>It's the bench-top console for the M7341 microprocessor. The
>KC341-A was the rack-mount console.
Thanks...
>One would presume, then, that you've got a couple M7341's in your
>archives, too :-).
I believe I had one board at some point, but I haven't see it yet...
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
<How is this AGC level derived, and how is it compared to the signal?
It is the rectifed output of the dectector circuit and and it's not
compared.
Allison
<Could anyone tell me how a radio detects signals vs. static? There is a
<little gauge on my radio that moves depending on the amount of noise vs.
<signal. I would guess that the digitally tuned radios that skip over the
<frequencies that are pure static work in the same way. What is this way?
Static is inchoherent radio signals (random). generally they are far
weaker so the selection is done on signal strength or in the case of FM
modulated systems reduction in received noise. Actually it's fairly
simple.
Allison
<Please forgive my interloping, here, but my SHUGART and Siemens SD 8" drive
<are spec'd for 6 ms step rate, and the double-headed types for 3 ms. It's
<really best (mechanically) to step these babies as fast as they will go, an
<it's quieter too.
Be specific on the model as the sa800s and 850s would never do 3ms! Though
the later ones did step faster. The problem with 8" drives are that there
were some that were doing their best at 10-12mS and a few like CDCs 3ms
was the norm. Most fell in around 6mS.
ALSO, the PC controller uses the 765 chip (or it's core) generally and
that chip can truncate the first step pulse by 1/2mS (8/5"). So the
fastest recommended step rate programming (srthut in SPECIFY command)
is 4mS. I believe it was never fixed.
Allison
<I bought mine new as a kit in '83, as part of the first production run.
<They didn't have HDD support then, and since I made and sold an adapter
<daughterboard to interface to Z-80 processor sockets, one of several, I wa
<not concerned about that. The board always worked reliably and, aside fro
<the occasional need to read a standard diskette, the system was pretty
<complete.
Mine is only slightly later, has the 5380 scsi chip.
<Well, the drive attached to my two boards, i.e. the hard drive, is an ST-50
<that was lying about some fifteen years ago when I happened to need a drive
The sequence of disks over the years for the HDD side:
xybec and st506 bought new in 82(late). Still have both.
Adaptec, and Quantum D540 (31mb) much faster.
the adaptec died and the xybec was in with a st251 for a while
then the fujitsu 3.5" scsi drive.
<>supported. The host interface was very similar in concept and nearly
<>in execution as IDE.
<
<
<The history included in the IDE spec clearly indicates that it was patterne
<after the 1003-WAH board (of PC/AT fame), which is the PC-bound eqivalent o
<the 1002. It uses the same IC's, hence the same command structure and bit
Here we go again... I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS IDE. I said it was similar in
respect that it was a bus level interface for a controller and predates
IDE. I do know that the wd1003 was what the IDE base design was patterned
after.
<definitions. I'm inclined to try hooking an IDE drive up in place of the
<1000-05 board and ST-506 drive just to see what it does. I'd imagine they
<emulated it faithfully.
<On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Allison J Parent wrote:
<>Simple dont use word, it's virus prone.
<
<What if someone needs it for their job?
<
<--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
Well as someone that's running 35 clients and 3servers all microspooge
I can say it's really keep me busy and a virus is really a major
headache. As a result for me it is the job. I'd rather be running VMS.
Allison
I thought it would (mmaybe) be helpful to point out that WD made several
similarly designated controllers during the period when the
8"-drive-compatible models were available. The WD 1000 series members which
used the 8X300 microcontroller used a different command set or register
organization, which was, IIRC inverted in some sense, i.e. either the
register order was the inverse of the one on the LSI version, or the
commands were the complement of the ones the LSI version (designated
1000-05, 1000-08, the latter of which I doubt was ever shipped) As several
folks have indicated some of these controllers had both the 50-pin connector
for the 8-inch drives' data cable, and the 34-pin connector for the 5-1/4"
drives' data cable.
What's not entirely obvious with the LSI controllers' jumper layout,
characterized in the documents only as a means for disconnecting biasing
voltages from the PLL circuitry during calibration, is that if one removes
the shorting plugs from some models, again depending on the version, a
jumper then will suffice to bypass the PLL circuitry, thereby allowing the
use of the clock already available from those drives which provide it on the
data connector. If this clock is fed to the circuitry downstream from the
PLL, the controller needs no further modification aside from changing the 4x
crystal, shipped at 20 MHz, to one at 17.36 MHz, which is 4x the standard
rate for 8" drives. That means that an oscillator and a single jumper is
all that's necessary to convert some of these boards from 5.25" to 8".
Persons wishing to use 8" HDD's should BE CAREFUL with the negative bias
supply. Just like some 8" FDD's, some of these drives have on-board
regulators for the negative supply, hence will only work if they're fed a
nominally -12 V dc source (actually anything greater than -8 vdc and not
damaging to the circuitry will be ok) since there's an on-board regulator.
A bypass jumper is usually provided, as some
drives will be used with supplies designed for drives without the on-board
regulator, therefore demanding -5V dc.
If this bias supply is not correct, either due to the lack of compatible
supply and regulator, or because -5 is being fed to the regulator, the drive
will not work. If -12 is fed to the drives which have no regulator, the
head interface circuits and probably the data conditioning circuits will be
damaged. BE CAREFUL!
I didn't learn about this over a beer after work, or by reading an article
in a magazine . . . 'nuff said???
Dick
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Maslin <donm(a)cts.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward?
>On 16 Apr 1999, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> > Specifically the WD-1000-5 disk controller. These are the ones that
>> [...]
>> > If you are intimately familiar with this legendary interface, I would
>> > like to hear from you. I need to figure out how to modify it for 8"
>> > harddrives.
>>
>> Regrettably I no longer have the manual or schematics for these, so a lot
>> of this is from memory.
>>
>> The WD1000-5 was the WD1000 repackaged on an 8" * 5.75" board, to match
the
>> form factor of 5.25" drives.
>>
>> The original WD1000 and WD1001 had both 34 and 50 pin drive control
>> connectors. I'm guessing that the WD1000-5 left the 50 pin connector
out.
>> However, you only need to scramble the pins appropriately, as the actual
>> signals are the same. All odd pins are ground on both connectors; the
others
>> should map thusly:
>>
>> 34-pin 50-pin signal
>>
>> 2 2 *RWC reduced write current
>> 4 4 *HS2 head select 2
>> 6 40 *WG write gate
>> 8 8 *SC seek complete
>> 10 42 *TK0 track 0
>> 12 44 *WF write fault
>> 14 14 *HS0 head select 0
>> 16 NC
>> 18 18 *HS1 head select 1
>> 20 20 *IDX index
>> 22 22 *RDY ready
>> 24 36 *STEP
>> 26 26 *DS1 drive select 1
>> 28 28 *DS2 drive select 2
>> 30 30 *DS3 drive select 3
>> 32 32 *DS4 drive select 4
>> 34 34 *DIR step direction (in when asserted)
>>
>> The radial data connectors are the same for both drive sizes.
>>
>> The bigger problem is that 8-inch drives used a data rate of 4.34 Mbps
rather
>> than 5 Mbps. I seem to recall that the WD1000 had a jumper setting for
this.
>> If they removed the 50-pin drive control connector, they probably also
removed
>> the jumper and supporting circuitry.
>>
>> > Also, does anyone have docs for the Quantum Q-2040 8"
>> > Winchester? I dunno what kind of power to feed it (24v sounds correct,
>> > but I seem to recall it used 110vac also!), and so on.
>>
>> No data here, but almost certainly not 110 VAC. Probably 24V AC and 5V
DC.
>
>Sorry Eric, but the spin motor is identical to the ones used in the
>Shugart SA80n series - 120 VAC 60Hz 1.6 Amp. The rest of the power
>requirements come in through a 6-pin connector, also identical to the
>Shugart, so I would assume +5 VDC, -5 VDC (maybe), and 24 VDC. Probably
>to the same pinout as the Shugart.
>
>> You *might* be able to get a Q2040 to run at 5 Mbps, but I've never
>> personally seen it done.
>
>I have a hazy recollection of running one on a latter day HDC to view data
>contents, but the details elude me now.
> - don
>
>
NOW YOU"VE DONE IT!!! I actually went down into the "pit" and found a
relevant data book. In this case it's the 1981 Zilog Data Book. The
portion of the first chapter, which deals with the CPU, has timing diagrams
on pages 18-20, dealing with the opcode fetch (M1)cycle, memory cycles, and
I/O cycles. The latter two types show both a read and a write cycle. From
the timing diagrams and text it is clear that unless one is concerned with
the minutiae of how the external resources are accessed, the only things
which need to be accounted for in evaluating the execution time of a series
of instructions is how many T-states or clock ticks are required for each
cycle type. Without wait states, an M1 CYCLE is ALWAYS 4 clock ticks long,
a memory read or write CYCLE is 3 clock ticks long, and an I/O read or write
CYCLE is 4 clock ticks.
It would be beneficial if we kept this discussion restricted to the two
processors at hand, i.e. the Z80 and (if you like) the MOSTEK and NEC
"equivalents" which at least claimed to exhibit the same timing
characteristics, and the NMOS 6502's in their various speed grades as were
available in 1980 more or less. There's no question that this doesn't
include the Z8 or the Z180 or the Z280 or any other part, nor does it apply
directly to the various other parts which later inherited the 'Z' or some of
the genuine Z80 characteristics. There's no doubt the Zilog folks, clever
as they were, figured out ways in which to improve their products in later
generations.
I thought I pretty well covered why it's not relevant how long the bird dips
his beak into the memory, so long as you remain mindful of how often,
maximally, it can do so. Your statement indicates an awareness of this, but
both your statement and your asserted conclusions suggest you've confused
the memory access cycle length for the memory cycle rate or frequency. For
purposes of clarity I've postulated that there are two parts to every cycle.
There are other ways of looking at this, but . . . There's the setup phase
and the "active" (for want of a better term) phase. The Z80 active phase
cannot be detected externally in the case of instructions which don't access
external resources. On a 6502 the active phase is defined by the
positive-going (high) portion of the Phase-2 clock. On the Z-80 an active
phase can be detected only when it involves external resources. I'd really
appreciate you referring me to a page in a data book current at the time
which makes any suggestion at all that the Z80 requires any fewer than 3
t-states to execute a non-M1-memory cycle. Even in an LDIR, where there are
NO opcode fetches at all once the process begins, each and every memory
access takes a minimum of three clock ticks or "t-states." This is true
whether the processor is clocked at its maximum or at a much slower rate.
This tells us that executing an absolute jump takes the duration of the
instruction fetch which means the opcode plus the two byte target address.
The diagram clearly shows four normal t-states plus the requisite wait-state
commonly inserted in M1 cycles, so, (a) we now have it straight from the
horse's mouth that the cycle with the one wait state, as your Ampro Little
Board undoubtedly allowed you to observe with your calibrated logic
analyzer, the M1 cycle takes a total of 5 t-states in this, the customary
implementation, and the two subsequent fetch cycles take three t-states
each.
So, the absolute jump takes minimally 4+3+3 clock ticks and, as typically
implemented, 5+3+3 (=11) clock ticks, not 12 as I estimated, to fetch the
entire instruction. The next cycle will ostensibly be an M1 cycle at the
16-bit address fetched as part of the absolute jump instruction. At the
very familiar 4 MHz, this is 2.75 microseconds. On the 6502, an opcode
fetch takes 1 clock tick. A fetch from memory takes 1 clock tick, and a
write to memory takes 1 clock tick. Consequently an absolute jump takes
three clock ticks. At 2 MHz, this is 1.5 microseconds.
You're right, the 6502 takes two clock ticks to execute any of the
"single-cycle" instructons. However, due to the designers' clever use of
simple pipelining, it executes two of them in three clock ticks and three of
them in four, as the execution of each wholly internal "single-cycle"
operation is overlapped with the next opcode fetch, so if you want to argue,
it takes only one, with the exception of the fact the first one takes two.
Its opcode was fetched during the last cycle of the previous instruction,
though, unless it was reached via jump, branch, call or interrupt. What
this means is that when you have a succession of ALU operations, e.g, a
sequence of shifts, the Z80 should win, right? . . . as it takes only five
clock ticks each (with the requisite wait-state) to fetch and execute four
successive left shifts, or 20 clock ticks which equals 5 microseconds. On
the 6502, because of the pipelining, it takes 5 clock ticks, which, in the
case of the 2 MHz processor, is 2.5 microseconds.
Please take a look at the additional comments I've embedded in the quoted
email below.
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: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
><the relatively short memory access strobe, while I was talking about the
><frequency at which they occur, as defined in the spec. I agree completely
>
>Yes so? Often the z80 is moving 16bits, with 8bit wide memory it's going
>to take several cycles. If it were a z280 that would be even more biased
>as it uses fewer "ticks" per cycle and the bus is 16bits wide. Counting
>ticks or whatever as I've repeatedly stated meaningless save for
>discussions of how memory is used and not who is faster.
>
>An aside at this point, the z280 runs different cycle timing as @4mhz would
>be the base z80 of the same speed and the z380 (in z80 native mode) beats
>that as the cycles have been shortend again.
This is irrelevant to the comparison between the processors in the title.
><personal. The fact remains, that the memory CYCLE is three clock ticks
><long, as defined in the spec (though I haven't looked at it in 15 years or
>
>It is not and Like I said the spec is infront of me as I type. Worst case
>its 2. But that in itself is again meaningless.
please, Please, PLEASE take another look. Remember it's the CYCLE length,
not the access strobe width that's relevant to this discussion.
><so since I haven't yet unearthed my Zilog or Mostek data books) and if you
><look at the pictures you saw with your logic analyzer, you should have see
><two read pulses of whatever lenght they were, spaced at very nearly 750 ns
><each time you saw the execution of an absolute jump, or any other
><instruction which consists of an opcode followed by a 16-bit address. The
><same is true of writes. They take one memory cycle, which is three clock
><ticks long, for each byte, although the memory write strobe is a mite
><shorter than the read strobe, IIRC, which I might not, but . . .
>
>Your memory is faulty. and that 750ns bumber is still meaningless. they
>only number for comparative purposes is the amount of time it takes to do
>an absolute jump. For Z80 @4mhz that will be 2.5us. It will require
>memory in the 250ns range to do it.
I've frequently demonstrated, of late, that my formerly steel-trap-mind has
moved significantly in the direction of the polyethylene colander. However,
I did still remembered the details I pointed out yesterday, with the
exception that I thought the minimal number of T-states in the M1 cycle was
five rather than four. . . but I did remember on which pages the diagrams
were printed.
><were inserted as they often were for M1 cycles. Nevertheless, commonly
use
><instructions were MUCH faster on the 2 MHz 6502, than on the 4 MHz Z-80.
>
>A 2mhz 6502 executes a 1byte (say INX) instuction in 2 machine cycles and
>that takes 1uS.
Yes, but it executes two of them in three machine cycles, and three in four,
etc. due to the pipelining which allows overlapped execution and opcode
fetch.
>A 4mhz INC B (any register) takes 4 z80 clocks at 4mhz... damm if that
>doesn't happen to be 1uS! Where is the speed difference?
Yes, but if you execute two of them, it takes 8, and if you execute three it
takes 12. That's 3 microseconds. Now, a 2 MHz 6502 takes only 2
microseconds to increment a register twice.
>According to my book a 6502 absolute jump takes 3-5 cycles and in the 5
>cycle case its 2.5 us.
Not quite . . . the 5 tick jump is an indirect jump, opcode 0x6C. An
absolute jump, opcode=0x4C takes only and exactly three clock ticks.
><probably measure three microseconds for those twelve clock ticks (T-states
><which is EXACTLY how long a 1 MHz 6502 takes to do that. Hence, I conclud
>
>Exactly my point. The 6502 is not faster, it only marches to a different
drummer.
Yes, but if you had carefully read the quoted statement from my previous
email, you'd have noticed I referenced it to a 1 MHz processor, not a 2 MHz
one as was used in the comparison. So you see, for the sake of this
comparison, the drummer is beating twice as quickly.
><I've concluded that most code I've seen underutilizes the internal
resource
><and overutilizes the external ones. Code like that favors processors with
><more time-efficient use of the external resources. Hence, my assertion
that
><there's reason to believe the 6502 at 2 MHz could outrun the 4 MHz Z-80 in
><more or less typical code and in a more or less typical hardware
>
>No again. It can match the z80 and in some cases it's better or worse.
>
Well, I'd be very pleased to see a block of code written to accomplish any
useful (or otherwise definable) task in less time on a 4 MHz Z-80 than it
would take a 2 MHz 6502 to achieve the same end. I'm not saying I can write
better code than you, nor am I even saying it can't be done. I've never
seen it, though. It's virtually impossible to do this against a 1 MHz 6502,
and you're allowing me to continue the comparison between a 4MHz Z-80A and a
2 MHz 6502A, right? The immediately following statement which you quoted
>from my previous email states my view on this. I'd still be interested, if
only as point of curiosity.
>
><environment. Code written to make better than average utilization of the
><internals of a Z-80 might fare better against equally well-written code on
><6502. I'm comfortable with the reality that I'll probably never know for
><certain. Since neither processor is particularly important these days, no
><terribly important to me either.
>
>Agreed well written code is essential for either to do useful work.
>
><None of this is really worth getting all excited about because, by the way
><in spite of its "better" performance, (by my assessment) the 6502 didn't
><accomplish more useful work on MY behalf, because I used a Z-80 running
CP/
><every chance I got due to the abundance of really decent tools and office
><automation software.
>
>Therein lies the key. A good system is not always defined by it's
>hardware. Systems are a combination of practical hardware and functional
>software. This account for why despite their flaws the TRS80, Apple II,
>Z80 CPM based as well as others florished. Most people didn't program
>8080z806502ti990018028085680980886800065815 they ran basic or a word
>processor. the run on of part numbers was deliberate as to most people
>the cpu used was just a number.
>
Quite so, and I'd still be waiting today to get my old 6502 to run WordStar
under CP/M . . .
>
>Allison
>
>
>>Generally the gauge is a reading of the AGC (automatic gain control)
>>level being applied by the radio's IF. There are many other ways to derive
>>this signal, but this is the most common one.
>How is this AGC level derived, and how is it compared to the signal?
Nothing fancy - the AGC circuit is typically just a simple rectifier followed
by a RC time constant. The resulting level goes to your meter and is fed
back into the IF at a point where changing a bias affects the gain. If
there's a "skip over static" function in a digital tuner, it's typically
done by comparing the AGC level with a fixed voltage (possibly settable
with a pot somewhere.)
There are fancier methods of detecting the presence of a signal if you
know something specific about that signal. For instance, if you know that
it's a FM stereo broadcast, you can look for the FM subcarrier.
--
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
<Well, that's not very far from what I wrote, is it? I was just pointing
<out that although Allison seemed to imply that a 6 or 8MHz Z80 was much
<faster than a 4MHz(? I haven't got the original message any more) 6502, I
<believe that to be far from the case.
I was pointing out that is the processor was running fast enough even a
dog can look good. ;) Obviously using a 8mhz z80 as the standard your
comparison CPU had better be of similar generational speed or it may fail
the test. the inverse is with a 33mhz z185 I know I can blow the 65c02
out of the water unless someone has at least a 25-30mhz 6502!
Allison
Guys:
I suspect there is one among us who can rightfully bear this title;
if so, I need his guidance, wisdom, and council. I have some questions
regarding some obscure MFM disk interfaces made by Western DIgital.
Specifically the WD-1000-5 disk controller. These are the ones that
pre-dated the HDC's they made for the ISA bus; they were frequently
found on CP/M and MP/M machines that were equipped with fixed disk drives
(some of the TeleVideo machines come to mind).
If you are intimately familiar with this legendary interface, I would
like to hear from you. I need to figure out how to modify it for 8"
harddrives. Also, does anyone have docs for the Quantum Q-2040 8"
Winchester? I dunno what kind of power to feed it (24v sounds correct,
but I seem to recall it used 110vac also!), and so on.
Thanks.
Jeff
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Please forgive my interloping, here, but my SHUGART and Siemens SD 8" drives
are spec'd for 6 ms step rate, and the double-headed types for 3 ms. It's
really best (mechanically) to step these babies as fast as they will go, and
it's quieter too.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Maslin <donm(a)cts.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: 8" drive on a pc controller
>On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Bill Sudbrink wrote:
>
>> > > Shouldn't you gentlemen be considering, instead of which format, at
>> what
>> > > kind of DRIVE is involved?
>> >
>> > Excellent point, as I have been using a Mitsubishi that I set at 6ms.
>>
>> Ah!
>>
>> Shugart and Seimens drives, requiring 15ms.
>
>More usual is 10ms.
> - don
>
>
>
> "Kar" is derivated from the Oldhighgerman word of chara/kara with
> an meaning of grief/mourning - so the Karwoche is the week of
> mourning for Christ / the mourning period. While this word is
> no longer in use in German (and no derivate, AFAIK), it is still
> present in English as 'care' (Didn't I already mention that English
> preserved a lot mor ol German words than German itself ? So learning
> English is kind of learning old German.)
>
> I hope this wil end your life long search for the meaning of Kar.
Many thanks.
Perhaps one day I'll learn Anglo-saxon. This is apparently rather like learning
German...
> P.S.: Now solve the riddle of Ostern/Eastern.
Oh no, now I'm getting even further off topic! Historically, Christianity has
had a habit of placing Christian festivals next to pagan ones so as to help
subsume them. A classic example is the winter solstice, which has had Christmas
(Weihnachten) dumped on it. But the name of the North European solstice
festival, Yule, has survived in many languages' names for Christmas.
In the case of the Pascha, the date was based on the Passover - the Jewish
festival at the spring equinox. This put in close to pagan equinoctial
festivals, and the pagan name, Easter/Ostern, has survived in English and
German. The usual explanation is that it derives from the name of a pagan
goddess, Aostre.
Good enough?
Philip.
Can anyone tell me what a
KC341-B
Microprocessor series Monitor/Control panel
is? (Other than the obvious).
It is a DEC item -- it appears to have the standard switches
for a computer front panel, but for a 14-bit wide machine...
I found two of them in my archives, still packed in their
boxes. One has a cable which connects to it and which ends
in a paddle board for plugging into a DEC backplane. I also
have a print set for it...
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry(a)zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg(a)world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | |
| 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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>Can anyone tell me what a
>
> KC341-B
> Microprocessor series Monitor/Control panel
>
>is? (Other than the obvious).
It's the bench-top console for the M7341 microprocessor. The
KC341-A was the rack-mount console.
>It is a DEC item -- it appears to have the standard switches
>for a computer front panel, but for a 14-bit wide machine...
>I found two of them in my archives, still packed in their
>boxes.
One would presume, then, that you've got a couple M7341's in your
archives, too :-).
--
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
>> attitude is part of a larger problem. Personally, I do not like to damage
>> anything, but once in a while, I like to have some fun. If I didn't do
>
> You know, I like to have fun as well. But my fun consists of taking a
> pile of parts 'beyond economic repair' and getting them working again. Or
> taking a few bits of scrap metal and learning to machine them. Or
> designing Yet Another Useless Interface. In other words creating something.
Hear, hear!
> I really don't understand this love of breaking things.
Nor do I, even though I occasionally experience it. But I try to suppress my
love of braking things on the rare occasions when it does appear, because
creating things is so much more fun.
Philip.
No, I have no personal conflict with an Apple employee. The problem to
which I refer was all to common back in the '70's. Perhaps it was because
of the way in which the various program vendors wrote their software, but
I'd bet it's because they weren't left much choice. The detail to which I
refer is the absence of a message like the infamous IBM-PC's ". . . Abort,
Retry, Fail . . ." message. Once the Apple encountered a read error of some
type, it seemed that it couldn't recover without a restart. I don't know
the details, but I saw it every day that I was in the same room with an
Apple that was not idle. It seemed that the only way to avoid this type of
problem was to avoid the Apple, so, with one notable exception, that was
what I did. These things are based on perceptions, though, not necessarily
a sound and rigorous evaluation of the facts.
I once worked in a room with over a dozen MAC's though, and was the only one
with both a MAC and a PC/AT. We constantly had "trouble" with the MAC's
while I continued to chug along with my PC/AT running DOS. My work was
always ahead of schedule if I could stick to the PC. Now, when I ran the
MAC, e.g. using EXCEL, or McDRAW, which provided functions not so readily
available to the PC, I didn't have as much trouble as some of the more
common programs used by the others, e.g. WORD or MacWrite. I did my writing
in WordStar which I knew quite well, having used it since pre-release 0.7
(WordMaster). I imagine that quite a bit of the trouble was due to the
newness of the network scheme used to share the two laser printers. I'd
point out almost daily, that my PC/AT with a laser printer and a substantial
hard disk, plus a COLOR display, which none of the MAC's there had, cost
less than one of these MAC's alone.
The bias I held against Apple products was based on the perception that lots
of features and performance were sacrificed in favor of the rather lame
color display, which I then felt was useful for games and other forms of
entertainment, which I felt were out of place in the office.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4
floppies)
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> My contempt for Apple begins and ends with their total disregard for the
>> value of your data. If you wrote to their floppies, especially if your
>> computer was in the "front room" of a business, exposed to whatever dust
was
>> carried in by customers and wind, etc, from the parking lot, (I had a
client
>> years ago, whose mail-order business was operated with the "help" of an
>> Apple-II with two controllers and three drives in just such a location.)
>> you'd frequently observe the computer locking up because it had come to a
>> bit it couldn't read. The reason was probably contamination of media or
>> drives, but the only recovery was the reset. Your data, meanwhile, and
>> perhaps your customer calling long distance, were gone by now. They
>> designed the MAC with no memory parity assuming that you'd not mind if
your
>> data was corrupted without your knowledge, and though the disk handling
was
>> a bit more mature than the Apple-II "I give up . . . and die" it wasn't
much
>> better.
>
>This sounds like poorly written software to me. The only time I've ever
>had my Apple ][ lock up because some data couldn't be read from the disk
>was because the software told the Apple to lock up. I think your bias is
>totally unfounded, or at least founded upon a predisposition to hating the
>Apple ][ for some odd reason. Did an Apple employee fart near you or spit
>on your car at some point in your life or something?
>
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 04/03/99]
>
On 12 Apr 99 at 21:36, Mike Ford wrote:
> I have been thinking about and looking for a list like this one, except
> instead of hardware collecting, it would be about collecting software. I
> haven't found any existing list, so I am getting motivated to start a list
> on one of the various services that will host a list for free (free free
> ideally, but I don't have a problem with an ad supported list server
> either). I have a fair amount of feedback that such a list would be
> desirable, so other than a charter which I am still thinking on, two basic
> questions need answering in the next few days so I can get going.
It's a while since anyone last posted the charter for this list, but
I'm sure that it doesn't discourage discussion of >10year software. I
though Classiccmp was about the entire "classic computing experience"
not just the hardware nitty gritty anyway?
Phil
**************************************************************
Phil Beesley -- Computer Officer -- Distributed Systems Suppport
University of Leicester
Tel (0)116 252-2231
E-Mail pb14(a)le.ac.uk
What it amounts to is soldering the "front" of the SIMM to one edge of the
pins and soldering the reverse side to the other. if the edge of the SIMM
is appropriately close to the pin-strip, it makes a very solid connection,
with the loading stresses well distributed.
It doesn't stagger anything. These screw-machine single-pin sockets come in
plastic strips which keep them aligned. The way I accomplish this sort of
thing is plug them into a board which fits their barrel and proceed to
solder the connections, end pins first, on each side of the SIMM until the
job is finished. It's a lot of work, and not always worth it. I once
soldered 4 4MB SIMMs into this arrangement, only to learn that the
motherboard I was using wouldn't deal with the 4 MB parts. . . . too bad .
. .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find.
>At 09:23 AM 4/16/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>>BTW, it's important that they be soldered on both sides. That's what
makes
>>the job difficult.
>
>How in the world do you do that? Wouldn't they become staggered?
>
>----------------------------------------
> Tired of Micro$oft???
>
> Move up to a REAL OS...
>######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ #
>#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /##
>####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /###
>###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |####
>##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|####
># ######
> ("LINUX" for those of you
> without fixed-width fonts)
>----------------------------------------
>Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com
>
>Slackware Mailing List:
>http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html
--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
> Actually, there was a DIPP package for many of the DRAMs. It was a
> single-in-line-looking version of the DIP, except that all the pins were on
> one side and they were staggered in their alignment.
I have several classic machines that use them, the Amiga 3000 included.
> These were most often referred to as ZIP's, though I don't know why.
Zigzag Inline Package
> The package was somewhat popular for about 5 years, after which it fell
> into disuse.
They were more fragile than DIP DRAMs (I've broken several pins off over
the years), but they did provide much better RAM density over DIPs. If
you wanted 4Mb of RAM with 256K parts or 16Mb of RAM with 1Mb parts, the
board space for DIPs was enormous.
What really killed ZIPs wasn't just the fragile nature of the pins, it was
the rise of SIPPs then SIMMs, once the custom sockets became available. You
get ZIP-like memory density with very few customer-acccessible interconnects
to go wrong.
I have a pile of 1Mx1 ZIPs that I don't need (I got a bag of mixed chips
and pulled all the 256Kx4's for my A3000). Does anyone out there need
some 70 or 80ns 1Mx1 ZIPs? I also have a few *massive* ZIPs that I think
are video memory of some kind. I'll have to look up the part number.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
BTW, it's important that they be soldered on both sides. That's what makes
the job difficult.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find.
>You can solder a SIMM to a 30-pin row of screw-machine socket pins (not
>easy, but it works) and end up with connections much superior to what you
>normally get with SIPPs. They will not bend as easily and you'll have much
>less trouble with the beasties than with normal SIPPs, especially the ones
>which have once had a bent pin, because those continue to want to bend.
>
>Dick
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net>
>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
>Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:57 AM
>Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find.
>
>
>>
>>>>Have you got any 1Mb DIPPs??
>>>
>>>I have seen SIPPs, but have none of either. What exactly is a DIPP?
>>
>>A DIPP is another name for SIPP by morons (Like myself) who momentarily
>>forgot that SIPP was the correct name.
>>
>>Anyone have any small 1Mb SIPPs?
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>> Tired of Micro$oft???
>>
>> Move up to a REAL OS...
>>######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ #
>>#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /##
>>####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /###
>>###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |####
>>##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|####
>># ######
>> ("LINUX" for those of you
>> without fixed-width fonts)
>>----------------------------------------
>>Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com
>>
>>Slackware Mailing List:
>>http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html
>
>
> Actually, there was a DIPP package for many of the DRAMs. It was a
> single-in-line-looking version of the DIP, except that all the pins were on
> one side and they were staggered in their alignment. These were most often
> referred to as ZIP's, though I don't know why. The package was somewhat
> popular for about 5 years, after which it fell into disuse.
>
> Dick
ZIP == ZigZag Inline Package
Actually, there was a DIPP package for many of the DRAMs. It was a
single-in-line-looking version of the DIP, except that all the pins were on
one side and they were staggered in their alignment. These were most often
referred to as ZIP's, though I don't know why. The package was somewhat
popular for about 5 years, after which it fell into disuse.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Roberts <geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net>
>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
>Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 10:19 PM
>Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find.
>
>
>>
>> >>Have you got any 1Mb DIPPs??
>> >
>> >I have seen SIPPs, but have none of either. What exactly is a DIPP?
>>
>> A DIPP is another name for SIPP by morons (Like myself) who momentarily
>> forgot that SIPP was the correct name.
>>
>> Anyone have any small 1Mb SIPPs?
>
>Yes I have quite a few ex 386SX-20 Diskless workstations circa 1993.
>Er small? Was there more than one size.
>These are the same size as the equivalent simm, and can be converted to
same
>by CAREFULLY removing the pins and the solder. (Not easy, but I have done
>it and made it work on occasion - though only when desperate it's a real
>PITA)
>
>Cheers
>
>Geoff Roberts
>
>
Oddly enough, though it hasn't been my stock-in-trade for about 15 years, I
still have the manual for the original WD-1000 controller. I may, in fact,
even have one of the boards around somewhere. I certainly have a couple of
the ones used in the TVI TS-806-20's I have sitting in the driveway (under
4" of snow, at the moment).
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
>To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
>Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 1:45 AM
>Subject: Re: Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward?
>
>
>>> Specifically the WD-1000-5 disk controller. These are the ones that
>>[...]
>>> If you are intimately familiar with this legendary interface, I would
>>> like to hear from you. I need to figure out how to modify it for 8"
>>> harddrives.
>>
>>Regrettably I no longer have the manual or schematics for these, so a lot
>>of this is from memory.
>>
>>The WD1000-5 was the WD1000 repackaged on an 8" * 5.75" board, to match
the
>>form factor of 5.25" drives.
>
>
>There's more to the difference than that. For one thing, the WD1000 series
>used the WD1100 chipset and an 8X300 microcontroller to run the whole
thing,
>while the WD1000-05 and -08, as well as the later models, used the WD1010
>chip along with other combinations of the 40-pin support chipset of which
>WD1014, which was, in at least one incarnation, an 8041.
>
>>The original WD1000 and WD1001 had both 34 and 50 pin drive control
>>connectors. I'm guessing that the WD1000-5 left the 50 pin connector out.
>>However, you only need to scramble the pins appropriately, as the actual
>>signals are the same. All odd pins are ground on both connectors; the
>others
>>should map thusly:
>>
>> 34-pin 50-pin signal
>>
>> 2 2 *RWC reduced write current
>> 4 4 *HS2 head select 2
>> 6 40 *WG write gate
>> 8 8 *SC seek complete
>> 10 42 *TK0 track 0
>> 12 44 *WF write fault
>> 14 14 *HS0 head select 0
>> 16 NC
>> 18 18 *HS1 head select 1
>> 20 20 *IDX index
>> 22 22 *RDY ready
>> 24 36 *STEP
>> 26 26 *DS1 drive select 1
>> 28 28 *DS2 drive select 2
>> 30 30 *DS3 drive select 3
>> 32 32 *DS4 drive select 4
>> 34 34 *DIR step direction (in when asserted)
>
>
>This should look pretty much like 8" floppy disks. An early controller I
>built used an FDC chip to drive these control signals, as the 8"
Winchesters
>had the same maximal step rate back then as the 8" double-headed FDD's.
>That's overkill, and the FDC expects to see things from the data stream
>which close the loop, and it won't see them. Open-loop, e.g. simple
>head-positioning command operation is possible, at least to see if the
>drive's mechanical functions are working. An enterprising approach would
be
>to operate the drive with a pair of small single-chippers one fairly slow
>one to handle the head positioning, and the other a fairly quick one to
>modulate the data, e.g. with ERLL code as was used in the PERSTOR
>controllers.
>
>>The radial data connectors are the same for both drive sizes.
>
>
>Yes except that some drives extracted clock locally and sent it on the data
>cable as well. For that reason, it would be advisable to stick with the
>4.34 MHz data rate. Keep in mind, also, that while the wide cable is
driven
>with open collectors, the data cable is intended to be driven with
>differential drivers/receivers of the MC3486/87 or 26LS31/32 type.
>
>>The bigger problem is that 8-inch drives used a data rate of 4.34 Mbps
>rather
>>than 5 Mbps. I seem to recall that the WD1000 had a jumper setting for
>this.
>>If they removed the 50-pin drive control connector, they probably also
>removed
>>the jumper and supporting circuitry.
>
>
>Western Digital was somewhat confused about how they should number their
>controller models back in those days, and the scheme got muddled, but as I
>recall, and I have some controllers to prove it, the data rate was fixed on
>the board at the factory, in some cases, particularly the larger WD1000
>boards with the WD1100 chips + 8X300 on board, had a discrete VCO as
opposed
>to the 74S124 or the LS624 they later used. These VCO's had to be tuned
>quite carefully and a procedure was included in the instruction manual.
>There were jumpers for accomplishing this tuning operation on nearly every
>type of board in this entire family, but one needed both a crystal and a
>retuned VCO for the PLL, not to mention changing the passive components in
>the integrator (LPF) of the clock extraction circuitry. The process of
>setting the VCO center frequency was not terribly difficult, but one had to
>know which jumpers to remove at which stage of the operation because there
>were inputs to the circuit which had to be active and other which had to be
>passive at different stages of the operation.
>
>>> Also, does anyone have docs for the Quantum Q-2040 8"
>>> Winchester? I dunno what kind of power to feed it (24v sounds correct,
>>> but I seem to recall it used 110vac also!), and so on.
>>
>>No data here, but almost certainly not 110 VAC. Probably 24V AC and 5V
DC.
>
>
>The power connections are precisely what is used with an 8" FDD, including
a
>110 VAC supply for the spindle motor. Don't forget that some 8" drives had
>to be fed a negative 5V supply while others could swallow either -12 Vdc
>or -5, depending on a jumper because they had on-board regulation. You
have
>to look for the regulator and ensure it has the jumper which bypassed it in
>the correct position.
>
>>You *might* be able to get a Q2040 to run at 5 Mbps, but I've never
>personally seen it done.
>
>We, meaning my people and I, tried this several times and never got it to
>work reliably with Shugart drives. They did some signal processing on the
>data, and included clock on the cable, so you might be able to skip the VCO
>retuning if you can find the "right" place to inject this conditioned clock
>in the data/clock recovery circuit. I'd be surprised to find the Quantum
>drives did things much differently, as they had to be compatible with the
>Shugarts, and some controllers, e.g. Intel's, relied on the drives or other
>external circuitry to extract clock.
>
You can solder a SIMM to a 30-pin row of screw-machine socket pins (not
easy, but it works) and end up with connections much superior to what you
normally get with SIPPs. They will not bend as easily and you'll have much
less trouble with the beasties than with normal SIPPs, espacially the ones
which have once had a bent pin, because those continue to want to bend.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find.
>
>>>Have you got any 1Mb DIPPs??
>>
>>I have seen SIPPs, but have none of either. What exactly is a DIPP?
>
>A DIPP is another name for SIPP by morons (Like myself) who momentarily
>forgot that SIPP was the correct name.
>
>Anyone have any small 1Mb SIPPs?
>
>----------------------------------------
> Tired of Micro$oft???
>
> Move up to a REAL OS...
>######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ #
>#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /##
>####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /###
>###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |####
>##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|####
># ######
> ("LINUX" for those of you
> without fixed-width fonts)
>----------------------------------------
>Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com
>
>Slackware Mailing List:
>http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 1:45 AM
Subject: Re: Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward?
>> Specifically the WD-1000-5 disk controller. These are the ones that
>[...]
>> If you are intimately familiar with this legendary interface, I would
>> like to hear from you. I need to figure out how to modify it for 8"
>> harddrives.
>
>Regrettably I no longer have the manual or schematics for these, so a lot
>of this is from memory.
>
>The WD1000-5 was the WD1000 repackaged on an 8" * 5.75" board, to match the
>form factor of 5.25" drives.
There's more to the difference than that. For one thing, the WD1000 series
used the WD1100 chipset and an 8X300 microcontroller to run the whole thing,
while the WD1000-05 and -08, as well as the later models, used the WD1010
chip along with other combinations of the 40-pin support chipset of which
WD1014, which was, in at least one incarnation, an 8041.
>The original WD1000 and WD1001 had both 34 and 50 pin drive control
>connectors. I'm guessing that the WD1000-5 left the 50 pin connector out.
>However, you only need to scramble the pins appropriately, as the actual
>signals are the same. All odd pins are ground on both connectors; the
others
>should map thusly:
>
> 34-pin 50-pin signal
>
> 2 2 *RWC reduced write current
> 4 4 *HS2 head select 2
> 6 40 *WG write gate
> 8 8 *SC seek complete
> 10 42 *TK0 track 0
> 12 44 *WF write fault
> 14 14 *HS0 head select 0
> 16 NC
> 18 18 *HS1 head select 1
> 20 20 *IDX index
> 22 22 *RDY ready
> 24 36 *STEP
> 26 26 *DS1 drive select 1
> 28 28 *DS2 drive select 2
> 30 30 *DS3 drive select 3
> 32 32 *DS4 drive select 4
> 34 34 *DIR step direction (in when asserted)
This should look pretty much like 8" floppy disks. An early controller I
built used an FDC chip to drive these control signals, as the 8" Winchesters
had the same maximal step rate back then as the 8" double-headed FDD's.
That's overkill, and the FDC expects to see things from the data stream
which close the loop, and it won't see them. Open-loop, e.g. simple
head-positioning command operation is possible, at least to see if the
drive's mechanical functions are working. An enterprising approach would be
to operate the drive with a pair of small single-chippers one fairly slow
one to handle the head positioning, and the other a fairly quick one to
modulate the data, e.g. with ERLL code as was used in the PERSTOR
controllers.
>The radial data connectors are the same for both drive sizes.
Yes except that some drives extracted clock locally and sent it on the data
cable as well. For that reason, it would be advisable to stick with the
4.34 MHz data rate. Keep in mind, also, that while the wide cable is driven
with open collectors, the data cable is intended to be driven with
differential drivers/receivers of the MC3486/87 or 26LS31/32 type.
>The bigger problem is that 8-inch drives used a data rate of 4.34 Mbps
rather
>than 5 Mbps. I seem to recall that the WD1000 had a jumper setting for
this.
>If they removed the 50-pin drive control connector, they probably also
removed
>the jumper and supporting circuitry.
Western Digital was somewhat confused about how they should number their
controller models back in those days, and the scheme got muddled, but as I
recall, and I have some controllers to prove it, the data rate was fixed on
the board at the factory, in some cases, particularly the larger WD1000
boards with the WD1100 chips + 8X300 on board, had a discrete VCO as opposed
to the 74S124 or the LS624 they later used. These VCO's had to be tuned
quite carefully and a procedure was included in the instruction manual.
There were jumpers for accomplishing this tuning operation on nearly every
type of board in this entire family, but one needed both a crystal and a
retuned VCO for the PLL, not to mention changing the passive components in
the integrator (LPF) of the clock extraction circuitry. The process of
setting the VCO center frequency was not terribly difficult, but one had to
know which jumpers to remove at which stage of the operation because there
were inputs to the circuit which had to be active and other which had to be
passive at different stages of the operation.
>> Also, does anyone have docs for the Quantum Q-2040 8"
>> Winchester? I dunno what kind of power to feed it (24v sounds correct,
>> but I seem to recall it used 110vac also!), and so on.
>
>No data here, but almost certainly not 110 VAC. Probably 24V AC and 5V DC.
The power connections are precisely what is used with an 8" FDD, including a
110 VAC supply for the spindle motor. Don't forget that some 8" drives had
to be fed a negative 5V supply while others could swallow either -12 Vdc
or -5, depending on a jumper because they had on-board regulation. You have
to look for the regulator and ensure it has the jumper which bypassed it in
the correct position.
>You *might* be able to get a Q2040 to run at 5 Mbps, but I've never
personally seen it done.
We, meaning my people and I, tried this several times and never got it to
work reliably with Shugart drives. They did some signal processing on the
data, and included clock on the cable, so you might be able to skip the VCO
retuning if you can find the "right" place to inject this conditioned clock
in the data/clock recovery circuit. I'd be surprised to find the Quantum
drives did things much differently, as they had to be compatible with the
Shugarts, and some controllers, e.g. Intel's, relied on the drives or other
external circuitry to extract clock.
>>Hang on. I don't claim to be fluent in C, so I was keeping out of this
debate,
>>but this is well weird! As I understand it, you don't have to prototype
>>anything in C - or shouldn't have to. The only C compiler I've ever used
>>doesn't even SUPPORT prototypes!
>
> I'm just not good with jargon. I meant declaring. In perl, everything is
> dynamically allocated. You don't do "int foo; foo=5;", you just do
> "$foo=5;".
Oh, I see. In that case I agree.
Philip.
I have added more info to the classic computer section of the Innfographics
auction web page.
http://members.aol.com/innfograph
It will be an interesting sale.
Paxton
Please remove my email address from the classiccmp list.
This email address is now being used by my business.
I will be getting a new address just for the classiccmp list.
Thanks,
Mike
mikeparadiso(a)worldnet.att.net
I saw a blurb in the newspaper (available at
http://www.tcm.org/join_forces.html) that The Computer Museum and The
Science Museum in Boston, MA are merging. It says that 'The History
Center' of the Computer Museum is now in Mountain View, California and is
applying to become a separate institution. Anyway, this shuffling may mean
lots of stuff being thrown out or damaged. The Computer Museum may opt to
clean out its basement...
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
--- Bill Pechter <pechter(a)pechter.dyndns.org> wrote:
> >
> > 30pin simms of any kind is very hard to come by now compared to
> > ease of obtaining used 72pin of all types.
>
> I'll swap 4 4mb 30 pit Simms for 16mb true parity 72pin simms in a minute.
> (The Sparc IPX used 33 bit wide Simms) but 36 will work.
I'd do the same. I have more 4Mx9 SIMMs than I need, and I do need between
two and four 16Mb true parity 72-pin SIMMs for a SPARC-LX (60ns) or my
Alpha (70ns).
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
While going through the stuff on my top shelf, I ran across some boxes I
aquired when the local Commodore dealer went out of business several
years
ago. Among the booty are a couple of special boards that I need some
more
info on before I can put them to use...
I have these two boards, new in the box, with all the cables, etc.,
one Computhink (324042-01) and one BMB (324038-01). There's excellent
scanned docs on ftp.funet.fi as well as three demo disk images (which I
believe are very recent). I even happen to have one SuperPET language
reference manual. Do I need anything else? How do I go about selecting
the different languages in there?
Does anyone out there have a SuperPET with docs/software? I'd love to
find out a little bit about it before I go mucking around inside an
8032.
Thanks,
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > Shouldn't you gentlemen be considering, instead of which format, at
what
> > kind of DRIVE is involved?
>
> Excellent point, as I have been using a Mitsubishi that I set at 6ms.
Ah!
Shugart and Seimens drives, requiring 15ms.
In a message dated 4/15/99 9:11:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
cisin(a)xenosoft.com writes:
> billg said that 95 would work with 4M, but I was never able to run
> anything but "safe mode" (I have an NEC VERSA 486 that rejects memory
> expansion)
>
my girlfriend runs 95 on a 386-20 dec laptop with 4M. it works.
printing a page on the Laserjet takes 5 minutes.
Does anyone know what the purpose of a Xerox System 60 is?
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: 04/03/99]
In a message dated 99-04-15 19:12:43 EDT, you write:
> The Emperor's New Clothes in the information age :)
> How long does it take to install win95 on a 386? Longer than on a pentium,
> I'll bet, especially since you may have to sit there and swap floppies.
> I have no problem running Windows 3.1, I like it a lot more in some ways.
> It's a very nice program, now that I've seen the alternative :)
>
> --Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
there's nothing wrong with a 386 running win3.1 i think the min requirements
for windont95 is 386dx-40 and 8meg.
i setup a ps2 model 57sx for a person that normally couldnt afford one and
put plenty of old software like msworks and publisher and some dos games as
well as an external 14.4 modem. a local isp will help her set it up for net
access and she's happy as a clam. it is slow, but certainly better than
nothing. heck, even doom 2 will run on a 386 if you run it in a small window!
>> I saw a blurb in the newspaper (available at
>> http://www.tcm.org/join_forces.html) that The Computer Museum and The
>> Science Museum in Boston, MA are merging. It says that 'The History
>> Center' of the Computer Museum is now in Mountain View, California and
>> is applying to become a separate institution. Anyway, this shuffling
>> may mean lots of stuff being thrown out or damaged. The Computer Museum
>> may opt to clean out its basement...
>
>OK, so who is close enough to dumpster-dive?
I am... and I think Allison might be interested...
I heard something about this on NPR earlier today... they were talking
about how the purposes of both museums (with regard to computers) are
compatible in that they want to focus on the affect computers have had
on our lives... I take that to mean that they won't be as interested
in the hardware and specific technologies...
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
<>Personally, I tend to draw the line at the 386. In a Windows and GUI world
<>I really don't want the aggravation to trying to teach someone text mode
<>apps or of having to listen when they can't find *any* software. This is
<>the same reason I will never give another person an Apple II unless they
<>already know about and want one.
Most of the later 386 are ok, parts are easy and they do run winders95
though W3.1 is a better match. I know I've done it.
The real market for them is the MINIX/LINIX crowd as those OSs can really
make them sing. Minix on a DELL 316 (386slx/16 with 8mb) really runs well
and linux on same is fair.
Allison
I need a boot disk for an NEC APC III. I believe it has a 720k 5.25"
floppy, and uses a special version of DOS 2.11. My question is: If I can't
find a 720k 5.25" floppy (360k disks won't work), would I be able to replace
it with a 720k 3.5" drive?
ThAnX,
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
> 2-dimensional array. You don't have to prototype anything which is why I
> called it a lazy person's C.
Hang on. I don't claim to be fluent in C, so I was keeping out of this debate,
but this is well weird! As I understand it, you don't have to prototype
anything in C - or shouldn't have to. The only C compiler I've ever used
doesn't even SUPPORT prototypes!
(And that brings it back on topic, since it was installed in 1987 on the RT PC
later to become mine...)
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 by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
--- Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> wrote:
> Max,
>
> How many of the oddball PS2 floppy drives were wasted? I could use one or
> two. Sure they arent valueable but when you need one... I also use parts
> to the soldered board level.
I haven't got any spare PS2 floppies, but I do have a box of Sony floppy
drives, OEMed for Tandy that have blue eject buttons and no power connector.
I declined to purchase the $40 adapter (Radio Shack 1992 price) that allows
them to be used in a regular PC so I don't know the pinout (i.e., where the
voltage comes in on the 34-pin connector).
I do not know the density, but I suspect them to be 720K.
A) Does anyone want any of these?
B) Does anyone have the pinout of the 34-pin connector?
Thanks,
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>> Fair enough. Just another example of different places to draw boundaries,
with
>> grey areas in between. I would call the ROM version microcoded, and the hard
>> wired version not, because the ROM version contains CODE. (I would agree
that
>
> I think a lot of people would. I just have problems distinguishing them
> in the first place.
>
> This might be because I've worked with FPGAs where the logic block (5
> inputs 1 out) is a 32 bit RAM. I give my schematic to the FPGA compiler
> and it partitions the logic into suitable bits and works out what to
> stick in the RAMs to make the gates I need. Since I always checked (and
> sometimes corrected) what the compiler had done, I got used to thinking
> of combinatorial logic and programmed memories as being roughly the same
> thing.
Makes sense. Another grey area. I must admit that I too would call that
microcode. This is reminiscent of the famous analogu/digital grey area...
>> To show how grey this is, if you use a ROM to implement the combinatorial
logic
>> for a flipflop-per-state machine, would you call the code in this ROM
microcode?
>
> Hmmm... Now you mention it, I guess I have to call that microcode. I'm
> therefore inconsistent...
I wouldn't worry about it. Goedel's theorem says that if you weren't, you'd
have to be incomplete :-)
Philip.
>>The Friday before Easter is called Good Friday. I've never managed to
>>work out what "kar" means in your name for it. My favourite, though
>>is Ascension, which I understand you call Himmelfahrt...
>
> Literally, "gone to Heaven" -- my wife's maiden name (unmarried -- not sure
Yes, I got that (or "journey to Heaven"), from German O-level [UK exam taken at
age 16]. "Weihnacten", for Christmas, doesn't take much decoding to get "holy
night(s)". But my dictionary is quite silent as to what the element "kar-"
might represent.
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 by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
>The ROI is a rebadged Emulex UC07 SCSI disk or Tape, If you don't have
>docs let me know and I will organize something. The
>Emulex_unknown_001.jpg is a CS08 8 line mux - DHV11 emulation. I will
>need some more # from the plessey to figure it out.
Thanks VERY much... this helps. Yes, I would like more info on the
ROI board... Specifically I'd like to know about the switch pack
and its settings...
(I love this resource...:-)
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
> Oh? I'm running v1.44 and have no such problems.
Try creating a disk with a large directory, more than two tracks.
Then try to display the directory. On all of the drives that I have
tried, you will hear that little "click/tick" sound indicating that it
tried to step the heads too fast. You will then get a spurious
media failure message. Of course, it is possible that I missed
something in the instructions, but I beat my head against it
for a long time. Then tried the older version where you can
manually set the step delay and volia! No problems.
Hmm, perhaps wiring an external Terak floppy drive to a PC is a bit
more complicated than i thought.
I forgot that the Terak main unit controls the power switch on the
external drive somehow. Looking inside teh case, it looks like the
signal wires that correspond to "Step" have a special connection
in addition to going to the floppy drive. This must be what is
controlling the on/off switch, but i'm curious now as to how the
"Step" signal is supposed to work. Does anyone see how this might
be used to control the power?
And do you think i'm completely nuts to connect this thing to my
PC, ie, is it likely to burn out the motherboard ;) ... Ah well,
its not like it would be the first time i fried a computer.
-Lawrence LeMay
<From CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu Wed Apr 14 21:46:30 1999
<Return-Path: <CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu>
<Received: from lists2.u.washington.edu by world.std.com (TheWorld/Spike-2.0
< id AA01313; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:46:27 -0400
<Received: from host (server(a)lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13])
< by lists2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with SMTP
id SAA1
< Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:46:23 -0700
<Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]
< by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.02/8.9.3+UW99.01) with ESMTP
id SAA2
< for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:46:16
-0700
<Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [19
<Indeed you have... In fact, IMHO, everyone here who does design, or
<serious logic troubleshooting/repair should consider this instrument. Yes
<it's expensive (\pounds 550+tax in the UK). But I think it's well worth it
Well I don't have to have it... I have a 16 channel analyser good to 20mhz
and two 0'scopes and a custom anlyser hack I did years ago. Generally if
I have to bring out the scope it's nasty. The 8f was trouble shot with
nothing more than my fluke 12 multimeter as it ws closest at hand.
<Even an LED and a resistor (between an IC pin and ground) is a good
<start. No you won't see fast pulses. But you will see things that are
<stuck it totally the wrong state. I debugged my first homebrew
<microcomputer (SC/MP + RAM, basically) using just such an LED+resistor
I have one in a clear pen barrel with a point and and a cliplead, very
handy! It's pretty easy to tell, high low and something that's pulsing
even at high rates. Another handy item is a 4040 cmos counter to make
fast things into tones (earphone). That trick came from the NS* disck
controller troubleshooting hints.
Intelligently used simple tools can be very useful.
Allison
Hey I live near Santa Clara when and where is this vintage computer
festival going to take place.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>Off the top of my head I do not know of a similar org here. There is
>however the MassTech Core which is involved in getting computeres into
>schools (internet based, so only 386 or higher need apply).
>
When I get PC's (286,386 and 486) with equipment I need I donate them to the
local Hospice group. Every year they run a huge flea market here and sell
them for anywhere from $100 to $400. How they get the prices they get I
have never been able to figure out other than they are nonprofit and a good
cause. A few years ago they were having to buy standard NEMA power cords
for systems that had been donated. When I found out I went out to my truck
and found a few loose ones. A couple months later I got several hundred
with a large lot of DEC equipment and they were very happy to get those as
well.
The last couple years they have been tight on storage space so now they call
me when they are ready for some. This year they called as I was unloading a
bunch of PC's and trying to figure out what to do with them. Boy was I
happy they called.
Dan
Larry Walker wrote:
> Muellers 3rd edition mentions 3 to 6 custom cards. You also required the
> 3270PC keyboard and the 5272 monitor which allegedly was comparable to an
> EGA. Other than that it was a stock XT M-B
5272 was 720 * 350 pixels, like an EGA, but only 8 colours. I seem to remember
reading recently that the 3270-PC could use the IBM monochrome display instead
(which presumably meant that it emulated a 3278 instead of a 3279)
> He outlines the boards which are
>
> 1. 3270 System Adapter- to connect to a remote 3274 controller
>
> 2. Display Adapter- extended-character in 8 colors
>
> 3. Extended Graphics Adapter for local graphics in Hi (2colorsat 720x350 or
> 640x200) and med. (4 colors at 360x350 or 320x200) IBM called this an XGA
> not the same as the PS2 Extended Graphics ARRAY.
Interesting. It seems that IBM terminology is not only different from both
American and British dialects of our language, but internally different on the
too sides of the Atlantic too. At IBM Bristol, this was _always_ called the APA
card.
> 4. Programmed Symbols Adapter to provide graphics capabilities available on
> 3278/3279 display stations. Needed the XGA in an adjacent slot. Joes' card.
Needed the XGA in an adjacent slot? Ouch! I had always assumed that you could
have just this and the display adaptor, but I admit to having no evidence to
back this up.
> 5. Keyboard Adapter - went in the 8th slot and connected the special K-B.
>
> On delivery the XT slots in the 3270PC were filled with the Sys adapter, the
> display adapter,K-B adapter, FDD adapter, and HDD controller. With the graphic
> adapter and memory multifunction card not much room left.
> Interestingly the 3270PC Control Program allowed up to 7 windows at one time.
> Shades of things to come. Apparently there was also an AT version.
I'd forgotten that the keyboard adaptor was a separate card. IIRC, it came with
a special cable that linked it to the keyboard and to the keyboard port of the
XT.
The keyboard, as well as having 24 function keys instead of the XT's usual 10,
had keys like "jump" to move between windows. These keys were intercepted by
the keyboard adapter and _not_ passed on to the keyboard port on the
motherboard. I think the card also locked out the motherboard KB port totally
when it was being a terminal.
Software did exist for talking to the host, looking at the terminal's screen and
file transfer under PC program control, but none of it was very easy to use. (I
had to program around it.)
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 by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
The ROI is a rebadged Emulex UC07 SCSI disk or Tape, If you don't have docs
let me know and I will organize something.
The Emulex_unknown_001.jpg is a CS08 8 line mux - DHV11 emulation.
I will need some more # from the plessey to figure it out.
Dan
->Rather then describe them, I've got scanned images... can someone
>take a look and tell me what they might be? Even better, if someone
>can tell me how they are configured, I'd really appreciate it.
>
> ftp://ftp.std.com/ftp/pub/mbg/scans/
> emulex_unknown_001.jpg
> plessey_unknown_001.jpg
> roi_unknown_scsi.jpg
> I know this is a scsi board, for qbus, but
> it may be a proto...
> g5389_q22_bus_exer_rev_b.jpg
> I know what it is (not the option name, though),
> I'd like to know how to use it...
>
> Thanks in advance...
> Megan Gentry
> Former RT-11 Developer
>
>+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry(a)zk3.dec.com |
>| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg(a)world.std.com |
>| Compaq Computer Corporation | |
>| 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 |
>+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>
Rather then describe them, I've got scanned images... can someone
take a look and tell me what they might be? Even better, if someone
can tell me how they are configured, I'd really appreciate it.
ftp://ftp.std.com/ftp/pub/mbg/scans/
emulex_unknown_001.jpg
plessey_unknown_001.jpg
roi_unknown_scsi.jpg
I know this is a scsi board, for qbus, but
it may be a proto...
g5389_q22_bus_exer_rev_b.jpg
I know what it is (not the option name, though),
I'd like to know how to use it...
Thanks in advance...
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry(a)zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg(a)world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | |
| 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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>This is probably one of the multi-processor machines, and is in a
>deskside configuration, if I'm guessing correctly.
Correct. It is in a tower-style case and has a basic terminal for the
console. I worked on this box a few years ago when I was at this
company and seem to recall it had something like dual M88100s.
>DG seem to have that philosophy, yes. They have an odd market
>presence.
Strange isn't it? :-)
>Let us know if you find anything.
I'll check those newsgroups. Isn't there a DG newsgroup? I'll have
to check. So far about all I've found are some dealers selling
memory or re-selling old boxes. I did find one guy who says he
has a couple of boxes too and is trying to get enough info to begin
porting Linux to them. That's about it so far.
-----
David Williams - Computer Packrat
dlw(a)trailingedge.com
http://www.trailingedge.com
He's gotta be out there somewhere. I had some OSI computer marketing material
out on extended loan to him and I got the materials back about 2.5 weeks ago.
In a message dated 15/04/99 8:37:57 Eastern Daylight Time,
fauradon(a)pclink.com writes:
<< He cashed mine about a month ago and I also Have had very little contact
with him. Last I got was that he was traveling or otherwise swamped by his
job. His last e-mail stated that he'll ship on monday and confirm by e-mail
but I have not received such confirmation... I'm getting impatient too...
Francois
>I haven't heard from him either. He cashed my check on April 5, 1999. Let
me
>know if you hear from him.
>
>
>>
He cashed mine about a month ago and I also Have had very little contact
with him. Last I got was that he was traveling or otherwise swamped by his
job. His last e-mail stated that he'll ship on monday and confirm by e-mail
but I have not received such confirmation... I'm getting impatient too...
Francois
>I haven't heard from him either. He cashed my check on April 5, 1999. Let
me
>know if you hear from him.
>
>
I'm thinking about attending the upcoming Trenton Computer Festival.
Unfortunately, if I do go, I won't be able to make it until Sunday. Any
opinions on whether or not the second day of the TCF is worth a two and a
half hour drive?
Thanks.
Tom Owad
At 09:26 AM 4/15/99 +1000, you wrote:
>
>There is a touchscreen alignment option, but i've yet to figure out if
>it's working properly.
I've never had much luck with that one. There are other tests there
somewhere in the menu.
Joe
Ok, on a polarised 34 pin floppy connector, which end is pin 1?
I'd rather not wire my adapter cables backwards, even though they would
still be usable if i connected it to a non-polarised adapter...
-Lawrence LeMay
Max,
How many of the oddball PS2 floppy drives were wasted? I could use one or
two. Sure they arent valueable but when you need one... I also use parts
to the soldered board level.
As to your comment 1.2*shipping, that's actually quite fair.
MA is the enemy, they want to make up all poor.
Allison
>> To try and keep this on topic, how did Ferguson do ABS in the early 1970s? I
>> don't believe they would have used a microprocessor. I'd guess at an
analogue
>> computer, probably not even electronic. Would this be less frightening to
>> Tony.
>
>
> Was this the Jenson FFS?
I've never heard of the Jenson FFS, I'm afraid. The system I was thinking of
was called the Ferguson "Formula" All-Wheel Control system. It had four-wheel
drive and ABS. I heard about it beacuse one was fitted to a Triumph Stag in
?1973, and said car was on display at the Stag Owners' Club National Day in
1991.
Philip.
Just when you thot it would never happen...
(and with almost no notice as usual)
Its going down this Saturday, 17-April-1999!
Preview at 0900 Auction starts at 1100
Details (such as they are) at:
http://members.aol.com/innfograph
(for those not familiar with this - its in Portland, Oregon)
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
>>> Coming soon to www.computergarage.org - the CBBS/NW on-line archives
>>> Coming to VCF III (2-3 October 1999) - CBBS/NW live!
Well, theres good news and bad news. The good news is, I saved a pair of
AT&T 3B2 computers. The bad news is, they have been trashed pretty badly
by our local chapter of ACM.
No screws holding the case together, or even holding most of the internal
stuff together (power supply floating around, floppy floating, etc). The
case is not attractive, and one has spray painted words on it, i think
in an attempt to prevent theft (i guess it stops dumb thieves who cant
figure out hwo to ether remove teh paint, or paint over the paint).
Anyways, any pointers to 3B2 information would be helpful. Possibly these
are only good for parts, i know they only had one of them working, and that
one apparently woudl crash frequently...
These are 3B2/300's if that matters much.
-Lawrence LeMay
<It'll run as a 3 channel logic analyser, up to 100MHz. 3 channels doesn't
<sound like much, and compared to a 32 channel benchtop analyser it isn't.
<But it's enough to tell if there ever is overlap between D and clock on a
<flip-flop or somethign like that
Gotta get me one of those.
<[Trivial reason] It has selectable input thresholds. Most logic probes
<are TTL only, or maybe TTL and CMOS switchable. The LogicDart will do ECL
<levels. It'll even work with the -15V logic used in the HP9100...
My suggestion was adaquate to get that person out of a jam if need be.
Simple probles are fairly easy to make. Another useful tools is a
14/16pin logic clip, a self powered clicp that displays the pins as
leds. it has it limits but can be handy. If there is a point sometimes
the expensie spread is not needed to see that an input or output is simply
stuck.
Allison
Well, I'm about to start making various custom ribbon cables, for
hooking a terak disk drive to a pc controller, to connect a
DSDD 8" drive to a pc controller, and to connect a 5.25" drive
to a 8" controller (cromemco).
As I dont have all the necessary connectors yet, my first attempt
will be hooking a terak drive to my PC. I have 3 different
documents all describing this sort of thing, and it looks like
you have to read carefully and consider exactly what you're trying
to connect, in order to get a few of the lines connected correctly.
Thats fine, i'll see if i can figure that out.
One thing concerns me though. My oldest document mentions using
pull-up resistors connected to a +5 source, on 11 of the connections
on the 50 pin side. The explanation is that some signals are open
collector driven, and thus you need 2200 Ohm pull up resistors.
Does anyone know what the deal is, and is this really necessary, or
just a nice idea that you can usually ignore...
-Lawrence LeMay
PS: The terak drive is a SSSD shugart, and it has a 40 pin external
connector on the case (they dont bother connecting the first 10 pins).
Karl Maftoum <karlm(a)blitzen.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> be able to tell me what "Power-on error 1000" means? and how to test out
> the touchscreen?
Joe thinks that that is "batteries dead", and I can't remember. One
other thing you may want to do, assuming this is the sort of 150 with
a 9-inch (~23cm) screen, is to get a can of compressed air and blow the
dust out of the touchscreen sensor holes -- part of the power-on
self-test checks out the touchscreen (if present) and if some of the
sensors don't see the IR light it will fail with some other code (F000?
-- it's been a long time!). The computer will continue to work (maybe
even the touchscreen will!) after this though.
Yeah, there's also a 150 with a 12-inch screen that is tiltable. That
is a 150C aka Touchscreen II and it has later ROMs that know about
more devices. I don't really know how to tell the difference between
a 150A, a 150B, and a 150A with the later B ROMs (yes an upgrade was
available).
-Frank McConnell
At 01:27 AM 4/15/99 +1000, you wrote:
>
>Today I dusted off the HP150 I picked up the other week, when I saw it I
>actually believed it was only a terminal, but it had a HP-IB interface
>which made me pick it up. Discovering that it is a non-IBM compatable 8088
>based machine with a touch-screen was nice :-) Not having any drives with
>it renders it useless as a computer, but I am interested in getting it
>working as a touch screen terminal, does anyone have the docs for this? or
>be able to tell me what "Power-on error 1000" means?
The N-cell batteries in the back are dead and it's lost it's CMOS settings.
and how to test out
>the touchscreen?
There are built-in tests. I don't have my manual handy so I can't tell
you exactly how to get to them but they're in the menu at the bottom of the
screen.
I have some floppy and hard drives and prnters that will work with the
150 if you're interested. I have docs and software for it too but I don't
have time to make copies.
Joe
>
>Megan: I haven't forgotton about the VSV-11, I have holidays next week so
>I'll fire it up and see if it still works for you, been a busy fortnight
>:-)
>
>Cheers
>Karl
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>Karl Maftoum
>Computer Engineering student at the University of Canberra, Australia
>
>Email: k.maftoum(a)student.canberra.edu.au
>
>
At 01:52 PM 4/14/99 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
>October 2-3. If you don't come you'll wake up on Monday, October 4th,
>with much regret.
If we had any sort of advertising budget I'd suggest that people who don't
want to keep their non-Y2K compliant computers (say pre-1989) should bring
them to give away at the swap meet portion :-)
--Chuck
>
> As I understand the charter (and please correct me), this list is for the
> discussion of any computer-related item over 10 years old. This includes
> hardware, software, peripherals, storage media, preservation, repair,
etc.
>
> While I'm not particularly interested in old application software, I
> don't think anyone would mind a discussion of it here.
>
> -tony
>
These old computers aren't much good without the software. I'd welcome the
discussion as long as it's not the same old "Linux is great, MS sucks"
rant. There are more appropriate places for that discussion.
Personally, I found the PICK messages to be enlightning and informative.
Discussions of that nature are a real asset to the group.
Just my $.02
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
I think it is now safe to say that the State of Massachusetts is the enemy
of Classic Computer enthusiasts everywhere!
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9904/07/computers.potholes.ap/
"We want people to take those computers out
of the attics, get them out of the landfills and
make use of the good parts," said Rick
Lombardi, spokesman for the department.
"And God knows, we have plenty of potholes
to fill in New England."
This is sickening!
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.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
Tony wrote:
>> Tony said, on processor design, you can either have one flip-flop to each
>> machine state (like a P850) or microcode. Again there are intermediate
points.
>> I claim you can do quite well by numbering the machine states in a suitably
>> chosen binary code and having one flip-flop to each bit. Logic for changing
>> flip-flops is often _easier_ than when you have one flip-flop per state. (I
>
> Although, of course, the advantage of one f/f per state is that you can't
> get glitches when you decode the outputs of the flip-flops.
Because you don't decode them, right?
As Tony probably remembers, my final year project at university was a GPIB
interface for a Trend papertape reader (no, it isn't finished yet - ten years
on!). My original design used a flip-flop for each machine state in three state
machines.
I recently looked at using fewer flipflops. I recall one of the state machines
had six states. Using three bits, one could define the two redundant states in
such a way that this was also glitch-free. Additionally, one of the state
variables was an input, not a flipflop...
>> have done both designs for the same circuit BTW). If you put this logic into
a
>> ROM, this becomes in a sense a microcode ROM, but you can do it
combinatorially
>> as well...
>
> A ROM _is_ combinatorial logic. I don't want to get into a silly argument
> over this, but I have great difficulty finding a conceptual difference
> between a combinatorial circuit built from a pile of AND, OR and NOT
> gates and the same circuit built (albeit using a lot more transistors) in
> a ROM. To claim that a CPU using a ROM is microcoded but one with
> _identical_ internal states using simple gates as the feedback logic
> round the sequencer flip-flops is not is a very strange way of thinking
> about things.
Fair enough. Just another example of different places to draw boundaries, with
grey areas in between. I would call the ROM version microcoded, and the hard
wired version not, because the ROM version contains CODE. (I would agree that
the two machines are equivalent, one implemented using a store of (micro-) code
and the other using gates.) But your view is equally valid. Perhaps this
displays your hardware background and my more software-based upbringing.
To show how grey this is, if you use a ROM to implement the combinatorial logic
for a flipflop-per-state machine, would you call the code in this ROM microcode?
It performs that function, viz. to output signals based on the machine state
which control the operation of the machine including the selection of the next
state.
For that matter, remember your example on this list a while back, using logic
gates to implement Z80 instructions.
> Well, I might accept it once I'd drawn out the full schematics and
> figured out what it was going to do. The problem of what happens if it
> fails is another matter, though. As I said time and again, the time to
> try a different braking technique is _not_ when the car is skidding all
> over the place on a normal road.
I'm not convinced the braking technique is different, though. I would generally
try to brake thus: brake only just not hard enough to skid. If skid occurs,
start pumping. I claim this applies to both sorts of car, but skid is less
likely to occur with ABS.
I read once (in a sci-fi novel) about a braking system where the brake for each
wheel derived hydraulic pressure from a turbine on that axle. ABS wasn't the
issue there, but I claim this system is passive and intrinsically anti-lock. It
also has the advantage that a failure on one wheel doesn't affect the rest of
the vehicle (though with only a small number of wheels, as in a car, this may be
a problem). I wonder if something of this nature could be made to work usefully
for ABS...
Philip.
I did the same thing for an OSI system a few
months ago. Look in the list archive. In brief:
1) using the second set of pinouts in the comp.os.cpm
faq worked best for me.
2) build your converter on a Radio Shack Experimenters
board (part no. 276-168B). Works very well.
3) use 22disk version 1.31 or earlier. Newer versions have
timing problems with 8 inchers.
Hello. This 4000/300 has been dominating my computer room for a while,
and I love how it looks, but it'd be great if it worked.
The boot-diagnostic LED on the inside panel is stuck at 'F'. I don't have a
field service manual, so I don't know the exact meaning. I've checked all
of the boards inside to make sure they're snug inside, but no luck. Nothing
shows up on a terminal hooked up to the MMJ jack. The drives seem to
power up.
Anybody have any ideas? I'd love to have another VAX running here.
Thanks in advance.
--
<cstone(a)pobox.com>
<boards? My strategy was this:
< 1.) Debug the chassis.
< 2.) Install components from a working 8/M.
< 3.) Replace componets from the working 8/M with questionable
< components.
< 3a.) If the replaced component failed: Fix it.
< 3b.) If the replaced component worked: Move to the next one.
This is a good plan. Pay attention to debug the chassis though as there
can be latent bugs like bad connectors.
<BTW, the "best" tool I've found for working on PDP-8s is the Radio Shack
<scope probe. Its more than fast enough to look at the signals. I suspect a
<Logic Dart would be better but I've not had enough funds for that toy yet.
For the PDP-8 any cheap logic probe will do if it can see 50nS pulses.
or you can make one with 7404, a oneshot (7412x) and three leds. the
oneshot is to strecth the fast ones to light a led.
Allison
First, thanks for the references. I will look into the "apparently hidden
board" in a day or two. For now, I have some of the information that I
need regarding the 11/45, thanks to those on this list.
As with the 11/45 listing, these are readability oriented, given R to L.
The 11/44 had this set: (all numbers begin with M, save the G7273)
7090
empty
7093
7094
7095
7096
empty
7098
unsure of occupancy of this slot
8743
empty
empty
7982
7273, in the top two thirds, with 7297 in the lower third of this slot
7297
7295
7294
5904, these three are located in the middle third of the slot
5904
5904
9300
unsure of occupancy of this slot
empty
9202, in top third, and 7258 in bottom two thirds of the slot
some Emulex card
unsure of occupancy of this slot
9302, in top third, and some Emulex in bottom two thirds of the slot
The tape drive for this unit is a TS11.
How much power should I expect to supply in order to run the CPU, TS11,
two RM02's (with a whopping 67MB capacity, and at this size, we'll never
run out of available storage), and the terminal? Do I need the services of
an electrician?
William R. Buckley
At 10:18 AM 4/14/99 -0700, Sellamou wrote:
>I don't know about Australia, but here in the States the 9121 drives are
>fairly common at ham fests and surplus shops. Someone may correct me but
>I believe this is the type of drive that will work with the HP150.
Yes, that's correct. Some will work with the double sided 9122 drives
also. It depends on which ROMs they have.
Joe
> > But what kind of computer would a satellite software company have been
> > planning to run that program on before they ported it to the real world?
> Hal ??
I can imagine some nutty fanatical CS prof (like me) saying, "If you want
TRUE platform independence, then IGNORE all realities of the computer;
write your program for an imaginary computer that would be perfect for
your needs; then map the keyboard, etc. over to the layout that is present
on the real world computer."
Is that the way that it happened? Or was there some computer that
actually HAD those goofy keys? (There were eventually some aftermarket
add-on keyboards for the PC for WordPervert.)
Please do NOT interpret this as a defence for MSWeird!
>> I just picked up an IBM 3270 Personal Computer Programmed Symbols Adapter
>> card in the box. The box says that it's "an option that provides the
>> storage and controls for displaying an APL font and six additional
>> programmable fonts." It's a full length 8 bit card with two sockets on the
>> to edge. There is also two jumpers in the box that I assume are used to
>> jumper this card to another card. I didn't get any instructions or
>> software with it. Does anyone know how to use it or have instructions etc
>> for it?
>>
>> Joe
>>
> That sounds like a card which could enable my otherwise useless IBM
> monitor meant for the 3270XT. There was a previous discussion on this
> machine a while back. I think there were something like 5 cards in the
> total array which didn't leave much for peripherals in the XT. On the
> other hand I might be thinking of the Epson QX-10 Valdocs :^))
Like Sam, I think of three cards in this connection, but I also recall that not
all machines had all cards. The 3270 card may not have been the same card as
the display adaptor...
On the display side, there was a display card, which may or may not have been
part of the terminal card. Without it, you can't drive the 5272 monitor, I'm
afraid. In addition, you could get the All Points Addressable (APA) card, which
emulated the CGA graphics modes (but note that the 5272 only displays 8
colours), and the PS card, which you have, which emulated the graphics and
programmable character set modes of the 3279 terminal.
I'm afraid the card on its own won't be of much use...
Philip.
Today I dusted off the HP150 I picked up the other week, when I saw it I
actually believed it was only a terminal, but it had a HP-IB interface
which made me pick it up. Discovering that it is a non-IBM compatable 8088
based machine with a touch-screen was nice :-) Not having any drives with
it renders it useless as a computer, but I am interested in getting it
working as a touch screen terminal, does anyone have the docs for this? or
be able to tell me what "Power-on error 1000" means? and how to test out
the touchscreen?
Megan: I haven't forgotton about the VSV-11, I have holidays next week so
I'll fire it up and see if it still works for you, been a busy fortnight
:-)
Cheers
Karl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Maftoum
Computer Engineering student at the University of Canberra, Australia
Email: k.maftoum(a)student.canberra.edu.au
>> > Then there was the Tektronix 'almost 6800' used in the 4052, etc. It was
>> > a board of 2901's, etc and ran an instruction set that was almost upwards
>> > compatible with the 6800 used in the 4051 (IIRC the DAA instruction was
>>
>> The moto 6800 was protoed using 2901s. It would only need two.
>
> The Tektronix used 4 2901's and was actually a 16 bit processor (for
> address calculations, etc). Just that user data was only calculated using
> 2 of the chips ;-)
Hey, Tony, why the winking smiley? That's no joke, it's really true! Four
2901s and a lovely 16bit architecture, and then they go and implement a 6800 on
it. :-( :-( :-(
Philip.
> RS is colloquial for "Rat Sh-t" in Oz, They don't market under that name
> here, but as Tandy or Micronta.
> (Accurate product description though isn't it?)
:-) In the UK they are also generally known as Tandy. RS is a big company
(originally Radio Spares) selling electronic components to the trade.
Philip.
Me, too, but you don't know my dad...
He has his computer in the living room, with the screen facing the window,
and he says that he wants it to look nice when it's booting (don't_ask)...
I think he deleted the spare one, too. I did a search, and can't find it
anywhere. Either the computer didn't come with a copy of the CD on the HD,
or my dad deleted the copy, because I can't find that, either.
I told him he'd be better off to just put DOS back on the thing....
--
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Braun <nerdware(a)laidbak.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: VERY OT: Win'98 splash screen
I'd be thankful. Most people, myself included, use TweakUI to make it go
away....
Paul Braun
NerdWare -- The History of the PC and the Nerds who brought it to you.
nerdware(a)laidbak.com
www.laidbak.com/nerdware
>Hello. This 4000/300 has been dominating my computer room for a while,
>and I love how it looks, but it'd be great if it worked.
>
>The boot-diagnostic LED on the inside panel is stuck at 'F'. I don't have a
>field service manual, so I don't know the exact meaning. I've checked all
>of the boards inside to make sure they're snug inside, but no luck. Nothing
>shows up on a terminal hooked up to the MMJ jack. The drives seem to
>power up.
This means that the DC OK signal on the backplane isn't being asserted.
If the Q-bus consists of more than one box chained together, this
typically means that at least one of the boxes' power supplies either
isn't working or has a sick DC OK signal.
--
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
Mitch: Don't know if I have a printset. I will look into that question.
Zane: The comment on storage capacity was intended to come
across as sarcastic. Also, as a comment on the size of hard disk
drives now being sold. I mean, I saw a 20GB IBM (I believe) for
under $350.00US at Fry's last week.
William R. Buckey
> Well, I don't know. However, MS Word/Windows and /Macintosh has a strange
> option: to have large white letters on a blue background instead of black
> on white. This has nothing to do with any color settings, and no other
> colors can be used in a similar way. This may have classic reasons. Anyone
> know?
>Don't know the exact reason but that was the default color
>combination of the DOS version of MS Word (and every day I use
>the current version, I long for the old one).
Well perhaps it is because the de-facto standard DOS wordprocessor was Word
Perfect. Their system was default blue screen and white letters. A long long
time ago in a system far far away Microsoft was just another software
company and they 'adopted' WordPerfect's colors and emulated WP commands.
Paul
Dear All
I am thinking of renting a building in which to store my computer collection,
together with that of a friend who has gone to Canada [Bob Manners, for P850UG
people]. The building is very simply constructed - single brick walls and sheet
asbestos roof - and currently has no supply of electricity or gas, but appears
fairly dry (at least at present).
Do people on either of the two lists have suggestions for:
What precautions should I take in storing computers here?
Do I need to insulate / heat the building?
Should I install a dehumidifier (I think I can get hold of one)?
Do I need (for example) to wrap each computer up in plastic with a packet of
silica gel?
The rent is very cheap - L2 (about $3.30) per square foot per year, and the
building is only 10 min walk from my house. With luck, this will mean that I
shall soon have a house with room for me as well as my junk...
Philip.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Philip Belben <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Bloedem Volke unverstaendlich treiben wir des Lebens Spiel.
Grade das, was unabwendlich fruchtet unserm Spott als Ziel.
Magst es Kinder-Rache nennen an des Daseins tiefem Ernst;
Wirst das Leben besser kennen, wenn du uns verstehen lernst.
Poem by Christian Morgenstern - Message by Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk
**********************************************************************
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 by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
Went scrounging again today. Picked up some good HP stuff. Also found a
Compupro 8/16 chassis with no cards or top cover. Also found a Compupro
Hard Drive Subsystem chassis. It had one 5 1/4" and one 8" floppy drive.
The hard drive and top cover were gone. Is the 8/16 an S-100 chassis?
Anyone need this stuff bad enough to pay shipping and a scalper's price for
it?
Also found a DG hard drive. Looks like a 14" in a clear cover. I think
the model number was 3462. Looks too heavy to ship unless someone REALLY
wants it.
Joe
I knew somebody woudl come up with a good example. That 6809 code is
probably the closest thing I've seen in a micro. The 8051 uses a similar
approach, pointing to the table with the datapointer and uses the
accumulator as an offset. It does make it a bit awkward passing a parameter
in the accumulator, though. In this case, the accumulator is occupied by
what's really the only value you'd want to pass anyway under the
circumstances.
They (DEC) did make the uVax-II as a chipset for interfacing to their
BI-bus, I believe, so that might qualify as well. The DEC chipset probably
didn't sell for what a 6809 costs, even the faster part, and certainly not
the $0.86 I last saw on the 4MHz Rockwell 65C02.
The 6502 and its scions save a clock tick every time they loaded an address
because the indexing or whatever arithmetic could be done on the low byte
while the high byte was being fetched, leaving the carry set or cleared as
was required, for the arithmetic on the next byte as was appropriate. Note
that the carry was generally irrelevant, as most instructions requiring
indexing simply wrapped the PC, but not in all cases. I thing indexed mode
addressing was a case where an index could cross a page boundary. The MOT
processors could often do the same thing, but they needed to add a clock
tick to order the bytes and another to propagate the carry if appropriate (I
think). It wasn't that sort of hair-splitting I was after, but rather, a
contrast between the simple, elegant instruction set of one processor,
versus the not-so elegant instruction set of "the other" meaning the
intel/zilog clan.
I'm not surprised that it was in the 6809 that this instruction came up.
The 6809 showed lots of promise at first, but once it was in hand, one
clearly could see that it would be MUCH easier going with the MC68008 if one
had to use an 8-bit bus. I never had the opportunity to write in a
high-level language for the 6809, but I was told it should have been quite
easy to write a high-quality efficient compiler for it because of its
repertioire of instructions and addressing modes. I turned out literally
tens of thousands of lines of assembler code for it and never used this
feature, though. It's likely most of my code would have run on a 6802 or
6803 just as easily.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4
floppies)
>It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
>>
>> At the risk of becoming the resident infidel . . .
>>
>> The 6502, particularly in its later incarnation by Rockwell embodied the
>> cleverness fostered by its earlier versions and the non-Intel family of
>> processors. How the elegance of their instruction set became lost is a
>> mystery to me.
>
> I've never been a real fan of the 6502, it seemingly geared more towards
>embedded systems than for a general purpose computer. But that's just me
>8-)
>
>> On a 65C02 from Rockwell (making the distinction because there were
several
>> CMOS 6502's, all slightly different) you load the input value into an
index
>> register and then jump, indexed indirect, to the routine which is
>> appropriate for that pattern of inputs. This requires, then, that you
have
>> a table with 256 bytes, more correctly 128 words, with each word the
>> address of the routine which is used to process the left-justified ASCII
>> data.
>>
>> This is tremendously fast! It requires no STACK, and it requires only
two
>> instructions. Another way of doing this involves building a stack frame
and
>> loading the return address with a value looked up in a table, then
executing
>> a return. This can be done with any number of processors. On a Z-80 you
>> can jmp HL, and I'm sure there are other neat ways of doing this simple
>> thing. I've never seen anything more elegant than that simplistic
sequence
>> on the 65C02. How the MOTOROLA people let this go by the wayside in the
>> design of their 6809, 6801, 68K family, and countless others puzzles me.
>> I've not made an extensive study of other processors, but I have looked
at a
>> few. The only processor I've used which has a similar mechanism at its
>> disposal is the 8051 core. It has a data register which can be used as
an
>> offset for a jump instruction.
>
> If I understand the problem correctly, then what you want can be done on
>the 6809 as two instructions as well (okay, three, but the first one is
only
>there for setup):
>
> LDX #JMPTAB
> MAIN: LDA UART
> JMP [A,X]
>
>
> As long as X is unchanged, your overhead is two instructions. Also, if
>you want to use X for something else, you still have Y or U for use as well
>(okay, you can use S, but then it gets a bit harder 8-)
>
> But if you want elegance, go with the VAX---one statement:
>
> caseb uart,0,255
> jmptab: .word c00 - jmptab
> .word c01 - jmptab
>
> ; ...
>
> .word cff - jmptab
>
> And with this, you don't even have to jury rig a special UART.
>
> In fact, the VAX is about as elegant as they come---you have 16 general
>purpose registers and the PC is one of them (R15). Not only that, but all
>addressing modes work on all instructions---it's very regular and with some
>practice you can probably end up reading hex dumps directly. It's a very
>nice assembly language.
>
>> Now, I doubt that anything that simple can be used to discriminate
between
>> what's "best" and what's not, but it's for certain that it's a nice
feature
>> not available on the 6809. I used the 6809 extensively while I was in
the
>> aerospace industry, and found it fairly friendly. BUT, it still is
>> relatively slow, as compared with processors of the same generation from
>> sources clever enough to arrange the bytes the other way around in memory
so
>> you didn't have to fetch and the discard a high byte when there wasn't
one.
>> Fortunately, many tasks don't require a really fast processor.
>
> I don't follow. You either care about a 16-bit quantity, or you don't,
>but I may be biased---my first CPU was a 6809 and when I switched to the
>Intel x86 architecture, I didn't like the little endianess of it at all,
but
>I never found the bigendianess to be a real problem.
>
> -spc (Then there's the ARM ... )
>
>
I've got the pictures of the KS10 systems up on my web page...
For anyone interested...
http://world.std.com/~mbg/home_systems.html#ks10s
to read a little about it....
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Someone wanted stuff for the M88K Data General Aviion's running DGUX.
There is a fair bit at this site..
http://ftp.avlib.clemson.edu/avlib/pub/88k/
Hope this helps
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
Computer Systems Manager
Saint Mark's College
Port Pirie, South Australia.
Email: geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au
ICQ #: 1970476
Phone: 61-8-8633-8834
Mobile: 61-411-623-978
Fax: 61-8-8633-0104
Can either of you supply any details?
Date? Times? Specific location?
>> I'm thinking about attending the upcoming Trenton Computer Festival.
>> Unfortunately, if I do go, I won't be able to make it until Sunday. Any
>> opinions on whether or not the second day of the TCF is worth a two and a
>> half hour drive?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Tom Owad
>
>In the old days it was bargain and dumpster dive day.
>TCF was a lot like what the VCF sounds like. (Except with a mix of some of
>the classic stuff with some of the newer computers.)
>
>PDP 8's, and PDP11's as well as S100 stuff was common. Now there's some
>Sun, Vax, HP Unix stuff, some older S100, H89, H8. Some CP/M (rare)
>some Macintosh and Apple II/III... But it's becoming more and more
>a Windows and PC kind of show.
>
>I don't know what it'll be like this year with Ken Gordon running the show
>on contract (but I fear the worst).
>
>Bill
>---
> bpechter@shell.monmouth.com|pechter@pechter.dyndns.org
> Three things never anger: First, the one who runs your DEC,
> The one who does Field Service and the one who signs your check.
>
A Reminder: Saturday, April 24th.. for all listmembers who will
be in the Southern California area -
The TRW Ham Radio and Electronics Swap Meet will be heald on the
morning of the 24th, from 7:30 to 11:30, in the southernmost parking
lots of the TRW plant in El Segundo, CA. From the 405 (San Diego)
Freeway, take the Rosecrans exit west, go west on Rosecrans about 1
mile to the intersection of Aviation, then left at Aviation (under
the Metrolink bridge)... proceed south on Aviation 1/2 mile, the
swapmeet will be in the parking lots on the right, before Marine avenue.
After the swapmeet, there will be the customary CoCo's Brunch 'n
Brag, from noonish until one-ish.
THEN: I will host a Vintage Computer Open House CompuCrawl.
Listmembers and interested persons are invited to my place to look
at / play with / make scurrilous jokes about my motley collection. I
have four DEC machines running and a Pr1me 2550, as well as various
micros, etc.
This event will last until whenever Saturday night.
Persons needing advance directions to my residence are encouraged
to e-mail for directions. I *do* live in a rural area so directions
are recomended. I believe some persons from outside the SoCal area
expressed interest in showing up, so e-mail me privately for contact
info.
Cheerz
John
<OK... First thing is to clean out the backplane in the 8/m. Use a vacuum
<cleaner to remove loose dust and then squirt isopropyl alcohol
<(propan-2-ol) into the connectors.
Dry it well before powering it up. Also make sure there are no shorts
under the backplane to the outer case from foreign objest like screws.
<Then, if it still doesn't halt, check the power supply. I can't remember
<what the power good line will make the CPU do if it's in the wrong state,
<but I don't think it forces the CPU to the RUN state (unlike the 11/45...)
It does have power fail and if it's in the "wrong" state the machine it
halted.
Look for obvious stuff, shorted wires or other conductors (even on boards)
and leads floating loose or misconnected. CHECK all three voltages because
if any are missing it will do nothing intelligible.
Allison
>Me, too, but you don't know my dad...
>He has his computer in the living room, with the screen facing the window,
>and he says that he wants it to look nice when it's booting (don't_ask)...
>I think he deleted the spare one, too. I did a search, and can't find it
>anywhere. Either the computer didn't come with a copy of the CD on the HD,
>or my dad deleted the copy, because I can't find that, either.
>I told him he'd be better off to just put DOS back on the thing....
If he did not get the Windows CD then perhaps you have a bootleg copy of
Windows. All new PC's
have a CD copy and Microsoft certificate of authenticity.
>You did remember to cut the NPG jumper on the slot that you stuck the
>RL11 in, I hope...
Thanks... I did forget (I've done mostly Qbus for quite awhile...
so the UNIBUS specific stuff may slip my mind for a bit)
>That's the most common 11/34 problem, assuming you're using an M9302
>terminator. You have a grant open somewhere (either you're missing an
>continuity card or you've got an NPG jumper missing). THe M9302 then
>asserts SACK, the CPU tries to remove the asserted grant line but can't,
>and it locks up.
Aha... right... I'll have to check the backplane... there were a number
of boards in it, some were probably DMA devices... (as I said, it may
take a little time for it to come back to me...)
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 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
>From: Dwight Elvey <elvey(a)hal.com>
...
> There were several Forth machines done over the years,
...
>Harris made one that was used quite
>often for space applications because it was fast
>and could run with smaller amounts of code ( a feature
>of Forth ).
Still makes, the RTX2010. The IMAGE mission that I'm working on will have
three of them aboard, running 3 of the 6 instruments, when it lifts off in
early 2000.
- Mark
I am not positive if this is the correct part number.
Have you ever seen a PDP-11/34 top loading
rack mounted box? About the same size!
Also top loading. About 10 1/4" high and a
19" rack.
BUT, this is for a Qbus back plane with at least 10
slots (there could be as many as 16). And I suspect
that the first 3 slots may be ABCD like the BA23
box and the rest are AB/AB also like the BA23 box.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
<What precautions should I take in storing computers here?
<
<Do I need to insulate / heat the building?
Within bounds no. Most componenets will take 0-50C as commercial
temperture range. Sharp changes in temperature are not beneficial so
if cold leave it that way, if warm don't shock cool it. If you can stay
within 10-40C there should be no problem.
Electrolytic capacitors however, dry out of kept too hot for too long.
<Should I install a dehumidifier (I think I can get hold of one)?
Moisture is the enemy during the seasons where you get the greatest cyclic
temperature changes. And most winters.
<Do I need (for example) to wrap each computer up in plastic with a packet o
<silica gel?
If it's a sealed bag aroung the equipment, that works very well. the bag
has to be sealed or the silica will saturate quickly. the silica can be
dried in a warm oven to drive out the moisture and render it effective
again.
Also the package (system, box, rack) should be made vermin proof as insects
can leave deposits and rodents can chew, nest or soil things.
Allison
<This must have varied significantly with geography. In Ontario, Canada,
<where I grew up, Commodore was king, both at home and in schools. Most
<schools' first computers were PETs, either alone or in clusters, followed
I'd say so. I'd see one school district with TRS80 and the next one over
apples or commies. Made teachers nuts.
Allison
<the relatively short memory access strobe, while I was talking about the
<frequency at which they occur, as defined in the spec. I agree completely
Yes so? Often the z80 is moving 16bits, with 8bit wide memory it's going
to take several cycles. If it were a z280 that would be even more biased
as it uses fewer "ticks" per cycle and the bus is 16bits wide. Counting
ticks or whatever as I've repeatedly stated meaningless save for
discussions of how memory is used and not who is faster.
An aside at this point, the z280 runs different cycle timing as @4mhz would
be the base z80 of the same speed and the z380 (in z80 native mode) beats
that as the cycles have been shortend again.
<personal. The fact remains, that the memory CYCLE is three clock ticks
<long, as defined in the spec (though I haven't looked at it in 15 years or
It is not and Like I said the spec is infront of me as I type. Worst case
its 2. But that in itself is again meaningless.
<so since I haven't yet unearthed my Zilog or Mostek data books) and if you
<look at the pictures you saw with your logic analyzer, you should have see
<two read pulses of whatever lenght they were, spaced at very nearly 750 ns
<each time you saw the execution of an absolute jump, or any other
<instruction which consists of an opcode followed by a 16-bit address. The
<same is true of writes. They take one memory cycle, which is three clock
<ticks long, for each byte, although the memory write strobe is a mite
<shorter than the read strobe, IIRC, which I might not, but . . .
Your memory is faulty. and that 750ns bumber is still meaningless. they
only number for comparative purposes is the amount of time it takes to do
an absolute jump. For Z80 @4mhz that will be 2.5us. It will require
memory in the 250ns range to do it.
<were inserted as they often were for M1 cycles. Nevertheless, commonly use
<instructions were MUCH faster on the 2 MHz 6502, than on the 4 MHz Z-80.
A 2mhz 6502 executes a 1byte (say INX) instuction in 2 machine cycles and
that takes 1uS.
A 4mhz INC B (any register) takes 4 z80 clocks at 4mhz... damm if that
doesn't happen to be 1uS! Where is the speed difference?
According to my book a 6502 absolute jump takes 3-5 cycles and in the 5
cycle case its 2.5 us.
<probably measure three microseconds for those twelve clock ticks (T-states
<which is EXACTLY how long a 1 MHz 6502 takes to do that. Hence, I conclud
Exactly my point. The 6502 is not faster, it only marches to a different
drummer.
<I've concluded that most code I've seen underutilizes the internal resource
<and overutilizes the external ones. Code like that favors processors with
<more time-efficient use of the external resources. Hence, my assertion tha
<there's reason to believe the 6502 at 2 MHz could outrun the 4 MHz Z-80 in
<more or less typical code and in a more or less typical hardware
No again. It can match the z80 and in some cases it's better or worse.
<environment. Code written to make better than average utilization of the
<internals of a Z-80 might fare better against equally well-written code on
<6502. I'm comfortable with the reality that I'll probably never know for
<certain. Since neither processor is particularly important these days, no
<terribly important to me either.
Agreed well written code is essential for either to do useful work.
<None of this is really worth getting all excited about because, by the way
<in spite of its "better" performance, (by my assessment) the 6502 didn't
<accomplish more useful work on MY behalf, because I used a Z-80 running CP/
<every chance I got due to the abundance of really decent tools and office
<automation software.
Therein lies the key. A good system is not always defined by it's
hardware. Systems are a combination of practical hardware and functional
software. This account for why despite their flaws the TRS80, Apple II,
Z80 CPM based as well as others florished. Most people didn't program
8080z806502ti990018028085680980886800065815 they ran basic or a word
processor. the run on of part numbers was deliberate as to most people
the cpu used was just a number.
Allison