Nope, not gonna take it back.
In my circle of users in Brooklyn, EVERYBODY with a Model I had a doubler if they had disk drives. EVERYBODY.
I'm sure there are people on this list who didn't. Because you guys can be pretty stubborn, ornery and non-standard.
But anyone with a Model I who didn't get a doubler locked themselves out of lots of software, halved the storage capacity of their system, and had lots of trouble reading disks.
I bought my system as a 16k Level I, and upgraded it to a 4 drive 48k Level II.
Many people upgraded piecemeal. And a doubler was one of those "must have" upgrades.
That was my experience. Having worked for Stony Clove Computer Center, Spectrum Projects, Zebra Systems, Colorware and Alpha Products.
Al
Hi,
A friend of mine gave me a GatorBox CS recently. It works nicely, but the
firmware version is 1.6.1. I tried to update it to 3.0.3 with the software at
http://alfter.us/files/gatorbox/gatorbox-cs/ but when it goes to reboot into
update mode it stops with the Ethernet LED on. The same thing happens when I
try to do a software reset. A power cycle gets it unlocked but it's no longer
in update mode. Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Alexis.
Just a quick update to save a little nailbiting and head scratching -
Dave Thompson is _not_ at the phone number/address listed under his name in Bend OR. His ex-wife answered the phone and was not particularly interested in providing information on Dave or his current whereabouts - "some where in the Valley, I think..." was her answer when asked. Maybe a Priority Mailing may do better but I don't think so.
I've also contacted several former Micro C staff/contributors and basically the story seems to be that Dave pretty much walked away from the computer scene and doesn't particularly want to be "found" at this point.
My plan is to scan the full run (I've finished 37-53 and am waiting for the earlier issues to arrive). I'll post them (either on my site or somewhere else) with the notation that they will be removed on request.
This stuff is too cool to be left moldering in old boxes.
Jack
Here's an obscure one.
I need to find some manuals for the Nokia MikroMikko 3 computer from the
mid-1980s. Perhaps someone from the Scandanavian countries might be able
to assist?
Specifically, I'm looking for the "RTX II Monitor Manual User's Guide" and
the "RTX II File Management Reference Manual and User's Guide".
Originals or PDFs will do at this point.
I'm offering a negotiable bounty on this one. Let me know if you have any
and what it would cost to get either the manual or a copy.
Please contact me directly.
Thanks!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Hello,
We are located in the Raleigh, NC area and have a three
car garage with a single room above it. We are planning on converting
this to an apt for my son. The problem is it's full of stuff I've
collected since the early 80's. The collection is heavily slanted
towards early computers and electronics.
These pictures are of a
single room, just showing different views of the collection when it was
spread out prior to storing it into stacks.
eCollection
( http://www.flickr.com/photos/60147280 at N00/sets/72157622274120485/ )
My question is, does anyone know of someone local to the Raleigh area that could help us in the sale of this?
Regards,
WPW
I have a couple of uPAC modules from either a Honeywell DDP-516 or just
possibly from a H316 machine. They're marked CC690.
They're obviously some form of bus termination - just a series of clamp
diodes to GND and some lines with pull-ups to +6V.
The normal I/O bus termination on a DDP-516 is CC154, and I'm pretty
sure that there is no termination uPAC needed on a 316.
These were pulled from a machine in about 1984. I have some distant
memory that they are an "upgraded" CC154 and can be used in place of a
CC154.
Can anyone confirm that - either from documentation or just from
recollection?
Adrian
C'mon guys... Nobody with a Model I and E/I with disk drives left it stock without a doubler of some kind...
and... If you had the LNDoubler, you could do 8" and 5.25" (and now 3.5") single and double density disks all with the same board.
I don't know of any board that only added 8" without adding a Doubler as well. I'm not saying there wasn't one... I just don't know about it.
Percom, Tandy, LNW and Aerocomp made doublers. I think only the latter two supported 8" drives.
Any Model I equipped with a doubler should be able to copy a Model III bootable diskette.
Al
Keansburg, NJ
On 2/19/10, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Yes, I have been using breadboards for more than 20 years and never
>> had a problem with them. Sure, you must not try to stick thick wires
>
> I must have been unlucky. I tried several of them in my younger days
> (Eurobreadboars, the CSC/GSC Protoboards, etc) and had no end of
> problems. In the end I started just soldering upo the circuits on
> stripboard, and my desigens started working first time.
I've done both. I've personally never had mechanical stability
problems with protoboards, but then I don't tend to wedge in 0.1"
header pins into my boards. I insert ICs, 1/4W resistors, various
capacitors, wires, crystals, LEDs and such, but rarely do I insert
header pins. I've always felt that they were "too large", even though
I know lots of people stuff them in there all the time.
> [1] The local pound shop (a similar concept to dollar stores) was selling
> a camping lamp with 24 white LEDs for a pound.
I'd buy that for a pound! (and repurpose it, as you have).
>> BTW, the article says it is an MC68008, so you did not need to count
>> 24 pins (on one side) :-)
>
> Oh, I didn't . I noticed it was a 0.6" wide package. The 68000 and 68010
> DIL packages are 0.9" wide.
Indeed. Quite distinctive.
>> The 68010 is pin compatible to the 68000, but if you are in OS stuff,
>
> Indeed. There is also a PGA version of the 68010, which is used in some
> HP machines IIRC there's a 68012 which had more addres mins bought out,
> but otherwise had the same PGA pinout
I have read about the 68012, but don't think I've seen one in the wild.
>> you have to modify some software if you are handling stack frames.
>> Those are not identical on the 68000 and 68010.
>
> IIRC, the 68010 pushes more onto the stack on an interrupt.
It does. The difference isn't onerous - at least starting with
AmigaDOS 1.2 if not 1.1 (not sure about 1.0), you could upgrade your
68000 to a 68010 for an approximate 5% effective speed "boost" - this
was entirely due to the one-instruction DBcc "loop-mode cache" in
random places in the OS and in applications. As long as your
applications didn't try to execute any "MOVE from SR" instructions
(http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/68010/), no changes were required. If
you _did_ have some apps that did that, there a trap handler for that
on, IIRC, an early Fish disk. It would catch the privilege exception,
grab the status/condition code value and return the value to the
trapping instruction.
One app that was used to tell if you had the patch applied was the
AmigaDOS 1.1 calculator. With AmigaDOS 1.2, the app made an OS call
to get the required value. The older app used a "forbidden
instruction" so it made a good test.
If you are rolling your own OS or writing embedded code, it's not
really that hard to determine what size of stack frame you'll have and
handle both. I was responsible for replacing 68000s with 68010s in
the final COMBOARD product (partially to take advantage of "loop mode"
when dumping buffers across the DMA interface, increasing the block
speed of the board with a $50 chip). I don't think the code changes
relating to the 68010 took me more than part of an afternoon to
implement.
It's good to remember that it's so, but rather easy to accomplish once
you are that deep in the code.
-ethan
I modified a HP 9825A tape drive for use with QIC 40/80 tapes.
It's a rather easy conversion building a new capstand wheel witch is a
little higher so it can drive the QIC tapes and increasing the write current
by replacing a the current limiter resistor.
It's under test and at the moment seems to work.
I was curious if there others who did the same and what theire experiances
are...
-Rik
uss Bartlett <arcbe2001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Don't forget that the DO loop in Fortan has not the same effect as an iteration as the Do condition is performed at the end.? The DO component is therefore performed at least once.? An iteration must be able to be performed zero times.?? This was why in JSP it wasn't used.
It differs. What you describe is how it is in FORTRAN IV and older.
It was changed in FORTRAN 77, so that a DO loop can run zero number of
times as well.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Hi,
sombody donates a board to my collection, www.compuseum.at, maybe there is
anybody outside helping me to identify this board.
Its a PDP11 subsystem on an ISA board. Labels found: AT.S, PCCB ROI-931007.
The PDP11 chip is one of this big nice ceramic carrier, holding two chips,
numbers were: HD4-6900-5 DC334, produced 9338, and ...6901... repectively.
As he told me, they used a standard OS2 box to run this 'machine'. He also
will try to find something, but he isn't sure that there is anything left
exept this nice board.
As far as I know, it was part of a building management system, produced by
Landis & Gyr and maybe used or co-developed by Siemens.
Thanks for helping
Gerhard
All this talk of S100/Northstar/etc.... make me remember what I believe was
a Northstar Advantage I used for a bit in college.....
I remember it was laid out like a Radio Shack Model III system... all in
one,
monochrome screen with 2 floppy drives built in to the right, etc....
I've always wanted to find one of these.... but never have... I'm not
sure my
memory is even correct (is it the Northstar Advantage ?).
Anyone have one in the MA/RI/NH area have one they don't want ?
-- Curt
I modified a HP 9825A tape drive for use with QIC 40/80 tapes.
It's a rather easy conversion building a new capstand wheel witch is a
little higher so it can drive the QIC tapes and increasing the write current
by replacing a the current limiter resistor.
It's under test and at the moment seems to work.
I was curious if there others who did the same and what theire experiances
are...
-Rik
Next up on my workbench is a Sorcerer II. I've googled about some
and have found the original Sorcerer schematics. I've also found
plenty of references to and pictures of the Sorcerer II board but
no schematics. I got the machine from Europe so I suspect it may
be hacked for 220V 50Hz. The power cord is cut off so I don't know
for sure but there is definite evidence of hand soldering on the PS.
Any help greatly appreciated,
Bill
I'm going through some stuff my Aunt brought me last month, she's
apparently helping someone that was seriously into Commodore
computers clean out. In the pile is a Commodore 1520 Plotter. I had
one of these back in the 80's. Am I correct that there isn't any
source of pens any more? Of course I haven't even had time to see if
it works.
The real treasure is all the books. There are dozen's of books on
the VIC-20, C-64, and electronics (lots of Radio Shack books from the
70's and 80's, and other books). There are at least the first two
Compute Guide to the VIC-20 and the first 3 for the C-64! :-)
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
I have a friend who has a Sanyo MBC-1000 and a Macintosh IIfx with both a
two page monochrome monitor (nicknamed the "Kong") and a 13" color monitor
that he'd like to pass on to someone who will appreciate them. The catch is
that they are in the San Francisco Bay Area and would need to be picked up
within the next few days. I am in the area right now and could help with the
pickup but I am leaving the Bay Area on Friday. If anyone is interested in
one or both of these machines, please contact me off list.
His description of the Sanyo is:
"Sanyo MBC-1000. I've got manuals and software, including Aztec-C and BIOS
source. The computer itself is very solid and was in perfect working
condition when I last used it."
If I don't find someone to pick up these machines in the next few days they
will likely go to a recycler.
Hello There,
I am interested in the Aztec C disks and manuals.
I am able to pay shipping costs through paypal. I am in Canada.
I am also interested in old computers but unfortunately the shipping costs
to Canada make that impractical.
Regards,
Bill Buckels
Box 277
177 - 6th Street South Beach
Gimli, MB, Canada R0C 1B0
Home - (204) 642-8405
Cell - (204) 612-4162
Please see my links below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Buckelshttp://www.cpm8680.com/http://www.appleoldies.ca/http://www.c64classics.ca/http://www.aztecmuseum.ca/
x--- snip ---x
Sanyo CP/M machine and Macintosh IIfx
David Betz dbetz at xlisper.com
Sun Feb 28 22:47:58 CST 2010
I have a friend who has a Sanyo MBC-1000 and a Macintosh IIfx with both a
two page monochrome monitor (nicknamed the "Kong") and a 13" color monitor
that he'd like to pass on to someone who will appreciate them. The catch is
that they are in the San Francisco Bay Area and would need to be picked up
within the next few days. I am in the area right now and could help with the
pickup but I am leaving the Bay Area on Friday. If anyone is interested in
one or both of these machines, please contact me off list.
His description of the Sanyo is:
"Sanyo MBC-1000. I've got manuals and software, including Aztec-C and BIOS
source. The computer itself is very solid and was in perfect working
condition when I last used it."
If I don't find someone to pick up these machines in the next few days they
will likely go to a recycler.
For your eyes only:
http://popbottlecaps.com/temp/S-100.jpghttp://popbottlecaps.com/temp/drives.jpg
-- Two different 8-inch floppy drives, physically in great condition, operational status unknown.
-- An S-100 expansion chassis
Included at no additional charge:
-- VersaFloppy S-100 card w/ manual
-- ExpandoRAM S-100 card (0K installed) w/ manual
Free for Pick-up preferred!
Located in Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
These machines have been claimed. Thanks for all the interest!
------Original Message------
From: David Betz
Sender: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
ReplyTo: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Sanyo CP/M machine and Macintosh IIfx
Sent: Feb 28, 2010 11:47 PM
I have a friend who has a Sanyo MBC-1000 and a Macintosh IIfx with both a
two page monochrome monitor (nicknamed the "Kong") and a 13" color monitor
that he'd like to pass on to someone who will appreciate them. The catch is
that they are in the San Francisco Bay Area and would need to be picked up
within the next few days. I am in the area right now and could help with the
pickup but I am leaving the Bay Area on Friday. If anyone is interested in
one or both of these machines, please contact me off list.
His description of the Sanyo is:
"Sanyo MBC-1000. I've got manuals and software, including Aztec-C and BIOS
source. The computer itself is very solid and was in perfect working
condition when I last used it."
If I don't find someone to pick up these machines in the next few days they
will likely go to a recycler.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Rob Jarrat wrote:
> If there were no interest in things that pre-dated our own lifetimes then
> there would not be any museums.
Of course, but that wasn't my point. My point is that I observe there
to be, in general, LESS interest in collecting items that predate our
own existence. For example, I know many more people who own classic
cars like Mustangs simply because they always wanted one while growing
up, or maybe had one... than those collectors who own Ford Model Ts.
You could make the argument that Mustangs are more readily available,
but that wouldn't be true. It's just that few if any those Mustang
owners have any interest in Model T's for any number of valid
reasons. So, I'm drawing a distinction between personal nostalgia and
emotional response, vs. collecting purely for historical enjoyment or
purposes.
Rob Jarrat wrote:
> The peculiar problem faced by computer
> history is perhaps the frenetic pace of computer development, which has
> meant that historically interesting computers are not generally recognised
> as such because they are still relatively recent and become obsolete so
> quickly that they are discarded far too readily.
Excellent point. Which leads to wonder if only the early computers --
when development moved slower and there were far fewer models in
existence -- will remain the collectible ones. I don't see any
computers in most of the 90's, and none at all from 2000 onwards that
I'd ever want to collect. Wonder how others feel? Will a Dell PC
ever be collectible? Are Apples the only ones that might stand a
chance? Are all computers now merely appliances with zero personality?
John Singleton
Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
> On 2/25/10 12:56 PM, Richard wrote:
>
>> > Bottom line for me is that this looks like a 3rd party memory-mapped
>> > framebuffer
>
> I'm not convinced. There was no sign of it in the machine room.
There is nothing visible in the machine room for a graphic subsystem.
It's all in the Unibus box, with just a couple of cables coming out.
> I still think it is a raster terminal. The repaint speed is consistent
> with that.
I'd definitely say no to that. I was working at DEC in 1986. At that
time, the VT241 was the hottest thing DEC had, and it could do bitmapped
graphics. But let me tell you how long it took to just get a picture
uploaded on that terminal, and then we are talking much lower
resolution, and fewer bitplanes.
Admittedly, the DEC sixel graphics format wasn't the most efficient, but
you at least transferred 6 bits of graphic data for each byte, giving it
a 75% efficiency.
You would have had to wait almost forever to get a picture like in the
video over a serial line at 9600 bps, or even 19200. And once again, no
faster serial interfaces were available on a Unibus machine.
(Nor did any terminals appear to go that much faster either.)
Just make a small calculation. Let's assume a resolution of 640x480,
with just 8 bits per pixel. That would mean approximately 300Kbyte of
data to transfer. At 19200 bps, that would take 160 seconds to draw one
picture. (Assuming all bits were actual data, and no overhead.) Almost 3
minutes...
This is easy math, if people just try it. :-)
And I dare say, that picture have higher resolution, and more depth than
my simple calculation above used.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I checked with a friend whose memory is better than mine.
A TRS-80 Model I can duplicate bootable Model III diskettes. The Model III disk controller cannot produce all the address marks the WDC 1771 can, so a Model III cannot duplicate a Model I diskette if the OS or bootcode is dependent on having those address marks present.
So, anyone with a Model I who has good copies of Model III OS disks should be able to help the poster.
I'd make several copies of each just to control for the age of the media and different drive alignment. Do one drive 0 to 1 and the other drive 1 to 0.
My system isn't setup yet, else I'd volunteer. Hopefully, I'll have it setup in a couple of weeks.
Al
"e.stiebler" <emu at e-bbes.com> wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> And I dare say, that picture have higher resolution, and more depth than
>> my simple calculation above used.
>
> No, it should be just 512x512x8. Don't forget that you are watching
> youtube in a lousy resolution.
You are right. She even says in the beginning that it's 250,000 pixels.
Assuming they take a little liberties to simplify things, that would
mean 512x512.
Looking at the first perspective city picture, you can see that he has a
palette of 256 shades to blue to pick from (ranging from black to white).
It might be that the graphic system have a color palette then, since
obviously, there are other colors than blue possible, but none others
are shown there.
Or else they have a 24 bit pixel depth, which would be very impressive.
But any way you look at it, my comment still stands. With a serial line
running at 19200 bps, it would take about two and a half minute to draw
a picture, at the best of time.
I dare say we can safely assume it's not a serially connected terminal
(even ignoring that I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a serial
terminal with bitmap graphics with a resolution close to this).
Looking more at the video. There are no visible clues at all that I can
see as to who actually manufactured the graphics system. The system
definitely are running some kind of Unix, though.
Anyone who recognize the tablet? It is after all in focus quite a lot.
> And we used a grinell system 1981 already (pdp11) which had 512x256 (not
> sure it was 512x512). 8 bit is sufficient to show what he is doing on it.
Never heard of grinell.
But I have a VSV21 here. 640x480 pixel resolution. Unfortunately only 4
bitplanes. But it's a very fun graphic system for the PDP11 anyway...
And later than 1981, but made by DEC. Oh, and that's for the Q-bus...
Unibus graphic systems are rarer...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 2/26/10, Mark Tapley <mtapley at swri.edu> wrote:
> At 17:20 -0600 2/25/10, Mike L. wrote:
>>"More TRS-80 Assembly Language Programming", by Bill Barden
>
> A comment and a question: I found on eBay the CoCo Assembly
> book by the same author. It's clear, an enjoyable read, and does a
> good job of introducing programming, the debugger/assembler
> implemented on the cartridge, and 6809 assembly language in a simple,
> easy-to-understand progression.
I may have to keep my eyes out for that one. I'm much less informed
about the 6809 than any of the other contemporary processors.
> However, it seems to me to give really short shrift to what
> the 6809 designers considered to be very important features of the
> processor. Position independent code is barely touched on, there are
> a lot of what looks to me like kludgy programming techniques, the
> most advanced software-management tool discussed is a flowchart (and
> then there's no useful example of how to use them), the multiple
> pointer registers are abused as 16-bit counters rather than as
> indexing pointers, and there are many similar examples.
Hmm... I haven't read anything by Barden, so I'm merely commenting on
your comments, but I do remember that back in the day, besides a
"better" register scheme, the one thing that really made the 6809
stand out (from my 6502 world) was its ability to render
position-independent code. I didn't need it often when I was
programming the 6502 daily, but occasionally, I did wish for it.
Perhaps the lack of attention to that in the book is due to a lack of
perceived utility for it? When the 6502 and Z80 and 6809 ruled the
earth (or at least the hobbyist corner of it), multitasking operating
systems weren't the norm. I know OS/9 stands out, but until you jump
up to early UNIX super-micros, there's not much else in the field that
was commonly available (the PDP-8 had RTS-8, but compared to a basic
OS/8 setup, RTS/8 was strange and rare). The vast majority of micros
had "operating systems" (by a very wide definition) with
fixed-position memory maps. There was little need to be able to
shuffle your code from one spot in memory to another. Even on larger
systems, like the PDP-11, MMU hardware did that sort of mapping for
you (despite the fact that PIC is easy to write for the -11).
As for the lack of "advanced software-management tool[s]", most of the
books that I've read from the late 1970s and early 1980s fall into
that category. I don't think I learned anything "better" than
flowcharts and coding sheets until I hit the minicomputer world in the
mid-1980s (it sure wasn't any different when I took my first
programming course in college in 1984 - flowcharts were a mandatory
part of the homework and were graded quite rigorously).
> Does anybody else have the same take on this? I was thinking
> about using it to teach programming to one or more of the kids, but
> it seems to me that I'd rather find something a bit more
> structure-oriented, and less likely to use "tricks".
By the late 1980s, I remember a change in the weather with articles in
Amiga-centric magazines on programming the 68000. See if you can find
Transactor magazines (or PDFs of them). Those might be "modern"
enough in their approach to feel more friendly. The instruction set's
not the same, but code organization and concepts are analogous.
> Am I just spoiled from having read the 6809 programmer's
> guide and the (somewhat snooty-sounding) Byte article on 6809 design
> and introduction?
Perhaps. With 1970s docs, my feeling of remembering those days is
that 8080 and Z80 tutorials and guides were "stiffer" than
6502-related material, but I'll easily admit those memories are
somewhat biased because I spent lots more time seeking out and reading
6502 publications in depth. The 6809 stuff, though, kinda went by
unexplored by me since I had no hardware to tie to it.
-ethan
I began programming IBM, CDC and Amdahl machines in June 1970. All
assignments at the Computer Institute of Canada were graded according
to the accuracy of the flowchart and the initial box as Chuck states.
COBOL and other languages employed at that time employed gotos; it was
a sign of sloppy programming according to purists and
professors/instructors but gotos usually solved complex junction
problems in an elegant fashion. BASIC and 'Small-C' used them to the
same effect in the microcomputer world of late 70s. Early programming
books are getting scarce yet magazines of that era had programming
projects and got many of us interested
in advanced programming versus machine-language programming; it beat
flipping switches and assembler programming of early to mid-70s
machines!
Murray--
I'm in the midst of writing a MUD for PDP-11s running under BSD 2.11
and have run into a problem getting non-blocking I/O working.
I initially wrote a simple test program to setup a non-blocking socket
and accept connections then echo back anything typed to all connected
sessions. This worked fine. However now I've placed the exact same
code into my MUD development, the sockets are blocking.
I've got the following in my setup of the socket:
/* Set socket to non-blocking */
if( ioctl(s,FIONBIO) == -1 ) {
printf("Error ocurred");
}
which I believe should make the socket non-block and when I run up the
code it doesn't throw a failure on the ioctl, however the socket
definitely remains in blocking mode.
Anyone have any ideas? I've been scratching my head on this one for days now
I've put all the source I've written thus far here:
http://www.pdp11.co.uk/wp-content/retromud/
Sorry if the code is a bit cludgy, but I've not programmed C for about
15 years and its only just coming back to me! The file comms.c is
where most of the socket actions occurs.
All the best,
Toby
I have a bunch of DEC H3104 Harmonicas - the little boxes that fan a
Dshell connector out to 8 MMJs.
Is there any interest in these, or should I just throw them in the
scrap board pile?
I have some of the mounting plates for these as well.
--
Will
> I am not so sure that it is necessarily the case that people lose interest
> in things that pre-date their own lifetime.
I try to collect only stuff that's older than me - so end 1978 is my
limit :-) There are some newer things like 11/23 or late additions to
older machines. But all in all I like the fact playing with gear from
the time before me. But I can understand the concerns. I also assume
that the prices for the good scrap won't rise...
Kind regards,
Philipp
Since "Wargames" wa mentioned, I thought I'd post this link to an old
PR film from the Strategic Air Command. Only a brief shot of
computing gear on reel 1, but lots of teleprinters, teletypes and
comm consoles. About 18 minutes long. The first two of three reels
are of high quality; for some reason, the third one is not.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb304/film03.htm
Cheers,
Chuck
More weird crap.
I have a couple of modules - Lucent 990C01407410 (I think) - that are
doing me no good, and will end up as scrap soon. They seem to be
Differential In to Single Ended Out converters.
They are dated 1997. Any ideas as to what machine used these? 3B series add-on?
Anyone need them CHEAP?
--
Will
I've just been setting up a couple of old PCs to go off to the
ComputerAid charity.
These are junkers: 1 ? Athlon XP 1800+, 640MB RAM, 1 ? Athlon XP
1700+, 768MB RAM; I've fitted both with 20GB hard disks, a DVD-ROM and
a CDRW. Remarkably, this level of kit is what some term "skipware" now
- just about the lowest spec that the charity will take.
I tried both Linux Mint & TinyXP on them, but both hit snags, and I
don't want to spend hours troubleshooting, so I downloaded FreeDOS 1.0
and bunged that on. Remarkably, FreeDOS now comes on CD - there is
150MB of it!
The install is pretty fiddly, although it all works. On one of them it
even autodetects a PCI Ethernet card & goes online.
And to my amazement, I discovered that I'm credited in the README file
for the bundled OpenGEM GUI.
I am a bit torn over FreeDOS, though. I used to be a big fan of
DR-DOS, back in the day, although in the end I saw & deployed far more
MS-DOS boxes. :?(
But FreeDOS seems to have surpassed both the standalone editions of
MS-DOS (which ended at MS-DOS 6.22, although PC-DOS 2000 advanced on
that in a few areas). FreeDOS boasts large (20GB) partition/filesystem
support, FAT32, Win9x-style Long File Names, native networking,
TCP/IP, CD-ROM & writer support, comes with dev tools, web browsers,
email, games, all sorts. It's a hell of a DOS system!
I was wondering if anyone here had used it in anger at all? How does
it hold up compared to MS-DOS, the embedded DOS in Win9x, IBM PC DOS,
DR-DOS in its commercial or FOSS incarnations...?
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508
It's still technically off-topic (2002 is only 8 years ago), but for Mac
OS 8.6 and 9 users, I released Classilla 9.1 tonight, the most current
version of the Mozilla-based web browser I maintain for the classic Mac
OS. It's still a work in progress, but I eat my own dogfood, and this
tastes good enough to put in the can. (And belabour the metaphor.)
http://www.classilla.org/
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- There are few problems that the liberal usage of high explosives can't cure.
I need to do a bit more research on this. But can someone suggest a good
joystick for older PCs with db15 connectors? Most of them seem to be cheesy
flight sticks. I've seen playstation style controllers with usb connectors
on them. Something like this would be ideal if it had a db15 connector.
Any suggestions?
brian
Hi!
Does anyone have information about Labtam 32032 system ?
We've found one in the military depot:
http://www.phantom.sannata.ru/forum/index.php?t=6175
(cyrillic, use Google Translator)
Seems, this machines was rather popular in the USSR
(behind the iron curtain) - it was possible to avoid COCOM
since Labtam was an Australian company.
It used NSC 32K processol and Unix V2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Semiconductor_32016
--
-=AV=-
> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:25:43 +0000 (GMT)
> From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell)
> Subject: Re: OT: white LEDs
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
> Message-ID: <m1NkXAQ-000J3xC at p850ug1>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> > You can actually buy ringlights made in that manner, and they work
> > pretty well. There are usually some cheap ones on a famous "auction"
>
> It is my experience that just about anything intended for photograp[hic
> use is way overpriced :-=). OK, I can't grind lenses, so I am happy to
> pay for good ones, but I am not going to pay high prices for things I
> can
> make in an afternoon or so. Quite apart from the fact that making the
> device and experiemnting with it is more fun to me than taking
> photographs...
>
LED ringlight:
http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39550&highlight=Mak
ro+blixt
In Swedish, but I expect Google or ImTranslator or something will make a
more or less intelligible mess of translating it.
/Jonas
My Dad worked on these (mechanical designer designing jigs and fixtures for assembly) at QYX in Lionville, PA in the late 70's
There claim to fame was that you could type a letter and then have another one type the same thing over the phone lines as an original document....all pre facsimile machine.
It is said that the technology was stolen to help create the fax machine.
They did have a FBI Investigation for items stolen from trash bins.
Brian McElroy
Project Manager
DAVID MILLER/ASSOCIATES, INC.
1076 Centerville Road, Lancaster, PA 17601
Phone (717) 898-3402 ext. 41 or Toll Free (877) 516-3740
Fax: (717) 898-9365
Visit our website at www.dmai.com<http://www.dmai.com/>
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL: This message is intended only for the use of recipient to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If received in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original transmission and any attachments. Thank You.
Greetings;
I have a friend with an TRS80 Model III would is looking for some bootable
media w/TRSDOS and, possibly if available, CP/M. I'm not familiar with the
TRS80 line, and I don't own any, so I'm not in a position to help.
If anyone has such a machine and can create up some disks for a nominal
charge I would be very appreciative, replies probably should be off-list.
Many thanks.
- JP
Isn't MultiDos either still being sold or available for free?
When I was using my TRS-80 systems full time, it was my preferred OS.
I lost my Newdos/80 Manual and discs, though I have copies. I'd be willing to help out with this request because I have all the major Model I & III os discs. But, my computer is an LNW-80 Model I and I'm not sure how well it would work to make bootable Model III discs. I used to know, but that was 20 years ago.
I just moved, and as soon as my new computer room is setup, a project is to test and image all my old discs from all my various systems.
If anyone in the Mid Jersey shore area has a working Model III or IV they are willing to give away, trade or sell (at a price a disabled guy can afford), I would be glad to use it to help in this instance. It makes me sorry I sold my 4p on eBay a few years ago.
Al
Just about anything TRS-80 related can be had or learned via these
sites! I hope this helps.
I've still got a half-dz Mod 4/4D's, about that many Mod III's, a
couple Mod 4P's, and a few Mod I's (not to mention Mod II's, Mod
12's, Mod 16's, and probably at least one of each variation of the
26-variations of the Tandy 1000, a Tandy 1200, and a Tandy 3000).
http://cn80.blogspot.com/http://www.tim-mann.org/misosys.htmlhttp://manmrk.net/tutorials/TRS80/trs80links.html
I used to be very active in the community, but with business
demanding more and more of my attention, I fell away from it so much
so that I wasn't even aware (though unsurprised) that Stan Slater had
passed last August, and with him his CN80 News and his CN80 store on ebay.
RIP Stan!
>Greetings;
>
>I have a friend with an TRS80 Model III would is looking for some bootable
>media w/TRSDOS and, possibly if available, CP/M. I'm not familiar with the
>TRS80 line, and I don't own any, so I'm not in a position to help.
>
>If anyone has such a machine and can create up some disks for a nominal
>charge I would be very appreciative, replies probably should be off-list.
>
>Many thanks.
>
> - JP
Kim J. Lake
I get back to my point that a lot of the comments and criticisms concerning the absence of the century in system design comes? from people ill equipped? and knowledgeable to be able to pass judgment.? By 1985 I had been working in Data Processing for 20 years!? Hardware constraints dictated what we did and didn't do.? The hardware constraints were our main obstacle and? were twofold:
1) Cost - Memory was incredibly expensive (Read The mythical man month)
2) Hardware Technology - Early systems were mag tape only.?
The bottom line to this is that there is always a price point.? Added to which, and factored in, is the life expectancy of any system.? Back then it was considered around 10-15 years plus.? A lot of systems had no upward compatability and applications needed to be modified to run.
In the mid 60's only large companies had systems with greater than 16K
memory and disc drives.? Mag tape 800 and 1600 bpi if you were lucky was the norm.? Systems running a single job stream were common place. ?? Now the more sophisticated systems - of which the British ICT (ICL) was one - used an offset to hold dates.? The ICL 1900 range? used a technique of holding the number of days since the Jan 1st 1900.? Richard Pick later used a similar off-set technique in his Pick O/S (Dec 31, 1967).? We used assembler language because we had to.? Generally they were considered a necessary evil although I loved using it. 3rd generation language compilers weren't that mature and generated a lot of machine code instructions making them a memory hog and slow to execute. ?? While the main pack (IBM lead) pursued architecture that used Assembler, Burroughs took a different, and far better approach as their
systems used Algol.
In the early days when we wrote programs they were written onto coding forms.? Once punched onto 80 column cards we would check each card to ensure that had been key punched correctly.? Checking an 8000 statement? program took time.? Once checked we would have it listed (used little machine time).? We would then dry run through the program looking for logic errors.? Having done that we would have it compiled.? Typically there would be a couple of development slots or so a week for testing so we had ensure that we had done due diligence.? If it compiled we would schedule a test slot and run against test data.? Debugging consisted of analyzing dumps and correcting the code.? Contrast this against interactive source debuggers.? Today machine time is inexpensive and many compiles and test shots may be performed in a day.? "Workbench" tools allow the programmer to run
their program without even hitting the mainframe.? A totally different world.?
There was no padding of EDP (Electronic Data Processing) budgets - they didn't exist, there was not an EDP cost center in the G/L.? EDP was a huge investment for any company.? We didn't have an EDP Manager in the true sense of the term as we reported to the head of finance - The chief accountant.? It was later that we split off and became a separate entity with our own budget.
--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
From: Brent Hilpert <hilpert at cs.ubc.ca>
Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ...
To: General at invalid.domain, "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 1:25 AM
William Donzelli wrote:
>
> > 11 years ago, I pointed this very fact out to "journalists" who were
> > convinced that Y2K was all a scam to pad IT budgets
because "nobody
> > would have gone to that much trouble to save 4 bits (00-99 fits in 7
> > bits, 2000 fits in 11 bits) even in the 1950s.
>
> While it was not a scam, it certainly was used to pad IT budgets.
I would argue the public aspect of the issue was a scam.
The people who needed to know, knew already.
The public hype around the issue was overblown and unnecessary.
Remember the various experts and consultants railing about how microwave ovens
and cars and anything with a microprocessor in it (things that didn't even know
about the date) were going to fail?
I still have the bulletin from the government mailed out to every household in
Canada to prepare everyone for Y2K: a fine example of public folly.
At 17:20 -0600 2/25/10, Mike L. wrote:
>"More TRS-80 Assembly Language Programming", by Bill Barden
A comment and a question: I found on eBay the CoCo Assembly
book by the same author. It's clear, an enjoyable read, and does a
good job of introducing programming, the debugger/assembler
implemented on the cartridge, and 6809 assembly language in a simple,
easy-to-understand progression.
However, it seems to me to give really short shrift to what
the 6809 designers considered to be very important features of the
processor. Position independent code is barely touched on, there are
a lot of what looks to me like kludgy programming techniques, the
most advanced software-management tool discussed is a flowchart (and
then there's no useful example of how to use them), the multiple
pointer registers are abused as 16-bit counters rather than as
indexing pointers, and there are many similar examples.
Does anybody else have the same take on this? I was thinking
about using it to teach programming to one or more of the kids, but
it seems to me that I'd rather find something a bit more
structure-oriented, and less likely to use "tricks".
Am I just spoiled from having read the 6809 programmer's
guide and the (somewhat snooty-sounding) Byte article on 6809 design
and introduction?
--
- Mark 210-379-4635
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Asteroids headed toward planets
inhabited by beings that don't have
technology adequate to stop them:
Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.
It looks like the toner cartridge is the source of the problems with my HP
4100. Somewhere between the $20 charged on ebay for crappy chinese
cartridges and the extortionate prices charged for new ones by HP is a sane
price/performance area. Can someone suggest a good vendor that charges good
prices for toner cartridges that aren't junk? Thanks.
brian