Hi all.
Well, the weekend of the big move is getting closer.
I intend to take 2 RM03's and not only for the good looks!
I actually want to hook them to the 11/70 and operate them.
Changing electricity cabling is planned ;-)
The big question is: how do I move these "washing machines"
so that afterward they still are in working order?
I have experience with head locking RL01/RL02, RK05, RA81
and RA60. I suspect that the RM03 also have some head lock
mechanism. Perhaps also some trick for the spindle like
the tension of the drive belt in the RA81?
Thanks for all the good advice received on the RM03's so far.
I am looking forward to read more on topic info from this
fine list.
For those who like my StarShip website:
I got the stars on the main screen correctly plotted with
the rotation matrix algorithms, so an update will hit the
site in a month or so.
kind regards,
- Henk.
> > Tape Reel High Speed Computer Labels
> > 3-7/8" x 1-13/16", White, Dot Matrix,
> > Removable, 5000 labels per box
> > 04052 5000 Labels per Box $139.15
> >
> > If there are just ten people on the list who'd have use
> > for 500 labels, it's close to fifteen bucks per person.
> >
> > OTOH, is anyone sitting on a stash of them? I found a
> > sheet with precisely three labels, and I've quite a
> > few more tapes than that...
>
> Check to see if the adhesive still sticks to anything. My long-term
> experience with tape-reel labels is that the "permanent' adhesive
> lets go after 10 years or so, leaving me with a rack of unlabeled
> tapes and a bunch of labels on the floor.
Dunno what kind of labels my old ones are, but labels
applied in the 1978 through 1983 period remain firmly
fastened to the reels.
I took one of the three unused label, peeled it from
the backing paper, and applied it to a new reel of tape.
It stuck, but threatened to not do so very well. Some
hand pressure seems to have done the trick. It looks
ok now... write me back in 10 years for an update.
;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woyciesjes [mailto:DAW@yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu]
> > From: Christopher Smith
> > I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
> > replace their peesees with Macs.
> Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun
> Ulltra1 Creator
> or an SGI, or...
Even better, but there's less of a chance that will happen.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> On Wed, 1 May 2002, Douglas H. Quebbeman wrote:
> > > OK, so who knows the sequence and differences between:
> > > MP/M-86
> > > Concurrent CP/M-86
> > > Concurrent PC-DOS (announced by DRI at Comdex, because IBM did NOT
> > > trademark "PC-DOS" ("It's a description, not a name"), but
> > > then DRI backed down and changed the name)
> > > Concurrent DOS
> > > DR DOS
> > Very good, Fred! The answer to your question is "Fred Cisin"!
>
> Well, you confirmed my guess as to the sequence, but it wasn't a
> rhetorical question. I really DON'T know what the differences are.
Oops! My bad...
MP/M-86: multiuser, multi-terminal version of CP/M. Supports
more memory than CP/M-86 though...
Concurrent CP/M-86:
MP/M-86 with multi-terminal support removed. User can
run multiple programs simultaneously.
Concurrent PC-DOS:
Concurrent CP/M-86 with support for Microsoft loader
conventions, Microsoft disk formats, etc. while pre-
serving existing CP/M-86 program & media support
Concurrent DOS:
Don't know the differences but whatever it is it's
Concurrent PC-DOS modified to do <xyz>
DR DOS:
Lots of support added for stuff like running mouse
and network drivers in upper memory blocks, etc.
Generally a catch-up revision of the previous
product, but was already surpoassed by the latest
Microsoft DOS.
hth,-dq
> From: Christopher Smith
>
> > There are advantages to being a 5% market... small targets
> > don't get hit
> > often.
>
> I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
> replace their peesees with Macs.
>
> Chris
>
Instead of a Mac, how about a DEC 3000/400, or Sun Ulltra1 Creator
or an SGI, or...
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
BTW, if you decide not to keep it, I'll buy it from you.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> OK, so who knows the sequence and differences between:
>
> MP/M-86
>
> Concurrent CP/M-86
>
> Concurrent PC-DOS (announced by DRI at Comdex, because IBM did NOT
> trademark "PC-DOS" ("It's a description, not a name"), but
> then DRI backed
> down and changed the name)
>
> Concurrent DOS
>
> DR DOS
Very good, Fred! The answer to your question is "Fred Cisin"!
;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com]
> The wonderful bonus you have here with the Mac is... AppleTalk isn't
> passed by home internet routers or modems. So you can safely have the
> default settings of a home file/print sharing turned on on
> your Macs, and
> no one outside of your home network will know it is there.
Won't argue with that. In fact, that sounds like just what I was
saying. ;)
> This changes if you turn on AppleTalk over IP, but since that
> is off by
> default, you must explicitly set it when you turn on your
> filesharing. At
> that point, if you don't know what you are activating, you
> deserve what
> you get.
If you make changes to the configuration, as I said, it's likely
to get worse.
> Also, even if I run servers/services that DO interact with the
> internet... I am far less likely to be hacked simply by
> virtue of there
> is almost no one trying to hack the Mac servers. That isn't true with
> Windows and Unix where any 13yr old script kiddie can get
> tools to make
> attempts.
It's a trivial, but not obvious to an idiot, exercise to make those
"tools" work under Unix, too, and they become outdated very quickly.
If you're running a newer or older Unix than the "tool" is designed
to break, you'll likely have no problem there, either.
This whole part of the discussion might be irrelevant, though, since
nobody does anything interesting in that area any more. It's generally
"denial of service" crap, and mostly depends on saturating peoples'
network pipe, but what can you expect?
> I don't pretend that Mac internet servers are unhackable... just that
> people aren't making easy tools to try, so the script kiddies
> ignore them.
Possible. Just imagine how "safe" Amiga users are in that respect :)
> Much like Mac users being "immune" to viruses. We are FAR
> from immune...
> we just don't really see them because no one is interested in trying.
Wait 'till I get my Prime. ;)
> There are advantages to being a 5% market... small targets
> don't get hit
> often.
I certainly hope that changes. I could stand to see many people
replace their peesees with Macs.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> And I should clarify, the only reason this machine has been rebooted
>since I loaded OS X back on 1/22/2002 is because Apple hasn't figured out
>how to update the system without a reboot... So that's only 3 reboots, all
>by choice, not crashes.
Now if they can just fix Classic so when a freaking installer forces you
to reboot after installing a classic app, it doesn't take down the whole
machine!
4 different installers did that to me. After installing in classic, it
forced me to reboot, and rather than just rebooting classic, it froze the
entire computer.
Of course, that brings up another pet peeve of mine... installers that
FORCE you to reboot after installing. Thanks, but I'll decide when it is
a good time to reboot, give me the option of rebooting then, or quitting
and doing it myself later.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> From: Zane H. Healy
>
> > I've got here the Digital UNIX (a.k.a. D/UX, right?) v3.2F CD box
> >here. The way the docs read, without an OSF-BASE license PAK, I can have
> >only 1 user logged in at a time, not counting root. the OSF-BASE PAK will
> >let me have 2 simultaneous users, and anything higher needs an
> appropriate
> >OSF-USER PAK, right?
> > Either way, I'm hoping to get my hands on a OSF-BASE PAK, at least.
>
> You might just want to buy the Tru64 V5.1 Hobbyist Kit. It's about $100,
> and it includes PAK's. Or better yet, put OpenVMS on the system :^)
>
> Zane
> --
>
OpenVMS? Maybe eventually. When I started really getting into
computer work, it was as an operator, on an OpenVMS system... But since I
do have the CDs and docs here for D/UX, I'll give it a whirl, and see if it
fits my needs.
Does it allow only one user at a time, without the OSF-BASE PAK?
This afternoon I'll be firing up my 3000/400 to see what's
installed, before I try throwing D/UX on it...
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1 - Darwin Kernel Version 5
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
Dan Wright <dtwright(a)uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Tarsi said:
>
>Though, I think any machines that are truly on-topic wouldn't be able to run
>IRIX 6.5 anyway ;)
>
>- Dan Wright
>(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
>(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
>
I've successfully installed 6.5 on an Indy with a 2 Gig drive. Barebones with only 2 Gig, but it runs:)
--
Bob Mason
2x Amiga 500's, GVP A530 (40mhz 68030/68882, 8meg Fast, SCSI), 1.3/3.1, 2meg Chip, full ECS chipset, EZ135, 1084S, big harddrives, 2.2xCD
Gateway Performance 500 Piece 'o Crap, 'ME, 128meg, 20Gig & 40Gig, flatbed.
Heathkit H-89A, 64K RAM, hard and soft-sectored floppies, SigmaSoft and Systems 256K RAM Drive/Print Spooler/Graphics board HDOS 2 & CP/M 2.2.03/2.2.04
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
> From: Chris
>
> > And Chris, couldn't you tell I' was breaking your stones? C'mon,
> >you've seen my basement... :)
>
> Yes... but your statement was still correct. I implied that Apple was far
> better than it really is when compared to things outside the wintel
> world. I was simply wrong in that respect.
>
> Besides, how could you be anything but pro-Mac... you proudly display
> your OS X uptime in your sig
>
> -chris
>
Well, I'm not sure if it's really pro-Mac, but more of pro-OS X, or
is it pro-*BSD, and a bit of 'about time someone took it to the masses'.
And I should fix my sig, it's now 10.1.4...
[~] dwoycies% uname -a
Darwin dwoyciesjes-g4.unipress.yale.edu 5.4 Darwin Kernel Version 5.4: Wed
Apr 10 09:27:47 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-201.19.3.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power
Macintosh powerpc
And I should clarify, the only reason this machine has been rebooted
since I loaded OS X back on 1/22/2002 is because Apple hasn't figured out
how to update the system without a reboot... So that's only 3 reboots, all
by choice, not crashes.
So, technically the "Running without a crash" isn't really wrong.
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
>You mean it'll work with the older mac's? It has a "normal" (for MAC's)
>video
>cable, and its model number is 1710AV.
I just checked the tech manual for the 1710AV, it indeed has the standard
RGB plug, so you should be good to go with just about any mac that has an
RGB port. Some of the older ones will only be able to display in 640x480
resolution, but the Q650 you are looking into will do higher.
If you want the PDF of the manual, let me know, I'll send it to you
offlist. It's about 3.6MB, has some interesting notes about repair
problems with that model (Apple even has/had a repair extension program
in place for some of it)
>It has what appears to be
>pass-through's for the mouse and for a mike, that funny thing that looks like
>the USB symbol but isn't
That's the ADB port. Predates USB by some time. The idea was you could
run one cable bundle from the screen to the Mac, and then be able to plug
the keyboard and mic into the screen (mouse would be connected to the
keyboard's ADB port).
>but it's only a 16"
>diagonal visible (not viewable) screen so I don't think it's supposed to be a
>17", though you never know these days.
It is listed as a 17" with 16.1" viewable image size. Although, it was
made back in the day when apple was a little less than honest with their
screen sizes (before they were sued over it), so who knows what it really
has.
>I saw a
>Quadra 650 or something on that order for $5 earlier today. It had a part of
>the front face missing, else I'd have probably looked inside.
Probably missing the CD bezel. Most likely it was stripped of the CD
before being junked. If the CD is missing, verify that the rest of the
system is there, who knows what else was pulled.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
Yep, this is about 4 years shy of being on topic, but I know I can
find help here...
I've got here the Digital UNIX (a.k.a. D/UX, right?) v3.2F CD box
here. The way the docs read, without an OSF-BASE license PAK, I can have
only 1 user logged in at a time, not counting root. the OSF-BASE PAK will
let me have 2 simultaneous users, and anything higher needs an appropriate
OSF-USER PAK, right?
Either way, I'm hoping to get my hands on a OSF-BASE PAK, at least.
The DEC 3000/400 that this will be installed on, I have never seen
what OS is on there now. Maybe I'll get lucky and there will be a valid
OSF-BASE PAK there already? Nah, doubt it. Not my luck. I think the previous
owner said something about NetBSD on it...
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
>Now there's one of the problems with Apple's approach ... My old (1993-94)
>'486 setups support PCI, (some of 'em ... the ones I use) while these old
>MAC's don't because Apple was slow to adopt PCI.
Not slow to adopt... too arrogant to get with the program and stop using
their own standards.
The first PCI based macs showed up in 1995
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> And Chris, couldn't you tell I' was breaking your stones? C'mon,
>you've seen my basement... :)
Yes... but your statement was still correct. I implied that Apple was far
better than it really is when compared to things outside the wintel
world. I was simply wrong in that respect.
Besides, how could you be anything but pro-Mac... you proudly display
your OS X uptime in your sig
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> >Now there's one of the problems with Apple's approach ... My old (1993-94)
> >'486 setups support PCI, (some of 'em ... the ones I use) while these old
> >MAC's don't because Apple was slow to adopt PCI.
>
> Not slow to adopt... too arrogant to get with the program and stop using
> their own standards.
I've always thought of apple as the Sony of Computing...
there may be fans of the memory stick here, but Sony was
slow to come out with high-density versions... hell, in
the CompactFlash format, I can eschew solid state for a
tiny 1-inch IBM 1GB hard drive... now *that's* density!
-dq
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com]
> specifying that on this list, I opened the comment to compare
> them to a
> slew of machines that would blow Apple out of the water.
I imagined you would be comparing them directly to peesees, but
I couldn't pass that up.
> Sorry it was my
> Mac Evangelist side popping out too quickly.
That's ok. I like to evangelize VMS once in a while.
> Ok... I was thinking security as in how often we loose or
> destroy your
> files. Not how often we let someone steal your files. No
That's different. I've seen it happen, of course, but I'd
rather handle the MacOS "corrupt preferences" problem that is
so common than the windows "I just stomped on the wrong DLL"
counterpart. :)
> Apple doesn't
> excel at keeping the files intact, but they are no worse than
> many others.
I often think that windows machines should come with a VAX/PDP-like
"Write protect fixed disk 0" button. :)
> In terms of allowing someone to steal or alter your files, I
> agree, short
> of encrypting the files, there is nothing acceptable on the
> Mac pre-OS X
Of course, PGP is fine for that, but I wasn't counting it since
it's third-party.
> I have seen few even half way decent security systems to keep
> people off
> your Mac. And even the half way decent ones tend to be easy
> to bypass if
> you have sufficient access to the machine (ie: steal it and take your
> time)
Even if not, I've seen far too many that can be disabled by hitting "shift"
during boot-up.
> Although, in the Mac's defense, in terms of "hacker" access
> from over the
> internet, I will trust my Mac running any pre-OS X version of the OS
> before I will trust ANY other OS (even well configured Unix). In that
Are you certain? If the Mac was running the same network services as
that Unix box, I'd bet your chances of a problem are even -- if not
worse on the Mac, due to their popularity among "home users," which
unix isn't...
> line, then I stand by my overly stated statement saying that
> the Mac has
> far better security.
I think that the closer-to-default Mac configuration is better by virtue
of it's not running unnecessary network services. The Unix one needs a
lot of help in that respect. Now, if a given system must run these
services, or if you want to compare a Unix set up to be "Mac like" in
this respect to a Mac, it's a whole different thing.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> From: Chris
>
> >> WOAH?!? That's just a shot from the dark... Apple is known for how good
>
> >> their quality IS... sure they had a few flops, but most of their
> hardware
> >> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um... compared to what?
>
> >> Windows? BWAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!!
> >>
> >> -chris
> >>
> > Really Chris? Then why was I very busy making good money doing
> >Apple/Mac support at Electric Boat up here? ;)
>
> Sorry, that was a poorly worded direct comparison to the PC WinTel world.
> Having done Mac and PC hardware repair for the last don't know how long,
> I can tell you that PCs break down 10x more often than a Mac. Hardware
> wise that is. Software wise, well, that isn't fair... Windows just isn't
> up to the task of being compared to anything.
>
> Alas, I forgot what list I was on, and many (if not most) of the
> computers applicable to this list would blow Apple stuff out of the water
> in terms of reliability in hardware AND software.
>
- Hmmm, actually, compared to x86/Win stuff, Apple is generally
better, so your comment isn't that far off.
And Chris, couldn't you tell I' was breaking your stones? C'mon,
you've seen my basement... :)
--
--- David A Woyciesjes
--- C & IS Support Specialist
--- Yale University Press
--- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu
--- (203) 432-0953
--- ICQ # - 905818
Mac OS X 10.1.2 - Darwin Kernel Version 5.2: Fri Dec 7 21:39:35 PST 2001
Running since 01/22/2002 without a crash
Pat Finnegan wrote:
>Cool. Next question: is there any software for MSDOS or Linux (preferably
>that I don't need to pay for) that will read/write CP/M-86 (1) hard disk
>partitions or (2) 1.44M floppies. I've noticed 22DSK doesn't support much
>more than 5-1/4" floppies.
Out-of-the-box "CP/M-86 for the IBM PC" does not support 1.44 MB diskettes.
But if you still need it: some time ago I wrote a software package called
"The 1.44 MB Feature for CP/M-86" that provides this support as an add-on to
standard CP/M-86 for IBM.
See the CP/M-86 software repository at www. seanet.com/~klaw
There's also a definition for 22disk in the package.
Freek Heite.
>> networks, but they've since been renamed by Apple to 'PhoneNet' because of
>> the satin phone cable you typically use to connect the adaptors together.
>
>Actually, I think 'LocalTalk' is what they now call the serial-connected
>network. Not quite sure where I got 'phonenet' from...
LocalTalk was always technically the cabling system that Apple developed.
It uses a 4 wire round cable and connects to a box that connects to the
serial port of the Mac (traditionally the printer port)
PhoneNet/TeleNet/TeleTalk was always technically the cabling system that
used 2 wires in a phone cable to connect. I believe this was first
developed by TOPS, but I'm probably wrong. Also connected to an adaptor
that connected to the serial port.
Serial was always technically the cabling system where you take a mac
printer cable and connect two macs together with it (AppleTalk over
Serial... wonder why it was never refered to as SerialTalk)
Localtalk has been perverted into meaning any of the above topologies,
and any others that use the serial port on the Mac.
And Farallon perverted the PhoneNet name by using it in one of their
ethernet cards (PhoneNet EN)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
>> their hardware
>> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um...
>
>I've seen better. I have better. (I also have a couple of
>Macintosh's, a IIGS, etc... which still work fine, to be
>fair)
I was making the comparison to the WinTel world, forgetting that without
specifying that on this list, I opened the comment to compare them to a
slew of machines that would blow Apple out of the water. Sorry it was my
Mac Evangelist side popping out too quickly.
>> compared to what?
>
>VMS? :) Even a poorly configured Unix -- until OS X.
>MacOS had no built-in security at that point. (I hope you
>won't seriously suggest that "At Ease" counts... :)
Ok... I was thinking security as in how often we loose or destroy your
files. Not how often we let someone steal your files. No Apple doesn't
excel at keeping the files intact, but they are no worse than many others.
In terms of allowing someone to steal or alter your files, I agree, short
of encrypting the files, there is nothing acceptable on the Mac pre-OS X
(at least OS 9 finally added built in encryption if you wanted to use it).
I have seen few even half way decent security systems to keep people off
your Mac. And even the half way decent ones tend to be easy to bypass if
you have sufficient access to the machine (ie: steal it and take your
time)
Although, in the Mac's defense, in terms of "hacker" access from over the
internet, I will trust my Mac running any pre-OS X version of the OS
before I will trust ANY other OS (even well configured Unix). In that
line, then I stand by my overly stated statement saying that the Mac has
far better security.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
>> WOAH?!? That's just a shot from the dark... Apple is known for how good
>> their quality IS... sure they had a few flops, but most of their hardware
>> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um... compared to what?
>> Windows? BWAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!!
>>
>> -chris
>>
> Really Chris? Then why was I very busy making good money doing
>Apple/Mac support at Electric Boat up here? ;)
Sorry, that was a poorly worded direct comparison to the PC WinTel world.
Having done Mac and PC hardware repair for the last don't know how long,
I can tell you that PCs break down 10x more often than a Mac. Hardware
wise that is. Software wise, well, that isn't fair... Windows just isn't
up to the task of being compared to anything.
Alas, I forgot what list I was on, and many (if not most) of the
computers applicable to this list would blow Apple stuff out of the water
in terms of reliability in hardware AND software.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com]
> >Apple Computer Co. always impressed me as being
> >entirely too willing to compromise the quality of MY
> hardware/software, and
> >the security of my data, in favor of their profits.
> WOAH?!? That's just a shot from the dark... Apple is known
> for how good
> their quality IS... sure they had a few flops, but most of
I wouldn't say that. Apple hardware is passable for "consumer"
stuff, sure, but it's not good. Better than most peesee clone
manufacturers? Sure, but again, that doesn't make it good.
You're welcome to buy an all-in-one box with a plastic bubble
for a case if you like, but I'm not going to. :)
I will also grant that Apple's hardware used to be better when
compared to peesee stuff than it is now (possibly due to Apple's
cutting costs)...
> their hardware
> is built well, and built to last. And security? Um...
I've seen better. I have better. (I also have a couple of
Macintosh's, a IIGS, etc... which still work fine, to be
fair)
> compared to what?
VMS? :) Even a poorly configured Unix -- until OS X.
MacOS had no built-in security at that point. (I hope you
won't seriously suggest that "At Ease" counts... :)
> Windows? BWAA HAA HAA HAA HAA!!!
Heh.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com]
> Does the MAC support USB? How about USB-2? 5-port boards
Yes, and "possibly" -- if a USB-2 interface is available on a
PCI board, there's a good chance of finding one supported by
Apple.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'