface box, mic, and three casette tapes. I remember
when RS was selling these. Has anyone ever used one? Did they actually
work?
Any historical insight is appreciated.
Thanks...Win
--
Win Heagy
wheagy(a)erols.com
Hi,
I recently picked-up a couple TRS-80 model 1 keyboards, but there
was no monitor. Does anyone have info on using a B/W TV as
the monitor? I understand that the model 1 monitor was basically
a converted TV.
Thanks...Win
--
Win Heagy
wheagy(a)erols.com
<>It's warped. It's a 386/16 and that's all.
<Yeah, but with extra RAM, etc. it could very well benchmark as a higher o
<lower MHz, even with today's Winbench's.
Lower mhz yes faster never. Faster means a timer error or the program is
broken. The 386 implmentation on that card is very vanilla and no cache.
Besides it's checkes out on mine at 16 using norton, QAFE+ and a few
others.
<Linux won't run XF86 even in mono mode with less than 8MB RAM, which make
<zero sense because any PC that shipped with 8MB RAM and a mono card was
Whatever you do don't tell my 386sx/33 that! It might stop working.
< There are several projects going on to have Linux run on 286 and lowe
<machines, and, of course, lowering RAM consumption. There's an 8MB
<distribution that only requires 512K (I believe) RAM, if you give it enou
<swap space (in that case, it would be 3.5MB)
Look up ELKS.
<>Windows 3.1 does run on it with the 1meg.
<It'll run, but in my experience, Windows 3.1 doesn't do to much with it.
<friends 286 (they were still using it last summer when they moved, but i
<was retrofit with MY 210MB HDD, and a SVGA monitor and graphics card) Yo
<can't extract files, run most software that was designed for Windows 3.1
Runs good and most software that will fit in 1meg runs ok. Swapping is
heavy though so a fast disk helps.
3.0 is ok but it will not run some apps at all!
<I'd go with 3.0, if I had a choice. If I was you, I would just upgrade t
<DOS 5.0 or so. It'll run loads of software, and is more consistent with
I'm running 6.22 and LW had 5.x on his.
<hardware that you have, minus the 386CPU. And, it's smaller, so you coul
<actually have more software on it. Come to think of it, I believe that
<Windows 3.1 is like 25MB, plus the DOS 5.0 that's required to run it, whi
<fits on 5 720K floppies, I believe.
Huh? I had 6.22, win3.1, procomm+, and a few other things and had about
4.5mb free on a 20mb drive. DO5.0 would reduce it some but not alot, 3.3
would be far smaller and still run w3.1.
Allison
Ok, I ripped it to pieces. The drives x2 are Micropolis 1325's, connected
via an adaptec card:
Adaptec Inc.
400041-00A
(c) 1985
In the backplane, there are 6 vertical slots. From left to right:
1) 68020 processor board
2) "Graphics Memory" board, with chips that say:
Intech 52467
VDAL 0405H
vli 601s 01152
vl6845E-23PC
syp6845EA
3) The display board? Main chip:
LOGIC
LMI16DC
0114A
8448
4) Empty
5) Memory
6) Empty
I am afraid it may have been cannabalized, with the empty slots and all.
The other side of the backplane has all three of these slots
interconnected with ribbon cables, and the 6th has what looks like some
kind of resistor-pack board on part of the pins.
Any clues? An hour of searching on the internet only found resumes of
engineers who used it for pcb design.
TIA,
Aaron
In a message dated 98-04-05 14:35:36 EDT, you write:
<< Has anyone actually seen a 2.88 MB floppy drive? >>
certain 95xx ps2 models such as my 9577 and a few older thinkpadss had 2.88
drives. i think i saw some aftermarket 2.88 drives a few years ago, but
nothing since.
david
Hi all,
I picked up the "Sun" workstation that appeared for free here a couple of
weeks back and was pleasantly surprised at the haul, and a little
perplexed. What I got:
Cadnetix box with big colour monitor
Cipher C880 tape unit (Big sucker)
CItoh 1550B DM printer
A 286 workstation
Optical mice/pads and keyboards
All the thick-ethernet cabling and hardware for the PC nodes
About 30 10" tapes containing schematics for their legacy products
About 30 8" diskettes (Dysan!) with really neat 2-pack 3-ring holders
About 100 5 1/4" diskettes with SCO stuff on them
Since it was supposedly working when pulled, I plugged everything in and
just fired it up (Well, I looked into the top of the case first to make
sure there wasn't any sign of rust or water damage). So far, nothing. I
finally figured out how to get the case apart (very tricky little latch
that has to be pulled from the *inside*) and have examined it in more
detail. I believe it's a 68020 machine, and the manual says it runs a
"Cadnetix-modified" version of Berkley Unix 4.2. There are two large HD's
which are extremely inaccessable, but I may have to pull them to look
since they make a lot of noise. There is a 6-slot vertical backplane with
4 cards; what I believe is the memory board, the 68020 board, one marked
"Graphic Ram J177 Rev C", and one that is attached to the last with ribbon
cables. The keyboard plugs into the back of the display and the mouse into
the keyboard. Oh yeah, and there are three 5" fans screaming away in
there.
BTW, it's been powered on for 20 minutes or so with no display. My Sun
3/50 with 12 megs of ram only takes 5. The display is just black, although
on power on/off I can see signs of life (red/blue/white lines for an
instant).
Anyone have any technical info on this monster? I have the system users
guide, but no technical data on it whatsoever.
Thanks,
Aaron
PS - I think my wife was thinking divorce when I kept carrying boxes into
the house; I don't want to eat my pride and find that I can't get this
working....
for those of you that goto hamfests/radio rallies, here is a tip. if possible,
see if you can get in the night before under the premise of "setting up" i
actually did buy a table to sell some things, but me and another guy were able
to get inthe night before and set up our table and get our tickets. we were
also able to scope out other's tables and get the best stuff. unfortunately, i
missed out on a table of small hard drives for $4 each, and was a minute late
to get a home based robot called robie for $20. (grrrrrr) best thing to do is
scan everyone else's things all the time and buy what you see. nobody refused
to sell to us. i didnt sell much but here's what i bought:
4 mac adb keyboards, not tested $1
kaypro II with matching printer in great shape with original books and system
disks $10
nec scsi card for ps2 $4
apple ][+ with enhanced encoder board, ssc, and videx videoterm with dual
floppy drives. also got a box labeled applemouse, but it had 6 mouse cards in
it, but no mouses! also got hayes micromodem and dos/pascal manuals.
apple cd drive, two scsi cases, one with drive, one blank , $1 each
ps2 xga card
profile drive, no controller card, may have a lead on two lisas from the guy i
got it from.
also got some late model things cheap that arent worth mentioning. this may be
old hat, but i've noticed that it's worth mentioning you are interested in old
computers and are looking for X computer. that's how i got the lead on the
lisas.
david
><Yeah, but with extra RAM, etc. it could very well benchmark as a higher o
><lower MHz, even with today's Winbench's.
>
>Lower mhz yes faster never. Faster means a timer error or the program is
>broken. The 386 implmentation on that card is very vanilla and no cache.
Ok. Than what the heck is all this about AMD's and Cyrix's having LOWER
megahertz (the Cyrix PR233's only 187.5) and actually benchmarking and
performing like an Intel at a higher speed?
>Besides it's checkes out on mine at 16 using norton, QAFE+ and a few
>others.
OK. If there's one thing that I've learned, what chip manufacturers put on
chips means nearly NOTHING. It's the software, RAM, bus and how they work
together that makes performance/lack thereof.
><Linux won't run XF86 even in mono mode with less than 8MB RAM, which make
><zero sense because any PC that shipped with 8MB RAM and a mono card was
>
>Whatever you do don't tell my 386sx/33 that! It might stop working.
OK. At our school, we've got some NICE 386's. SVGA video cards w/2MB RAM,
16MB RAM each, and an interesting way to put a 3.5" drive in a 5" bay. Now,
I really need a small IDE HDD or a 3.5" MFM HDD and controller for one...
>< There are several projects going on to have Linux run on 286 and lowe
><machines, and, of course, lowering RAM consumption. There's an 8MB
><distribution that only requires 512K (I believe) RAM, if you give it enou
><swap space (in that case, it would be 3.5MB)
>
>Look up ELKS.
That's one, but there are many others. You could recompile them to be
optimized for a 386, though.
><>Windows 3.1 does run on it with the 1meg.
><It'll run, but in my experience, Windows 3.1 doesn't do to much with it.
><friends 286 (they were still using it last summer when they moved, but i
><was retrofit with MY 210MB HDD, and a SVGA monitor and graphics card) Yo
><can't extract files, run most software that was designed for Windows 3.1
>
>Runs good and most software that will fit in 1meg runs ok. Swapping is
>heavy though so a fast disk helps.
Yeah, but how much Windows 3.1 software fits on a meg? I'd say at least 2.
I ran Windows 3.1 from 1993 to 1997, and I'd have to say that most programs
that I ran were fairly large, most in double-digit MB's.
>3.0 is ok but it will not run some apps at all!
Yeah, and Windows 3.1 won't run a lot of apps. It really all depends on the
owner, what they want to do, how they want to do it, and what SW they
already have. BTW, where can I get a lisence+docs, disks for Windows 2.x?
I need one for the above computer...
><I'd go with 3.0, if I had a choice. If I was you, I would just upgrade t
><DOS 5.0 or so. It'll run loads of software, and is more consistent with
>
>I'm running 6.22 and LW had 5.x on his.
I like DOS. It's a good OS. If it were kept more alive today...
><hardware that you have, minus the 386CPU. And, it's smaller, so you coul
><actually have more software on it. Come to think of it, I believe that
><Windows 3.1 is like 25MB, plus the DOS 5.0 that's required to run it, whi
><fits on 5 720K floppies, I believe.
>
>Huh? I had 6.22, win3.1, procomm+, and a few other things and had about
>4.5mb free on a 20mb drive. DO5.0 would reduce it some but not alot, 3.3
>would be far smaller and still run w3.1.
Really? 3.3? BTW, did you ever get that Linux box working? I just started
w/Linux in Jan. and since then, I've installed, removed, reformated and ran
7 or so distributions. If you want, I can help, although I doubt my
usefulnes past my own machines...
If Linux/UNIX clones were really wnated, Minix is free for personal
use... a older version, if it can be found, would probably work.
Tim D. Hotze
