3 Dec
2007
3 Dec
'07
8:17 a.m.
To some, I daresay, using a modern display on a
classic machine borders
on heresy, like using a converter and a modern disk instead of an RP03,
At some point, however, it starts to make sense. For these old 14"
beasts, new/nice packs and heads are starting to get hard to find -
some very hard. I have been looking for several types of IBM packs in
new/nice condition for years now, with no luck. Same with the heads.
And there are probably a dozen people waiting for a 18/36 bit
RP06/RM03 emulator in a box, using a cheap modern disk. Prod, prod.
(Looking for packs 1316, 3336, 3348, and heads for 2311, 3330. And the
Univac equivalent to the 1316.)
--
Will
3 Dec
3 Dec
9:22 a.m.
In article <e1d20d630712030817k180d6667od2a410b9cb7152f2 at mail.gmail.com>,
"William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
Not only that but when you do find packs/heads/etc. do you want to
wear them out by just tinkering around?
There will come a point where the only way you can make these older
machines work is to remanufacture parts for them. Now there's enough
of a market for car enthusiasts that people service that demand, but I
don't know if there will ever be a market for all the oddball
technology in old computers to support such an aftermarket service.
Then there's the power needs. An RL01 requires a helluva lot more
power to run on a regular basis than an RL01 emulator connected to a
PC and the MTBF is much, much higher with the emulator.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
To some, I
daresay, using a modern display on a classic machine borders
on heresy, like using a converter and a modern disk instead of an RP03,
At some point, however, it starts to make sense. For these old 14"
beasts, new/nice packs and heads are starting to get hard to find -
some very hard. I have been looking for several types of IBM packs in
new/nice condition for years now, with no luck. Same with the heads. 
9:40 a.m.
Then there's the power needs. An RL01 requires a
helluva lot more
power to run on a regular basis than an RL01 emulator connected to a
PC and the MTBF is much, much higher with the emulator.
Or if you're able (i.e. you're not on a PDP-8, or running an OS that requires
an RL01) you can simply put in a SCSI adapter and use SCSI drives. While I
have RL01 and RL02 drives on my PDP-11/44, I'd much rather use the SCSI HD
it has (once I get access back to the system, it's buried in my parents
garage).
Also it's not simply power, my PDP-11/73 runs significantly quieter with
SCSI drives than it did with MFM or ESDI drives. Not sure if going to SCSI
effected the noise level on teh /23+ as I never had anything else in the
BA23 chassis, and it has been about 10 years since I ran my VAXstation
II/RRC.
Additionally SCSI allows for CD-ROM's and DAT or 8mm tape drives. Another
advantage to SCSI is the ability to hook the drive up to a Linux box, and
use 'dd' to image it, and have an image you can use under SIMH.
I tend to suspect that modern drives run a lot cooler as well, and for me,
cooling is a major concern. Which is why the /73 and /23+ tend to only be
run in the Winter.
Oh, and lets not forget weight, some of us run our machines where we need to
worry about the amount of weight we are putting on the floor.
Personally I like running my PDP-11's with VT420's and SCSI, neither of
which are really that "correct" for the systems, but who cares, I run them
to use them. At the same time my intention is for the PDP-11/44 to become
part of an exhibit once the library gets its building, and I have a
DECwriter II and VT100's for when that happens.
Zane
10:21 a.m.
On Monday 03 December 2007, Richard wrote:
In article
<e1d20d630712030817k180d6667od2a410b9cb7152f2 at mail.gmail.com>,
"William Donzelli" <wdonzelli at gmail.com> writes:
Not only that but when you do find packs/heads/etc. do you want to
wear them out by just tinkering around?
There will come a point where the only way you can make these older
machines work is to remanufacture parts for them. Now there's enough
of a market for car enthusiasts that people service that demand, but
I don't know if there will ever be a market for all the oddball
technology in old computers to support such an aftermarket service.
Then there's the power needs. An RL01 requires a helluva lot more
power to run on a regular basis than an RL01 emulator connected to a
PC and the MTBF is much, much higher with the emulator.
I think that an RL01/RL02 + a small 11/23 or 11/03 actually takes quite
a bit less power than most dual-socket, dual-core Xeon servers do these
days...
Of course, an RM0[235] or RP0[3-7] is a different matter...
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
To some,
I daresay, using a modern display on a classic machine
borders on heresy, like using a converter and a modern disk
instead of an RP03,
At some point, however, it starts to make sense. For these old 14"
beasts, new/nice packs and heads are starting to get hard to find -
some very hard. I have been looking for several types of IBM packs
in new/nice condition for years now, with no luck. Same with the
heads.
11 a.m.
I think that an RL01/RL02 + a small 11/23 or 11/03
actually takes quite
a bit less power than most dual-socket, dual-core Xeon servers do these
days...
Of course, an RM0[235] or RP0[3-7] is a different matter...
Who cares.
When it comes right down to it, in the US at least, power is pretty
damn cheap. Turning on a large system - say one that sucks up a couple
or three kW - for the weekend really does not cost all that much. And
it is for fun, right? How much do we spend taking a girl or the wife
out for dinner and a movie? It will be much more than what you spent
on electricity to feed your computer for a couple of days!
--
Will
11:53 a.m.
On Monday 03 December 2007, William Donzelli wrote:
For the weekend, sure. I meant more like running it 24x7.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
I think that
an RL01/RL02 + a small 11/23 or 11/03 actually takes
quite a bit less power than most dual-socket, dual-core Xeon
servers do these days...
Of course, an RM0[235] or RP0[3-7] is a different matter...
Who cares.
When it comes right down to it, in the US at least, power is pretty
damn cheap. Turning on a large system - say one that sucks up a
couple or three kW - for the weekend really does not cost all that
much. And it is for fun, right? How much do we spend taking a girl or
the wife out for dinner and a movie? It will be much more than what
you spent on electricity to feed your computer for a couple of days!
11:13 a.m.
In article <200712031321.10113.pat at computer-refuge.org>,
Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> writes:
I think that an RL01/RL02 + a small 11/23 or 11/03
actually takes quite
a bit less power than most dual-socket, dual-core Xeon servers do these
days...
You can always get a power sucking machine by buying the fastest PC
available. However, you can also buy a power-miserly PC by careful
selection.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
3:53 p.m.
Not only that but when you do find packs/heads/etc. do
you want to
wear them out by just tinkering around?
The other side ot that is : What's the point in having a good set of
heads just to look nice on the shelf. You maight as well use them. If
you're not going to use it at all, it doesn't matter if the heads will
fly or not.
I have no problem at all with using modern peripherals, be they storage,
terminals, monitors, whatever, on classic computers. But I don't like
_just_ preserving the CPU as the only interesting part of the classic
computer. Of course if you just get the CPU, it's great to be able to use
modern peripherals with it, that way you can get it to do something. If
you have an old complete system, then there's nothing wrong with sticking
an IDE interface or a SCSI interface in it and using a modern hard disk
in place of the 'washing machine'. But I'd want to keep the old drives
around, in runnable condition. Not use them all the time, but be able to
use them. As I've said before, I find the design of a hard disk to be
every bit as interesting as the CPU.
[...]
Then there's the power needs. An RL01 requires a
helluva lot more
power to run on a regular basis than an RL01 emulator connected to a
PC and the MTBF is much, much higher with the emulator.
On the other hand, the RL01 is a lot easier to repair than the modern unit.
-tony
4:32 p.m.
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Richard wrote:
Then there's the power needs. An RL01 requires a
helluva lot more
power to run on a regular basis than an RL01 emulator connected to a
PC and the MTBF is much, much higher with the emulator.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. The fact that many
of us have RL01 drives that are still working (without having been
repaired) counters the MTBF argument, and an RL drive pulls something
like 65W spun up...much MUCH less than the average PC.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
4 Dec
4 Dec
1:33 p.m.
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Richard wrote:
I would also argue that MTBF is unimportant in a machine used for a
hobby.
I'd much rather have a machine that required minor maintenance/repair
every year or so (requiring, perhaps, that the fans be taken apart and
cleaned, or ta few TTL chips replaced) than one that ran for 3 yeasrs and
then failed in a catastrophic way (requriing the replacement of, say, a PC
motherboard or a modern hard disk).
Incidnetally, I feel this way about things other than computers. 'Sealed
for life' bearings are a pain. I'd rather go round every month with a
grease gun :-)
-tony
Then there's the power needs. An RL01
requires a helluva lot more
power to run on a regular basis than an RL01 emulator connected to a
PC and the MTBF is much, much higher with the emulator.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. The fact that many
of us have RL01 drives that are still working (without having been
repaired) counters the MTBF argument, and an RL drive pulls something
6228
days inactive
6229
days old
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com