- test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org - classiccmp.org

by jpl15＠netcom.com

At the risk of boring the Regulars (please forgive) I would like to take some bandwidth to extend an invitation to any Classiccmpers who will be in the Southern California area this coming weekend, the 24th of April, 99..... The TRW Ham Radio and Electronics swapmeet will be held at the TRW facility in El Segundo, Ca, from 7:30am until 11:30am local time.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Need PDP boards identified

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com

>I need some help identifing some of the boards that I pulled out of Paxtons >yesterday: > > M7904 - Not listed in the Field Guide > Hex-Height > 40-pin ribbon cable sticking out the side This is one of the five boards (M7900-M7904) in the RK06 system unit. This particular board contains the drivers for the actual drive interface. > NDLV-11 > netcom products, inc. > copyright jan. 1979

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > Which pins are used on the 50 pin connector? Could it be pinned out as a > > > SCSI port. Or is it possibly some custom host interface? > > > > It could be a custom host interface. Among other anomalies, I don't see > > any terminating resistors. > > Doesn't sound like SCSI/SASI, then... > > > Can you scan that data sheet or send me a photocopy? I'd pay for > > copying/mailing. > > Sure, but from what others have said, I don't think it'll be a lot of use > to you. Well... does anyone need this? I happen to have the enclosure that goes with it too. It says "Davong" on the outside and has a one-piece lid with broad, rounded corners, not boxy. > > > 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate. > > > > Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk. > > Is it? I thought the 8" winchesters had a 4.34MHz data rate. To repeat myself, that's a typo. I meant to say "...not the right rate...". Mea culpa. If anyone can put this to use, let me know. I can't imagine anything I'll own in the near future that needs it. -ethan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Apple HAL XEBEC controller

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 18, 11:58, Sellam Ismail wrote: > Can you scan this card and the Xebec interfaces you have and post a > picture of them somewhere? I then might be able to tell you if you've got > a winning combination. Sadly, that's one of the projects that's "less than complete" at the moment. > Ok, I just took stock of the hardware in my next room. I have a First > Class Peripherals Sider ][ hard drive (actually two) and for the first > time ever noticed that they have a Xebec label on the bottom, which I > guess means these are actually Xebec hard drives and First Class was the > name they sold hard drives under? Whatever. I didn't know Xebec made drives, but it's perfectly possible. They used to describe themselves as the "Zero Defect" company, so that would fit. > Ok, so then I opened one up and noticed a Xebec PCB that is the same size > as a 5.25" drive, that contains among many other things a Z80, an 8502 and > a ROM with a Xebec label. The connector is 50 pins. Sounds just like mine. > I then opened the Apple //e hood and the Xebec controller card also has 50 > pins. Ah. Well, I didn't really expect you'd have a setup that was quite the same. Thanks very much for taking the trouble to check, though. > So I'm not familiar with the card you have at only 26 pins. > > > Was there a standard pinout on Apple SCSI/SASI boards? Perhaps it's the > > same as the Mac 25-pin SCSI? > > If you consider Xebec to be the standard then yes. I've never seen a hard > drive controller made by any company other than Xebec. Hmm... I've seen lots, notably Adaptec and Xylogics... but perhaps you mean in an Apple environment -- in which case the only other name that comes to mind is Corvus, and I've no idea what they used. Not SCSI, I think. Still, I've got a few ideas, so tomorrow I'll go and dig out the Mac manuals and look at their 25-pin interface, and check some of the traces on the Apple board to see if there's a plausible match. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Need PDP boards identified

by healyzh＠aracnet.com

I need some help identifing some of the boards that I pulled out of Paxtons yesterday: M7904 - Not listed in the Field Guide Hex-Height 40-pin ribbon cable sticking out the side NDLV-11 netcom products, inc. copyright jan. 1979 MSI-11 (c)1978 Andromeda Systems Inc faded sticker on handle says 'MUX1' and 'MUX3' the rest is to faded to read A two board set from Plessey Peripheral Systems connected via a 50-pin ribbon cable. The top board (P/N 703580) has 8 LEDs and a 10-pin connector. The bottom board (P/N 703570) has 4 26-pin connectors and a roughly 66-pin connector (not sure its exact size). The only thing I can think of is some kind of drive controller. 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.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/ |

27 years, 3 months

2
3
0 0

Program Challenge (was Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing)

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

You'd normally expect that the winner of any such contest would be the most recent processor, wouldn't you? So, if the cut-off date was 1982, any processor that was released in late '82 should probably beat any that was already available in 1979. Of course, if the 1979 processor had a much faster version available in 1983 (like a higher clock rate), that faster version wouldn't be legal with the 1982 cut- off, because that wasn't around in 1982. So, I suggest that one way of judging cleverness of software hacks is that they let an older processor beat a newer one. Judging that way, we don't even need a cut-off date. But anybody coding for a 1999 processor won't have any way to win. Of course, then we need clear evidence when each processor became available at each clock speed, and we can argue about when the chip was *really* available (as opposed to being orderable, or just having the spec available). Bill.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Need PDP boards identified

by danburrows＠mindspring.com

> M7904 - Not listed in the Field Guide > Hex-Height > 40-pin ribbon cable sticking out the side M7904-00 RK611 DRIVE INTERFACE,HEX > NDLV-11 > netcom products, inc. > copyright jan. 1979 More than likely another DLV11 clone. It is amazing how many different ones I have encountered. > MSI-11 (c)1978 > Andromeda Systems Inc > faded sticker on handle says 'MUX1' and 'MUX3' the rest is to > faded to read http://www.andromedasystems.com/ if all else fails >A two board set from Plessey Peripheral Systems connected via a 50-pin >ribbon cable. The top board (P/N 703580) has 8 LEDs and a 10-pin >connector. The bottom board (P/N 703570) has 4 26-pin connectors and a >roughly 66-pin connector (not sure its exact size). The only thing I can >think of is some kind of drive controller. The MMI has a few listed and has them described as memory module.

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

Yes, but there were three versions, at least, one being the Rockwell, one being the MOS-Technology , and the third was the Synertek/Western Design Center version. The VLSI Systems version was different from the Rockwell, but I don't know whether it was a completely different one or whether it fell in with one of the others. UMC made one, as did MITSUBISHI, however. I don't know where they fit in either. Do you? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 3:14 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Allison J Parent wrote: > >> The 6502 series ahd all sorts of undocumented opcodes and they tended to >> change with later versions. > >The 65C02 version effectively ended the regular 6502 undocumented opcodes >since it added a few new instructions and some new addressing modes for >existing instructions that took on the opcodes of some of the previously >undocumented ones. > >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: 04/03/99] >

27 years, 3 months

3
3
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<Wow, you have a TMS1000 based micro? What the heck is it? ;) Kids... TMS1000 was a 4bit single chip cpu from the 70s aand it was used to make toys, games and even timers for microwaves. A system around that chip might be a phone with memory and redial or a VCR timer. It did not have an external address or data bus nor were there eprom versions. I have numerous products with tms1000, COP4, uCOM4, uCOM75 series single chip CPUs. Allison

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Apple HAL XEBEC controller

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 17, 12:26, Richard Erlacher wrote: > Subject: Re: Apple HAL XEBEC controller > Xebec made a number of "specialized" bridge controllers, which fit between > the host adapter, which is what you've described, in this case possibly > intended to go to a compatible version of their 14xx-series controllers > which, in turn, provides a SCSI interface to an ST506 drive, which you > apparently have on hand. Yes, though AFAIK all the Xebec controllers of that era are SASI, not SCSI. > It is likely that the 26-pin connector is to the Apple II version of SCSI > which was put out back then on a 25-pin DB-25 connector. Sounds logical. Anyone got the pinouts? -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

OT: Religious Festivals (was:Re: Fwd: H8 Enthusiasts)

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

> Just back from Warschau (Poland) - Thanks. And BTW: since Karfreitag Where? Oh, you mean Warszawa. Warsaw. ;-) > (Easter Friday sp?) I'm a proud owner of a H8 - I went to Swizerland The Friday before Easter is called Good Friday. I've never managed to work out what "kar" means in your name for it. My favourite, though is Ascension, which I understand you call Himmelfahrt... > with an empty car an came back with some kind of a wight problem, > including an H8 and an Compupro 286 (an S100 286 wit 4 Z80), just > to find aout that I had no Swiss power adaptor at hand (thy use a > different connector)... Sounds fun! Philip.

27 years, 3 months

17
44
0 0

Memory feature ?

by lwalker＠mail.interlog.com

While browsing I ran across a post which set me giggling. It was from a Power Mac user who was fed up cause his 200mhz 192Meg machine kept coming up with "out of memory" errors. In the replies it was stated that OS 8.1 and 8.5 were known to have "memory leaks". Heh, heh, heh. I'm reminded of the 4k memory in my Vic-20 or Gates' oft-quoted statement regarding the more than enough 640k MSDOS. ciao larry lwalker(a)interlog.com Collectors List and info http://members.xoom.com/T3C

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

How to read recalcitrant floppies?

by mike＠delos.rain.com

On 17 Apr 99, at 11:52, Ethan Dicks wrote: > Are there any tools to go divining on DOS floppies that work better than > an endless succession of "R"etries? There's a new program called Lost and Found that's supposed to be able to recover data from problem disks. I haven't actually used it myself, but you can read the manufacturer's claims at www.powerquest.com. ----------------------------------------------------- Mike Newman INTERNET: mike(a)delos.rain.com Aloha, Oregon USA -or- mikewnewman(a)earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~mikewnewman ----------------------------------------------------- I met a mine foreman who has a piece of coal with a 1909 gold sovereign in it. I saw an ammonite, apparently squashed in the fossil footprint of a sandal.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

Because of unbelieveably foolish, inane, silly comments like the one you just made, the investigative nature of this problem has been pushed aside if favor of what's really just a game. You've already admitted that you don't even have the totally irrelevant processor you initially claimed you'd use, not that it matters, since that comparison is of no value or interest with respect to the problem at hand. Just read the subject of the email you've been answering. I'm not interested in getting into the equivalent of a virtual computer "tractor pull." I can leave that to the rednecks with the room-temperature IQ's without feeling any loss. However, since the late 1970's there's been this nagging question about the relative merits of two essentially opposed approaches to computer architecture, and a serious attempt to make a comparison without the underlying motive of trying to sell hardware or software has really never been made. I suppose it's because it really doesn't profit anyone to make this comparison at this juncture, except perhaps the incipient 12-year-old lurking within us all. Your comparison would be accurate, perhaps, if it took only a couple of days' effort and parts we all probably have lying about anyway to build that formula-1 car you refer to, but if a person wants to perform a valid test, there has got to be suitable hardware. Now, there are lots of plain-vanilla-flavored microcomputers with a Z-80 at their hear. However, almost all the 6502-based computers were really designed for the video-toy market and only find themselves able to serve as computer only as an afterthought. The Apple-II is probably a prime example. It would be acceptable to run a comparative exercise on the two processors if some valid basis for the comparison could be determined. Hans Franke came up with a proposed means for evaluating the validity of each arrangement. Unfortunately, this requires a test system be prepared, with a suite of test software and some specialized hardware. It also requires that each system-under-test be equipped with compatible hardware. I find this proposal valid, but quite a way off the mark, in that it makes the test almost completely hardware dependent. My take on this test would be to permit development and execution of the algorithm ultimately deemed most appropriate for this test on whatever hardware the programmer has at his/her disposal. It should be as limited in its hardware requirements as possible, i.e. it should not matter whether the program is written for a TIMEX Sinclair, or a CRAY MPX with simulation capability. The sum total of the resources involved in the code limited to an amount of memory common to all the contestant systems, and a console interface common to all as well. Code for interacting with the system console need not be considered, so long as it is entered with a call to a routine requiring NO preparation prior to the call. That means you must call a routine to make the console I/O preparations before calling the console I/O routine itself. The time for the first call and return made within the contestant's code is to be included in the competition, but subsequent action is not. However, the called console I/O code must be provided in order to show that no task-related effort is being made by the console handling routine. This is simple with a terminal, but not so simple with a device having resident video and keyboard I/O. Hans Franke suggested this test be performed on a system like the KIM-1. It is probably achievable in one. It must be so limited that no one system can outperform another just because of its resources. The comparison is between the processors, not the systems in which they reside. The code applicable to the contest can be evaluated for its consumption of processor cycles and relative timing computed from that. However, a lowest common denominator with respect to resources must be applied in the strictest sense. All of this monitoring and calculation can be eliminated, however, if each contestant simply builds a simple system with a full compliment (whatever that is determined to be) of memory, and both of the subject processors can use only 64K of memory. The resources implicit in the processor design shouldn't be an issue as that's part of what's being compared. Consequently it must be inherently permissible to use as much stack as needed without being penalized in any way, provided that falls within the designated limits. Again, such limitations go away if everybody runs their processor in 64K of RAM/ROM with only the one I/O device. Doesn't this make more sense than having a "tractor-pull" between computers? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 18, 1999 12:10 AM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote: > >> I want to distance myself from the majority of this nonsense. Building a > >Well, since you launched us all into this nonsense its pretty hypocritical >of you to want to back away from it now. > >> simple computer with a processor, a ROM, a full compliment of RAM, and a >> serial console interface is a 10-minute design and a 90-minute fabrication >> task. If it's designed to fit already existing firmware/software, it's even >> more or less practical to fit it into that firmware or software's >> understanding of what the hardware is that fits with it. That means that an >> operating system might be straighforward to accomplish in a day or two if >> there's software in the form of a decent monitor or OS to support it. > >Sure! Let's have a driving contest to see who can drive the fastest, but >first we all have to build our own cars. THAT MAKES AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF >SENSE! > >> implementation. I'm sure most people in any way familiar with the things we >> had to do back in the '70's will agree, that, from a hardware standpoint, >> building a single-board system with 64K SRAM, Whatever size of EPROM you >> like, overlapping it and disabled when copied into RAM, and a serial port is >> a no-brainer, requiring , as I previously said, about 90 minutes to >> wire-wrap. It might take longer if you have to find the parts. If you use > >Sure, and open heart surgery is a pretty straightforward operation for an >experienced doctor, but we're not all experienced doctors. > >Dick, you're amazing. > >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: 04/03/99] >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Apple HAL XEBEC controller

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 18, 4:51, Sellam Ismail wrote: > Oops, sorry. I misread that. I'll let you off :-) I do that all the time... > > looks like it's just boot/driver code, so I think there must be some other > > way to format the (winchester) drive. > > You are correct. Generally the Xebec interfaces were used with the Sider > hard drives (at least those are the only drives I've ever seen them > used with) and they came with utilities on floppies for partitioning and > formatting the drive. I've seen Xebecs with all sorts of drives (but not on Apples). But unlike Adaptec SCSI copntrollers, the Xebec ones never stored the drive geometry on the drive, so you had to put it in a file to be read by your code (or hardwire it into your code, which is a bit limiting). I remember writing a pile of 6502 code for a BBC Micro to handle that. > I don't think this is SASI since the actual hard drive is a ST-225 or > equivalent. More like MFM. Well, sure, the drive would be MFM (or whatever the particular Xebec controller was intended for). I don't have the Xebec controller that came with this particular Apple interface; I was just hoping I could use this Apple interface with one of the spare Xebecs I have in the junk box. > I don't think I have the pinout, but then my > Sider manuals are stored away somewhere, and I don't know that they would > necessarily have any technical info for the Xebec card. > > Are you wanting to use it to hook a hard drive up to your Apple ][? Yes. I should have been clearer; I have the Apple-to-Xebec interface, and a couple of Xebec SASI controllers from elsewhere, and a few MFM drives. What I need is the pinout of the 26-pin connector on the Apple-to-Xebec interface, so I can figure out if my Xebex will connect to it. I wonder if an Adaptec ACB4000 would work? I've got a couple of those, too. Was there a standard pinout on Apple SCSI/SASI boards? Perhaps it's the same as the Mac 25-pin SCSI? -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, you'd have to be careful to avoid mixing up the timing in the system intrinsics to be "postulated" and the contest-specific code. How would that be handled? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 3:14 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >It was thus said that the Great Mike Ford once stated: >> >> >Ooh! A machine code competition. I'm in! I'll do the 6502 and whoop >> >EVERYONE'S ass! >> >> And then you woke up. First what are the rules, 6502 or 65C02, code in Rom >> or Ram, what is the code supposed to do? >> >> My vote goes for something with some graphical element so we can "see" what >> is happening. (spinning ball, etc.) > > I would vote against that because the hardware available might make a >difference. For instance, moving an object on a 6502 based system, the C-64 >will probably win both the speed and size catagories, simply because of >hardware assist. Besides, if this is to match code/speed size between CPUs, >then not all machines are capable of graphics. > > The Roman Numeral one sounds interesting. To make it fair, I would assume >that there exists a routine, CHROUT, that takes as input the character in >the main accumulator and displays it on the output device. The output >device is a simple TTY like device that supports TAB, CR (which returns the >print head to the start of the line, and advances to the next line) and BS. > > The code for CHROUT is NOT to be counted towards speed or size, but I'd >probably allow the call to CHROUT to be considered. > > Contest open for any CPU anyone would care to write code for. > > -spc (Hows that for a contest?) >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Filler panels for a DEC MINC-11?

by jimw＠agora.rdrop.com

The subject just about says it all... I just rescued one from the Paxton auction, and one of the filler panels in the lab module section is missing. Anyone got a spare? (or some neat modules? or some docs... or....) -jim --- jimw(a)computergarage.org The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

If one were going to put an FDC in place, the easiest probably would be the WD3765, since it has built in cable-drivers and receivers as well as clock/data processing hardware. You connect it directly to the cable, as I recall. It otherwise behaves as a uPD765 (i8272). 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, April 17, 1999 10:06 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing ><Western Digital disk controllers are a little harder to get, so I'd ><change it to 'a disk controller of your choice' which means you can use ><an 8272 or whatever (trivial to get off an old PC card). > >1793s are common enough and cheap too. If I went with the 765 (8272) >I have to claim unfair advantage! > ><Considering you can make a serial port in a couple of chips, this is not ><a major design task.... > >But it's overhead is trivial and well enough understood as to mean little. > >IT would be more of a challenge if each person supporting a processor had >to use a different one. That would be a true learning experience. > >As to hardware... I cheat. I have SBCs for most common cpus. > >1976 imp48 8048 (cute little sbc with tape IO, TTY, relays) >1977 8048 from byte 8048 (this was an 8035 with a mini front pannel) >1980 8051 8751 (basically a 8051 SBC with monitor) >1978 SC/mp ISP8A500 (sc/mp I) >1979 National TBX 8073 (SC/MP II with tiny basic) >1977 COSMAC ELF base 1802 (quest board) >1976 6800d1 6800 >1977 kim1 6502 >1983 Telvideo 905 R65c02 (card from terminal, good as SBC!) >1978 8x300 proto 8x300 (signetics) >1981 SDK78 7800 (nec propritary) >1981 78pg11 Protoboard 78pg11 (NEC propritary) >1979 Tk80 8080 >1980 explorer8085 8085 (base card has 8085, ram and rom) >1980 Computime CPUZ z80 (s100 card with 1k ram, serial, eprom z80) >1981 Vt180 Z80 (z80, 64k, 4 serial, FDC, Eprom, RTC) >1981 Hurikon MLZ92 Z80 (Z80, mmu, 64k ram, eprom, serial,FDC) >1978 INtersil sampler (6100, 256w ram, rom, serial) >1982 29116 proto 29116/2911 proto for bitblitter >1982 Z8001 proto z8001 (z8001, 16k ram, 16k eprom, serial) >1982 Falcon T-11 (pdp11 chip, ram, parallel, serial, rom) >1979 SSS technico TI9900 (9900, ram, rom, serial) >1986 Advice 78032 (uVAXII, serial, 96k ram, 512k rom) > The advice was used in 87 to assist the MV2000 design! > > All are classics, only the Advice wasn't available in '83. > > Now if I wanted to get exotic, I have a load of 2901/2911s with date > codes pre 1980. Also 29116s (pre 83). Also enough raw 8748/9 and 8751 > parts to do a major hack (maybe 50 or 60 of each). the 8749s are the > slower 1982 parts that only run at 11mhz (instruction cycle time of > 1.36uS) However with the prior to 1982 limit sthere are no sortage of > choices. > > I'm not above using multiple cpus to do the task or mixing several > different ones. > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

shipping floppy disk drives

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

I'll be shipping a few floppy disk drives soon, and want to minimize the shipping damage to them. So, is it better to ship them with the drive door open or closed? And with or without a floppy inserted? Bill.

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > The final connector, J6 is 50 pins. > > > Which pins are used on the 50 pin connector? Could it be pinned out as a > SCSI port. Or is it possibly some custom host interface? It could be a custom host interface. Among other anomalies, I don't see any terminating resistors. > For example I > have here the data sheet for the WD1001 controller. It uses essentially > the chipset you mentioned. It has a 50 pin host connector, but it sure > ain't SCSI. Can you scan that data sheet or send me a photocopy? I'd pay for copying/mailing. > 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate. Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk. > 8MHz is a common enough clock for the 8x300 series of CPUs as well. OK. > What bothers me, if this _is_ a SCSI controller is that there seems to be > no way of setting the device address. No place that I can see. > My guess is that it's a sort-of WD1001 clone. OK. That makes sense. In fact, when I read the recent debates of WD1001's, I thought of this board. I didn't think I could find it as fast as I did. It could have been packed a lot deeper than it was. Thanks for the insights. -ethan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Dumb OS question

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com

>I recently found an ancient copy of QNX, which seems to be a light unix like >OS. > >Looking on the WEB, I found that current versions are still around, but >marketed as a "Real Time" OS. The 80's documentation I have says nothing >about real time. > >My dumb question: What is a real time operating system? It's not a dumb question! It is, in some respects, a very controversial question. In very general terms, a real time operating system is what is used when a response from the computer to an external event is required in a "timely" fashion. For example, if it's a fly-by-wire jet, and the pilot pulls the control stick back, you don't want the computer to delay in making the control surfaces move because the co-pilot is doing some lengthy navigational or fuel consumption calculations at the same time. For a multi-tasking operating system, this generally means two things: 1. When an external stimulus comes in, there has to be some way of making sure it will interrupt tasks of lower priority. 2. After the higher-priority task is started, it has to finish in a fairly predictable amount of time. Depending on the nature of the real-time task and/or the person defining "real-time", you also often find some further requirements. There are also folks who split the definition into "soft real-time", where it's OK if you're occasionally late with an answer or occasionally take too long to respond, and into "hard real-time", where the computer is never ever allowed to be late in responding or answering. Traditional Unices are not, by any measure, real-time operating systems. There are Unix-like OS's that are called "real-time operating systems", but many of the "hard real-timers" will disagree with this. A more modern approach to "real-timeliness" considers not only the main CPU, but also subsidiary CPU's and systems. For example, if a response to a stimulus requires doing any disk reads or writes, you may need to thoroughly know the worst-case response time of the disk drive. Modern disk drives (or even many disk drives from a decade ago) have microprocessors in them and for a truly safety-critical application it may be necessary to thoroughly review and qualify the firmware that's in the disk drive to be sure that it will always respond in a certain minimum amount of time. Some real-time operating systems can be pressed into service as general-purpose multi-user OS's. For example, RSX-11M. Others make quite nice single-user development platforms - for example RT-11. Modern network-in-the-kernel OS's are very difficult to turn into "real-time" systems with much functionality. You ever have a NFS server go down and tie up a campus full of workstations for minutes at a time? -- 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

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

FWD: Items on auction of possible interest

by rhblake＠bigfoot.com

Do not get in touch ith me on these but rather see them on eBay and contact the seller. I know the seller and that the profits from these items get turned into donations to a group known as Ky Industries for the Blind (KIB) so that they can purchase keyboards, ram and monitors for machines they build from donations for those with sight impairments, and occasionally others with other disabiliies. _____________________________________________________________________ Rick Mayes <rmays43(a)yahoo.com> Leitchfield, KY USA - Saturday, April 17, 1999 at 17:38:53 I have the following oldies but goodies at www.Ebay.com item number title 92355306 Hewlett Packard 86, CPU, dual 5-1/4" floppy 92353685 Apple II PLUS, CPU, dual 5-1/4" floppy drive 92350927 Apple IIe, CPU, dual 5-1/4" floppy drives 92348416 6 Diablo HyType II Multistrike Film, ribbons 92251130 MacIntosh SE, CPU/Monitor 92248010 Hewlett Packard, HP 71B Mini Computer 92246567 COLORADO 250 MB Tape Back UP Drive Would the fellow that needs a ST-225 HD please email me I have one for you for whatever the shipping will be. Thanks, Rick

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

CP/M as an RTOS (was Re: Dumb OS question)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<CP/M wasn't bad for its day, and I was rather fond of it at the time <(compared to some of the feeble crap that other companies were putting It still isn't. I run a lot of stuff here using cpm and have a few projects going to add things I feel are missing like hierarchal directories. <out, such as Ohio Scientific's OS-65D), but I'd have to concur with <your assessment of it. Keep in mind that comments of it's being not an OS but a FS is subtle but totally lost of the flamers. <I've provoked some major flames myself by calling MS-DOS a feeble excuse <for a program loader. But in reality I have to admit that MS-DOS is more <functional than CP/M. However, MS-DOS loses if you compare functionality <per byte of memory consumed. By that metric, hardly anything that I've <seen would even come close to DEC's OS/8. Yep! Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<If one were going to put an FDC in place, the easiest probably would be th <WD3765, since it has built in cable-drivers and receivers as well as <clock/data processing hardware. You connect it directly to the cable, as <recall. It otherwise behaves as a uPD765 (i8272). < <Dick IT's 37c65, I have them too along with 9266 and a bunch of others I've used. To prove processor speed or implmentation that list of boards I have are sufficient resource for the task. Dog knows why I'd need a floppy to do a coding race. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

shipping floppy disk drives

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 18, 4:53, Sellam Ismail wrote: > On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Pete Turnbull wrote: > > If double-sided, then > > open with no disk is fine, so long as the mechanism can't be jolted into > > letting the upper head hit the lower one. This is pretty well true of most > > 3.5" drives, and they're usually shipped like that. > I've seen plastic shipping inserts for 3.5" drives. To be safe, I'd try > to get one of these inserts for shipping the 3.5" as well. Maybe a local > computer store would have some. I've got half-a-dozen bright yellow ones, somewhere. I once asked why Sony stopped shipping drives with them and was told it was unnecessary; I suspect it just saved money. I'd suggest soft card is better -- the point is to stop the brittle ceramic heads banging into each other and possibly chipping. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

All this OT stuff...

by steverob＠hotoffice.com

On Saturday, April 17, 1999 7:43 PM, Christian Fandt [SMTP:cfandt@netsync.net] wrote: > Upon the date 12:02 AM 4/17/99 -0700, Bruce Lane said something like: > > > > > HOWEVER -- Am I the only one getting -really- fed up with all the 'OT:' > >and 'Re: OT' subject lines and off-topic messages? > Ditto! Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

shipping floppy disk drives

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 17, 22:32, Bill Yakowenko wrote: > Subject: shipping floppy disk drives > I'll be shipping a few floppy disk drives soon, and want to minimize > the shipping damage to them. So, is it better to ship them with the > drive door open or closed? And with or without a floppy inserted? If they're single-sided, it doesn't matter much. If double-sided, then open with no disk is fine, so long as the mechanism can't be jolted into letting the upper head hit the lower one. This is pretty well true of most 3.5" drives, and they're usually shipped like that. On some 5.25" drives, though, the door or lever could be moved, so inserting a floppy and closing the door may be better. I'd suggest putting it in back-to-front (or use a sheet of thick card with a hole in the middle) to improve the cushioning effect. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Apple HAL XEBEC controller

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 17, 13:57, Sellam Ismail wrote: > Subject: Re: Apple HAL XEBEC controller > On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Pete Turnbull wrote: > > > Does it need any other software (like a formatting disk)? The on-board 4K > > EPROM contains only the strings "(C) HAL COMPUTERS LTD 1983", "A/XHAL > > SHARED RESOURCE WINCHESTER SYSTEM", "NOT CONNECTED", and "SRS ERROR", so I > > guess there would have been a floppy with it, originally. > > What in these strings leads you to believe it would have been connected to > a floppy? It was strictly a hard drive interface. Erm, nothing, Sellam. I *didn't* suggest it could *connect* to a floppy drive; I think there may have been a supplementary floppy disk containing (at least) a formatter, since those are the *only* strings in the ROM. It looks like it's just boot/driver code, so I think there must be some other way to format the (winchester) drive. I know you have a lot of Apple ][ stuff. Anything like this? Do you have a pinout for any contemporary Apple ][ SASI/SCSI interface? -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote: > see below, please. > > Dick > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ethan Dicks <ethan_dicks(a)yahoo.com> > >> 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate. > > > >Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk. > > > Nope, it's not! the right rate for 8" Winchesters is 4.34 MHz! Damn! Typo. I *know* that the 8" disk transfer rate is below 5Mhz. The recent coverage of the WD-1001's were quite explicit in that regard. -ethan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

OT Was z80 timing... 6502 timing

by jax＠tvec.net

>Ooh! A machine code competition. I'm in! I'll do the 6502 and whoop >EVERYONE'S ass! > Wait just a minute..... Since we have been discussing various "ethnic" pronunciations, I am compelled to point out that this statement may be interpeted differently than intended. As a born\bred survivor of the land of redneck, pickup truck, and chewing tobacco, I assert that a "whoop" is a loud yelling type of activity. The execution of which on someone's posterior will bring a certain confusion to your enemy ( he will think you are a fruit ), but will not render him defeated. I laughed so hard at this mental image it made me hurt. :) Try "whup" next time, as in "opening a can of whup-ass". My 2 centavos from the Republic of Texas. BTW, my money's on Tony. jax(a)tvec.net

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

Kindly give the comments interleaved with your quoted message below a look. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 2:45 AM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Mike Ford wrote: > >> >Ooh! A machine code competition. I'm in! I'll do the 6502 and whoop >> >EVERYONE'S ass! > Rules are a problem, aren't they? > >> And then you woke up. First what are the rules, 6502 or 65C02, code in Rom >> or Ram, what is the code supposed to do? > Well . . . There's the problem . . . first of all, the code's got to be executable on something everyone has got available, or it's got to be simulated on a simulator everyone has available, else there'll be a limit on interest right away . . . Then, shouldn't there be some consideration of the coding/debugging time involved? I'd lean in favor of a PC-compatible simulator. That makes the computation of actual execution time straightforward. . . and, of course, it's got to run the code on a "real" processor, not just a putative "we could build . . ." sort of thing, right? . . . well, maybe . . . Then there's the question about WHICH 6502 to use. Given a listing, it's easy enough to compute how long it takes the code to run, but which instruction set? What about undocumented features? Both these processors were famous for those. Of course, there doesn't have to be a limitation, i.e. one could consider ALL available cores. I'd propose it be a significant problem, but one which is well-defined, i.e. algorithms are published, hence the problem solution is well-defined, and I'd propose further that the same algorithm be used so we compare "apples with apples." As for the processor core, well, it's also got to be one everybody's got available, yet it wants to be one which WAS available in 1982. That might include the Synertek, MOS, and MAYBE the Rockwell core. We can't just say 65C02, because it was buillt in several conflicting versions. What about the Z-80 core? Whose? Which one? Speed, of course, should be "limited" to whatever was available in 1982. That certainly includes the Synertek (MOS Technology-comptible)"4MHz" 6502C (always worked fine at 5 MHz by then), as well as the Zilog Z-80B (6-MHz). Was the 8MHz part out in 1982? > >> My vote goes for something with some graphical element so we can "see" what >> is happening. (spinning ball, etc.) Whereas this might be "cute" it is very limiting, in that it has to be a graphics-capable environment available with both processors. It should not "fall" conveniently for either processor, so the graphics array should be large, and, AFAIK there's no such system for either processor. What should be done, here? Should we build a board? How do we measure how fast it's going? Remember, the hardware environment has to be more or less the same for both processors. >BRING IT ON, MO FO! > >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: 04/03/99] >

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by edick＠idcomm.com

see below, please. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Ethan Dicks <ethan_dicks(a)yahoo.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 8:17 PM Subject: Re: Ancient disk controllers > > >--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > The final connector, J6 is 50 pins. >> > >> Which pins are used on the 50 pin connector? Could it be pinned out as a >> SCSI port. Or is it possibly some custom host interface? > >It could be a custom host interface. Among other anomalies, I don't see >any terminating resistors. > >> For example I >> have here the data sheet for the WD1001 controller. It uses essentially >> the chipset you mentioned. It has a 50 pin host connector, but it sure >> ain't SCSI. > >Can you scan that data sheet or send me a photocopy? I'd pay for >copying/mailing. > >> 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate. > >Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk. Nope, it's not! the right rate for 8" Winchesters is 4.34 MHz! >> 8MHz is a common enough clock for the 8x300 series of CPUs as well. That's true enough. >OK. > >> What bothers me, if this _is_ a SCSI controller is that there seems to be >> no way of setting the device address. > >No place that I can see. > >> My guess is that it's a sort-of WD1001 clone. It predated the WD1001 by some time. >OK. That makes sense. In fact, when I read the recent debates of >WD1001's, I thought of this board. I didn't think I could find it >as fast as I did. It could have been packed a lot deeper than it >was. > >Thanks for the insights. > >-ethan > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Bad form...

by mbg＠world.std.com

... to follow up to one's own posts, but I've done a little more research and I suspect that the Megalink boards are some sort of network board. I had originally been informed that they were some sort of video capture board... Anyway, now all I need to do is get some programming info about them. 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 | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

How to read recalcitrant floppies?

by marvin＠rain.org

Ethan Dicks wrote: > > I am attempting to back up some floppies from a project I did a few years ago. > The sets of 3.5" 1.44Mb IBM floppies have been stored in a box, in a cool and > dry room. Out of one set of 12 and one set of 15 disks, I have four disks > that have read errors that DOS won't get past, bad sectors and the like. One program I have used with a great deal of success is Spinrite.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Another identification needed...

by mbg＠world.std.com

I have a few more boards which need identification. Again, the scans can be found at ftp://ftp.std.com/ftp/pub/mbg/scans/computrol_30-0096_7.jpg it is a two-board set. There is an over-the-top connecting cable and a thin cable with a bnc connector on the end. One board is labelled 'Memory Map Megalink 1' and 'dma bus' and the other is labelled 'Memory Map Megalink 2' and 'datacom'. They're qbus boards, but with no switches for setting addresses and/or vectors. Can anyone identify the pair of boards? Thanks in advance... 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 | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by edick＠idcomm.com

My understanding prior to buying these controllers was that they were incompatible with the WD1000 and 1001 series, and were not SASI or SCSI either, thought they purportedly had a similar handshake. Beyond that, I need to find and subsequently read the documents. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 7:28 PM Subject: Re: Ancient disk controllers >> include a N8X305N processor, some N82S181N ROMs, an N8X371N with leads going >> right to the 50-pin connector, and five socketed WDC parts copyrighted in 1980: >> WD1100V-03, WD1100V-01, WD1100V-04, WD1100V-05 and WD1100V-12. There is a >... >> As I said, I was told when I bought it that it was a SCSI controller. I >> remember trying to use it some years ago and not having much success. Does >> anyone have any info on this oddball? > >Sounds like a clone of the WD1000 or WD1001, which are nowhere close to >either SASI or SCSI.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<Western Digital disk controllers are a little harder to get, so I'd <change it to 'a disk controller of your choice' which means you can use <an 8272 or whatever (trivial to get off an old PC card). 1793s are common enough and cheap too. If I went with the 765 (8272) I have to claim unfair advantage! <Considering you can make a serial port in a couple of chips, this is not <a major design task.... But it's overhead is trivial and well enough understood as to mean little. IT would be more of a challenge if each person supporting a processor had to use a different one. That would be a true learning experience. As to hardware... I cheat. I have SBCs for most common cpus. 1976 imp48 8048 (cute little sbc with tape IO, TTY, relays) 1977 8048 from byte 8048 (this was an 8035 with a mini front pannel) 1980 8051 8751 (basically a 8051 SBC with monitor) 1978 SC/mp ISP8A500 (sc/mp I) 1979 National TBX 8073 (SC/MP II with tiny basic) 1977 COSMAC ELF base 1802 (quest board) 1976 6800d1 6800 1977 kim1 6502 1983 Telvideo 905 R65c02 (card from terminal, good as SBC!) 1978 8x300 proto 8x300 (signetics) 1981 SDK78 7800 (nec propritary) 1981 78pg11 Protoboard 78pg11 (NEC propritary) 1979 Tk80 8080 1980 explorer8085 8085 (base card has 8085, ram and rom) 1980 Computime CPUZ z80 (s100 card with 1k ram, serial, eprom z80) 1981 Vt180 Z80 (z80, 64k, 4 serial, FDC, Eprom, RTC) 1981 Hurikon MLZ92 Z80 (Z80, mmu, 64k ram, eprom, serial,FDC) 1978 INtersil sampler (6100, 256w ram, rom, serial) 1982 29116 proto 29116/2911 proto for bitblitter 1982 Z8001 proto z8001 (z8001, 16k ram, 16k eprom, serial) 1982 Falcon T-11 (pdp11 chip, ram, parallel, serial, rom) 1979 SSS technico TI9900 (9900, ram, rom, serial) 1986 Advice 78032 (uVAXII, serial, 96k ram, 512k rom) The advice was used in 87 to assist the MV2000 design! All are classics, only the Advice wasn't available in '83. Now if I wanted to get exotic, I have a load of 2901/2911s with date codes pre 1980. Also 29116s (pre 83). Also enough raw 8748/9 and 8751 parts to do a major hack (maybe 50 or 60 of each). the 8749s are the slower 1982 parts that only run at 11mhz (instruction cycle time of 1.36uS) However with the prior to 1982 limit sthere are no sortage of choices. I'm not above using multiple cpus to do the task or mixing several different ones. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

OT Was z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<In a _programming_ contest? Surely you jest... (or rather, don't waste <your hypothetical money)... < <Although, if I'm allowed to use _any_ processor, including one I've <designed myself, then things might get mildly more interesting... Oh, I could do that. My spin would be a PDP-8 with hardware of my own making. At one time I had static ram card in an 8e with hacked cpu timing (1uS cycle without trying hard). Then again the list of CPUs I have programmed on is long enough to know which ones to pick for what. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

OT: K&R vs. ANSI C (was: Re: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?...)

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

Actually, yes, I presently maintain (and develop) code for a living.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

shipping floppy disk drives

by SUPRDAVE＠aol.com

In a message dated 99-04-17 22:35:42 EDT, you write: > I'll be shipping a few floppy disk drives soon, and want to minimize > the shipping damage to them. So, is it better to ship them with the > drive door open or closed? And with or without a floppy inserted? ive always shipped drives with a floppy inserted if i dont have the original cardboard/plastic shipping disk. since the heads are clamped down on the disk, supposedly that would minimize damage from movement or rough handling by idiot delivery companies that never treat anything with care.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Signal detection

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

On 16 Apr 1999, Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser(a)oa.ptloma.edu> wrote: ] ... ] ::Could anyone tell me how a radio detects signals vs. static? There is a ] ... ] Probably signal strength. Undoubtedly really loud static would trip it also ] but your garden-variety radio static just isn't that loud. It's a shame that wouldn't work on a mailing list. Getting lots of noise lately. :-/ Bill.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

OT: City Names

by yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu

On 16 Apr 1999, Philip.Belben(a)pgen.com wrote: ] (I have somewhere a Yugoslavian banknote. Everything is written on it in four ] local languages - two using Cyrillic and two using Latin characters. The ] languages are similar enough that AFAIK nothing needs to be said more than ] three times...) Take a look an Indian rupee sometime. Each note is printed in eleven languages, each with its own script. (Though to me, two or three look pretty darn similar to Hindi.) To try and drag this back to a somewhat related topic, we often hear about computers from North America, Europe, Russia, and Australia. But is anyone here collecting machines from any more "exotic" places? Are there any cool classic machines indiginous to any country from the Middle East, Africa, South America, or South or East Asia? It would be nifty to compare architectures that were not just clones or incremental improvements of machines we already know about. Heck, I know Japan produced a lot of their own computers. Were they all clones of machines we know (or vice-versa)? Bill.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Ok, the environment is any home micro from the 70s or 80s that ran on any > > processor. The more rudimentary the processor, the more points you get. > > I choose the 4004. > > You have a _home micro_ based on a 4004? What the heck is it? I always wanted to implement a binary clock on the 4004. I never got around to it. Has anyone written a 4004 simulator in some flavor of C? (I recall a recent announcement about a simulator in a language other than one that I use on a regular basis). -ethan -ethan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

The recent postings regarding old disk controllers has caused me to dig out one I got at Dayton many years ago. I bought it for the external box, something I didn't have at the time... it appears to be a SCSI card, but might be a SASI card. It was made by Davong Systems, Inc., a company I remember from my younger days. The copyright is 1982, but there are chips on it from 1983. On the back are numbers like 0034 REV (J1) K 310026 170. The J1 is scratched out and the K handwritten. The 170 is also handwritten. On the long end in copper is the number 11-000034 REV E. Connector J2 and J1 are together on one side of the long end (J1 is 34-pins with half of them grounds, J2 is 20 pins with pins 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 and 20 grounded). J3, J4 and J5 are in line on a short end, 20 pins each, similar ground pattern to J2. J2 through J5 appear to have connections to a Motorola AM26LS32 and a TI AM26LS31 which I take to be some sort of analog chip. The final connector, J6 is 50 pins. J1 appears to be the control cable for an ST506 drive, J2-J5 appear to be data cables for talking to four drives. The interesting chips on the board include a N8X305N processor, some N82S181N ROMs, an N8X371N with leads going right to the 50-pin connector, and five socketed WDC parts copyrighted in 1980: WD1100V-03, WD1100V-01, WD1100V-04, WD1100V-05 and WD1100V-12. There is a crystal at 20Mhz in the analog section of the board and an 8Mhz crystal by the processor. In the middle of the board are three vias that are labelled as if they are configuration pads, in an inverted-L, labelled "1", "2" and "3", with a "W" above them, As I said, I was told when I bought it that it was a SCSI controller. I remember trying to use it some years ago and not having much success. Does anyone have any info on this oddball? Thanks, -ethan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

I don't really care what's done here, but I thought the object was to see which of the two processors in the "subject" field would make for faster execution of a useful and published algorithm than the other. It's necessary that the algorithm be implementable on similarly equipped platforms, whether they exist physically or not. The limitation is that it must be timed as executed on a device from one of the two processor types in question, and physically available in 1982-83 as that's the time-frame about which the discussion preceding this coding exercise was centered. There's no point in specifying it for an Apple-II, because that one didn't even run the processor at the current maximum rate due to its overlap with video display refresh timing, and because it would involve too much unrelated design and construction effort to come up with a suitable substitute implemented using a Z-80. Consequently I proposed one wire his own computer using the processor, 64K of static ram, and a serial port of some type TBD. Maybe, just for the exercise, a file device, e.g. a floppy disk controller ala WD1770/72 ought to be included. That's got to be hashed out for sure, if it's to be realized in hardware. Problems potentially lie in the path, however, as some of the hardware may be scarce if availalble at all. A suitable port for attaching a terminal or PC ought to be included, but only in its most basic form. That way, when the builder is finished, he has an item he could possibly use for something, should he choose to do so. This can all get to be a mite burdensome when all you wanted was to see what the fastest or most efficient code one could come up with would look like, which I why I suggested a simulator. The only problem with that is that one could then write and assemble code which didn't in reality do what it claimed because the I/O wasn't simulated as well. This requires some more thought. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 2:22 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote: > >> Well . . . There's the problem . . . first of all, the code's got to be >> executable on something everyone has got available, or it's got to be >> simulated on a simulator everyone has available, else there'll be a limit on >> interest right away . . . Then, shouldn't there be some consideration of >> the coding/debugging time involved? I'd lean in favor of a PC-compatible >> simulator. That makes the computation of actual execution time >> straightforward. . . > >Not necessarily. You measure the code based on an analysis of the clock >ticks it uses. This way the competition is platform independent. Of >course a suitably platform independent code spec would need to be >developed. > >> . Then there's the question about WHICH 6502 to use. Given a listing, it's >> easy enough to compute how long it takes the code to run, but which >> instruction set? What about undocumented features? Both these processors >> were famous for those. Of course, there doesn't have to be a limitation, >> i.e. one could consider ALL available cores. > >This would not be limited to the 6502. The idea is to see who can come up >with the most efficient algorithm on any processor. > >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: 04/03/99] >

27 years, 3 months

3
3
0 0

Ancient disk controllers

by edick＠idcomm.com

I've got one or two of these DAVONG controllers, as well as some of the documentation. I bought them as spare parts for the Western Digital controllers I liked better. Since they had the 8X305 and the requisite current injection valve transistor (don't ask me about that!. . . it's characteristic of I2L logic, I'm told.) and similar varistors, I thought the couple of bucks for the controllers was worth it. I bought the boxes and supplies for useful applications, though the boxes were odd enough never to find them. If you have questions, I may be able to help, but I've never read the doc on these so be patient. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Ethan Dicks <ethan_dicks(a)yahoo.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 6:18 PM Subject: Ancient disk controllers > >The recent postings regarding old disk controllers has caused me to dig out >one I got at Dayton many years ago. I bought it for the external box, >something I didn't have at the time... it appears to be a SCSI card, but >might be a SASI card. > >It was made by Davong Systems, Inc., a company I remember from my younger >days. The copyright is 1982, but there are chips on it from 1983. On the >back are numbers like 0034 REV (J1) K 310026 170. The J1 is scratched out >and the K handwritten. The 170 is also handwritten. On the long end in >copper is the number 11-000034 REV E. > >Connector J2 and J1 are together on one side of the long end (J1 is 34-pins >with half of them grounds, J2 is 20 pins with pins 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 and 20 >grounded). J3, J4 and J5 are in line on a short end, 20 pins each, similar >ground pattern to J2. J2 through J5 appear to have connections to a Motorola >AM26LS32 and a TI AM26LS31 which I take to be some sort of analog chip. >The final connector, J6 is 50 pins. > >J1 appears to be the control cable for an ST506 drive, J2-J5 appear to be >data cables for talking to four drives. The interesting chips on the board >include a N8X305N processor, some N82S181N ROMs, an N8X371N with leads going >right to the 50-pin connector, and five socketed WDC parts copyrighted in 1980: >WD1100V-03, WD1100V-01, WD1100V-04, WD1100V-05 and WD1100V-12. There is a >crystal at 20Mhz in the analog section of the board and an 8Mhz crystal by >the processor. In the middle of the board are three vias that are labelled >as if they are configuration pads, in an inverted-L, labelled "1", "2" and >"3", with a "W" above them, > >As I said, I was told when I bought it that it was a SCSI controller. I >remember trying to use it some years ago and not having much success. Does >anyone have any info on this oddball? > >Thanks, > >-ethan > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<65C02, because it was buillt in several conflicting versions. What about <the Z-80 core? Whose? Which one? Speed, of course, should be "limited" t <whatever was available in 1982. That certainly includes the Synertek (MOS In 1982 all of the z80s in the market had the same hidden features including the IX/IY 8bit ops. I know of no z80 that didn't have them. Not all of them were available to the 6mhz spec though many could be pushed. Also allowed is the 8085 (available as a 5-6mhz part then). Again all of the 8085s had the extra unsupported instructions as they were deem important! Allison

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

How to read recalcitrant floppies?

by jhfine＠idirect.com

aaaaa >Ethan Dicks wrote: > I am attempting to back up some floppies from a project I did a few years ago. > The sets of 3.5" 1.44Mb IBM floppies have been stored in a box, in a cool and > dry room. Out of one set of 12 and one set of 15 disks, I have four disks > that have read errors that DOS won't get past, bad sectors and the like. Jerome Fine replies: You don't mention if the bad sectors are in the data or the file structure. Also, if in the data, would a partial recovery of the file be acceptable? Also, out of 2880 blocks for each 3.5" 1.44 MByte floppy, about how many sectors (blocks) are bad? While I can't help much with hardware recovery techniques, I can guarantee that you can use RT-11 to at least write (copy) each diskette onto a second copy with only the bad sectors not copied across. If all the bad sectors are in the data files, you will at least recover as much of the file as possible. Sometimes in RT-11, blocks that are mostly bad can be encouraged to be duplicated by repeated attempts. The copy utilities (PIP or DUP) have a switch to repeat the read until it completely fails OR to IGNORE failures and continue. I don't remember if a DEVICE copy has that feature, but if you say you are willing to try RT-11, I can help guide you through the process. What OS on what hardware will you read the 3.5" floppy. If it is a PC under W95 (I use it only to do e-mail - not by choice), there are very good tools to help. Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine RT-11/TSX-PLUS User/Addict

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

z80 timing... 6502 timing

by edick＠idcomm.com

This must be something different from what we had at the beginning, as the constraints were for production processors commercially available in 1982-1983 and in either the Z-80 or 6502 architecture families. The reason for this is obvious. It has got to be possible to run the code in a real device in the "here and now" timeframe. Otherwise one could simply say well, "I wrote this code for the XYZ at 24.576 GHz and the whole program requires only one instruction." Further constraint should be that the author must own a running system capable of running the subject software on it in the native processor. This system must consist of components commercially available during or before the subject time period, i.e. 1983. Thirdly, it should be proven by replication (successful execution of the submitted code set on another computer not necessarily owned by the author of the submitted software) that this fete is achievable with the code set submitted. A simulator or even some fancier assemblers can be used to indicate the execution time. It's not desirable to include processors which don't exist yet in any comparison purported to be a timing comparison between Z-80 and 6502. That doesn't mean you can't look at whatever else someone might submit for general inspection and interest, but we do want to have a well-defined goal. -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 5:27 PM Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing >On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Tony Duell wrote: > >> > Contest open for any CPU anyone would care to write code for. >> >> Including one that I've designed? In which case, how general-purpose does >> it have to be? I have half an idea to make a state machine that does >> binary -> roman conversions, but not anything else. I suspect I could get >> it rather fast, though. > >Sure, why not! That would be great. > >> (Yes, that's cheating. I know it's cheating. But it's not specifically >> disallowed by the above). > >I don't think anyone should have to be handicapped. Of course, you'll >have to demonstrate that it actually work, although I have no doubt you >can and will :) > >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: 04/03/99] >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Dumb OS question

by jolminkh＠nsw.bigpond.net.au

I recently found an ancient copy of QNX, which seems to be a light unix like OS. Looking on the WEB, I found that current versions are still around, but marketed as a "Real Time" OS. The 80's documentation I have says nothing about real time. My dumb question: What is a real time operating system? Hans Olminkhof

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb