At 09:45 PM 1/12/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> No handles??? 'Tain't a Portable then!
Whups, forgot the 8^)
>Hmmm, maybe having handles isn't the best criteria for determining if a
>machine is portable.
Hmmm...
Panasonic Sr. Partner: Handle
Apple Mac Portable: Handle
HP LS/12: Handle
Altima 2: Handle
Good Composer: Handel
Amstrad PPC640: Handle
Bondwell B310+: Handle
Osborne 01: Handle
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
>It seems that portable machines are those which the manufacturer built
>to be easily picked up (in some cases without grunting too loudly) and moved
>to another location to be used. This holds for suitable values of "easily".
Yep.
>Yes, Roger. I know you were kidding.
Aw, shucks. I thought I had ya fooled. 8^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
At 07:55 PM 1/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>1) I took pictures of a bunch of systems:
>> Amstrad PPC640
>I didn't know these were available in the US. I just hauled one back
>(PPC512) from France last week and I thought that I had a very original
>portable (even though it got pretty heavy waiting for customs;)
>Were there any other of the Amstrad marketted in the US like the CPC series?
Well, Amstrad wasn't really big over here, but they did sell a few machines.
Other Amstrad's I've got (second hand) are the PDA600 "PenPad" and the PC-20
(sort of a CoCo-ish/Atari ST-ish one-piece PC).
btw, there was another PPC640 that sold on eBay this weekend, but it was
complete, with power supplies, software, and a really neat case. I didn't
get it, though. 8^(
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
At 08:32 PM 1/13/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Y'know, I once saw an honest-to-god IBM stand-alone plasma monitor in a
>surplus shop. 17" I think (or thereabouts). Pretty neat, but priced a
>little high.
That's one thing I hate about thrift shops: A monitor is a monitor to them.
I've seen monos, cgas, egas, and vgas sitting right next to each other, all
with the same price on them. (Needless to say I grabbed the VGAs!)
-John Higginbotham-
-limbo.netpath.net-
At 10:56 AM 1/12/98 -0500, Allison(tm) wrote:
>I gotta get that sex change. It happens it's MS Allison and I don't have
Oh no! It's the new MicroSoft Allison! No more intelligent posts about
non-MS computers/software Arrrgghh! 8^)
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
I've been doing some research and I've learned that it is possible to do a
network boot of at least some VAXen using a properly configured Linux
server with a NFS mountable version of NetBSD. I'm currently in the
process of FTPing the necessary software and hope to get my VAXstation 2000
up tonite using this method.
I would also like to be able to boot my VAXstation II/RC this way, but I
need a Ethernet Transciever for it. According to my Hardware manual for
this system (I love actually having documentation on something), I need a
H4000 Transceiver. What I'm wondering is if I can just go dig up a generic
10Base-2 transceiver and have it work?
Eventually I want to get at least the II/RC up and running VMS, but this
sounds like a good temporary measure to run the hardware though some paces,
so to speak while I'm getting a Hard Drive and VMS on media that I can use.
Besides I want to get a copy of NetBSD transfered onto TK50's.
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)ix.netcom.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |
| For the collecting of Classic Computers with info on them. |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/museum.html |
<I got a line on an Intel ISIS-II development system with lots of
<accessories. What do I do with it if I get it?
Richard,
I'd suggest computing and developing. It will run two OSs ISIS and CP/M
and it's pretty neat as they are fairly old to say the least.
If it has the programmers commonly used and the Paper tape it's a reall
winner!
Allison
<The 4051 BASIC is AWFUL. Example: the syntax of the IF statement is IF
<condition THEN line number. Similarly the 4052 and 4054. The really
20 IF A=5 THEN 100
That is standard Dartmouth BASIC! at least it has been since 1969 when I
started programming with it.
Allison
I got a line on an Intel ISIS-II development system with lots of
accessories. What do I do with it if I get it?
Rich Cini/WUGNET
Charter ClubWin! Member
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
> Personal Computer: IBM called the 5100 a personal computer and also a
>portable computer. I think they called it a personal computer since it did
Announced 9/9/75 according to Haddock.
He also mentions a "Geniac" ca. 1956: "Sold primarily as a toy, this type of
machine was arguably the first electronic digital personal computer."
And in '71, "The Busicom desktop electronic calculator, based on the new
Intel 4004, was introduced. This was the first computing device to employ a
microprocessor."
1973 saw the Scelbi 8H, and 1974 saw the Mark 8. Also in '74, Xerox came up
with the Alto which could make a bid for the first personal computer.
1975 was the year of the Altair 8800 (ann. january) and the Processor
Technology SOL (April). Later MOS Tech came out with the KIM-1.
> Portable Computer: IBM also called the 5100 a "portable computer". I
>guess they considered it a portable computer because everything was in one
>unit. It was certainly NOT portable in the sense that one person could
>pick it up and move it around. It's huge and it's heavy and there aren't
>even any handles on it. Not to mention the fact that it has an unprotected
No handles??? 'Tain't a Portable then!
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
> Actually, I've always wanted to get my hands on one of those heathkit
> gibbyframmers (with the Moto6800 CPU, six digit 7-segment LED display and
> hex keyboard, etc. etc.) as I used one in college and had a barrel o'
> monkeys interfacing things to it 'cause it was so easy.
I have the short-lived low-end version of that unit in the cardboard box. I
saw it in the Heathkit catalog, scraped some money together and bought it.
I didn't see it in the next catalog. Mine is serial #8.
This version of the unit only has half the memory of the one with the
protoboard on the front: 256 bytes instead of 512 bytes. It also doesn't
have the protoboard: just a keypad and six-digit hex display. There is
a spot for an expansion connector on the inside, but I never did anything
with it (I tried, though; I ordered a pair of 1Kx4 SRAMs from Radio Shack.
6 months later, _one_ of my two SRAMs arrived. The guy at Radio Shack didn't
understand why I didn't want to buy just the one. The other SRAM never did
arrive).
I've not fired it up recently, but it worked last time I did.
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
At 04:00 PM 1/13/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Long before anyone glued rust to a strip of plastic and called it recording
>tape, audio was recorded on spools of wire.
>
>Whatever you can record audio on, you can record data on. Wire recorders
>are actually incredibly durable, and until recently, the airplane 'black
>box' cockpit voice & data recorders were wire recorders. There are a ton of
>them still in service. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that's what the
>guy had at the flea market.
Well, to slightly shift the paradigm from classic computers to classic TV,
I saw a voice wire recorder on Hogan's Heroes -- it was made up to look
like a sewing basket.
At first, I thought -- uh, yea, right! -- but then I thought about it and
it's no different than a record album, but in a different form factor.
On the show, they spliced the wire to reformat a message on the wire... do
you know what type of wire was used on these types of voice/data recorders,
and how would you splice them?
(oh, and could you re-record over a previously used piece of wire?)
Just curious,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger Merchberger | Why does Hershey's put nutritional
Programmer, NorthernWay | information on their candy bar wrappers
zmerch(a)northernway.net | when there's no nutritional value within?
> Long before anyone glued rust to a strip of plastic and called it recording
> tape, audio was recorded on spools of wire.
In one episode of "The Secret Life of Machines", Tim played with magnetic
recording. He recorded a little bit of info on a bandsaw, he stuck some rust
to scotch tape and recorded on it, and visited a BBC warehouse where they
had some truly amazing video recorders (large reels of steel band instead
of tape).
It's a shame the Discovery channel doesn't show those anymore.
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
Long before anyone glued rust to a strip of plastic and called it recording
tape, audio was recorded on spools of wire.
Whatever you can record audio on, you can record data on. Wire recorders
are actually incredibly durable, and until recently, the airplane 'black
box' cockpit voice & data recorders were wire recorders. There are a ton of
them still in service. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that's what the
guy had at the flea market.
Kai
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ismail [SMTP:dastar@wco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 3:51 PM
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
> Subject: Recording data to a strand of wire?
>
>
> I was talking to this guy I met at a flea market and he said he has a
> storage device that writes data to a spool of wire. Can someone elaborate
> on this?
>
>
> Sam Alternate e-mail:
> dastar(a)siconic.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer,
> Jackass
>
> Coming Soon...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
> See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
Peter Prymmer wrote:
> incorporate integrated circuitry into what would become S/370 computers.
> Interestingly the architecture (or its modern desecndant) was not put on a
> single microprocessor until just a few years ago (1995 saw the 3490 CMOS
> mainframe on a chip). I would not for a moment call these devices mere
Are you sure? I remember when I was at IBM the PC/370 was available -
this would have been 1985-86 or possibly summer 1987. I believe this
was based on the 68000 circuitry with different microcode.
Tony, what date is your little 370-alike? And how many chips?
Philip.
Well, let no one tell you that size doesn't matter. <g>
Last night I was thinking about how I went about replacing the foam in my
RK05 drives. The only thing that I changed was the foam. I disconnect no
wires.
So, I thought that maybe platter speed may be effected by air volume. The
foam on the cartridge air inlet was about 3/32" thicker than the old foam.
This difference was enough to reduce the air volume into the disk pack
(there is a little bump on the air inlet that pushes a door open on the
pack). The extra foam I guess did not allow the door to open enough. This
lack of air produces enough drag on the motor spindle to stall the motor.
Mystery solved.
Rich Cini/WUGNET
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
============================================
At 08:20 PM 1/12/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Well, this specs is for that desktop model 70-E61 and $40 seems bit
I agree then. I'm not too up on the IBM numbering scheme.
>Hee hee...this is desktop which is called model 70 and the portable
>lunchbox is P70 which uses 386 either 16 or 20mhz (ahem...sleepy
I've got a P70 then. (Not sure if it's 16 or 20mhz.)
>performance and no cache.) The P75 is also lunchbox in same way
>BUT, it's real, honest 486DX 33 machine with scsi interface and
>plasma display to boot. That is one I would like to have.
Hmmm... Me too.
Y'know, I once saw an honest-to-god IBM stand-alone plasma monitor in a
surplus shop. 17" I think (or thereabouts). Pretty neat, but priced a
little high.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
-----Original Message-----
From: jpero(a)cgo.wave.ca <jpero(a)cgo.wave.ca>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Firsts
Oops it seems like I inserted the signature in the middle of a word or
something like that. Try the link in this one
>Hi Francois,
>
>Have a care, are your webpage set up correctly? I got 404.
>
>Jason D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Francois Auradon.
Visit the SANCTUARY at http://home.att.net/~francois.auradon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ward Donald Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 1998 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Firsts
>Paul E Coad wrote:
>The TRS-80 Model 100 and it's amigos the Nec 8201 and Olivetti ??? had
>no handles, unless you bought an overpriced briefcase add-on. I know
>there's no handle on the Everex I take back and forth to work, that's
>what my rucksack is for. In fact, I think _most_ modern notebook
>portables are without handles of their own.
T-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Francois Auradon.
Visit the SANCTUARY at http://home.att.net/~francois.auradonhat's probably
why they are called laptops and not portables.
Ex-HP employee John Brown in Escondido, CA, would like the following to go
to a collector:
HP 45711F Portable Plus (this is the off-white-and-maroon laptop)
128K RAM card
9114B single 3.5 stiffy drive
Thinkjet printer
82169B HP-IB interface
?? video monitor interface
Full, _really_ full, software and docs. All tested and working as of a
year ago.
John is moving at the beginning of next week and would like to hear from
someone who will pay freight on this by Friday, January 16th, or Saturday,
January 17th. Please contact him, not me, at JBKE6QIQ(a)sprynet.com.
Understandably, he doesn't want to scrap this.
TIA,
__________________________________________
Kip Crosby engine(a)chac.org
http://www.chac.org/index.html
Computer History Association of California
William Donzelli wrote:
> is implemented using over a thousand gate arrays. The amazing thing is
> that IBM was able to get all of those _hot_ chips working in such a
> small space (about a cubic foot, maybe two).
>
> Yes, I lust for a S/360 or 370, and would even settle for a 3033 or 3081.
Me too! But I think a 4381, say or even a 9370, would be easier to work
on. Why? The 308X and 3090 (and I think also the 303X, although I know
less about them) were _water cooled_. Maybe I am biassed as an
electrical engineer, but I think that anything with water in it is bound
to make a mess sooner or later...
Philip.
Can anyone identify these?
I have a serial tape reader, so I plan to read these into my PC and see if
E11 or the Supnik emulator will take them.
But I don't know what's on these. So, I'll just retype the labels
Here goes...
PUNCHED PAPER TAPES:
CASE #1
DEC-11-NFPMA-A-PR2 8/72 M
FPMP-11 DOUBLE PRECISION PACKAGE
REPLACES: DEC-11-YQPC-PB
DEC-11-NFPMA-A-PR1 8/72 M
FPMP-11 SINGLE PRECISION PACKAGE
REPLACES: DEC-11-YQPC-PB
DEC-11-ULKSA-A-PR1 12/72 M
LINK-11S OBJ V002A
TAPE 1 OF 2
REPLACES: DEC-11-ZLQA-PR1
DEC-11-ULKSA-A-PR2 12/72 M
LINK-11S OBJ V002A
TAPE 2 OF 2
REPLACES: DEC-11-ZLQA-PR2
DEC-11-ULKSA-A-PL 12/72 M
LINK-11S LDA V002A
SA=22714 RA=22714
REPLACES: DEC-11-ZLQA-PL
DEC-11-Y1PA-PB 11/10/69 M
DUMPTT-V001A
SA=LOAD ADDRESS
RA=LOAD ADDRESS
DEC-11-Y2PA-PB 11/10/69 M
DUMPAD-V001A
SA=LOAD ADDRESS
RA=LOAD ADDRESS
DEC-11-Y2PA-PO 11/10/69 M
DUMPAD-V001A
SA=XX7500 RA=XX7500
"USE SPECIAL LEADER"
DEC-11-Y1FA-PO 11/10/69 M
DUMPTT-V001A
SA=XX7440 RA=XX7440
"USE SPECIAL LEADER"
DEC-11-XIOXA-A-PA2 12/72 M
IOX V006A
TAPE 2 OF 2
REPLACES: DEC-11-Y1PB-PA2
DEC-11-XIOXA-A-PA1 12/72 M
IOX V006A
TAPE 1 OF 2
REPLACES: DEC-11-YIPB-PA1
DEC-11-XIOXA-A-PB 12/72 M
IOX V006A
REPLACES: DEC-11-YIPB-PB
DEC-11-UODXA-A-PA 12/72 M
ODT-11X PAL
REPLACES: DEC-11-O2PB-PA
CASE #2
DEC-11-UODPA-A-PB
ODT-11 LDA V005A
SA=13026 RA=13030 RE-ENTER=13032
REPLACES: DEC-11-O1PA-PB
DEC-11-UODPA-A-PA 12/72 M
ODT-11 PAL V005A
REPLACES: DEC-11-O1PA-PA
DEC-11-UODXA-A-PB 17/72 M
ODT-11X LDA
SA=12054 RA=12056
REPLACES: DEC-11-O2PB-PB
DEC-11-CGPA-PB2 6/2/70 M
PDP-11 CHECKOUT PACKAGE
TEST A SA=NONE RA=NONE
TAPE 2 OF 2
DEC-11-CGPA-PB1 6/2/70 M
PDP-11 CHECKOUT PACKAGE
TEST B SA=NONE RA=NONE
TAPE 1 OF 2
DEC-11-CGPA-PA1 6/2/70 M
PDP-11 CHECKOUT PACKAGE
TADDUP. ASC. (2)
TAPE 1 OF 2
DEC-11-CGPA-PA2 6/2/70 M
PDP-11 CHECKOUT PACKAGE
TADDUP. ASC. (2)
TAPE 2 OF 2
DEC-11-UEDPA-A-PB 12/72 M
ED-11 V005A
REPLACES: DEC-11-E1PA-PB
(I have to hurry here, the bell is coming. I'll just list the tape name)
PAL 11S OBJ v003A
(IT'S on 6 tapes)
6,5,3,2,1 ARE HERE
PAL 11S LDA V003A
PAL-11A LDA V007A
CASE #3
MAINDEC COMMUNICATIONS TEST PROGRAM
T14 TRAP TEST (1140 ONLY)
T17-4K SYSTEM EXERCISER
FPMP-11 SOURCE (6 TAPES. i HAVE 6,5,4,3,2, AND 1)
And that's them! I have more elsewhere, I'll dig them out too.
But for now, what's these? And can I get the emulator to take them?
What about reading them into a real PDP (Like the 11/34?)
The tapes are all real DEC tapes, they have DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION -
PROGRAMMED DATA PROCESSOR written on them.
They seem to all be in good condition.
-------
<Kip Crosby wrote:
<>Huh? You mean 1995 was the last year a Lisa's sysclock could register?
<>How, i. e. from when and with what ticks, was the clock set up?
<
<Yeah, pretty amazing isn't it. Now that's what I call planned obsolecenc
<My Lisa 2/5 works great once I figured out in what order to turn everythi
<on. One slight problem the date will be wrong, the whole time I own it.
The most common cause its that the date(year) is only stored as a single
digit and it's added to the date of creation of the system. This is very
common! For some systems this is a two digit number but at 2000 it rolls
around to 1900. FYI the common PDP-8 OS OS/8 happens to also have this
problem every 7 years for using only three bits for the year portion of
the date.
Allison
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Joe wrote:
>
>> Phillip said:
>> >
>> >Um. What date was the Casio AL1000? For that matter, what date was the
>> >AL2000? OK, the AL1000 had nixie tubes in the display, so was not all
>> >solid state, but it comes close, I'm sure. (Other people have commented
>> >on the HP 9100 and the earlier Busicoms)
>>
>> Ahhh, a Casio expert! When was the Casio AS-8D made? I just picked one
>> up. I had never seen one before and I thought it looked interesting.
Alas, I am not a Casio expert. I merely happen to have an AL1000, an FX-502P
and an FX-601P, FWIW. What is the AS-8D? Can you describe it to us?
>> I was just reading an old (ca 1977) Byte magazine this morning and it
>> had a article about the Tek 4051. I think they said it had just been
>> discontinued. E-mail me if you're interested.
>>
>> Joe
>
> More likely superceded by the 4052, which used a bit-slice processor
> rather than the MC6800 that the 4051 used. There were some other minor
> improvements also, as I recall.
I cannot remember the exact date the 4051 was discontinued, although I
have it somewhere at home, but it was a couple of years after the
introduction of the 4052. 1982? 1977 does sound more like the
announcement of the 4052 and 4054, I must admit.
Yes please, Joe, I am indeed interested in the Byte article.
> The 4051 might also qualify for the race of an early personal computer if
> its $10,000 cost doesn't put it out. It was programmed in the nicest BASIC
> that I have ever run across! Marvellous vector graphics. But SLOOOOOW!
> The real queen, though, was the 4053 with its 19" (17"?) screen!
I think I'd disagree with you here, Don. The 4051 was announced with a
price tag of (I think) $6999 for the base spec. (Might have been
$7999). It went down in price very rapidly - the top spec machine was
only $5250 or something when it was eventually discontinued. But I
meant "personal" not in the sense of "personally owned" but in the sense
of "intended to go on/at someone's desk for their personal use" - and I
was commenting on the "all in one box" definition someone had proposed
earlier.
The 4051 BASIC is AWFUL. Example: the syntax of the IF statement is IF
condition THEN line number. Similarly the 4052 and 4054. The really
nice version came with the 4052A and 4054A in (?) 1982. This was
achieved AFAICT by freeing up ROM space from GPIB handling routines -
the upgrade was new ROMS plus a new I/O board that had a proper GPIB
controller chip on it.
I've never heard of the 4053. Are you sure you don't mean the 4054?
This did have a 19 inch screen.
Yes, I too would love a 4054A. But I have to be content with my 4052,
which is also a nice machine. But as you say, the graphics are SLOW.
(Faster on the 4054 which had constant rate vector drawing rather than
constant time. But that's another story). I shall look up some of the
above details when I get home - I did a talk on the 4050 series recently
and the notes are still on my Microscribe - and post corrections if I
made any glaring errors...
Philip.
