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

by danburrows＠mindspring.com

> >>Try to get some 'plastic weld'. It's a solvent for the sort of plastic >>used on these panels, and you can weld the broken bit back in place. It's >>normally a very strong repair. > >Thanks... I'll keep that in mind... Megan: since you are taking chemistry get a small bottle of methylene chloride. It works wonders as a plastic glue. At the EPA we made aquariums out of Plexiglas and used it for gluing the panels together. You will want a 50 or a 100 microliter syringe to dispense it also. Dan

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

It's not about and indirect table jump, it's about an indirect INDEXED table jump. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Dwight Elvey <elvey(a)hal.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 11:12 AM Subject: Re[2]: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) >allisonp(a)world.std.com (Allison J Parent) wrote: >> <I knew somebody woudl come up with a good example. That 6809 code is <snip> >> the kinds of things a PC (or other general purpose computer) would. > >Hi > Even the 4004 had an indirect table jump, so what is all the >noise about. >Dwight >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I knew somebody woudl come up with a good example. That 6809 code is <probably the closest thing I've seen in a micro. The 8051 uses a similar <approach, pointing to the table with the datapointer and uses the The 8051 is very ugly in other places. Then there are the NEC uPD 78xx series that are similar in register layout to z80 but code wise, not close. They have a table lookup instructions for that exact task. They are targetted as rom based controllers and code efficientcy is a requirement but often controller don't need to preocess the kinds of things a PC (or other general purpose computer) would. The z280 has a load address inscrtuction that makes the setup for an indexed jump easier. The PDP-11 did it on one instuction but it has some very powerful addressing modes. Indirection and indexing are natural to that part. However in CPUs righer in register than the 6502, the task would be done far differently. It's a different programming style and it does impact code structure. For example a set of operations that can be done requiring multiple (say a dozen) 16bit parameters to be passed are easily done on even 8080 but the 6502 has to do that as indexed list in ram and pass the pointer to the list if you want to be efficient. It's possible to structure a problem such that any cpu looks good or bad. Generally an application is far more than a trivial few instructions. Look at the PDP-8 which is both register poor and has an instruction set that small is far from adaquate to describe. Yet it performs tasks efficiently in small amounts of core that some cpus can't. The 6809 example would be in PDP-8... / enter here with uart data DCA pindex / store index value at pindex JMP I,INDEX / indirect jump via index (could have been a JMS, jump / subroutine!) Execution time for an 8E (1973) would have been under 8uS if both instuction used indirect addressing. As written it would be 7.6uS. Now the 6502 at 2mhz would have done it in what? < They (DEC) did make the uVax-II as a chipset for interfacing to their <BI-bus, I believe, so that might qualify as well. The DEC chipset probabl <didn't sell for what a 6809 costs, even the faster part, and certainly not <the $0.86 I last saw on the 4MHz Rockwell 65C02. ?????? UvaxII was not for interfacing the BI, that was a dedicated chipset. The uVAXII was a single chip (extended FPU and DMA were companions). UvaxII was only remotely related to BI bus. The statment doesn't parse. <I'm not surprised that it was in the 6809 that this instruction came up. <The 6809 showed lots of promise at first, but once it was in hand, one <clearly could see that it would be MUCH easier going with the MC68008 if on <had to use an 8-bit bus. I never had the opportunity to write in a the 6809 was a bridge part while waiting for the 68K. Still it was a good part. <high-level language for the 6809, but I was told it should have been quite <easy to write a high-quality efficient compiler for it because of its <repertioire of instructions and addressing modes. I turned out literally Nearly as good as the PDP-11. FYI both the 6809 and the 68k had heavy PDP-11 and vax influences. Allison

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

C for 6502

by jfoust＠threedee.com

At 08:55 PM 4/11/99 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote: >On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote: > >> Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? > >Aztec C for the Apple ][, for one. I'm sure there were others. I remember buying a C compiler for my Commodore 64 in '83 or so, made by a student at a university in Waterloo, Ontario. My brain is strained to remember the name, though. Aztec C was a popular compiler for the Amiga, too. Wondering what happened to the primary programmer there, who I knew quite well in the Amiga heyday, I found his web page at <http://www.oro.net/~jimg/>. Presto, he's still selling a C compiler for the 65816. He was once involved with the post-Amiga VISCorp set-top effort, and previously unknown to me, was at Bell Labs Murray Hill in '77-79, and wrote a Unix disk driver for the port to the PDP-11/34, and a tiny C for the KIM-1 and Apple II. - John

27 years, 3 months

4
7
0 0

Don Lancaster was Re: Ebay Mark-8 Plans

by SUPRDAVE＠aol.com

In a message dated 12/04/99 10:29:53 Eastern Daylight Time, jfoust(a)threedee.com writes: << VCF has a generous travel fund, fueled by Intel, Paul Allen, and auctions of antique computer wiring harnesses on eBay. In fact, any member of this mailing list is eligible for grants of up to $1,500 for travel and lodging purposes, if you wish to attend. >> hmmm,. i'd love to go. how does one take advantage of this?

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

You're certain right . . . it is a dead horse . . . killed by the insistence that 750 ns < 250 ns. Dick -----Original Message----- From: allisonp(a)world.std.com <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 7:59 AM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) >> I didn't want to descend into the gate-level details of the CPU, but merely >> to count clocks for comparison's sake. > >Since the clocks are applied in such a different fashion the comparison is >meaningless. > >> clock ticks to access memory while a 6502 took only one. As I've said in >> previous posts, the comparison at the memory bandwidth level came out in > >Meaningless unless that is a particular requirement of an application >HARDWARE. > >> the fastest commercially available Z-80 with the fastest commercially >> available 6502, the 6502 will win by a wide margin EVERY time. Compare the >> Z80H (1983 or so) with the Synertek SYC6502C (1979) and you'll see that >> 8 MHz Z-80 can't be counted on to win the race. If you like, you can > >Your dreaming again. Seriously weve beat the dead horse and it's time to >quit. The 6502 is a good cpu but the comparisons are getting silly. > >If you really want to compare archectecture I'll take the T-11 (PDP-11 on >a 40 pin dip) @7.5mHZ and blow the both out of the water. here a part >from The same era that has all the addressing modes of the 68k and then >some and can use memory like the 6502 or z80 with its registers. Things >like position independent code, relative addressing and two address >structure are all there. the problem is the arguement is specious as I >can also use the CMOS PDP-8 part to put up as good a battle of who wins. >And getting a PDP-8 into a FPGA has been done as well. > >> compare the 8 MHz Z-80H with the Rockwell 65C102, which takes a 4x clock. >> Now it takes 4 clock ticks at 16 MHz to execute a bus cycle of any type. >> Feed it an 8 MHz clock, it will still outdistance the Z-80H. > >YEs and the z180S part takes a 33mhz clock, whats the point? CLOCKS and >counting them is meaningless unless they mean something comparable. > >> I remember what it was like trying to get delivery on 2147's back in >'81. I > >There were peole sellign 4kx1 22pinparts at near firesale prices compared >to 2147 and were near 65ns. They were of the pseudo static three voltage >generation but the y were cheap. > >> machines of the early '80's. That might be worth a look. What I want is a > >Smallc had limited optimization. I've used it for other cpus and it's fat. >I would ahve guessed that was ported to near everything but it's not a >production compiler though I guess it could be used as one. > >> I recently bought a couple of single board dedicated boards, and found that >> they had the 4 MHz Rockwell CMOS parts on them. I didn't think I'd ever see >> something like that in the scrap box. Oh well, once I've figured out the >> memory map, they'll be useful for 1-of's. > >I have 4 or 5 board from telvideo 905/955 terminals and they have 65C02s >from rockwell on them. I also have a trackstar 128 (APPLE II for PC) that >has two 65C02s. > > >Allison > > > >> >> >Allison >> > >> >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Old Nicolet boxes...

by jfoust＠threedee.com

In penance to Sam for opening the floodgates to the previously secret VCF travel fund, I reveal a link to someone at Nicolet who seems willing to talk about their line of computers. - John >From: Mike Lennon <lennon(a)nicolet.com> >To: "'John Foust'" <jfoust(a)threedee.com> >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:34:19 -0500 >Subject: RE: Old Nicolet boxes... > >I did a fair amount of engineering on the 1280 and it's operating >system. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. > >Mike Lennon

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

More Pick info (was Prime 2250)

by jlwest＠tseinc.com

Prime Infomation was certainly a pick variant - I spent a lot of time (about 7 years) on Prime's and Prime Information at AB. When pick first came out, is was what we called "vanilla" which meant that the machine booted pick - there was no other operating system. Later other manufacturers (licensees of pick systems) decided to strip out the monitor and missionary/native code architecture, and gut everything that was OSlike rather than RDBMSlike. They then put the remnants on top of some other operating system (layered rather than vanilla). Unix was common, as was DOS, Windows, PRIMOS, etc. To answer someone elses question, BASIC was the programming language (you had no choice). There was also PROC which was not that much more than batch files in DOS. Then there was the assembler. The assembler verb definition was removed from many later versions but you could define a pointer into the ABS area to call it up. BASIC was compiled into DCD or Pcode, and the result was run interpretively. The DCD/Pcode was rather elegant - it implemented a stack architecture to speed code generation and execution in RPN. At the end of each BASIC statements resulting code the state machine was completely back to its initial value. In a certain sense, each basic statement resulted in a separate DCD/Pcode subroutine that was reentrant as the symbol table and variable allocations were made out of the users workspace. All the Pick variations handle file I/O the same - I've never seen any programming language even close to pick basic in the elegance of the file/record interface. The assembler was virtual, in that the instruction set really didn't exist on any machine. So - assembly was a 3 pass process. First, the Pick assembler turned your assembler file into "virtual machine code". Then a BASIC program turned the virtual machine code into an assembler program in the native assembly language of the cpu it was running on. Finally the native assembler was run to generate executable object code. Somewhere I still have some listings where you can see the same program turn into 68000 assembler and then compile on a different machine and see each instruction turn into 8080 assembler. Nifty AND educational :) I forget if prime information was created by ex Vmark engineers, or if Universe was created by ex Prime engineers - one way or the other ;) I have to admit, next to freeBSD, Primos is a really nice OS IMHO. ISTR that the baud rates for the AMLC lines (serial cards) were controlled via the AMLC.COMI file, located on the system volume ( <SYSTEM>AMLC.COMI or <MFD 0>AMLC.COMI). This was a command input file which set the line characteristics. Can't recall if the console speed was set there, but the other serial lines were. I have a complete Primos and Prime Information manual set at the office. I'll check how to set the console speed for you. If you have no docs and are playing with the primos machine, just remember, it's "A " rather than "cd ", and "ED" rather than "vi" <grin> oh - emacs was VERY common on primos, so that might be there as well for you to use. One final note - I do NOT want to represent that I wrote the Pick operating system, or that I was on the original development team. Dick Pick and Chandru Murthi would just scream if I said I was. Pick was developed in the late 60's by those two under a government project for maintaining the data on a helicopter project. The original name (according to the US Government) for the Pick OS was G.I.R.L.S. (Generalized Information Retrieval Language). No Kidding. So - I didn't invent it, I was merely a freelance consultant who worked on modifications and enhancements to the virtual code and monitor code in the Pick OS for some of the pick licensees. Cheers! Jay West -----Original Message----- From: John Lawson <jpl15(a)netcom.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 7:43 PM Subject: PR1ME 2550 Up and Running > > > Well... it didn't hurt as much as I thought it was going to.. > >I have just run "SHUTDN ALL" after two hours of playing with PRIMOS >(on a DEC LA120 running at 300 baud... s-l-o-w...). > > I rescued this system about two months ago, and finally got tired >of it taking up space. It took about an hour to figure out where all >the cables used to go, and the Control Data SMD drive [used as a >paging and swapping drive] needed a little prodding to wake it up, >but the system boots and remembers what it was doing last time it was >on... about six years ago. > > Now to try and make the console port run at a decent speed. > > And, apropos of the Pick discussions, this machine has INFORMATION >loaded and running... haven't messed with it yet, tho.. > > > Cheers > >John > >

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

please have a look at my emmbedded comments below. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 9:22 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><Well, Allison, you're going to force me to venture into the archives and ><fetch the data sheet. > >Since I use z80s and kin often the data sheets for the z80 (all dozen or so) >starting with the 1977 ones are at hand. It helps that in my history is >applications engineering time at NEC microcomputers (they sold the uPD780 >a z80). > ><4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle)" is ABSOLUTELY correct. However, it took thre ><clock ticks in order to generate that cycle. IIRC, the entire M1 (opcode ><fetch + refresh) cycle took 4 or 5 (?) clock ticks, which made it the ><longest cycle. Memory cycles other than opcode fetches took 3 ticks and I ><believe I/O cycles took 4. So I remembered these correctly? After all those years? Amazing . . . >Don't ignore the fact that there are such thing as propagation delays >internal to the chip in the 50-80nS range or that some edges chaged on >the rising edge and some on the falling ones. I didn't want to descend into the gate-level details of the CPU, but merely to count clocks for comparison's sake. ><The theory was that one execute a bunch of memory cycles to load up the ><internal registers of the Z-80, of which there are plenty, and then execut ><scads of register-register instructions which are faster, in order to ><accomplish a given computational task. It didn't easily work out that way ><a notion which wasn't lost on the designers of the 6502. > >There are many schools of thought. the PDP-8 is and the 6502 have the >sparse hardware idea in common. the z80 is really a CISC machine and >reflects the more complex instruction set and the 8080 history. > >< ><The MOS-Technology people who first implemented the 6502 architecture, ><recognized that although the Z-80 had plenty of registers, it still wasn't ><enough, so they shortened the memory access cycles. In fact, they used a > >I don't feel that is a right way to say it. I'd go with... The mos >technology people with a limited silicone real estate (silicon costs alot >then) fewer register and a instruction set biased to use memory more. >That heritage comes from the 6800 which is a more similar part. > ><done, and they opted for an 8-bit stack pointer, which gave them the ability ><to execute stack-oriented operations faster than the Z-80 and its kin could > >they werent! Not significantly. in most cases the time to actually execute >isn't that much different. Well . . . I'd say it is significant, in view of the fact a Z-80 took three clock ticks to access memory while a 6502 took only one. As I've said in previous posts, the comparison at the memory bandwidth level came out in favor of the Z-80 because it had a BETTER BASIC interpreter. If you compare the fastest commercially available Z-80 with the fastest commercially available 6502, the 6502 will win by a wide margin EVERY time. Compare the Z80H (1983 or so) with the Synertek SYC6502C (1979) and you'll see that the 8 MHz Z-80 can't be counted on to win the race. If you like, you can compare the 8 MHz Z-80H with the Rockwell 65C102, which takes a 4x clock. Now it takes 4 clock ticks at 16 MHz to execute a bus cycle of any type. Feed it an 8 MHz clock, it will still outdistance the Z-80H. ><do so. It could look at its zero-page as extra-fast memory, or slow ><register space. In any case, a stack operation took one clock tick + one ><clock tick per byte. A zero page operation, depending on the operation in ><question, took one clock tick less time than that same instruction operatin ><on any of the rest of memory. A load or store took two cycles, and an ><indexed load or store took three. > >The idea of zero page was straight from PDP-8 too. The zero page was a way >to solve the problem of too few registers. The TI9900 took an entirely >different path to solve that problem. > >Which problem? Silicon real estate. registers are memory and that memory >eats silicon. back in that time frame you had some hard choices a with >regard to that. The Z80 was somewhat remarkable as there were 208 bits of >storage inside the processor for just user programable registers and bits. > ><Today, we're equipped with cheap VERY fast large, SRAMs which would make i ><much easire to make a solid and objective test of the two processors. ><Unfortunately, there's little reason to do so, since neither is of any ><commercial interest. > >In 1979 I had several tubes of 85nS 4kx1 rams that made a dandy memory. >They were static. I still have some of them. then in 1980 I got some slow >static 16kx1s that were only 70nS (2167) and built a z80 system that pushed >a 6mhz part to 7mhz. fast rams were available. I remember what it was like trying to get delivery on 2147's back in '81. I did manage to get the 55 ns parts for my 6502 based system. The bottom 16K allowed the processor to run a 4 MHz, while the rest caused it to slow to 1 MHz. Since the assembler lived in the bottom 8K, and the editor we used right above it, the combination was pretty fast. I eventually filled the whole lower 48K with the fast SRAMS, as we had a card designed for the TMS4044, which was a slow 2147. >My NSbox had 2116s that were 300ns and only 32 filled the memory space >on one board. that was 1981. > ><Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? > >Never. There could have been one but I'd wonder about code efficientcy. >Then again I've never seen one for 9900 bit that as CISC a machine if >there ever was one. Someone posted a small-c compiler for the 6502 as implemented in popular machines of the early '80's. That might be worth a look. What I want is a cross-compiler with a version for the PC as the target and one for the 6502. That way I can debug on the PC and transfer my code to the 6502. (Mitsubishi microcontrollers, actually) I recently bought a couple of single board dedicated boards, and found that they had the 4 MHz Rockwell CMOS parts on them. I didn't think I'd ever see something like that in the scrap box. Oh well, once I've figured out the memory map, they'll be useful for 1-of's. >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Several things

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

It has taken me a whole week to catch up with Classiccmp. So this is on oldish threads, I'm afraid... Tim Shoppa wrote (starting with a quotation from I don't know whom): >>C= PET VisiCalc EPROM >>--------------------- >>The Commodore PET version of the VisiCalc spreadsheet came with a chip that >>plugged into a socket on the main board. This was probably an EPROM, used for >>copy-protection. I have an original VisiCalc package, minus this EPROM. Does >>anyone know where I can download an image of the EPROM from? > > I'd be interested to know exactly what this chip did. It was never > perfectly clear to me that it was used for copy-protection. I was always under the impression that the ROM that came with Visicalc contained most of the code. I never used VZCalc on a PET (I had an old ROM PET, not compatible and no expansion sockets, and in those days no knowledge to change matters), but could the ROM have contained the code common to all modules? The argument on microcode and that which it spawned on ABS are a bit old, but since the subject line says "Several things" I may as well put in my bit. MICROCODE, Compilers, Assemblers. ================================= Microcode compilation is a good example of differences between humans and computers. Humans have (one hopes, if they are working at it at all) a BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the job (in one sense, computers have no understanding at all). Computers are FASTER and LESS PRONE TO MISTAKES [1]. In something like microcode compilation/optimisation, it is often a requirement to get the best possible result. If your processor knocks one clock cycle off an addition, because you spotted a shortcut in the microcode that your competitors' compiler/assembler didn't, you will have a faster processor. Probably significantly faster. But you can't claim that humans will always exhibit better PRODUCTIVITY (sorry William B, otherwise I agree with you) because doing it by hand is usually _far_ slower. The distinction between a compiler and an assembler is irrelevant here. As usual, there is a continuous spectrum of techniques and things like Hex monitors, assemblers, macro assemblers, compilers are names given to parts of the spectrum. No matter how you define them there will always be examples that are hard to place in one category or another. I think the point is: the more the computer does for you, the easier and faster it is to get a good result, but the more hassle it is to get the best result... Spc said "There's no such thing as compiled code - everything is interpreted" Definitely everything is interpreted. But unless the code fed to the interpreter, be it software, microcode or hardware, is what was written, it's compiled as well. Tony said, on processor design, you can either have one flip-flop to each machine state (like a P850) or microcode. Again there are intermediate points. I claim you can do quite well by numbering the machine states in a suitably chosen binary code and having one flip-flop to each bit. Logic for changing flip-flops is often _easier_ than when you have one flip-flop per state. (I have done both designs for the same circuit BTW). If you put this logic into a ROM, this becomes in a sense a microcode ROM, but you can do it combinatorially as well... [1] In principle anyway, computers will do what they've been told, rather than forget things. Microsoft have managed to write a suite of programs that do make random silly mistakes just like humans, but even Microsoft software is more predictable in its mistakes than humans are. ABS. ==== To try and keep this on topic, how did Ferguson do ABS in the early 1970s? I don't believe they would have used a microprocessor. I'd guess at an analogue computer, probably not even electronic. Would this be less frightening to Tony? Theory of ABS. -------------- The consensus (and I agree) seems to be that a sliding tyre has less good grip than a rolling one. If when braking, you start to skid, take the foot off and re-apply. This will shorten your stoping distance. I once saw (via television) a demo carried out at a skid pan. Car 1 jammed on brakes and skidded a long way. Car 2, same speed, pumped the brakes quite slowly (less than 1 Hz) and stopped in 1/2 the distance. ABS, by pumping brakes, will stop you in a shorter distance than straight skidding. Now ABS pumps the brakes very fast. A further improvement can be achieved by slow pumping. Why? The car will bounce up and down like anything. If you pump at the resonant frequency of the suspension, you can arrange always to brake when it is down. This gives you extra pressure and extra grip, so you can stop sooner. This is what I understand by the phrase "cadence braking". But as several people have pointed out, the BIG advantage of ABS is extra control. Practice of ABS. ---------------- I will admit that I used to think as Tony does - ABS is undesirable because it fails in a nasty way. However, having driven cars with and without ABS, my opinion has changed. Please note that this is only an opinion. You are welcome to think differently. If you have skid training (I don't, but would like to one day), you perhaps ought to think differently. I don't know. 1. Emergency stop doesn't require pumping as a matter of course. In my 1972 Marcos it is very seldom that I skid and have to reapply brakes. 2. Therefore the technique in most situations is the same whether you have ABS or not: If you start skidding, pump. But not until. 3. As I said in the argument on earth leakage protection, a safety device is to get you out of trouble not into it. ABS is no excuse for driving too fast or too close. 4. There are situations in which ABS if it works can save you when no amount of braking technique from the driver without it can. Emergency stop on a corner springs to mind (see below). It is amazing how far a car goes between applications of the brake pedal. At 60mph, in one second you travel 88 feet. Pumping brakes quite fast, your skids will be 20 feet long. Pumping at a more humanly achievable rate, probably nearer 40 feet. This is quite far enough to leave the road and hit a tree. (Last month emergency stop on a corner sprang rather forcibly to more than just my mind. Car: dead. Diver: minor whiplash and bruising to joints of right leg. Without ABS I am still confident that, had I been able to go in a straight line, I would have stopped safely. With it, I wouldn't have hit the tree. With failed ABS I would be no worse off than I am now.) 5. I now believe that on balance, ABS does more good than harm. To me, that is. 6. But I refuse to have an airbag in my car! I don't like to carry explosives at the best of times, and an accident is hardly the best of times. (Seriously, airbags are generally inflated by an explosive that generates a lot of gas. Sometimes it goes off when you are not crashing. If the airbag has a pinhole leak, escaping gas can cause serious injuries (fortunately I wear glasses when driving)). Seat belts and crumple zones are quite sufficient when used properly. Well, I've got it off my chest too. But boy, has the traffic on the list been high this last week! Philip.

27 years, 3 months

4
3
0 0

PICK OS - I know it well...

by steverob＠hotoffice.com

> I had no idea there was pick interest here. If someone wants a small writeup > of the OS architecture and progression through history, I'd be happy to > resurrect those brain cells :) > This is a lot more on topic than many recent posts. Please enlighten us! Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

PR1ME 2550 Up and Running

by steverob＠hotoffice.com

> > Well... it didn't hurt as much as I thought it was going to.. > > I have just run "SHUTDN ALL" after two hours of playing with PRIMOS > (on a DEC LA120 running at 300 baud... s-l-o-w...). > > I rescued this system about two months ago, and finally got tired > of it taking up space. It took about an hour to figure out where all > the cables used to go, and the Control Data SMD drive [used as a > paging and swapping drive] needed a little prodding to wake it up, > but the system boots and remembers what it was doing last time it was > on... about six years ago. > > Now to try and make the console port run at a decent speed. > > And, apropos of the Pick discussions, this machine has INFORMATION > loaded and running... haven't messed with it yet, tho.. > > > Cheers > > John John, The 2550 is a neat little minicomputer. I have one but, it has a bad processor card so, I've never actually got it to boot. Sooner or later, I'll find a replacement card for it. IIRC, I was able to connect a dumb terminal to the console port at 2400 baud. I was able to talk to the diagnostics processor and run the startup sequence at this speed. There's probably a configuration setting for this but, I don't know what it is. I have a fairly complete set of DOCs for the machine (as a matter of fact, most of them are still in the shrink wrap). I'll be happy to share them if you are missing any volumes. If you have any specific questions, I'll try to look them up for you. The "2550 Operators Manual" will probably be the most useful at this point. It has the basic system operation and getting started guide. Do you have this DOC? Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

PCMCIA

by edick＠idcomm.com

There are a couple of newsgroups dedicated to PCMCIA which might be of some help. Take a look! Ask! Dick -----Original Message----- From: John Ruschmeyer <jruschme(a)exit109.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 6:52 PM Subject: PCMCIA >Hi! > >This is possibly too new for this list, so please excuse me if I offend >anyone... > >I was wondering if any of you might have a copy of PCMICA drivers, such as >might have been shipped with a modem or other card? > >I'm in the process of resurrecting my NCR Safari, but the only drivers >that came with it are a simple memory card driver/formatter. > >Thanks... ><<<John>>>

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

Victor 80286 (Lap-Top)

by vischer＠access.ch

I saw that one; anyone knows anything about it? Victor 80286 (Lap-Top) please mail me privately Thanks! Simon

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Fwd: H8 Enthusiasts

by cfandt＠netsync.net

Okay folks, I know a few of you have been looking for these items (Hans F.! Are you reading this now?) so have at it! :-) Seems to be just an H-10 manual, not the unit itself though :( Write Jeff directly of course, don't reply to me. -- Chris >Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:06:32 -0400 >Reply-To: Jeff Headlee <jeffhdle(a)HOME.COM> >Sender: Heathkit Owners and Collectors List <HEATH(a)LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV> >From: Jeff Headlee <jeffhdle(a)HOME.COM> >Organization: @Home Network >Subject: H8 Enthusiasts >To: HEATH(a)LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV > >Greetings, > >I have an H8 computer and a bunch of manuals I must clear out >to tidy up the basement. The H8 has an 8k memeory card in it >but the computer doesn't work. The power supply appears OK, >but the speaker screams a lot and the post is not successful. >Otherwise the unit is in good shape. The manuals are for the many >peripherals available for the H8: > > (2) H8 complete > H9 video terminal (assembly and operation) > H8-2 parallel I/O interface (assembly) > H8-5 serial I/O cassette card (assembly) > H10 paper tape reader/punch (assembly and operation) > 8k static memory card schematics > >Free to loving home if you pay postage or you can pick it up if you >live in the Baltimore MD area. > >Jeff > >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- >To subscribe: listserv(a)listserv.tempe.gov >and in body: subscribe HEATH yourfirstname yourlastname >To unsubscribe: listserv(a)listserv.tempe.gov >and in body: signoff HEATH >Archives for HEATH: http://www.tempe.gov/archives >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Christian Fandt, Electronic/Electrical Historian Jamestown, NY USA cfandt(a)netsync.net Member of Antique Wireless Association URL: http://www.ggw.org/awa

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

IBM diagnostic cassette <?>

by roblwill＠usaor.net

There's probably a BASIC program on it that would be loaded from ROM BASIC. What the name of it would be, I have no idea. Try "DIGS.BAS", or maybe "TEST.BAS". -- -Jason Willgruber (roblwill(a)usaor.net) ICQ#: 1730318 <http://members.tripod.com/general_1> -----Original Message----- From: SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com <SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 7:01 PM Subject: IBM diagnostic cassette <?> >picked up two neat items at the hamfest today. the first was two clean amiga >500s and a IBM diagnostic cassette ver 1.02 with a part number 6081562. looks >like it only has 5 minutes of tape on it. i presume its only for the 5150. >how would one run this tape? >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

PICK OS - I know it well...

by jlwest＠tseinc.com

My company has specialized in the Pick OS for about 17 years. Matter of fact, I spent a lot of time writing some portions of the operating system for several of the implementing manufacturers as an independent consultant. The "virtual" assembler on Pick is truely unique - the entire instruction set is geared for byte oriented string searches on delimiters, etc. Very bizzare, but I loved the assembler on it. In addition, due to the way the virtual assembler was implemented, porting the Pick OS to a different hardware platform was childsplay, and typically took about a week at most. Yes, I have the PC version, as well as full source code to Reality 2.5D (a Microdata -> McDonnel Douglas implementation on the M1600 systems). I'm sure I have OS load tapes for many of the other platforms too (LSI11, Honeywell DPS6 [those two weren't really called pick, they were called Ultimate OS, but it WAS pick], General Automation, Prime [called INFORMATION on that platform], ADDS [mentor OS], Universe [a variant of pick that runs on top of Unix], Revelation [a variant running on DOS], there are MANY others). Contrary to what others have mentioned, it virtually NEVER had built in networking. Picks strong suit was database management and multiuser handling, it's weak point was communications and networking - it REALLY stunk at those last two. Ah - but it's database manager was the greatest thing around for business data management. Also, it was VERY extensible - the only problem was that any extensions had to be written in assembler. The virtual assembler on pick was largely undocumented and something of a black art. The PC version was not a toy - I had a small hand in it as well. The virtual code was 100% identical to the pick OS code used on many of the mainframe versions - the only difference was the machine dependent monitor code which implemented the missionary instructions. Other than that difference (which isn't visible to the user or programmer) it was identical to the other "r83" type implementations. I had no idea there was pick interest here. If someone wants a small writeup of the OS architecture and progression through history, I'd be happy to resurrect those brain cells :) Jay West -----Original Message----- From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 5:07 PM Subject: PICK OS >I saw an interesting book at the library today about something called PICK >OS. I didn't get to look through the entire book, but I read enough to see >that it refers to directories as dictionaries. It seems to take a novel >approach, but I know nothing about it. Haven't even heard of it. Does >anyone here know more? Does anyone here have the PC version (mentioned in >the book)? > >--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com) > >

27 years, 3 months

5
4
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

This is gates, not macrocells. I imagine it could be done with just a CPLD, like one of the mid-sized ~384 macrocells including the steering logic and instruction sequencer. It only needs eight 8-bit registers including the impending operand register. -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 9:46 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><You can build your own in an FPGA for something on the order of 2500 gates > >Gates or CPLDs? Big difference there. I do ahve a few 3030s here and can >get 4000 seris. But why would I do it. This would depend on the available resources. The Xylinx parts tend to come up short on routing resources. Last time (hopefully) I worked with the old 3000-series parts we were always having to cut and jumper our boards because the routing resources weren't there to preserve our pinout. I also found the 3000 series doesn't integrate well. It's best if you can partition a function to fit the FPGA. Sharing logic cells uses too many pins. It's easier and perhaps more efficient to replicate some functions versus sharing them from either the internals of one LCA or from a common external source. >then again I have an early 80s project that was a z80 built in 2901s... >at a time where a 10mhz z80 was an extreme machine. > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, Allison, you're going to force me to venture into the archives and fetch the data sheet. I'll get back to you on the precise numbers after I've looked them up, but for now, I recall that the normal memory cycle was three clock ticks long. That's the cycle, not the stroke into memory. Your assertion "The memory active portion of the instruction cycle was far shorter, typically 300ns at 4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle)" is ABSOLUTELY correct. However, it took three clock ticks in order to generate that cycle. IIRC, the entire M1 (opcode fetch + refresh) cycle took 4 or 5 (?) clock ticks, which made it the longest cycle. Memory cycles other than opcode fetches took 3 ticks and I believe I/O cycles took 4. The theory was that one execute a bunch of memory cycles to load up the internal registers of the Z-80, of which there are plenty, and then execute scads of register-register instructions which are faster, in order to accomplish a given computational task. It didn't easily work out that way, a notion which wasn't lost on the designers of the 6502. The MOS-Technology people who first implemented the 6502 architecture, recognized that although the Z-80 had plenty of registers, it still wasn't enough, so they shortened the memory access cycles. In fact, they used a whole addressing mode focused on the lowest page in memory, as, MOTOROLA had done, and they opted for an 8-bit stack pointer, which gave them the ability to execute stack-oriented operations faster than the Z-80 and its kin could do so. It could look at its zero-page as extra-fast memory, or slow register space. In any case, a stack operation took one clock tick + one clock tick per byte. A zero page operation, depending on the operation in question, took one clock tick less time than that same instruction operating on any of the rest of memory. A load or store took two cycles, and an indexed load or store took three. Today, we're equipped with cheap VERY fast large, SRAMs which would make it much easire to make a solid and objective test of the two processors. Unfortunately, there's little reason to do so, since neither is of any commercial interest. The testing I did was many years ago, and my emphasis was on which one worked faster in raw speed in a DRAM environment in which the affordable DRAMs were of the 200 ns flavor. I've never been comfortable with my final conclusion that the Z-80 was faster, except for the observation I made along the way, that most tasks simply couldn't be done realistically on the 6502 because the tools weren't available. Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 4:35 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><I have to disagree with your comparison of the 2 MHz 6502 with a 4 MHz ><Z-80A. My thought here is that the 4MHz Z-80 used in the conventional way ><had a memory cycle of 750 nanoseconds (3 clock ticks), while the 6502, at > >No it did not. The memory active portion of the instruction cycle was >far shorter, typically 300ns at 4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle). the rest of >the time the cpu cares not if memory is there. Now if your depending on the >CPU for refresh it's longer but then again if you used something else it >still has to be done and takes some about of time/logic. > ><had to go in order to utilize the memory bandwidth most effectively. The ><The 6502 could be interfaced quite easily by using an asymmetrical clock, ><with a short Phase-1 (the period during which addresses and control signal > >The same can be done with the Z80 (the cmos parts it can be very effective). >I've used that trick to get a M1 read/ that has the same length as Mread/. > ><In any case, what I determined was that the Z-80, in spite of its ><complicated hardware requirement, was potentially the faster processor. > >I always get upset with this term as it's hard to quantitize unless standard >programs (sieve, fp-ops...) > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

8080 - 4004 - 8051 Historical Software Source Site! (fwd)

by donm＠cts.com

Forwarded for any that may be interested. - don ========================== Path: nusku.cts.com!mercury.cts.com!socal.verio.net!nntp.ni.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!feeder.qis.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer1.nac.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: "Steve J. Quest" <Squest(a)mariner.cris.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.arch.embedded,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,comp.emulators.misc,comp.lang.basic.misc,comp.os.cpm,comp.software-eng,comp.sources.wanted,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.misc,sci.electronics.components Subject: 8080 - 4004 - 8051 Historical Software Source Site! Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Date: 10 Apr 1999 15:30:38 PDT Organization: AVR Technologies - Des Moines, Iowa, USA Lines: 75 Sender: Steve J. Quest <Squest(a)mariner.cris.com> Message-ID: <7eojee$ru(a)chronicle.concentric.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: mariner.concentric.net Summary: Archive for MCS-51(tm) software including BASIC-52 and BASIC-51 Keywords: MCS-51,80C52,8052,8051,Tiny BASIC,SOL,SOLOS,SOL BASIC,Altair 8800,MOS Kim-1,Kim-1 SBC,VIC-20,Sinclair ZX-80,Sinclair ZX81,MONITOR,MCS-51 MONITOR,MONITOR-DEBUGGER,BASIC CODE,8051 MONITOR X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970930; sun4m SunOS 4.1.3_U1] Xref: nusku.cts.com alt.folklore.computers:5704 comp.arch.embedded:5952 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:7730 comp.emulators.misc:2024 comp.lang.basic.misc:1906 comp.os.cpm:749 comp.software-eng:2694 comp.sources.wanted:166 comp.sys.intel:3530 comp.sys.misc:133 sci.electronics.components:3996 ______________________________________________________________________ Steve J. Quest Presents: The Code Archive! Now software for 8080 - 4004 - 8051 Tiny BASIC! http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX 4 000 000 4 44 0 0 0 0 44 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4444444 0 0 0 0 0 0 4444444 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 000 000 4 4004 MICROPROCESSOR http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#i4004.zip -------------------------------------------------------------- 88888 000 88888 000 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 88888 0 0 0 88888 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 88888 000 88888 000 8080 MICROPROCESSOR http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#Poly88_TinyBASIC.zip -------------------------------------------------------------- 88888 000 5555555 1 8 8 0 0 5 11 8 8 0 0 0 5 1 88888 0 0 0 555555 1 8 8 0 0 0 5 1 8 8 0 0 5 1 88888 000 555555 111 8051/8751 Single-Chip MICROCOMPUTER http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#tb51-32.bin.gz http://www.code.archive.aisnota.com/index.shtml#tb51-32.hex.gz -------------------------------------------------------------- -- -<Squest(a)concentric.net>------\ ( ( | ) ) Amendment1 Congress shall make ===============================> /_\ no law abridging the freedom Pirate Shortwave Broadcasting-/ /\_/\ of speech, or of the press.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<Well, Allison, you're going to force me to venture into the archives and <fetch the data sheet. Since I use z80s and kin often the data sheets for the z80 (all dozen or so) starting with the 1977 ones are at hand. It helps that in my history is applications engineering time at NEC microcomputers (they sold the uPD780 a z80). <4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle)" is ABSOLUTELY correct. However, it took thre <clock ticks in order to generate that cycle. IIRC, the entire M1 (opcode <fetch + refresh) cycle took 4 or 5 (?) clock ticks, which made it the <longest cycle. Memory cycles other than opcode fetches took 3 ticks and I <believe I/O cycles took 4. Don't ignore the fact that there are such thing as propagation delays internal to the chip in the 50-80nS range or that some edges chaged on the rising edge and some on the falling ones. <The theory was that one execute a bunch of memory cycles to load up the <internal registers of the Z-80, of which there are plenty, and then execut <scads of register-register instructions which are faster, in order to <accomplish a given computational task. It didn't easily work out that way <a notion which wasn't lost on the designers of the 6502. There are many schools of thought. the PDP-8 is and the 6502 have the sparse hardware idea in common. the z80 is really a CISC machine and reflects the more complex instruction set and the 8080 history. < <The MOS-Technology people who first implemented the 6502 architecture, <recognized that although the Z-80 had plenty of registers, it still wasn't <enough, so they shortened the memory access cycles. In fact, they used a I don't feel that is a right way to say it. I'd go with... The mos technology people with a limited silicone real estate (silicon costs alot then) fewer register and a instruction set biased to use memory more. That heritage comes from the 6800 which is a more similar part. <done, and they opted for an 8-bit stack pointer, which gave them the abilit <to execute stack-oriented operations faster than the Z-80 and its kin coul they werent! Not significantly. in most cases the time to actually execute isn't that much different. <do so. It could look at its zero-page as extra-fast memory, or slow <register space. In any case, a stack operation took one clock tick + one <clock tick per byte. A zero page operation, depending on the operation in <question, took one clock tick less time than that same instruction operatin <on any of the rest of memory. A load or store took two cycles, and an <indexed load or store took three. The idea of zero page was straight from PDP-8 too. The zero page was a way to solve the problem of too few registers. The TI9900 too an entirely different path to solve that problem. Which problem? Silicon real estate. registers are memory and that memory eats silicon. back in that time frame you had some hard choices a with regard to that. The Z80 was somewhat remarkable as there were 208 bits of storage inside the processor for just user programable registers and bits. <Today, we're equipped with cheap VERY fast large, SRAMs which would make i <much easire to make a solid and objective test of the two processors. <Unfortunately, there's little reason to do so, since neither is of any <commercial interest. In 1979 I had several tubes of 85nS 4kx1 rams that made a dandy memory. They were static. I still have some of them. then in 1980 I got some slow static 16kx1s that were only 70nS (2167) and built a z80 system that pushed a 6mhz part to 7mhz. fast rams were available. My NSbox had 2116s that wer 300ns and only 32 filled the memory space on one board. that was 1981. <Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? Never. There could have been one but I'd wonder about code efficientcy. Then again I've never seen one for 9900 bit that as CISC a machine if there ever was one. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, the policy here in the U.S. seems to be to skip the outgoing inspection and replace it with a warranty. The terms of the warranty make it void if you open the box, so the buyer returns it for a replacement or refund, and the maker then gets to do the outgoing inspection on the incoming trip back. -----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, April 11, 1999 2:47 PM Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism >> >> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote to Allison: >> > The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint >> > about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a >> > bunch of stuff/mods. >> >> While I agree, I kinda doubt that Allison has EVER plugged in ANYTHING >> before she "opened the box and added a bunch of stuff/mods". So, she >> might not see that as quite the negative that you do :-) > >You mean there _are_ people who plug things in without pulling the case >and checking that it's built correctly? They must be mad... > >Of course once you've got the lid off, you might as well fix whatever the >original designers got wrong ;-) > >> >> > The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said for >> > the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not. >> >> While velcro is certainly extraordinarily convenient, particularly to >> those bothered by screwdrivers. But, as an occasional professional auto >> mechanic, I hardly felt that half a dozen screws made something hard to > >I've also never seen the point of 'screwless' cases. If I'm going to be >fixing/modifying something I'm going to need a logic probe (or better an >logic analyser), multimeter, soldering iron, pliers, cutters, etc. Having >to use a screwdriver as well is no big problem.. > >> open. But it is true that RS had a very bad attitude about it. They >> actually had anti-tamper paint on one of the screws! One of the local RS > >Some machines had a label over one of the screws. What Tandy didn't >realise was that it was possible to get the label off in one piece >without tearing it, and then stick it back after you'd done the mod... > >> technicians had an interesting slant on that: Since RS's policies >> apparently didn't explicitly mention modifications, only that the tamper >> seal must be intact, he would happily do the various warranty mods (there >> were SEVERAL for the early EI), IFF you provided him circuit sketches for > >I never put Tandy UK to the test (I always fixed my Model 1 myself). >Although the local shop did get me some of the parts either free or for a >nominal charge for me to do a couple of official mods myself. > >> all mods, and put a dab of the anti-tamper paint (he would provide it) on >> the screw after you made the mods. He said that if the store manager >> balked at seeing additional stuff through the slots of the "unopened" > >:-) :-) > >> case, just start talking about "building boats in bottles". Apple's >> attitude of "go on in!" was much more refreshing. > >Although, IIRC the Apple ][ Techref did mention that doing the Eurapple >mod (50 Hz video) would void the warranty. It appeared that you could >open the case and stick in expansion cards with no problems, but if you >took a soldering iron to the motherboard you were on your own. Again it >didn't bother me. Both the Apple ][ and TRS-80 had excellent tech manuals >available, so fixing them yourself was the easiest thing to do. > >-tony >

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

Fwd: Metric conversions..??

by cfandt＠netsync.net

Well folks, here's a break from the looong-running threads which have been rolling along the past couple of days. Saw this on one of the many other reflectors I subscribe to and I thought this group would appreciate the humor break too. The same 'Sorry about the bandwidth' apology stands from me too. :-) >Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:17:03 -0400 >Reply-To: MODSTEPH(a)ACS.EKU.EDU >Sender: Boat Anchor Owners and Collectors List > <BOATANCHORS(a)LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV> >From: N5AIT Allan Stephens <MODSTEPH(a)ACS.EKU.EDU> >Subject: Metric conversions..?? >To: BOATANCHORS(a)LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV > > Well, it DOES include megacycles... Sorry about the bandwidth, but >figured if anyone would appreciate these, y'all would. > > 73, Al N5AIT > > >Here are some of the rarer metric conversions not carried in standard >reference works: > >1 million microphones = 1 megaphone >1 million bicycles = 2 megacycles >500 millinaries = 1 seminary >10 cards = 1 decacards >1/2 lavatory = 1 demijohn >1 millionth of a fish = 1 microfiche >453.6 graham crackers = 1 pound cake >1 trillion pins = 1 terrapin >1 million billion piccolos = 1 gigolo >10 rations = 1 decoration >100 rations = 1 C-ration >10 millipedes = 1 centipede >3 1/3 tridents = 1 decadent >10 monologues = 5 dialogues >5 dialogues = 1 decalogue >2 monograms = 1 diagram >8 nickels = 2 paradigms >2 wharves = 1 paradox > >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- >To subscribe: listserv(a)listserv.tempe.gov >and in body: subscribe BOATANCHORS yourfirstname yourlastname >To unsubscribe: listserv(a)listserv.tempe.gov >and in body: signoff BOATANCHORS >Archives for BOATANCHORS: http://www.tempe.gov/archives >--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- Sorry to a few of the list members who are not native English speakers. There are a few strange colloquial or American expressions. Ask in private email. However, even I am not sure what a "demijohn" really is except for perhaps a 1/2 bath in a house. Have fun! Regards, Chris PS: A "boatanchor", for the ones who are not amateurs or radio collectors or otherwise in-the-know, is an affectionate label attached by us to any large, heavy vacuum tube (valve) operated radio receiver or transmitter or sometimes test equipment. I have about a dozen boatanchors (50-100+ lbs) in my collection and, by golly, I was really sore after hauling them over here to the new house ;)

27 years, 3 months

2
2
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, that was a surprise! I doubt it was around in time to do any good for the processor when it was used in home computers. It still lives in those video games, though. Thanks for the pointer! Now, if we could just find an adequate ANSI-C compiler which isn't wedded, through libraries or other objects, to one specific environment . . . Dick -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser(a)oa.ptloma.edu> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 6:39 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) >::Have YOU seen a 'C' compiler for any of the 6502 types? > >As a matter of fact, yes. :-) > > http://www.von-bassewitz.de/uz/cc65/ > >-- >-------------------------- personal page: http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ -- >Cameron Kaiser Database Programmer/Administrative Computing >Point Loma Nazarene University Fax: +1 619 849 2581 >ckaiser(a)ptloma.edu Phone: +1 619 849 2539 >-- "I'd love to go out with you, but I'm rethreading my toothbrush bristles." -

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Conversions etc.

by jpl15＠netcom.com

I may have posted this one before... 1 millihelen = the amount of beauty required to launch just one ship. 1 New York Second = the elapsed time between the light turning green and the guy behind you laying on his horn and screaming at you. The difference between Theory and Practice is much closer in theory than in preactice. "'Yields Falsehood' when appended to it's quotation" yields falsehood when appended to it's quotation. Okay, sorry. I'm just all happy 'cause my Pr1me booted.. Cheers John

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

Well, if you look at the 6502 architecture very carefully, you'll see what a thing of beauty it really is. What the 8080 and Z-80 designers did with brute force, the 650x designers did with resourceful elegance. Instead of big counters and the like, for, say, the stack pointer or the program counter, the 650x needs only to use registers. The same ALU that is used in the execution of instructions is useable to increment the program counter, manipulate the stack pointer, etc. The part can be built with extremely little in the way of resources. I once sat down with a pencil and figured out that you could build the content of the 6502 with a pair of 74181's, a pair of 74189's four '373's a couple of decoders, a small PAL and a 256x12 rom (3 82S129's) That was all available in '75 or so, with the possible exception of the PALand the 373's. That is not very much logic. That was possibly what they used to prototype their part. Think about it! It's really simple and you could easily build it as part of a gate array. Try that with a Z-80 and see what you get. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 6:08 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><I'm not sure I'd agree, when it comes to indexing. I think the 6502 ><indexing is more useful in typical cases, and the instruction set is much ><"cleaner" in some ways. However... > >it has to be as there are so few register to store intermediate results or >addresses. The end result is operands are out in memory more and return to >memory more. Different optimization of resources. > ><Exactly. I was brought up on the Z80, or at least that's what my earliest ><assembly language experience was on, but I learned how to use a 6502 prett ><well. Just a different design philosophy. > >the oder of learning for me was PDP-8, PDP-10, CM2100, 8008, 8080 then >over a span of 6 years. From the 1975 to 1978 the list is z80, 8048, > 1802, sc/mp, 6800, 650x, 9900, pdp-11! > >I have fewer biases. ;) Well ok, if said 8085 for some, 804x for others, >T-11 (pdp-11 on a single chip), and z80. Never had more than the few 6502s >until recently but they are fun too. > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

PR1ME 2550 Up and Running

by jpl15＠netcom.com

Well... it didn't hurt as much as I thought it was going to.. I have just run "SHUTDN ALL" after two hours of playing with PRIMOS (on a DEC LA120 running at 300 baud... s-l-o-w...). I rescued this system about two months ago, and finally got tired of it taking up space. It took about an hour to figure out where all the cables used to go, and the Control Data SMD drive [used as a paging and swapping drive] needed a little prodding to wake it up, but the system boots and remembers what it was doing last time it was on... about six years ago. Now to try and make the console port run at a decent speed. And, apropos of the Pick discussions, this machine has INFORMATION loaded and running... haven't messed with it yet, tho.. Cheers John

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

You can build your own in an FPGA for something on the order of 2500 gates. That will ostensibly operate at 80 MHz or so. Some vendors make claims about their silicon that sport higher speed claims, e.g. 150-200 MHz. I'll believe the 80 is realistic. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 4:36 PM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><Well, that's not very far from what I wrote, is it? I was just pointing ><out that although Allison seemed to imply that a 6 or 8MHz Z80 was much ><faster than a 4MHz(? I haven't got the original message any more) 6502, I ><believe that to be far from the case. > >I was pointing out that is the processor was running fast enough even a >dog can look good. ;) Obviously using a 8mhz z80 as the standard your >comparison CPU had better be of similar generational speed or it may fail >the test. the inverse is with a 33mhz z185 I know I can blow the 65c02 >out of the water unless someone has at least a 25-30mhz 6502! > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I'm not sure I'd agree, when it comes to indexing. I think the 6502 <indexing is more useful in typical cases, and the instruction set is much <"cleaner" in some ways. However... it has to be as there are so few register to store intermediate results or addresses. The end result is operands are out in memory more and return to memory more. Different optimization of resources. <Exactly. I was brought up on the Z80, or at least that's what my earliest <assembly language experience was on, but I learned how to use a 6502 prett <well. Just a different design philosophy. the oder of learning for me was PDP-8, PDP-10, CM2100, 8008, 8080 then over a span of 6 years. From the 1975 to 1978 the list is z80, 8048, 1802, sc/mp, 6800, 650x, 9900, pdp-11! I have fewer biases. ;) Well ok, if said 8085 for some, 804x for others, T-11 (pdp-11 on a single chip), and z80. Never had more than the few 6502s until recently but they are fun too. Allison

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Restoring an 8/E

by mbg＠world.std.com

>The data lights were ok the address lights I remember a high order >one bad. Actually, I was back over at my museum earlier this evening, to put the cleaned and repaired front panel on the 8/e... I took the time to power it up myself, and did a little playing with loadadrs and dep... I verified that I can address both fields (0 and 1)... it has 8k. I checked the EMA lights, and they all light. I tested the address lights and they all light... I checked out the data lights, they all light, at least in MD position... I've yet to check the other positions... 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

8/E cable handling?

by cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com

Ok, I was wondering how the 8/E manages its cables. In the 8/f/m chassis there is a sliding door with a plate on it to act as a strain relief and exit point for cables exiting the CPU chassis. I don't think I want to put something in the cover I'm building but I really think the strain relief is necessary (I've seen M8650 boards with one connector broken off because of a pull on the cable and there wasn't anything to take the strain) Anyway, thoughts appreciated, --Chuck

27 years, 3 months

2
3
0 0

Restoring an 8/E

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<You mean you _don't_ have a pile of PDP11 power control cables to raid <suitable plugs from ? She does, they were in another box...under a box... <Nice!. It's worth testing all the panel lamps (just load an address of <all 1's, store data of all 1's to location 0, etc). A blown bulb can make <debugging a program rather hard... The data lights were ok the address lights I remember a high order one bad. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Don Lancaster was Re: Ebay Mark-8 Plans

by jlewczyk＠his.com

Actually, He was on the scene very early, accoridng to me sources. I have copies of the very first Mark-8 computer newsletters and he was a contributor, providing some detailed information on building quality power supplies. His name was on the list of newsletter receipients from the beginning. And this was 1974, so yeah, he meets the >10 rule! :-) > I know that he cammme on the scene later than some of > the other people who have been mentioned as past or future > VCF speakers, but he certainly meets the >10 rule.

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<While I agree, I kinda doubt that Allison has EVER plugged in ANYTHING <before she "opened the box and added a bunch of stuff/mods". So, she <might not see that as quite the negative that you do :-) Not quite true. I'd make sure it works then mod it if needed. :) the first mod I ever did to a trs80 was the add a ram and wire to get lower case. <open. But it is true that RS had a very bad attitude about it. They <actually had anti-tamper paint on one of the screws! One of the local RS <technicians had an interesting slant on that: Since RS's policies <apparently didn't explicitly mention modifications, only that the tamper <seal must be intact, he would happily do the various warranty mods (there <were SEVERAL for the early EI), IFF you provided him circuit sketches for <all mods, and put a dab of the anti-tamper paint (he would provide it) on <the screw after you made the mods. He said that if the store manager <balked at seeing additional stuff through the slots of the "unopened" <case, just start talking about "building boats in bottles". Apple's <attitude of "go on in!" was much more refreshing. Most of the techs (me too, back then) held that the worst part of fixing TRS80s was first correcting the messes customers made. Often with soldering tools better suited for fixing pipe. We didn't care the mods existed and later Tandy would even sell a few as options. <> IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world: <> They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy. <"PC" was in moderately common usage around here before IBM's entry. <IBM always considered "PC" to be a shortened description, NOT a trade <name! They did NOT trademark "PC". They never even trademarked <"PC-DOS"!! OTOH, "MS-DOS" IS a registered trademark. The upside is a lot of other systems got in where before computers were not taken seriously beacuse if they were IBM would be doing it. <One fellow referred to Compaq's "challenge" of IBM as "a mouse running up <the elephant's leg with intent to rape". Looking back... I bet the elephane didn't even scream. ;) Allison

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 11, 18:27, Allison J Parent wrote: > I was pointing out that is the processor was running fast enough even a > dog can look good. ;) cf any recent pentium :-) -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<register assets, and simply look at what it takes to "do something" e.g. <load a value, do some arithmetic, store a value, etc. the two instruction <sets have considerable overlap. However, the longest instructions for the <6502 take six (?) clock ticks, while the shortest ones for the Z-80 take <four. (feel free to correct me, as I haven't even though about this, let this is correct. Consider the timing as the z80 was using cycles in groups of four (at 4mhz 1979). So a register moe or register to register add was typically 1uS. Likely the 6502 at the time was 1uS as well. Don't count clocks themselves the sysles were too different. Count the total time to execute. <know how long the longest instruction for the Z-80 takes nor do I even kno 21, LDIR (block move) and 23 (large group) of instructions that use indexing through the IX and IY registers most of which have no analog in 6502. for example SET b,(IX+D) (sets a bit at memory location.). The last one takes 5.75uS at 4mhz. What counts now is what would it take to do that using 6502. <what its longest instruction is. I'd imagine it's one in which you load <16-bit register from memory, indexed, or some such. That would have to tak <a fair number of clock ticks. load indexed is about 5uS. Lotas of clocks but they are used differently. <In my comparisons, I've always fudged in favor of the Z-80, because it <didn't make sense to me that a processor so cheap and simple would be as <much faster than a Z-80 as the 6502 appeared. The hardware problems aside the 6502 trades hardware complexity for some amount of speed and coves very close but at about half the number of longer clocks. <processor's instructions unless they are pushed. If you look at a simple <load-the-accumulator then store-the-result, which occurs often in almost an <application, the Z-80 takes about 6 ticks in the opcode fetch/decode (the <instruction is decoded during the refresh cycle), three for each byte of th <source address, then three to fetch the value. It then takes as long to <store the result to memory. That's 6+3+3+3=15, twice is 30 ticks, or 7.5 <microseconds at 4MHz. LDAX D ; load using DE as index STAX B ; stor using BC as index That is 7 clocks each or 14 total. @4mhz (1979) tht would be 3.5uS the 6502 at 2mhz may do that in about the same time. < The 6502 takes one to fetch the load opcode, one to <fetch each byte of the source address, one to execute the load, one to fetc <the store opcode, one for each byte of the destination address, and one to <accomplish the store. That's 5 to load, 5 to store, which is 10, right? I <would appear that the 6502 would get through this pretty quickly at the sam <clock rate, i.e. 2.5 microseconds, but the problem is that external <peripheral devices wouldn't run this fast. What's more, the 4 MHz parts, <though priced a little higher than a 4 MHz Z-80, in 1980, the Z-80 had <peripherals which would work very well together with the CPU at 4 MHz. <Nevertheless, that's a 3:1 performance ratio which, based on the fact that <there were many more register-to-register (quick) operations available to <the Z-80 programmer, it's hard to imagine these would close the gap that <much. They would have a significant impact, though. It does depending on the application. If a lot of 16bit adds and subtracts were part of the "core" then were is the 6502? How about languages that use really deep stacks? what about really deep recusive code? The z80 has a far larger stack limit! Granted 128 calls is a lot but none of that stack can pass parameters either, so you need to use one of the index register for that. Also there is interrupt structure for multiple complex devices. Z80 allows a 7 bit vector (pointer to table, anywhere in ram) for mode 2. Even mode0 (8080) it has 8 vectors in low memory (one is reset). using the Mode 1 you still have two (NMI and INT/). Hardware wise can the 6502 support DMA, the z80 has busreq/ and busack/ to request the bus from the cpu and get acknowledgement that it has. How much ram space does the 6502 have to give up for a typical spread of devices verses seperate IO space (z80). Keep in mind if memory mapped IO is desired the z80 does that too. <I think you can easily build a circuit with a 2 MHz 6502 and one with a 4 <MHz Z-80 and make a comparison yourself. If you honestly try to take <advantage of the instruction set to accomplish a task on both processors, <you'll play HELL getting the Z-80 to keep up. It can be done, though, if Depending on the mix it would favor one or another but when averaged out the z80 wins or at best matched. There are other factors that may be system implementation dependent that may favor one over the other. <the task is chosen properly. A pair of simulators would be really handy, <wouldn't it? there are tons for the z80 but few if any do cycle counts or other timing. They could be done for the 6502 but... their performance would have to be validated against the real parts to insure the simulations arent biased. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<$399 without the monitor and cassette. I struggled long and hard with <that decision, until one of the RS store managers agreed to be willing to <special order a "replacement" monitor for me for $200 if I were to be <unsuccessful in interfacing one of my CCTV monitors. Fortunately (since I <didn't/don't) have Allison's technical expertise, it turned out to need <nothing more than cabling. Wise move! My system test stand at work had a common monitor incase the problem was the RCA box. <BTW, MOST of us thought that CP/M-86 would push PC-DOS out ("as soon as it <comes out")! CP/M-86 was significantly delayed. By the time that it <showed up, and the higher price for it than PC-DOS, PC-DOS was barely <affected by its presence. Shows how much to believe "experts"! It was available at introduction. What was delayed was the marketing. It didn't ship with the machine it was a $200 option. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<I have to disagree with your comparison of the 2 MHz 6502 with a 4 MHz <Z-80A. My thought here is that the 4MHz Z-80 used in the conventional way <had a memory cycle of 750 nanoseconds (3 clock ticks), while the 6502, at No it did not. The memory active portion of the instruction cycle was far shorter, typically 300ns at 4mhz (shorter for M1 cycle). the rest of the time the cpu cares not if memory is there. Now if your depending on the CPU for refresh it's longer but then again if you used something else it still has to be done and takes some about of time/logic. <had to go in order to utilize the memory bandwidth most effectively. The <The 6502 could be interfaced quite easily by using an asymmetrical clock, <with a short Phase-1 (the period during which addresses and control signal The same can be done with the Z80 (the cmos parts it can be very effective). I've used that trick to get a M1 read/ that has the same length as Mread/. <In any case, what I determined was that the Z-80, in spite of its <complicated hardware requirement, was potentially the faster processor. I always get upset with this term as it's hard to quantitize unless standard programs (sieve, fp-ops...) Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

GeoWorks -- Commodore/Apple/PC?

by roblwill＠usaor.net

GEOS wasn't multitasking? I have it on my Tandy Zoomer (with AOL), and can switch back and forth between two programs, and they seem to be where they were left before (They can't be minimized, like Windows, but they don't seem to close). -- -Jason Willgruber (roblwill(a)usaor.net) ICQ#: 1730318 <http://members.tripod.com/general_1> -----Original Message----- From: Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser(a)oa.ptloma.edu> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 7:58 PM Subject: Re: GeoWorks -- Commodore/Apple/PC? >::I Used to have a Commodore 128 that had GeoWorks on it (I think it was >::actually GEOS, or something like that). I also have a box and font/graphics >::set for the PC version or GeoWorks. I've also heard that there was a >::version of it for the Apple // series. > >PC GeoWorks != Commodore/Apple GEOS. Totally different architectures. The >8-bit GEOS was a single-tasking GUI API; the PC version is actually an entire >true preemptively multitasking OS. AOL, before the Windows client emerged, >in fact was based on a PC-GEOS runtime. > >Apple GEOS was an unmitigated flop, especially because Apple was heavily >pushing Quark Catalyst. A shame, because Berkeley Softworks (now GeoWorks) >was trying to add application cross-compatibility between Commodore and Apple >GEOS where possible. > >Commodore GEOS, on the other hand, was and is a big hit. It's still sold >and manufactured, and now people have issued homegrown patches for it that >allow it to take advantage of RAM expansion up to 16MB, hard drive real >estate and the SuperCPU accelerators, and even do context-switching. Avoid >versions before 1.5, however, and even then C= GEOS didn't come into its own >until v2.0. > >-- >-------------------------- personal page: http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ -- >Cameron Kaiser Database Programmer/Administrative Computing >Point Loma Nazarene University Fax: +1 619 849 2581 >ckaiser(a)ptloma.edu Phone: +1 619 849 2539 >-- A straw vote only shows which way the hot air blows. -- O. Henry ----------- >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

Restoring an 8/E

by mbg＠world.std.com

Allison and I were over at my place today, unloading some of the haul from the weekend - now I've got an RL01 to put on the 11/34a so that I can have a booting system. We took some time to take a look at the pdp-8/e that I now have (which, conincidentally enough was hers about 8 years ago when she gave it to someone else -- the person from whom I obtained my recent haul). We replaced the missing fuse, then used a piece of wire to jumper the plug in the back so it would power up (we got it from the lab-8/e -- the same connector was apparently missing from that machine, so they kludged it). Anyway, we plugged it in, and turned it on.... fans whirred just fine. Allison toggled in a quick program and demonstrated that it had 8k in it, that the CPU seems to execute some instructions, and some of the lights work... so we're off and running. The front panel had a piece broken out of it below the keyswitch, and the panel was kind of dirty... so we removed it and I've cleaned it up. For the time-being the piece is tacked back in with glue from a hot glue gun, but I'll use something else later on... I've also taken some pictures of the case from various angles and have them up in my jpg area, but I haven't set up links to them... If anyone wants to see them by typing in the path to them, they're at http://world.std.com/~mbg/pdp8e_view_001.jpg (002, 003, 004) 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

3
4
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Apr 11, 14:37, Allison J Parent wrote: > Yes, the 6502 overlaps the instuction fetch and execute (mini pipeline). > The z80 is more classic multi-state machine. In the end the two parts are > roughly the same speed for their generation. IE: a 4mhz z80 does basic > operations in 1uS and 6502 at 2mhz is about the same. That's about my estimation, Richard's example not withstanding. > the difference is > any is when complex indexing or other tassks are discussed where the z80 > has a better instuction set (though slower...more states) the 6502 uses > more small instructions(fast but many). I'm not sure I'd agree, when it comes to indexing. I think the 6502 indexing is more useful in typical cases, and the instruction set is much "cleaner" in some ways. However... > In the end they do the same task just different. Exactly. I was brought up on the Z80, or at least that's what my earliest assembly language experience was on, but I learned how to use a 6502 pretty well. Just a different design philosophy. > That supports the only logical conclusion... clock speeds dont count. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Dept. of Computer Science University of York

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

Restoring an 8/E

by mbg＠world.std.com

>You mean you _don't_ have a pile of PDP11 power control cables to raid >suitable plugs from ? I do have cables, but I didn't want to canabalize any in order to just make a loop. The looped wire did the trick anyway... >Nice!. It's worth testing all the panel lamps (just load an address of >all 1's, store data of all 1's to location 0, etc). A blown bulb can make >debugging a program rather hard... I plan on doing that at some point... Yes, a blown bulb can make debugging VERY annoying... >Try to get some 'plastic weld'. It's a solvent for the sort of plastic >used on these panels, and you can weld the broken bit back in place. It's >normally a very strong repair. Thanks... I'll keep that in mind... 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

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

Please see embedded comments below. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 7:24 AM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) ><I believe (guessing because I've learned memory doesn't serve as it once ><did) The load is two clock ticks and the indirect, indexed jump is five, s ><that's 3.5 microseconds, give or take a tick. it's less at 4 MHz, which i ><what the 65C02C is rated, though it readily will run at 4.9152 (24.576 ><MHz/5) over a wide temperature and voltage range provided the clock is ><phased correctly. the divice-by five yields a 40/60 h/l which must be ><inverted to give a little longer phase-2 than phase-1. > >The point was apparently missed. Of course I can take a cmos z80 and blow >that out of the water using a 6 or 8 mhz clock. Heck using a 1989 version >of the z80, the Z280 at 12.5mhz I can get the execution time way down. In >the time frame before 1982 (as a marker) there werent any 4mhz 650c02s and >there were 4mhz z80s and pdp-8s were still produced. In that context the >the example represent programming style rather that absolute speed as they >didn't vary that much over all to represent a great diffferece unless you >needed a characteristic that was specific to a given CPU. No, the point wasn't missed. I remember what was going on back then (1979-1984) because it was at a critical juncture in the course of my life. In 1979, my "favorite" CPU was the 6502, the fastest MOS-Technology-comptible version of which was the 4 MHz NMOS part from SYNERTEK. I was VERY involved in making things run faster than most folks thought they could/should at that time and also had occasion to attempt comparison and contrast on the basis of a number of parameters, including performance. In '79, ZILOG and MOSTEK put out the 6-MHz "B"-series of their Z-80, which was enjoying almost universal acceptance as the most widely applicable and easiest-to-use microprocessor available. Most of the popular statements about it were pretty much on the money. Of course, the evolution of the 64K DRAM made its refresh counter more or less useless, but the impact of that wasn't to be felt for a couple of years yet, as commercial production of the 3-voltage 16K DRAMS was just getting into full swing. >I'm not slamming the 6502 or it heirs as it's also a very popular embedded >CPU still. For that fact so are the Z8 and Z80 heirs. Just from that it's >possible to conclude they all had desirable enough characteristics to keep >them in the running. I agree with you there. The Zilog boys had the CP/M crowd to maintain the low-end of their development system market, so nobody could complain it was too expensive to develop. The MOS-Technology folks had merely to point at the Apple to accomplish the same thing. Meanwhile, Motorola was making a BIG mistake, abandoning the amateur and "small" users. >As a CPU the 8051 is ok, I use it. As a controller it's without question >a popular part still. But as a general purpose cpu, it's a really bad >C or Pascal compiler host/target. Since the evolution of the now-popular 'C' and PASCAL compilers for the 8051-core micro's, I believe the popularity of this 25-year-old model has actually increased. The HLL's and the development of high-speed versions of this processor family by DALLAS and Philips, among others have definitely extended the life of this family. The simple migration path to "bigger" parts of more or less the same architecture, e.g. '251, has also made many a '51-core user. I believe that it's as a consequence of that, that there are now compilers for several truly "ugly" architectures, e.g. the PIC/SCENIX class of processors. There are also VHDL and VERILOG cores for several of the older architectures, e.g. 650x, available for those who prefer to "roll-their-own" which are also, though less well, supported with compilers and other tools. Again, Motorola seems to have been left behind at least with their smaller MCU's. I guess that's because of their reputation for spurning applications which consume fewer than 100K parts per week. > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

If you look at the instructions as opposed to getting too hung up on the register assets, and simply look at what it takes to "do something" e.g. load a value, do some arithmetic, store a value, etc. the two instruction sets have considerable overlap. However, the longest instructions for the 6502 take six (?) clock ticks, while the shortest ones for the Z-80 take four. (feel free to correct me, as I haven't even though about this, let alone looked at precise instruction details for over ten years.) I don't know how long the longest instruction for the Z-80 takes nor do I even know what its longest instruction is. I'd imagine it's one in which you load a 16-bit register from memory, indexed, or some such. That would have to take a fair number of clock ticks. In my comparisons, I've always fudged in favor of the Z-80, because it didn't make sense to me that a processor so cheap and simple would be as much faster than a Z-80 as the 6502 appeared. The hardware problems aside, the Z-80 instruction set is full of pretty complex instructions which take a number of clock ticks. The 6502 is full of fairly complex instructions too, but not as many. Fortunately, most programmers don't use ALL of either processor's instructions unless they are pushed. If you look at a simple load-the-accumulator then store-the-result, which occurs often in almost any application, the Z-80 takes about 6 ticks in the opcode fetch/decode (the instruction is decoded during the refresh cycle), three for each byte of the source address, then three to fetch the value. It then takes as long to store the result to memory. That's 6+3+3+3=15, twice is 30 ticks, or 7.5 microseconds at 4MHz. The 6502 takes one to fetch the load opcode, one to fetch each byte of the source address, one to execute the load, one to fetch the store opcode, one for each byte of the destination address, and one to accomplish the store. That's 5 to load, 5 to store, which is 10, right? It would appear that the 6502 would get through this pretty quickly at the same clock rate, i.e. 2.5 microseconds, but the problem is that external peripheral devices wouldn't run this fast. What's more, the 4 MHz parts, though priced a little higher than a 4 MHz Z-80, in 1980, the Z-80 had peripherals which would work very well together with the CPU at 4 MHz. Nevertheless, that's a 3:1 performance ratio which, based on the fact that there were many more register-to-register (quick) operations available to the Z-80 programmer, it's hard to imagine these would close the gap that much. They would have a significant impact, though. I think you can easily build a circuit with a 2 MHz 6502 and one with a 4 MHz Z-80 and make a comparison yourself. If you honestly try to take advantage of the instruction set to accomplish a task on both processors, you'll play HELL getting the Z-80 to keep up. It can be done, though, if the task is chosen properly. A pair of simulators would be really handy, wouldn't it? Dick -----Original Message----- From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 10:55 AM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) >On Apr 11, 10:20, Richard Erlacher wrote: >> Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit >51 >> I have to disagree with your comparison of the 2 MHz 6502 with a 4 MHz >> Z-80A. My thought here is that the 4MHz Z-80 used in the conventional >way, >> had a memory cycle of 750 nanoseconds (3 clock ticks), while the 6502, at >> whatever rate, again, used in the conventional way, had a memory cycle of >> one clock tick. Now, some instructions involve several memory cycles, >but >> that was true of both processor families. What I often cursed, was that >the >> textbook application of the 650x core left memory available (idle) half >the >> time. That was a blessing up to a point (2.5 MHz to be exact) because it >> allowed for DRAM "RAS-precharge." The Apple and others like it proved >that >> at around 1 MHz, the 6502's memory could be used for an entirely separate >> purpose, e.g. video refresh. > >I wasn't talking about precisely 2MHz vs 4MHz, just a ballpark figure (as >opposed to "about the same" or "about ten times" clock speeds). So, given >the rest of your message, I think we're in broad agreement. BTW, BBC >Micros have a 2MHz clock on the 6502, and interleaved video and processor >access quite happily in 1980. The video took care of the refresh >requirement. > >> I believe there are entirely too many subjective, architecture-related, >> factors to allow an absolute comparison/contrast of the two processors. > >Agreed :-) That's why lies, damned lies, and benchmarks are so much fun >:-) > >> In my "gut" I still believe the 4 MHz Z-80 is about >> comparable to a 1.5 MHz 6502. > >Well, that's not very far from what I wrote, is it? I was just pointing >out that although Allison seemed to imply that a 6 or 8MHz Z80 was much >faster than a 4MHz(? I haven't got the original message any more) 6502, I >believe that to be far from the case. > >-- > >Pete Peter Turnbull > Dept. of Computer Science > University of York

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by edick＠idcomm.com

I didn't hate the glyptol on the screws nearly so much as I hated the bayonet interlocks, which often broke when you opened a RS box Dick -----Original Message----- From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 12:16 PM Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism >On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote to Allison: >> The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint >> about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a >> bunch of stuff/mods. > >While I agree, I kinda doubt that Allison has EVER plugged in ANYTHING >before she "opened the box and added a bunch of stuff/mods". So, she >might not see that as quite the negative that you do :-) > >> The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said for >> the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not. > >While velcro is certainly extraordinarily convenient, particularly to >those bothered by screwdrivers. But, as an occasional professional auto >mechanic, I hardly felt that half a dozen screws made something hard to >open. But it is true that RS had a very bad attitude about it. They >actually had anti-tamper paint on one of the screws! One of the local RS >technicians had an interesting slant on that: Since RS's policies >apparently didn't explicitly mention modifications, only that the tamper >seal must be intact, he would happily do the various warranty mods (there >were SEVERAL for the early EI), IFF you provided him circuit sketches for >all mods, and put a dab of the anti-tamper paint (he would provide it) on >the screw after you made the mods. He said that if the store manager >balked at seeing additional stuff through the slots of the "unopened" >case, just start talking about "building boats in bottles". Apple's >attitude of "go on in!" was much more refreshing. > > >> When I saw my first PC in a commercial environment, it was running CP/M-86 >> because that had the software the business owner was using previously on his >> Z-80. I often wondered what motivated him to switch. I also saw a couple >> of people's Apple-II running CP/M-86, and was awed by the fact they'd run an >> OS that was slower than the previous and better-endowed (with software) >> CP/M-80 in the same basic environment. > >Interesting. What after-market system were they running to do CP/M-86 on >the Apple? > >> IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world: >> They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy. >"PC" was in moderately common usage around here before IBM's entry. >IBM always considered "PC" to be a shortened description, NOT a trade >name! They did NOT trademark "PC". They never even trademarked >"PC-DOS"!! OTOH, "MS-DOS" IS a registered trademark. > >> Having done >> that, the behemoth was overrun by smaller, more adept innovators. > >Like a handful of fleas on an elephant. > >One fellow referred to Compaq's "challenge" of IBM as "a mouse running up >the elephant's leg with intent to rape". > >

27 years, 3 months

2
1
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by edick＠idcomm.com

Once again, I've concluded it's more efficient to embed my comments in your quoted message. Have a look below, please. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 7:25 AM Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism ><You've got two tracks mixed up, I think. True, the Apple II was quite ><plentiful in 80, but not in businesses the way it was in 82-83. I even ha ><several of them with people to man them as well. I hated the Apple but ><loved the 6502. In the meantime, I noted that the RS Model 1 was a piece o ><junk, and, in fact, so much of one that I never bought one, even for ><experimentation, and I had nearly every other sort of box around the shop. > >OK, maybe where you were that was true. However despite the TRS80s >shortfalls (most corrected with mods or outside hardware) I knew of >businesses using them, and I may add same for the apple II. > ><The model 1 was quite common, but the model 1 was in too many pieces to be ><of much interest to most folks. What's more, it was pretty weak-kneed. Th ><model 3 held out hope, though that was later dashed when the model 3 turne ><out to be not much better. > >My slant was the M1 was close but people wanted something more "one box". >The M3 was never more than a blip on the screen because when it hit the >streets there were plenty more choices and all of them deemed (if only >subjectively) better. The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a bunch of stuff/mods. The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said for the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not. >In the business worlds in NY and eastern PA S100 crates were the rule as >most were seen as the business strength machines and the apple/trs80 >as toys. This was by people that didn't care what cpu only that it ran! > ><The initial impact of the PC was to get people to stop buying non-PC's for ><their businesses. They were extremely costly at first, and didn't have a ><few serious problems worked out. People had to mortgage their houses to bu ><one (a basic PC on the gray-market cost nearly $2k). > >Not really. If you were invested in apple then PC was a non-player as >nothing was compatable and you lost your investement going over. For the >z80 crowd (TRS and S100 crates) that was slightly less a concern but >PCs needed to get up to speed with applications first. Keep in mind when >the PC was introduced the only 8086 stuff out there was ISIS based >and mostly as development tools. It was the spread sheets and graphic >programs that caused the great sucking sound of people going PC but, that >would take more time than your indicating. When I saw my first PC in a commercial environment, it was running CP/M-86 because that had the software the business owner was using previously on his Z-80. I often wondered what motivated him to switch. I also saw a couple of people's Apple-II running CP/M-86, and was awed by the fact they'd run an OS that was slower than the previous and better-endowed (with software) CP/M-80 in the same basic environment. >Yes, I remember getting a bonus check becuase of the PC in 82. IT wasn't >for implementing as a useful system it was for FIXing the design. Seems >one of the design bugs was it would only run intel chipsets. IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world: They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy. Having done that, the behemoth was overrun by smaller, more adept innovators. >As to the cost of a PC... equipped as a useful machine that could run >production it was far from $2k! > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

3
2
0 0

Restoring an 8/E

by mbg＠world.std.com

>Thanks Megan! The are great pictures. Thanks... >Can I confirm a couple of things? >That the vents in the cover are offset from the fans in the PSU? so it >goes: ><begin fixed width font> > ----------------- > | + > | + <- cover vents > | + | > + | | > + <- PSU fans | | > + | | > | + | > | + <--+ > | + > ----------------- ><end fixed width font> I can't really tell... I'm not near the machine right now... and the picture is not good enough to figure that out. >And does the cover have a lip over the PSU with holes in the side to >screw into the PSU? I had a hard time seeing the plastic catches that >were discussed here on the list. The cover does have a lip on the PSU side of the case. There are no screw holes, just the latches. On mine, the latches (which are plastic) seem to have been broken off, so that's probably why you don't see them. They're black on black in a lossy photo, so easy to miss... 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

Micropolis 1518/1538 (24MHz) drive problems

by jpero＠cgocable.net

Wait everybody! I have the same old thing that is on that website and these drives that info is based on assumes it's "stock" setup for standard 512byte in peecees applications or like that is compatiable with this settings. I suspected that both drives I have here might be set for specific applications used in nonstandard machines for example RT. I knew of this facts some drives get special mods or special jumper settings. Those are what I need to confirm that my drives are set up properly. This info I'm searching for are not found on the 'net with basic search engines like looksmart.com, go2net.com etc. Wizard

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by edick＠idcomm.com

I agree with your comment about the IBM's. The first PC-clone I bought was an XT based on an 80186. By comparison with other available XT-class machines, it was EXTREMELY fast. It was, in fact, quicker than the initial AT-class IBM's, as it ran at 12 MHz. The '186 and '286 had the same execution unit, hence the same code would run in the same time, if the clocks were at the same speed. The '286 got the fancy MMU, however, while the '186 got the built-in peripherals, which the boot firmware had to relocated out of the way first off. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 12:45 PM Subject: Re: What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism ><The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint ><about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a ><bunch of stuff/mods. The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said fo ><the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not. > >RS didn't want people opening the box. Since there really wasn't a bus on >it internally to hook up to there was little reason besides the internal >hacks (lowercase, speed ups, control ^key, and tape fixes.). The real >problem is the V1 EI was a total dissaster. Obviously the designer new >nothing about the timing and skew constraints for Dram. the later V2 EI >was far better. > >The other thing was apple sorta supported adding boards to increase >functionality or performance. They were amoung the first to have the >essence of plug and play. That was a very good thing. > ><When I saw my first PC in a commercial environment, it was running CP/M-86 ><because that had the software the business owner was using previously on hi ><Z-80. I often wondered what motivated him to switch. I also saw a couple ><of people's Apple-II running CP/M-86, and was awed by the fact they'd run a ><OS that was slower than the previous and better-endowed (with software) ><CP/M-80 in the same basic environment. > >it wasn't an operating system thing it was programs like databases (DBASE) >and spreadsheets (multiplan and VISICALC) what were the killer apps for >business and they ate RAM big time. The z80 could have banked ram, some >did but there never got to be a concenses on how to do it and support it at >the OS level and then the 16bit cpus wer hyped to solve that "64k barrier". > ><IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world: ><They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy. Having done ><that, the behemoth was overrun by smaller, more adept innovators. > >Absolutly. The Compupro and other 8086 S100 systems were far faster and >could run many more OSs and apps. One outfit held off from PCs until >1993 when it was a leap to 386s. The leap also was from older DBASE to >the then hotter Paradox. Sometimes software drives hardware. > > >Allison >

27 years, 3 months

1
0
0 0

What if,... early PCs (was: stepping machanism

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<The principal complaint I heard about the M1 was the principal complaint <about the M3. It was a paper tiger until you opened the box and added a <bunch of stuff/mods. The same, to lesser extent, perhaps, could be said fo <the Apple. The Apple was made easy-to-open. The RS boxes were not. RS didn't want people opening the box. Since there really wasn't a bus on it internally to hook up to there was little reason besides the internal hacks (lowercase, speed ups, control ^key, and tape fixes.). The real problem is the V1 EI was a total dissaster. Obviously the designer new nothing about the timing and skew constraints for Dram. the later V2 EI was far better. The other thing was apple sorta supported adding boards to increase functionality or performance. They were amoung the first to have the essence of plug and play. That was a very good thing. <When I saw my first PC in a commercial environment, it was running CP/M-86 <because that had the software the business owner was using previously on hi <Z-80. I often wondered what motivated him to switch. I also saw a couple <of people's Apple-II running CP/M-86, and was awed by the fact they'd run a <OS that was slower than the previous and better-endowed (with software) <CP/M-80 in the same basic environment. it wasn't an operating system thing it was programs like databases (DBASE) and spreadsheets (multiplan and VISICALC) what were the killer apps for business and they ate RAM big time. The z80 could have banked ram, some did but there never got to be a concenses on how to do it and support it at the OS level and then the 16bit cpus wer hyped to solve that "64k barrier". <IBM really performed only one major service to the microcomputer world: <They lent it its own trade name, which was its legitimacy. Having done <that, the behemoth was overrun by smaller, more adept innovators. Absolutly. The Compupro and other 8086 S100 systems were far faster and could run many more OSs and apps. One outfit held off from PCs until 1993 when it was a leap to 386s. The leap also was from older DBASE to the then hotter Paradox. Sometimes software drives hardware. Allison

27 years, 3 months

1
0
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