test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by metasoft＠erols.com

Hi Chris, I've just found your posts about the CPT 9000 computer/word processor you have. I worked for CPT Corp. from 1978 thru 1989 and was one of the principle software developers for the CPT 9000. It was CPT's last effort to combine their dedicated word processing software with the, at the time, new PC-AT 286 computers coming into the market. I have lots of the original software for the 9000, much of it I wrote. Personally, I would be very interested in purchasing this CPT 9000 system. I have been searching for one for a long time. If this e-mail somehow finds you, please reply. I would be a very $$$ serious buyer. Thanks, Rich Jones Metasoft, Inc.

17 years, 11 months

Sun 3/80 Magic Smoke

by rescue＠hawkmountain.net

Tried to power up a Sun 3/80 mainboard... Inductor L0500 (right near the power input) (I assume this is an inductor by the L0500 marking on the PCB) smoked.... (pink smoke no less) Anyone familiar with the 3/80 to give an idea of why this might have smoked. Board appears in excellent condition, no foreign objects on the board, no sign of any shorts that I can see. Would like to rescue this board. If it was a PC I'd look for bulging electrolytics... Anyone got a schematic for the 3/80 ? (I've never seen any Sun schematics). -- Curt

17 years, 11 months

TU56 question...

by bob＠jfcl.com

Eric wrote: >The G888 sense amps are designed to oscillate when no input is present. Thanks, Eric - I'm glad I asked. I wrote a little program to read the tapes (only about three lines of code - all it has to do is set the "GO" bit in the TD8E command register) and I find that one of the units does indeed give a nice 30kHz square wave on the timing track while the tape is moving. The other unit unfortunately still gives the bogus 400kHz oscillations no matter what. I'm guessing that must mean that either the R/W head or the relay card is bad. I can test the relay card by swapping it with the other unit, but luck being what it is it's probably the head. Darn - I assume TU56 heads are unobtainable these days. Thanks again, Bob

17 years, 11 months

TU56 question...

by bob＠jfcl.com

Now that my TD8E is fixed (maybe - I'm keeping my fingers crossed here) I'm having problems with the TU56 drive electronics. Nothing works, neither the diagnostic (DHTDAB) nor the OS/8 drivers. Poking around, I've discovered that the RTT ("Read Timing Track") output >from the drive has a constant square wave of about 400kHz (2.5us period), regardless of what the drive is doing. It's there whether no matter which unit is selected, no matter whether any unit is selected, no matter whether the tape is moving or stopped, and even if there's no tape on the drive at all. This is from checking the RTT output from the drive right at the cable connector on the TD8E with a scope. If I understand the way the TU56 works, then this a) about 15x the frequency I'd expect to see on the timing track and b) I wouldn't expect there to be an output from the TT when the tape isn't moving. Am I right that this is really screwed up, or do I just not understand how it works? Thanks, Bob

17 years, 11 months

TU56 question...

by aek＠bitsavers.org

> Poking around, I've discovered that the RTT ("Read Timing Track") output > from the drive has a constant square wave of about 400kHz > Am I right > that this is really screwed up, or do I just not understand how it works? -- That's the way it works. It drops to the correct frequency when the tape is moving. TC-11's and 08's depend on this in the 'up to speed' circuit.

17 years, 11 months

PDP-8E diagnostic help needed

by RodSmallwood＠mail.ediconsulting.co.uk

Now that's interesting.. I have a PDP-8/e as well. I can't store in locations 000 000 000 000 to 000 000 011 000 (0 - 24 Dec) Above is OK If somebody has an answer to your problem. They might know something about mune. Rod Smallwood -----Original Message----- From: cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctech-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Mark G. Thomas Sent: 09 May 2008 16:36 To: cctech at classiccmp.org Subject: PDP-8E diagnostic help needed Hi, I've got a PDP-8E which I've almost got working. Can anyone here help me figure out this remaining problem? As I examine memory, the address lights count up to 01111, then go back to 00000, instead of 10000. I can manually enter an address higher than 1111, but the 10000 and 100000 bits don't stick -- they go low, as soon as I hit the examine switch to step to the next memory location. I can manually load an address 1000000 or 10000000, and hit examine to see 1000001, 1000010, 1000011, etc..., but once I reach 1001111, it's back to 1000000. It was recommended to me that it might be the carry between E52 and E37, or the E38 input multiplexer for bit 7 (on M8300), so last night I socketed and replaced all three of those ICs, but I still see the same symptoms. I have extender boards, so can access M8300 during operation. I measured the carry line between E52 and E37 go low when I reach 1111, but the light for line 10000 doesn't light on the front panel on the next address, and I see the data from memory location 0000, 0001, etc. repeated, displayed as I continue to step through memory locations, as described above. Of course, if someone has a spare M8300 they would be willing to sell me, that's another option. Mark -- Mark G. Thomas (Mark at Misty.com) voice: 215-591-3695 http://mail-cleaner.com/

17 years, 11 months

looking for 10/100 card for Apple Network Server 500/700

by spectre＠floodgap.com

I'm inquiring to see if anyone has a spare 10/100 card for the Apple Network Server line. This is different than the usual Power Macintosh 10/100 FAST Ethernet card -- it resembles that card, but has two LEDs (IIRC) instead of four. If you have one that you are willing to part with or deal over, please contact me off list. It would go to a good home, namely my 500 and 700 systems (the 500 is sending you this message, in fact, and has been my primary production server since 1998). -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- All the sensitive [men] get eaten. -- "Ice Age" ----------------------------

17 years, 11 months

[Semi-OT] Outfits that *PACK* and Ship?

by healyzh＠aracnet.com

The library is looking at a large collection of books, only one slight problem, the seller won't back and ship. Local pickup isn't really an option for us, as it's on the East Coast. Does anyone know of any legit outfits that will show up at a storage unit, pack and ship stuff? I figure even though these aren't computer books (in this case) this is close enough to on topic since there are those of us that have problems like this with computer stuff. Zane -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector | +----------------------------------+----------------------------+ | Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, | | PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. | | http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |

17 years, 11 months

Looking for a COMPATICARD II 8 BIT

by trebor72＠execpc.com

I am Looking for a COMPATICARD II 8 BIT Bob in Wisconsin USE trebor72 at execpc.com

17 years, 11 months

Tandem T16/6530 terminals up for grabs

by sellam＠vintagetech.com

I have four Tandem T16/6530 terminals. Before I recycle them, is anyone interested in one or more? I will want a minimal amount to cover time/packing. Contact me off-list if you're interested. You have until May 20 before they get turned into iPods. -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

17 years, 11 months

Backronyms

by tshoppa＠wmata.com

Dave writes: > and IBM's current large-scale > storage technology which is also called RAMAC, which stands for Raid > Architecture with Multilevel Adaptive Cache. Wow, that's a backronym I never would've dreamt up! I once contracted at a place where in the memos they actually wrote Dazdee and Raymack. And instead of ASCII they wrote ASC2 ! If I used any of the terms correctly they made me edit them to the approved way... it was a pretty bizarre inbred culture there! Tim.

17 years, 11 months

SGI Sirius Video Breakout Box -- do you need the i/f board?

by awolfe＠awolfe.org

Do you have any interest in selling your Sirius video board?

17 years, 11 months

Is this the smallest PDP-11 compatible?

by cclist＠sydex.com

Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:13:59 +0100 (BST) From: Tony Duell > Actually, I htink there's a smaller one. DIdn't at least one of the > Soviet handheld computers (Elektronika MK85 or some such) have a > PDP11-compatible CPU chip inside? Yeah, I missed his classifying the handhelds under "calculators" (he's got a great collection of calculators also). The wallet-sized MK-87 uses the same PDP-11 clone chip. BTW, the owner of the site has a great little project he worked out-- a terminal consisting of nothing more than an ATMega16 uC and RS232 level translators to produce a composite video signal (PAL) driving a 32x29 character display. Very clever: http://rk86.com/frolov/vi_frs.htm Includes source code and schematic. Text is in Russian, but is quite readable translated by Google language tools. Cheers, Chuck

17 years, 11 months

Another classic comp job

by cclist＠sydex.com

> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 22:11:52 -0400 > From: Dave McGuire > Evan wrote: > > Dave, are you not familiar with RAMAC? > > Yes I am, both the first RAMAC circa 1956 which stood for Random > Access Method of Accounting and Control, and IBM's current large-scale > storage technology which is also called RAMAC, which stands for Raid > Architecture with Multilevel Adaptive Cache. This reminds me of the Monty Python Cole Porter-"Anything Goes" skit. :) Cheers, Chuck

17 years, 11 months

Another classic comp job

by roger.holmes＠microspot.co.uk

> Message: 22 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:57:16 -0500 > From: "Jason T" <silent700 at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Another classic comp job > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> > wrote: >> Dave, are you not familiar with RAMAC? > > > Could they really still have a running RAMAC? > Why not? Early computers were built to last, some still are but competitive pressure means 'commodity' machines seem to be lucky to last more than twice their (UK) legal one year warranty period. My (1962) 1301 can even still read the magnetic tapes which were last written in the 1970s and the drums still had the bootstrap program on the write protected bands (of similar age) once we had got the timing logic adjusted back to specification. When designing something as revolutionary as RAMAC, they would over engineer and only in later designs start paring things down. A few revolutionary designs do of course have weak points and they either don't make it past prototype stage or the market soon finds the weakness and stops buying them.

17 years, 11 months

Miniscribe 6085

by cheri-post＠web.de

Hey, I have such a drive. During the upcoming weekend, I'll have a look for the parts, you're interested in. Kind regards, Pierre > > On May 11, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Tony Duell wrote: > > > I don;'t have this drive, but I am conserned as to why it failed. > > Presumably it carried too much current, but why? > > Tony; > > It's part of a voltage filter circuit, yes. It failed as a result of a > short in a capacitor elsewhere in the circuit. I know what the > capacitor's characteristics were, so it can be replaced. I do not know > what the inductor's characteristics were; I need to find out before it > can be replaced. > > ok > bear > _________________________________________________________________________ In 5 Schritten zur eigenen Homepage. Jetzt Domain sichern und gestalten! Nur 3,99 EUR/Monat! http://www.maildomain.web.de/?mc=021114

17 years, 11 months

DEC8235 ICs

by bob＠jfcl.com

>Vincent Slyngstad wrote: >Sourcing them is hard. Maybe a pull from some other board that's been >designated "parts"? I looked at some boards I have (where some idiot >shaved off all the metal from the edge connectors) but no 8235's there. Same here - I already checked my collection of UNIBUS and OMNIBUS boards (at least the ones I was willing to scrap) and no 8235s. I think there's a couple on the M8330 PDP-8/E TG board, but I'm not willing to kill one of those :-) >Are you looking to repair a TD8E, specifically? Those look like simple B/!A >switches, activated by SDRD and SDRC instructions. Yep, I've got a real TD8E to fix that has two bad 8235s on it. Both chips have one output that's stuck low and right now I can't even plug the TD8E into the machine - it hangs the OMNIBUS when you do. The board looks nice and clean, though, so I'm hoping that's all that's wrong. I did a little research and the 74xx TTL family has many AND-OR-INVERT type gates (e.g. 7451, 74S64, etc) but even ignoring pinouts and output drive capability, none of them are equivalent to the DEC8235. The DEC part has active low inputs (it's really an "INVERT-AND-OR-INVERT" gate) that nobody else seems to have, so replacing 'em with off the shelf parts would take at least another chip. Does anybody know if the DEC8235 is the same as the National DM8235? I don't have a source for the DM8235 either, but at least that sounds easier to find. The chips on my board look like they have National logos on them, but they're house marked with the DEC part number. They're also stamped "7419", but that's almost certainly a date code - a real 7419 is an inverter of some kind. Thanks, Bob

17 years, 11 months

Minimal CP-M SBC design

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: Minimal CP-M SBC design > From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> > Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 08:23:13 -0400 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only <cctech at classiccmp.org> > >Chuck Guzis wrote: >>> I dunno Chuck...the only reason more CP/M systems weren't ROM- >>> resident back in the day was due to convention, not technical >>> restrictions. I (personally) don't think there's anything >>> non-"period" about ROM-ing CP/M. >> >> It's not the ROM-ing of CP/M that disturbs me, but rather the >> "disklessness" of the thing. Wasn't the whole idea of CP/M >> originally to give you something to manage files on your floppy >> drives? I mean, that's what the bulk of the code in CP/M is for-- >> heaven knows, the support for other I/O is nothing to write home >> about. >> >> If one wants to enjoy a "vintage" experience, what sense is there in >> being diskless? At any rate, even something as simple as a WD1770- >> type controller added to the design would give that capability with a >> minimum of support "glue". >> >> Alternatively, one could stay diskless and add a sound-effects module >> to emulate the "chunk" and "grrr" of a head-load and seek--and the >> "thunk-click" of a drive door being opened and a floppy inserted. > > Well I wasn't talking about a diskless system...only one in which >CP/M itself was in ROM. When I mentioned it I wasn't running CP/M from rom which by the way takes recoding of the CCP, BDOS and BIOS to make all the data areas external. What I was refering to is simply booting it from a rom rather than off the system tracks. The result of that is then ANY formatted disk is a boot media and makes the system a bit more bullet proof as a common fault (STILL) is trying to boot a nonsystem disk or worse having a power glitch kill the system tracks. When done that way CP/M is still in ram, can be overlayed, and even patched. Boot from rom also solves the chicken/egg paradox as the the system disk does not have to have data/programs. >> I still don't have the hang of this "vintage" thing yet, probably >> because I'm vintage myself. Please forgive my density... > > I often suffer from the same problem. I think very few of us, even >here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were >considered current technology. Speak for yourself. I wish that were true. The first version of CP/M I ran was 1.3 When it was available and 1.4 was much better and useful. I had access to PDP-8 ion 1969 and PDP10 in 1971 and got my first PDP11 in 1980(still have it too!). PDP11 stopped being current in the 1990s when DEC sold the tech and licenses. Up till then you could buy it new and faster (and then from mentec for years after that). Allison > > -Dave > >-- >Dave McGuire >Port Charlotte, FL

17 years, 11 months

Another classic comp job

by silent700＠gmail.com

http://www.intelligencecareers.com/jobs/jobview.cfm?jobid=282560&refsrc=shp… "Equipment to maintain includes IBM S390, RAMAC disk array, Cisco routers, VAX 4000, TU81 Tape Drives, Sun Servers and other electronic equipment."

17 years, 11 months

Minimal CP-M SBC design

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: Minimal CP-M SBC design > From: Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 12:05:54 -0500 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >Chuck Guzis wrote: >> If one wants to enjoy a "vintage" experience, what sense is there in >> being diskless? At any rate, even something as simple as a WD1770- >> type controller added to the design would give that capability with a >> minimum of support "glue". > >Agreed. > >> Alternatively, one could stay diskless and add a sound-effects module >> to emulate the "chunk" and "grrr" of a head-load and seek--and the >> "thunk-click" of a drive door being opened and a floppy inserted. > >And the high-pitched squeal of a disk shedding its coating in the drive... >(maybe a dip-switch for "Wabash mode"? :-) > >Personally I'm all for adding to vintage systems (hard disks where none were >originally supported, video additions etc.) if it makes the system a little >easier for frequent use - but not at the expense of original features. Part of >the 'experience' is being able to enjoy the system as it was originally used, >after all. (Similarly, I'm in awe of emulator writers - but give me the >original hardware any day...) > >cheers > >Jules I run the other extreme. I had the experiences, all the gory ones too. I still, Run Kaypro, AmproLB+, NS* horizon, CCS and Visual 1050 with real disks of all sorts. So what I do is build now what I was wishing I could build then whith parts that were unavailable then or frightenly expensive. Things like megabyte sized ramdisks and romdisks, fast storage that can beat the Teltek HDC and Q540 disk. It's about the code, the applications and if possible as much performance as I ever had only it runs on a few penlite cells. Most of all it's hacking hardware. I have many really good emulators/simulators and theres nothing like running one of those without brakes an a 2.4ghz dualcore to make one wish a real 100mhz++ Z80 really existed. Haven't you ever used a SD Horizon with it's whopping 82K per disk and a max of three drives and wondered what it would be like with three 8mb drives that run at CPU speeds back then or even now? I have and I've done it side by side! It's a kick to run a DBASE project that took 10 minutes to index on two floppies and see it done in a small fraction of the time. I not only open the envelope I punch holes in the corners. Back the I did "what if.." and even now I still do "what if..". Allison

17 years, 11 months

Is this the smallest PDP-11 compatible?

by cclist＠sydex.com

The Soviet Soyuz-Neon PK-11: http://www.leningrad.su/museum/show_calc.php?n=245 Regardless, a very interesting site with photos of various Soviet-era personal computers. Cheers, Chuck

17 years, 11 months

Another classic comp job

by tshoppa＠wmata.com

Evan writes: > One more data point: http://tinyurl.com/63uzvg -- see about 3/4 > down the story. What's astonishing is that they refer to EMC's disk arrays as a "cheap, new approach". Today, thirteen years after that article, EMC is the poster child for marketing obsolete way-overpriced technology through FUD intimidation! I would argue that by the mid-90's EMC had fallen into that trap. Tim.

17 years, 11 months

Another classic comp job

by tshoppa＠wmata.com

Evan asks: > Could they really still have a running RAMAC? At least in the early 90's IBM had rececycled RAMAC to mean a specific RAID product of theirs. e.g. "RAMAC array DASD". I remember a very large financial customer in the mid-90's being proud of having bought a terabyte of disk storage (oh, sorry "a terabyte of RAMAC array DASD") pretty much devoting an entire office building floor to it, and now I can go down to Staples and buy a terabyte of disk for a couple hours worth of paycheck. Tim.

17 years, 11 months

Early Appletalk; was Re: Interconnecting classic computers

by tsw-cc＠johana.com

--- Brad Parker <brad at heeltoe.com> wrote: > > > Ray Arachelian wrote: > > > >It's funny how they use CSMA/CA on this network instead of CSMA/CD, and > >when ethernet came out, they continued to use the same protocol until > >nearly modern days where they switched to encapsulating Appletalk > >packets inside TCP/IP frames. > > In fairness it would be proper to separate the mac (physical) layer from > the network layer. > > All the network layer needed was unreliable datagram delivery and > broadcasts. Both Localtalk and Ethernet provide that. > > Collision detect was not really possible on localtalk, unlike ethernet. > But I would argue that CA and CD are refinements which affect maximum > utilization, not gross access to the wire. And both rely on an > appropriate back-off algorithm to work correctly. > > (it's fun to go read the original AlohaNet papers and the DIX blue book > for more on that subject) > > >I was almost like they were re-inventing Ethernet. :-) > > When Sidhu started on that project ethernet was still pretty nascent. > And ethernet was thought of as too expensive and complex (which was > true, I think, when concidering a classic macintosh). > > And at that time there were many many protocols-of-the-day. It wasn't > clear at all which would be dominant. IPX, DecNet, TCP/IP, SNA, ISO ... > > >I suppose they > >could have actually ran ethernet over phone cables, but probably someone > >thought they had a better way to control collisions; perhaps they did. > > I think it was a cost issue. You can't beat the SCC's fm mode (and the > internal pll). They added a little RTS 'beacon' to reserve the wire > which was part of their 'collision avoidance' scheme. It worked pretty > well if you dedicated a cpu to it. > > >Of course there was nothing but trouble with early Ethernet switches and > >EtherTalk since they continued to use CSMA/CA for quite some time. > > I think that was a different problem; Appletalk V1 is very "chatty" > and uses broadcasts a lot. Many early networks were bridged and > this caused problems. I could go on and on, but localized broadcast > based discovery protocols don't work well over long haul bridged > networks, nor do broadcast based distance vector routing protocols > (i.e. NBP and RTMP). > > heh. I once crashed (I kid you not) several hundred VAX's with a single > NBP broadcast packet. Bridged networks are not my friend. > > >I guess there's nothing quite like the not invented here syndrome. > > Certainly some of that, but more in Appletalk v2 and than original > Appletalk. To my mind the original appletalk was simple and elegant - a > good fit for the system... > > -brad > > AppleTalk (in its various forms (LocalTalk, EtherTalk, and even TokenTalk) worked quite well for its INTENDED purpose. When Apple went from "Phase 1" to "Phase 2", it was because they realized at the time that routing packets were really clogging the system. The internal AppleTalk network Apple was using at the time would be passing around routing information on an idle network for over 10% of the traffic. It was simply getting out of hand. There was all this traffic at odd hours in the late night/early morning. "Phase 2" helped quite a bit as it narrowed down the traffic necessary to get the job done. Apple's internal network had LOTS of zones in it (all over the world), and even more nodes (they have lots of desks!). Before the earthquake every was always running around trying to find out who unplugged what (usually several cubes away under some desk). It was really bad. I was working on A/UX (Apple's Unix at the time, pre Linux!) networking in the AppleTalk area, and the idea there was to get printing to function (it did). Most of AppleTalk was a big push to get "plug & play" to work, and lots of effort was expended to this goal. It did work quite well, but if one was to administer a network, the "plug & play" aspect was almost counter to good administrative practices. The largest problem was naming. Plug & Play implied local naming, and good administrative practices indicate a central naming scheme. Oh, well. For the most part, Apple's networking was MUCH easier to use than the others at the time, if they existed at all. I've even got a couple of PC's connected to an AppleTalk server (there is code in Linux for it). If you want to run an understandable networking under MS-DOS, AppleTalk for PC's isn't that bad. A far sight easier than Novell's stuff (memory footprints aside). I note that even today, network printers have AppleTalk in them, and will still connect to ancient 68K based Macs (like my Quadra 840AV). No reason to change what is quite functional! Even today, networking seems to elicit "black magic" practices, but we are getting better! -- Sorry, No signature at the moment. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

17 years, 11 months

cctalk Digest, Vol 57, Issue 24

by cclist＠sydex.com

> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 01:13:55 -0700 > From: Don North > I spent 15 years at Apple. My suspicion is Ron is probably still there. I have a memory of Ron at IIT (this would be about 1967) talking to a couple of older gentlemen visiting from Taiwan--in German. It's just one of those incongruous things that you never forget. Cheers, Chuck

17 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb