I am preparing to sysgen my 11/44 system to expand the device
drivers available... specifically to get RL02s installed,
secondarily RK05s, PC01s, etc.
I would like to know if anyone reading The List has ever done this
particular operation, and if so, are there any pitfalls, booby
traps, and/or gotchas that lurk waiting to sink (more) fangs in my
tender derrier.... ?
All day today I have been tracking down a problem with my Kenndy
9100 system... it fails when writing long files, and locks up with a
'device hung or writelocked' error message.
At first I thought it didn't like the RL11 card in there, so I
de-installed that, of course no change. I believe the 9100 itself is
wanting a ramp-time adjustment... I can do it, have the tools/docs,
but the labor is enormous and I would like to avoid it for now if
possible.
Does the sysgen process write to the tape? Or just read from it
and write to the disk? The Kennedy reads fine, it's just recording
that's flaky.
This came about as I tried to make a master backup of the system
to a fresh tape.. "BACKUP" seems to work, but "copy *.* ms0:"
screws up at random places... except for once in a while when it
completes with no errors.
Any RSTS/E Sysgen advice?
Happy 4th...
Cheers
John
plz see embedded comments below.
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 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> <This is where I'd recommend caution if you use q-bus. The schematics
must
>> <not only be available and complete, but they must be correct as well.
PAL
>> <must be fully characterized, something I've never seen in a DEC product,
>
>A lot of the time, DEC didn't copy-protect the PALs on their Unibus or
>Q-bus cards. So it is possible to get the equations out of them. That,
>combined with the schematic is enough.
>
>I have seen some DEC printests with logic equations in them. I've also
>seen one (DRV11-W?) with the PALs drawn out as gates.
>
Oddly enough, the DRV11-WA was the one board for which I saw reasonable
documentation, and it was what we used to interface to the E3-A (AWACS). I
saw no PAL equations, and, in fact, the PALs were soldered in place, so if
there were any, which I don't remember, you couldn't read them even if there
were no security bit.
>
>> Sorry, no. DEC in the handbooks provide full data, timing, and sample
>> schematics for qbus interfaces. Same for Omnibus Unibus. In that area
>
I guess I just had too little interest in DEC to notice that. Documentation
was an issue, though, and as I once mentioned, even DEC couldn't tell if two
of their machines were alike.
>
>Indeed. The PDP11 bus handbook is a very useful document.
>
>> interface (DMA capable) already there. ISA, I don't have any similar
>> concise reference for bus timing other than a few simple published
>> circuits. I've ahd to extrapolate from the XT and 8088 (and supporting
>> chips) knowledge to get things like timing and protocal for at least the
>> ISA 8bit.
>
>No, the IBM Techrefs do _NOT_ include timing diagrams, etc for the ISA
>bus. Sure you can work them out from the 8088 data sheets, etc, but the
>fact is, IBM did not fully document ISA.
>
There is a standard, however. IBM didn't create it.
>-tony
>
I wound up somehow with some extra sets of documentation for Data General
Aviion systems and DG/UX. Speak up and they're yours for 1.2x the cost of
shipping. I estimate there to be about 30 pounds of docs here, but they
can be sent Book Rate inside the US. They're physically located just north
of Seattle if there's anybody interested locally.
The titles:
Guide to AViiON and DG/UX System Documentation
Installing the DG/UX System
Managing the DG/UX System
Using the DG/UX System
Using the DG/UX Editors
Customizing the DG/UX System
Using TCP/IP on the DG/UX System
Managing TCP/IP on the DG/UX System
Managing ONC/NFS and its Facilities on the DG/UX System
Release notes for:
DG/UX for AViiON Systems, Patch dgux_5.4.2.p58
DG/UX for AViiON Systems, Patch dgux_5.4.2.p77
GNU C Compiler System 5.4 for AViiON Systems Release 2.4.5.6
X.desktop System 5.4 for AViiON Computers Release 3.5
X11R5 DG/UX X Window System for AViiON Systems Release 5.4 Release 3.00
DG/UX System 5.4 for AViiON Computers Release 3.00
The rings in some of the binders are a little iffy.
ok
r.
<>
<Well, there is a standard . . . I've never bought it, but there IS one . .
<
<Say, just an aside, your email handler seems to truncate the last characte
<at the right-hand end of the text in quoted emails. Have you ever noticed
<that? Maybe it's my email software, but it only seems to happen in your
Yep and it's great for people that send text that is not otherwise
delimited. I really hate reading 282 character long lines.
<>terminally similar) out there for copying. It takes nothing to make
<>a 16-bit output and 16-bit input board using the vector foundation board.
<
<Well, it isn't as easy if you have a PC with no expansion slots . . .
Therein lies the worry!
<What? . . . Vector? . . . you mean that outfit in Sylmar, CA? If so, I'd
<point out that they've had a few screws loose for some time. The only
Vector as in the Vector BOARD, not the computer company.
<boards they ever produced which had a sensible power and ground
<disrtribution arrangement were screwed up so badly you couldn't even use
<THEIR staking block to set the pins! Since most of my wire-wrap cards wer
Hey I didn't say they were good, only handy.
I used to have a board made locally that was really nice and worked.
Haven't used them/that in over 10 years.
Allison
<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.
<legacy of 8080 signals and signal timing, even though the system usually ha
<a sensible processor which could have worked very well, there tended to be
<glitches as caused by the fact that it took maybe three signals and a
<decoder to sense a local I/O cycle, yet the bus provided six or seven, and
there in was the S100 problem...
<>Like a z280?
<>
<You must really love that chip, Allison, but yes, even that, if you wish.
<It's YOUR computer, after all, so it should be the way YOU like it.
Exactly. The reason, it run native z80 and as a result CP/M. Not many
cpus left you can hack the hardware and software on. Next toy, Z800x!
<I personally would favor the 96-pin connector (per DIN 41612) as used in
<VME, but only one, for a basic card and make it on the nominally 4.5 x 6"
<form factor of the single slot EUROCARDS (e.g. VME). That connector is mor
<reliable than card-edge connectors and it's used enough that it's relativel
<cheap. It's compatible with a 0.100" matrix so a card and a backplane coul
I happen to like the connector as well as you don't need an etched board
for proto with a etched edge connector. The board size propsed is too
small. S100 was about right for protos, save for the lost space to the
regulators and extra bus interface components.
<This is where I'd recommend caution if you use q-bus. The schematics must
<not only be available and complete, but they must be correct as well. PAL
<must be fully characterized, something I've never seen in a DEC product,
True good engineering too. However the info some of which you refer to is
burried in contracts to DEC vendors.
<and, in fact, I'd say you have MUCH less "open" information about q-bus tha
<about ISA. The problem with ISA is that the information was usually "out
Sorry, no. DEC in the handbooks provide full data, timing, and sample
schematics for qbus interfaces. Same for Omnibus Unibus. In that area
they likely were more open to people having their own boards. They made it
easy enough with books WW cards and WWfoundation cards with basic bus
interface (DMA capable) already there. ISA, I don't have any similar
concise reference for bus timing other than a few simple published
circuits. I've ahd to extrapolate from the XT and 8088 (and supporting
chips) knowledge to get things like timing and protocal for at least the
ISA 8bit.
Now, open in the DEC case does not mean you can sell board commercially
using their bus technology without permission. It does mean whats inside
is no secret and for internal use (labs or one off boards) there are few
if any restrictions. FYI: companies like Bridgeport, heath and others
used this with DEC permission not to mention the raft or board makers for
analog, and digital IO for specialized applications.
<In reality, building an I/O mux onto a current generation PC parallel port
<makes as much sense as anything. With EPP you can get up to 2MB of transfe
<bandwidth, in bursts, of course. That's not bad . . . AND you have a "real
<computer with "real" tools that's very fast and "real" cheap.
It's one way to go. I use that is it's there. also building a parallel
IO card is a trivial task as there are more designs (all the same or
terminally similar) out there for copying. It takes nothing to make
a 16bit output and 16bit input board using the vector foundation board.
Allison
While it's true that not everyone liked KALOK, I'd not be influenced too
much by the fact they're no longer with us. IMI, CMI, Miniscribe, Shugart,
and many others are gone, too. Not everyone like their products either.
You should probably determine whether these babies work before you ditch
them. They don't have enough aluminum scrap value to justify destroying
them before you know whether they work. If they do they are worth a few
dollars to you and a week of headaches, aspirin, MAALOX, prune juice, and
whiskey to the buyer. . . but it's YOUR money, and it's HIS headaches . . .
get the picture?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Lane <kyrrin(a)bluefeathertech.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Kalok Drives
>At 12:10 03-07-1999 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>I have a pair of Kalok drives, a KL320 and a KL330 (20 and 30 Mbyte,
>>perhaps?), each on a sort of "hard card" thing for a PeeCee. The
>>interfaces are apparently made by Seagate.
>
> Kalok?! AHHHHHHH!!!!
>
> Seriously, I've had awful experiences with the few Kalok drives I tried,
>and I've heard other horror stories as well. They are known to be one of
>the least reliable drives ever made, and Kalok themselves folded some time
>ago.
>
>>I do not know what is on them, or even if they work. Any interest out
>>there? If not, I am going to scrap them out.
>
> Use them for sledgehammer practice, then send them to the aluminum
>recycler. Can I watch? ;-)
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Bruce Lane, Owner and head honcho, Blue Feather Technologies
>http://www.bluefeathertech.com
>Amateur Radio:(WD6EOS) E-mail: kyrrin(a)bluefeathertech.com
>SysOp: The Dragon's Cave (Fido 1:343/272, 253-639-9905)
>"Our science can only describe an object, event, or living thing in our own
>human terms. It cannot, in any way, define any of them..."
Does anyone have a tape image with BASIC on it for the PDP-8?
On a related question, I've got a current loop adapter for my PC, this was
my interface to the PDP-8 before the ASR-33 showed up. Now I'd like to
punch some of my PDP-8 tape images, back into paper tape. What is the magic
to start print supression so that I can print with this thing?
--Chuck
Tony Duell and Chuck McMannis are thanked in large measure for
thier help. Tony and I have the same manual... for the curious,
the missing part in my 33 (and I have just spent another hour poking
around; the part has been abducted by Vintage Computer Aliens.) is
depicted in Bulletin 11848 33 [Page Printer Set (ASR, KSR, and RO)],
in Section 574-122-800TC, Page 8, figure 7.. at the bottom of the
page on the right... the part number is 180478 (Guide, Nylon)
Chuck, if you want to send me one or two of these beasts, I'll
send you copies of the official Teletype test paper tapes....
In the meantime, I guess I'll start the long disassembly
process... the platen and forms control unit has to come off, then
the carriage mechanism... what fun!
Cheers
John
<year between issue #79 and #80 but the subscription gets you "1 year (6
<issues)" :-)
<82 has been in the works for a while apparently.
<
<Robotics people do this too, publish three issues and then die because the
<didn't figure out just how darn hard it is to actually publish something. S
True, save for TCJ is many years old and back issues last I checked are
still available.
Allison
There's good reason to cast about for a general purpose bus on the order of
the middle-period S-100. The PC's of tomorrow will have no expansion slots
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 folks
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 general
purpose I/O.
The common microcontroller setups are pretty costly, often much more so than
a Pentium based PC with thousands of times the computing power.
By the time it was standardized, the S-100 was pretty well settled.
Unfortunately, the amateur computer enthusiasts presented a bigger market
than the measurement and control people, of whom I was one, and so it was
pretty important to be able to build one's own interface circuits. For
that, the S-100 was not as friendly as it could have been. Because of the
legacy of 8080 signals and signal timing, even though the system usually had
a sensible processor which could have worked very well, there tended to be
glitches as caused by the fact that it took maybe three signals and a
decoder to sense a local I/O cycle, yet the bus provided six or seven, and
various board makers didn't use the same ones, nor did they use them in the
same way. That's a mistake that should be avoided in the future. By
contrast, the Multibus-I had signals somewhat similar to those on the ISA,
and they were simple, easy to understand, and so on. Of course Intel led
the charge on MB-I.
See comments 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: Saturday, July 03, 1999 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
><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?
>
You must really love that chip, Allison, but yes, even that, if you wish.
It's YOUR computer, after all, so it should be the way YOU like it.
>
><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 S-100 like system but modern I/O and a different bus.
>
I personally would favor the 96-pin connector (per DIN 41612) as used in
VME, but only one, for a basic card and make it on the nominally 4.5 x 6"
form factor of the single slot EUROCARDS (e.g. VME). That connector is more
reliable than card-edge connectors and it's used enough that it's relatively
cheap. It's compatible with a 0.100" matrix so a card and a backplane could
( if you were REALLY desperate and impoverished ) be made by hand on a good
wire-wrap card. Those are a few pretty compelling reasons. Of course
unless you actually adopted the VME standard, you'd still be on your own and
unable to buy a serial card or such.
>
><> 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.
>
This is where I'd recommend caution if you use q-bus. The schematics must
not only be available and complete, but they must be correct as well. PALs
must be fully characterized, something I've never seen in a DEC product,
and, in fact, I'd say you have MUCH less "open" information about q-bus than
about ISA. The problem with ISA is that the information was usually "out
there" well in advance and then, when the product was shipped, wasn't
available any more, because there were too many competitors and the doc cost
an extra few pennies.
>
In reality, building an I/O mux onto a current generation PC parallel port
makes as much sense as anything. With EPP you can get up to 2MB of transfer
bandwidth, in bursts, of course. That's not bad . . . AND you have a "real"
computer with "real" tools that's very fast and "real" cheap.
>
>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
>
<I know that several people on this list have used minix. Can anyone tell
<me if the book is worth buying with respect to understanding the OS?
YES! I have the book and it's quite informative anput OS design in general
and why Minix is what it is. It's a pretty neat small kernel unix like OS.
There is also Minix-VMD on the net that's to Kees as well as a version that
will run on a dos box.
Allison
<In this bridge circuit with a 12 volt supply:
<
<+12 -------
< A B
< .LOAD..
< C D
<return-----
The last design I did in the analog realm was a 500w per channel
that could be bridged for 1000W. (for studios and theatures) I am
acutely aware of the topology of bridge amps and power measurement.
<(A, B, C, D) are switches, either A, D or B, C on,
<The 4 Ohm load sees a maximum current of 3 Amps in either direction.
or 24V PP with 6a. Keep in mind it takes 6A to move the coil through the
full range it will travel with this 24VPP signal. It will move forward
3A(12v) worth from the resting position and it will move rearward the
same distance with the reverse polarity but it will take 24v6a to make
it transverse the same path in a continious cyclic way.
<That is 1.5 Amps for each of two 8 Ohm speakers in parallel.
<The maximum (peak) power is 36 watts, 4x that of a non-bridged amplifier.
<"peak to peak power" is just a marketroid term. Actually I don't even use
<the term "RMS power", as IMHO, "RMS" applies to voltage or current, not pow
Oh boy... RMS WATTS are measured using real RMS Amps and real RMS Volts
across a real (non inductive load). A real 500w amplifier heats a 4ohm
resistive load the same as pluging it into a ~45V RMS AC source. As long
as you know what is meant all the terms are valid. One of the problems
with small amplifers is the power supply is tepid to weak and often they
can actually supply full load power for one or two cycles until the PS
voltages fade due to lack of iron and copper in the core. I have a 35W
(continous RMS) stereo amplifer I built and due to the transformer (not
enough core) but plenty of Capacitor it can in short bursts deliver 55W
(10 cycle pulses of 400Hz @<.1%). There are far more dynamics than discussed
though some of the numbers are really meaningless.
Most of those wall cubes are very limited and 30-40W is about the limit,
often less. There are a few switchmode designs for wall cubes at will pack
70-80w output into something 4x1x2 but those don't go cheap.
Allison
<You may be a victim of the infamous "RD53 spindown problem". Does the
<drive spin up and then stop and/or recycle, or fail to reach full speed?
The other cause is the positioner gets stuck in the shutdown position and
the drive not finding the servo will also shutdown and cycle.
The fix has been detailed elsewhere but opening the HDA and fixing it is
a viable option.
Allison
Please see comments embedded below.
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: Saturday, July 03, 1999 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> With the ISA, it depends on the TYPE of DMA you use. If you use one of
the
>> channels on the motherboard, there sould be no problem. It's only a bit
>> shaky if you try to run it from the bus itself. That's because of
>
>Sure. But the Unibus/VME/etc way where the _peripheral card_ generates
>the addresses for DMA (rather than there being a central DMA controller)
>is a lot cleaner IMHO
>
Yes, it is, and with the PC motherboard gone, there's nothing to prevent one
>from using that method.
>
>> motherboard features. Since there's to be no motherboard, i.e. only a
>> passive ISA backplane, that shouldn't be a limitation. It's not
necessary,
>
>Eh? If you're going to have an ISA bus (meaning a bus where you can stick
>standard PC expansion cards) you _have_ to have the DMA controller. Even
>an FDC card really needs it. You can't start suddenly redefining odd
>signals and call the result ISA.
>
Leaving off the motherboard doesn't change the BUS to something else. There
have been systems with multiple processors on passive backplanes for the ISA
for years. You don't have to change one signal. Of course, if you leave
off the motherboard, i.e. the circuitry that makes it a PC, then you don't
have to use the otherwise useless 4x-color-burst crystal oscillator either,
and you don't have to generated that inane 18... Hz interrupt and can use
something sensible instead, and you don't have to generate refresh addresses
with one DMA channel, and you don't have to use DMA for the floppy which
will work fine without it, and . . .
>
>Of course you can have a similar bus with mostly the same signals, but
>with bus request/grant signals and an arbitration scheme like
>Unibus/VME/etc. But most ISA cards would _not_ work on thse bus.
>
>
>> in general, to have DMA, first because the processors used on PC
>> motherboards have block transfer operations which operate at the bus
>> bandwidth.
>
>Why do you assume that ISA -> Intel processor? It may be something
>totally different, something that doesn't have efficient block transfer
>instructions.
>
Now you're confusing me . . . you just got through saying that the PC has to
be there, Intel and all, or it's not an ISA bus. Perhaps you spoke (sic)
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.
>>
>> The only things which would be inherited from the adoption of ISA as an
open
>> bus would be the connector and the signal definitions. I see nothing
wrong
>> with those. One could even punt the 14.318 MHz (4x color-burst)
oscillator
>
>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).
>
You're certainly right about that! All that would have been needed is that
they swallow their pride and use a sensible interrupt handler instead of
their silly 8259. In fact, they should have left all their LSI's off the
MB. The way their counters work, or don't, and the fact they're slow, and
they're ripple counters so you have to read half of them twice . . . don't
get me started . . .
Of course if you're going to "fix" the mistakes, then maybe a few changes
are warranted, including a provision for multiple masters. I find multiple
masters on a single backplane of limited value. It's easy enough just to
have a drawer for each processor and let them talk to one another on a
high-speed LAN. Now that multi-Gb LANs are becoming more visible, no pun
intended, those'll be the next great leap. Changing the way the signals
work is not such a sin, since you still use the same bus definitions. A
little improvement on the ISA could go a long way.
>
>> in favor of a more useful one, or perhaps none at all.
>
>That clock (which, BTW is not synchronised to anything else necessarily)
>is the least of the problems.
>
well, if you use a color board, or a frame grabber which assumes NTSC
timing, it may want that to be there.
>
>>
>> The types of boards useful in development don't need a lot of
documentation
>> to be used outside the MSDOS/PC world. The base locations of the 8250's
on
>
>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
>
>> I/O boards is know, the base of the printer port (twisted though it is)
is
>
>The base address of the printer port is no more twisted than that of the
>serial ports. I've read the ROM source code, and the routines that set up
>the address table are _very_ similar.
>
That was an error, i.e. i had an indefinite antecedent for the pronout "it"
in that I meant that the way the parallel port works, with some of its
signals inverted, etc, was twisted. An address is just an address.
>
>Basically, the ROM looks for printer ports at 0x3bc, 0x378, 0x278 in
>order. It assigns each one it finds to the next available 'LPT number'.
>What this means is :
>
>If you have a single parallel port at _any_ of those addresses, it will
>be LPT1.
>
>If you have 3 ports they will be LPT1 (0x3bc), LPT2 (0x378), LPT3 (0x278).
>
>If you have 2 ports, the one at the 'first' address in the table will be
>LPT1, the one at the later address will be LPT2.
>
>Serial ports are similar. It looks for 8250s at 0x3F8 amd 0x2F8. It
>assigns the first one it finds to COM1, the second one to COM2. In other
>words, if you have a single RS232 port at 0x2F8, it will be COM1.
>
>> known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The
WD1003-WAH
>> 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.
>
No ASIC, just the WD 1010 which is thoroughly characterized in the old
databooks and datasheets. maybe a few other garden variety LSI's of the
early '80's. I probably have it somewhere, but there was a time when I had
the 1010 and 2010 pretty well memorized. The BMAC is an 8042 with some code
and a peek at the application notes for the 1010 will tell you what's in the
1100. Since MFM is pretty much history, or, more correctly, the drives
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
FDC. Those (FDC's) are well characterized and all you need to know about
the 1003-WAH is the command set, since IDE still uses it.
The little IDE interface boards with 5 TTL's on them are easy enough to buzz
out and understand. Data on the LSI's is easy enough to get, though you
shouldn't need it if you read the data on the WD 1003 controller board.
>
>-tony
>
That's the price you pay, so to speak, for participating in a free-market
economy. The market determines what price the market will bear. If there
are more rich dummies (If that's how you prefer to think of them) than there
are Altairs or 4004's then you'll probably never own one.
Meanwhile, maybe I can get someone to slide me a few bucks for this old
stuff of mine . . .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Marvin <marvin(a)rain.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: E-bay stupidity! was Re: height of folly
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> $610!!! I'll bet Intel wishes they still had some! Who was it that said
>> "A fool and his money are soon parted." ?
>
>If prior patterns follow, we will be seeing more of the 4004 microprocessor
>chips showing up now. With any luck, the first one listed pulls in a higher
>than expected price, and the following ones will slowly reach reasonable
>again.
>
>Of course it could be like the Altair where the first ones sold for about
>$600 or so, and the price went up from there, and then settled in to the
>current $2000 - $3000 or so.
Hi,
I know that several people on this list have used minix. Can anyone tell
me if the book is worth buying with respect to understanding the OS?
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is Power
Muchas Gracias to all who have offered advice and suggestions
about the teletype. The Problem, alas, is that the print carriage
has thrown one of the little nylon sliders that ride on the code
rails as it travels... I have taken the unit down to major
subassemblies but there is no sign of the slider. Damn. It is of
course the slider on codebar 5.
I narrowed this down by observing the punch, which is getting the
correct codes. Why 'return' doesn't work is a further mystery, but
it will have to wait until I can scrounge up a parts machine, or a
working one in which case this one will become the parts donor. It
is the parity machine with the forms feed unit and tractor feed
sprockets, which is nice for computer use.
Thanks again all... now to get to this 11/44 sysgen...
Cheers
John
With the ISA, it depends on the TYPE of DMA you use. If you use one of the
channels on the motherboard, there sould be no problem. It's only a bit
shaky if you try to run it from the bus itself. That's because of
motherboard features. Since there's to be no motherboard, i.e. only a
passive ISA backplane, that shouldn't be a limitation. It's not necessary,
in general, to have DMA, first because the processors used on PC
motherboards have block transfer operations which operate at the bus
bandwidth.
The only things which would be inherited from the adoption of ISA as an open
bus would be the connector and the signal definitions. I see nothing wrong
with those. One could even punt the 14.318 MHz (4x color-burst) oscillator
in favor of a more useful one, or perhaps none at all.
The types of boards useful in development don't need a lot of documentation
to be used outside the MSDOS/PC world. The base locations of the 8250's on
I/O boards is know, the base of the printer port (twisted though it is) is
known, and one doesn't need a video board right off the top. The WD1003-WAH
board is well uderstood and the EIDE interface emulates that pretty well.
That solves the mass storage problems. Serial I/O is straigtforward enough.
Where's the problem?
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: Saturday, July 03, 1999 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>>
>> Well . . . what could possibly be more "open" than the ISA. It's capable
of
>> pretty much anything that the PDP-11 could dish out, AND you can get paid
>
>Well, apart from interupt sharing, multiple bus masters (the 16 bit ISA
>allows for _one_ bus master card, but it doesn't really handle it
>properly), certain DMA transfers, etc, etc, etc...
>
>> for taking the boards away from a lot of places. Almost any function you
>
>But most of these cards are _NOT_ 'open'. Try getting complete
>programmings specs for certain video cards, let alone schematics, PAL
>equations, etc.
>
>The whole idea of this is to make an open PC, _because_ existing cards
>are not fully documented.
>
>-tony
>
<OK, so the next question: is getting an education (enough to give one a
<chance) that tough overseas? It is not hard at all here in the states -
My understanding is not any harder than here. breaking into the hardware
field is a bit harder than software and many here (USA) in the internet
services (web, java and all that rot) are likely self educated people with
non-technical degrees.
The tag along issue was hobby vs vocation.
<summer at hamfests, selling electronic castoffs - even junk. Fill a box
<with caps, switches, tubes, connectors, knobs, etc., and the
<homebrewers will come. Yes, they tend to be a cheap lot too, but it adds
<up. Anyway, by October, an Altair could be possible - or even a pile of
<other machines.
This is very true. If you want to find stuff you have to be "out there"
or you'll miss a great amount.
For example at a MIT flea I got a very since BA11 11/23 system with docs,
floppies and RX02 for $0.00 as the owner didn't want to haul it back.
<Being a hamfest seller is a GREAT way to get leads, as well.
No kidding.
<Of course, I have never been to a radio rally, so things might be
<different for sellers.
Maybe, I'd bet not. ;)
Allison
Thanks to all who have responded so far.. I have tracked the
trouble to code level 5.. I have the parity keyboard with split
shifts and '5' is stuck marking all the time. I put myself to sleep
last night reading the maintenance manual, after lunch I'm gonna
dive into it.
WooHoo!
Cheerz
John
>The RD53 I have here has the W1 and W2 in place, the next three pins are
>DS (drive select) ID settings, DS1, DS2, or DS3. I seem to recall that
>the drive has to be set as DS2 to be the primary drive on an RQDX3
>controller.
No. The floppies are DS1 and DS2. The hard drive should be DS3. If
your system has a second drive, however, you may need to set this to
be DS4.
Depends on what else you have and how it is all wired.
What system box? (BA23? BA123?)
Direct connect to controller? (Leprechaun box?)
Connection through signal card? (RQDXE? BA23 backplane?)
More info is needed.
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Hi Brian:
You may be a victim of the infamous "RD53 spindown problem". Does the
drive spin up and then stop and/or recycle, or fail to reach full speed?
If so you likely have a spindle break solenoid problem, which can be fixed
with a small Phillips screwdriver.
Please chack this and get back to me, I'll give more detailed instructions
if indeed this is what's happening.
> : | : : | |
>
> D S W W
> 4 3 2 1 2 1
The RD53 I have here has the W1 and W2 in place, the next three pins are
DS (drive select) ID settings, DS1, DS2, or DS3. I seem to recall that the
drive has to be set as DS2 to be the primary drive on an RQDX3 controller.
The one in front of me is set to DS1 however.
I have three other RD53s in storage, I can check on Monday if necessary,
but jumpering may not be the problem. You might contact Megan or Allison
on the list.
I forget what W1 and W2 are for, but my drive has them in place.
Hope this help,
Kevin
--
Kevin McQuiggin VE7ZD
mcquiggi(a)sfu.ca
<Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillt
<more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
<were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
<Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in an
<way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than hal
<a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
<
<Dick
What about after the Pertec guys bought them, I thought the marketed a
MITS hard disk? though I think it was a 10mb 14" removable.
Allison
<Boy does that sound like spec. inflation! 24 p-p is just 12 Volt peak in
<either polarity with a bridge circuit. That gives 12/8 peak amps and 18
<peak watts (like with a +/-12 volt square wave). The RMS voltage and
no that would be 24/4 (two speakers presuming they are parallel) or 6A.
Assumes a 100% lossless bridge amp. at 24VPP and 6A you have 144W if it's
a symetirc squarewave, less if sine(RMS).
Now reality sets in, using the latest devices (VMOS/hexmos) there will be
a few tenths of a volt loss arcoss the device. So let say the loss is 1V
in that bridge amp of ours. Not allowing for resistance of wire and also
assuming the PSU can easily supply in excess of the required current at
12V.
23Vpp/4 = 5.75A that times 23 is only 132.25... reality sets in some.
also the difference 11.75W is heat!!! and thats the squarewave, it gets
really bad for sincewaves (more like 25W as heat!). Can you imagine
trying to get rid of say 40-50W (stereo case) of heat from one of those
tiny boxes?
Other assumptions, an 8ohm speaker is 8ohms. A non truth as it varies
widely with frequency assuming a good encolsure. So at one frequency it may
look like 6ohms and at another 15! Then we have copper losses from wiring
and PC traces (resistance) and what if the 12V is really 11.95V?
<amplifier. Don't tell me these "240 Watt" speakers are powered by 4 "AA"
<batteries ;)... or use one of the many automobile ic amps that give about
<4.5 watts with a 12 Volt supply and a 4 Ohm speaker.
The other reality is it takes very few watts at a sustained level to cronk
ones ears forever.
4AA cells can provide a remarkably large amount of power for and equally
remarkably short period of time. (nominally 3WH) ;)
A real 240W amplifier will cook a hotdog with two nails stuck in the
ends in about 2 minutes at sustained full power! Real power = heating
power.
Allison
S100 was one of the first to see people using different cpus as they could
still use their old boards (sometime with mods) or they could "bend"
the cpu to fit the bus adaquately.
<You may indeed be onto something here, Allison, but the ISA is no less
<general in its inherent qualities than the S-100, and I'd submit that a
<major case for the S-100's popularity for non-8080 applications was the
<ready commmmercial availability of numerous desirable functions at
<reasonable prices. That's how the ISA occurred to me.
Indeed, the key was commonly available generic functions. ISA8/16 fits
the bill fairly well. Infact myself and another are working on a ISA16
motherboard with a z280 insted of intel. Why, keyboard, serial, video,
floppy and hard disk interfaces are all done and cheap to free. We do not
need a raft of interrupts, so thats not a big problem. It's not a perfect
match but general enough if we bend a rule or two it will be fine. After
all we want to run z280s at full bore speed for software development and
the specifics of the platform are relitively unimportant other than we'd
like the two of them to be the same.
In 1989 S100 would have been a choice for the same reasons.
<Aside from that, a general purpose not processor-biased architecture would
<provide a few control signals, e.g. IORD, IOWR, MEMRD, MEMWR, maybe a coupl
<of clocks, probably one fairly fast one suitable as a dot clock for a vide
<circuit, and one slower, suitable for bus transaction timing, a few
<interrupt and DMA support signals, and a couple of dozen address lines.
<Parity and maybe a "tilt" line would be handy, as well as a wait signal.
<Most busses have these signals in one form or another.
Sounds like ISA. ;) If memory is kept off the bus ISA is just fine for
most 8/16 bit cpus I can think of. The only provision would be the cpus
that may DMA impossible or very painful but even then DMA is not a required
capability for some smaller designs.
<The key element for generalized development, though, is whether or not you
<can afford to buy the functions you don't want to build right away. Don't
<you agree?
Bingo! or for many reasons don't care to build. A 16450/16550 serial is
uninteresting but, serial is one of those must haves in a system like
mabe a modem. Others make little sense to fabricate when even new
they are under $50!
Allison
The boxes I bought were sold to us by an agent for Pertec, which was
liquidating the MITS stuff. The FDD and HDD used with Altairs were
Pertec's, since they worked closely with the MITS boys. Unfortunately their
FDD and HDD were a bit out of date. They probably saw the 8-bit market as a
place to dispose of the stuff no longer suitable for mini's.
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: Saturday, July 03, 1999 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Ed Roberts
>
><Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillt
><more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
><were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
><Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in an
><way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than hal
><a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
><
><Dick
>
>What about after the Pertec guys bought them, I thought the marketed a
>MITS hard disk? though I think it was a 10mb 14" removable.
>
>Allison
>
>
<As for Allison's comment that SPARC is to "high end" I have to disagree.
<The SPARC architecture was initally a lot less complicated than the PDP-11
<architecture. It is the funky MMUs that get in the way.
Error. Highend meaning it's not a simple or low complexity system. SPARC
may be RISC but that has little to do with system implmentation only the
instruction set and internal processor design. It's still 32bit, comples
set of control signals, high speed and nontrivial design.
When you say architecture are you refering to the SYSTEM or the CPU
or maybe the memory each has oe and can vary widely. I'd argue that
a LSI-11/03 system is easier to usnderstand than a SPARC system on the
whole despite the more complex CPU of the PDP-11. The PDP-11 at the
system level is not one archetecture, the 11/03 is trivial compared to
the 11/70 with cache and multiple busses. That would be a good example
of the difference between system implmentation and CPU archetecture too.
In that case the 11/70 is highend and the 11/03 is lowend.
Allison
Thanks for the info. As far as I've been able to find out, which is lillte
more than speculation, I'm afraid, these "MITS Hard Disk Controller" boxes
were just prepared for trade shows and demos and were never mass-produced.
Since I can convert them into something useful without damaging them in any
way, I'll go ahead and do that. It would appear there were fewer than half
a dozen of these made, and they were never mmass-marketed.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 03, 1999 8:22 AM
Subject: Ed Roberts
>Dick,
>
>
> I found the article that tells about Ed Roberts. See
>"http://www.grocerybill.com/altair/index.html"
>
> Also the auction for the 8" floppies just closed. I got $30 for the box
>of 3M floppies and $17/box for the others. There were only two bidders but
>you can get their address at
>"http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=122887882".
>
> Joe
>
>
>
<I need a driver for the DAS1200 of
<Keithley (card of data adquisition).
<
<Somebody knows if or it exists in MINIX
<or where to look for information?
Check in the generic C warehouses on the net. I do know that the GPIB
card Keithley sells (sold) came with C drivers for DOS and likely
adaptable for other OSs. I'd sincerely doubt that anyone has ported that
board to Minix as of yet but under unix(linux or ?) or dos it's quite
a bit more likely.
Allison
<> PDP-11 could be that architecture for several reasons:
<> 1) It has lots of software available for it.
<
<What it doesn't have is a free OS :-(.
Write one! However unix is $100 for the universal license (PUPs) and
it's not out of the question to port some other OS to it or even create
one. UZI unix kernel is for z80 but is small enough and written in C to
port to any of the PDP11s.
What make porting to PDP-11s more difficult is the devices (mostly tapes
and disks) are not always well enough documented (MSCP!) unless you find the
right book. However the RAW cpu is widely known. For those that would want
to play with PDP11 cheap find an old RQDXn controller and pull the T-11
chip. It's a 40 pin, 8/16 bit bus, PDP-11 that needed minimal glue
for ram, rom and IO.
<Does anyone know what DEC's restrictions are on these buses now? At one
<time they were patented by DEC, and you could only (legally) homebrew a
<certain number of cards per machine.
I thought copyrighted, and in either case for non commercial use it's
likely not an issue. Besides the CPU all you need is ram, rom, IO, storage
and for qbus thats totals 4 cards! With some of the 11/23B cards there is
2 serial ports and rom on the cpu so you only need ram and storage. Of
course a falcon (KXT-11) is complete save for storage with cpu, ram, rom
serial and parallel io and QBUS.
The Qbus, Omnibus are open and the specs for them were widely available
along with DEC even making WW boards for them. DEC also had some nice
chips to make the bus interface easier but Heath didn't use them in the
h11. its very common to find old machine with custom boards in them.
Allison
Heads Up Folks....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 1999 11:29:34 -0400
From: Ken Simpson <W8EK(a)fdt.net>
To: BA Swap List <baswaplist(a)foothill.net>
Subject: More Nostalgia type books FS
[snipped a dozen Ham Radio catalogs and course books.. old ones]
Sinclair Cambridge Program Library - Volumes 1-4
General/Finance/Statistics
Mathematics
Physics & Engineering
Electronics
1977 = $ 8
Prices do not include shipping from Florida.
All books are in good condition.
E-mail to W8EK(a)fdt.net
Thanks.
73,
Ken, W8EK
Well . . . what could possibly be more "open" than the ISA. It's capable of
pretty much anything that the PDP-11 could dish out, AND you can get paid
for taking the boards away from a lot of places. Almost any function you
care to have is available if you don't want to try to improve on what's
available, and the structural components are commonly available. The same
could, I guess, be said of the VME in the smaller form factors. In all my
years of hardware scrounging, I've never seen any architecture more prolific
than the ISA, and in that time I've seen maybe a half dozen Q-bus cards for
cheap. Now, I'm not saying it has be cheap, but you would gather that as
the primary requirement from what most folks seem so spout about in this
forum, e.g. "What??! A dollar for a 1956 Rolls, in solid gold! Too much!
I'll offer a nickel . . ."
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>Well, in my case it was supposed to lead to the development of a really
>open hardware platform.
>
>As for Allison's comment that SPARC is too "high end" I have to disagree.
>The SPARC architecture was initally a lot less complicated than the PDP-11
>architecture. It is the funky MMUs that get in the way.
>
>--Chuck
>
>At 11:20 PM 7/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>> Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
>>
>>Off topic?
>>
>>William Donzelli
>>aw288(a)osfn.org
>
>
Before you go off picking a bus because the cards look "neat" shouldn't you
agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion of
why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
>> Too highend.
>
>Yes, but the highend SPARC stuff tends to become cheap - SPARCstation 1s
>these days are almost free. Anyway, some of the older SPARC boxes have
>really nice 9U VME cages.
>
>By the way, the SPARC architecture really is open - there are lots of
>things SPARC that are not Sun/Solaris.
>
>William Donzelli
>aw288(a)osfn.org
This will draw alot of flames, and may upset certain people.
Please send personal attacks to me directly.
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:20:38 -0700 Kai Kaltenbach <kaikal(a)MICROSOFT.com>
writes:
> Classic computer collecting is rewarding on so many levels. And in
> so many senses, we have a collector community relationship that rivals
those
> of much more established hobbies. That's why it's so important, as the
> hobby begins to reach maturity, that we not lose sight of our
fundamentals.
But you've missed the one 'fundamental' that uniquely gives our hobby
its true appeal: Our hobby exists (existed) purely for its own sake.
No strings, wire, or unneeded baggage. It existed purely for the joy
of computing at its most base level, and the aquisition of knowledge
of the science.
> Lately, there has been a disturbing trend towards isolationism and
> elitism among our flock, up to and including outright hostility. This
has
> got to stop.
Hostile? Yer damned right. We're on the defensive now. The
'marketplace'
is poised to fundamentally change what I perceive as the original charter
of the computing hobby.
> Now, as Dennis Miller says, I don't want to get off on a rant here.
> As much as anyone else, I'd like a world full of retired aerospace
> engineers with garages full of free Altairs. I'd also like the IRS
> to abolish my income taxes and give me a free Ferrari. It's just not
> going to work that way, folks.
You hit a raw nerve here, buddy boy. I don't *want* garages of free
Altairs (or whatever). All I want is to be able to purchase the material
that is of interest to me at a *reasonable* price. Now the retired
Aerospace
Engineer thinks he can make a fortune off his old computers. Piss.
> Lashing out at people who want to publicize our hobby is like
> sitting in the nosebleed section of your hometown baseball stadium
> and hoping to god that your team loses big so you can afford better
> tickets next year.
This to me, clearly says you have no clue as to what is at stake here.
Hello Tony:
In a message dated 7/1/99 8:03:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk writes:
> I still want to know why my old Williamson (15W RMS)
> sounds a _lot_ louder than the '240W' PC speakers
The clue is in your mention of RMS. Your PC speakers are rated by PMPO,
"Peak Music Power Output," and this 240W rating is for both channels
combined. Your Williamson is 15W _per_channel_, for a total of 30W RMS.
Since PMPO usually represents about 5 percent of the true RMS output, each of
your amplified PC speakers is good for about 6W RMS, for a total of about 12W
(with huge distortion at that output level). Even this rating of the PC
speakers is probably grossly exaggerated.
There are Watts, and then there are Watts.
At least, this is the case with the speakers we sell in our shop. ;>)
Glen Goodwin
0/0
> Please remember that this list is international. And that not all of us
<> have well payed jobs, or even jobs at all. I couldn't consider spending
<> twice my _annual_ income on an Altair. Heck, I have to stop and think
<> before I spend my weekly income on common 8-bit micro.
<
<!!!
Even some of us in the US have had really bad years where trade, free or
very nearly so was the only possibility.
There are very few machines I'd pay much for and what "much" is varies
with my fiscal health. Most thankfully were gotten for free or minimally
the effort needed to collect them. Maybe it's also my slightly different
twist, I'm collecting machines I could never afford (but wanted to have)
when they were new.
Also there is the matter of my preference for systems that work, and having
the Altair I know enough to not bother with that one.
<Germany, Japan, or whatever developed country we may live in? Are foriegn
<electronics and computer industries (again, assuming that many of
<us are in the industry) really in that bad of shape?
The industries in many of the foreign countries are quite healthy but the
admission price (education REQUIRED) is far higher so it's not as easy to
get in. That also does not allow for retired, people that don't wish to
work in electrotechnical fields for a living and for some reason far to
many women.
Allison
<> > Hmm... Unix came out first on a PDP7, but later versions ran on the
<> > PDP11. I am not sure where C came in all this, but there are certainly
<> > PDP11 versions.
<>
<> > I've never heard of either fitting on a PDP8.
While neither were developed on a pdp8 there is nothing to say it cant be
done. The -8 does run fortran, basic, cobal, focal and I believe pascal as
well.
The reson it wasn't done (C or unix) is timing. the -8 was past it's peak
and the PDP-11 had eclipsed it.
Allison
I doubt that there's need for the high voltage drivers. Any open collector
should work if your LED's are driven from the 5V supply.
Be careful with your socket, i.e. make sure things will fit back together
before you solder it in!
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Sudbrink <bill(a)chipware.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 3:20 PM
Subject: IMSAI front panel (7405 == 7406)??
>I'm suspicious of one of the 7405s (Hex open-collector
>inverters) driving the data lines to the MPU-A. I
>don't have any replacements, but I do have a handfull
>of 7406s (Hex open-collector high-voltage inverters).
>The pinouts in the Chip Directory look the same, only
>difference by them is that the 7406 is "Maximum output
>voltage is 30V". I think I'll try socketing the
>suspect chip (U1 for anybody keeping score) and putting
>in a 7406.
>
You may indeed be onto something here, Allison, but the ISA is no less
general in its inherent qualities than the S-100, and I'd submit that a
major case for the S-100's popularity for non-8080 applications was the
ready commmmercial availability of numerous desirable functions at
reasonable prices. That's how the ISA occurred to me.
Aside from that, a general purpose not processor-biased architecture would
provide a few control signals, e.g. IORD, IOWR, MEMRD, MEMWR, maybe a couple
of clocks, probably one fairly fast one suitable as a dot clock for a video
circuit, and one slower, suitable for bus transaction timing, a few
interrupt and DMA support signals, and a couple of dozen address lines.
Parity and maybe a "tilt" line would be handy, as well as a wait signal.
Most busses have these signals in one form or another.
The key element for generalized development, though, is whether or not you
can afford to buy the functions you don't want to build right away. Don't
you agree?
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: Saturday, July 03, 1999 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: OT: A call to arms (sort of)
><agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
><certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion
o
><why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
><goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
><
><Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
>
>To yet another iteration of the last 30 years of computer and bus design.
>
<snip>
>
>The ugly exception! This doesn't make it good, only the odd exception
>for unexplainable reasons despite being primarily a 8080 bus!
>
>S100 8080, 8085, 808x, 80x86, z80, z180, LSI-11, AM100, TI9900, 6502,
> 6800, 6809, 6800x
>
>How is it that one of the ugly busses stands out like this in history?
>My cut is that the very flavor of an experimentors "hobby" bus was the
>draw.
>
>Allison
>
The 7109 is an adc, of the dual-slope integrating variety more or less like
the panel meter IC's Intersil developed and everyone else copied. I think
www.maxim-ic.com is the place to look for the functions on this board. I'll
let you guess what the DAC800 is. (chuckle) If it's working, it's probably
a keeper. Look for any additional identifiers and then hit the web with a
search for that.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:38 PM
Subject: ID this PC card
>Hi,
>
> I picked up an old IBM AT the other day and found a strange card in it.
>It's a full length card with an 8 bit ISA plug. It has two Burr Brown
>DAC800P-CBI-V ( D to A?) ICs on it along with a large IC marked TSC
>7109CPL. (I have no idea what that one is.) There is also a small flat
>sealed Yuasa NiCad battery in the top corner of the card. It has 37 pin
>male connector on the back and it's marked "copyright 1983 MBC". Most of
>the ICs are dated 1986. It looks like it may be some kind of D to A
>convertor card. Does anyone know what it is for sure?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
<agree on what your goals are? Some of these suggestions indicate that
<certain people like certain things, but there's really been no discussion o
<why one might want to use one or another. In the absence of
<goals/requirements, there can be no analysis or design.
<
<Does anybody know where this is supposed to lead?
To yet another iteration of the last 30 years of computer and bus design.
To me it's mostly an exercise, few are into construction of their own
design and fewer still actually have the resources to do it. Those that
can aren't going to let a committe design their box (they do that at work).
so whats left... A discussion of buses and what was good or bad about each
one.
FYI: the greatest common problem of most buses is they tend to be somewhat
processor centric. To wit.
Multibus 8080, 8085, 808x, z80 mostly
STD Z80
VME 68K
Qbus PDP-11 or VAX
Unibus PDP-11 or VAX
SS50 6800 and 6809
The ugly exception! This doesn't make it good, only the odd exception
for unexplainable reasons despite being primarily a 8080 bus!
S100 8080, 8085, 808x, 80x86, z80, z180, LSI-11, AM100, TI9900, 6502,
6800, 6809, 6800x
How is it that one of the ugly busses stands out like this in history?
My cut is that the very flavor of an experimentors "hobby" bus was the
draw.
Allison
<Dwight, exactly, I forgot to say that I'm PULLING air from heat
<producing components via shrouds around heatsinks and ducts to draw
<out hot air from cards and PSU. Like vacuuming up hot air and keep
<it seperated from cooler air till exhausted outside.
Also most fans do not work well against any pressure, the airflow drops
greatly!
A small blower in the 15-50 cfm range will cost more than a fan but not
so much as to prevent attaining the goal of reliability via effective
cooling.
Allison
<> 2. The only way to make uniform air flow is with restriction.
<
<In other words: ducts and shrounds?
Thats it and ample power to motovate the air.
<Tell me about this "rotating air will do strange thing till
<straightened out" what it do strange thing? And how is done to
<straighten it out?
Air does not go through a fan smoothly and the rotation of the fan
plus aerodynamic effects imparts a spin on the air. That air will
not travel nicely.
<Do tell your tales about this! I'm trying to design a case to do
<cooling of all drives, PSU motherboard and CPU by one large quiet
<fan and ducts/shrounds. Isssues: noise and reliablity from too many
<fans.
Harder tha it looks as each drive has a differnt fit and different
air flow. Plan to use a big blower rather than a fan. Also air at
higher pressure can transport more heat so a 200cfm imparting a static
pressure of and inch of water along with airflow will cool better.
IT will also be noisy!
Allison
< Actually air flow is quite complicated. Using muffin type fans
<makes it worse. Here are some basic rules of thumb.
Yep!
<1. Fast moving air in an open space will find a surface
< and run along it.
Pressure boundary.
<2. The only way to make uniform air flow is with restriction.
Also a must as you cannot control freely moving air.
<3. Rotating air will do strange things until straightened
< out. ( examples, air coming from a rotary fan and also
< most air going through a single small restriction ).
Vanes unrotate air.
<4. Laminar flow is best understood but turbulent
< flow removes more heat.
The trick is to get turbulent air that goes where you want it.
< I have seen the above problems cause all kinds of effects
<that were not obvious at first.
The best case I know is the 8xxx and 9xxx series VAXes as they were air
cooled and also tried to be quiet and efficient in cooling the contents.
Both series would cook in minutes if the cooling failed (or if the phase
rotation was wrong!).
The Altair cooling was poor at best even with a 125CFM fan (noisy too).
the IMSAI was a bit better, the compupros s110 rack better still. The
best s100 crate was the Intergrand and TEI boxes as they clearly were built
to address the heat problem. An example of how rough this is the NS*
horizon I have has a 115cfm fan with a filter pushing air in and the box
has varios strips of manilla (144pound stock) to block and route the air
or the heat build up on the teltek HD controller and the z80 master
processors (z80, 64k sram, 2sio and ttl mapping and bus master logic)
would make them shut down even with a modified PS.
Allison
Anyone know what a ImageMaker Model IM100 by Presentation Technologies is ??
Saw one today at the thrift for $25 but would not buy since it was unknown
to me and was a little high in price. Thanks John
>
> Well, automobile collecting is definitely a rich-man's hobby; which
> sure leaves me out. I just find it painful to see our hobby go
> the same way.
>
> Jeff
Wrong... Just like computers, there are certain cars that are more
desirable than others. You wanna collect cars? There's half a dozen parked
in my neighorhood that you can get for free. OH.. That's no good enough,
you want the 55 T-Bird and you expect to get it for nothing.
You wanna collect computers? The thrift stores are full of 386s and 486s
that you can get for next to nothing! Truck loads of em go in the landfill
every single day. Nooooo... You wanna collect fancy computers with blinken
lights and all kinda of cool stuff that noone else has and you expect to
get it for nothing.
Get over it!
As a fairly new collector, I gotta say, you guys are spoiled. No-one ever
gave me an ALTAIR and I still love the hobby.
Sorry about the rant but, this argument is getting REALLY old.
You wanna flame me, do it off line. I'm sure most of the other members are
tired of hearing it too.
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
