7 Jan
2010
7 Jan
'10
3:22 a.m.
Does anyone know the differences between the Intel 8708 and 2708
EPROMs?
Thanks,
Chuck
7 Jan
7 Jan
6:01 p.m.
From: cclist at sydex.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:22:39 -0800
Subject: 1Kx8 EPROMs Intel 8208 vs. 2708
Does anyone know the differences between the Intel 8708 and 2708
EPROMs?
Thanks,
Chuck
Hi Chuck
The subject line is a little confusing.
I looked at the two data sheets and can't find
anything that is different.
The 1702A and 4702A have a different negative
voltage but I see no difference between the 8708
and the 2708.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/
6:14 p.m.
On 7 Jan 2010 at 10:01, dwight elvey wrote:
Hi Chuck
The subject line is a little confusing.
I looked at the two data sheets and can't find
anything that is different.
The 1702A and 4702A have a different negative
voltage but I see no difference between the 8708
and the 2708.
Sorry, it's the 8708/2708. There's a seller on eBay selling a bunch
of Tesla (Czech) NOS 8708s. Since I wasn't familiar with the part
and any web searches brought me to the 2708 datasheet, I wondered if
there was some practical reason for the difference in part numbering.
--Chuck
6:46 p.m.
From: cclist at sydex.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:14:40 -0800
Subject: RE: 1Kx8 EPROMs Intel 8208 vs. 2708
On 7 Jan 2010 at 10:01, dwight elvey wrote:
Hi Chuck
Look on one of Harte's pdfs at:
http://vt100.net/mirror/harte/Intel/
for the 8708 see in: Intel 8080 System Manual.pdf
for the 2708 see in: C-160 mem Design Hndbk_May77.pdf
There doesn't seem to be any spec difference.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
Hi Chuck
The subject line is a little confusing.
I looked at the two data sheets and can't find
anything that is different.
The 1702A and 4702A have a different negative
voltage but I see no difference between the 8708
and the 2708.
Sorry, it's the 8708/2708. There's a seller on eBay selling a bunch
of Tesla (Czech) NOS 8708s. Since I wasn't familiar with the part
and any web searches brought me to the 2708 datasheet, I wondered if
there was some practical reason for the difference in part numbering.
--Chuck
8:29 p.m.
On 07/01/2010 18:46, dwight elvey wrote:
> Sorry, it's the 8708/2708. There's a
seller on eBay selling a bunch
> of Tesla (Czech) NOS 8708s. Since I wasn't familiar with the part
> and any web searches brought me to the 2708 datasheet, I wondered if
> there was some practical reason for the difference in part numbering.
for the 8708 see in: Intel 8080 System Manual.pdf
for the 2708 see in: C-160 mem Design Hndbk_May77.pdf
There doesn't seem to be any spec difference.
Dwight's right. I meant to check last night, but I just looked in my
Intel 1976 and 1979 Data Catalogs.
In the 1976 edition, the 2708 is listed in the EPROMs section while the
8708 is listed in the MCS-80 section. The only differences in the data
are that the 2708 gives slightly more information, including "typical"
values for some parameters. In the 1979 edition, they're listed on the
same pages, ie there's one entry for 2708/8708 in the EPROM section and
one entry for i2708/i8708 in the Industrial section (and on entry for
M2708 -- no 8708 -- in the Military section). The 2708/8708 entry
explicitly says "All 8708 specifications are identical to the 2708
specifications". I suspect they just gave it an alternate number to fit
the 8080 family.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
11:08 p.m.
On 7 Jan 2010 at 20:29, Pete Turnbull wrote:
In the 1976 edition, the 2708 is listed in the EPROMs
section while
the 8708 is listed in the MCS-80 section. The only differences in the
data are that the 2708 gives slightly more information, including
"typical" values for some parameters. In the 1979 edition, they're
listed on the same pages, ie there's one entry for 2708/8708 in the
EPROM section and one entry for i2708/i8708 in the Industrial section
(and on entry for M2708 -- no 8708 -- in the Military section). The
2708/8708 entry explicitly says "All 8708 specifications are identical
to the 2708 specifications". I suspect they just gave it an alternate
number to fit the 8080 family.
Thanks, that clears up a lot.
On a related issue, where can one obtain 2758 EPROMs ? I know you
can jigger around a 2716 to work, but the 1Kx8 5v-only part would be
good to have.
--Chuck
8 Jan
8 Jan
12:12 a.m.
From: cclist at sydex.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 15:08:45 -0800
Subject: Re: 1Kx8 EPROMs Intel 8208 vs. 2708
On 7 Jan 2010 at 20:29, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Hi Chuck
The intel 2758s were 2716s. Both H and L types.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
In the 1976 edition, the 2708 is listed in the
EPROMs section while
the 8708 is listed in the MCS-80 section. The only differences in the
data are that the 2708 gives slightly more information, including
"typical" values for some parameters. In the 1979 edition, they're
listed on the same pages, ie there's one entry for 2708/8708 in the
EPROM section and one entry for i2708/i8708 in the Industrial section
(and on entry for M2708 -- no 8708 -- in the Military section). The
2708/8708 entry explicitly says "All 8708 specifications are identical
to the 2708 specifications". I suspect they just gave it an alternate
number to fit the 8080 family.
Thanks, that clears up a lot.
On a related issue, where can one obtain 2758 EPROMs ? I know you
can jigger around a 2716 to work, but the 1Kx8 5v-only part would be
good to have.
--Chuck
3:01 p.m.
Hi Chuck
To my knowledge, one always had to remove
the other voltage and tie the pin.
Dwight
From: cclist at sydex.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:21:40 -0800
Subject: RE: 1Kx8 EPROMs Intel 8208 vs. 2708
On 7 Jan 2010 at 16:12, dwight elvey wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/
The intel 2758s were 2716s. Both H and L types.
Was there ever a 5v-only pin-compatible for the 2708? I've seen
references to a 2508, but have never run across one.
Thanks,
Chuck
7 p.m.
On 7 Jan 2010 at 16:12, dwight elvey wrote:
I have one -- in the FTS 88 keybord behind me (it contains the firmware
for the COP800 microcontroller in that keyboard).
But as Dwight said, the 2758 is a half-good 2716 (the difference between
the H and L versions is which half is good -- you had to tie one pin
externally high or low -- the A10 pin on a 2716 of course) depending on
which half you were supposed to use). I wouldn't be surprised if some
2758s were fully-good 2716s, acutally...
-tony
The intel 2758s were 2716s. Both H and L types.
Was there ever a 5v-only pin-compatible for the 2708? I've seen
references to a 2508, but have never run across one.
7 Jan
7 Jan
6:53 p.m.
New subject: Nicolet DSO ExplorerIII model 206
Hi
I just picked up one of these old scopes. On trying to power
up, one of the tantalums was blown on the +12 line.
It had taken out the 0.39 ohm resistor in the power supply as
well.
I was wondering if anyone had any more information on these
scopes. I know that the sample rate is not really high (100KHz) but
they do look like fun to play with.
It has at least two TMS9900 processors in it and lots of 2111
type RAMs.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/
9 p.m.
New subject: Nicolet DSO ExplorerIII model 206
At 10:53 AM 1/7/2010 -0800, you wrote:
Hi
I just picked up one of these old scopes. On trying to power
up, one of the tantalums was blown on the +12 line.
It had taken out the 0.39 ohm resistor in the power supply as
well.
Not specifically, but when I got my Tek 7904, I had to replace all the
tantalums in the power supply. Works good now. DigiKey is my friend.
-T
-----
566. [Sex] When women go wrong, men go right after them. --Mae West
(1893?-1980)
--... ...-- -.. . -. ----. --.- --.- -...
tpeters at nospam.mixcom.com (remove "nospam") N9QQB (amateur radio)
"HEY YOU" (loud shouting) WEB: http://www.mixcom.com/tpeters
43? 7' 17.2" N by 88? 6' 28.9" W, Elevation 815', Grid Square
EN53wc
WAN/LAN/Telcom Analyst, Tech Writer, MCP, CCNA, Registered Linux User 385531
8 Jan
8 Jan
4:54 a.m.
New subject: Nicolet DSO ExplorerIII model 206
On Jan 7, 2010, at 1:53 PM, dwight elvey wrote:
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I just picked up one of these old scopes. On trying
to power
up, one of the tantalums was blown on the +12 line.
It had taken out the 0.39 ohm resistor in the power supply as
well.
I was wondering if anyone had any more information on these
scopes. I know that the sample rate is not really high (100KHz) but
they do look like fun to play with.
I don't have any docs or anything (wish I did) but I can tell you
that these are fantastic scopes. They're not very fast because they
tend to have quite a bit of vertical resolution; it was apparently a
RAM trade-off.
I used one briefly in a lab I worked in many years ago (1988 I
think) and it was amazing. When one appeared at a surplus dealer
that I visited in the late 1990s, I jumped at the chance to grab it.
Now I have three instruments in that series...two of which now have
blown power supplies. :-( This happened years ago; eventually I'll
dig into them.
It has at least two TMS9900 processors in it and lots
of 2111
type RAMs.
Neat! I've never opened mine.
-Dave
5477
days inactive
5478
days old
12 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
tpeters＠mixcom.com