I'm sure this is not even an original thought, but the Year 2000 presents
a special opportunity for collectors like us.
Think of all the companies who are right now weighing whether or not those
old mainframes that have been chugging away in their data centers for
years, perhaps even decades, are worth one more upgrade to support 4-digit
years or whether it would make more sense to finally take the painful
route of scrapping their old iron and moving on to PCs or AS400s or
whatnot. I predict a tremendous flood of old mainframe and mini hardware
coming to market like so many cattle which will only peak on December 31,
1999.
This is a once in a millennium opportunity! So make sure you've got
plenty of space and plenty of petty cash to throw around cuz its gonna be
easy pickins.
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame me...I voted for Satan.
Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
[Last web page update: 04/23/98]
On 1998-04-24 classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu said to lisard(a)zetnet.co.uk
:> I have: 1802, SC/MP, 6800, 6809, NEC D78PG11, 8748/9, 8751,
:>8080/8085, z80, z180, z280, z8002, z8001, 808x, 8018x, 80286,
:>80386, 80486 and the micro version of minis 6100(pdp-8),
:>6120(PDP-8+EMA) TI9900, PDP11(T-11, F11, J-11).
:Showoff :-) No 8008? I always wanted a 4004 (anyone listening out
:there, that's a hint) and an SC/MP. Anybody remember Fairchild F8's?
remember, no. heard of, yes. the Great CPU list is a wonderful thing...
:> Now something with a MIPS chip, ARM, sparc or some such would be
:>a great addition of a real RISC processor.
:Well, I've got all of those, and my favourite is the ARM. I've had
:to write MIPS assembler, and it's not great fun.
most risc processors are not fun to program in assembler. some risc
chips - notably the novix and a few other forth cpus - look like murder
to program. however, one of the design criteria of the arm was that it
was to be easy to program in assembler - and the instruction set
certainly suggests that it should be.
(not having one, we can't say "it is", but hopefully that will be
remedied before too long.)
--
Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling
you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her...
There's a big difference between a NUL string and a NULL pointer.
----------
From: Pete Turnbull[SMTP:pete@dunnington.u-net.com]
Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 5:22 AM
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Subject: Re: [getting old punched cards read]
On Apr 24, 1:35, Captain Napalm wrote:
> Well, I snagged a copy of it, compiled it, found a bug, and fixed it.
> strcpy() (at least on my compiler) will crash if any of the parameters
> are NULL pointers,
That's a compiler (or library, actually) bug. You should be able to copy a
null string.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On Apr 24, 15:38, Hotze wrote:
> This is very off topic, but anyway: Write a letter to the government.
Writing to *my* government isn't likely to do much good against most spam,
which tends to originate from US sites. All the UK ISPs I know of have an
anti-spam policy anyway.
> Reply to the spammers,
Not often a good idea, since the consensus seems to be that responses
merely confirm that the address they used is (still) valid.
I hadn't thought about the free email account idea, but I'm not sure I want
yet another account.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Does anyone know if Ebay is a publicly traded stock?
If so I would like to buy a few hundred shares. It
has to be one of the most enormously successful
phenomena on the net.
Bob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
On Apr 24, 1:35, Captain Napalm wrote:
> Well, I snagged a copy of it, compiled it, found a bug, and fixed it.
> strcpy() (at least on my compiler) will crash if any of the parameters
> are NULL pointers,
That's a compiler (or library, actually) bug. You should be able to copy a
null string.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On 1998-04-23 classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu said to lisard(a)zetnet.co.uk
:The PDP-11 architecture has only 7 GP registers (since you can't
:really use the PC for just anything) but that's good for the times,
:and they really are interchangable, so I'd be willing to argue that
:it wins on that.
and having the PC as part of the general register set - even if it is a
bit limited in what you can do with it - is a huge design win; you can
lose an awful lot of PC-specific instructions that way. the SOAR used
such an idea, if memory serves.
:Similar, but in many ways quite different. I just had this
:argument (from a somewhat different point of view) on another
:mailing list. The 68K is much more like a PDP-11 than anything
:else, but it has a lot of clutter added.
what about the CP1600?
:That's my third of a tanner.
hey! some of us are post-decimalisation, you know!
--
Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling
you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her...
<I hadn't thought about the free email account idea, but I'm not sure I wa
<yet another account.
I haven't figured the use for that as an email account isn't want you need
to post to a USENET newsgroup or read from a newgroup.
Allison
>> This is very off topic, but anyway: Write a letter to the government.
>
>Writing to *my* government isn't likely to do much good against most spam,
>which tends to originate from US sites. All the UK ISPs I know of have an
>anti-spam policy anyway.
You're right, but still, if the UK could pass a law to make spam illegal, it
would at least cause ripples to the US and every where else in the world.
>Not often a good idea, since the consensus seems to be that responses
>merely confirm that the address they used is (still) valid.
Four letter words. They do wonders with spammers.
>I hadn't thought about the free email account idea, but I'm not sure I want
>yet another account.
Sorry... I've only got two right now. And usually, I have one, but I had to
get one at Geocities as it's not ISP-dependant, and I'm moving to Guyana, so
during travel, I'll be suffeirng withdrawel from the Internet.
Does anyone have a 386 portable somewhere stateside that I could buy?
Ciao,
Tim D. Hotze
>--
>
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of York
Tony Duell wrote:
>I'll stick to a card reader that outputs 12 TTL signals + a strobe for
>each column. I can understand that.
OK, Tony, send me a spare card reader and I'll stop foaming at the
mouth about this. :-) Leave the file formats to me; that's been
my speciality for the last fifteen years!
- John
Jefferson Computer Museum <http://www.threedee.com/jcm>
On Commodore Monitors for C128D.
If you can find one you would want to get a Commodore 1902/a, 1084, or 2002.
They support the RGBI (80 column video) as well as the split-composite (40
column video) the 128 produces. Magnavox produced much of the 1084 line and
had a Magnavox model available (something like professional 80 column monitor,
the front panel on mine is missing so I don't have the name). Regardless If
you want to use both 40 and 80 column video, best to get one of the
multi-function monitors, else you will need an RGBI and a composite montor
(which by the way the C= 128 can display to both simultaneously as they are
different video controllers at work.)
On CP/M 3.0+.
Really nice version; can read a variety of popular CP/M disk formats using
the 1571 disk drive. If you plan to use 3.5" disks I guggest you look for a
later version the the versoion supplied with the 128D, there are no support
drivers for the 1581 (can't boot of of it etc.)
Also "GO 64" gets you only to the Commodore 64 mode. you either place your
CP/M disk in the drive before power-up or after power-up type "BOOT" in 128
mode to boot the operating system disk. (note make sure the 40/80 column key
is down on power-up to ensure the 128 starts up in 80 column mode. :)
Larry Anderson
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS (300-2400bd) (209) 754-1363
Visit my Commodore 8-Bit web page at:
http://www.goldrush.com/~foxnhare/commodore.html
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Exactly. I have the KoalaPaint program, but only for the commodore.
>
>No, I need the paint program itself -- or any apple paint program.
>
>Manney
>
>>>Does anyone have the disks for the paint program that came with the
Apple
>>>Koala pad?
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>> <I received the same spam. And I did not know that this list was
>> <being archived (other than by interested members).
>
>> Ah foo! Everytime I think I've plugged the source for spam I find
>> something like this.
>
>> Any suggestions on how to stop it?
>
>I include a little bit of junk in my "From: " lines when I post to usenet
>from this account, and it seems to work. All the spam I get goes to an
>account I rarely use now, and it's tailing off. I didn't used to mung the
>address I use for this list, but perhaps I better start. Oh, spit, as they
>say.
This is very off topic, but anyway: Write a letter to the government. Reply
to the spammers, say that you don't care about the shit that they're sending
you, you're not reading it, and you think that they're very disreputable and
that it's a wrong way of doing business. 2) Get a free e-mail account, such
as http://www.hotmail.com , http://www.rocketmail.com or a free one that you
can get with a web site, from a business or ISP, etc. or Yahoo! or the like.
Us that for Usenet, and if you get a private message there, talk to 'em that
way.
>--
>
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of York
Tim D. Hotze
On Apr 24, 8:11, Allison J Parent wrote:
> <Uncle Roger wrote:
>
> <I received the same spam. And I did not know that this list was
> <being archived (other than by interested members).
> Ah foo! Everytime I think I've plugged the source for spam I find
> something like this.
> Any suggestions on how to stop it?
I include a little bit of junk in my "From: " lines when I post to usenet
>from this account, and it seems to work. All the spam I get goes to an
account I rarely use now, and it's tailing off. I didn't used to mung the
address I use for this list, but perhaps I better start. Oh, spit, as they
say.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
<Uncle Roger wrote:
<I received the same spam. And I did not know that this list was
<being archived (other than by interested members). Will the standard
<X-archive directive prevent this? (Some so-called "archive" systems
<ignore it). I get enough junkmail as it is, due to my outspokenness
Ah foo! Everytime I think I've plugged the source for spam I find
something like this. This explains where the porno sex spammers that
use @earthlink.com are getting the address from.
That bunch is annoys me as I get that garbage 5-6 times a day.
Any suggestions on how to stop it?
Allison
Ethan Dicks <erd(a)infinet.com> wrote:
>Been there, done that. There's a commercial program to convert .WAV
>files of C-64 data tapes back into usable files. It also works if
>you hook a real C-64 datassete to the parallel port.
I know these programs exist. There are some for the Spectrum and ZX-81,
too. However, I could generalize and say they were all DOS-based,
written in Pascal or assembler, don't come with source code, have
poor documentation, etc. and I want to roll my own in straight portable C.
I'd rather make it general to handle old S-100 tapes, C-64 tapes, etc.
instead of just hard-coding one flavor. It should be ready in
the year 2010.
Tony Duell wrote:
>I personally think I'll have more luck finding spares for my M200 card
>reader, my Trend UDR700 paper tape reader, etc in 20 year time than
>you'll have finding parts for a quickcam.
No, my point is that it's more useful to have generic tools to help
rescue old data. Sure, QuickCams are nearly disposable now. Cheap
$1,500 PCs include them these days. Five years from now, they'll be
embedded in cheap monitors. Ten years from now, they'll be in cereal
boxes. Unless the hobby of collecting computer junk is adopted by
Hollywood stars, I humbly suggest that it will be at least *more difficult*
for you to find spares for your original equipment than it will be
for me to find something that could deliver a bitmap by looking
at my punched card. :-)
- John
Jefferson Computer Museum <http://www.threedee.com/jcm>
At 11:56 AM 4/19/98 +0100, you wrote:
>this is odd - we got exactly the same message chez communa. we're just
>wondering which address list they used, for sam's name to be on it as
>well as ours...
Well, you're both on the ClassicCmp list, which is echoed to a web site...
And yes, there are spambots that comb web pages looking for e-mail
addresses. I know, because I have gotten Spam on my alphapager, and I
*know* I've never posted to a usenet newsgroup from my pager. 8^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
As I was saying there was no clue to who owns Commodore *-Bit technology I
received this message from the CBM-Hackers maillist:
> Subject: Copyrights Commodore
> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 98 20:47:52 GMT
> From: rbaltiss(a)worldaccess.nl
> Reply-To: cbm-hackers(a)dot.tcm.hut.fi
> To: cbm-hackers(a)dot.tcm.hut.fi (c64-maillist)
>
> Hallo allemaal,
>
> I just got some interesting news from my friend Wim. We both are members of the
> border (???) of the Commodore GG (= User Group). As largest Commodore group
> here in Holland and due to other reasons as well, we have established close
> contacts with Tulip ie. Commodore.
> Wim got an official letter of Tulip saying that they own all the rights of all
> Commodores through out of the world with exception of the Amiga. So now we know.
>
> Next question is if we can get permission to continue the activities we employ
> like placing ROMs, sourcelistings etc. on the net. I already had an unofficial
> answer ("We don't mind as long it is not commercial") but an official one would
> be better.
>
> Groetjes, ruud
So I guess there is hope for us classic computing fans after all! :)
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS (300-2400bd) (209) 754-1363
Visit my Commodore 8-Bit web page at:
http://www.goldrush.com/~foxnhare/commodore.html
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> From: Julian Richardson <JRichardson(a)softwright.co.uk>
> Subject: Schematics sites?
> Message-ID: <c=GB%a=_%p=SSA_Softwright%l=EXCH001-980422114123Z-2323(a)exch001.softwright.co.uk>
>
> Hi all,
>
> are there any good sites out there containing collections of schematics
> for old machines? I occasionally come across sites with a few schematics
> / info for specific machines, but has anyone collected stuff together
> for several different machines into one place?
There is a growing one for Commodre 8-bit aficionados at:
http://www.funet.fi/pub/cbm/
This FTP site has various shematics ROM Images, etc.
Copyrights seem to be a mute issue for the 8-bits, as no one seems to really
know who holds the Copyrights on the 8-bit Commodores (Escom?, Tulip?,
Visicorp?, Gateway 2000?, the former MOS Technologies?) It is a popular
thread on comp.sys.cbm.
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS (300-2400bd) (209) 754-1363
Visit my Commodore 8-Bit web page at:
http://www.goldrush.com/~foxnhare/commodore.html
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Tony Duell said:
>BTW, does anyone know the position on reverse-engineered schematics? >Who
owns the copyright on those?
Check out BOMARC SERVICES (http://w3.trib.com/~rollo/bomcat.htm)
Their catalog has 3,000 devices that they have reversed engineered and
sell the schematics for. They usually advertise in Nuts and Volts.
I remember when I was at Tengen in 91 or 92 and we were just getting
started on the Sega Genesis, we sent them one and they sent back the
schematics. It came in real handy, the only programming manual was
xeroxed, handwritten and translated from Japanese (badly).
=========================================
Doug Coward dcoward(a)pressstart.com
Senior Software Engineer
Press Start Inc.
Sunnyvale,CA
Curator
Museum of Personal Computing Machinery
http://www.best.com/~dcoward/museum
=========================================
<> Compared to maybe 6800 or 6502, the 8080 had 4 16bit registers (bc, de,
<> hl, sp). The z80 added a second set and IX/IY. But that was only one
<> aspect.
<
<Oh come on. The 16 bit registers in the Z80 were hardly general-purpose
<in the PDP11 or RISC sense. HL was almost a 16 bit accumulator.
My comment was to point out that most of the micros were not register
poor like the 6800 or 6502 only that they really didn't use them well.
<The ARM was developed as a 32 bit replacement for the 6502 according to
<one rumour (from Acorn, BTW). They didn't like any of the existing 16 or
<32 bit chips, so they designed their own...
I've looked briefly at that chip and it's real simple and straightforward.
Never had a chance to play with one.
<The one instruction per clock cycle definition is daft IMHO. It shouldn't
<matter whether you take a 64MHz clock and have 8 cycles per instruction
<or take an 8MHz clock and derrive other timing signals from it using gate
<delays or a delay line. The throughput is the same. And the critical
<paths have the same timing.
I agree mostly save for at the time that notion was in vogue the maximum
clock rate was circuit limited in NMOS and CMOS devices so fewer clocks
for a cycle equaled greater speed. Most of the RISC proponents of the
time were talking lower transistor counts, clock frequencies, lower
silicon cost and higher testability than their CISC counterparts for the
same overall system performance. The concept was really applicable to
microprocessors as no engineer at the time could even conceive of
injecting clock at 100mhz in to a micro at a time when gate propagation
delays at the silicon level were greater than 10ns. The concept was
appealing when z80s were hitting the wall at 6mhz and 8086s were fast at
10mhz. Of course as Hmos-III and sub 1micron CMOS started to show signs
of going much faster...
Allison
<FWIW, it's been my experience that on problems small enough to be tackle
<by the J-11, an 18MHz J-11 eats the VAX-11/780 for lunch.
The PDP-11 is no slouch. I've used the T-11 part for some things and
even using the pokey 7.5mhz clock some tasks are faster than most
anything contemporary to it like the z80/8mhz even though the numbers
say slower. It's that CISC with superior addressing modes that put it
out ahead.
I've found the same but it's task dependant and also the 780 is always
doing more than the J-11 due to OS. I did get a chance to try that
once and the 780 was running nothing more than the usual background
tasks and it was close but then both are about 1mips. Same was true in
1978 when the 11/70 was put up against the 11/780. The 2vup and faster
VAXen made it a no contest in favor of the VAX though. As soon as the
task exceeds 64k or the user/task load gets up there the differences
start to stretch out with the vax ahead. A faster PDP-11 will always
have that disadvantage.
Allison
Tony Duell wrote:
>The problem with solutions like the quickcam is that, if you're not
>careful, in 10 years time the new version will not work with the hardware
>or OS that you've chosen to run
Just to flog the horse, my point was that my C code will deal with
a bitmap. It doesn't care which technology produces the bitmap:
today's QuickCam, tomorrow's Java Ring, 2010's 3D scanner.
A friend of mine has a joke that goes something like "In ten years
we'll have a wrist computer with the horsepower of today's $5,000
workstation, voice recognition, holographic memory, etc. but there
will still be an obscure way to get back to the C: prompt."
- John
Jefferson Computer Museum <http://www.threedee.com/jcm>
On Apr 23, 14:31, Captain Napalm wrote:
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Replies to various threads
> It was thus said that the Great Allison J Parent once stated:
> > Now something with a MIPS chip, ARM, sparc or some such would be a
great
> > addition of a real RISC processor.
>
> I think it's the Nintendo-64 that has a MIPS chip in it, and with the
> right peripherals, would make for one killer computer (it's basically an
SGI
> sans keyboard, harddrive and network connection).
The MIPS chip in a Nintendo is a cut-down version of the versions used in
SGI and the Nintendo is a long way from an SGI sans keyboard, harddrive,
etc. I can't remember all the differences now, but I discussed it with SGI
last year when I was looking for a fast CPU for an embedded application.
We have lots of SGIs (of different types) here, so MIPS devices were one
of the obvious things to look at. It's definitely RISC, though :-) The
eventual choice was StrongARM, though the project never got built.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
I've added some new sections to the Vintage Computer Festival Web Page:
o The Recent Acquisitions Report lists the latest additions to the VCF
Archives
o You can now receive automatic notification via e-mail whenever a new VCF
announcement is made...be automatically notified when new speakers and
exhibitors are added to the event as well as when the web page is
updated
Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't blame me...I voted for Satan.
Coming in September...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
[Last web page update: 04/23/98]
If you find out who buys it at this price I have another one I'm willing to
let go for $1000;)
Francois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Sanctuary at: http://www.pclink.com/fauradon
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)wco.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 2:55 PM
Subject: Osborne 1 for $1000?
>
>Anyone want to buy an Osborne 1 for $1000? Didn't think so. However, if
> Glad to have you back. (I was wondering where the heck you were.)
> Tim D. Hotze
Thanks. I had a buncha work, then both my desktop and laptop suffered
problems.
btw, did you still need those drives? I turned up a couple of ST-157's (40
MB), but I don't know of they work. Yet.
manney(a)lrbcg.com
No, I need the paint program itself -- or any apple paint program.
Manney
>>Does anyone have the disks for the paint program that came with the Apple
>>Koala pad?
In a message dated 98-04-23 19:19:31 EDT, you write:
<< At 12:53 4/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Anyone want to buy an Osborne 1 for $1000? Didn't think so. However, if
>you're interested in trying to talk this guy down to reality, I have the
>contact info.
One of the original demo/proto Oz Ones with a metal case (of which Gale
Rhoades once said there were about a dozen) went for $1000 -- IIRC -- on
Onsale a couple of years ago. Not an ordinary one, no, but we have to be
sure what the dude's got.
__________________________________________
Kip Crosby engine(a)chac.org
http://www.chac.org/index.html
Computer History Association of California
>>
well, let's get the guy's email address. i'm willing to antagonize him about
the overhyped price, anyone else? >8->
david
Anyone have any info on a NEC PC-6001A? It has what looks like a
cartdrige or expansion port on the side and 2 joystick ports on the
other side. Along the rear are printer, tape, audio out, rf out,
video out and a volume control. Looks like it has a place for an
optional RS-232 port but this one doesn't have it.
Any info on this machine would be welcome; cpu, os, etc. Also, if
someone knows the pin outs for the printer and tape ports, that would
be helpful too.
Thanks.
-----
David Williams - Computer Packrat
dlw(a)trailingedge.com
http://www.trailingedge.com
<> The PDP-11 architecture has only 7 GP registers (since you can't really
<> the PC for just anything) but that's good for the times, and they reall
<> are interchangable, so I'd be willing to argue that it wins on that.
<
<I'm glad somebody agrees with me on that! IMHO the concept of a GP
<register is a RISC sort of thing. And, Allison, if you think RISC
<should be register-rich, I claim the PDP11 was for its date, and
<certainly was compared to micros of the 1970s.
Compared to maybe 6800 or 6502, the 8080 had 4 16bit registers (bc, de,
hl, sp). The z80 added a second set and IX/IY. But that was only one
aspect.
On the instructions RISC systems of the time and even later didn't have
the addressing modes and often had a distinct register load and store
instruction. The best example of that difference was an ADD (R1),@(r2)+.
Now compare that to the DG Nova and it is of a stark difference.
Of all the micros in my collection, none are RISC save for the PDP-8 and
6502 which in my mind come close.
I have: 1802, SC/MP, 6800, 6809, NEC D78PG11, 8748/9, 8751, 8080/8085,
z80, z180, z280, z8002, z8001, 808x, 8018x, 80286, 80386, 80486 and the
micro version of minis 6100(pdp-8), 6120(PDP-8+EMA) TI9900, PDP11(T-11,
F11, J-11).
Now something with a MIPS chip, ARM, sparc or some such would be a great
addition of a real RISC processor.
<I don't like the "one instruction per cycle" definition of RISC - for a s
<what is a cycle? I prefer to think of RISC as an "every cycle is sacred"
<philosophy - you don't waste cycles. I'd try to get _memory cycles_ as o
<as the hardware permits them - on the 6502, for example, one per cycle (a
<almost manages it!), on 8080/Z80/PDP one every two or three cycles - but
<wouldn't make them all instruction fetches!
Again the -11 fails on that definition. Typical instruction are several
clocks per cycle and several cycles per instruction. Now the Z280
approaches that at the bus level as it has a internal cache and pipline
but, the instruction set is non-risc.
<Except the early ones. Allison, are you sure it was the 11/05? I claim
<it was the 11/15 (I have an 05). However I will concede that 05 may
<have at one time been a name for an 11/20 variant.
It may have been the 15.
I'm not saying RISC is bad only that the PDP-11 is not RISC.
Allison
OK, Now I can make myself an rsx11m.sys, VMR is, BOOt it, but when I say
SAV, it runs for awhile, types "CAN'T FIND HOME BLOCK", and halts.
It also complains about having to reduce partitions to the soze of the
common area (?), and the TT: driver is bigger than 4K.
What've I done? I just switched DY and DL in the sysvmr.cmd file,
and removed DU (The driver is corrupted...)
-------
[PDP11 risc or cisc]
Pete Turnbull:
> I know that was directed at Allison, but I'd say that key features of RISC
> architectures include large numbers of general registers,
> one-instruction-per-cycle, and hardware decode rather than microcode, not
> just the obvious minimised instruction set.
>
> The PDP-11 architecture has only 7 GP registers (since you can't really use
> the PC for just anything) but that's good for the times, and they really
> are interchangable, so I'd be willing to argue that it wins on that.
I'm glad somebody agrees with me on that! IMHO the concept of a GP
register is a RISC sort of thing. And, Allison, if you think RISC
should be register-rich, I claim the PDP11 was for its date, and
certainly was compared to micros of the 1970s.
> It loses on the one-instruction-per-cycle, though. Instructions take vastly
> different amounts of time to execute, depending on what they are, and
> they're all several cycles long. Just think about the FP instructions, or
Yeeeeesss...
I don't like the "one instruction per cycle" definition of RISC - for a start,
what is a cycle? I prefer to think of RISC as an "every cycle is sacred"
philosophy - you don't waste cycles. I'd try to get _memory cycles_ as often
as the hardware permits them - on the 6502, for example, one per cycle (and it
almost manages it!), on 8080/Z80/PDP one every two or three cycles - but I
wouldn't make them all instruction fetches!
> the Commercial Instruction Set. That's not the most CISC thing you've ever
> seen? :-) At a more mundane level, the additions of instructions like ASH
Despite having a 11/44, I have never seen a Commercial instruction Set :-)
> is pretty CISC -- in fact the whole idea of extending the instruction set by
> altering or adding to microcode is the essence of CISC, and the antithesis
> of a Reduced Instruction Set Computer.
Agreed. Later PDPs were more CISC, and this reached its maximum in the
Vax. But the basic architecture is IMHO a risc one - very simple and
very powerful.
> And of course it loses on the microcode vs hardware decode.
Except the early ones. Allison, are you sure it was the 11/05? I claim
it was the 11/15 (I have an 05). However I will concede that 05 may
have at one time been a name for an 11/20 variant.
> Similar, but in many ways quite different. I just had this argument (from
> a somewhat different point of view) on another mailing list. The 68K is
> much more like a PDP-11 than anything else, but it has a lot of clutter
> added.
Fair enough.
> That's my third of a tanner.
:-)
Philip.
PS I shall try and refrain from further comment on this issue - I don't
want to be the one who started a RISC versus CISC flame war!
<The PDP-11 architecture has only 7 GP registers (since you can't really u
<the PC for just anything) but that's good for the times, and they really
Really, you can do things to the PC that most micros don't even have
instructions for. there are four addressing modes of not for the PC
immediate, absolute, relative and relative defered which when applied
to a any other register are autoincrement, autoincrement defered,
indexed and indexed defered. That distinction is quite powerful and
only some of that is available in many micros and generally distinct
instructions. Most micros have a data follows instruction (immediate)
and an address follows instruction (absolute) but the other two are
far less commonly implemented.
The biggest non-risc is the addressing modes some are impossible for most
risc machines. The two operand addresses uncommon to RISC and most
micros. Add to it the defered mode (register contains the address of
a word in ram that contains the address of an operand). That impacts
compiler complexity and code density.
<And of course it loses on the microcode vs hardware decode.
Oops. The chip versions are microcoded as was the 11/60 but I believe
the 11/05 and 11/20 were hardware decode.
Allison
><>fits in the primary cache of an Alpha. If possible, you'd be using the
><Alpha
><>essentially as a programmable microengine and programming it to be
><PDP-11.
><>The reason to fit it in the primary cache is because of how the Alpha
><boots;
>
>Huh? a PDP11 emulator for alpha would be written as PAL to get the best
>results. Caching it is pointless as it's still a 16bit machine and
>would still flog itself to death trying to manage a data file greater
>than fits in ram (4mb max on PDP11 and some of that would be code!).
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about caching any PDP-11 code or data,
just the Alpha code which executes the emulator. Any memory fetch which
fetches Alpha code is overhead; a real PDP-11 wouldn't have to make that
memory fetch. If you can build a PDP-11 emulator small enough to fit in the
primary cache, all of your memory fetches can be payload.
It wouldn't really be PAL code because it would be executing in the chip's
boot environment; loaded from SROM into primary cache and staying there.
It owuld have a lot of the characteristics of PALcode; the extra registers
which Palcode depends upon would be visible, the MMU would be off, etc., but
it wouldn't really be PALcode because it wouldn't be called by a PAL trap.
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
> Competing against the mostly 16bit 8088/6 and the 286 the PDP11 was out
> front. To match a 16bit cpu against a 32bitter... you must be inhaling!
FWIW, it's been my experience that on problems small enough to be tackled
by the J-11, an 18MHz J-11 eats the VAX-11/780 for lunch.
Roger Ivie
ivie(a)cc.usu.edu
Can anyone here help them out? Please respond to them and not me.
Thanks.
-----
Date sent: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:37:31 -0400
From: Liz Huntley <lizh(a)cannet.com>
Subject: Laser, Pal286
A question if don't you mind?
I'm tinkering with a Laser, Pal286. A customer of mine uses it, it had
a HDD Controller Failure. It actually works pretty well when it's
working. I don't suppose you know where I could get a working
motherboard for it... which I'm guessing that it needs.
I appreciate any info.
Thanks, Liz Huntley
| o_ | \ _ _ o _ ._ _ Liz Huntley
|_|/_ |_/(/__> |(_|| |_> lizh(a)cannet.com
_| Canton, Ohio
-----
David Williams - Computer Packrat
dlw(a)trailingedge.com
http://www.trailingedge.com
On Apr 23, 13:14, Philip.Belben(a)powertech.co.uk wrote:
> First, thanks to Pete, Allison and others for explaining the PDP11-23
> stuff. I stand corrected, I suppose.
I just like to show off :-)
> A long running discussion. Allison, I don't understand how you can say
> that the PDP11, with its very simple instruction set, is _more_ CISC
> than (say) the 80286, with which you compare it here. To my mind the
> only really CISC feature of the PDP11 is the MARK instruction. I fear
> we may be talking at cross purposes, and may mean different things by
> RISC and CISC - could you give some specific examples, please?
I know that was directed at Allison, but I'd say that key features of RISC
architectures include large numbers of general registers,
one-instruction-per-cycle, and hardware decode rather than microcode, not
just the obvious minimised instruction set.
The PDP-11 architecture has only 7 GP registers (since you can't really use
the PC for just anything) but that's good for the times, and they really
are interchangable, so I'd be willing to argue that it wins on that.
It loses on the one-instruction-per-cycle, though. Instructions take
vastly different amounts of time to execute, depending on what they are,
and they're all several cycles long. Just think about the FP instructions,
or the Commercial Instruction Set. That's not the most CISC thing you've
ever seen? :-) At a more mundane level, the additions of instructions
like ASH is pretty CISC -- in fact the whole idea of extending the
instruction set by altering or adding to microcode is the essence of CISC,
and the antithesis of a Reduced Instruction Set Computer.
And of course it loses on the microcode vs hardware decode.
> For those who think a souped up PDP11 could be a pentium killer, bear in
> mind that there was a 32 bit PDP11. I don't mean the VAX, and I don't
> mean the PDP11-68: I mean the Motorola 68000. AFAICT the two
> architectures are very, very similar. Is it a Pentium killer? The
> 68070 might have been but it's rather faded away now...
Similar, but in many ways quite different. I just had this argument (from
a somewhat different point of view) on another mailing list. The 68K is
much more like a PDP-11 than anything else, but it has a lot of clutter
added.
That's my third of a tanner.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
<Allison Parent wrote:
<
<> Competing against the mostly 16bit 8088/6 and the 286 the PDP11 was out
<> front. To match a 16bit cpu against a 32bitter... you must be inhaling
<
<A long running discussion. Allison, I don't understand how you can say
<that the PDP11, with its very simple instruction set, is _more_ CISC
<than (say) the 80286, with which you compare it here. To my mind the
<only really CISC feature of the PDP11 is the MARK instruction. I fear
<we may be talking at cross purposes, and may mean different things by
<RISC and CISC - could you give some specific examples, please?
The CISC features are in the use of general registers (no specific
accumulator) and a huge assortment of addressing modes in many cases
featuring two operand addresses. Most micros are either single address,
primary accumulator and loaded with specific registers. Think of one
micro that would permit PC relative addressing and stack relative. I
happen to know two but they are not common.
Compared to most RISC machines the PDP-11 is very CISC. Also at the
time of the PDP-11 RISC had a specific definition that the -11 clearly
didn't come close to. The definition of the era was all instruction
would execute in 1 to to clocks, register rich and very simple
instructions fast instructions compared to complex many clocks to execute
instructions. The idea of auto index deferred (*x++) is not a RISC concept
as it's far to complex to execute in one or two clocks(minimum of two to
three memory reads and one write).
Opinion: PDP-11 of all 16bit machines of wide spread use was the best
suited for C programming or FORTH due to it's stack archecture and
addressing modes. The only 16 bit machines that can beat it for code
density are a few of the byte instruction oriented machines using far
larger and more complex compilers.
<For those who think a souped up PDP11 could be a pentium killer, bear in
<mind that there was a 32 bit PDP11. I don't mean the VAX, and I don't
<mean the PDP11-68: I mean the Motorola 68000. AFAICT the two
<architectures are very, very similar. Is it a Pentium killer? The
<68070 might have been but it's rather faded away now...
Sorry, the moto is similar in that it borrows some concepts. It lacks
the general resgister archecture, misses the idea of orthoginality and
is a primary accumulator machine. It's at best PDP-11 on bad acid. It
could be a pentium killer as the 680xx was a 32bit machine from day 0.
The VAX is the closest machine to the PDP-11 in general archecture and
instruction set of the lot. I has has compete for years against the X86
machines for a number of years not by surperfast clock numbers but the
ability to manage memory and large numbers of users. The VAX 7000m7xx
series with the NVAX-5(circa 1994) chip was already killing anything
Intel would produce for a few years. People are not junking 7000series
machines over Pentium yet!
A far closer machine is the NS16032, still 32bits but borrows more on
PDP-11 and VAX then moto did.
Even the z8000 was more like PDP-11 than MOTO! It did keep the registers
more or less general, had most of the addressing modes and most all were
applicable to the general registers.
In the intel race there can be lots of competitors as some of the "big
box" systems have far better IO and DISK systems than are married to
most pentium class machines. In the end if you munging gigabyte data
bases raw cpu speed is only a partial solution if your waiting for the
disk!
Allison
On Apr 23, 5:52, Daniel A. Seagraves wrote:
> Subject: More RSX weirdness...
> Last night I stared at the halted 83 for a while.
> RSX-11M V4.1 BL35C 256.K MAPPED
> SAV -- Cannot find home block
>
> Then it smacked me like a ton of bricks: The high 4K of a PDP-11 is I/O space!
> I had 252K or RAM! So, I rebuilt RSX11M.SYS that way. It worked.
> I was able to hardware-boot the RL02.
> So, I reinstalled my RQDX3, loaded RT-11, said COPY DL0:/device RSX11M.DSK/file
> to make an image, Kermitted it to the PC (2:30 transfer time!) and loaded it
> into the emulator. Now, with the Supnik emulator set for 2M or RAM (Just like
> the 83...), I'm staring at the same screen, while booting. SAV can't find
> the home block. Same thing for E-11. But everything works just fine from
> the hardware.
Well, I'm at a loss as far as the emulators are concerned. I've used them
precisely once, and that was only with RT-11. I'm glad you got the rest working,
though, and I hope my imperfect memories helped rather than confused.
> Oh, and it says most of the TTs and the DU don't exist while
> booting. Which makes sense, they don't...
That might mean you can't use them at all. For some devices, if RSX can't find
the hardware during the boot, it disables the driver. There may be some clever
way to persuade it to re-enable them if you need to, but I don't know. So I
hope you mean that those devices really aren't physically present!
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
I haven't got time to type loads of messages. These are in a roughly
random order.
First, thanks to Pete, Allison and others for explaining the PDP11-23
stuff. I stand corrected, I suppose.
Tony Duell wrote:
> BTW, does anyone know the position on reverse-engineered schematics? Who
> owns the copyright on those? The original company, the person/company
> who drew them out, what? Or are they just plain illegal (I doubt the
> latter, as I've seen them advertised as such for devices where original
> manufacturer's manuals are not available).
AFAIK, you both do. You own the copyright in the diagram you've drawn
out, and the original designer/manufacturer owns the copyright in the
circuit it represents. So if I want to copy it I need permission both
>from you and from the designer. (It's like if I want to photocopy a
book I need permission from both the author and the publisher.)
Allison Parent wrote:
> Competing against the mostly 16bit 8088/6 and the 286 the PDP11 was out
> front. To match a 16bit cpu against a 32bitter... you must be inhaling!
A long running discussion. Allison, I don't understand how you can say
that the PDP11, with its very simple instruction set, is _more_ CISC
than (say) the 80286, with which you compare it here. To my mind the
only really CISC feature of the PDP11 is the MARK instruction. I fear
we may be talking at cross purposes, and may mean different things by
RISC and CISC - could you give some specific examples, please?
For those who think a souped up PDP11 could be a pentium killer, bear in
mind that there was a 32 bit PDP11. I don't mean the VAX, and I don't
mean the PDP11-68: I mean the Motorola 68000. AFAICT the two
architectures are very, very similar. Is it a Pentium killer? The
68070 might have been but it's rather faded away now...
Just my half groat's worth again!
(Yes, Tony, half a groat == tuppence == two pence == two pennies = (in
some sense) $0.02, which seems to be the value most people set on their
opinions here. About right in most cases (no offence intended))
Philip.
On Apr 22, 19:50, Daniel A. Seagraves wrote:
> Subject: Another RSX good one,,,
> OK, Now I can make myself an rsx11m.sys, VMR is, BOOt it, but when I
say
> SAV, it runs for awhile, types "CAN'T FIND HOME BLOCK", and halts.
Hmmmm... What are you trying to SAV this onto? The message means just
what it says. Sounds like you have an unformatted disk, or a disk error,
which might be due to corruption, or a hardware fault, or the disk isn't
online and writable, or you mistyped the disk specifier. What was the
prompt you got just before you typed SAV?
> It also complains about having to reduce partitions to the soze of the
> common area (?),
"VMR -- Partition reduced to executive common size", yes? This is just
for information. It's telling you that VMR has just installed an
executive common block in the appropriate partition, and eliminated some
unused space at the top of the partition. Executive is RSX-speak for
what unix buffs call the kernel, and what some other OSs refer to as the
monitor. A common block is a shared area, ie one that's not duplicated
for multiple instantiations of <whatever>.
> and the TT: driver is bigger than 4K.
That's just informative, not normally a problem. The RSX TT: driver is
quite big if it has many options enabled, and this is a common message.
> What've I done? I just switched DY and DL in the sysvmr.cmd file,
> and removed DU (The driver is corrupted...)
> -------
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Last night I stared at the halted 83 for a while.
RSX-11M V4.1 BL35C 256.K MAPPED
SAV -- Cannot find home block
Then it smacked me like a ton of bricks: The high 4K of a PDP-11 is I/O space!
I had 252K or RAM! So, I rebuilt RSX11M.SYS that way. It worked.
I was able to hardware-boot the RL02.
So, I reinstalled my RQDX3, loaded RT-11, said COPY DL0:/device RSX11M.DSK/file
to make an image, Kermitted it to the PC (2:30 transfer time!) and loaded it
into the emulator. Now, with the Supnik emulator set for 2M or RAM (Just like
the 83...), I'm staring at the same screen, while booting. SAV can't find
the home block. Same thing for E-11. But everything works just fine from
the hardware. Oh, and it says most of the TTs and the DU don't exist while
booting. Which makes sense, they don't...
-------
I received this email, if any one in Australia is interested contact
the party below, not me.
--------------------
Date sent: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:59:51 +1000
From: Alex Roche <alexr(a)amfac.com.au>
Organization: Amfac Pty Ltd
Subject: Honeywell Bull
Hi,
I have a Honeywell Bull X-Superstream.
Know any one in Sydney Australia (where I am) or elsewhere who wants
to buy one for a song?
Alex Roche
-----
David Williams - Computer Packrat
dlw(a)trailingedge.com
http://www.trailingedge.com
<> used to'. Now, admittedly you don't generally see the schematics of a
<> microprocesor (although I have understood minis to gate level), but
<> there's nothing magic about a CPU.
I have and they are really strange as many use dynamic storage cells
for registers and the like.
I did my EE training in the early 70s and computer meant the DEC-10,
PDP-8 or the S370s behind glass. I was doing mostly analog stuff in
the labs till I started squawking. They had be blinking neon lights
and to pay tuition I was designing 4cx250 pushpull amps at 460mhz and
my own UHF frequency counter. Before I'd left that I was doing 8008
designs and they were talking sequential logic.
To this day my favorite two programming languages are solder and
assembler.
Allison
At 05:56 PM 4/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I think I have other text convertors stashed that change a text file into
"jive",
>"valley girl" and yet another I can't think of right now for some reason.
It might
There is also chef-erizer (or something like that) that converts text into
"swedish" a la the Swedish Chef from the Muppets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
Okay, I'm way behind, but...
At 01:46 PM 4/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
>As it is the plant that cranked out most of the red
>army's tubes is still in use as a commercial tube plant, named SovTek.
They do
>make a hell of a tube but I don't think it's of much use for a PC.
Yes, SovTek still makes a lot of tubes, and they're available here in teh
US if you really want to build yourself a Tube-based computer. However,
most people are using them music amplifiers these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/
I picked up a C-128D this morning and need a monitor for it. As this is
my first Commodore, I have a couple of questions. Is the RGBI port on
the rear panel the same as RGB as in IMB CGA? Where might I find a CBM
1902 monitor? Were there any 1902 compatible monitors produced by
anyine else?
I only picked this one up because I wanted a machine that would rum
CP/M. It came with CP/M 3.0 boot disks and manuals.
Thanks'
James
