John,
Assuming the drive's device number has not been changed from eight, then the
correct command is LOAD "*", 8, 1
The drive should light up and start spinning. If it is misaligned, you
probably will get a "file not found" error. If the device number has been
changed to 9, 10, or 11, then you will get a "device not found" error. Try
the other numbers in place of 8 until you find the correct one. If the
cable is bad or not connected properly, you should get a "device not
present" error.
I'm not sure how to advise you, if nothing happens and no error messages pop
up.
Cliff Gregory
cgregory(a)lrbcg.com
PS: I've got all kinds of 1541's if you really want/need one.
-----Original Message-----
From: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
To: Cgregory <Cgregory>
Date: Sunday, February 01, 1998 2:15 AM
Subject: C-64c probs
>
>
>
>I was playing around with the C-64c I picked up last month... It came with
>a 1541 floppy...
>
>I think I have a problem:
>
>Turn on floppy
>turn on C-64c
>C-64c inits the drive (light blinks, then goes out)
>insert disk
>type LOAD "$",8
>nothing happens, no drive light, no response from the 64.
>
>What's going on here? Drive misalign? How do I realign? Bad drive? Bad
cable?
>
>Anyone have one or two extra 1541 floppy drives they want to sell?
>
>
>-John Higginbotham-
>-limbo.netpath.net-
>
The whole point is lists and newsgroups is that the majority are pertinent
and one shouldn't have to sort through the impertinent.
All of our email addresses are posted, if you want to have long discussions
as a group there's no reason you can't do it off line...
-Mike
----------
> From: Brett <danjo(a)xnet.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Are We Not Men? (& Women?)
> Date: Monday, January 26, 1998 6:05 AM
>
>
>
> I personally enjoyed reading the posts. I usually pick and choose
> anyway - something Sam could do as well.
>
> BC
>
I was playing around with the C-64c I picked up last month... It came with
a 1541 floppy...
I think I have a problem:
Turn on floppy
turn on C-64c
C-64c inits the drive (light blinks, then goes out)
insert disk
type LOAD "$",8
nothing happens, no drive light, no response from the 64.
What's going on here? Drive misalign? How do I realign? Bad drive? Bad cable?
Anyone have one or two extra 1541 floppy drives they want to sell?
-John Higginbotham-
-limbo.netpath.net-
<I seem to recall a .3 limit in an early version of VMS that someone I spo
<to who used to work for DEC recalls as well: was it as late as vms 2.0 pe
<3.0 even?
4.x (memeory is fuzzy brought the loger file names. The earliest version
of VMS I used was 3.4.
The reason I was complianing is those long names can be horrid if you
have to hand type them in and make an error with command editing not
available.
Allison
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Apple ][+ OS
Allison J Parent wrote:
!<Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotte
!<used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
!
!I'm spoiled with VMS that has had EIGHTEEN.EIGHTEEN, yes, 36 character
!file and directory names. The problem is;
!
!VMS_C_COMPILER_NEW.VERSION_TWENTY_ONE can be a pain to type in. ;)
!
!Allison
I seem to recall a .3 limit in an early version of VMS that someone I spoke
to who used to work for DEC recalls as well: was it as late as vms 2.0 perhaps
3.0 even?
At any rate under VMS 7.1 at least the limit has been further increased to
39.39 as this little log demonstrates (apologies to folks if this gets MIMEd
beyond recognition):
$ create 123456789012345678901234567890123456789.123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Hello from 39.39!
^Z Exit
$ type 123456789012345678901234567890123456789.123456789012345678901234567890123456789
Hello from 39.39!
$ create 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890.1234567890123456789012345678901234567890
%CREATE-E-OPENOUT, error opening 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890.1234567890123456789012345678901234567890
as output-RMS-F-FNM, error in file name
Hmm - I just tried that same thing on a VAX running 5.5-2 and was able to
create the 39.39 but not the 40.40 just as on the Alpha running 7.1. I am
not at home now so I can't test that on the uVAX running 5.4.
As for directories - the following was done on the VAX running 5.5-2:
$ create/dir [.123456789012345678901234567890123456789]
$ create/dir [.1234567890123456789012345678901234567890]
%CREATE-E-DIRNOTCRE, [.1234567890123456789012345678901234567890] directory file not created
-RMS-F-DIR, error in directory name
Peter Prymmer
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Development, round II
Tim Hotze wrote:
!>>name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
!>>with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
!>>Trek concept by several years.
!>That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all).
!The Borg were introduced in a single episode in 1988 or 1989.
OK clearly the rumour I reported was worthless as OS/2 dates from 87
(or do I have that wrong as well?:-)
! Another great thing is 4.0's *standard* voice support. That (should)
!make(s) it popular in the disabled market.
I knew a grad student who - in his twenties - had arthritis so severe that
excessive typing for him was out of the question. The voice navigable
desktop was of great benefit to him. Before that he used a collection of
standalone apps including a wordprocessor (from IBM) that really did not
impede his data input speed one bit. I asked him to "type" some latex as
demo and was quite favorably impressed. I've heard some folks point to the
current round of voice recognition software as being the final success of one
of those long outstanding AI research problems. It is interesting to see IBM
take such a "quiet" lead with it.
Peter Prymmer
WTB cheapo laptop...anyone have 286 or 8088? Don't want anything
collectible, just functional.
I'd love a Grid -- do they run regular DOS?
manney(a)nwohio.com
<Snip>
> > sounded more gentile. Anyway, about two thousand on/off cycles later,
>
> I wonder what a Jewish head crash sounds like?
>
> Sam
Parts are cut off.
manney
Well, it's not so much SPOILING as it is a privelige. Actually, I still
name my documents using a relatively short filename (compared to those
supported), like School 1.doc or English Report 1/31/98.doc, etc. not a
short paragraph describing the file.
Tim D. Hotze
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Apple ][+ OS
>
><Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotte
><used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
>
>I'm spoiled with VMS that has had EIGHTEEN.EIGHTEEN, yes, 36 character
>file and directory names. The problem is;
>
>VMS_C_COMPILER_NEW.VERSION_TWENTY_ONE can be a pain to type in. ;)
>
>Allison
>
<Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotte
<used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
I'm spoiled with VMS that has had EIGHTEEN.EIGHTEEN, yes, 36 character
file and directory names. The problem is;
VMS_C_COMPILER_NEW.VERSION_TWENTY_ONE can be a pain to type in. ;)
Allison
>>Warp Connect was _not_ OS/2 4.0, it was still 3.x as was Merlin (I
>>haven't bought it yet, the local stores no longer bother with IBM at
>>all and I don't mail order software). OS/2 2.x was _just_ OS/2, the
>OK - I stand corrected. BTW Fry's in the SF bay area has been selling
>OS/2 4.0 for quite a while.
Yes, but there is OS/2 Warp 4.0 Connect (or Connect 4.0), which has even
more internet functions.
>>name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
>>with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
>>Trek concept by several years.
>That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all).
The Borg were introduced in a single episode in 1988 or 1989.
>!> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were
listed as
>!> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely
regarded
>!> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally
configured
>!> system).
>!Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume
>!the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never
>!used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a
>!4MB system, says my package.
>I ran OS/2 v. 2 on a friends system (and helped him with the memory upgrade
>from 16 to 32 meg). I also ran the Rexx gopher server on version 3 (Warp)
>on a system with 16 Megs of RAM. I never ran Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
>on either machine so I cannot make a direct comparison (Win NT 3.51 was
>running on the latter machine long enough to allow setting up the OS/2
>installation). We also played around with the Voice control on a beta
>release of Merlin (thanks for reminding me of the code name) but that
machine
>was eventually pressed into service running NT (I never saw it after that).
>The advice of "you should have more than 4 MB RAM" was taken from my friend
>(who is still quite the OS/2 zealot) and I thought that I had read it in
the
>paperback version of the OS/2 FAQ as well - but I could easily be mistaken
>about that latter source. I am quite glad to hear that your performance
>was so good with only 4 MB - great OS isn't it?
Actually, OS/2 is pretty good. The only problem is the price: $200 for a
standard package. I think that the 4MB thing comes from a VERY BASIC
INSTALL.
Now, if I could see the OS/2 Warp Server with Windows NT 4.0 (or 5.0!)
support, and the OS/2 Warp with Windows 95 (or 98) support, and have a 10%
or better performance increase, that would probably get some heads turned,
to say the least.
Another great thing is 4.0's *standard* voice support. That (should)
make(s) it popular in the disabled market.
Ciao,
Tim D. Hotze
>At 10:02 AM 2/1/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Assuming the drive's device number has not been changed from eight, then the
>>correct command is LOAD "*", 8, 1
>
>What's the differenct between "$" and "*"? I've seen both used in this
>context. How does one change a device number? I'm not Commodore expert. The
>only other Commodore product I've had is a C-16, and that seems like ages
>ago.
"$" loads the file directory from the disk, and you use "list" to see
what files are on it. "*" loads the first program on the disk, and I
assume the ,1 is to either load an assembly program, or to automatically
run the file once loaded. The ,8 is the device number - thus try, say,
,9. :)
At least this is as far as my memory goes.
Adam.
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 22:45:12 -0800 (PST), Tim Shoppa
<shoppa(a)alph02.triumf.ca> wrote:
>>At a very minimum, you need:
>>SWAP.SYS
>>RT11xx.SYS (where "xx" is SL, BL, XM, FB, or something else)
>>TT.SYS (the console handler - not in RT-11 5.6 and later)
>>RK.SYS (the RK05 handler)
>>DIR.SAV
>>PIP.SAV
>>DUP.SAV
>>FORMAT.SAV
>>plus the handlers for any other devices you'll be using
>>The full list of "distribution" files came printed in the RT-11
>>documentation for the version you're using, and varied from version
>>to version. Which version are you using?
When booting the disk pack, I get the following version info:
RT11-SJ V04.00
What do the distribution docs look like? I have boxes of info that I haven't
gone through yet. The guy I got the system from kept everything, so maybe he
has it.
Rich Cini/WUGNET
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
============================================
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Development, round II
Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
>Warp Connect was _not_ OS/2 4.0, it was still 3.x as was Merlin (I
>haven't bought it yet, the local stores no longer bother with IBM at
>all and I don't mail order software). OS/2 2.x was _just_ OS/2, the
OK - I stand corrected. BTW Fry's in the SF bay area has been selling
OS/2 4.0 for quite a while.
>name Warp arrived with 3.0. I don't know what rumour mill came up
>with the "Borg" name, but it's total bullshit -- OS/2 predates that
>Trek concept by several years.
That too is what I thought (I don't follow Trek things at all).
!> *for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were listed as
!> "Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely regarded
!> as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally configured
!> system).
!
!Runs better than Windows 3.1 on a 386/25 with 4 Meg RAM. I assume
!the above quote was pasted from from somewhere, because you've never
!used it (OS/2) yourself. Remember, Windows 95 supposedly can run on a
!4MB system, says my package.
I ran OS/2 v. 2 on a friends system (and helped him with the memory upgrade
>from 16 to 32 meg). I also ran the Rexx gopher server on version 3 (Warp)
on a system with 16 Megs of RAM. I never ran Windows 3.1 or Windows 95
on either machine so I cannot make a direct comparison (Win NT 3.51 was
running on the latter machine long enough to allow setting up the OS/2
installation). We also played around with the Voice control on a beta
release of Merlin (thanks for reminding me of the code name) but that machine
was eventually pressed into service running NT (I never saw it after that).
The advice of "you should have more than 4 MB RAM" was taken from my friend
(who is still quite the OS/2 zealot) and I thought that I had read it in the
paperback version of the OS/2 FAQ as well - but I could easily be mistaken
about that latter source. I am quite glad to hear that your performance
was so good with only 4 MB - great OS isn't it?
Peter Prymmer
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Re[4]: Development, round II
Tim Hotze wrote:
>I'm actually interested in getting a copy of Warp. Is it true taht there's
>still another version coming out (I've heard rumors...)
> Thanks,
I have seen those rumours posted to this list. But OS/2 Version 4 is great
- why wait?
Peter Prymmer
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: RE: Re[4]: Development, round II
Bob Withers wrote in response to Kip Crosby who wrote in response
to someone else:
>IIRC they started officially calling it Warp with V2.0, the
>first release following the Microsoft/IBM breakup.
That sounds about right to me. I had read somewhere that there was a general
Star Trek theme to code names for OS/2 and the first was "Borg" - but I may
be wrong about that. I have floppy and CD-ROM boxes from IBM on the shelf
above me that have the name "OS/2 Warp Version 3" on them*. OS/2 Version 4
was called "Warp Connect" to emphasize the ease of internet connectivity.
The next version was to have a different Star Trek name altogether but I do
not recall what it was supposed to have been.
Peter Prymmer
*for the curious: system requirements on the box for Warp 3.0 were listed as
"Intel 386 SX-compatible of higher; 4 MB minimum of RAM" (<- widely regarded
as a joke among OS/2 users who knew that 8 MB RAM was a minimally configured
system).
At 09:20 PM 1/30/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Question: when did parallel ports become bi-directional (i.e., useable for
>zip drives and such)?
I've seen bi-directional capability in the BIOS of a GRiD 286 desktop
before. Before that, I can't really say.
>Or, to put it another way, how likely would I be able to (ignoring software
>issues for the moment) hook up my new SyJet drive to say, my m100? What
>about my DG-1?
That would be really cool, but sort of overkill, don'tcha think? I'd be
happy with a 1.44mb or 1.2mb floppy on an M100.
>(P.S., off-topic tip: The Parallel port SyJet is really a SCSI-2 SyJet
>with a fancy cable; if you've already got SCSI, and can maybe use the
>Parallel port feature...)
"What about the parallel version of the EZFlyer 230?" He said, still quite
untopically.
-John Higginbotham-
-limbo.netpath.net-
Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotten
used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
Actually, I was wondering what the heck Microsloth was thinking when they
made it 8 characters. And, the fact that in the next 5 FULL RELEASES
(Counting only the .0's, 2.0 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0) nothing was done about
it.
Thanks,
Tim D. Hotze
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Shoppa <shoppa(a)alph02.triumf.ca>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: Apple ][+ OS
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > look inside your ][+ and see if you have a language card. if so, you
have the
>> > 64k needed to run prodos. the latest and greatest version of prodos 8
won't
>> > run on a ][+ i think, only an enjanced //e. if you dont, you can only
run dos
>> > 3.3 i myself prefer both. i remember when prodos first came out and
everyone
>> > had an issue with the restrictive 15 character limit for filenames.
that was
>> > back before i worked with mess-dos and that 8.3 filename limit...
>>
>> The silliest thing they did was restrict spaces in filenames. You had to
>> use a period instead. Blech. Its funny when you think about it.
>> Intuitively and I'm sure without really think about it, Apple developed a
>> very human interface with DOS by allowing one to save files with very
>> readable names. Ie: "BIORHYTHM PROGRAM" or "PROGRAM TO BALANCE
CHECKBOOK"
>> (30 character limit). Then with ProDOS, they regressed into the
>> function-forces-form syndrome by limiting filenames to 15 characters and
>> requiring periods in place of spaces.
>
>Under Apple DOS 3.3, you can have anything in a filename you want.
>Control characters, inverse/flashing, the works. Makes for some
>pretty neat CATALOG listings, and is actually semi-workable as
>a "security through obscurity" step (though every Junior High kid
>knew how to bypass it...)
>
>DOS 3.3 made it easy and convenient to access filenames with embedded
>spaces. Too bad Unix shell command lines are traditionally brain-damaged
>such that spaces in filenames must be quoted.
>
>Tim. (shoppa(a)triumf.ca)
look inside your ][+ and see if you have a language card. if so, you have the
64k needed to run prodos. the latest and greatest version of prodos 8 won't
run on a ][+ i think, only an enjanced //e. if you dont, you can only run dos
3.3 i myself prefer both. i remember when prodos first came out and everyone
had an issue with the restrictive 15 character limit for filenames. that was
back before i worked with mess-dos and that 8.3 filename limit...
david
In a message dated 98-01-30 05:18:32 EST, you write:
<< OK... well, if I can't find anything else, I'll take the old copy, as I
think that you might want to hang on to the shrinkwrapped copy. I wouldn't
know what it was like, as I wasn't around when it was made. But, anyway,
I'll take the old copy, you can use the new one, as a "liscense", make a
backup copy of the disks, and then everyone's happy. ;-)
Thanks for the help, >>
I'm actually interested in getting a copy of Warp. Is it true taht there's
still another version coming out (I've heard rumors...)
Thanks,
Tim D. Hotze
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Prymmer <pvhp(a)forte.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Development, round II
>classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
>Subj: Re: Re[4]: Development, round II
>
>
>Barry Peterson wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:41:15 -0600, you said:
>>
>>>
>>>IIRC they started officially calling it Warp with V2.0, the first =
>>release following the Microsoft/IBM breakup.
>>
>>I have a copy of 2.0; it is not called Warp. That started with version
>>3.
>
>The story that I read somewhere was that "Warp" was used internally at IBM.
>With version 3.0 they were explicit about it and put that name on the box.
>
>Peter Prymmer
>
>,
classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu
Subj: Re: Development, round II
Max Eskin wrote:
>I just picked up a book on Macintosh Think C (MS Press, 50c, I didn't
>bother getting Macsbug and others, also 50c each). For one thing, does
>anyone have an extra/unvalued license copy of THINK C, version 2.1-5.0?
>Also, what was the first programming language (I mean not binary or
>assembly)?
According to Goldstine in "The Computer: from Pascal to von Neumann" the
first working modern stored program was a sorting routine that John von Neumann
wrote in roughly 1943 - and had working on the ENIAC/EDVAC by 1946/47, but
it was in machine code (binary).
An Assembler was available on the Princeton U/Institute for Advanced Study
EDSAC by the Fall of 1949. Herman Goldstine and John von Neumann wrote a
programming manual for it by 1951.
Short-code (which would by today's standards be classified as a type of
assembler) was available for UNIVAC machines by October 1952 thanks to
Logan, Schmit, and Tonik.
Heinz Rutishauser of the ETH in Zurich described the world's first compiler
in a preprint issued by ETH in 1952 (based in part on work that Konrad Zuse
had published in 1948/49).
Grace Hopper (who had started out working with H. Aiken at Harvard) developed
A0 then A1 and published results in the ACM Proceedings by 1952. By 1955 she
released A2 - which was popular on UNIVAC computers. She went on the become
instrumental in the development of COBOL.
FLOW-MATIC and MATH-MATIC were also available on Sperry computers in the
early(?) fifties. Remington Rand then developed a language called UNICODE by
1957/58 for use on UNIVAC 1103A and 1105 machines.
John Backus (et al.) at IBM developed: 1] Speedcoding in 1953 for the 701
2] FORTRAN starting in 1954 (which took 18 person years to develop, and
was released as Fortran I in 1956/57) 3] served on the international committee
that developed Algol (starting in 1959 but continuing through the 60s).
>Another thing: CP/M was run on just about everything, usually with
>about 64K ram. How is it that MS-DOS blew up to about 384K? What
>did they put in there?
A DOS kernel is distinct from a DOS installation. The DOS kernel is tiny
even for fairly recent versions. On a Dell boot disk for
MS-DOS (I think 6.22 and thus not classic) I see the following file sizes:
IO.SYS 40,774
MSDOS.SYS 38,138
COMMAND.COM 54,645
and on a bootable PC-DOS 7.0 (again not classic) partition I have:
IBMIO.COM 40,614
IBMDOS.COM 37,066
COMMAND.COM 52,956
and in either case the configuartion files AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS are
each less than 1 kB. The big user interface difference between these and CP/M
is the full hierarchical file system. Of course they also come with loads of
bloatware - but some of that is quite fun. e.g. PC-DOS can be optionally
installed with Rexx and I chose that option. I also have a couple of
different DPMI's available including the one for DJGPP.
Peter Prymmer
I recently received an HP-85 which was lying unused just next door!
It is in good cosmetic and mechanical shape but unfortunately it is not
operational. On power on, the indicator below the tape drive lights, but
the main power LED does not and nothing appears on the screen.. I assume
this indicates a PS problem.
Can anyone send me a copy of the service (and user) docs for this
machine? As always I would pay duplication and shipping costs.
--
Hans B. Pufal : <mailto:hansp@digiweb.com>
Comprehensive Computer Catalogue : <http://www.digiweb.com/~hansp/ccc/>
_-_-__-___--_-____-_--_-_-____--_---_-_---_--__--_--_--____---_--_--__--_
<>And you'll have to pardon my ignorance of the Intel parts after the 8085
<>but why wouldn't a 386 work if the 486 works? (Other than the speed
<>difference.) It has always been my impression that few OS's/application
<>need whatever extra software features that differentiate the 486 from th
<386.
The 486 was a series in incremental improvents over the 386, caching on
chip, more piplining and other changes to execute the same 386
instructions in fewer clocks plus the math processor as part of the same
silicon. With the scaling of transistors and other logic changes it was
effectively lower power and faster for the same clock as the 386 while
functionally identical.
Allison
I'm trying to make a new, blank "master" RT-11 RK05 disk pack from a
bunch of "user" disk packs. What files are considered to be part of the
"base" operating system.
Thanks again!
Rich Cini/WUGNET
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
============================================
