Hi Tony,
>Are you sure about the MFM format? I can't see any obvious way to make
>the hardwaare do that....
The floppy controller DEFINITELY doesn't do MFM as standard.
A chap in the UK Sirius User Group once told me that there was a board in
development which would replace the standard floppy controller to allow the
machine to read and write IBM format (360K and 1.2Mb) discs.
He claimed to have one of the prototypes and that it never made it to the
market - probably because the new controller wouldn't read/write the old style
GCR discs. :-(
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
Hi Tony,
>....printer port that looks to be Centronics, but in fact it has enough
>lines, and the right buffers, to be GPIB if you can get the right
>software....
Have you ever found software which will drive the Centronics port as GPIB? I've
been looking around since I first got a Sirius in '88 but have never found any.
>Sound is a CI-55516 CODEC linked to a 6852 serial chip. There's a
>built-in speaker, and a header plug for audio input (!). I've never seen
>software for that either, though.
If you mean software which drives the CODEC I've only ever came across one
program which uses it, and that was a demo disc which displayed various hi-res
graphics and played back digitised music and speech.
I was given to understand that a few games came out for the Sirius which used
the CODEC, but I don't know any details at all.
>....The hardware would be capable of DS operation, but I've
>never seen suitable drives.
The DS drives are identical to the single sided ones, with the obvious
exception of the extra head.... ;-)
ISTR they're pretty much the same as the 360K drives used in the IBM PC
(MPI-40s?) with the exception of the analogue board being removed, you could
probably press one of those into service?
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
<On Mon, 5 Jul 1999 Glenatacme(a)aol.com wrote:
<>"Windows 9x makes your computer more reliable"
<>"Windows 9x makes your computer easier to use"
<>"DOS programs run faster and more reliable"
<>"Windows 9x provides the features you want" (sure, Blue Screen of Death)
The rant is unneeded. I'm not a MS lover (VMS is my love) but I also
make a living keeping 40 clients and 3 servers going running W95 and NT
on late 486, p133 and P166 systems, while supporting users and various
programmable control systems. IT does work, it's works amazingly well.
It's not VMS and nowhere near as robust, it is far better than DOS.
It is possible during install and even during hardware purchase to do
things that will compromize the system. Usually the problem is poor
apps that don't run well under any OS or not taking advantage of service
paks that MS does provice.
Now PS failures is something to pay attention to as the results can be
anything from annoying to downright dangerous. Any new system should
be run in a safe place under a watchful eye until it's assured it's
operation will remain stable after being powered off for years.
NOTE:
Many systems the case, rack and other components are essenital to
their fire safety, do not compromize.
Fuses and circuit breakers should be of the correct rating. Make
sure they weren't replaced by oversized (or undersized!) ones in
a prior life.
Capacitors will blow if overvoltage, age, reverse polarity, excessive
ripple (bad rectifiers), bad internal design or a result of previous
abuses.
Allison
Hi Tony,
>Well, it has a text formatter. It has a C compiler. That's all I really
>need :-)
<grin> Unfortunately I need to use DVE and a 6809 assembler at the moment, I'm
sure the latter is around for Linux but I'm pretty sure DVE isn't (I tought I
once saw a Linux port of DVE somewhere, but I'm darned if I can find any trace
of it now).
>....And I share your views on Sinclair machines. They were cheap to the
>point of stupidity.....
Thanks, glad to know I'm not the only one....
The thing about Sinclair machines is that they are masterpieces of design, but
I always found that cleverness "crippled" them rather too much.
The '80 wasn't too bad since it was built up using straight TTL, however the
'81 and subsequent machines used ASICS to reduce the chip count which meant you
couldn't get in there and hack things around. Then from a software point of
view I found I was constantly fighting against the built in OS/BIOS whenever I
tried to do pretty much anything outside of BASIC programming.
Also in those days, particularly when the '80 was in fashion, coming by
detailed technical details on the hardware and software wasn't easy - even
though there was a thriving home micro/Sinclair community around.
I can't honestly say that I have many fond memories of my ZX80/81 days.
>....The QL is a major case in point.....
>....disk drives, and a real keyboard, it might have done
>rather better...
I didn't know about the serial port problems.
ISTR that when the QL came out it caused more than a few eyebrows to be raised.
While it was a very nice machine for it's day the decisions to use the awful
Speccy style keyboard and microdrives for storage (3.5" floppy drives had
reached reasonable prices by then, witness the Opus disc drives for the Speccy)
were widely criticised.
Chances are I may have gotten one sooner or later, but in the end other
considerations won out.
>....I started on an MK14. It took me many years to figure out that darn
>manual....
I always wanted one of those, but never did get my hands on one. I almost
certainly have my old issues of "ETI" and "Practical Electronics" somewhere
containing the MK.14 adverts (and Acorn System 1 ads).
Did any/all of the advertised add-ons ever appear, PROM programmer, VDU etc
etc?
>If you need any help on the HP150, I have the full tech manual for it...
That's good to know, it works OK but I'm sure I'll have a few questions when it
gets to the top of the current projects file.... ;-)
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
>I have a Kennedy 9600 tape drive (cream and black, horizontal loading) on an
>11/23 via a third party card.
What is the third party card?
>A "backup/dev du1: ms0:" set at PE works fine. The same command with a /ver
>option also works fine. However, when I set NRZI, it looks like its backing
>up, the tape cycles much more slowly forward, but eventually I get an RT-11
>"output error". If the drive really doesn't support 800bpi, I would think it
>wouldn't even try writing NRZI. So - my question is (given the above info) -
>is the drive broke but only for 800bpi or am I doing something silly?
Well, the tape does need to be re-inited at the new density. Are you
doing the INIT before the BACKUP, or doing a BACKUP/INIT? Does the INIT
operation work OK? Can you do a DIR MS: after the INIT at 800 BPI?
Other than that, the -11 doesn't much care what density the tape is at, but the
controller card might. Try to identify it (maybe a Dilog DQ132? DQ133?
Emulex TC02? TC03? QT13?) and I'll see what I can figure out. Some
controller cards (the Dilogs in particular) might be expecting part of
the PE burst to come down the cabling.
I'm not awfully familiar with the Kennedy 9600, but if it's like the 9614
it supports 800, 1600, 3200, and 6250 BPI. Yours is the Pertec-formatted
(two 50-pin cables) interface?
I'll also point out that NRZI requires a lot tighter physical tolerances
on the alignment of the tape head (the reason why many drives don't support
800 BPI NRZI at all) than 1600 and 6250 BPI (which allow substantial skew
between the tape channels as part ofthe spec.) If at some point the head
in your transport had been replaced or knocked around without properly
being re-aligned you might see something like what you're seeing.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Hello,
I have an IBM PS/2 Model 50 that I'm trying to install Minix 2.0.0 on.
I've read a considerable amount of documentation trying to get this to
work. ;> I'm using 720k floppies, etc.. Minix boots, and I'm able to
run 'setup,' but my problems begin when I use 'part.'
I load up 'part,' and I select /dev/hd0, which is the type 30, 20Mb drive
that's in the computer. When I try to read the partition table, I
receive:
bios-hd0: can't read partition table
Unrecoverable disk error on device 3/0, block 0
/dev/hd0: I/O error
/dev/hd0: Invalid partition table (reset)
Besides from the unrecoverable error, it seems to me that I should be
able to merely write a new partition table (i'm not too concerned about
whatever the hell was on the drive before. ;>).
If anyone has insight into my problems, I'd greatly appreciate a
reply. I'm killing myself over here trying to get this smelly computer
that I pulled out of the trash working. ;> Minix seems interesting to
me, if only because it's not generally heard of. If you cannot help
with my Minix questions, perhaps you know of another O/S that will run
on a 286 with 1Mb of ram? Ideally with networking capabilities. I
don't know why I want to do something with this machine so badly, but I
have a thing for old computers. :)
Thanks.
BTW, this computer is 12 years old, hence on-topic. :)
--
paul yaskowski [a paradigm of a paramount failure]
O.k.... here's the question: What would cause a capacitor in a power
supply to suddenly explode, spraying its 'guts' and a bunch of smoke all
over the place??
Why I said it was indirectly off topic is that the power supply capacitor in
question is from a car radio, but I've also had this happen in a couple
laptops that I have. I replaced the capacitor in the one laptop, and it
works fine, but it looks like the capacitor has "puffed up". The other one
just keeps exploding as soon as I connect the power supply. I don't even
have a chance to turn it on.
As for the radio, it was working fine, then, *Bang!* it's dead, and smoke
pours out of every opening in it. I take it apart, the top of the capacitor
is missing, and there's brown liquid all over the place. The same sort of
thing happens in the second laptop, but the capacitor totally explodes.
Any suggestions?
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
>I thought the CGA monitor was a lot harder to damage. If you plug it into
>an MDA card, it won't work, but I didn't think it did damage.
>
It doesn't. I plugged on into an MDA/Hercules card my mistake (thought it
was a CGA). All that came up was horizontal fuzz. Put in a CGA card, and
it worked fine. Your best bet is to plug it in and try it. If it works, go
with it.
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
Max Eskin wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm wondering: was the IBM PC the first machine with PSU in the rear
> right, drives in the front right, motherboard in rear left, or did they
> borrow this design from someone else?
I don't know about "someone else", but the IBM System/23 (Datamaster) had
exactly that design.
The Tektronix 4051 (1975) may have been similar: tape drive to the right of the
display, PSU in rear RH corner of case. I have a 4052, which has these two
featurs, but no "motherboard" - the processor is 4 boards mounted horizontally
in 2 layers covering almost the entire bottom of the case (under PSU, display,
tape drive etc.) but to the rear of the keyboard (which occupies the front 20%
of the area)
The PET had a very close mirror image of the IBM layout. Large transformer in
rear LEFT corner, cassette deck to the left of the keyboard in the front,
motherboard flat in the bottom to the right of the transformer. Other power
supply components on LH side of mobo, except for two big fat capacitors chassis
mounted next to the transformer.. Expansion of various sorts was rear right.
Hmm. I'll add one more - some DEC boxes. Can't remember what box my 11/10 is
in, but the BA11L (?) is similar. Power supply rear right. Backplane vertical
next to it. All plug-in cards horizontal rear left (well, sort of rear - they
take up almost the whole length of it), front panel across whole of front.
Drives in separate (rather larger) boxes, though.
Any more examples?
Philip.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
Power Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-on-Soar,
Nottingham, NG11 0EE, UK
Tel: +44 (0)115 936 2000
http://www.powertech.co.uk
**********************************************************************
Tony wrote (in the discussion of ZX80s and PERQs):
> The other point is that many features of today's computers can be traced
> back to the PERQ/D-machines, etc. There aren't that many features that
> can be traced back to the ZX80.
Are you sure the PERQ was very influential. It was more of a commercial machine
than the Xeroxes, possibly, but I think the Xerox ideas would have had the same
influence on modern computing without the PERQ.
>> Sorry, Tony, I must agree with Glen here. Sinclair did not go to the trouble
>> that Apple and Microsoft have since expended to separate the user from the
>> nitty-gritty of how the machine works. The Sinclair is a far better machine
to
>
> Are you suggesting that PERQ systems did? Heck, you get a microcoding
> manual with the machine. The microcode assembler and placer are on the
> standard system distribution.
Not in the least.
> When you get into it, you'll learn a lot more from a PERQ than from a
> Sinclair....
Possibly. But you cannot assign more significance to the PERQ because it was a
better machine to learn on. Both the PERQ and the ZX80 were far better to learn
on than a PC clone. The ZX80 could teach you about microprocessor systems
(after a fashion), the PERQ about minicomputers and microcoding. The designers'
intentions were probably that the ZX80 was _meant_ to be educational, while the
PERQ was meant for experienced computer buffs to design specialist application
specific software and peripherals. The ZX80 is certainly more significant in
the amount of learning (people educated * some measure of knowledge gained, or
rather sum over people educated of amount of knowledge gained) that was done on
it.
So in some sense the ZX80 is more significant. But In other ways, as Tony
pointed out, it is less significant. Swings and Roundabouts. But I agree that
the ZX80 does not deserve the inflated colletors' prices...
Philip.
Long weekend syndrome: Some of these threads are several days old. Please bear
with me in this and the next few replies.
Glen wrote (in a discussion of the relative significance of ZX80s and PERQs):
> What was the first sub-100-pound computer (MK14??)
That is indeed the one I had in mind. I think there may have been one or two
other kit machines in that price bracket (Nascom?)
Philip.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses.
Power Technology Centre, Ratcliffe-on-Soar,
Nottingham, NG11 0EE, UK
Tel: +44 (0)115 936 2000
http://www.powertech.co.uk
**********************************************************************
Hi Tony,
>The disk controller board can handle 2 floppy drives, and all
>the machines I've seen in the UK had that configuration.
I wonder if this is some sort of regional thing here in the UK....I've seen
plenty of HD Sirii around the Midlands, roughly twice as many as twin floppy
machines in fact?
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
I have what claims to be an IBM master alignment tape. I haven't looked at
it in detail in over 20 years, but I just saw it yesterday. Is this
somehing you (or all of you) could use?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay West <jlwest(a)tseinc.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Advice wanted on Kennedy 9600 and PDP11/23
>Now that my TC02 is re-installed, it won't work at all. The select light
>never comes on. ARGH!!! I'll fiddle with it later today since I'm off work.
>
>If I can't get it working, would anyone be willing to convert some 800bpi
>tapes to 1600bpi for me? The tapes are the initial load tapes for
>HP2000Access (Timeshare BASIC). My 7970E doesn't speak 800bpi, so I need to
>convert them. Of course, the tapes are priceless to me <grin> so I'm loath
>to send them out, but they are useless at 800bpi.
>
>On the other hand, I was wondering about what is involved in making my
7900E
>read 800bpi? ISTR that different heads are needed - which it too much
>modifications to me. GRrrrr....
>
>>It takes a master alignment tape, a scope, and a resistor network that
sums
>>the outputs from the tape channels. The master alignment tape has
>transitions
>>that are supposedly well-aligned between all channels, and you tweak the
>>head until you get a nice pattern on the scope. I can fax you a few pages
>>from drive maintenance manuals on the procedure if you're really
>interested.
>
>
>Well, I have the scope (20mhz ok?), but no alignment tape or resistor
>network.
>
>Thanks in advance for all the help!
>
>Jay West
>
Hi,
>Please snip off excess text while replying....
I'd like echo this sentiment.
Of late I've been receiving quite a few messages which quote the entire message
and just add a line or two to the end....many of there are quite large messages
(over 6K) and for some reason I end up not being able to download them from my
mailbox (I cannot even telnet in and view them on-line).
All I can do is delete them from my mailbox, it's very frustrating as I'm
therefore losing parts of threads - usually ones which I'm trying to follow....
TTFN - Pete.
--
Hardware & Software Engineer. Sound Engineer.
Collector of Arcade Machines, Games Consoles & Obsolete Computers (esp DEC)
peter.pachla(a)virgin.net |
peter.pachla(a)vectrex.freeserve.co.uk |
peter.pachla(a)wintermute.free-online.co.uk | www.wintermute.free-online.co.uk
--
Now that my TC02 is re-installed, it won't work at all. The select light
never comes on. ARGH!!! I'll fiddle with it later today since I'm off work.
If I can't get it working, would anyone be willing to convert some 800bpi
tapes to 1600bpi for me? The tapes are the initial load tapes for
HP2000Access (Timeshare BASIC). My 7970E doesn't speak 800bpi, so I need to
convert them. Of course, the tapes are priceless to me <grin> so I'm loath
to send them out, but they are useless at 800bpi.
On the other hand, I was wondering about what is involved in making my 7900E
read 800bpi? ISTR that different heads are needed - which it too much
modifications to me. GRrrrr....
>It takes a master alignment tape, a scope, and a resistor network that sums
>the outputs from the tape channels. The master alignment tape has
transitions
>that are supposedly well-aligned between all channels, and you tweak the
>head until you get a nice pattern on the scope. I can fax you a few pages
>from drive maintenance manuals on the procedure if you're really
interested.
Well, I have the scope (20mhz ok?), but no alignment tape or resistor
network.
Thanks in advance for all the help!
Jay West
>>What is the third party card?
>It's an Emulex. The card has silkscreened Assy TU0210401 REV C. One one of
>the chips, it says Top Assy TC0210201-FSH, Sub Assy C6716 C.
OK, I use many TC02's here, and have never had a problem at 800 BPI.
(The only density problems I've had have been on Dilogs, having to do with
expecting PE bursts at the beginning of the tape.)
>>Well, the tape does need to be re-inited at the new density. Are you
>>doing the INIT before the BACKUP, or doing a BACKUP/INIT? Does the INIT
>>operation work OK? Can you do a DIR MS: after the INIT at 800 BPI?
>In my version of RT11 (5.04), /init isn't a valid option on the backup
>command.
Historically, the BUP.SAV options have been out of sync with the CCL BACKUP
(command line) options for many versions of RT-11. This was always
a damn shame, as it discouraged folks from using BACKUP. Things get fixed
in 5.5 and later.
> But, when I do a backup/dev du1: ms0: it does ask if I want to
>initialize, that seems to complete, then the backup goes on and finally an
>output error. Once I get the tape controller reinstalled, I'll tell you for
>sure.
What happens if you just INIT MS0: and COPY a couple of files to it?
Can you read them back off at 800 BPI?
BACKUP uses 4096-byte blocks, while the COPY (PIP.SAV) operations use
512-byte blocks. It's conceivable that you'll only have troubles with
the long blocks.
>>I'll also point out that NRZI requires a lot tighter physical tolerances
>>on the alignment of the tape head (the reason why many drives don't support
>>800 BPI NRZI at all) than 1600 and 6250 BPI (which allow substantial skew
>>between the tape channels as part ofthe spec.) If at some point the head
>>in your transport had been replaced or knocked around without properly
>>being re-aligned you might see something like what you're seeing.
>Really! I didn't know that.
Yep. NRZI is a pretty low-tech interface, and it relies entirely on
good alignment of the heads for timing. PE and GCR allow skews of up
to several bits that are disentangled by the electronics in the formatter.
> When I got the tape drive, it had been in
>storage and was immaculately clean. Other than usual wear on the door, it
>looked in fantastic condition. What's involved in aligning the heads? I take
>it I would need an alignment tape? 1600bpi seems to work great though, both
>reading and writing.
It takes a master alignment tape, a scope, and a resistor network that sums
the outputs from the tape channels. The master alignment tape has transitions
that are supposedly well-aligned between all channels, and you tweak the
head until you get a nice pattern on the scope. I can fax you a few pages
>from drive maintenance manuals on the procedure if you're really interested.
Many drives do deskewing of NRZI in electronics (usually with shift registers
running at several time the data rate) in addition to having the head being
aligned correctly overall.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Tim wrote...
>What is the third party card?
It's an Emulex. The card has silkscreened Assy TU0210401 REV C. One one of
the chips, it says Top Assy TC0210201-FSH, Sub Assy C6716 C. Two 50 pin
ribbon cables look pretty Pertec-ish to me. There's a 4 switch dip and LED
between the ribbon cables. There's also a 20 pin header (2 rows of 10) on
each side of the ribbon cable connectors. In the center of the board are two
10 position dip switches. There's 3 sets of wire wrap jumper pins as
follows: at the top A,B,C,D in the middle E,F,G, and at the bottom H,J,K,L.
On my board, the 4 switch dip SW1 has all switched towards the PCA (closed).
On the center two 10 position dips, SW2 is all down or off except #8; SW3
all are down or off except #1,3,7,8. On wirewraps, A-B, C-D,E-F. There
appears to be a few ECO wires added to the board too.
>Well, the tape does need to be re-inited at the new density. Are you
>doing the INIT before the BACKUP, or doing a BACKUP/INIT? Does the INIT
>operation work OK? Can you do a DIR MS: after the INIT at 800 BPI?
In my version of RT11 (5.04), /init isn't a valid option on the backup
command. But, when I do a backup/dev du1: ms0: it does ask if I want to
initialize, that seems to complete, then the backup goes on and finally an
output error. Once I get the tape controller reinstalled, I'll tell you for
sure.
>I'm not awfully familiar with the Kennedy 9600, but if it's like the 9614
>it supports 800, 1600, 3200, and 6250 BPI. Yours is the Pertec-formatted
>(two 50-pin cables) interface?
Yup, pertec. It would appear to support 800 and 1600, because the density
switch toggles between PE and NRZI one at a time (plus a remote setting for
each).
>I'll also point out that NRZI requires a lot tighter physical tolerances
>on the alignment of the tape head (the reason why many drives don't support
>800 BPI NRZI at all) than 1600 and 6250 BPI (which allow substantial skew
>between the tape channels as part ofthe spec.) If at some point the head
>in your transport had been replaced or knocked around without properly
>being re-aligned you might see something like what you're seeing.
Really! I didn't know that. When I got the tape drive, it had been in
storage and was immaculately clean. Other than usual wear on the door, it
looked in fantastic condition. What's involved in aligning the heads? I take
it I would need an alignment tape? 1600bpi seems to work great though, both
reading and writing.
Any help is most appreciated!
Jay West
<Hmmm, the PS/2 Model 50 is a Micro Channel based system IIRC, which wasn't
<even supported under Linux until recently. Then there is the question of
<what kind of HD does it have? If it's ESDI that might be a problem, thoug
<at 20Mb, I'd guess a MFM drive, which shouldn't be a problem. I think the
<real question is, does Minix 2.0 support the PS/2.
Minix supports 8086 through Pentium. the PS2/50 is 286. The 20mb is MFM
maybe edsi it's oddball so it's hard to tell. Anyway MINIX questions
should really be addressed to the Minix list and Andy Tannenbaum does
reply there so what better source!
Allison
<machines. Pine users shouldn't complain too much, since you can set it up
<to launch a web browser for inline URL's in mail messages. I have mine
<launch lynx by default, but the nice thing about SSH is that you can
Yes it can but via a really crummy ISP I use for the telnet link to World
it's out of the question, tooooooooo SLOWWW. I do that to keep personal
traffic of the work ISP and net.
A one line description really is the answer.
Allison
>Is it possible to make a bootable TK50 with RT-11, that can then be used to
>install RT-11 if something happens to the Hard Drive? I know there is a
>script that makes a RT-11 install tape, but is that tape bootable?
Sure, just assign BIN to the disk with the completem set of distribution files,
assign KIT to the tape drive (MU0), and do a @MUB. The resulting tape
will be bootable into MDUP.MU (a simple utility that lets you initialize
a disk and copy the tape files to it, and then boots the disk.) The
MDUP instructions are in the RT-11 Installation manual - ask if you
don't have the book and need help.
TK50 tapes are also bootable into MDUP.AI, the "auto-install" version.
An auto-install from TK50 takes hours, but it does work if your hardware
meets the AI requirements.
Note that the MUB.COM build file will expect every file that comes on
an official RT-11 distribution to be present on BIN:. You better have
every file, and ideally they'd be those from a "virgin" system. Things
like driver SET commands may make your particular install be "non-virgin".
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Hmm, I guess I'll post this on here, too...
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
> does anyone recall exactly what must be done to make 2.9BSD work with
> fuji160s? I'm only getting about 30MB out of them, but I haven't really
> tried anything yet. I have no tape drive, but instead (4) rl02 packs with
> the /usr fs broken up about equally between them in tar format. The sc21s
> I have available are SC2110201-BMG and SC2110201/V1E.
>
> BTW, what are the real capability differences in these boards?
>
>
> TIA
>
> jake
>
>
To all you clever people out there who post E-Bay references with
no accompanying text on just what it is you're sniggering about:
Not everyone on this List reads It in the context of a web-browser.
And speaking strictly for myself, while I am curious to know what it
is generating the excitement, I am *not* curious enough to shut down
the shell account, redial the PPP number and launch Netscape, go to
E-Bay, turn down a jarfull of goddam cookies, see what ludicrous
price some nitwit has paid for XXX that we all have a dozen of, then
reverse the whole process and get back to the list again. Copying
the said (or any) URL for me, means pencil and paper... not bloody
likely as far as E-Bay is concerned.
I do not like nor will I participate in E-bay, but that is my own
opinion on the matter and I respect and honor differing views. Good
old-fashioned Netiquette is the topic of this rant, however.
Thanks
John
Is it possible to make a bootable TK50 with RT-11, that can then be used to
install RT-11 if something happens to the Hard Drive? I know there is a
script that makes a RT-11 install tape, but is that tape bootable?
Zane
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Currently on eBay,
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=127334243
I'm happy to consider prior sale/trade offers for this desirable (boxed SYM single board computer, fine condition). About to return from holiday, this must stay behind.
Looking for Russian calculators, computers, rare old game machines and cartridges.
Thanks
A
<I agree. I use PINE, and I've always used PINE. I used Nutscrap mail for
I use pine via Telnet from work... slow but works.
The home system runs RDFmail and that uses a no slip or ppp interface so
going from mail to Nyetscrap is a whole change of enviroment in W3.1.
A brief one liner so we know if it's worth the effort is not much to ask.
<Oh, and I use flwm now... (based on wm2) not totally perfect, but small
<and fast, plus I have the source and am working on my own version of it..
I'm trying out Caldara2.2 with KDE, interesting compared to slackware 3!
Allison
Greetings:
I have a Kennedy 9600 tape drive (cream and black, horizontal loading) on an
11/23 via a third party card. I have always used the 1600bpi setting, but
now have reason to read some old 800bpi tapes. The operating system is RT-11
v5.04, FB. I'm not sure if the drive supports 800bpi as alas I have no docs
for it at all. My crude test was going to be a backup of du1 (the floppy) to
ms0 (the kennedy) at PE setting and see how long it took and count the tape
forward movements. Then do the same with the drive set for NRZI and see if
it takes longer and generates more tape forward movements.
A "backup/dev du1: ms0:" set at PE works fine. The same command with a /ver
option also works fine. However, when I set NRZI, it looks like its backing
up, the tape cycles much more slowly forward, but eventually I get an RT-11
"output error". If the drive really doesn't support 800bpi, I would think it
wouldn't even try writing NRZI. So - my question is (given the above info) -
is the drive broke but only for 800bpi or am I doing something silly?
Thanks in advance!
jay West
Hey Mike:
In a message dated 7/5/99 12:44:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mikeford(a)netwiz.net writes:
> >For laughs I took a pair of the so called 60W per speakers, opened them
> >and put them on a 50w dummyload and measured them. They did 12W RMS at
>
> Fry me in butter if I'm wrong, but I think the FTC (Federal Trade
> Commission, the agency in the USA that enforces truth in advertising etc.)
> is pretty sick of these 500 watt wall wart powered speakers and plans to
> apply the same requirements on powered speakers as they do now for
> amplifiers.
Pardon my asking, but where did you hear this? It's just a little hard to
believe, since MS has lied, and lied, and lied about Windows 9x . . . and the
FTC doesn't bother them. Have you ever installed Win 95 or 98 (any release)
and read the "informative notes" which are displayed while the (seemingly)
endless file-copy is in progress?
"Windows 9x makes your computer more reliable"
"Windows 9x makes your computer easier to use"
"DOS programs run faster and more reliable"
"Windows 9x provides the features you want" (sure, Blue Screen of Death)
For a real laugh, "Windows is now (mis) configuring your hardware and any
Plug and Play (Pray) devices you may have"
If the FTC wants to go after an easy target re truth in advertising, they
need look no further than Redmond. IMHO, the claims MS makes are even more
outrageous than those of the Taiwanese speaker guys.
Glen Goodwin
0/0
For ClassicCmp'ers only, mention somewhere on your registration form that
you're a ClassicCmp'er and you pay only $15 per person. You must still
register by September 15 to secure this special rate. After that, you pay
$15 per person PER DAY at the door!
Please visit http://www.vintage.org/vcf/register.htm for registration
forms and information.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 05/25/99]
I grabbed the Consumer Price Index history off the web, pasted into Excel,
and applied the percentage changes cumulative from 1975.
One 1998 dollar = $2.95 in 1975 dollars (ouch, those Carter administration
years! Thank goodness for Greenspan)
Therefore, an assembled Altair 8800 with 4x2K static RAM, serial, parallel,
cassette, and bus expansion, $1880 in 1975 dollars, would be the equivalent
of $5546 today.
An Apple Lisa base configuration ($9995 in 1983 dollars) would be $16,169
today.
Kai
-----Original Message-----
From: John Foust [mailto:jfoust@threedee.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 10:45 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: State of the Hobby
At 11:02 AM 7/1/99 -0600, you wrote:
>
>In a recent auction on eBay, a MITS Floppy Disk Drive was auctioned off at
>$565. "WOW!" you may say, but that unit cost $1300 when new, and that was
>in dollars that were a DOLLAR, and not just the price of a candy bar.
I suppose there must be a web site, somewhere, that would let you enter
a date and a US dollar amount, and would show you the equivalent value
in today's dollars, accounting for actual inflation, etc. in the
intervening years.
Which reminds me, when I was in high school, we sold candy bars to
fund the purchase of a few K of RAM for the IMSAI as well as a floppy drive.
>I'm presently in the process of selling off excess 8" floppy drives for $5
each,
Similarly, you'd think there would be a web site somewhere to
remind people of the rapid devaluation of the value of computer
equipment - say, perhaps the flip side of Moore's Law, that shows
how simply purchasing and opening the box of a new computer causes
a significant drop in value, followed by subsequent halvings of
resale value every six months, until it quickly reaches the
"nuisance fee" level mentioned above, where the cost of shipping
and packing seems to exceed the street price.
- John
On Jul 5, 23:04, Tony Duell wrote:
> I have _a_ FD235 service manual here. The problem is that there are many
> versions, and my manual only covers one or two of them. It shows the 'F'
> as having the 4*7 block and the 'HF' as having a 3*7 block. Oh well...
>
> Here are the settings for those, in case they're any use
Excellent, thanks, Tony! I'll try that out tomorrow.
I've just spent ages trying to connect to TEAC's web site, after Lawrence
suggested a URL -- but no luck for me.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
In a message dated 7/5/99 5:36:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
roblwill(a)usaor.net writes:
<< O.k.... here's the question: What would cause a capacitor in a power
supply to suddenly explode, spraying its 'guts' and a bunch of smoke all
over the place?? >>
Remarkable -- the same thing happened to a desktop PC of mine years ago. I
had been using it for a couple of hours, when BANG -- smoke -- and the system
shut down. It was so loud my wife raced into the room, thinking I'd been
shot (imagine her disappointment at finding me alive ;>).
Cursory examination revealed a filter cap with the top blown off; further
inspection turned up a short in the transformer.
Glen Goodwin
0/0
You can use any connector which suits you. You can use any name for a bus,
even Fred or Jake. You can use any existing bus protocol you desire. It's
your computer.
What I said, apparently not clearly enough, is that I'm partial to the VME,
and, though the typical wire-wrap connector for VME (i.e. that particular
connector, VME or not) costs more than a typical PC at the junk store. I
made the mistake of believing that, from your prior comments in other
context, you watch every penny with considerable interest, and you might
appreciate the opportunity to use a video board, perhaps a Mono, or a VGA,
or even HGA, none of which use interrupts or DMA. For that reason I figured
you'd not mind corrupting the "standard" usage of ISA signals since you'd
not be using circuits which use the ones which you felt were inappropriately
implemented. I said that because if you go dumpster diving in almost any
business park or office complex, you'll find ISA serial cards and ISA video
cards, particularly on a Monday or a Friday.
OTOH, if dumpsters are not to your taste, the thrift stores sell them for
the approximate cost of a burger here in the US. You can get LAN boards and
others there too, but they sometimes use interrupts and DMA, which might be
a problem if you've changed the way in which you use them from what a
typical PC does.
In my view, and that's not universal, by any means, $2 VME cards don't come
up often enough for me ever to have seen one. If you like VME and find them
to be cheap enough, I think that's an excellent choice, not that my approval
is needed for what goes in YOUR computer.
I did say, however, that if I were going to switch to the 96-pin DIN 41612
connector, I'd use VME because that gives me a fallback position if I
haven't time, patience, or skill enough to create my own ??? and I don't
mind shelling out the $$$.
I can guarantee you, though, that if you build your own serial card for
whatever bus, it will cost more for the parts than an ISA video card at the
thrift store would cost. Maybe, if you intend to roll your own, you SHOULD
build an ISA adapter or two, so you can save the time and trouble, not to
mention expense, of building a card you can buy for little money. That way
you can allocate your scarce resources in the way which best serves your
goals and build your own video board, or whatever, later.
If you were to choose to reinvent the ISA on a better connector, being short
a couple of pins, you could quickly do away with the 4x Color-burst
oscillator and the AEN signal, neither of which would do much four you
outside the PC.
regards,
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>> >If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>> >understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>> >Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN
board
>> >for VME from the local thrift store.
>>
>> I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>> bus? An bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>> connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
>
>Exactly. A 3-row DIN 41612 connector has 96 pins. ISA bus has 98 pins (on
>a 16 bit slot). And I'm sure I could find 2 signals that I could 'do
>without' (miss off one of the DMA channels?).
>
>In other words you could put something with much the same signals as ISA
>on a DIN41612 if you wanted to. The result shouldn't be called ISA
>(because you can't just plug a card straight in). But it would work, and
>the cards would be easy to design.
>
>I like DIN41612 connectors because you can easily use them on homebrew
>cards. Wire-wrap versions exist. If you want to use a card edge type of
>connector you really have to gold-plate the PCB, and that's hard to do at
>home. It's also a pain having to get a PCB house to make all the
>prototype boards. Much easier if you can homebrew them.
>
>I've used those connectors for all sorts of things, most of them not
>VME-related. Of course I've not called the result VME...
>
>-tony
>
I have a number of older TEAC FD235-HF drives, and no service manual. One
particularly old one has what I can only describe as a "jumper block", a
matrix of 4 pins x 7 pins labelled 1,2,3,4 and A,B,C,D,E,F,G. I'd like to
use this drive in a particular system that wants it set to be drive 0, with
the disk-changed line active. Anyone know the settings?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Greetings all,
I am trying to see if I can get an IBM 5150 working still. I was
wondering if anyone out there can tell me:
1. If the IBM 5150 XT computer came with documentation
2. Is an IBM monitor, model # 5153 (Personal Computer Color Display) is
compatible with an IBM 5150 XT?
3. What kind of monitor (graphics array) is an IBM 5153. I would guess
EGA, but don't know.
If anyone can help me out I sure would appreciate it.
Robert
On Jul 5, 12:14, John Lawson wrote:
> SO: the object of this sysgen was primarily to allow the use of
> the RL02 disks. And here I have a stuckness: I can sucessfully
> init an RL02 disk, erase it, exercise it, find it's bad blocks, and
> then mount it. All ok. But I can't allocate it, write a file to it,
> or get a directory. The error message is 'Device not available.'
>
> I can do 'show dev' and see that it is mounted, but from there I
> cannot find out what the next step is. I have a RSTS Orange Wall on
> the way in, but it will be almost two weeks before I get it.
>
> Until then.. what need I do to read and write the RL02s?
I've never used RSTS, but in RSX, you have to provide a /PUB switch to
mount, to mount it as public. Maybe RSTS is similar?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Thanks to everyone who provided help of all kinds. I finished up
the sysgen in just under two hours.. praying all the way that my
semi-flaky Kennedy drive would behave during the process, which it
did, bless it's little blower motor. :)
I added support for RL02s, RK05s, RX02, PC05, and expanded
some of the runtime language packages to include math and FPP
functions. Everything else got the defaults.
SO: the object of this sysgen was primarily to allow the use of
the RL02 disks. And here I have a stuckness: I can sucessfully
init an RL02 disk, erase it, exercise it, find it's bad blocks, and
then mount it. All ok. But I can't allocate it, write a file to it,
or get a directory. The error message is 'Device not available.'
I can do 'show dev' and see that it is mounted, but from there I
cannot find out what the next step is. I have a RSTS Orange Wall on
the way in, but it will be almost two weeks before I get it.
Until then.. what need I do to read and write the RL02s?
NOTE>>> Especial thanks to Tim Shoppa and Bruce Lane! <<<NOTE
None of this would have been possible without your
kindness and generous sharing of Knowledge.
Cheers
John
No. Your point is well taken, though. What I'm advocating in this case is
the adoption of VME, which has shown itself to be as good as any more or
less standard bus and better than most.
The connector hardware doesn't define the bus, but it restricts it to the
ones which used that connector. You then have to adopt a signal set which
complies with that standard in both its definition and its usage if you want
to consider yourself using that BUS. However, it's conceivable one might
use a "modified" XXX bus, with changes implemented in a way which doesn't
conflict with the use of certain cards already in existence.
This is not easy, nor is it easly understood, particularly in its
motivation, since you have the option of doing whatever you want. It is
YOUR computer, after all.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>>understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>>Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN
board
>>for VME from the local thrift store.
>
>I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>bus? Any bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
The old OrCAD electronics drafting software came with a tool which pretty
automatically generated an 800x600 driver for most any available card of the
day. This suggests that a "generic" driver may be available. My experience
with the 1Kx768 types has been less encouraging, however.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
>>Actually, if you want to do anything beyond plain VGA then you do start
>>to have problems. This is what started this discussion - the fact that
>>many modern video cards are _not_ properly documented.
>
>What worries me even more is that there is no universal SVGA standard, as
>there is with VGA. S3 requires a different driver than Trident 9400, while
>the results are indistinguishable for me.
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
I didn't say you need to call a bus a given thing. What I was suggesting is
using and staying close to the ISA hardware because ISA hardware is so
cheap. You can go to almost any thrift store and get a video board or a
serial board, or a disk controller for $3. U.S. They throw them away by
the 55-gal drumful.
Once you've got the hardware, YOU decide how to make the interrupts work,
and YOU decide how to use the DMA control lines. You can call if FRED for
all I care.
Have a look below for additional comments embedded in your reply.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 04, 1999 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> >
>> >Well, IMHO there is _if you want to call the bus ISA_.
>> >
>> >There's no reason not to use this type of DMA on a homebrew system.
>> >There's no reason not to use cards that have the same form factor and
>> >same connectors and ISA cards.
>> >
>> I've seen little reason to use DMA at all when processors generally have
the
>> capacity to move data at the bus bandwidth with block transfer
instructions.
>
>If the system is properly designed (adequate cache, etc) then the CPU can
>run a program from the cache _while_ a DMA transfer is going on. That's
>one advantage of DMA.
Well, I don't know what you want to do, so I can't size a cache for you.
Moreover, most DMA depends on external events to schedule its access to the
bus. If the external event is concurrent with the time the processor is
running from CACHE, it works out well, otherwise, it doesn't. I don't know
why you'd want DMA in a typical system. The CPU is quick enough to
accommplish the transfers as fast as they can go, and it just sits waiting,
generally, when it's allowing DMA, since it can't use the bus. Floppies,
for some stupid reason, use DMA in a PC, though it's not warranted, yet hard
disks, yes, including CDROMs generally don't. There are some PCI
controllers which use DMA, but we're talking ISA for now.
>> It's not a religious issue for me to call the bus whatever seems
>
>Hmmm... One thing I _really_ object to is calling a bus (or whatever) a
>standard name when it doesn't meet the standard. At one time Apple were
>particularly bad about this - they had 'RS422 ports' that were nothing
>like what they should have been, etc.
>
I agree that it's inappropriate to call an interface by a name unwarranted
by its characteristics.
>
>As I said, design your own bus, sure. If I was doing it, I'd use those
>DIN41612 connectors because you don't need to etch (and preferably
>gold-plate) PCBs. But don't call it ISA.
>
If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN board
for VME from the local thrift store.
>
>[As an aside, my MG1 workstation has the ISA adapter board in it. This is
>a 32016-based workstation, and the ISA adapter goes to great trouble to
>exactly emulate the ISA bus, even down to 'useless' things like a refresh
>address appearing on the address lines, all the clocks, etc. The result
>is that all ISA cards will work in this machine]
>
But to what end??? If you have a "decent" system already, why would you
want to use ISA. For that matter, why the crusade to invent a new bus?
>
>> with video boards. There aren't really any terribly interesting parallel
>> I/O boards, and if you want to use IEEE488 stuff you'll play hell beating
>> the WIndows software to help you do it.
>
>Eh? Maybe the Windows software is OK if all you want are 'virtual
>instruments' (but I really can't see the point of that - physical
>controls are a lot easier) but for real automatic test/measurement
>systems give me a decent GPIB driver, a good compiler and a real
>operating system...
>
A friend of mine uses it at the Cape and on the west coast for launching
rockets. I think it probably works O.K. I guess it's a matter of
preference.
>
>> >Suppose you don't have a central DMA controller. What do you propose
>> >doing with the DRQ/DACK signals? Sure you can make them effectively
>> >bus request signals. But now the peripheral card has to know to generate
>> >the address. And no standard ISA card would do that.
>> >
>> Just exactly which boards do you wish to use that do that? If they don't
>
>Err, any ISA card that uses DMA, like CD-ROM controllers, FDCs,
>soundcards, tape controllers, etc, etc,etc.
I know of no ISA I/O devices which require DMA. I know of only a few which
CAN use DMA, and of those, only the high-end SCSI adapters e.g. ADAPTEC 154x
series actually use it, albeit poorly. I have fairly fast equipment, in
general, and find that programmed I/O performs as well as DMA in the cases
I've tested, because the software I use does little else while the DMA is
progressing. Now I've seen little FDC based tape controllers, the kind you
use to interface one of those QIC toys to a PC which use DMA, but only
because they're grafting themselves onto the FDC handler. They don't NEED
DMA, they just inherited it.
>You may say you don't want the above. Fine. Design your own bus. But
>don't call it ISA, because it isn't..
>
Remember, I just suggested making the choices compatible with ISA cards to
save guys like yourself money. You're always complaining about the cost of
computer hardware.
>
>> >> too soon? I made no such assertion! There are lots of processors
which
>> >> have block transfer instructions which operate at the bus bandwidth.
>> Even
>> >> the Z80 did that.
>> >
>> >And IIRC the Z80 block moves were ridiculously slow...
>> >
>> Yes, perhaps it was ridiculously slow, but it was the bus bandwidth at
the
>> time.
>
>Not so. A Z80 LDIR doesn't hit the bus bandwidth _at all_. Heck, it
>fetches the instruction each time for one thing. IIRC at least one of the
>Z80 block instructions is slower than doing it in hand-optimised machine
>code.
>
Well, it was fast enough to transfer a whole track of data from an ST-506 in
one revolution of the disk . . . that's 10416 byte-times, nominally, in 16.6
ms . . .
>
>> >> which used it, I'd say that's a non-issue. You don't need the
schematic,
>> >> though,since the board you'll be using will be an IDE interface with
>> onboard
>> >
>> >For the <n>th time, the aim is to get 'open hardware'. That means (at
>> >least to me) available schematics. Not schematics of things that _might_
>> >work the same (e.g. WD1003 .vs. IDE). It means scheamtics and
>> >documentation for the hardware that's actually in the machine.
>> >
>> So, you want schematics of the disk drives as well, and the keyboard, and
>> the floppy drive? . . . and when you have them, how are you going to
stick
>
>YES!! That's exactly what I want.
>
>> your 'scope probe into that IC, and how are you going to fix it when it's
>> broken. It's a custom IC, after all, and they will cost 10x what a new
disk
>
>Why do you insist on wanting custom ICs? You can do an awful lot with
>standard chips, you know.
Except buy them, since they don't make them anymore.
>> drive costs if you try to buy just one. If "OPEN" means to you that you
>
>At the moment maybe. But in 20-30 years time it will be nice to be able
>to fix the machine when new modules simply aren't available. Now that you
>can't get new 5.25" drives, I'm darn glad I've got a pile of service
>manuals for them.
>
First of all you CAN get new ones, and secondly, death is inevitable. Once
they stop making the stuff you want to use, it's only a matter of time
before something you can't fix will fail.
>
>> have access and rights to all the intellectual property contained in your
>> computer, you might as well give up right now. If what you want is
enough
>
>Why? OK, I am not going get the rights to copy standard chips, but I
>don't see why the PCB schematics, etc can't be open.
The reason is because YOU don't make the rules regarding other people's
intellectual property. I agree it would be nice, but if a board costs $15
new, and $2 used, why would anyone worry about fixing them? You just buy a
couple of identical spares while the opportunity is in front of you. Most
commercial boards, nowadays, have custom firmware of some sort. There's no
reason at all why anyone should give you that. I doubt you'll have a
problem getting schematics for "standard" chips. It's the custom logic,
e.g. FPGA's, CPLD's, PAL's, and PROM's that will be the problem.
>As I have said many times before, I am using a '100% documented' PC. It's
>not open, in that schematics, etc are copyright IBM etc, but I didn't sign
>any NDAs to get them. The _only_ thing I don't have the schematics for is
>the hard disk. I have them for the motherboard, PSU, keyboard, monitor,
>floppy drives, CD-ROM, expansion cards, etc.
>
Yes, but as you said, you don't have the firmware listing for the keyboard
interface.
>
>> >I've found it _very_ hard to get data on the typical ASICs that you find
>> >on modern PC motherboards and I/O cards. In fact I've not managed to do
>> >it in a lot of cases.
>> >
>> That's the reason, precisely, why you don't use them.
>
>You're the one who wants to use standard PC I/O cards. I don't...
>
Well, what would you use instead? Would that save money? Would it save
time?
>
>-tony
>
IIRC, there are enough signals just on the single 96-pin connector which
comes on the single-sized VME (3U?) boards. It's those to which I was
referring when I advocated adopting the VME for generalized development.
I've never seen a 2nd-hand VME board for sale anywhere. The 2nd hand boards
(wirewrap types) I looked at once, were actually MB-II format, and, at junk
dealer prices were at $200 each. Here in the Denver area they don't appear
to be as available. I see SUN stuff on the junk piles from time to time,
but nobody seems to want that stuff. I surely don't need another line of
outdated computers. Now, I don't go to HAMfests, or HAM anything elses, and
I'm not into dumpster diving. That might turn up something.
Though I once sold VME wirewrap cards, I've never owned a VME-based system
aside from some SUN hardware I had about 15 years ago, which might have had
some inside. That stuff was for ultimate sale to a client, so I left my
fingers off it.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> It's true there are lots of VME boards around. There just aren't many
>> cheap ones.
>
>Actually, VME boards are plentiful and cheap. I routinely see tham at
>hamfests for a dollar or two a piece. They can also be taken out of older
>Suns (the -3s and early -4s), as many of those machines are hitting the
>junkyards now. They tend to have non-Sun interface boards (SCSI, tape,
>etc..) hidden "inside" 9U to 6U board convertors.
>
>William Donzelli
>aw288(a)osfn.org
<snip>
>
>> of their machines were alike.
>
>I think you ended up with somebody clueless in DEC. I've never had this
>sort of problem with a DEC machine.
>
At the time in question, I had a client whose system required two 11/44's in
lockstep. This meant that the two boxes had to be identical in every way,
both hardware and software. DEC had a VERY difficult time delivering these
pairs. They didn't have trouble charging significantly more for two
identical machines than for just two machines, though. Instead of half a
day per rack, they often took as long as five weeks to get the job done,
several times swapping out each of the two boxes several times.
Fortunately, they couldn't charge for that. You're right, of course, in
that it implies that someone clueless was in the supply chain, but the
impression I got was that clueless was the rule rather than the exception at
DEC. Consequently, I did everything I could to specify other hardware in
the twenty five years or so in which I could do that. Many times that meant
a bill of 5K-bucks instead of 150K-bucks.
Dick
It's true there are lots of VME boards around. There just aren't many
cheap ones.
The connector doesn't define the bus standard being used. TI used a 100-pin
edge connector for some of thir 99xx development systems. Multibus-II and
VME look pretty similar. NuBUS, as Tony pointed out, certainly used the DIN
connector and used a form factor not too different from the ISA.
As I said before, you could use a modified version of whatever bus you
almost like, then call it whatever you like, but not what it specifically
isn't.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com <CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>>If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>>>understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>>>Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN
board
>>>for VME from the local thrift store.
>
>>I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>>bus? An bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>>connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
>
>I suspect that it's just Dick on one of his rants these days. VME
>boards are extremely plentiful these days, as are prototyping boards
>with the connectors.
>
>Of course, there are cases where the same connector was used on two
>different busses. The connector and card size of the Motorola EXORcisor
>system is remarkably similar to the S-100 bus (to the point where I've
>actually mistaken one for the other until I got up close and looked.)
>And the 44-conductor-edge-connector design has been used in so many
>instruments and machines that it is completely "generic".
>
>There are *many* ISA-compatible busses in use in the embedded systems
>world that use "different" connectors. Some of these are proprietary,
>meaning they're only used by one company, others are much more widespread
>(like the PC/104 bus). OK, there are some drive differenences between
>PC/104 and ISA, but that's an "improvement" for the application. See
>http://www.pc104.com/ for a PC/104 FAQ. PC/104 was originated by Ampro,
>a maker of classic computers, so I feel justified in mentioning it here
:-).
>
>--
> Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
> Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
> 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
> Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
take a look below, plz
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, July 04, 1999 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
><at all and will rely on USB, SCSI, and the various parallel port protocols
><to do "practical" I/O. That will be very limiting. I don't know what
folk
>
>If I had to rely on those I'd be cooked.
>
><will do in cases where they have measurements, telememtry, process control
><tasks, or whatever to do. The PC has never been particularly well suited
><for such tasks, since there were such meager offerings in the way of
genera
><purpose I/O.
>
>I think you need to hit the catalogs. GPIB and IO cards for process
control
>are quite common. I know I run a bank of ovens with a PC (AD and GP-io
>card, DOS even) and a test fixture for resistive elements using GPIB and
>Keithley instruments.
I've written small code snippets which seem to suggest that software from
DOS can easily drive the ECP/EPP ports. I'd assume the same is true of USB,
though one would have to create or acquire it somehow. That would make it
quite task-specific.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>>From what I understand, those will all be irrelevant by year's end, as
the
>>evolving standard for PC2000 will have NO expansion slots at all. There
are
>>already plenty with no ISA slots. My GPIB hardware is NI, and I had to
>>build my own parallel I/O hardware.
>
>Well, it's always possible to make an external USB->GPIB adapter. Of
>course, you'd be forced to use an OS which supports USB, and that
>eliminates DOS and various other small operating systems (which might be
>preferrable in many situations).
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
>
<A lot of Taiwanese jive, is what it boils down to. After playing around wi
<a pair of "200W" speakers today, I'd estimate about 2.5W RMS per channel.
<
<> I don't own any such speakers, or indeed, a soundcard. Never seen the nee
<for > > one...
For laughs I took a pair of the so called 60W per speakers, opened them
and put them on a 50w dummyload and measured them. They did 12W RMS at
less than .1% distortion, at 13W they were already to 1% and at 14W 5%.
The 60w number, power drawn from the wall outlet at full load!
haveing spent years in audio and analoge if the claim is power the PSU
better be BIG or its all smoke and mirrors.
<> What I am asking for is _any_ kind of justification for the modern kind
<> of watt...
it's still the same here. A Watt or power will produce a certain amount
of heat (RMS). However a non sinusoidal waveform will still drive a
load to the same peak current and voltage but the power (heating ability)
will be greatly lowered or increased. the hardest driving waveform is
a symetric squarewave. the lowest would be a for example a 1% asymetric
pulse.
<The modern watts sell speakers. Our customers like to hear "big numbers,"
<and don't have a clue as to what those numbers mean or how to verify them,
<whether it's in reference to watts, MHz, bps, RAM, cache, or disk storage.
<The box says 200 watts, and people like the look of them.
It's mostly bull, there are some testing situations for audio where
continious power (due to PSU or cooling limitations) will be lower than
peak power (short bursts). This is legit and meaningful for audio as it
does have a high peak to average power.
However physics say... if the PSU can supply 12V at 2A there is a finite
limit there and it's 24W and how you apply that to a 4 or 8ohm speaker
is still only going to yeild 24W (or less) as we still cannot create power
that doesn't exist.
My history includes designing 500W (RMS continous) per channel amplifers
and audio consoles back in the dark ages.
Allison
--- "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh(a)aracnet.com> wrote:
> Of course with some systems canablization isn't the answer
I've got this keyboard that well illustrates that point - the SX-64. I got
one cheap because the keyboard was fubared and a previous owner attempted
to repair it. Fortunately for me, I happened to have *just the keyboard*
and nothing else (equipment attraction, obviously ;-)
For those that don't know the design, the SX-64 is a luggable C-64 with
integral color CRT and 1541 disk drive. The only thing missing is a cassette
port, making certain packet radio and other external hardware useless to it.
The keyboard detaches from the front/top of the unit, connects with a 24-pin
cable (DB-25 with a keying pin) and while it has real keys for the user to
type on, is a single-sheet membrane inside with all the circuit paths and
conductive areas. More than one SX-64 is sitting around out there because
its keyboard has failed.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>If I were using the DIN connectors, I'd get a standard out, read and
>>understand it, and then use it, calling it VME, its rightful name.
>>Unfortunately, I'd not be able to get a two-port serial board or a LAN board
>>for VME from the local thrift store.
>I don't get it...are you saying that the connector somehow determines the
>bus? An bus could in theory be compatible with ISA and use some other
>connector, and still be ISA for the most part.
I suspect that it's just Dick on one of his rants these days. VME
boards are extremely plentiful these days, as are prototyping boards
with the connectors.
Of course, there are cases where the same connector was used on two
different busses. The connector and card size of the Motorola EXORcisor
system is remarkably similar to the S-100 bus (to the point where I've
actually mistaken one for the other until I got up close and looked.)
And the 44-conductor-edge-connector design has been used in so many
instruments and machines that it is completely "generic".
There are *many* ISA-compatible busses in use in the embedded systems
world that use "different" connectors. Some of these are proprietary,
meaning they're only used by one company, others are much more widespread
(like the PC/104 bus). OK, there are some drive differenences between
PC/104 and ISA, but that's an "improvement" for the application. See
http://www.pc104.com/ for a PC/104 FAQ. PC/104 was originated by Ampro,
a maker of classic computers, so I feel justified in mentioning it here :-).
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
<Why do you assume that ISA -> Intel processor? It may be something
<totally different, something that doesn't have efficient block transfer
<instructions.
Like a z280?
<I see a _lot_ wrong with the ISA signal definitions. For one thing the
<IRQs are edge triggered, active high, when any sane designer would make
<them level triggered active low (had IBM done this it would have cost
<them an extra couple of TTL chips on the PC motherboard. It would also
<have allowed the sharing of interrupts). For another thing there's no
<proper bus request/grant (multiple masters are almost essential IMHO).
So the interrupts are upsidedown and stoopid, it's useful as is none the
less. The yabut is for small systems it's fine.
<As I understand it, the aim is to make a PC (meaning something that runs
<a useful open OS like linux or *BSD) and which has 'modern' features like
<a good video card. Not to make the equivalent on an S100 system
Consider possibility number 3, something that is hybrid, having the features
of s100 like system but modern IO and a different bus.
<> known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The WD1003-
<> board is well uderstood and the EIDE interface emulates that pretty well
<
<Sure. Now where do you propose getting schematics for this I/O card, and
<where are you going to get a data sheet on the ASIC that almost certainly
<appears on it. This is supposed to be _open_ hardware. This implies full
<schematics, not undocumented PCBs.
Treat the card as a functional black box. Herc, CGA and VGA video is well
enough known and the addresses are not secret. It's not a requirement to
knwo the tiny design details of the 8042 keyboard controller to get it to
give keycodes. Most of the floppies are the base 765 circuits pushed into
a chip, same for serial and IDE is not a secret. Based on what I've seen
of some of those cards the less I know the better!
Allison
Back in 1992, I purchased a few 8" single sided diskettes from someone on
the arpanet (or was it internet by then...). Anyways, these were a group of
both used and unused diskettes.
Roughly 50 of them are used, and they all are DEC software diskettes for
the PDP 11/780 or 785. The vast majority are various kinds of diagnostics.
Does someone here have a vax 11/785 and have a need for the stuff on these
diskettes?
-Lawrence LeMay
lemay(a)cs.umn.edu
<was being built. The fasted part was 5MHz. Therefore it would have
<probably had to run at 3MHz, and it would have been a _lot_ slower than
<doing it on the 6MHz 80286 CPU. Of course with a proper DMA controller
Nope, it was dealing with the 64k block limit and mapping. Speed isn't a
problem for the DMA controller as it only has to keep up with the device!
At that time the 8237 was still faster than most disks.
Now the keyboard interface is an 8042(or 8742) chip, it's easy to crank
the code of of them and disassemble it. the 8048 (the 8042 is a slave)
instruction set is all one and two byte opcodes and pretty simple.
Allison
