10 May
2008
10 May
'08
6:27 p.m.
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 12:29:24 -0400
From: Dave McGuire
I dunno Chuck...the only reason more CP/M systems
weren't ROM-
resident back in the day was due to convention, not technical
restrictions. I (personally) don't think there's anything
non-"period" about ROM-ing CP/M.
It's not the ROM-ing of CP/M that disturbs me, but rather the
"disklessness" of the thing. Wasn't the whole idea of CP/M
originally to give you something to manage files on your floppy
drives? I mean, that's what the bulk of the code in CP/M is for--
heaven knows, the support for other I/O is nothing to write home
about.
If one wants to enjoy a "vintage" experience, what sense is there in
being diskless? At any rate, even something as simple as a WD1770-
type controller added to the design would give that capability with a
minimum of support "glue".
Alternatively, one could stay diskless and add a sound-effects module
to emulate the "chunk" and "grrr" of a head-load and seek--and the
"thunk-click" of a drive door being opened and a floppy inserted.
I still don't have the hang of this "vintage" thing yet, probably
because I'm vintage myself. Please forgive my density...
Cheers,
Chuck
11 May
11 May
9:11 a.m.
If one wants to enjoy a "vintage"
experience, what sense is there in
being diskless?
All depends on just what aspects of the vintage experience you're
after. I daresay some people just want to run those old executables
they've got lying around. Some of them might even enjoy building
hardware but wouldn't enjoy building/finding emulator software.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
12:23 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Well I wasn't talking about a diskless system...only one in which
CP/M itself was in ROM.
I dunno
Chuck...the only reason more CP/M systems weren't ROM-
resident back in the day was due to convention, not technical
restrictions. I (personally) don't think there's anything
non-"period" about ROM-ing CP/M.
It's not the ROM-ing of CP/M that disturbs me, but rather the
"disklessness" of the thing. Wasn't the whole idea of CP/M
originally to give you something to manage files on your floppy
drives? I mean, that's what the bulk of the code in CP/M is for--
heaven knows, the support for other I/O is nothing to write home
about.
If one wants to enjoy a "vintage" experience, what sense is there in
being diskless? At any rate, even something as simple as a WD1770-
type controller added to the design would give that capability with a
minimum of support "glue".
Alternatively, one could stay diskless and add a sound-effects module
to emulate the "chunk" and "grrr" of a head-load and seek--and the
"thunk-click" of a drive door being opened and a floppy inserted. I still don't have the hang of this
"vintage" thing yet, probably
because I'm vintage myself. Please forgive my density...
I often suffer from the same problem. I think very few of us, even
here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were
considered current technology.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
1:01 p.m.
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 08:23:13AM -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
I was a kid when S-100 machines were "in", but, as came up earlier
in this thread, I did hit the Osborne/Kaypro CP/M era.
I consider myself quite fortunate that I've gotten to program PDP-11s
on two different jobs right at the tail end of their heyday (I was 18-20
at the time). I also consider myself fortunate that I was working at
a place that supported VAX/BSD customers in addition to our VAX/VMS
customers, so I was able to pick up some UNIX skills nearly 25 years
ago. When folks bandy about "All the World's a VAX", it really means
something to me (I learned C from K&R on an 11/750 running 4.1BSD, so
I _know_ how easy it is to write non-portable code).
I do run things inemulation, but I also enjoy running things on real
iron. Right now, I have a modern Elf within reach, as well as an
SBC6120. The SBC6120 boots off of CF... no floppies, no 1/3 HP rotating
media, but there's still a real 12-bit processor on the board. I don't
consider that emulation in the slightest, even if my "disks" don't rotate.
OTOH, I also have, at home, "real" PDP-8s with real DEC-made disks; they
just aren't so portable as to be worth hauling down here. Same goes for
a CP/M machine - I'm working on something smaller than a princess phone.
Quite portable compared to an S-100 or an Osborne.
Just my take on why I mix classic CPUs with modern peripherals... runs
the original software, weighs a lot less.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-333-S Current South Pole Weather at 11-May-2008 at 12:40 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -79.6 F (-62.0 C) Windchill -108.3 F (-77.9 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 5.8 kts Grid 42 Barometer 682.8 mb (10523 ft)
Ethan.Dicks at usap.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
Well I wasn't talking about a diskless
system...only one in which
CP/M itself was in ROM.
I personally find the idea intriguing, and I am about to cobble up
a system from (nearly) scratch. I used Kaypros and the like, back
in the day, and really won't miss floppies (not that there's an FDC
chip within 3000 miles I could slap on this thing, anyway).
I don't mind the idea of stuffing "the OS" in ROM vs loading off
of removable media since I doubt I'll want to upgrade. I want to
run a few CP/M-80 programs, and that's about it.
I still
don't have the hang of this "vintage" thing yet, probably
because I'm vintage myself. Please forgive my density...
I often suffer from the same problem. I think very few of us, even
here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were
considered current technology. 
9:26 p.m.
I often
suffer from the same problem. I think very few of us, even
here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were
considered current technology.
I was a kid when S-100 machines were "in", but, as came up earlier
in this thread, I did hit the Osborne/Kaypro CP/M era. Just my take on why I mix classic CPUs with modern
peripherals... runs
the original software, weighs a lot less.
As I've seaid before I, rather unconventionally, came to computing from
electronics. I still consider myself to be an electornics parson first
and a computer person a very distant second.
One reaosn I like many of my classics is the beuatiful, and
unconventional, bits of electronic (and mechancial) engineering that went
into the, And that's not restricted to processors. Such things also turn
up in peripherals, even in PSUs.
YEs, I find the HP98x0 bit-seiral processor an interesting design. I find
the PERQ processor a veryb eautiful design. I find the RK07 servo
interesting, likewise the PSU in an HP7245 printer/plotter (but the
vector generator in that plotter is interesting as well). The HP1350
graphics translator is plain unconventional. The PDP11/45 CPU is
certainly elegrant. A fully mechancial printing terminal like an ASR33 is
fascinating. And so on.
In other words, the fact that it runs a user program does not make
something of particular interest to me over other pieces of engineering.
So yes, I do run modern peripherals on my classics. I have no problem at
all plugging such things in, either to stnadard I/O ports (RS232, etc) or
expenasuion slots. But I am sure glad I've got the original peripherals
around too in many cases.
-tony
7:06 p.m.
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Dave McGuire wrote:
I often suffer from the same problem. I think very
few of us, even
here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were
considered current technology.
What would we have used in those days?
Oh. I guess that you're talking about the youngsters.
8:18 p.m.
On May 11, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Yep. There seems to be a big assumption (at least elsewhere) that
anybody who is "into retrocomputing" has just gotten into it
recently. Here, we have at least quite a few people who were into
(say) PDP-11s when they were current technology, and at some point
in the past that activity and interest automatically became a part of
the retrocomputing world. How bizarre.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I often
suffer from the same problem. I think very few of us,
even
here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were
considered current technology.
What would we have used in those days?
Oh. I guess that you're talking about the youngsters.
9:24 p.m.
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yep. There seems to be a big assumption (at least
elsewhere) that
anybody who is "into retrocomputing" has just gotten into it
recently. Here, we have at least quite a few people who were into
(say) PDP-11s when they were current technology, and at some point
in the past that activity and interest automatically became a part of
the retrocomputing world. How bizarre.
I guess that I'm not really into retrocomputing; I'm just seriously
out-of-date.
9:27 p.m.
On May 11, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
My sentiments exactly. :-)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Yep. There
seems to be a big assumption (at least elsewhere) that
anybody who is "into retrocomputing" has just gotten into it
recently. Here, we have at least quite a few people who were into
(say) PDP-11s when they were current technology, and at some point
in the past that activity and interest automatically became a part of
the retrocomputing world. How bizarre.
I guess that I'm not really into retrocomputing; I'm just seriously
out-of-date. 
11:50 p.m.
On Sunday 11 May 2008 17:24, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yer just another old phart...
(Takes one to know one, right? :-)
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
Yep. There seems to be a big assumption (at
least elsewhere) that
anybody who is "into retrocomputing" has just gotten into it
recently. Here, we have at least quite a few people who were into
(say) PDP-11s when they were current technology, and at some point
in the past that activity and interest automatically became a part of
the retrocomputing world. How bizarre.
I guess that I'm not really into retrocomputing; I'm just seriously
out-of-date. 
9:30 p.m.
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Dave McGuire wrote:
On May 11, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Yep. There seems to be a big assumption (at least elsewhere) that
anybody who is "into retrocomputing" has just gotten into it
recently. Here, we have at least quite a few people who were into
(say) PDP-11s when they were current technology, and at some point
in the past that activity and interest automatically became a part of
the retrocomputing world. How bizarre.
I've always had a fondness for the C64, Amiga, AppleII series, and the
earliest Macs when they were brand-new. <shrug>
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
I
often suffer from the same problem. I think very few of us,
even
here, actually used stuff like CP/M and PDP-11s when they were
considered current technology.
What would we have used in those days?
Oh. I guess that you're talking about the youngsters. 
12 May
12 May
5:05 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
If one wants to enjoy a "vintage"
experience, what sense is there in
being diskless? At any rate, even something as simple as a WD1770-
type controller added to the design would give that capability with a
minimum of support "glue".
Agreed.
Alternatively, one could stay diskless and add a
sound-effects module
to emulate the "chunk" and "grrr" of a head-load and seek--and the
"thunk-click" of a drive door being opened and a floppy inserted.
And the high-pitched squeal of a disk shedding its coating in the drive...
(maybe a dip-switch for "Wabash mode"? :-)
Personally I'm all for adding to vintage systems (hard disks where none were
originally supported, video additions etc.) if it makes the system a little
easier for frequent use - but not at the expense of original features. Part of
the 'experience' is being able to enjoy the system as it was originally used,
after all. (Similarly, I'm in awe of emulator writers - but give me the
original hardware any day...)
cheers
Jules
6087
days inactive
6089
days old
11 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
ethan.dicks＠usap.gov -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
rtellason＠verizon.net