test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- "John R. Keys Jr." <jrkeys(a)concentric.net> wrote: > ...I see the IIc+ around here and in St. Louis, MO all the time but I > already have three working units. They sell for around $2 to $10 > without a monitor. That sounds about right. I only have one IIc+, but it was $15 with an external 5.25" Laser-brand floppy drive, two Imagewriter Is and a smallish (9"?) mono monitor and stand, docs but no software. I'd wanted a IIc since I wrote kiddie-software under the Software Productions/Reader's Digest label in high school ("Micro Habitats", "Micro Mother Goose" and "Alphabet Beasts and Company" were our big titles). That's why I only have DOS 3.3 disks and the odd Infocom title; I haven't used an Apple on a regular basis since 1984. Now that the hardware is ultra-cheap, I can make up for all those lost years. -ethan ===== Even though my old e-mail address is no longer going to vanish, please note my new public address: erd(a)iname.com The original webpage address is still going away. The permanent home is: http://penguincentral.com/ See http://ohio.voyager.net/ for details. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/

25 years, 11 months

Free Heathkit H19 manuals

by mark.champion＠am.sony.com

I have several Heathkit H19 and Zenith Z19 manuals if various conditions. Does anyone want them? Mark Champion Sony Electronics 206-524-0014 mark.champion(a)am.sony.com

25 years, 11 months

Great Finds

by steverob＠hotoffice.com

Hey gang, With some help from Joe Rigdon, I found some really cool stuff this weekend. Located two complete HP 9000/832 minicomputers. After tinkering around for a few hours, I found one of them has a bad CPU and 3 of the 8 (total between two machines) hard drives had failed. So, between them, I managed to build a complete working system with some spares left over. What kind of tapes does the built-in drive use? The find-of-the-day however, was a HP 7980XC 9-track tape drive. Found this beauty in a dumpster at one of the junk dealers. It's god a few minor scratches on the front cover but, otherwise is in extremely good condition. The total asking price 5$. Anyone got spare DOCs for it? I hooked the tape drive up to one of the 832s but, just can't get it to work. Whenever I try to cpio or fbackup to the tape, the drive will try to work but, eventually gives a write error. The same thing happens with my other tape drive (HP7980) which I know is good. So, I suspect the problem is with the drivers, or configuration, or possibly me :-) If anyone can give pointers as to how to make it work, I'd sure appreciate it. See Ya, Steve Robertson <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>

25 years, 11 months

Networking Apple IIc or IIc+

by paulrsm＠ameritech.net

---------- > From: Ethan Dicks <ethan_dicks(a)yahoo.com> > To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Networking Apple IIc or IIc+ > Date: Friday, July 07, 2000 04:52 PM > > As mentioned previously on this list, I have a version 1.0 ROM in my IIgs. > What is the "best" version? Are they for sale or for download to burn my > own? There were three versions of the Apple IIgs: ROM 00, ROM 01, and ROM 03. ROM 00 and ROM 01 have the same hardware with a different ROM. The ROM 03 had different hardware (more memory on the motherboard, for example) and you cannot convert an earlier version to a ROM 03. A ROM 03 is considered the best if you are going to run GS/OS, the Apple IIgs 16-bit native operating system. I am happy with my ROM 01 since I use it like an 8-bit Apple IIe. Paul R. Santa-Maria Ann Arbor, Michigan USA paulrsm(a)ameritech.net

25 years, 11 months

Tim's own version of the Catweasel/Compaticard/whatever

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com

>You write about this experiment with considerable confidence in your result, >considering that you haven't any conventional hardware for dealing with this >stuff. There must be something about your results that gives you the >confidence to proceed. What might that be? Are you getting verifiable >results, i.e. data that makes sense like ascii files, etc? Yes, ASCII (and EBCDIC, remember I'm recovering floppies originally written in the early 70's) files that make sense. I think, Dick, that sometimes you make this seem harder than it is. Many of the data formats are readable (in hardware) with something as simple as a one-shot and a UART. >Sampling and recording the analog signal might prove disappointing. The >data will be much harder to recognize in its analog form, particularly on >the inner tracks on a noisy diskette or drive. True, but the analog circuit would also be easy to simulate electronically. Just a few coupled linear and nonlinear differential equations! Tim.

25 years, 11 months

Xerox DayBreak

by yoda＠isr.ist.utl.pt

>>>>> "Tony" == Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> writes: Tony> I'd probably use a 10125 (ECL-TTL translator) to turn the Tony> signals to TTL, then feed the syncs and video (the latter Tony> suitably reduced by a potential divider) into a multisync Tony> monitor and hope it could lock to it. I don't think many Tony> composite monitors are going to work at the sync rates of Tony> the D'break, are they? No, the D'break sync rates are usually out of the multisync monitor range. Mine can't sync to VSYNC rates below 58Hz or something, for instance. But I have not yet tried with older multisync monitors (damn, I sold my Amiga A3000 monitor...) Tony> Kevin Schoedel (?spell) lent me a Daybreak keyboard for an Tony> afternoon some months back. During that afternoon, I pulled Tony> it to bits, figured out most of the hardware details, Tony> powered it up from my bench supply and grabbed the output Tony> waveforms. Yes, Kevin did know I was doing this :-) [...] That's too great! he he I'll get busy as as I return home! And it may be fruitful to visit the junkyard this weekend for good-old multisync monitors. Cheers, -- *** Rodrigo Martins de Matos Ventura <yoda(a)isr.ist.utl.pt> *** Web page: http://www.isr.ist.utl.pt/~yoda *** Teaching Assistant and PhD Student at ISR: *** Instituto de Sistemas e Robotica, Polo de Lisboa *** Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa, PORTUGAL *** PGP fingerprint = 0119 AD13 9EEE 264A 3F10 31D3 89B3 C6C4 60C6 4585

25 years, 11 months

Tim's own version of the Catweasel/Compaticard/whatever

by CLASSICCMP＠trailing-edge.com

>> My circuit is much more "hackable", anyone with a TTL databook can figure >> out what it does and improve on it. Or you can build one yourself from >> scratch. (Other than the 128K*8 SRAM, all the other parts were literally >> purchased from the local electronics shop. Heck, most of the chips can >> be bought at Radio Shack!) Total cost for the chips in my buffer is >> about $30.00, about half of that in the SRAM chip. >I sympathize with that, but for those of us who are much better at software >than hardware, something off-the-shelf is a big plus. OTOH, something I can put together on a Sunday afternoon with parts I bought at Radio Shack is an even bigger plus for me :-). It's not like my buffer uses any complex electronics. It's all perfectly- standard TTL parts and a SRAM chip, and it's currently residing on a pretty randomly wired solderless breadboard so you don't need any fancy construction techniques. Except for the capacity of the SRAM chip, this is all quarter- century-old technology. As Chuck pointed out, maybe the fact that this is quarter-century-old technology put together with quarter-century-old construction and design techniques makes it less accessible to some of the younger members of this list. Maybe the way to make it more accessible to them is to put the circuitry on a CPLD, I dunno, I think it's fine as it is. I suppose there *are* folks who might be interested in using such a device who don't know which end of a soldering iron to pick up, but a very valid point is that I built this without even touching a soldering iron! And the fact that I built it without even drawing a schematic first would tend to implicate the design as being on the naively simplistic side, too :-). (I still gotta draw that schematic up for you guys...) >Another point to note is that the Catweasel samples at 7 or 14 MHz (software >selectable). In reading some old 8" MFM disks, I found that there had >been a lot of bit-shifting over the years (or maybe there was not enough >write precomp applied to begin with) I will admit, MFM *does* require at least twice the timing resolution of FM. I once got in a small argument with some other members of this list about AC circuit design of MFM vs FM data recovery circuits. IIRC, they were insisting that MFM did come "for free" if you had the frequency response necessary for FM at half the data rate. My point was that it wasn't the max pulse frequency which made life difficult, it was the phase response (finding where the pulse occured in the window) that was the tough point. >, and I had to use an extra heuristic >to make them readable at all. I'm not sure that 4 MHz would have been >a high enough sample rate for these. Yeah, well, with my circuit if you don't like the sample rate, you buy a different off-the-shelf oscillator in a can and plug in. If you now need more buffer RAM, you plug in a second RAM chip and wire it up. That's IMHO the beauty, but maybe a software-only hacker doesn't see that. Tim.

25 years, 11 months

Great Finds

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

All I can find out about this drive is that it's a streaming unit. Is this another repackaged Cipher F880 Microstreamer? If so, then yes I just downloaded the complete Volume 1 docs on Saturday; they're in both .TIFF and .PDF format. If the HP is a different beast, well, good luck... somebody's likely got the docs. -dq -----Original Message----- From: Steve Robertson [mailto:steverob@hotoffice.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 10:25 AM To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org Subject: Great Finds Hey gang, With some help from Joe Rigdon, I found some really cool stuff this weekend. Located two complete HP 9000/832 minicomputers. After tinkering around for a few hours, I found one of them has a bad CPU and 3 of the 8 (total between two machines) hard drives had failed. So, between them, I managed to build a complete working system with some spares left over. What kind of tapes does the built-in drive use? The find-of-the-day however, was a HP 7980XC 9-track tape drive. Found this beauty in a dumpster at one of the junk dealers. It's god a few minor scratches on the front cover but, otherwise is in extremely good condition. The total asking price 5$. Anyone got spare DOCs for it? I hooked the tape drive up to one of the 832s but, just can't get it to work. Whenever I try to cpio or fbackup to the tape, the drive will try to work but, eventually gives a write error. The same thing happens with my other tape drive (HP7980) which I know is good. So, I suspect the problem is with the drivers, or configuration, or possibly me :-) If anyone can give pointers as to how to make it work, I'd sure appreciate it. See Ya, Steve Robertson <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>

25 years, 11 months

The Original MS-DOS 4.0

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

> Well, I never heared about the version you are refering to, but > DOS was basicly starting from 2.0 able to do task switching. > All Informations necersary where contained within a series of > structures with a single root. The only missing thing was a > table of task pointers to switch between - and a service to > store and restore the screen content. There have been several > products offering this service. And with DOS 4 MS supplied the > infamous shell, capable of doing this. You could load several > applications and switch via a hot key combination. Windows is > still today (at least Win9x) based on this very same mechanism > for context switching. Also the functions for 'background' > applications/drivers where designed to support application > switching. The famous TSR mechanism was not only ment to steal > some memory for crude interrupt handlers, but also for true > serviceprovider tasks within the OS ... well, I guess most > programmers never realized the potential offered and kept > limited to a simple one programm state of mind. > > All this was already available starting with DOS 2.x, just > it has never been 'official' until DOS 4.x I'd have to differ with you a bit on this. A co-worker and I spent 6 months writing a DOS 2.0-compatible file system for our own application which contained its own home-rolled multitasker; we had to write the file system because the DOS file system calls were (and through at least 3.3) were not serially-reentrant. Even then, the performance was so poor (we had just moved to deploying on iAPX286 machines) that we ditched the full-task model and created what we today would call "threads", although we simply called them lightweight processes back then. The context switching you're referring to revolves around switching some data structures, such as the file handle table; but you have to wait until a file system call is done before you can swap to the next task. Not useful when (like us) you're developing real-time software. As an aside, this was for the last firm for which I worked as a programmer; I left in '90, and dropped in for a visit in '95; at that time, they told me the system I'd designed was running in a DOS box under the Alpha-release of Win95 and was beating a comparable application running on a VAX. I felt very good that day... -doug q

25 years, 11 months

Networking Apple IIc or IIc+

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- Mike Ford <mikeford(a)socal.rr.com> wrote: > Many people have told me you can't network the IIc or IIc+ Hmm... I always thought you _could_. > but I am sure I remember somebody telling me the IIc+ could be kludged > to sort of work. Maybe that's what I'm remembering. > Skipping that issue (unless somebody knows more), I wonder if a > slower/dumber protocol than LocalTalk/AppleTalk might work? I _had_ assumed the IIc+ has a Z8530 SIO chip inside. If that is _not_ the case then it's probably some flavor of ACIA 65xx or 68xx UART. The Z8530 is a great chip, found in Suns, Macs, COMBOARDs ;-) For LocalTalk, Apple runs the chip at ~230kbps, IIRC (tangentally, I have the Byte article unveiling the 128K Mac where they describe a "slotless" architecture using virtual slots off the serial port in a manner that sounds like what USB has finally brought to the masses). I do not know if a 4Mhz 65C02 can pull data off the chip fast enough to be practical. We used to use a 4Mhz Z8530 w/an 8Mhz 68000 with plenty of cycles to go around. > The idea would be to plug a PhoneNet adapter into a IIc/IIc+ serial port, > Now add a second IIc/IIc+ to the "network" and run a normal terminal > program on it. Seems to me all you need to add is some kind of protocol for > a packet with an address field and it should work. Ideas, opinions? Kermit? That would handle a point-to-point network, any way. You might be able to start with a PPP implementation for the 6502 and retrofit some kind of ARPish protocol on top of it (since PPP lacks that sort of thing) and go >from there. On a side note, I recently aquired an older IIgs. It works and I have no software for it except my 1978-1983 era stuff for my old II. Did people ever network the IIgs to a Mac? If so, how? -ethan > ===== Even though my old e-mail address is no longer going to vanish, please note my new public address: erd(a)iname.com The original webpage address is still going away. The permanent home is: http://penguincentral.com/ See http://ohio.voyager.net/ for details. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/

25 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

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