Hi Tony,
>Are you sure about the MFM format? I can't see any obvious way to make
>the hardwaare do that....
The floppy controller DEFINITELY doesn't do MFM as standard.
A chap in the UK Sirius User Group once told me that there was a board in
development which would replace the standard floppy controller to allow the
machine to read and write IBM format (360K and 1.2Mb) discs.
He claimed to have one of the prototypes and that it never made it to the
market - probably because the new controller wouldn't read/write the old style
GCR discs. :-(
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
Hi Tony,
>....printer port that looks to be Centronics, but in fact it has enough
>lines, and the right buffers, to be GPIB if you can get the right
>software....
Have you ever found software which will drive the Centronics port as GPIB? I've
been looking around since I first got a Sirius in '88 but have never found any.
>Sound is a CI-55516 CODEC linked to a 6852 serial chip. There's a
>built-in speaker, and a header plug for audio input (!). I've never seen
>software for that either, though.
If you mean software which drives the CODEC I've only ever came across one
program which uses it, and that was a demo disc which displayed various hi-res
graphics and played back digitised music and speech.
I was given to understand that a few games came out for the Sirius which used
the CODEC, but I don't know any details at all.
>....The hardware would be capable of DS operation, but I've
>never seen suitable drives.
The DS drives are identical to the single sided ones, with the obvious
exception of the extra head.... ;-)
ISTR they're pretty much the same as the 360K drives used in the IBM PC
(MPI-40s?) with the exception of the analogue board being removed, you could
probably press one of those into service?
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
<On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 Glenatacme(a)aol.com wrote:
<>"Windows 9x makes your computer more reliable"
<>"Windows 9x makes your computer easier to use"
<>"DOS programs run faster and more reliable"
<>"Windows 9x provides the features you want" (sure, Blue Screen of Death)
The rant is unneeded. I'm not a MS lover (VMS is my love) but I also
make a living keeping 40 clients and 3 servers going running W95 and NT
on late 486, p133 and P166 systems, while supporting users and various
programmable control systems. IT does work, it's works amazingly well.
It's not VMS and nowhere near as robust, it is far better than DOS.
It is possible during install and even during hardware purchase to do
things that will compromize the system. Usually the problem is poor
apps that don't run well under any OS or not taking advantage of service
paks that MS does provice.
Now PS failures is something to pay attention to as the results can be
anything from annoying to downright dangerous. Any new system should
be run in a safe place under a watchful eye until it's assured it's
operation will remain stable after being powered off for years.
NOTE:
Many systems the case, rack and other components are essenital to
their fire safety, do not compromize.
Fuses and circuit breakers should be of the correct rating. Make
sure they weren't replaced by oversized (or undersized!) ones in
a prior life.
Capacitors will blow if overvoltage, age, reverse polarity, excessive
ripple (bad rectifiers), bad internal design or a result of previous
abuses.
Allison
Hi Tony,
>Well, it has a text formatter. It has a C compiler. That's all I really
>need :-)
<grin> Unfortunately I need to use DVE and a 6809 assembler at the moment, I'm
sure the latter is around for Linux but I'm pretty sure DVE isn't (I tought I
once saw a Linux port of DVE somewhere, but I'm darned if I can find any trace
of it now).
>....And I share your views on Sinclair machines. They were cheap to the
>point of stupidity.....
Thanks, glad to know I'm not the only one....
The thing about Sinclair machines is that they are masterpieces of design, but
I always found that cleverness "crippled" them rather too much.
The '80 wasn't too bad since it was built up using straight TTL, however the
'81 and subsequent machines used ASICS to reduce the chip count which meant you
couldn't get in there and hack things around. Then from a software point of
view I found I was constantly fighting against the built in OS/BIOS whenever I
tried to do pretty much anything outside of BASIC programming.
Also in those days, particularly when the '80 was in fashion, coming by
detailed technical details on the hardware and software wasn't easy - even
though there was a thriving home micro/Sinclair community around.
I can't honestly say that I have many fond memories of my ZX80/81 days.
>....The QL is a major case in point.....
>....disk drives, and a real keyboard, it might have done
>rather better...
I didn't know about the serial port problems.
ISTR that when the QL came out it caused more than a few eyebrows to be raised.
While it was a very nice machine for it's day the decisions to use the awful
Speccy style keyboard and microdrives for storage (3.5" floppy drives had
reached reasonable prices by then, witness the Opus disc drives for the Speccy)
were widely criticised.
Chances are I may have gotten one sooner or later, but in the end other
considerations won out.
>....I started on an MK14. It took me many years to figure out that darn
>manual....
I always wanted one of those, but never did get my hands on one. I almost
certainly have my old issues of "ETI" and "Practical Electronics" somewhere
containing the MK.14 adverts (and Acorn System 1 ads).
Did any/all of the advertised add-ons ever appear, PROM programmer, VDU etc
etc?
>If you need any help on the HP150, I have the full tech manual for it...
That's good to know, it works OK but I'm sure I'll have a few questions when it
gets to the top of the current projects file.... ;-)
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
>I have a Kennedy 9600 tape drive (cream and black, horizontal loading) on an
>11/23 via a third party card.
What is the third party card?
>A "backup/dev du1: ms0:" set at PE works fine. The same command with a /ver
>option also works fine. However, when I set NRZI, it looks like its backing
>up, the tape cycles much more slowly forward, but eventually I get an RT-11
>"output error". If the drive really doesn't support 800bpi, I would think it
>wouldn't even try writing NRZI. So - my question is (given the above info) -
>is the drive broke but only for 800bpi or am I doing something silly?
Well, the tape does need to be re-inited at the new density. Are you
doing the INIT before the BACKUP, or doing a BACKUP/INIT? Does the INIT
operation work OK? Can you do a DIR MS: after the INIT at 800 BPI?
Other than that, the -11 doesn't much care what density the tape is at, but the
controller card might. Try to identify it (maybe a Dilog DQ132? DQ133?
Emulex TC02? TC03? QT13?) and I'll see what I can figure out. Some
controller cards (the Dilogs in particular) might be expecting part of
the PE burst to come down the cabling.
I'm not awfully familiar with the Kennedy 9600, but if it's like the 9614
it supports 800, 1600, 3200, and 6250 BPI. Yours is the Pertec-formatted
(two 50-pin cables) interface?
I'll also point out that NRZI requires a lot tighter physical tolerances
on the alignment of the tape head (the reason why many drives don't support
800 BPI NRZI at all) than 1600 and 6250 BPI (which allow substantial skew
between the tape channels as part ofthe spec.) If at some point the head
in your transport had been replaced or knocked around without properly
being re-aligned you might see something like what you're seeing.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Hello,
I have an IBM PS/2 Model 50 that I'm trying to install Minix 2.0.0 on.
I've read a considerable amount of documentation trying to get this to
work. ;> I'm using 720k floppies, etc.. Minix boots, and I'm able to
run 'setup,' but my problems begin when I use 'part.'
I load up 'part,' and I select /dev/hd0, which is the type 30, 20Mb drive
that's in the computer. When I try to read the partition table, I
receive:
bios-hd0: can't read partition table
Unrecoverable disk error on device 3/0, block 0
/dev/hd0: I/O error
/dev/hd0: Invalid partition table (reset)
Besides from the unrecoverable error, it seems to me that I should be
able to merely write a new partition table (i'm not too concerned about
whatever the hell was on the drive before. ;>).
If anyone has insight into my problems, I'd greatly appreciate a
reply. I'm killing myself over here trying to get this smelly computer
that I pulled out of the trash working. ;> Minix seems interesting to
me, if only because it's not generally heard of. If you cannot help
with my Minix questions, perhaps you know of another O/S that will run
on a 286 with 1Mb of ram? Ideally with networking capabilities. I
don't know why I want to do something with this machine so badly, but I
have a thing for old computers. :)
Thanks.
BTW, this computer is 12 years old, hence on-topic. :)
--
paul yaskowski [a paradigm of a paramount failure]
O.k.... here's the question: What would cause a capacitor in a power
supply to suddenly explode, spraying its 'guts' and a bunch of smoke all
over the place??
Why I said it was indirectly off topic is that the power supply capacitor in
question is from a car radio, but I've also had this happen in a couple
laptops that I have. I replaced the capacitor in the one laptop, and it
works fine, but it looks like the capacitor has "puffed up". The other one
just keeps exploding as soon as I connect the power supply. I don't even
have a chance to turn it on.
As for the radio, it was working fine, then, *Bang!* it's dead, and smoke
pours out of every opening in it. I take it apart, the top of the capacitor
is missing, and there's brown liquid all over the place. The same sort of
thing happens in the second laptop, but the capacitor totally explodes.
Any suggestions?
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
>I thought the CGA monitor was a lot harder to damage. If you plug it into
>an MDA card, it won't work, but I didn't think it did damage.
>
It doesn't. I plugged on into an MDA/Hercules card my mistake (thought it
was a CGA). All that came up was horizontal fuzz. Put in a CGA card, and
it worked fine. Your best bet is to plug it in and try it. If it works, go
with it.
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
Max Eskin wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm wondering: was the IBM PC the first machine with PSU in the rear
> right, drives in the front right, motherboard in rear left, or did they
> borrow this design from someone else?
I don't know about "someone else", but the IBM System/23 (Datamaster) had
exactly that design.
The Tektronix 4051 (1975) may have been similar: tape drive to the right of the
display, PSU in rear RH corner of case. I have a 4052, which has these two
featurs, but no "motherboard" - the processor is 4 boards mounted horizontally
in 2 layers covering almost the entire bottom of the case (under PSU, display,
tape drive etc.) but to the rear of the keyboard (which occupies the front 20%
of the area)
The PET had a very close mirror image of the IBM layout. Large transformer in
rear LEFT corner, cassette deck to the left of the keyboard in the front,
motherboard flat in the bottom to the right of the transformer. Other power
supply components on LH side of mobo, except for two big fat capacitors chassis
mounted next to the transformer.. Expansion of various sorts was rear right.
Hmm. I'll add one more - some DEC boxes. Can't remember what box my 11/10 is
in, but the BA11L (?) is similar. Power supply rear right. Backplane vertical
next to it. All plug-in cards horizontal rear left (well, sort of rear - they
take up almost the whole length of it), front panel across whole of front.
Drives in separate (rather larger) boxes, though.
Any more examples?
Philip.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
Power Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-on-Soar,
Nottingham, NG11 0EE, UK
Tel: +44 (0)115 936 2000
http://www.powertech.co.uk
**********************************************************************
Tony wrote (in the discussion of ZX80s and PERQs):
> The other point is that many features of today's computers can be traced
> back to the PERQ/D-machines, etc. There aren't that many features that
> can be traced back to the ZX80.
Are you sure the PERQ was very influential. It was more of a commercial machine
than the Xeroxes, possibly, but I think the Xerox ideas would have had the same
influence on modern computing without the PERQ.
>> Sorry, Tony, I must agree with Glen here. Sinclair did not go to the trouble
>> that Apple and Microsoft have since expended to separate the user from the
>> nitty-gritty of how the machine works. The Sinclair is a far better machine
to
>
> Are you suggesting that PERQ systems did? Heck, you get a microcoding
> manual with the machine. The microcode assembler and placer are on the
> standard system distribution.
Not in the least.
> When you get into it, you'll learn a lot more from a PERQ than from a
> Sinclair....
Possibly. But you cannot assign more significance to the PERQ because it was a
better machine to learn on. Both the PERQ and the ZX80 were far better to learn
on than a PC clone. The ZX80 could teach you about microprocessor systems
(after a fashion), the PERQ about minicomputers and microcoding. The designers'
intentions were probably that the ZX80 was _meant_ to be educational, while the
PERQ was meant for experienced computer buffs to design specialist application
specific software and peripherals. The ZX80 is certainly more significant in
the amount of learning (people educated * some measure of knowledge gained, or
rather sum over people educated of amount of knowledge gained) that was done on
it.
So in some sense the ZX80 is more significant. But In other ways, as Tony
pointed out, it is less significant. Swings and Roundabouts. But I agree that
the ZX80 does not deserve the inflated colletors' prices...
Philip.
Long weekend syndrome: Some of these threads are several days old. Please bear
with me in this and the next few replies.
Glen wrote (in a discussion of the relative significance of ZX80s and PERQs):
> What was the first sub-100-pound computer (MK14??)
That is indeed the one I had in mind. I think there may have been one or two
other kit machines in that price bracket (Nascom?)
Philip.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
Power Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-on-Soar,
Nottingham, NG11 0EE, UK
Tel: +44 (0)115 936 2000
http://www.powertech.co.uk
**********************************************************************
Hi Tony,
>The disk controller board can handle 2 floppy drives, and all
>the machines I've seen in the UK had that configuration.
I wonder if this is some sort of regional thing here in the UK....I've seen
plenty of HD Sirii around the Midlands, roughly twice as many as twin floppy
machines in fact?
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
I have what claims to be an IBM master alignment tape. I haven't looked at
it in detail in over 20 years, but I just saw it yesterday. Is this
somehing you (or all of you) could use?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay West <jlwest(a)tseinc.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Advice wanted on Kennedy 9600 and PDP11/23
>Now that my TC02 is re-installed, it won't work at all. The select light
>never comes on. ARGH!!! I'll fiddle with it later today since I'm off work.
>
>If I can't get it working, would anyone be willing to convert some 800bpi
>tapes to 1600bpi for me? The tapes are the initial load tapes for
>HP2000Access (Timeshare BASIC). My 7970E doesn't speak 800bpi, so I need to
>convert them. Of course, the tapes are priceless to me <grin> so I'm loath
>to send them out, but they are useless at 800bpi.
>
>On the other hand, I was wondering about what is involved in making my
7900E
>read 800bpi? ISTR that different heads are needed - which it too much
>modifications to me. GRrrrr....
>
>>It takes a master alignment tape, a scope, and a resistor network that
sums
>>the outputs from the tape channels. The master alignment tape has
>transitions
>>that are supposedly well-aligned between all channels, and you tweak the
>>head until you get a nice pattern on the scope. I can fax you a few pages
>>from drive maintenance manuals on the procedure if you're really
>interested.
>
>
>Well, I have the scope (20mhz ok?), but no alignment tape or resistor
>network.
>
>Thanks in advance for all the help!
>
>Jay West
>
Hi,
>Please snip off excess text while replying....
I'd like echo this sentiment.
Of late I've been receiving quite a few messages which quote the entire message
and just add a line or two to the end....many of there are quite large messages
(over 6K) and for some reason I end up not being able to download them from my
mailbox (I cannot even telnet in and view them on-line).
All I can do is delete them from my mailbox, it's very frustrating as I'm
therefore losing parts of threads - usually ones which I'm trying to follow....
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
Now that my TC02 is re-installed, it won't work at all. The select light
never comes on. ARGH!!! I'll fiddle with it later today since I'm off work.
If I can't get it working, would anyone be willing to convert some 800bpi
tapes to 1600bpi for me? The tapes are the initial load tapes for
HP2000Access (Timeshare BASIC). My 7970E doesn't speak 800bpi, so I need to
convert them. Of course, the tapes are priceless to me <grin> so I'm loath
to send them out, but they are useless at 800bpi.
On the other hand, I was wondering about what is involved in making my 7900E
read 800bpi? ISTR that different heads are needed - which it too much
modifications to me. GRrrrr....
>It takes a master alignment tape, a scope, and a resistor network that sums
>the outputs from the tape channels. The master alignment tape has
transitions
>that are supposedly well-aligned between all channels, and you tweak the
>head until you get a nice pattern on the scope. I can fax you a few pages
>from drive maintenance manuals on the procedure if you're really
interested.
Well, I have the scope (20mhz ok?), but no alignment tape or resistor
network.
Thanks in advance for all the help!
Jay West
>>What is the third party card?
>It's an Emulex. The card has silkscreened Assy TU0210401 REV C. One one of
>the chips, it says Top Assy TC0210201-FSH, Sub Assy C6716 C.
OK, I use many TC02's here, and have never had a problem at 800 BPI.
(The only density problems I've had have been on Dilogs, having to do with
expecting PE bursts at the beginning of the tape.)
>>Well, the tape does need to be re-inited at the new density. Are you
>>doing the INIT before the BACKUP, or doing a BACKUP/INIT? Does the INIT
>>operation work OK? Can you do a DIR MS: after the INIT at 800 BPI?
>In my version of RT11 (5.04), /init isn't a valid option on the backup
>command.
Historically, the BUP.SAV options have been out of sync with the CCL BACKUP
(command line) options for many versions of RT-11. This was always
a damn shame, as it discouraged folks from using BACKUP. Things get fixed
in 5.5 and later.
> But, when I do a backup/dev du1: ms0: it does ask if I want to
>initialize, that seems to complete, then the backup goes on and finally an
>output error. Once I get the tape controller reinstalled, I'll tell you for
>sure.
What happens if you just INIT MS0: and COPY a couple of files to it?
Can you read them back off at 800 BPI?
BACKUP uses 4096-byte blocks, while the COPY (PIP.SAV) operations use
512-byte blocks. It's conceivable that you'll only have troubles with
the long blocks.
>>I'll also point out that NRZI requires a lot tighter physical tolerances
>>on the alignment of the tape head (the reason why many drives don't support
>>800 BPI NRZI at all) than 1600 and 6250 BPI (which allow substantial skew
>>between the tape channels as part ofthe spec.) If at some point the head
>>in your transport had been replaced or knocked around without properly
>>being re-aligned you might see something like what you're seeing.
>Really! I didn't know that.
Yep. NRZI is a pretty low-tech interface, and it relies entirely on
good alignment of the heads for timing. PE and GCR allow skews of up
to several bits that are disentangled by the electronics in the formatter.
> When I got the tape drive, it had been in
>storage and was immaculately clean. Other than usual wear on the door, it
>looked in fantastic condition. What's involved in aligning the heads? I take
>it I would need an alignment tape? 1600bpi seems to work great though, both
>reading and writing.
It takes a master alignment tape, a scope, and a resistor network that sums
the outputs from the tape channels. The master alignment tape has transitions
that are supposedly well-aligned between all channels, and you tweak the
head until you get a nice pattern on the scope. I can fax you a few pages
>from drive maintenance manuals on the procedure if you're really interested.
Many drives do deskewing of NRZI in electronics (usually with shift registers
running at several time the data rate) in addition to having the head being
aligned correctly overall.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Tim wrote...
>What is the third party card?
It's an Emulex. The card has silkscreened Assy TU0210401 REV C. One one of
the chips, it says Top Assy TC0210201-FSH, Sub Assy C6716 C. Two 50 pin
ribbon cables look pretty Pertec-ish to me. There's a 4 switch dip and LED
between the ribbon cables. There's also a 20 pin header (2 rows of 10) on
each side of the ribbon cable connectors. In the center of the board are two
10 position dip switches. There's 3 sets of wire wrap jumper pins as
follows: at the top A,B,C,D in the middle E,F,G, and at the bottom H,J,K,L.
On my board, the 4 switch dip SW1 has all switched towards the PCA (closed).
On the center two 10 position dips, SW2 is all down or off except #8; SW3
all are down or off except #1,3,7,8. On wirewraps, A-B, C-D,E-F. There
appears to be a few ECO wires added to the board too.
>Well, the tape does need to be re-inited at the new density. Are you
>doing the INIT before the BACKUP, or doing a BACKUP/INIT? Does the INIT
>operation work OK? Can you do a DIR MS: after the INIT at 800 BPI?
In my version of RT11 (5.04), /init isn't a valid option on the backup
command. But, when I do a backup/dev du1: ms0: it does ask if I want to
initialize, that seems to complete, then the backup goes on and finally an
output error. Once I get the tape controller reinstalled, I'll tell you for
sure.
>I'm not awfully familiar with the Kennedy 9600, but if it's like the 9614
>it supports 800, 1600, 3200, and 6250 BPI. Yours is the Pertec-formatted
>(two 50-pin cables) interface?
Yup, pertec. It would appear to support 800 and 1600, because the density
switch toggles between PE and NRZI one at a time (plus a remote setting for
each).
>I'll also point out that NRZI requires a lot tighter physical tolerances
>on the alignment of the tape head (the reason why many drives don't support
>800 BPI NRZI at all) than 1600 and 6250 BPI (which allow substantial skew
>between the tape channels as part ofthe spec.) If at some point the head
>in your transport had been replaced or knocked around without properly
>being re-aligned you might see something like what you're seeing.
Really! I didn't know that. When I got the tape drive, it had been in
storage and was immaculately clean. Other than usual wear on the door, it
looked in fantastic condition. What's involved in aligning the heads? I take
it I would need an alignment tape? 1600bpi seems to work great though, both
reading and writing.
Any help is most appreciated!
Jay West
<Hmmm, the PS/2 Model 50 is a Micro Channel based system IIRC, which wasn't
<even supported under Linux until recently. Then there is the question of
<what kind of HD does it have? If it's ESDI that might be a problem, thoug
<at 20Mb, I'd guess a MFM drive, which shouldn't be a problem. I think the
<real question is, does Minix 2.0 support the PS/2.
Minix supports 8086 through Pentium. the PS2/50 is 286. The 20mb is MFM
maybe edsi it's oddball so it's hard to tell. Anyway MINIX questions
should really be addressed to the Minix list and Andy Tannenbaum does
reply there so what better source!
Allison
<machines. Pine users shouldn't complain too much, since you can set it up
<to launch a web browser for inline URL's in mail messages. I have mine
<launch lynx by default, but the nice thing about SSH is that you can
Yes it can but via a really crummy ISP I use for the telnet link to World
it's out of the question, tooooooooo SLOWWW. I do that to keep personal
traffic of the work ISP and net.
A one line description really is the answer.
Allison
>Is it possible to make a bootable TK50 with RT-11, that can then be used to
>install RT-11 if something happens to the Hard Drive? I know there is a
>script that makes a RT-11 install tape, but is that tape bootable?
Sure, just assign BIN to the disk with the completem set of distribution files,
assign KIT to the tape drive (MU0), and do a @MUB. The resulting tape
will be bootable into MDUP.MU (a simple utility that lets you initialize
a disk and copy the tape files to it, and then boots the disk.) The
MDUP instructions are in the RT-11 Installation manual - ask if you
don't have the book and need help.
TK50 tapes are also bootable into MDUP.AI, the "auto-install" version.
An auto-install from TK50 takes hours, but it does work if your hardware
meets the AI requirements.
Note that the MUB.COM build file will expect every file that comes on
an official RT-11 distribution to be present on BIN:. You better have
every file, and ideally they'd be those from a "virgin" system. Things
like driver SET commands may make your particular install be "non-virgin".
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Hmm, I guess I'll post this on here, too...
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> does anyone recall exactly what must be done to make 2.9BSD work with
> fuji160s? I'm only getting about 30MB out of them, but I haven't really
> tried anything yet. I have no tape drive, but instead (4) rl02 packs with
> the /usr fs broken up about equally between them in tar format. The sc21s
> I have available are SC2110201-BMG and SC2110201/V1E.
>
> BTW, what are the real capability differences in these boards?
>
>
> TIA
>
> jake
>
>
To all you clever people out there who post E-Bay references with
no accompanying text on just what it is you're sniggering about:
Not everyone on this List reads It in the context of a web-browser.
And speaking strictly for myself, while I am curious to know what it
is generating the excitement, I am *not* curious enough to shut down
the shell account, redial the PPP number and launch Netscape, go to
E-Bay, turn down a jarfull of goddam cookies, see what ludicrous
price some nitwit has paid for XXX that we all have a dozen of, then
reverse the whole process and get back to the list again. Copying
the said (or any) URL for me, means pencil and paper... not bloody
likely as far as E-Bay is concerned.
I do not like nor will I participate in E-bay, but that is my own
opinion on the matter and I respect and honor differing views. Good
old-fashioned Netiquette is the topic of this rant, however.
Thanks
John
Is it possible to make a bootable TK50 with RT-11, that can then be used to
install RT-11 if something happens to the Hard Drive? I know there is a
script that makes a RT-11 install tape, but is that tape bootable?
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Currently on eBay,
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=127334243
I'm happy to consider prior sale/trade offers for this desirable (boxed SYM single board computer, fine condition). About to return from holiday, this must stay behind.
Looking for Russian calculators, computers, rare old game machines and cartridges.
Thanks
A
<I agree. I use PINE, and I've always used PINE. I used Nutscrap mail for
I use pine via Telnet from work... slow but works.
The home system runs RDFmail and that uses a no slip or ppp interface so
going from mail to Nyetscrap is a whole change of enviroment in W3.1.
A brief one liner so we know if it's worth the effort is not much to ask.
<Oh, and I use flwm now... (based on wm2) not totally perfect, but small
<and fast, plus I have the source and am working on my own version of it..
I'm trying out Caldara2.2 with KDE, interesting compared to slackware 3!
Allison
Greetings:
I have a Kennedy 9600 tape drive (cream and black, horizontal loading) on an
11/23 via a third party card. I have always used the 1600bpi setting, but
now have reason to read some old 800bpi tapes. The operating system is RT-11
v5.04, FB. I'm not sure if the drive supports 800bpi as alas I have no docs
for it at all. My crude test was going to be a backup of du1 (the floppy) to
ms0 (the kennedy) at PE setting and see how long it took and count the tape
forward movements. Then do the same with the drive set for NRZI and see if
it takes longer and generates more tape forward movements.
A "backup/dev du1: ms0:" set at PE works fine. The same command with a /ver
option also works fine. However, when I set NRZI, it looks like its backing
up, the tape cycles much more slowly forward, but eventually I get an RT-11
"output error". If the drive really doesn't support 800bpi, I would think it
wouldn't even try writing NRZI. So - my question is (given the above info) -
is the drive broke but only for 800bpi or am I doing something silly?
Thanks in advance!
jay West
Hey Mike:
In a message dated 7/5/99 12:44:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mikeford(a)netwiz.net writes:
> >For laughs I took a pair of the so called 60W per speakers, opened them
> >and put them on a 50w dummyload and measured them. They did 12W RMS at
>
> Fry me in butter if I'm wrong, but I think the FTC (Federal Trade
> Commission, the agency in the USA that enforces truth in advertising etc.)
> is pretty sick of these 500 watt wall wart powered speakers and plans to
> apply the same requirements on powered speakers as they do now for
> amplifiers.
Pardon my asking, but where did you hear this? It's just a little hard to
believe, since MS has lied, and lied, and lied about Windows 9x . . . and the
FTC doesn't bother them. Have you ever installed Win 95 or 98 (any release)
and read the "informative notes" which are displayed while the (seemingly)
endless file-copy is in progress?
"Windows 9x makes your computer more reliable"
"Windows 9x makes your computer easier to use"
"DOS programs run faster and more reliable"
"Windows 9x provides the features you want" (sure, Blue Screen of Death)
For a real laugh, "Windows is now (mis) configuring your hardware and any
Plug and Play (Pray) devices you may have"
If the FTC wants to go after an easy target re truth in advertising, they
need look no further than Redmond. IMHO, the claims MS makes are even more
outrageous than those of the Taiwanese speaker guys.
Glen Goodwin
0/0
For ClassicCmp'ers only, mention somewhere on your registration form that
you're a ClassicCmp'er and you pay only $15 per person. You must still
register by September 15 to secure this special rate. After that, you pay
$15 per person PER DAY at the door!
Please visit http://www.vintage.org/vcf/register.htm for registration
forms and information.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 05/25/99]
I grabbed the Consumer Price Index history off the web, pasted into Excel,
and applied the percentage changes cumulative from 1975.
One 1998 dollar = $2.95 in 1975 dollars (ouch, those Carter administration
years! Thank goodness for Greenspan)
Therefore, an assembled Altair 8800 with 4x2K static RAM, serial, parallel,
cassette, and bus expansion, $1880 in 1975 dollars, would be the equivalent
of $5546 today.
An Apple Lisa base configuration ($9995 in 1983 dollars) would be $16,169
today.
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foust [mailto:jfoust@threedee.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 10:45 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: State of the Hobby
At 11:02 AM 7/1/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>In a recent auction on eBay, a MITS Floppy Disk Drive was auctioned off at
>$565. "WOW!" you may say, but that unit cost $1300 when new, and that was
>in dollars that were a DOLLAR, and not just the price of a candy bar.
I suppose there must be a web site, somewhere, that would let you enter
a date and a US dollar amount, and would show you the equivalent value
in today's dollars, accounting for actual inflation, etc. in the
intervening years.
Which reminds me, when I was in high school, we sold candy bars to
fund the purchase of a few K of RAM for the IMSAI as well as a floppy drive.
>I'm presently in the process of selling off excess 8" floppy drives for $5
each,
Similarly, you'd think there would be a web site somewhere to
remind people of the rapid devaluation of the value of computer
equipment - say, perhaps the flip side of Moore's Law, that shows
how simply purchasing and opening the box of a new computer causes
a significant drop in value, followed by subsequent halvings of
resale value every six months, until it quickly reaches the
"nuisance fee" level mentioned above, where the cost of shipping
and packing seems to exceed the street price.
- John
On Jul 5, 23:04, Tony Duell wrote:
> I have _a_ FD235 service manual here. The problem is that there are many
> versions, and my manual only covers one or two of them. It shows the 'F'
> as having the 4*7 block and the 'HF' as having a 3*7 block. Oh well...
>
> Here are the settings for those, in case they're any use
Excellent, thanks, Tony! I'll try that out tomorrow.
I've just spent ages trying to connect to TEAC's web site, after Lawrence
suggested a URL -- but no luck for me.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
In a message dated 7/5/99 5:36:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
roblwill(a)usaor.net writes:
<< O.k.... here's the question: What would cause a capacitor in a power
supply to suddenly explode, spraying its 'guts' and a bunch of smoke all
over the place?? >>
Remarkable -- the same thing happened to a desktop PC of mine years ago. I
had been using it for a couple of hours, when BANG -- smoke -- and the system
shut down. It was so loud my wife raced into the room, thinking I'd been
shot (imagine her disappointment at finding me alive ;>).
Cursory examination revealed a filter cap with the top blown off; further
inspection turned up a short in the transformer.
Glen Goodwin
0/0
You can use any connector which suits you. You can use any name for a bus,
even Fred or Jake. You can use any existing bus protocol you desire. It's
your computer.
What I said, apparently not clearly enough, is that I'm partial to the VME,
and, though the typical wire-wrap connector for VME (i.e. that particular
connector, VME or not) costs more than a typical PC at the junk store. I
made the mistake of believing that, from your prior comments in other
context, you watch every penny with considerable interest, and you might
appreciate the opportunity to use a video board, perhaps a Mono, or a VGA,
or even HGA, none of which use interrupts or DMA. For that reason I figured
you'd not mind corrupting the "standard" usage of ISA signals since you'd
not be using circuits which use the ones which you felt were inappropriately
implemented. I said that because if you go dumpster diving in almost any
business park or office complex, you'll find ISA serial cards and ISA video
cards, particularly on a Monday or a Friday.
OTOH, if dumpsters are not to your taste, the thrift stores sell them for
the approximate cost of a burger here in the US. You can get LAN boards and
others there too, but they sometimes use interrupts and DMA, which might be
a problem if you've changed the way in which you use them from what a
typical PC does.
In my view, and that's not universal, by any means, $2 VME cards don't come
up often enough for me ever to have seen one. If you like VME and find them
to be cheap enough, I think that's an excellent choice, not that my approval
is needed for what goes in YOUR computer.
I did say, however, that if I were going to switch to the 96-pin DIN 41612
connector, I'd use VME because that gives me a fallback position if I
haven't time, patience, or skill enough to create my own ??? and I don't
mind shelling out the $$$.
I can guarantee you, though, that if you build your own serial card for
whatever bus, it will cost more for the parts than an ISA video card at the
thrift store would cost. Maybe, if you intend to roll your own, you SHOULD
build an ISA adapter or two, so you can save the time and trouble, not to
mention expense, of building a card you can buy for little money. That way
you can allocate your scarce resources in the way which best serves your
goals and build your own video board, or whatever, later.
If you were to choose to reinvent the ISA on a better connector, being short
a couple of pins, you could quickly do away with the 4x Color-burst
oscillator and the AEN signal, neither of which would do much four you
outside the PC.
regards,
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>> >If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>> >understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>> >Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN
board
>> >for VME from the local thrift store.
>>
>> I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>> bus? An bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>> connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
>
>Exactly. A 3-row DIN 41612 connector has 96 pins. ISA bus has 98 pins (on
>a 16 bit slot). And I'm sure I could find 2 signals that I could 'do
>without' (miss off one of the DMA channels?).
>
>In other words you could put something with much the same signals as ISA
>on a DIN41612 if you wanted to. The result shouldn't be called ISA
>(because you can't just plug a card straight in). But it would work, and
>the cards would be easy to design.
>
>I like DIN41612 connectors because you can easily use them on homebrew
>cards. Wire-wrap versions exist. If you want to use a card edge type of
>connector you really have to gold-plate the PCB, and that's hard to do at
>home. It's also a pain having to get a PCB house to make all the
>prototype boards. Much easier if you can homebrew them.
>
>I've used those connectors for all sorts of things, most of them not
>VME-related. Of course I've not called the result VME...
>
>-tony
>
I have a number of older TEAC FD235-HF drives, and no service manual. One
particularly old one has what I can only describe as a "jumper block", a
matrix of 4 pins x 7 pins labelled 1,2,3,4 and A,B,C,D,E,F,G. I'd like to
use this drive in a particular system that wants it set to be drive 0, with
the disk-changed line active. Anyone know the settings?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Greetings all,
I am trying to see if I can get an IBM 5150 working still. I was
wondering if anyone out there can tell me:
1. If the IBM 5150 XT computer came with documentation
2. Is an IBM monitor, model # 5153 (Personal Computer Color Display) is
compatible with an IBM 5150 XT?
3. What kind of monitor (graphics array) is an IBM 5153. I would guess
EGA, but don't know.
If anyone can help me out I sure would appreciate it.
Robert
On Jul 5, 12:14, John Lawson wrote:
> SO: the object of this sysgen was primarily to allow the use of
> the RL02 disks. And here I have a stuckness: I can sucessfully
> init an RL02 disk, erase it, exercise it, find it's bad blocks, and
> then mount it. All ok. But I can't allocate it, write a file to it,
> or get a directory. The error message is 'Device not available.'
>
> I can do 'show dev' and see that it is mounted, but from there I
> cannot find out what the next step is. I have a RSTS Orange Wall on
> the way in, but it will be almost two weeks before I get it.
>
> Until then.. what need I do to read and write the RL02s?
I've never used RSTS, but in RSX, you have to provide a /PUB switch to
mount, to mount it as public. Maybe RSTS is similar?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Thanks to everyone who provided help of all kinds. I finished up
the sysgen in just under two hours.. praying all the way that my
semi-flaky Kennedy drive would behave during the process, which it
did, bless it's little blower motor. :)
I added support for RL02s, RK05s, RX02, PC05, and expanded
some of the runtime language packages to include math and FPP
functions. Everything else got the defaults.
SO: the object of this sysgen was primarily to allow the use of
the RL02 disks. And here I have a stuckness: I can sucessfully
init an RL02 disk, erase it, exercise it, find it's bad blocks, and
then mount it. All ok. But I can't allocate it, write a file to it,
or get a directory. The error message is 'Device not available.'
I can do 'show dev' and see that it is mounted, but from there I
cannot find out what the next step is. I have a RSTS Orange Wall on
the way in, but it will be almost two weeks before I get it.
Until then.. what need I do to read and write the RL02s?
NOTE>>> Especial thanks to Tim Shoppa and Bruce Lane! <<<NOTE
None of this would have been possible without your
kindness and generous sharing of Knowledge.
Cheers
John
No. Your point is well taken, though. What I'm advocating in this case is
the adoption of VME, which has shown itself to be as good as any more or
less standard bus and better than most.
The connector hardware doesn't define the bus, but it restricts it to the
ones which used that connector. You then have to adopt a signal set which
complies with that standard in both its definition and its usage if you want
to consider yourself using that BUS. However, it's conceivable one might
use a "modified" XXX bus, with changes implemented in a way which doesn't
conflict with the use of certain cards already in existence.
This is not easy, nor is it easly understood, particularly in its
motivation, since you have the option of doing whatever you want. It is
YOUR computer, after all.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>>understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>>Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN
board
>>for VME from the local thrift store.
>
>I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>bus? Any bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
The old OrCAD electronics drafting software came with a tool which pretty
automatically generated an 800x600 driver for most any available card of the
day. This suggests that a "generic" driver may be available. My experience
with the 1Kx768 types has been less encouraging, however.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
>>Actually, if you want to do anything beyond plain VGA then you do start
>>to have problems. This is what started this discussion - the fact that
>>many modern video cards are _not_ properly documented.
>
>What worries me even more is that there is no universal SVGA standard, as
>there is with VGA. S3 requires a different driver than Trident 9400, while
>the results are indistinguishable for me.
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
I didn't say you need to call a bus a given thing. What I was suggesting is
using and staying close to the ISA hardware because ISA hardware is so
cheap. You can go to almost any thrift store and get a video board or a
serial board, or a disk controller for $3. U.S. They throw them away by
the 55-gal drumful.
Once you've got the hardware, YOU decide how to make the interrupts work,
and YOU decide how to use the DMA control lines. You can call if FRED for
all I care.
Have a look below for additional comments embedded in your reply.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 04, 1999 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> >
>> >Well, IMHO there is _if you want to call the bus ISA_.
>> >
>> >There's no reason not to use this type of DMA on a homebrew system.
>> >There's no reason not to use cards that have the same form factor and
>> >same connectors and ISA cards.
>> >
>> I've seen little reason to use DMA at all when processors generally have
the
>> capacity to move data at the bus bandwidth with block transfer
instructions.
>
>If the system is properly designed (adequate cache, etc) then the CPU can
>run a program from the cache _while_ a DMA transfer is going on. That's
>one advantage of DMA.
Well, I don't know what you want to do, so I can't size a cache for you.
Moreover, most DMA depends on external events to schedule its access to the
bus. If the external event is concurrent with the time the processor is
running from CACHE, it works out well, otherwise, it doesn't. I don't know
why you'd want DMA in a typical system. The CPU is quick enough to
accommplish the transfers as fast as they can go, and it just sits waiting,
generally, when it's allowing DMA, since it can't use the bus. Floppies,
for some stupid reason, use DMA in a PC, though it's not warranted, yet hard
disks, yes, including CDROMs generally don't. There are some PCI
controllers which use DMA, but we're talking ISA for now.
>> It's not a religious issue for me to call the bus whatever seems
>
>Hmmm... One thing I _really_ object to is calling a bus (or whatever) a
>standard name when it doesn't meet the standard. At one time Apple were
>particularly bad about this - they had 'RS422 ports' that were nothing
>like what they should have been, etc.
>
I agree that it's inappropriate to call an interface by a name unwarranted
by its characteristics.
>
>As I said, design your own bus, sure. If I was doing it, I'd use those
>DIN41612 connectors because you don't need to etch (and preferably
>gold-plate) PCBs. But don't call it ISA.
>
If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN board
for VME from the local thrift store.
>
>[As an aside, my MG1 workstation has the ISA adapter board in it. This is
>a 32016-based workstation, and the ISA adapter goes to great trouble to
>exactly emulate the ISA bus, even down to 'useless' things like a refresh
>address appearing on the address lines, all the clocks, etc. The result
>is that all ISA cards will work in this machine]
>
But to what end??? If you have a "decent" system already, why would you
want to use ISA. For that matter, why the crusade to invent a new bus?
>
>> with video boards. There aren't really any terribly interesting parallel
>> I/O boards, and if you want to use IEEE488 stuff you'll play hell beating
>> the WIndows software to help you do it.
>
>Eh? Maybe the Windows software is OK if all you want are 'virtual
>instruments' (but I really can't see the point of that - physical
>controls are a lot easier) but for real automatic test/measurement
>systems give me a decent GPIB driver, a good compiler and a real
>operating system...
>
A friend of mine uses it at the Cape and on the west coast for launching
rockets. I think it probably works O.K. I guess it's a matter of
preference.
>
>> >Suppose you don't have a central DMA controller. What do you propose
>> >doing with the DRQ/DACK signals? Sure you can make them effectively
>> >bus request signals. But now the peripheral card has to know to generate
>> >the address. And no standard ISA card would do that.
>> >
>> Just exactly which boards do you wish to use that do that? If they don't
>
>Err, any ISA card that uses DMA, like CD-ROM controllers, FDCs,
>soundcards, tape controllers, etc, etc,etc.
I know of no ISA I/O devices which require DMA. I know of only a few which
CAN use DMA, and of those, only the high-end SCSI adapters e.g. ADAPTEC 154x
series actually use it, albeit poorly. I have fairly fast equipment, in
general, and find that programmed I/O performs as well as DMA in the cases
I've tested, because the software I use does little else while the DMA is
progressing. Now I've seen little FDC based tape controllers, the kind you
use to interface one of those QIC toys to a PC which use DMA, but only
because they're grafting themselves onto the FDC handler. They don't NEED
DMA, they just inherited it.
>You may say you don't want the above. Fine. Design your own bus. But
>don't call it ISA, because it isn't..
>
Remember, I just suggested making the choices compatible with ISA cards to
save guys like yourself money. You're always complaining about the cost of
computer hardware.
>
>> >> too soon? I made no such assertion! There are lots of processors
which
>> >> have block transfer instructions which operate at the bus bandwidth.
>> Even
>> >> the Z80 did that.
>> >
>> >And IIRC the Z80 block moves were ridiculously slow...
>> >
>> Yes, perhaps it was ridiculously slow, but it was the bus bandwidth at
the
>> time.
>
>Not so. A Z80 LDIR doesn't hit the bus bandwidth _at all_. Heck, it
>fetches the instruction each time for one thing. IIRC at least one of the
>Z80 block instructions is slower than doing it in hand-optimised machine
>code.
>
Well, it was fast enough to transfer a whole track of data from an ST-506 in
one revolution of the disk . . . that's 10416 byte-times, nominally, in 16.6
ms . . .
>
>> >> which used it, I'd say that's a non-issue. You don't need the
schematic,
>> >> though,since the board you'll be using will be an IDE interface with
>> onboard
>> >
>> >For the <n>th time, the aim is to get 'open hardware'. That means (at
>> >least to me) available schematics. Not schematics of things that _might_
>> >work the same (e.g. WD1003 .vs. IDE). It means scheamtics and
>> >documentation for the hardware that's actually in the machine.
>> >
>> So, you want schematics of the disk drives as well, and the keyboard, and
>> the floppy drive? . . . and when you have them, how are you going to
stick
>
>YES!! That's exactly what I want.
>
>> your 'scope probe into that IC, and how are you going to fix it when it's
>> broken. It's a custom IC, after all, and they will cost 10x what a new
disk
>
>Why do you insist on wanting custom ICs? You can do an awful lot with
>standard chips, you know.
Except buy them, since they don't make them anymore.
>> drive costs if you try to buy just one. If "OPEN" means to you that you
>
>At the moment maybe. But in 20-30 years time it will be nice to be able
>to fix the machine when new modules simply aren't available. Now that you
>can't get new 5.25" drives, I'm darn glad I've got a pile of service
>manuals for them.
>
First of all you CAN get new ones, and secondly, death is inevitable. Once
they stop making the stuff you want to use, it's only a matter of time
before something you can't fix will fail.
>
>> have access and rights to all the intellectual property contained in your
>> computer, you might as well give up right now. If what you want is
enough
>
>Why? OK, I am not going get the rights to copy standard chips, but I
>don't see why the PCB schematics, etc can't be open.
The reason is because YOU don't make the rules regarding other people's
intellectual property. I agree it would be nice, but if a board costs $15
new, and $2 used, why would anyone worry about fixing them? You just buy a
couple of identical spares while the opportunity is in front of you. Most
commercial boards, nowadays, have custom firmware of some sort. There's no
reason at all why anyone should give you that. I doubt you'll have a
problem getting schematics for "standard" chips. It's the custom logic,
e.g. FPGA's, CPLD's, PAL's, and PROM's that will be the problem.
>As I have said many times before, I am using a '100% documented' PC. It's
>not open, in that schematics, etc are copyright IBM etc, but I didn't sign
>any NDAs to get them. The _only_ thing I don't have the schematics for is
>the hard disk. I have them for the motherboard, PSU, keyboard, monitor,
>floppy drives, CD-ROM, expansion cards, etc.
>
Yes, but as you said, you don't have the firmware listing for the keyboard
interface.
>
>> >I've found it _very_ hard to get data on the typical ASICs that you find
>> >on modern PC motherboards and I/O cards. In fact I've not managed to do
>> >it in a lot of cases.
>> >
>> That's the reason, precisely, why you don't use them.
>
>You're the one who wants to use standard PC I/O cards. I don't...
>
Well, what would you use instead? Would that save money? Would it save
time?
>
>-tony
>
IIRC, there are enough signals just on the single 96-pin connector which
comes on the single-sized VME (3U?) boards. It's those to which I was
referring when I advocated adopting the VME for generalized development.
I've never seen a 2nd-hand VME board for sale anywhere. The 2nd hand boards
(wirewrap types) I looked at once, were actually MB-II format, and, at junk
dealer prices were at $200 each. Here in the Denver area they don't appear
to be as available. I see SUN stuff on the junk piles from time to time,
but nobody seems to want that stuff. I surely don't need another line of
outdated computers. Now, I don't go to HAMfests, or HAM anything elses, and
I'm not into dumpster diving. That might turn up something.
Though I once sold VME wirewrap cards, I've never owned a VME-based system
aside from some SUN hardware I had about 15 years ago, which might have had
some inside. That stuff was for ultimate sale to a client, so I left my
fingers off it.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> It's true there are lots of VME boards around. There just aren't many
>> cheap ones.
>
>Actually, VME boards are plentiful and cheap. I routinely see tham at
>hamfests for a dollar or two a piece. They can also be taken out of older
>Suns (the -3s and early -4s), as many of those machines are hitting the
>junkyards now. They tend to have non-Sun interface boards (SCSI, tape,
>etc..) hidden "inside" 9U to 6U board convertors.
>
>William Donzelli
>aw288(a)osfn.org
<snip>
>
>> of their machines were alike.
>
>I think you ended up with somebody clueless in DEC. I've never had this
>sort of problem with a DEC machine.
>
At the time in question, I had a client whose system required two 11/44's in
lockstep. This meant that the two boxes had to be identical in every way,
both hardware and software. DEC had a VERY difficult time delivering these
pairs. They didn't have trouble charging significantly more for two
identical machines than for just two machines, though. Instead of half a
day per rack, they often took as long as five weeks to get the job done,
several times swapping out each of the two boxes several times.
Fortunately, they couldn't charge for that. You're right, of course, in
that it implies that someone clueless was in the supply chain, but the
impression I got was that clueless was the rule rather than the exception at
DEC. Consequently, I did everything I could to specify other hardware in
the twenty five years or so in which I could do that. Many times that meant
a bill of 5K-bucks instead of 150K-bucks.
Dick
It's true there are lots of VME boards around. There just aren't many
cheap ones.
The connector doesn't define the bus standard being used. TI used a 100-pin
edge connector for some of thir 99xx development systems. Multibus-II and
VME look pretty similar. NuBUS, as Tony pointed out, certainly used the DIN
connector and used a form factor not too different from the ISA.
As I said before, you could use a modified version of whatever bus you
almost like, then call it whatever you like, but not what it specifically
isn't.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com <CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>>If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>>>understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>>>Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN
board
>>>for VME from the local thrift store.
>
>>I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>>bus? An bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>>connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
>
>I suspect that it's just Dick on one of his rants these days. VME
>boards are extremely plentiful these days, as are prototyping boards
>with the connectors.
>
>Of course, there are cases where the same connector was used on two
>different busses. The connector and card size of the Motorola EXORcisor
>system is remarkably similar to the S-100 bus (to the point where I've
>actually mistaken one for the other until I got up close and looked.)
>And the 44-conductor-edge-connector design has been used in so many
>instruments and machines that it is completely "generic".
>
>There are *many* ISA-compatible busses in use in the embedded systems
>world that use "different" connectors. Some of these are proprietary,
>meaning they're only used by one company, others are much more widespread
>(like the PC/104 bus). OK, there are some drive differenences between
>PC/104 and ISA, but that's an "improvement" for the application. See
>http://www.pc104.com/ for a PC/104 FAQ. PC/104 was originated by Ampro,
>a maker of classic computers, so I feel justified in mentioning it here
:-).
>
>--
> Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
> Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
> 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
> Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
take a look below, plz
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 04, 1999 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
><at all and will rely on USB, SCSI, and the various parallel port protocols
><to do "practical" I/O. That will be very limiting. I don't know what
folk
>
>If I had to rely on those I'd be cooked.
>
><will do in cases where they have measurements, telememtry, process control
><tasks, or whatever to do. The PC has never been particularly well suited
><for such tasks, since there were such meager offerings in the way of
genera
><purpose I/O.
>
>I think you need to hit the catalogs. GPIB and IO cards for process
control
>are quite common. I know I run a bank of ovens with a PC (AD and GP-io
>card, DOS even) and a test fixture for resistive elements using GPIB and
>Keithley instruments.
I've written small code snippets which seem to suggest that software from
DOS can easily drive the ECP/EPP ports. I'd assume the same is true of USB,
though one would have to create or acquire it somehow. That would make it
quite task-specific.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>>From what I understand, those will all be irrelevant by year's end, as
the
>>evolving standard for PC2000 will have NO expansion slots at all. There
are
>>already plenty with no ISA slots. My GPIB hardware is NI, and I had to
>>build my own parallel I/O hardware.
>
>Well, it's always possible to make an external USB->GPIB adapter. Of
>course, you'd be forced to use an OS which supports USB, and that
>eliminates DOS and various other small operating systems (which might be
>preferrable in many situations).
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
>
<A lot of Taiwanese jive, is what it boils down to. After playing around wi
<a pair of "200W" speakers today, I'd estimate about 2.5W RMS per channel.
<
<> I don't own any such speakers, or indeed, a soundcard. Never seen the nee
<for > > one...
For laughs I took a pair of the so called 60W per speakers, opened them
and put them on a 50w dummyload and measured them. They did 12W RMS at
less than .1% distortion, at 13W they were already to 1% and at 14W 5%.
The 60w number, power drawn from the wall outlet at full load!
haveing spent years in audio and analoge if the claim is power the PSU
better be BIG or its all smoke and mirrors.
<> What I am asking for is _any_ kind of justification for the modern kind
<> of watt...
it's still the same here. A Watt or power will produce a certain amount
of heat (RMS). However a non sinusoidal waveform will still drive a
load to the same peak current and voltage but the power (heating ability)
will be greatly lowered or increased. the hardest driving waveform is
a symetric squarewave. the lowest would be a for example a 1% asymetric
pulse.
<The modern watts sell speakers. Our customers like to hear "big numbers,"
<and don't have a clue as to what those numbers mean or how to verify them,
<whether it's in reference to watts, MHz, bps, RAM, cache, or disk storage.
<The box says 200 watts, and people like the look of them.
It's mostly bull, there are some testing situations for audio where
continious power (due to PSU or cooling limitations) will be lower than
peak power (short bursts). This is legit and meaningful for audio as it
does have a high peak to average power.
However physics say... if the PSU can supply 12V at 2A there is a finite
limit there and it's 24W and how you apply that to a 4 or 8ohm speaker
is still only going to yeild 24W (or less) as we still cannot create power
that doesn't exist.
My history includes designing 500W (RMS continous) per channel amplifers
and audio consoles back in the dark ages.
Allison
--- "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh(a)aracnet.com> wrote:
> Of course with some systems canablization isn't the answer
I've got this keyboard that well illustrates that point - the SX-64. I got
one cheap because the keyboard was fubared and a previous owner attempted
to repair it. Fortunately for me, I happened to have *just the keyboard*
and nothing else (equipment attraction, obviously ;-)
For those that don't know the design, the SX-64 is a luggable C-64 with
integral color CRT and 1541 disk drive. The only thing missing is a cassette
port, making certain packet radio and other external hardware useless to it.
The keyboard detaches from the front/top of the unit, connects with a 24-pin
cable (DB-25 with a keying pin) and while it has real keys for the user to
type on, is a single-sheet membrane inside with all the circuit paths and
conductive areas. More than one SX-64 is sitting around out there because
its keyboard has failed.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>>understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>>Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN board
>>for VME from the local thrift store.
>I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>bus? An bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
I suspect that it's just Dick on one of his rants these days. VME
boards are extremely plentiful these days, as are prototyping boards
with the connectors.
Of course, there are cases where the same connector was used on two
different busses. The connector and card size of the Motorola EXORcisor
system is remarkably similar to the S-100 bus (to the point where I've
actually mistaken one for the other until I got up close and looked.)
And the 44-conductor-edge-connector design has been used in so many
instruments and machines that it is completely "generic".
There are *many* ISA-compatible busses in use in the embedded systems
world that use "different" connectors. Some of these are proprietary,
meaning they're only used by one company, others are much more widespread
(like the PC/104 bus). OK, there are some drive differenences between
PC/104 and ISA, but that's an "improvement" for the application. See
http://www.pc104.com/ for a PC/104 FAQ. PC/104 was originated by Ampro,
a maker of classic computers, so I feel justified in mentioning it here :-).
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
<Why do you assume that ISA -> Intel processor? It may be something
<totally different, something that doesn't have efficient block transfer
<instructions.
Like a z280?
<I see a _lot_ wrong with the ISA signal definitions. For one thing the
<IRQs are edge triggered, active high, when any sane designer would make
<them level triggered active low (had IBM done this it would have cost
<them an extra couple of TTL chips on the PC motherboard. It would also
<have allowed the sharing of interrupts). For another thing there's no
<proper bus request/grant (multiple masters are almost essential IMHO).
So the interrupts are upsidedown and stoopid, it's useful as is none the
less. The yabut is for small systems it's fine.
<As I understand it, the aim is to make a PC (meaning something that runs
<a useful open OS like linux or *BSD) and which has 'modern' features like
<a good video card. Not to make the equivalent on an S100 system
Consider possibility number 3, something that is hybrid, having the features
of s100 like system but modern IO and a different bus.
<> known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The WD1003-
<> board is well uderstood and the EIDE interface emulates that pretty well
<
<Sure. Now where do you propose getting schematics for this I/O card, and
<where are you going to get a data sheet on the ASIC that almost certainly
<appears on it. This is supposed to be _open_ hardware. This implies full
<schematics, not undocumented PCBs.
Treat the card as a functional black box. Herc, CGA and VGA video is well
enough known and the addresses are not secret. It's not a requirement to
knwo the tiny design details of the 8042 keyboard controller to get it to
give keycodes. Most of the floppies are the base 765 circuits pushed into
a chip, same for serial and IDE is not a secret. Based on what I've seen
of some of those cards the less I know the better!
Allison
Back in 1992, I purchased a few 8" single sided diskettes from someone on
the arpanet (or was it internet by then...). Anyways, these were a group of
both used and unused diskettes.
Roughly 50 of them are used, and they all are DEC software diskettes for
the PDP 11/780 or 785. The vast majority are various kinds of diagnostics.
Does someone here have a vax 11/785 and have a need for the stuff on these
diskettes?
-Lawrence LeMay
lemay(a)cs.umn.edu
<was being built. The fasted part was 5MHz. Therefore it would have
<probably had to run at 3MHz, and it would have been a _lot_ slower than
<doing it on the 6MHz 80286 CPU. Of course with a proper DMA controller
Nope, it was dealing with the 64k block limit and mapping. Speed isn't a
problem for the DMA controller as it only has to keep up with the device!
At that time the 8237 was still faster than most disks.
Now the keyboard interface is an 8042(or 8742) chip, it's easy to crank
the code of of them and disassemble it. the 8048 (the 8042 is a slave)
instruction set is all one and two byte opcodes and pretty simple.
Allison
I am preparing to sysgen my 11/44 system to expand the device
drivers available... specifically to get RL02s installed,
secondarily RK05s, PC01s, etc.
I would like to know if anyone reading The List has ever done this
particular operation, and if so, are there any pitfalls, booby
traps, and/or gotchas that lurk waiting to sink (more) fangs in my
tender derrier.... ?
All day today I have been tracking down a problem with my Kenndy
9100 system... it fails when writing long files, and locks up with a
'device hung or writelocked' error message.
At first I thought it didn't like the RL11 card in there, so I
de-installed that, of course no change. I believe the 9100 itself is
wanting a ramp-time adjustment... I can do it, have the tools/docs,
but the labor is enormous and I would like to avoid it for now if
possible.
Does the sysgen process write to the tape? Or just read from it
and write to the disk? The Kennedy reads fine, it's just recording
that's flaky.
This came about as I tried to make a master backup of the system
to a fresh tape.. "BACKUP" seems to work, but "copy *.* ms0:"
screws up at random places... except for once in a while when it
completes with no errors.
Any RSTS/E Sysgen advice?
Happy 4th...
Cheers
John
plz see embedded comments below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 04, 1999 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> <This is where I'd recommend caution if you use q-bus. The schematics
must
>> <not only be available and complete, but they must be correct as well.
PAL
>> <must be fully characterized, something I've never seen in a DEC product,
>
>A lot of the time, DEC didn't copy-protect the PALs on their Unibus or
>Q-bus cards. So it is possible to get the equations out of them. That,
>combined with the schematic is enough.
>
>I have seen some DEC printests with logic equations in them. I've also
>seen one (DRV11-W?) with the PALs drawn out as gates.
>
Oddly enough, the DRV11-WA was the one board for which I saw reasonable
documentation, and it was what we used to interface to the E3-A (AWACS). I
saw no PAL equations, and, in fact, the PALs were soldered in place, so if
there were any, which I don't remember, you couldn't read them even if there
were no security bit.
>
>> Sorry, no. DEC in the handbooks provide full data, timing, and sample
>> schematics for qbus interfaces. Same for Omnibus Unibus. In that area
>
I guess I just had too little interest in DEC to notice that. Documentation
was an issue, though, and as I once mentioned, even DEC couldn't tell if two
of their machines were alike.
>
>Indeed. The PDP11 bus handbook is a very useful document.
>
>> interface (DMA capable) already there. ISA, I don't have any similar
>> concise reference for bus timing other than a few simple published
>> circuits. I've ahd to extrapolate from the XT and 8088 (and supporting
>> chips) knowledge to get things like timing and protocal for at least the
>> ISA 8bit.
>
>No, the IBM Techrefs do _NOT_ include timing diagrams, etc for the ISA
>bus. Sure you can work them out from the 8088 data sheets, etc, but the
>fact is, IBM did not fully document ISA.
>
There is a standard, however. IBM didn't create it.
>-tony
>
I wound up somehow with some extra sets of documentation for Data General
Aviion systems and DG/UX. Speak up and they're yours for 1.2x the cost of
shipping. I estimate there to be about 30 pounds of docs here, but they
can be sent Book Rate inside the US. They're physically located just north
of Seattle if there's anybody interested locally.
The titles:
Guide to AViiON and DG/UX System Documentation
Installing the DG/UX System
Managing the DG/UX System
Using the DG/UX System
Using the DG/UX Editors
Customizing the DG/UX System
Using TCP/IP on the DG/UX System
Managing TCP/IP on the DG/UX System
Managing ONC/NFS and its Facilities on the DG/UX System
Release notes for:
DG/UX for AViiON Systems, Patch dgux_5.4.2.p58
DG/UX for AViiON Systems, Patch dgux_5.4.2.p77
GNU C Compiler System 5.4 for AViiON Systems Release 2.4.5.6
X.desktop System 5.4 for AViiON Computers Release 3.5
X11R5 DG/UX X Window System for AViiON Systems Release 5.4 Release 3.00
DG/UX System 5.4 for AViiON Computers Release 3.00
The rings in some of the binders are a little iffy.
ok
r.
<>
<Well, there is a standard . . . I've never bought it, but there IS one . .
<
<Say, just an aside, your email handler seems to truncate the last characte
<at the right-hand end of the text in quoted emails. Have you ever noticed
<that? Maybe it's my email software, but it only seems to happen in your
Yep and it's great for people that send text that is not otherwise
delimited. I really hate reading 282 character long lines.
<>terminally similar) out there for copying. It takes nothing to make
<>a 16-bit output and 16-bit input board using the vector foundation board.
<
<Well, it isn't as easy if you have a PC with no expansion slots . . .
Therein lies the worry!
<What? . . . Vector? . . . you mean that outfit in Sylmar, CA? If so, I'd
<point out that they've had a few screws loose for some time. The only
Vector as in the Vector BOARD, not the computer company.
<boards they ever produced which had a sensible power and ground
<disrtribution arrangement were screwed up so badly you couldn't even use
<THEIR staking block to set the pins! Since most of my wire-wrap cards wer
Hey I didn't say they were good, only handy.
I used to have a board made locally that was really nice and worked.
Haven't used them/that in over 10 years.
Allison
<at all and will rely on USB, SCSI, and the various parallel port protocols
<to do "practical" I/O. That will be very limiting. I don't know what folk
If I had to rely on those I'd be cooked.
<will do in cases where they have measurements, telememtry, process control
<tasks, or whatever to do. The PC has never been particularly well suited
<for such tasks, since there were such meager offerings in the way of genera
<purpose I/O.
I think you need to hit the catalogs. GPIB and IO cards for process control
are quite common. I know I run a bank of ovens with a PC (AD and GP-io
card, DOS even) and a test fixture for resistive elements using GPIB and
Keithley instruments.
<legacy of 8080 signals and signal timing, even though the system usually ha
<a sensible processor which could have worked very well, there tended to be
<glitches as caused by the fact that it took maybe three signals and a
<decoder to sense a local I/O cycle, yet the bus provided six or seven, and
there in was the S100 problem...
<>Like a z280?
<>
<You must really love that chip, Allison, but yes, even that, if you wish.
<It's YOUR computer, after all, so it should be the way YOU like it.
Exactly. The reason, it run native z80 and as a result CP/M. Not many
cpus left you can hack the hardware and software on. Next toy, Z800x!
<I personally would favor the 96-pin connector (per DIN 41612) as used in
<VME, but only one, for a basic card and make it on the nominally 4.5 x 6"
<form factor of the single slot EUROCARDS (e.g. VME). That connector is mor
<reliable than card-edge connectors and it's used enough that it's relativel
<cheap. It's compatible with a 0.100" matrix so a card and a backplane coul
I happen to like the connector as well as you don't need an etched board
for proto with a etched edge connector. The board size propsed is too
small. S100 was about right for protos, save for the lost space to the
regulators and extra bus interface components.
<This is where I'd recommend caution if you use q-bus. The schematics must
<not only be available and complete, but they must be correct as well. PAL
<must be fully characterized, something I've never seen in a DEC product,
True good engineering too. However the info some of which you refer to is
burried in contracts to DEC vendors.
<and, in fact, I'd say you have MUCH less "open" information about q-bus tha
<about ISA. The problem with ISA is that the information was usually "out
Sorry, no. DEC in the handbooks provide full data, timing, and sample
schematics for qbus interfaces. Same for Omnibus Unibus. In that area
they likely were more open to people having their own boards. They made it
easy enough with books WW cards and WWfoundation cards with basic bus
interface (DMA capable) already there. ISA, I don't have any similar
concise reference for bus timing other than a few simple published
circuits. I've ahd to extrapolate from the XT and 8088 (and supporting
chips) knowledge to get things like timing and protocal for at least the
ISA 8bit.
Now, open in the DEC case does not mean you can sell board commercially
using their bus technology without permission. It does mean whats inside
is no secret and for internal use (labs or one off boards) there are few
if any restrictions. FYI: companies like Bridgeport, heath and others
used this with DEC permission not to mention the raft or board makers for
analog, and digital IO for specialized applications.
<In reality, building an I/O mux onto a current generation PC parallel port
<makes as much sense as anything. With EPP you can get up to 2MB of transfe
<bandwidth, in bursts, of course. That's not bad . . . AND you have a "real
<computer with "real" tools that's very fast and "real" cheap.
It's one way to go. I use that is it's there. also building a parallel
IO card is a trivial task as there are more designs (all the same or
terminally similar) out there for copying. It takes nothing to make
a 16bit output and 16bit input board using the vector foundation board.
Allison
While it's true that not everyone liked KALOK, I'd not be influenced too
much by the fact they're no longer with us. IMI, CMI, Miniscribe, Shugart,
and many others are gone, too. Not everyone like their products either.
You should probably determine whether these babies work before you ditch
them. They don't have enough aluminum scrap value to justify destroying
them before you know whether they work. If they do they are worth a few
dollars to you and a week of headaches, aspirin, MAALOX, prune juice, and
whiskey to the buyer. . . but it's YOUR money, and it's HIS headaches . . .
get the picture?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Lane <kyrrin(a)bluefeathertech.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kalok Drives
>At 12:10 03-07-1999 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>I have a pair of Kalok drives, a KL320 and a KL330 (20 and 30 Mbyte,
>>perhaps?), each on a sort of "hard card" thing for a PeeCee. The
>>interfaces are apparently made by Seagate.
>
> Kalok?! AHHHHHHH!!!!
>
> Seriously, I've had awful experiences with the few Kalok drives I tried,
>and I've heard other horror stories as well. They are known to be one of
>the least reliable drives ever made, and Kalok themselves folded some time
>ago.
>
>>I do not know what is on them, or even if they work. Any interest out
>>there? If not, I am going to scrap them out.
>
> Use them for sledgehammer practice, then send them to the aluminum
>recycler. Can I watch? ;-)
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
>http://www.bluefeathertech.com
>Amateur Radio:(WD6EOS) E-mail: kyrrin(a)bluefeathertech.com
>SysOp: The Dragon's Cave (Fido 1:343/272, 253-639-9905)
>"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..."
Does anyone have a tape image with BASIC on it for the PDP-8?
On a related question, I've got a current loop adapter for my PC, this was
my interface to the PDP-8 before the ASR-33 showed up. Now I'd like to
punch some of my PDP-8 tape images, back into paper tape. What is the magic
to start print supression so that I can print with this thing?
--Chuck
Tony Duell and Chuck McMannis are thanked in large measure for
thier help. Tony and I have the same manual... for the curious,
the missing part in my 33 (and I have just spent another hour poking
around; the part has been abducted by Vintage Computer Aliens.) is
depicted in Bulletin 11848 33 [Page Printer Set (ASR, KSR, and RO)],
in Section 574-122-800TC, Page 8, figure 7.. at the bottom of the
page on the right... the part number is 180478 (Guide, Nylon)
Chuck, if you want to send me one or two of these beasts, I'll
send you copies of the official Teletype test paper tapes....
In the meantime, I guess I'll start the long disassembly
process... the platen and forms control unit has to come off, then
the carriage mechanism... what fun!
Cheers
John
<year between issue #79 and #80 but the subscription gets you "1 year (6
<issues)" :-)
<82 has been in the works for a while apparently.
<
<Robotics people do this too, publish three issues and then die because the
<didn't figure out just how darn hard it is to actually publish something. S
True, save for TCJ is many years old and back issues last I checked are
still available.
Allison
There's good reason to cast about for a general purpose bus on the order of
the middle-period S-100. The PC's of tomorrow will have no expansion slots
at all and will rely on USB, SCSI, and the various parallel port protocols
to do "practical" I/O. That will be very limiting. I don't know what folks
will do in cases where they have measurements, telememtry, process control
tasks, or whatever to do. The PC has never been particularly well suited
for such tasks, since there were such meager offerings in the way of general
purpose I/O.
The common microcontroller setups are pretty costly, often much more so than
a Pentium based PC with thousands of times the computing power.
By the time it was standardized, the S-100 was pretty well settled.
Unfortunately, the amateur computer enthusiasts presented a bigger market
than the measurement and control people, of whom I was one, and so it was
pretty important to be able to build one's own interface circuits. For
that, the S-100 was not as friendly as it could have been. Because of the
legacy of 8080 signals and signal timing, even though the system usually had
a sensible processor which could have worked very well, there tended to be
glitches as caused by the fact that it took maybe three signals and a
decoder to sense a local I/O cycle, yet the bus provided six or seven, and
various board makers didn't use the same ones, nor did they use them in the
same way. That's a mistake that should be avoided in the future. By
contrast, the Multibus-I had signals somewhat similar to those on the ISA,
and they were simple, easy to understand, and so on. Of course Intel led
the charge on MB-I.
See comments below, plz
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
><Why do you assume that ISA -> Intel processor? It may be something
><totally different, something that doesn't have efficient block transfer
><instructions.
>
>Like a z280?
>
You must really love that chip, Allison, but yes, even that, if you wish.
It's YOUR computer, after all, so it should be the way YOU like it.
>
><I see a _lot_ wrong with the ISA signal definitions. For one thing the
><IRQs are edge triggered, active high, when any sane designer would make
><them level triggered active low (had IBM done this it would have cost
><them an extra couple of TTL chips on the PC motherboard. It would also
><have allowed the sharing of interrupts). For another thing there's no
><proper bus request/grant (multiple masters are almost essential IMHO).
>
>So the interrupts are upsidedown and stoopid, it's useful as is none the
>less. The yabut is for small systems it's fine.
>
><As I understand it, the aim is to make a PC (meaning something that runs
><a useful open OS like linux or *BSD) and which has 'modern' features like
><a good video card. Not to make the equivalent on an S100 system
>
>Consider possibility number 3, something that is hybrid, having the
features
>of S-100 like system but modern I/O and a different bus.
>
I personally would favor the 96-pin connector (per DIN 41612) as used in
VME, but only one, for a basic card and make it on the nominally 4.5 x 6"
form factor of the single slot EUROCARDS (e.g. VME). That connector is more
reliable than card-edge connectors and it's used enough that it's relatively
cheap. It's compatible with a 0.100" matrix so a card and a backplane could
( if you were REALLY desperate and impoverished ) be made by hand on a good
wire-wrap card. Those are a few pretty compelling reasons. Of course
unless you actually adopted the VME standard, you'd still be on your own and
unable to buy a serial card or such.
>
><> known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The
WD1003-
><> board is well uderstood and the EIDE interface emulates that pretty well
><
><Sure. Now where do you propose getting schematics for this I/O card, and
><where are you going to get a data sheet on the ASIC that almost certainly
><appears on it. This is supposed to be _open_ hardware. This implies full
><schematics, not undocumented PCBs.
>
This is where I'd recommend caution if you use q-bus. The schematics must
not only be available and complete, but they must be correct as well. PALs
must be fully characterized, something I've never seen in a DEC product,
and, in fact, I'd say you have MUCH less "open" information about q-bus than
about ISA. The problem with ISA is that the information was usually "out
there" well in advance and then, when the product was shipped, wasn't
available any more, because there were too many competitors and the doc cost
an extra few pennies.
>
In reality, building an I/O mux onto a current generation PC parallel port
makes as much sense as anything. With EPP you can get up to 2MB of transfer
bandwidth, in bursts, of course. That's not bad . . . AND you have a "real"
computer with "real" tools that's very fast and "real" cheap.
>
>Treat the card as a functional black box. Herc, CGA and VGA video is well
>enough known and the addresses are not secret. It's not a requirement to
>knwo the tiny design details of the 8042 keyboard controller to get it to
>give keycodes. Most of the floppies are the base 765 circuits pushed into
>a chip, same for serial and IDE is not a secret. Based on what I've seen
>of some of those cards the less I know the better!
>
>Allison
>
<I know that several people on this list have used minix. Can anyone tell
<me if the book is worth buying with respect to understanding the OS?
YES! I have the book and it's quite informative anput OS design in general
and why Minix is what it is. It's a pretty neat small kernel unix like OS.
There is also Minix-VMD on the net that's to Kees as well as a version that
will run on a dos box.
Allison
<In this bridge circuit with a 12 volt supply:
<
<+12 -------
< A B
< .LOAD..
< C D
<return-----
The last design I did in the analog realm was a 500w per channel
that could be bridged for 1000W. (for studios and theatures) I am
acutely aware of the topology of bridge amps and power measurement.
<(A, B, C, D) are switches, either A, D or B, C on,
<The 4 Ohm load sees a maximum current of 3 Amps in either direction.
or 24V PP with 6a. Keep in mind it takes 6A to move the coil through the
full range it will travel with this 24VPP signal. It will move forward
3A(12v) worth from the resting position and it will move rearward the
same distance with the reverse polarity but it will take 24v6a to make
it transverse the same path in a continious cyclic way.
<That is 1.5 Amps for each of two 8 Ohm speakers in parallel.
<The maximum (peak) power is 36 watts, 4x that of a non-bridged amplifier.
<"peak to peak power" is just a marketroid term. Actually I don't even use
<the term "RMS power", as IMHO, "RMS" applies to voltage or current, not pow
Oh boy... RMS WATTS are measured using real RMS Amps and real RMS Volts
across a real (non inductive load). A real 500w amplifier heats a 4ohm
resistive load the same as pluging it into a ~45V RMS AC source. As long
as you know what is meant all the terms are valid. One of the problems
with small amplifers is the power supply is tepid to weak and often they
can actually supply full load power for one or two cycles until the PS
voltages fade due to lack of iron and copper in the core. I have a 35W
(continous RMS) stereo amplifer I built and due to the transformer (not
enough core) but plenty of Capacitor it can in short bursts deliver 55W
(10 cycle pulses of 400Hz @<.1%). There are far more dynamics than discussed
though some of the numbers are really meaningless.
Most of those wall cubes are very limited and 30-40W is about the limit,
often less. There are a few switchmode designs for wall cubes at will pack
70-80w output into something 4x1x2 but those don't go cheap.
Allison
<You may be a victim of the infamous "RD53 spindown problem". Does the
<drive spin up and then stop and/or recycle, or fail to reach full speed?
The other cause is the positioner gets stuck in the shutdown position and
the drive not finding the servo will also shutdown and cycle.
The fix has been detailed elsewhere but opening the HDA and fixing it is
a viable option.
Allison
Please see comments embedded below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> With the ISA, it depends on the TYPE of DMA you use. If you use one of
the
>> channels on the motherboard, there sould be no problem. It's only a bit
>> shaky if you try to run it from the bus itself. That's because of
>
>Sure. But the Unibus/VME/etc way where the _peripheral card_ generates
>the addresses for DMA (rather than there being a central DMA controller)
>is a lot cleaner IMHO
>
Yes, it is, and with the PC motherboard gone, there's nothing to prevent one
>from using that method.
>
>> motherboard features. Since there's to be no motherboard, i.e. only a
>> passive ISA backplane, that shouldn't be a limitation. It's not
necessary,
>
>Eh? If you're going to have an ISA bus (meaning a bus where you can stick
>standard PC expansion cards) you _have_ to have the DMA controller. Even
>an FDC card really needs it. You can't start suddenly redefining odd
>signals and call the result ISA.
>
Leaving off the motherboard doesn't change the BUS to something else. There
have been systems with multiple processors on passive backplanes for the ISA
for years. You don't have to change one signal. Of course, if you leave
off the motherboard, i.e. the circuitry that makes it a PC, then you don't
have to use the otherwise useless 4x-color-burst crystal oscillator either,
and you don't have to generated that inane 18... Hz interrupt and can use
something sensible instead, and you don't have to generate refresh addresses
with one DMA channel, and you don't have to use DMA for the floppy which
will work fine without it, and . . .
>
>Of course you can have a similar bus with mostly the same signals, but
>with bus request/grant signals and an arbitration scheme like
>Unibus/VME/etc. But most ISA cards would _not_ work on thse bus.
>
>
>> in general, to have DMA, first because the processors used on PC
>> motherboards have block transfer operations which operate at the bus
>> bandwidth.
>
>Why do you assume that ISA -> Intel processor? It may be something
>totally different, something that doesn't have efficient block transfer
>instructions.
>
Now you're confusing me . . . you just got through saying that the PC has to
be there, Intel and all, or it's not an ISA bus. Perhaps you spoke (sic)
too soon? I made no such assertion! There are lots of processors which
have block transfer instructions which operate at the bus bandwidth. Even
the Z80 did that.
>>
>> The only things which would be inherited from the adoption of ISA as an
open
>> bus would be the connector and the signal definitions. I see nothing
wrong
>> with those. One could even punt the 14.318 MHz (4x color-burst)
oscillator
>
>I see a _lot_ wrong with the ISA signal definitions. For one thing the
>IRQs are edge triggered, active high, when any sane designer would make
>them level triggered active low (had IBM done this it would have cost
>them an extra couple of TTL chips on the PC motherboard. It would also
>have allowed the sharing of interrupts). For another thing there's no
>proper bus request/grant (multiple masters are almost essential IMHO).
>
You're certainly right about that! All that would have been needed is that
they swallow their pride and use a sensible interrupt handler instead of
their silly 8259. In fact, they should have left all their LSI's off the
MB. The way their counters work, or don't, and the fact they're slow, and
they're ripple counters so you have to read half of them twice . . . don't
get me started . . .
Of course if you're going to "fix" the mistakes, then maybe a few changes
are warranted, including a provision for multiple masters. I find multiple
masters on a single backplane of limited value. It's easy enough just to
have a drawer for each processor and let them talk to one another on a
high-speed LAN. Now that multi-Gb LANs are becoming more visible, no pun
intended, those'll be the next great leap. Changing the way the signals
work is not such a sin, since you still use the same bus definitions. A
little improvement on the ISA could go a long way.
>
>> in favor of a more useful one, or perhaps none at all.
>
>That clock (which, BTW is not synchronised to anything else necessarily)
>is the least of the problems.
>
well, if you use a color board, or a frame grabber which assumes NTSC
timing, it may want that to be there.
>
>>
>> The types of boards useful in development don't need a lot of
documentation
>> to be used outside the MSDOS/PC world. The base locations of the 8250's
on
>
>As I understand it, the aim is to make a PC (meaning something that runs
>a useful open OS like linux or *BSD) and which has 'modern' features like
>a good video card. Not to make the equivalent on an S100 system
>
>> I/O boards is know, the base of the printer port (twisted though it is)
is
>
>The base address of the printer port is no more twisted than that of the
>serial ports. I've read the ROM source code, and the routines that set up
>the address table are _very_ similar.
>
That was an error, i.e. i had an indefinite antecedent for the pronout "it"
in that I meant that the way the parallel port works, with some of its
signals inverted, etc, was twisted. An address is just an address.
>
>Basically, the ROM looks for printer ports at 0x3bc, 0x378, 0x278 in
>order. It assigns each one it finds to the next available 'LPT number'.
>What this means is :
>
>If you have a single parallel port at _any_ of those addresses, it will
>be LPT1.
>
>If you have 3 ports they will be LPT1 (0x3bc), LPT2 (0x378), LPT3 (0x278).
>
>If you have 2 ports, the one at the 'first' address in the table will be
>LPT1, the one at the later address will be LPT2.
>
>Serial ports are similar. It looks for 8250s at 0x3F8 amd 0x2F8. It
>assigns the first one it finds to COM1, the second one to COM2. In other
>words, if you have a single RS232 port at 0x2F8, it will be COM1.
>
>> known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The
WD1003-WAH
>> board is well uderstood and the EIDE interface emulates that pretty well.
>
>Sure. Now where do you propose getting schematics for this I/O card, and
>where are you going to get a data sheet on the ASIC that almost certainly
>appears on it. This is supposed to be _open_ hardware. This implies full
>schematics, not undocumented PCBs.
>
No ASIC, just the WD 1010 which is thoroughly characterized in the old
databooks and datasheets. maybe a few other garden variety LSI's of the
early '80's. I probably have it somewhere, but there was a time when I had
the 1010 and 2010 pretty well memorized. The BMAC is an 8042 with some code
and a peek at the application notes for the 1010 will tell you what's in the
1100. Since MFM is pretty much history, or, more correctly, the drives
which used it, I'd say that's a non-issue. You don't need the schematic,
though,since the board you'll be using will be an IDE interface with onboard
FDC. Those (FDC's) are well characterized and all you need to know about
the 1003-WAH is the command set, since IDE still uses it.
The little IDE interface boards with 5 TTL's on them are easy enough to buzz
out and understand. Data on the LSI's is easy enough to get, though you
shouldn't need it if you read the data on the WD 1003 controller board.
>
>-tony
>
That's the price you pay, so to speak, for participating in a free-market
economy. The market determines what price the market will bear. If there
are more rich dummies (If that's how you prefer to think of them) than there
are Altairs or 4004's then you'll probably never own one.
Meanwhile, maybe I can get someone to slide me a few bucks for this old
stuff of mine . . .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: E-bay stupidity! was Re: height of folly
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> $610!!! I'll bet Intel wishes they still had some! Who was it that said
>> "A fool and his money are soon parted." ?
>
>If prior patterns follow, we will be seeing more of the 4004 microprocessor
>chips showing up now. With any luck, the first one listed pulls in a higher
>than expected price, and the following ones will slowly reach reasonable
>again.
>
>Of course it could be like the Altair where the first ones sold for about
>$600 or so, and the price went up from there, and then settled in to the
>current $2000 - $3000 or so.
Hi,
I know that several people on this list have used minix. Can anyone tell
me if the book is worth buying with respect to understanding the OS?
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
Muchas Gracias to all who have offered advice and suggestions
about the teletype. The Problem, alas, is that the print carriage
has thrown one of the little nylon sliders that ride on the code
rails as it travels... I have taken the unit down to major
subassemblies but there is no sign of the slider. Damn. It is of
course the slider on codebar 5.
I narrowed this down by observing the punch, which is getting the
correct codes. Why 'return' doesn't work is a further mystery, but
it will have to wait until I can scrounge up a parts machine, or a
working one in which case this one will become the parts donor. It
is the parity machine with the forms feed unit and tractor feed
sprockets, which is nice for computer use.
Thanks again all... now to get to this 11/44 sysgen...
Cheers
John
With the ISA, it depends on the TYPE of DMA you use. If you use one of the
channels on the motherboard, there sould be no problem. It's only a bit
shaky if you try to run it from the bus itself. That's because of
motherboard features. Since there's to be no motherboard, i.e. only a
passive ISA backplane, that shouldn't be a limitation. It's not necessary,
in general, to have DMA, first because the processors used on PC
motherboards have block transfer operations which operate at the bus
bandwidth.
The only things which would be inherited from the adoption of ISA as an open
bus would be the connector and the signal definitions. I see nothing wrong
with those. One could even punt the 14.318 MHz (4x color-burst) oscillator
in favor of a more useful one, or perhaps none at all.
The types of boards useful in development don't need a lot of documentation
to be used outside the MSDOS/PC world. The base locations of the 8250's on
I/O boards is know, the base of the printer port (twisted though it is) is
known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The WD1003-WAH
board is well uderstood and the EIDE interface emulates that pretty well.
That solves the mass storage problems. Serial I/O is straigtforward enough.
Where's the problem?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> Well . . . what could possibly be more "open" than the ISA. It's capable
of
>> pretty much anything that the PDP-11 could dish out, AND you can get paid
>
>Well, apart from interupt sharing, multiple bus masters (the 16 bit ISA
>allows for _one_ bus master card, but it doesn't really handle it
>properly), certain DMA transfers, etc, etc, etc...
>
>> for taking the boards away from a lot of places. Almost any function you
>
>But most of these cards are _NOT_ 'open'. Try getting complete
>programmings specs for certain video cards, let alone schematics, PAL
>equations, etc.
>
>The whole idea of this is to make an open PC, _because_ existing cards
>are not fully documented.
>
>-tony
>
<OK, so the next question: is getting an education (enough to give one a
<chance) that tough overseas? It is not hard at all here in the states -
My understanding is not any harder than here. breaking into the hardware
field is a bit harder than software and many here (USA) in the internet
services (web, java and all that rot) are likely self educated people with
non-technical degrees.
The tag along issue was hobby vs vocation.
<summer at hamfests, selling electronic castoffs - even junk. Fill a box
<with caps, switches, tubes, connectors, knobs, etc., and the
<homebrewers will come. Yes, they tend to be a cheap lot too, but it adds
<up. Anyway, by October, an Altair could be possible - or even a pile of
<other machines.
This is very true. If you want to find stuff you have to be "out there"
or you'll miss a great amount.
For example at a MIT flea I got a very since BA11 11/23 system with docs,
floppies and RX02 for $0.00 as the owner didn't want to haul it back.
<Being a hamfest seller is a GREAT way to get leads, as well.
No kidding.
<Of course, I have never been to a radio rally, so things might be
<different for sellers.
Maybe, I'd bet not. ;)
Allison
Thanks to all who have responded so far.. I have tracked the
trouble to code level 5.. I have the parity keyboard with split
shifts and '5' is stuck marking all the time. I put myself to sleep
last night reading the maintenance manual, after lunch I'm gonna
dive into it.
WooHoo!
Cheerz
John
>The RD53 I have here has the W1 and W2 in place, the next three pins are
>DS (drive select) ID settings, DS1, DS2, or DS3. I seem to recall that
>the drive has to be set as DS2 to be the primary drive on an RQDX3
>controller.
No. The floppies are DS1 and DS2. The hard drive should be DS3. If
your system has a second drive, however, you may need to set this to
be DS4.
Depends on what else you have and how it is all wired.
What system box? (BA23? BA123?)
Direct connect to controller? (Leprechaun box?)
Connection through signal card? (RQDXE? BA23 backplane?)
More info is needed.
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Hi Brian:
You may be a victim of the infamous "RD53 spindown problem". Does the
drive spin up and then stop and/or recycle, or fail to reach full speed?
If so you likely have a spindle break solenoid problem, which can be fixed
with a small Phillips screwdriver.
Please chack this and get back to me, I'll give more detailed instructions
if indeed this is what's happening.
> : | : : | |
>
> D S W W
> 4 3 2 1 2 1
The RD53 I have here has the W1 and W2 in place, the next three pins are
DS (drive select) ID settings, DS1, DS2, or DS3. I seem to recall that the
drive has to be set as DS2 to be the primary drive on an RQDX3 controller.
The one in front of me is set to DS1 however.
I have three other RD53s in storage, I can check on Monday if necessary,
but jumpering may not be the problem. You might contact Megan or Allison
on the list.
I forget what W1 and W2 are for, but my drive has them in place.
Hope this help,
Kevin
--
Kevin McQuiggin VE7ZD
mcquiggi(a)sfu.ca
<Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillt
<more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
<were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
<Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in an
<way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than hal
<a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
<
<Dick
What about after the Pertec guys bought them, I thought the marketed a
MITS hard disk? though I think it was a 10mb 14" removable.
Allison
<Boy does that sound like spec. inflation! 24 p-p is just 12 Volt peak in
<either polarity with a bridge circuit. That gives 12/8 peak amps and 18
<peak watts (like with a +/-12 volt square wave). The RMS voltage and
no that would be 24/4 (two speakers presuming they are parallel) or 6A.
Assumes a 100% lossless bridge amp. at 24VPP and 6A you have 144W if it's
a symetirc squarewave, less if sine(RMS).
Now reality sets in, using the latest devices (VMOS/hexmos) there will be
a few tenths of a volt loss arcoss the device. So let say the loss is 1V
in that bridge amp of ours. Not allowing for resistance of wire and also
assuming the PSU can easily supply in excess of the required current at
12V.
23Vpp/4 = 5.75A that times 23 is only 132.25... reality sets in some.
also the difference 11.75W is heat!!! and thats the squarewave, it gets
really bad for sincewaves (more like 25W as heat!). Can you imagine
trying to get rid of say 40-50W (stereo case) of heat from one of those
tiny boxes?
Other assumptions, an 8ohm speaker is 8ohms. A non truth as it varies
widely with frequency assuming a good encolsure. So at one frequency it may
look like 6ohms and at another 15! Then we have copper losses from wiring
and PC traces (resistance) and what if the 12V is really 11.95V?
<amplifier. Don't tell me these "240 Watt" speakers are powered by 4 "AA"
<batteries ;)... or use one of the many automobile ic amps that give about
<4.5 watts with a 12 Volt supply and a 4 Ohm speaker.
The other reality is it takes very few watts at a sustained level to cronk
ones ears forever.
4AA cells can provide a remarkably large amount of power for and equally
remarkably short period of time. (nominally 3WH) ;)
A real 240W amplifier will cook a hotdog with two nails stuck in the
ends in about 2 minutes at sustained full power! Real power = heating
power.
Allison
S100 was one of the first to see people using different cpus as they could
still use their old boards (sometime with mods) or they could "bend"
the cpu to fit the bus adaquately.
<You may indeed be onto something here, Allison, but the ISA is no less
<general in its inherent qualities than the S-100, and I'd submit that a
<major case for the S-100's popularity for non-8080 applications was the
<ready commmmercial availability of numerous desirable functions at
<reasonable prices. That's how the ISA occurred to me.
Indeed, the key was commonly available generic functions. ISA8/16 fits
the bill fairly well. Infact myself and another are working on a ISA16
motherboard with a z280 insted of intel. Why, keyboard, serial, video,
floppy and hard disk interfaces are all done and cheap to free. We do not
need a raft of interrupts, so thats not a big problem. It's not a perfect
match but general enough if we bend a rule or two it will be fine. After
all we want to run z280s at full bore speed for software development and
the specifics of the platform are relitively unimportant other than we'd
like the two of them to be the same.
In 1989 S100 would have been a choice for the same reasons.
<Aside from that, a general purpose not processor-biased architecture would
<provide a few control signals, e.g. IORD, IOWR, MEMRD, MEMWR, maybe a coupl
<of clocks, probably one fairly fast one suitable as a dot clock for a vide
<circuit, and one slower, suitable for bus transaction timing, a few
<interrupt and DMA support signals, and a couple of dozen address lines.
<Parity and maybe a "tilt" line would be handy, as well as a wait signal.
<Most busses have these signals in one form or another.
Sounds like ISA. ;) If memory is kept off the bus ISA is just fine for
most 8/16 bit cpus I can think of. The only provision would be the cpus
that may DMA impossible or very painful but even then DMA is not a required
capability for some smaller designs.
<The key element for generalized development, though, is whether or not you
<can afford to buy the functions you don't want to build right away. Don't
<you agree?
Bingo! or for many reasons don't care to build. A 16450/16550 serial is
uninteresting but, serial is one of those must haves in a system like
mabe a modem. Others make little sense to fabricate when even new
they are under $50!
Allison
The boxes I bought were sold to us by an agent for Pertec, which was
liquidating the MITS stuff. The FDD and HDD used with Altairs were
Pertec's, since they worked closely with the MITS boys. Unfortunately their
FDD and HDD were a bit out of date. They probably saw the 8-bit market as a
place to dispose of the stuff no longer suitable for mini's.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Ed Roberts
>
><Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillt
><more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
><were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
><Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in an
><way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than hal
><a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
><
><Dick
>
>What about after the Pertec guys bought them, I thought the marketed a
>MITS hard disk? though I think it was a 10mb 14" removable.
>
>Allison
>
>
<As for Allison's comment that SPARC is to "high end" I have to disagree.
<The SPARC architecture was initally a lot less complicated than the PDP-11
<architecture. It is the funky MMUs that get in the way.
Error. Highend meaning it's not a simple or low complexity system. SPARC
may be RISC but that has little to do with system implmentation only the
instruction set and internal processor design. It's still 32bit, comples
set of control signals, high speed and nontrivial design.
When you say architecture are you refering to the SYSTEM or the CPU
or maybe the memory each has oe and can vary widely. I'd argue that
a LSI-11/03 system is easier to usnderstand than a SPARC system on the
whole despite the more complex CPU of the PDP-11. The PDP-11 at the
system level is not one archetecture, the 11/03 is trivial compared to
the 11/70 with cache and multiple busses. That would be a good example
of the difference between system implmentation and CPU archetecture too.
In that case the 11/70 is highend and the 11/03 is lowend.
Allison
Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillte
more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in any
way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than half
a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 8:22 AM
Subject: Ed Roberts
>Dick,
>
>
> I found the article that tells about Ed Roberts. See
>"http://www.grocerybill.com/altair/index.html"
>
> Also the auction for the 8" floppies just closed. I got $30 for the box
>of 3M floppies and $17/box for the others. There were only two bidders but
>you can get their address at
>"http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=122887882".
>
> Joe
>
>
>
<I need a driver for the DAS1200 of
<Keithley (card of data adquisition).
<
<Somebody knows if or it exists in MINIX
<or where to look for information?
Check in the generic C warehouses on the net. I do know that the GPIB
card Keithley sells (sold) came with C drivers for DOS and likely
adaptable for other OSs. I'd sincerely doubt that anyone has ported that
board to Minix as of yet but under unix(linux or ?) or dos it's quite
a bit more likely.
Allison
<> PDP-11 could be that architecture for several reasons:
<> 1) It has lots of software available for it.
<
<What it doesn't have is a free OS :-(.
Write one! However unix is $100 for the universal license (PUPs) and
it's not out of the question to port some other OS to it or even create
one. UZI unix kernel is for z80 but is small enough and written in C to
port to any of the PDP11s.
What make porting to PDP-11s more difficult is the devices (mostly tapes
and disks) are not always well enough documented (MSCP!) unless you find the
right book. However the RAW cpu is widely known. For those that would want
to play with PDP11 cheap find an old RQDXn controller and pull the T-11
chip. It's a 40 pin, 8/16 bit bus, PDP-11 that needed minimal glue
for ram, rom and IO.
<Does anyone know what DEC's restrictions are on these buses now? At one
<time they were patented by DEC, and you could only (legally) homebrew a
<certain number of cards per machine.
I thought copyrighted, and in either case for non commercial use it's
likely not an issue. Besides the CPU all you need is ram, rom, IO, storage
and for qbus thats totals 4 cards! With some of the 11/23B cards there is
2 serial ports and rom on the cpu so you only need ram and storage. Of
course a falcon (KXT-11) is complete save for storage with cpu, ram, rom
serial and parallel io and QBUS.
The Qbus, Omnibus are open and the specs for them were widely available
along with DEC even making WW boards for them. DEC also had some nice
chips to make the bus interface easier but Heath didn't use them in the
h11. its very common to find old machine with custom boards in them.
Allison
Heads Up Folks....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:29:34 -0400
From: Ken Simpson <W8EK(a)fdt.net>
To: BA Swap List <baswaplist(a)foothill.net>
Subject: More Nostalgia type books FS
[snipped a dozen Ham Radio catalogs and course books.. old ones]
Sinclair Cambridge Program Library - Volumes 1-4
General/Finance/Statistics
Mathematics
Physics & Engineering
Electronics
1977 = $ 8
Prices do not include shipping from Florida.
All books are in good condition.
E-mail to W8EK(a)fdt.net
Thanks.
73,
Ken, W8EK
Well . . . what could possibly be more "open" than the ISA. It's capable of
pretty much anything that the PDP-11 could dish out, AND you can get paid
for taking the boards away from a lot of places. Almost any function you
care to have is available if you don't want to try to improve on what's
available, and the structural components are commonly available. The same
could, I guess, be said of the VME in the smaller form factors. In all my
years of hardware scrounging, I've never seen any architecture more prolific
than the ISA, and in that time I've seen maybe a half dozen Q-bus cards for
cheap. Now, I'm not saying it has be cheap, but you would gather that as
the primary requirement from what most folks seem so spout about in this
forum, e.g. "What??! A dollar for a 1956 Rolls, in solid gold! Too much!
I'll offer a nickel . . ."
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>Well, in my case it was supposed to lead to the development of a really
>open hardware platform.
>
>As for Allison's comment that SPARC is too "high end" I have to disagree.
>The SPARC architecture was initally a lot less complicated than the PDP-11
>architecture. It is the funky MMUs that get in the way.
>
>--Chuck
>
>At 11:20 PM 7/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>> Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
>>
>>Off topic?
>>
>>William Donzelli
>>aw288(a)osfn.org
>
>
Before you go off picking a bus because the cards look "neat" shouldn't you
agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion of
why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> Too highend.
>
>Yes, but the highend SPARC stuff tends to become cheap - SPARCstation 1s
>these days are almost free. Anyway, some of the older SPARC boxes have
>really nice 9U VME cages.
>
>By the way, the SPARC architecture really is open - there are lots of
>things SPARC that are not Sun/Solaris.
>
>William Donzelli
>aw288(a)osfn.org
This will draw alot of flames, and may upset certain people.
Please send personal attacks to me directly.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:20:38 -0700 Kai Kaltenbach <kaikal(a)MICROSOFT.com>
writes:
> Classic computer collecting is rewarding on so many levels. And in
> so many senses, we have a collector community relationship that rivals
those
> of much more established hobbies. That's why it's so important, as the
> hobby begins to reach maturity, that we not lose sight of our
fundamentals.
But you've missed the one 'fundamental' that uniquely gives our hobby
its true appeal: Our hobby exists (existed) purely for its own sake.
No strings, wire, or unneeded baggage. It existed purely for the joy
of computing at its most base level, and the aquisition of knowledge
of the science.
> Lately, there has been a disturbing trend towards isolationism and
> elitism among our flock, up to and including outright hostility. This
has
> got to stop.
Hostile? Yer damned right. We're on the defensive now. The
'marketplace'
is poised to fundamentally change what I perceive as the original charter
of the computing hobby.
> Now, as Dennis Miller says, I don't want to get off on a rant here.
> As much as anyone else, I'd like a world full of retired aerospace
> engineers with garages full of free Altairs. I'd also like the IRS
> to abolish my income taxes and give me a free Ferrari. It's just not
> going to work that way, folks.
You hit a raw nerve here, buddy boy. I don't *want* garages of free
Altairs (or whatever). All I want is to be able to purchase the material
that is of interest to me at a *reasonable* price. Now the retired
Aerospace
Engineer thinks he can make a fortune off his old computers. Piss.
> Lashing out at people who want to publicize our hobby is like
> sitting in the nosebleed section of your hometown baseball stadium
> and hoping to god that your team loses big so you can afford better
> tickets next year.
This to me, clearly says you have no clue as to what is at stake here.
Hello Tony:
In a message dated 7/1/99 8:03:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk writes:
> I still want to know why my old Williamson (15W RMS)
> sounds a _lot_ louder than the '240W' PC speakers
The clue is in your mention of RMS. Your PC speakers are rated by PMPO,
"Peak Music Power Output," and this 240W rating is for both channels
combined. Your Williamson is 15W _per_channel_, for a total of 30W RMS.
Since PMPO usually represents about 5 percent of the true RMS output, each of
your amplified PC speakers is good for about 6W RMS, for a total of about 12W
(with huge distortion at that output level). Even this rating of the PC
speakers is probably grossly exaggerated.
There are Watts, and then there are Watts.
At least, this is the case with the speakers we sell in our shop. ;>)
Glen Goodwin
0/0
> Please remember that this list is international. And that not all of us
<> have well payed jobs, or even jobs at all. I couldn't consider spending
<> twice my _annual_ income on an Altair. Heck, I have to stop and think
<> before I spend my weekly income on common 8-bit micro.
<
<!!!
Even some of us in the US have had really bad years where trade, free or
very nearly so was the only possibility.
There are very few machines I'd pay much for and what "much" is varies
with my fiscal health. Most thankfully were gotten for free or minimally
the effort needed to collect them. Maybe it's also my slightly different
twist, I'm collecting machines I could never afford (but wanted to have)
when they were new.
Also there is the matter of my preference for systems that work, and having
the Altair I know enough to not bother with that one.
<Germany, Japan, or whatever developed country we may live in? Are foriegn
<electronics and computer industries (again, assuming that many of
<us are in the industry) really in that bad of shape?
The industries in many of the foreign countries are quite healthy but the
admission price (education REQUIRED) is far higher so it's not as easy to
get in. That also does not allow for retired, people that don't wish to
work in electrotechnical fields for a living and for some reason far to
many women.
Allison
<> > Hmm... Unix came out first on a PDP7, but later versions ran on the
<> > PDP11. I am not sure where C came in all this, but there are certainly
<> > PDP11 versions.
<>
<> > I've never heard of either fitting on a PDP8.
While neither were developed on a pdp8 there is nothing to say it cant be
done. The -8 does run fortran, basic, cobal, focal and I believe pascal as
well.
The reson it wasn't done (C or unix) is timing. the -8 was past it's peak
and the PDP-11 had eclipsed it.
Allison
I doubt that there's need for the high voltage drivers. Any open collector
should work if your LED's are driven from the 5V supply.
Be careful with your socket, i.e. make sure things will fit back together
before you solder it in!
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Sudbrink <bill(a)chipware.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:20 PM
Subject: IMSAI front panel (7405 == 7406)??
>I'm suspicious of one of the 7405s (Hex open-collector
>inverters) driving the data lines to the MPU-A. I
>don't have any replacements, but I do have a handfull
>of 7406s (Hex open-collector high-voltage inverters).
>The pinouts in the Chip Directory look the same, only
>difference by them is that the 7406 is "Maximum output
>voltage is 30V". I think I'll try socketing the
>suspect chip (U1 for anybody keeping score) and putting
>in a 7406.
>
You may indeed be onto something here, Allison, but the ISA is no less
general in its inherent qualities than the S-100, and I'd submit that a
major case for the S-100's popularity for non-8080 applications was the
ready commmmercial availability of numerous desirable functions at
reasonable prices. That's how the ISA occurred to me.
Aside from that, a general purpose not processor-biased architecture would
provide a few control signals, e.g. IORD, IOWR, MEMRD, MEMWR, maybe a couple
of clocks, probably one fairly fast one suitable as a dot clock for a video
circuit, and one slower, suitable for bus transaction timing, a few
interrupt and DMA support signals, and a couple of dozen address lines.
Parity and maybe a "tilt" line would be handy, as well as a wait signal.
Most busses have these signals in one form or another.
The key element for generalized development, though, is whether or not you
can afford to buy the functions you don't want to build right away. Don't
you agree?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
><agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
><certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion
o
><why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
><goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
><
><Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
>
>To yet another iteration of the last 30 years of computer and bus design.
>
<snip>
>
>The ugly exception! This doesn't make it good, only the odd exception
>for unexplainable reasons despite being primarily a 8080 bus!
>
>S100 8080, 8085, 808x, 80x86, z80, z180, LSI-11, AM100, TI9900, 6502,
> 6800, 6809, 6800x
>
>How is it that one of the ugly busses stands out like this in history?
>My cut is that the very flavor of an experimentors "hobby" bus was the
>draw.
>
>Allison
>
The 7109 is an adc, of the dual-slope integrating variety more or less like
the panel meter IC's Intersil developed and everyone else copied. I think
www.maxim-ic.com is the place to look for the functions on this board. I'll
let you guess what the DAC800 is. (chuckle) If it's working, it's probably
a keeper. Look for any additional identifiers and then hit the web with a
search for that.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:38 PM
Subject: ID this PC card
>Hi,
>
> I picked up an old IBM AT the other day and found a strange card in it.
>It's a full length card with an 8 bit ISA plug. It has two Burr Brown
>DAC800P-CBI-V ( D to A?) ICs on it along with a large IC marked TSC
>7109CPL. (I have no idea what that one is.) There is also a small flat
>sealed Yuasa NiCad battery in the top corner of the card. It has 37 pin
>male connector on the back and it's marked "copyright 1983 MBC". Most of
>the ICs are dated 1986. It looks like it may be some kind of D to A
>convertor card. Does anyone know what it is for sure?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
<agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
<certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion o
<why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
<goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
<
<Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
To yet another iteration of the last 30 years of computer and bus design.
To me it's mostly an exercise, few are into construction of their own
design and fewer still actually have the resources to do it. Those that
can aren't going to let a committe design their box (they do that at work).
so whats left... A discussion of buses and what was good or bad about each
one.
FYI: the greatest common problem of most buses is they tend to be somewhat
processor centric. To wit.
Multibus 8080, 8085, 808x, z80 mostly
STD Z80
VME 68K
Qbus PDP-11 or VAX
Unibus PDP-11 or VAX
SS50 6800 and 6809
The ugly exception! This doesn't make it good, only the odd exception
for unexplainable reasons despite being primarily a 8080 bus!
S100 8080, 8085, 808x, 80x86, z80, z180, LSI-11, AM100, TI9900, 6502,
6800, 6809, 6800x
How is it that one of the ugly busses stands out like this in history?
My cut is that the very flavor of an experimentors "hobby" bus was the
draw.
Allison
<Dwight, exactly, I forgot to say that I'm PULLING air from heat
<producing components via shrouds around heatsinks and ducts to draw
<out hot air from cards and PSU. Like vacuuming up hot air and keep
<it seperated from cooler air till exhausted outside.
Also most fans do not work well against any pressure, the airflow drops
greatly!
A small blower in the 15-50 cfm range will cost more than a fan but not
so much as to prevent attaining the goal of reliability via effective
cooling.
Allison
<> 2. The only way to make uniform air flow is with restriction.
<
<In other words: ducts and shrounds?
Thats it and ample power to motovate the air.
<Tell me about this "rotating air will do strange thing till
<straightened out" what it do strange thing? And how is done to
<straighten it out?
Air does not go through a fan smoothly and the rotation of the fan
plus aerodynamic effects imparts a spin on the air. That air will
not travel nicely.
<Do tell your tales about this! I'm trying to design a case to do
<cooling of all drives, PSU motherboard and CPU by one large quiet
<fan and ducts/shrounds. Isssues: noise and reliablity from too many
<fans.
Harder tha it looks as each drive has a differnt fit and different
air flow. Plan to use a big blower rather than a fan. Also air at
higher pressure can transport more heat so a 200cfm imparting a static
pressure of and inch of water along with airflow will cool better.
IT will also be noisy!
Allison
< Actually air flow is quite complicated. Using muffin type fans
<makes it worse. Here are some basic rules of thumb.
Yep!
<1. Fast moving air in an open space will find a surface
< and run along it.
Pressure boundary.
<2. The only way to make uniform air flow is with restriction.
Also a must as you cannot control freely moving air.
<3. Rotating air will do strange things until straightened
< out. ( examples, air coming from a rotary fan and also
< most air going through a single small restriction ).
Vanes unrotate air.
<4. Laminar flow is best understood but turbulent
< flow removes more heat.
The trick is to get turbulent air that goes where you want it.
< I have seen the above problems cause all kinds of effects
<that were not obvious at first.
The best case I know is the 8xxx and 9xxx series VAXes as they were air
cooled and also tried to be quiet and efficient in cooling the contents.
Both series would cook in minutes if the cooling failed (or if the phase
rotation was wrong!).
The Altair cooling was poor at best even with a 125CFM fan (noisy too).
the IMSAI was a bit better, the compupros s110 rack better still. The
best s100 crate was the Intergrand and TEI boxes as they clearly were built
to address the heat problem. An example of how rough this is the NS*
horizon I have has a 115cfm fan with a filter pushing air in and the box
has varios strips of manilla (144pound stock) to block and route the air
or the heat build up on the teltek HD controller and the z80 master
processors (z80, 64k sram, 2sio and ttl mapping and bus master logic)
would make them shut down even with a modified PS.
Allison
Anyone know what a ImageMaker Model IM100 by Presentation Technologies is ??
Saw one today at the thrift for $25 but would not buy since it was unknown
to me and was a little high in price. Thanks John
>
> Well, automobile collecting is definitely a rich-man's hobby; which
> sure leaves me out. I just find it painful to see our hobby go
> the same way.
>
> Jeff
Wrong... Just like computers, there are certain cars that are more
desirable than others. You wanna collect cars? There's half a dozen parked
in my neighorhood that you can get for free. OH.. That's no good enough,
you want the 55 T-Bird and you expect to get it for nothing.
You wanna collect computers? The thrift stores are full of 386s and 486s
that you can get for next to nothing! Truck loads of em go in the landfill
every single day. Nooooo... You wanna collect fancy computers with blinken
lights and all kinda of cool stuff that noone else has and you expect to
get it for nothing.
Get over it!
As a fairly new collector, I gotta say, you guys are spoiled. No-one ever
gave me an ALTAIR and I still love the hobby.
Sorry about the rant but, this argument is getting REALLY old.
You wanna flame me, do it off line. I'm sure most of the other members are
tired of hearing it too.
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
