It does seem like a BA123 since a BA23 will not hold three drives. In addition, there are 12 quad Qbus slots in the BA123 vs only 8 quad Qbus slots in a BA23. Overall, the BA123 is about twice as large as a BA23, but is much more convenient since it stands on four rollers on the floor. Also, there is room for a total of FIVE 5.25" drives, so there are two empty drive bays left. On the other hand, if the floppy drive is an RX50 dual floppy, then the RQDX3 (M7555) disk controller can support only one more hard drive. I assume that the 5.25" floppy disk is actually a dual RX50 drive rather than a single RX33 drive. A TK50 tape drive is useful for exchanging a few files, but a TK70 can actually be useful for backups although it is still a bit slow compared to a hard drive. Please verify: (a) RX50 dual vs RX33 single floppy drive (b) Tape drive is probably TK50, but might be TK70 (c) How much memory is available? 1M, 2M or 4M The BA123 probably uses about double the power as a BA23, but as long as the BA123 is turned on only when it is being used, the cost is very manageable. Only a single power circuit is needed, probably 240 volts in the UK. Freight cost will be high if pickup is not local. The BA123 is heavy, probably about 70 lb. Two normal men can handle that quite easily. If only a single person is available, remove the power supply to split the load. Since there are rollers under the box, moving the BA123 is very easy on a flat surface. The BA123 is an excellent box for the serious PDP-11 user since there is room for almost any possible boards that might be needed. There is also a 13th slot for the distribution board for the RQDXn controllers. If really needed, two RQDXn controllers may be used since the 13th slot can hold two dual distribution boards. Note that each hard drive also needs a front panel switch and there are blanks for FIVE front panel switches. Jerome Fine

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote: I've only ever seen two BA123s in person... one at work in 1987 (a MicroVAX II on which we ran Ultrix) and one in my basement (2 hour drive in Ohio to pick it up). If I ever got a KDJ11 card, I'd probably convert my BA123 to a PDP-11. I find them much nicer to reconfigure than the BA23, and if you want multiple drives, they are great for that - I've also worked on stacked BA23s - those are a pain if you try to change anything out. -ethan

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: I'll take your word for it. I saw a lot of things at your place - most larger than a BA123. ;-) That's cool. No hurry. Many, many projects to do before Spring thaw (including moving half a dozen racks and an 029 card punch). -ethan

-----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of David Riley Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:06 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: FS. Working PDP 11/83 deskside case (UK) On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: switches. Indeed, I'd pretty much give my eye teeth for a BA123 over here. They always seem to turn up in Europe, however... - Dave Sigh. Makes me cringe to think how many of these I scrapped abt 15 years ago... ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6014 - Release Date: 01/06/13 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6014 - Release Date: 01/06/13

On 01/07/2013 12:55 PM, emanuel stiebler wrote: Just try to find six NOW... -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

But how much more processing power the newish PeeCee has? :)

In article <20130109194540.5d4133b8c88005429a98e777 at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>, Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> writes: PDP-11 can't DOOM. PC wins. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, John Many Jars wrote: One of the most efficient killing machines I've ever seen in Quake was the daughter of our tech support lead (way back in my sysadmin days). The nerd rage that would flow on the net when someone discovered they'd been repeatedly and brutally hammered by an 11 year old wisp of a girl wearing pony tails and a frilly pink dress was *epic* I nearly fell out of my chair in a fit of laughter the time I heard her mutter, "Quit running! You'll only die tired!" g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

In article <1A0EBC5B-724A-4E68-B69C-372F02D5EBCD at gmail.com>, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> writes: The essence of DOOM is its real-timeness. If you can't render at interactive rates, it's not DOOM, sorry. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Jan 9, 2013, at 18:57, "Alexandre Souza - Listas" <pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com> wrote: Well, not really. Richard is correct. A non-interactive DOOM is a proof-of-concept toy at best (like when I got Quake running on a 486 at 1.5 FPS). - Dave

On 10 January 2013 02:46, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v7cFGneuaw DOOM on a 128K Spectrum with a disk interface. Of course it could be faked... -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 02:40:45PM -0700, Richard wrote: Maybe not on the base models, but I always figured a PDP-11 with a VT11 or VSV11 for graphics and any of the ADC and DAC cards for paddles/joysticks and audio would be a kick-ass games system. (One which cost more than a house when it was new, but not a few years later.) John Wilson D Bit

On 12 January 2013 21:40, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote: Indeed. Well, fair point, but then again, I was addressing the angle of whether a PDP could possibly have the CPU power & storage needed. I think that vid suggests the answer could be "yes" /on that front./ Interesting. Had to Google that. Sounds fun! An alternative: what was the Russian home computer which was PDP-compatible? :?) I find myself quite intrigued by the possibility of a PDP/11 with graphics. That would be something I would quite like to play with. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On 13 January 2013 17:21, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote: That's the bunny. Interesting-sounding machine. I like the idea of an expensive, powerful 1970s minicomputer being shrunk down and metamorphosing into an inexpensive, somewhat-low-powered home micro. It reminds me a little of what I still thought was the creative genius of the original Amstrad PCW range. Just as PC-compatible x86 machines and DOS took over the world, Amstrad created a last, high-spec, highly-integrated, cheap powerful CP/M box: a single unit with CPU, big RAM disk, floppy drive, screen & printer, all in one box, immediately usable straight out of the packaging. I used to wonder why they or someone didn't do the same with a 386 and DOS as Windows rose into the ascendant. When a decent Windows machine with a 486 was still ?1000+, you could have assembled a kick-ass 386-powered DOS box for a quarter of that price. Too similar, I guess. No USP. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote: did some formatting, and is selling a 56 page book of it. -ethan

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:58:38AM -0700, Richard wrote: FWIW, the DOS, Windows, and OS/2 (but not Linux) variants of the latest Ersatz-11 release include emulation of the Terak video (but not audio). Also the QX: floppy (SSSD) but not QB: (soon!). www.dbit.com. The Terak "ALIEN" game (like Space Invaders but sideways) is very much an '80s home computer kind of thing... John Wilson D Bit

On 01/13/2013 04:03 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: That sounds like serious fun anyway! Yes, the AED 512 and 767 have a Qbus interface that (I believe) uses DMA, in addition to the standard RS232 port. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

In article <50F33642.5070405 at gmail.com>, Josh Dersch <derschjo at gmail.com> writes: See <http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/aed/AED_1024/990024-01B_Model_1024_Color_Graphics_Terminal_User's_Manual.pdf> However, DMA != memory-mapped. Memory-mapped means the pixel changes as soon as I diddle the bits and the next refresh cycle comes around. Memory-mapped means the CPU can determine the contents of a pixel by reading a memory location. DMA means a chunk of host memory can be transmitted to the device while the CPU is doing some other task. The AED 512/617/1024 can interface to a host machine by means of a parallel interface with DMA capability. While this is certainly faster than using a serial interface and an ASCII command stream, it is by no means as fast as a memory-mapped display. There is no abaility for the AED to send data back to the host over the DMA interface, it is unidirectional. The above PDF says the bandwidth is 3 MB/s across the DMA interface. At 800x600 256 color VGA mode, refreshed at 30 Hz, DOOM uses: 800*600*30/1024/1024 = 13 MB/sec I believe DOOM actually goes at 60 Hz, not 30, so it's even worse. However, 30 Hz is generally considered the minimum for interactive real-time graphics. Assuming using the maximum 3 MB/sec bandwidth of the AED and 4 bits/pixel instead of 8, gives you enough bandwidth to do 512x384 (4:3 aspect ratio). The AED actually stores 8bpp, so I'd have to dig further into the docs to see if you could transmit 4bpp and have it locally expand that to 8; you probably can with some downloaded microcode (i.e. 6502 assembly language). That's a calculation based purely on the DMA speed listed in the document, you'd have to do an actual end-to-end analysis to see how fast you could update the AEd from a Qbus PDP-11; the DMA transfer rate may not be the limiting factor. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

Maybe. Depends on what limits "the DMA transfer rate". In general, it's possible, depending on the memory subsystem, that DMA out of memory does not interfere with CPU access to memory unless they are accessing locations too close to one another (eg, the same 32-bit line of memory). Also possible is that the memory bus is enough faster than both the DMA path and the CPU path that, while they can collide over it, it can sustain both data streams at once without trouble. I don't know enough of PDP-11 memory subsystems to know whether either of those is true of any of them, though. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

I _think_ you're right, but, as I wrote, Do all PDP-11s use Qbus memory? None of them have memory directly on the CPU card (or, if they do, still generate Qbus cycles)? /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

On 14/01/2013 16:42, Dave McGuire wrote: Mouse is right. Except for 11/84 and 11/94 ;-) 11/53 and 11/93 (and /94) have memory on the CPU but can also access QBus and PMI memory. QBus devices can access that as if it were on a separate card. Yes, they do. PMI just adds some extra control signals which are passed over the CD interconnect. Several normal QBus control signals are also used, as of course are the BDAL lines. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

On 14/01/2013 18:30, Dave McGuire wrote: I'm pretty sure we can agree on that :-) -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

On 01/14/2013 03:47 PM, John Wilson wrote: Yee-HAW! Err somethin'. ;) That's ok. I love my 11/84s anyway. =) -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

On 14/01/13 9:53 PM, Toby Thain wrote: Oh, never mind, I see that we are all three in agreement. It's pretty clear from the 2nd page of the spec. "Only one device has control of the bus at any one time." --Toby

On 15/01/13 11:48 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote: Yes I have the spec. --Toby

On 1/13/13 1:11 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: The spinoff QBus products from Jupiter Systems or Parallax Graphics would probably work. Frame buffer access in the AED wasn't very fast. Digging around, I'm not seeing much of any info on Parallax on the web.

On 1/13/13 7:15 PM, Richard wrote: A Jupiter 7 is very similar to the AED 767 Jupiter is still in business, BTW.

On 13 January 2013 21:03, Josh Dersch <derschjo at gmail.com> wrote: Blimey. I am astounded. I had no idea Matrox went so far back. I thought of them as a PC graphics-card company. -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884

On 13/01/2013 21:32, Josh Dersch wrote: I was about to reply when I read Josh's response... ...because I have a pair of those, and at least one other model. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote: Josh Dersch wrote: That page says "This was the board that launched the Matrox company.", and the Matrox web site says the same thing, but both are wrong. (I wonder whether the Matrox people copied a web source for their own history?) AFAIK, the first Matrox product was the MTX-1632, introduced in 1976, about two years before the ALT-256. It's a 16 line by 32 character display module with a generic interface rather than a specific bus such as S-100. There's a blurb in the "What's New?" column of the October 1976 byte, on page 89. Matrox announced a number of other generic text and graphic display modules prior to introducing any S-100 products. I just corrected a false claim on the Matrox Wikipedia stating that the ALT-256 used a "racing the beam" technique similar to the Atari 2600. It actually had an entirely conventional 8KB frame buffer. Whoever wrote that may have been confused because the frame buffer isn't memory-mapped, but is instead written using a set of four output ports and one input port for status. An 8080 (or even a Z80) at that time was not fast enough to "race the beam" at a 256 pixel-per-line resolution. Other interesting early Matrox products were the MTX-A1 and MBX-B1 display/keyboard controller chips. They were 40-pin NMOS chips. I think they may have been mask-programmed Intel 8041 UPI chips, but I haven't found data sheets on them for comparison. Eric

In article <D6CE6488-38AB-490A-93AE-43AEB88981D8 at gmail.com>, Josh Dersch <derschjo at gmail.com> writes: If you ever lose interest in them, they'd be a good addition to the Computer Graphics Museum. I have several Qbus machines that could house the boards. The Terak is setup this way. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On 1/13/2013 6:16 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: Looks like it's here: http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/matrox/ I do have the manual sets for these, including the QVAF-512 which does not appear to be on bitsavers. I also have a pile of floppies that I need to archive, though I think they are mostly the custom software that U of Rochester used for their laser system. - Josh

In article <50EE05B6.4090906 at e-bbes.com>, emanuel stiebler <emu at e-bbes.com> writes: DOOM is all software and needs only a dumb memory-mapped framebuffer. It was developed for an MS-DOS environment. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On 2013-01-09 17:05, emanuel stiebler wrote: Sorry: CPU or graphics :(

On 09/01/13 7:05 PM, emanuel stiebler wrote: Texture mapping in software, so: CPU, since there is a bunch of stuff done per pixel, and there are quite a lot of pixels. Then you need a framebuffer to render the pixels. Unless you had an SGI, this stuff really didn't get exciting until RISC and PowerPC (Marathon, Halo 1...) and then hardware 3D, which soon enough made it to the PC world. --Toby

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:47:18PM -0500, David Riley wrote: A 386 DOS extender puts the CPU into protected mode and loads a 32-bit user program, while keeping DOS alive in a V86 box (286 DOS extenders would have to switch in and out of genuine real mode) where it's blissfully unaware that anything has changed. Then the DOS extender takes care of mode switching so that the user program can make DOS calls, and handle hardware interrupts, and map windows to memory-mapped hardware, and whatever else needs doing. It's horrifying but also kind of beautiful -- all the benefits of an OS that's too stupid to stop you from doing whatever you want, *and* tons of memory. John Wilson D Bit

In article <1E12BBAA-6308-4F73-8F05-298587C5AFDF at gmail.com>, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> writes: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS_extender> -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 07:17:29AM -0800, geneb wrote: Yes FORTRAN is still included. And both compilers still work on DOS and OS/2 as well as the usual suspects (and can cross-build in any combination). Really great package! John Wilson D Bit

Indeed. If sheer processing power is what you want, you're on the wrong mailing list. :-) Indeed. At least for this crowd. If your fun factor for machines is based on how much DOOM they can play, then probably not for you. Classiccmp is quite possibly the wrong hobby for you in that case. I'm not sure where I get the fun in playing with computers. I've thought about that and come to not even tentative conclusions. But I _am_ sure that merely being old and slow does not make a computer system unfun for me. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Since I am a software addict, I find that BOTH are available. I recently tested RT-11 under Ersatz-11 using a 64 bit Windows 7. It ran VERY approximately 150 times as fast as a PDP-11/93 It is almost too fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I still have the fun, but now the speed and convenience of up to TWELVE emulated VT100 terminals on my desk as opposed to just SIX real VT100 terminals on my desk connected to a PDP-11/83. There is a possibility of a graphics option as well. I do not know what is included, but is sounds interesting. Jerome Fine

David Riley [fraveydank at gmail.com] wrote: At least you've realised you can start griping now :-) Antonio

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, David Riley wrote: ...and in the darkness, one ring to autocorrect them. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, Rich Alderson wrote: I...I...wow. It's not often I get out-geeked, but...just.. wow. Here, sign my Geek Card. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013, Henk Gooijen wrote: That's on the truck. This is on the daily driver: http://www.geneb.org/images/6502.jpg :D g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Ian King wrote: I'm trying for a *7MOS. We'll see what happens. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!