1 Dec
2008
1 Dec
'08
4:19 p.m.
I and a couple of other people thought it would be fun to build our own
stand alone video terminal. The prototype is a 3x5" PCB that is completely
self contained - all you need to connect is a VGA monitor, a PS/2 keyboard,
12V power, and a RS-232 connection to a host computer of your choice. The
idea is that you could easily stick one inside the case of an old VGA
monitor,
add a keyboard, and then have an ASCII terminal. No PC required :-)
I did the hardware design and PC boards, and James Markevitch did the
lion's
share of the firmware, with help from David Betz, Ethan Dicks and Dave
McGuire.
The firmware is all open source, GPL licensed, and is managed as a Source
Forge project. The microprocessors (yes, there are two used) are 8051 cores
and the firmware for both is written mostly in C using the SDCC compiler.
SDCC and the other development tools we're using are all FREE, mostly open
source, and the primary MCU can be in system programmed using a regular PC
and an ordinary serial connection. No expensive development tools or
special
hardware programmers are needed.
Enough firmware finished now to be a functional VT220 clone - it can run
EDT
and vi already - but there's still lots to be done. We'd like to find a
couple
more people to join the development team and help us finish off version 1.
In
particular, some of the major things that still need doing include -
Fonts (a VT220 has a surprisingly large number of DEC specific fonts)
Serial EEPROM drivers for saving setup and configuration data
Documentation, users manual and web pages (on SourceForge)
and of course testing
Some of the things we're thinking about working on after V1 is finished -
Emulating other ASCII terminals (ADM, TeleVideo, Wyse, maybe more)
Adding graphics (Tek 4006/4010/4014 emulation, ReGIS, maybe more)
If you're interested, I have two more of the prototype PC boards that I
can sell. And if you really want, you can always wire wrap your own without
a PC board - the schematics are available as part of the project
documentation.
email me and let me know if you are interested in working on the project.
Right now I'd prefer that the PC boards go to people who have the time to
actually help out with the project in the short term, so if so if you'd just
like to have one of the terminals but don't have time to help then please
stand by. There'll be another announcement when we have one ready for
release.
Bob
1 Dec
1 Dec
4:28 p.m.
Bob Armstrong wrote:
I and a couple of other people thought it would be
fun to build our own
stand alone video terminal. The prototype is a 3x5" PCB that is completely
self contained - all you need to connect is a VGA monitor, a PS/2 keyboard,
12V power, and a RS-232 connection to a host computer of your choice. The
idea is that you could easily stick one inside the case of an old VGA
monitor,
add a keyboard, and then have an ASCII terminal. No PC required :-)
Hmm, I don't suppose NTSC TV is good enough to offer 80x25 text on a TV set,
is it? That'd be rather useful as a way of sneaking a terminal into the lounge :-)
Enough firmware finished now to be a functional VT220
clone
Including vomit-inducing smooth scroll? :-)
Nice work, anyway - I may well be interested in one when I eventually get all
my kit shipped over here, depending on whether I bring my VT220 over or not.
cheers
Jules
5:46 p.m.
In article <493456E7.7000609 at gmail.com>,
Jules Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> writes:
Hmm, I don't suppose NTSC TV is good enough to
offer 80x25 text on a TV set,
is it?
I think the best you could get is 40x24 or even less without the fonts
becoming a big mushy blur.
ISTR that is why the Apple ][ and C=64 had such low text resolution --
so that ordinary NTSC monitors/TVs could be used.
--
"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/>
6:35 p.m.
On 1 Dec 2008 at 15:46, Richard wrote:
I think the best you could get is 40x24 or even less
without the fonts
becoming a big mushy blur.
Going through a modulator or direct video input? With direct video,
an NTSC TV can probably do 80x24. Of course, you don't get ginormous
dots-per-character (7x7 is pretty typical), but you can do it. Why
should this be any different from the NTSC-scan-frequency IBM CGA
monitor?
My first video monitor was a Zenith B&W portable (tube) hot-chassis
TV that I won in a raffle and fed directly into the video amp from my
SWTP TVT II modified to give 64x16. It looked fine, even if it was
foolish on my part.
Cheers,
Chuck
7:52 p.m.
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
The primary difference here is the color decoding. You can get very legible, crisp, clean
text on a CGA monitor, or a Commodore Amiga RGB monitor - both of which run at the
standard NTSC rates. But in both cases, the set doesn't have to decode the color
signals - they're separate. Most off-the-shelf TV sets and video monitors, even those
with direct video input, will have a tough time giving clear 80 column text. Some of the
better designed monitors, those meant specifically for computer use, such as the Apple
color composite monitor - can produce good text. Others, such as a cheap color TV,
won't work so well. A color picture tube is somewhat worse at providing a crisp
monochrome text screen, due to it's phosphor design and the resolution limits thereof,
but this is not the force that causes the fuzzy text. It's the color demodulation.
Monochrome monitors will almost universally (except for the very low quality) give legible
80 column text. I've even gotten legible 80x25 text out of a $20 portable black and
white 5" TV, although the contrast/brightness controls had to be just so.
I think the
best you could get is 40x24 or even less
without the fonts
becoming a big mushy blur.
Going through a modulator or direct video input? With
direct video,
an NTSC TV can probably do 80x24. Of course, you don't
get ginormous
dots-per-character (7x7 is pretty typical), but you can do
it. Why
should this be any different from the NTSC-scan-frequency
IBM CGA
monitor? My first video monitor was a Zenith B&W portable
(tube)
hot-chassis
TV that I won in a raffle and fed directly into the video
amp from my
SWTP TVT II modified to give 64x16. It looked fine, even
if it was
foolish on my part.
Hehe. Been there, done that, have the blown fuses to show for it. For a while, I was using
a 19" tube type black and white TV that I'd modified as a monitor for an Apple
IIe. It worked great, and 80 columns was very usable. The set was hot chassis, and since I
didn't have an isolation transformer, I'd modified the power cord of the TV such
that it could only be plugged in one way, so the chassis was on the "neutral"
side. All was well until I moved the setup to a friends house to play some games and copy
disks. In the process, I'd inadvertantly unplugged the power cord from the back of the
TV (hehe, "This cabinet back is equipped with a safety interlock, do not defeat
it's purpose. Remove cover completely for service"). Plug in, switch on,
>piff!< tripped the breaker. After reversing (and marking) the cable, and resetting
the breaker, everything worked fine.
-Ian
11:10 p.m.
On 1 Dec 2008 at 16:52, Mr Ian Primus wrote:
Monochrome monitors will almost universally (except
for the very low
quality) give legible 80 column text. I've even gotten legible 80x25
text out of a $20 portable black and white 5" TV, although the
contrast/brightness controls had to be just so.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. My mind was telling me that we
were talking about a monochrome terminal (never used anything else,
so I'm stuck like a fly in amber).
If it's a simple monochrome monitor that you're after, there's a very
simple one in one of the Atmel app notes that can be implemented in a
single AVR ATMega8 micro.
Cheers,
Chuck
11:36 p.m.
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Ah, thanks for the clarification. My mind was telling me
that we
were talking about a monochrome terminal (never used
anything else,
so I'm stuck like a fly in amber).
If it's a simple monochrome monitor that
you're
after, there's a very
simple one in one of the Atmel app notes that can be
implemented in a
single AVR ATMega8 micro.
That's what the original thread was about... <grin>
It started out as an announcement of a very, very cool project to turn a standard PC VGA
monitor and PS/2 keyboard into a functional RS-232 terminal. The question was raised as to
why it couldn't use an NTSC monitor, and thus forked into a question about the
suitability of NTSC displays and 80 column text... and here we are again. Fun with topic
drift :) It's way too easy to start answering individual questions, and skew away from
the original post.
I'm really very excited about the original poster's project. While I certainally
have enough terminals myself so as to not need another, I really like terminals, and I
would be definitely interested in building one of these to follow along.
I believe that the original decision of using PS/2 keyboards and VGA monitors is probably
the best. While an NTSC display is more "vintage", it's also much, much
easier to get suitable PC VGA displays than it would be to get a *good* NTSC display these
days - and VGA displays are much better suited to text than the standard old video
monitor. More stable, less flicker, sharper, and no doubt easier to interface modern
stuffs to, especially if those modern stuffs want to do any sort of color.
PS/2 keyboards are also a good choice. While not as "classic" as the parallel
ASCII keyboard, they're much more available, and much more standardized. And,
they're easy to interface to.
I'm definitely going to check out this project, and if I have time, build one myself.
I'm a wire-wrap and soldering iron kind of guy, a premade PCB would take half the fun
out of it :) I really appreciate that this is designed around components that are within
the realm of a solder-slinger like myself. I'm good with through-hole, I have an EPROM
programmer. Never worked with CPLD's, and I don't know VHDL. Z80 assembler, on the
other hand...
-Ian
2 Dec
2 Dec
12:17 a.m.
Mr Ian Primus wrote:
I'm definitely going to check out this project,
and if I have time, build one myself. I'm a wire-wrap and soldering iron kind of guy,
a premade PCB would take half the fun out of it :) I really appreciate that this is
designed around components that are within the realm of a solder-slinger like myself.
I'm good with through-hole, I have an EPROM programmer. Never worked with CPLD's,
and I don't know VHDL. Z80 assembler, on the other hand...
I'm stoked about it. I do a lot of service work on headless systems,
and not having to haul a[n old] laptop around for a serial terminal will
be a huge boon. There's a keyboard just about anywhere, and I envision
a "production" model with, say, a 5" LCD in the case, running on
batteries. Literally a shirt-pocket terminal.
Doc
P.S. - well, then there's still the cubic yard of cables,
gender-changers, and pin/socket adapters I'll still need for
compatibility. :\
12:33 a.m.
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Doc Shipley wrote:
P.S. - well, then there's still the cubic yard of
cables, gender-changers,
and pin/socket adapters I'll still need for compatibility. :\
What about adding male and female 25 and 9 pin connectors right on the
board? :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
12:53 a.m.
What about adding male and female 25 and 9 pin
connectors right on
the board? :)
And a DPDT switch - or some logic to perform the same effect based on
an SPST-driven input - to swap TxD and RxD?
/~\ 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
12:57 a.m.
Gene Buckle wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Doc Shipley wrote:
And Cisco RJ45 and Digi RJ45 and and and and
Doc
P.S. - well, then there's still the cubic
yard of cables,
gender-changers, and pin/socket adapters I'll still need for
compatibility. :\
What about adding male and female 25 and 9 pin connectors right on the
board? :) 
4:10 a.m.
Gene Buckle wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Doc Shipley wrote:
Just a thought, but there's nothing to stop you having RS232 line
drivers *and* receivers hooked to each pin, assuming you can make the
drivers float. That way you can do your crossover patching in software ;-)
Gordon
P.S. - well, then there's still the cubic
yard of cables,
gender-changers, and pin/socket adapters I'll still need for
compatibility. :\
What about adding male and female 25 and 9 pin connectors right on the
board? :) 
4:31 p.m.
Just a thought, but there's nothing to stop you
having RS232 line
drivers *and* receivers hooked to each pin, assuming you can make the
drivers float. That way you can do your crossover patching in software ;-)
I cna't think of a common RS232 driver that has a 3-state output.
However, a terminal should only need TxD and RxD (if it _requires_
hardware handshake, then it's not going to work with an awful lot of
things that work with a real VT220). In which case all you need to be
able to do is swap over those 2 pins, taking a simple DPDT switch.
Sometimes a simple solution exists :-)
-tony
5:20 p.m.
On 2 Dec 2008 at 21:31, Tony Duell wrote:
However, a terminal should only need TxD and RxD (if
it _requires_
hardware handshake, then it's not going to work with an awful lot of
things that work with a real VT220). In which case all you need to be
able to do is swap over those 2 pins, taking a simple DPDT switch.
Sometimes a simple solution exists :-)
Why not simply use a made-for-the-purpose T-switch? Is turning a
knob too difficult?
Cheers,
Chuck
3 Dec
3 Dec
5:18 p.m.
On 2 Dec 2008 at 21:31, Tony Duell wrote:
Err, isn't that what I was suggesting. A simple double-pole changeover
switch with the fixed contacts cross-connected so as to swap TxD and RxD.
Finding a ready-wired switch is probably a lot harder than soldering in
those 2 links.
-tony
However, a terminal should only need TxD and RxD
(if it _requires_
hardware handshake, then it's not going to work with an awful lot of
things that work with a real VT220). In which case all you need to be
able to do is swap over those 2 pins, taking a simple DPDT switch.
Sometimes a simple solution exists :-)
Why not simply use a made-for-the-purpose T-switch? Is turning a
knob too difficult? 
2 Dec
2 Dec
3:08 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Doc Shipley <doc at mdrconsult.com> wrote:
I'm stoked about it. I do a lot of service work
on headless systems, and
not having to haul a[n old] laptop around for a serial terminal will be a
huge boon. There's a keyboard just about anywhere, and I envision a
"production" model with, say, a 5" LCD in the case, running on batteries.
Literally a shirt-pocket terminal.
If you know of a smallish VGA LCD, that'd be great. I myself have
nothing smaller than about 12", larger than my Planar ELT-320
terminals.
I like it because you can show up on site with just the pocket-sized
box and a wall-wart, and use available resources (kb and monitor)
rather than hauling them around. Also, as a bonus, it'll work with
many KVMs for longer-term installations.
-ethan
3:15 a.m.
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Doc Shipley <doc at
mdrconsult.com> wrote:
I seem to recall talking about this sort of thing around a year ago.
--
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'm stoked about it. I do a lot of service
work on headless systems, and
not having to haul a[n old] laptop around for a serial terminal will be a
huge boon. There's a keyboard just about anywhere, and I envision a
"production" model with, say, a 5" LCD in the case, running on batteries.
Literally a shirt-pocket terminal.
If you know of a smallish VGA LCD, that'd be great. I myself have
nothing smaller than about 12", larger than my Planar ELT-320
terminals.
I like it because you can show up on site with just the pocket-sized
box and a wall-wart, and use available resources (kb and monitor)
rather than hauling them around. Also, as a bonus, it'll work with
many KVMs for longer-term installations.
4:12 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Doc Shipley <doc at
mdrconsult.com> wrote:
At my last job (still looking, incidentally, so if you need a solder
slinger, metal basher or server wrangler in NW Scotland, y'know...) we
had a 9" portable LCD TV with composite, S-video and VGA inputs. No
SCART, unfortunately. It was great for using as a shooting monitor and
also for debugging headless Mac installations.
Gordon
I'm stoked about it. I do a lot of service
work on headless systems, and
not having to haul a[n old] laptop around for a serial terminal will be a
huge boon. There's a keyboard just about anywhere, and I envision a
"production" model with, say, a 5" LCD in the case, running on batteries.
Literally a shirt-pocket terminal.
If you know of a smallish VGA LCD, that'd be great. I myself have
nothing smaller than about 12", larger than my Planar ELT-320
terminals.
7:26 a.m.
--- On Tue, 12/2/08, Ethan Dicks <ethan.dicks at gmail.com> wrote:
The great thing about a project like this, is that you can build it however you want.
Another option would be to build it right onto a PS/2 keybord. Not necessarily _into_
because it'd be quite hard to make it all fit, but you could have it as a flat box
affixed to the bottom of the keyboard itself. You could even have a rechargable battery
for power (and, of course a power socket for a wall wart). Then, you could simply have one
device - this thickened keyboard - and you can plug it right into any monitor and go.
But, once again, here's the beauty of this project - build it however you like, build
it into whatever you want. If I get around to building one, I'm probably going to have
both male and female 25 pin connectors on the back, wired in parallel, as DTE. Add a
second set of 25 pin connectors wired the other way (DCE) - eliminating the need for null
modem adapters and gender changers. You could only use one plug at a time, but at least
one of the four should work.
Of course, it all depends on your tastes and what you need in your life - and wether you
have more monitors or keyboards laying around. Myself, I seem to have more terminals
laying around, but, it's sometimes a pain in the neck to get past their individual
quirks. For example, I've been working on a project centered around a PC, and while
it's VGA output and keyboard are busy being dedicated to the application I'm
setting up, I have a terminal plugged in to edit files and issue commands, without having
to quit out of the other app. I'm using a Televideo 921, which, while it has a termcap
entry, it still doesn't work properly. None of the screen editors want to cooperate.
I've found that if I lie and say it's an adm3a, it works, but then I lose other
functionality (arrow keys stop working, occasional display glitches), but at least I can
run vi.
-Ian
not having to
haul a[n old] laptop around for a serial
terminal will be a
huge boon. There's a keyboard just about
anywhere, and I envision a
"production" model with, say, a 5"
LCD
in the case, running on batteries.
Literally a shirt-pocket terminal.
If you know of a smallish VGA LCD, that'd be great. I
myself have
nothing smaller than about 12", larger than my Planar
ELT-320
terminals.
I like it because you can show up on site with just the
pocket-sized
box and a wall-wart, and use available resources (kb and
monitor)
rather than hauling them around. 
11:28 a.m.
________________________________________
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Mr
Ian Primus [ian_primus at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:26 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Open source, stand alone, ASCII terminal project
[snip]
The great thing about a project like this, is that you can build it however you want.
Another option would be to build it right onto a PS/2 keybord. Not necessarily _into_
because it'd be quite hard to make it all fit, but you could have it as a flat box
affixed to the bottom of the keyboard itself. You could even have a rechargable battery
for power (and, of course a power socket for a wall wart). Then, you could simply have one
device - this thickened keyboard - and you can plug it right into any monitor and go.
[snip]
I have such a gadget, badged Data General. It's a keyboard with a wall wart, with a
VGA port and an RJ45 on the rear edge. I haven't been able to find any documentation
for it, but it does feed an image to a VGA monitor and its configuration menu is
accessible. One of these days in my copious spare time, I'll scope out the RJ45 pins
to figure out who is serial in, who is serial out. But my DEC VT420 and Wyse 50 work just
fine, too, so there hasn't been any urgency.... -- Ian
8:16 a.m.
Doc Shipley (doc at mdrconsult.com) wrote:
and not having to haul a[n old] laptop around for a serial terminal will
be a huge boon.
Another plus is that you can use it on a KVM switch, and mix your ASCII
consoles with other PCs.
Bob
8:14 a.m.
Mr Ian Primus [ian_primus at yahoo.com] wrote:
While an NTSC display is more "vintage", ...
The goal was never to be vintage hardware - only to be a useful accessory
for vintage hardware, and easy for other hobbyists to build and copy. VGA
monitors and PS/2 keyboards are cheap, about as common as dirt, and you can
find them anywhere these days. They're about the only practical choice for
such a project.
Bob
2:48 p.m.
On 2 Dec 2008 at 5:14, Bob Armstrong wrote:
The goal was never to be vintage hardware - only to
be a useful accessory
for vintage hardware, and easy for other hobbyists to build and copy. VGA
monitors and PS/2 keyboards are cheap, about as common as dirt, and you can
find them anywhere these days. They're about the only practical choice for
such a project.
As long as this isn't a "vintage" project, why not add a few useful
bells and whistles? For example, one of the reasons that I like a
PeeCee as a debugging terminal is because I can scroll back hundreds
of lines to see what I did, or even save the particular segment long
after it's occurred. The ability to set bookmarks and split-screen
history with current output would be very useful. As would being
able to freeze and save history across power cycles.
The cost motivation that dictated the features of the original
VT100/VT220 no longer apply. The cost difference between 128Kx8 and
512Kx8 SRAM, for example, is negligible today. Using a Z80 today
would seem to be a quaint anachronism where there are so many fine
(and power-miserly) microcontrollers available.
But then, I find the little HP ePCs to come the closest (e.g. they
take a keyboard and VGA display and are small) to what you're
proposing. Replacing the hard disk in those things with flash makes
for a very light pacakge. Pulling the CD-ROM drive out would make it
lighter still.
Cheers,
Chuck
3:48 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 2 Dec 2008 at 5:14, Bob Armstrong wrote:
For example, one of the reasons that I like a
PeeCee as a debugging terminal is because I can scroll back hundreds
of lines to see what I did, or even save the particular segment long
after it's occurred. The ability to set bookmarks and split-screen
history with current output would be very useful. As would being
able to freeze and save history across power cycles.
Hmm, is the firmware for this held in something that can be reprogrammed via
the serial port itself? That'd be pretty nifty if so, as people could
(theoretically) incorporate whatever software features they wanted into the unit.
But then, I find the little HP ePCs to come the
closest (e.g. they
take a keyboard and VGA display and are small) to what you're
proposing.
I think I said elsewhere that I've always just used an old laptop, which has
done the job well - but when I run out of RS232-equipped laptops I'd
definitely consider this gadget (I think all my Gateway laptops died, but I've
still got a working Thinkpad with Real Ports on it).
cheers
Jules
6:06 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
As long as this isn't a "vintage"
project, why not add a few useful
bells and whistles? For example, one of the reasons that I like a
PeeCee as a debugging terminal is because I can scroll back hundreds
of lines to see what I did, or even save the particular segment long
after it's occurred. The ability to set bookmarks and split-screen
history with current output would be very useful. As would being
able to freeze and save history across power cycles.
Interesting ideas, but right now, we are trying just to get basic
terminal functionality.
The cost motivation that dictated the features of the
original
VT100/VT220 no longer apply.
True. This project has other cost motivations.
The cost difference between 128Kx8 and
512Kx8 SRAM, for example, is negligible today.
For this project, the SRAM needs to be, IIRC, 70ns or faster to keep
up with the CPU which is slinging bytes out an I/O port to bit-bash
the video. The cost of a fast 256kbit SRAM is a bit more than a
slower one, and I don't know how that compares to a 2Mbit SRAM.
Another cost issue here is address pins - the VT-4 supports 32Kbytes
in one socket, and can handle 64Kbytes with a second SRAM (the
prototype has a second SRAM socket), but there aren't enough address
bits available to do more. There's also the cost issue associated
with board space. This is intended to be a small board with no
surface-mount (hobby-level product, not a modern "you can't service
this" product). Even adding a couple of more DIP spaces to latch
address bits is a tricky prospect.
The issue of more RAM was hashed over a few times amongst the firmware
developers already, and I am reasonably certain that the VT-4 is not
going to have wads of memory, just what it needs to display and scroll
an 80x24 or 80x25 screen.
Using a Z80 today
would seem to be a quaint anachronism where there are so many fine
(and power-miserly) microcontrollers available.
I don't know where Z80s came into this. The VT-4 uses a 30ish-MIPS
microcontroller (to keep up with the demands of squirting out VGA
video). The video is essentially software-generated, keeping the
part count way down. Low part-count == low price.
-ethan
7:39 p.m.
On 3 Dec 2008 at 12:06, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I don't know where Z80s came into this. The VT-4
uses a 30ish-MIPS
microcontroller (to keep up with the demands of squirting out VGA
video). The video is essentially software-generated, keeping the
part count way down. Low part-count == low price.
Ah, I get confused a lot in these threads. Sort of something like
the ATMega8 TV terminal, except with a faster dot clock and more RAM?
Cheers,
Chuck
7:48 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Something like that, but with the target including close emulation of
VT100/VT220 (successfully runs emacs/vi/EDT, modernish setup menus,
etc.) A secondary goal is emulation of some common flavor of
graphical terminal ,Tek, etc. Emphasis on through-hole design, and
small form-factor.
One thing, to answer another question in this thread, is that will
only do 80-char-wide. The bandwidth of VGA over 640-pixels-wide
exceeds what the CPU and memory can do.
-ethan
On 3 Dec 2008 at 12:06, Ethan Dicks wrote:
\>
I don't
know where Z80s came into this. The VT-4 uses a 30ish-MIPS
microcontroller (to keep up with the demands of squirting out VGA
video). The video is essentially software-generated, keeping the
part count way down. Low part-count == low price.
Ah, I get confused a lot in these threads. Sort of something like
the ATMega8 TV terminal, except with a faster dot clock and more RAM? 
8:22 p.m.
Something like that, but with the target including
close emulation of
VT100/VT220 (successfully runs emacs/vi/EDT, modernish setup menus,
etc.) A secondary goal is emulation of some common flavor of
graphical terminal ,Tek, etc. Emphasis on through-hole design, and
small form-factor.
One thing, to answer another question in this thread, is that will
only do 80-char-wide. The bandwidth of VGA over 640-pixels-wide
exceeds what the CPU and memory can do.
Nothing a CPLD cannot create...what about that?
3 Dec
3 Dec
3:08 a.m.
On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Alexandre Souza wrote:
Well, the hardware is already designed and working..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Something like
that, but with the target including close emulation of
VT100/VT220 (successfully runs emacs/vi/EDT, modernish setup menus,
etc.) A secondary goal is emulation of some common flavor of
graphical terminal ,Tek, etc. Emphasis on through-hole design, and
small form-factor.
One thing, to answer another question in this thread, is that will
only do 80-char-wide. The bandwidth of VGA over 640-pixels-wide
exceeds what the CPU and memory can do.
Nothing a CPLD cannot create...what about that?
10:10 a.m.
Dave McGuire (mcguire at neurotica.com) wrote:
I try to limit my gizmos to thru hole packages to make them easier for the
hobbyist to assemble, and there just aren't any CPLDs available in thru hole
packages that also have anywhere near enough logic to implement a whole
CRTC.
Bob
On Dec 2, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Alexandre Souza
wrote:
Nothing a CPLD cannot create...what about that?
Well, the hardware is already designed and working..
1:26 p.m.
On 3 Dec 2008 at 7:10, Bob Armstrong wrote:
I try to limit my gizmos to thru hole packages to
make them easier for the
hobbyist to assemble, and there just aren't any CPLDs available in thru hole
packages that also have anywhere near enough logic to implement a whole
CRTC.
There are inexpensive SMT to through-hole adapters available. While
I wouldn't trust myself to carefully hand-solder a whole board full
of SMT, the adpaters are fairly easy to do.
Can one still get CPLDs in PLCC? Sockets for those are still throug-
hole. Would one be large enough?
5 volt logic also seems to be poised to go the way of through-hole
devices.
But sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Cheers,
Chuck
1:42 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
There are inexpensive SMT to through-hole adapters
available. While
I wouldn't trust myself to carefully hand-solder a whole board full
of SMT, the adpaters are fairly easy to do.
Can one still get CPLDs in PLCC? Sockets for those are still throug-
hole. Would one be large enough?
Yes, and yes 5V power supply too. Get a Digi-key catalog for details.
The old MMI pal design book, had a 300? buad terminal all 20 pin fuse
pals ... no cpu.
5 volt logic also seems to be poised to go the way of
through-hole
devices.
You are limited to 64 I/O pins with the Atmel CPLD's I am using -
84 pin plcc's. The big problem is none of the PCB design programs
have a thu the hole plcc footprint that I know of.
But sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:05 p.m.
>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck Guzis
<cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Chuck> There are inexpensive SMT to through-hole adapters available.
Chuck> While I wouldn't trust myself to carefully hand-solder a whole
Chuck> board full of SMT, the adpaters are fairly easy to do.
Soldering SMT by hand (other than BGA of course) is no big deal. It's
only slightly harder than through-hole. It does require suitable
tools -- thin solder and a fine tip professional grade soldering
iron. And it's a good idea to use liquid flux (a lesson I learned
from a technician friend who used to assemble large SMT
based boards
by hand).
I've assembled boards with 100 or so 0603 caps, and some 60-120 lead
flatpack packages (0.65 mm pitch) this way. Take a bit of time and
work carefully. Mine worked the first try.
paul
2:19 p.m.
On 3 Dec 2008 at 14:05, Paul Koning wrote:
I've assembled boards with 100 or so 0603 caps,
and some 60-120 lead
flatpack packages (0.65 mm pitch) this way. Take a bit of time and
work carefully. Mine worked the first try.
Yeah, got the stuff, but my hands are no longer as steady as they
used to be, nor my eyes as keen. At one time, I used to be able to
wirewrap 0.100" boards without assistance. Now, it's a struggle
using a 10 power loupe.
I use adapters for things such as uCs and CPLDs and can do those
right most of the time, but occasionally, I mess up and have to start
all over again. Thank heavens for my Wood's metal desoldering trick
or I would have made garbagge out of the adapter boards.
Cheers,
Chuck
4:31 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Paul Koning <Paul_Koning at dell.com> wrote:
It was extremely easy for me to solder dozens of SMT boards on day one
at one of my jobs, even though I had never done SMT before. However,
that was with a wonderful Weller soldering station, extremely good
solder, and flux to slather all over the board. If I were to try it as
Joe Diskpack, with a $15 radio shack soldering iron and the included
solder, I'd probably blob it to hell.
The decision to do SMT depends on your intended consumers. Will they
have a good station and a bottle of flux? If so, do it because SMT is
great. If not, SMT is probably pretty evil.
John
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
>>>> "Chuck" == Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Chuck> There are inexpensive SMT to through-hole adapters available.
Chuck> While I wouldn't trust myself to carefully hand-solder a whole
Chuck> board full of SMT, the adpaters are fairly easy to do.
Soldering SMT by hand (other than BGA of course) is no big deal. It's
only slightly harder than through-hole. It does require suitable
tools -- thin solder and a fine tip professional grade soldering
iron. And it's a good idea to use liquid flux (a lesson I learned
from a technician friend who used to assemble large SMT based boards
by hand).
I've assembled boards with 100 or so 0603 caps, and some 60-120 lead
flatpack packages (0.65 mm pitch) this way. Take a bit of time and
work carefully. Mine worked the first try.
paul
5:36 p.m.
John Floren wrote:
It was extremely easy for me to solder dozens of SMT
boards on day one
at one of my jobs, even though I had never done SMT before. However,
that was with a wonderful Weller soldering station, extremely good
solder, and flux to slather all over the board. If I were to try it as
Joe Diskpack, with a $15 radio shack soldering iron and the included
solder, I'd probably blob it to hell.
I'll add my support for this statement. The combination of a good
soldering station, liquid flux, and small solder is the difference
between night and day. I would add solder wick in there as well. I
cringe when I look at older projects that were created with my $15.00
Radio Shack pencil. I don't think I've done 0603s yet, but 0805s and
1206s are a breeze, as are 64TQFPs and we'll see how TSSOP14s are
tonight, when I solder up some.
The decision to do SMT depends on your intended
consumers. Will they
have a good station and a bottle of flux? If so, do it because SMT is
great. If not, SMT is probably pretty evil.
I'd also say that if there are some unavoidable SMT parts (newer uCs
with larger footprints are only available in SMT), then you should
consider making the project SMT (the end user will need to buckle down
and get SMT equipment to solder up part of it, why not take advantage of
SMT across the design? Some developers will sell a board with just the
main SMT uC/CPLD/FPGA/etc. soldered, and the rest is through hole, which
I suppose is an OK compromise.
Of course, if the design is not a kit, then I vote SMT all the way.
SMT makes things like this possible:
www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
Boards came today and parts should be here tonight, I hope.
Jim
6:28 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jim Brain <brain at jbrain.com> wrote:
John Floren wrote:
I have done plenty of work with 1206 and 805-sized parts and a few
0.5mm-pitch QFPs (IOB6120, among other projects). I myself don't mind
SMT, but I know that some kit builders shy away from it either because
of lack of proper tools, lack of experience, or vision issues. I
understand Bob's desire to stay with as much through-hole as possible,
but it won't be long before that just isn't practical due what parts
are out there.
It was extremely easy for me to solder dozens of SMT boards on day one
at one of my jobs, even though I had never done SMT before...
I'll add my support for this statement. The combination of a good soldering
station, liquid flux, and small solder is the difference between night and
day....
> The decision to do SMT depends on your intended consumers. Will they
> have a good station and a bottle of flux? If so, do it because SMT is
> great. If not, SMT is probably pretty evil. I'd also say that if there are some unavoidable
SMT parts (newer uCs with
larger footprints are only available in SMT), then you should consider
making the project SMT (the end user will need to buckle down and get SMT
equipment to solder up part of it, why not take advantage of SMT across the
design? Some developers will sell a board with just the main SMT
uC/CPLD/FPGA/etc. soldered, and the rest is through hole, which I suppose is
an OK compromise.
I've seen those sorts of mixed projects, but never assembled one.
Of course, if the design is not a kit, then I vote SMT
all the way.
Sure.
My personal preferences is for kits, SMT or no, but in large part
that's because I have a large amount of resources to keep my costs
down (I usually buy just a bare PCB or a bare PCB and a core set of
difficult-to-find parts like CPU/MPUs if that's handy). I realize
that I'm not representative of the majority of kit builders, but I'm
happy when it's possible to just get the board. I also enjoy
assembling them, something my friends have equated with buiding ships
in bottles.
SMT makes things like this possible:
www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
Boards came today and parts should be here tonight, I hope.
Very nice! I think I should see about getting one of those.
-ethan
8:22 p.m.
> SMT makes things like this possible:
> www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
> An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
WOW! **VERY** nice! How do you select one of the 23500 floppy images?
:oD
8:38 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
> SMT makes things like this possible:
> www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
> An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
WOW! **VERY** nice! How do you select one of the 23500 floppy images?
:oD
from D64 images from this with no problem, and no need
for physical
floppies? I'm especially interested since this will work on a
VIC-20,
Plus/4, C-64, or C128! It appears to be just what I need (an I'm scared to
say I think I need at least two if the price is right).
Also can I use a "MMC Replay" with the uIEC in the same system? So that I
could have the other features of the "MMC Replay" such as the Ethernet port.
Zane
9:14 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
Are you selling this as a pre-built item, or a kit? I
have the "MMC
Replay", but it sounds like this handles D64 files far better than the "MMC
Replay" (at least on NTSC systems).
It does. I use this much more than my MMC Replay, which is now sitting idle.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Of course, what I really want is total world domination. -- Linus Torvalds -
11:13 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
The unit has some "future" proofing built into it, since it can upgrade
itself.
When new functionality is developed, the owner simply copies the new
firmware to a CF (or SD) card and reboots the device. The device
bootloader will scan for the new code, and program itself with the new
code if found. All versions have the feature. And, I spent a few extra
bucks and used a 128kB AVR on the unit. Since the code is now 51K, I
have plenty of room for new functionality (D81 images, "mounting" images
under partition numbers, etc.).
Well, the SD version is soldered up, and I can talk to the CPU. It
looks like it recognizes the SD card, so I just need to test the IEC
routines and tweak a few things. I did realize I forgot to order 2.2uF
0805 caps for the unit, so I'll have to think of something for the 20
board I have on hand. The size is not so critical, I do not think, as
it's just a smoothing cap for the LDO 3V3 regulator. Maybe, I can cheat
and use 10uFs for the 20 units and get away with it...
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
11:19 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
bucks and used a 128kB AVR on the unit. Since the
code is now 51K, I
have plenty of room for new functionality (D81 images, "mounting" images
under partition numbers, etc.).
... Epyx FastLoad support ... ;-)
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- We only pretend to have standards. -- Unknown producer, ABC-TV -------------
11:52 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I think I could probably swing that... Let me dig out my FL cart.
Jim
bucks and used
a 128kB AVR on the unit. Since the code is now 51K, I
have plenty of room for new functionality (D81 images, "mounting" images
under partition numbers, etc.).
... Epyx FastLoad support ... ;-)
11:58 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
> > bucks and used a 128kB AVR on the unit.
Since the code is now 51K, I
> > have plenty of room for new functionality (D81 images, "mounting"
images
> > under partition numbers, etc.).
> ... Epyx FastLoad support ... ;-)
I think I could probably swing that... Let me dig out
my FL cart.
Seriously, I would be really appreciative. FLs are so cheap to buy and
portable that I have many more FastLoad systems than, say, JiffyDOS (let
alone other speeders). It's still the cheapest cart you can get and it's
insanely easy to find.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Corruptisima republica plurimae leges. -- Tacitus --------------------------
4 Dec
4 Dec
12:48 a.m.
New subject: uIEC
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Seriously, I would be really appreciative. FLs are so
cheap to buy and
portable that I have many more FastLoad systems than, say, JiffyDOS (let
alone other speeders). It's still the cheapest cart you can get and it's
insanely easy to find.
Well, the hard part is deciphering the FL protocol, so let me get
through WoC and I'll see if anything useful comes up on the analyzer.
Yay! uIEC/SD is alive! Off to WoC I go.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
3 Dec
3 Dec
11:07 p.m.
New subject: uIEC
Zane H. Healy wrote:
http://www.portcommodore.com/uiecreview.php
Jim,
Are you selling this as a pre-built item, or a kit? I have the "MMC
Pre-built item. $50.00 for the SD version, $75.00 for the IDE+CF version.
> SMT makes things like this possible:
> www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
> An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
>
WOW! **VERY** nice! How do you select one of the 23500 floppy
images?
:oD
Replay" (at least on NTSC systems). I gather you
can run multipart games
from D64 images from this with no problem, and no need for physical
There's always things to improve, but yes, multi-part, multi-side games
work (there are two switches you can use to go "forward" and "back" in
a
list of images)
floppies? I'm especially interested since this
will work on a VIC-20,
Plus/4, C-64, or C128! It appears to be just what I need (an I'm scared to
That is my philosophy. I want to build items that are not just
C64-specific. The IDE+CF version will sprout support for IEEE-488 when
I have time to build the prototype and write the firmware.
say I think I need at least two if the price is
right).
Well, you'll have to judge that for yourself, but I have tried to price
them to where folks can feel pretty good about the purchase.
Also can I use a "MMC Replay" with the uIEC
in the same system? So that I
I don't see why not, though I have not tested it. uIEC is a standard
IEC device, and I think MMC Replay allows such devices to be used.
Jim
8:42 p.m.
New subject: uIEC (Was: Re: Open source, stand alone, ASCII terminal project)
Alexandre Souza wrote:
You "cd" into an image :-)
open 15,10,15,"cd:myimage.d64":close15
When you want to go back:
open15,10,15,"cd<-":close15:rem use the CBM backarrow key
or
open15,10,15,"cd//":close15
The unit uses CMD-style directory conventions. Of course, those who use
their machine to any extent use a DOS Wedge, so the above is:
@cd:myimage.d64
and so on.
Parts came tonight, so I am soldering one up now.
I hope to take a working unit to the World of Commodore this weekend in
Toronto.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
> SMT makes
things like this possible:
> www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
> An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
WOW! **VERY** nice! How do you select one of the 23500 floppy
images? :oD
7 Dec
7 Dec
9:53 a.m.
New subject: uIEC (Was: Re: Open source, stand alone, ASCII terminal project)
I hope to take a working unit to the World of
Commodore this weekend in
Toronto.
I'm **very** amazed. I have a SX-64 with a broken keyboard (which I'm
planning in doing something to make it work, even if I have to create a
PS/2-to-SX-64-converter) which would love to have one of these :D :D :D I
want to play silkworm!!! :oD
6:56 p.m.
New subject: uIEC (Was: Re: Open source, stand alone, ASCII terminal project)
Alexandre Souza wrote:
Well, there's another project I
made:
www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/c=key/
That does exactly that. It's where the source I earlier mentioned came
from.
JP Hindin can speak for the utility of the PS/2 routines, as I made him
a PS/2->ASCII converter IC out of a MEGA8.
I've been hard at work over the weekend demoing at WoC, so I am just now
catching up. Please forgive me if I metioned something someone has
alreayd mentioned.
* I have paid nothing for my AVR programmer. It's a free utility
(avrdude) that runs on Windows and Linux, a DB25, a 74LS244, 2
diodes, a cap, and some wire (and a perfboard). I am sure when
the pics for WoC come online, someone took a picture of it, it was
plugged into my laptop all day at the show. I probably will soon
invest in a USB programmer, but avrdude supports those as well.
* to get started in AVR, I spent $10.00 (for a couple of 40 pin
ATMEGA16s). GCC was/is free, as is/was the programmer. That was
my deciding factor over the PIC line, though I have nothing
against the PIC.
* ASM was not a singificant concern for me.
While I would never want to discourage someone from building a PS/2
converter out of discrete TTL (as someone noted, you can do ANYTHING
with enough NAND gates), I think it boils down to the focus area. If
the PS/2 interface is the end in itself, and TTL is the preferred
solution, it's the medium one should choose. But, if it's the means to
the end, I'm less convinced it's the right solution. While it might be
more "authentic", I worry about the project completion. If you need a
PS/2 interface to run a vintage computer, it would seem to me the focus
is in getting the computer running and ready to show. If so, using a uC
can allow you to focus on that first. Then, later on, if you feel the
uC solution is too "unrealistic", it seems better to replace it at that
point with a more authentic solution. If one designs the interface
correctly, one should be able to replace the "temporary solution" with a
more permanent one without making any other changes. However, on the
other hand, if someone has to go through the effort of designing and
testing the TTL PS/2 interface, I worry that they will lose interest and
the overall project will be forever incomplete.
uC's allow me to make my projects "auto-updateable". When there is a new
uIEC firmware available, folks can load the new code on their CF/SD
cards, reboot the unit, and it updates automxatically. This gives me,
the project owners, a sense of comfort that I can ship units to people
who can use them now, without worrying so much a bout possible bugs.
I find, with things like C=Key and uIEC, people get the big kick out of
the new attached to the old. They are less interested in how the magic
happens. For me, I can concentrate on the ends, not the means. At
least in the CBM arena, there is ample precedent: CBM printers and many
printer interfaces used 8051s and other uC solutions, even back in the
day. It was very common to find a non 6502 CPU in a CBM printer
interface. because CBM sourced the mechanisms from other companies and
just had the stock electronics modified enough to support the IEC
protocol. It stands to reason that the printer manufacturer would
continue to use a favored CU/uC.
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
I hope to take
a working unit to the World of Commodore this weekend in
Toronto.
I'm **very** amazed. I have a SX-64 with a broken keyboard (which
I'm planning in doing something to make it work, even if I have to
create a PS/2-to-SX-64-converter) which would love to have one of
these :D :D :D I want to play silkworm!!! :oD 
3 Dec
3 Dec
9:47 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Alexandre Souza
<alexandre-listas at e-secure.com.br> wrote:
I'm with Alexandre and Ethan: That is _cool_, where can I get one? :-)
Joe.
--
Joachim Thiemann :: http://www.tsp.ece.mcgill.ca/~jthiem
> SMT makes
things like this possible:
> www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
> An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
WOW! **VERY** nice! How do you select one of the 23500 floppy images? :oD
11:25 p.m.
Joachim Thiemann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Alexandre Souza
<alexandre-listas at e-secure.com.br> wrote:
I'm with Alexandre and Ethan: That is _cool_, where can I get one? :-)
Joe.
Well, I don't want to overstep my bounds on the list, so just email me
with which one you want and I'll let you know when a unit is ready (I
will have quantities available soon, but I do them in batches)
The two versions:
uIEC/SD: The 1.5" board. It uses the same firmware as the larger
board, but it supports SD only and is designed for embedding into
designs. It's $50.00. Hopefully, 20 units will be available at World
of COmmodore this weekend, and 100 more will be available end of the year.
uIEC/IDE+CF: The larger board. This unit can talk ot CF cards, IDE
drives, or both. It has expansion options for later enhancements (I'm
preparing a small add on board that will provide a USB link to a
Windows/Mac/Linux/etc. PC and an option to use SD cards and a Real time
clock. Later, I hope to add IEEE-488 support to this unit. $75.00 for
the base unit. I should have a dozen or so at WoC and 30 more a few
weeks later.
uIEC/CF: Similar to uIEC/SD, but CF-only. I am out of this design, and
contemplating whether to run more. Most folks prefer the SD unit, but I
might run a batch of these since they use many of the same parts as the
uIEC/IDE+CF
$5.00 ships in the US, and $15 ships international.
If folks find it interesting, I think the story of how the unit came to
exist are rather interesting and I am proud of it, even though I had to
swallow my pride a lot. It involves open source, multi-continent
collaboration, and other things possibly of interest to the list. Dunno.
Oh, and the plans and firmware is under GPL (v2), so you are free to
develop/build your own.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X)
brain at jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
Home: http://www.jbrain.com
> SMT
makes things like this possible:
> www.jbrain.com/vicug/gallery/uIEC/
> An entire CBM IEC compatible drive in 1.5" by 1.5" :-)
>
WOW! **VERY** nice! How do you select one of the 23500 floppy
images? :oD
7 Dec
7 Dec
9:43 a.m.
I try to limit my gizmos to thru hole packages to
make them easier for
the
hobbyist to assemble, and there just aren't any CPLDs available in thru
hole
packages that also have anywhere near enough logic to implement a whole
CRTC.
Yes, they are! :o)
The chip may not be TH, but the sockets are :) I have thru-hole sockets
for thing up to PLCC-84. Why not use that?
2 Dec
2 Dec
9:37 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Going through a modulator or direct video input? With
direct video,
an NTSC TV can probably do 80x24.
Maybe if it's a relatively late-model TV with
a comb filter, though
you're likely to get some smearing and artifacts even with that. NTSC
TVs simply aren't designed for that much luminance resolution.
On older NTSC TVs, there is a lowpass filter to remove the color carrier
from the luminance, so even 40 column displays wind up
fuzzy, and 80
column are completely unreadable.
1:53 a.m.
On Monday 01 December 2008, Jules Richardson wrote:
Hey, I like smooth scroll, my only complaint is that it's so slow. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Bob Armstrong wrote:
Probably not, but now that most people will probably have some sort of
HDTV in their living room, you could always output 480P or 720P video
to it through a Y/Pb/Pr "component" or HDMI-compatible output. I'm
guessing that doing that will complicate the video display, though.
I and a couple of other people thought it would
be fun to build
our own stand alone video terminal. The prototype is a 3x5" PCB
that is completely self contained - all you need to connect is a
VGA monitor, a PS/2 keyboard, 12V power, and a RS-232 connection to
a host computer of your choice. The idea is that you could easily
stick one inside the case of an old VGA monitor,
add a keyboard, and then have an ASCII terminal. No PC required
:-)
Hmm, I don't suppose NTSC TV is good enough to offer 80x25 text on a
TV set, is it? That'd be rather useful as a way of sneaking a
terminal into the lounge :-) Enough
firmware finished now to be a functional VT220 clone
Including vomit-inducing smooth scroll? :-) 
8:31 p.m.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I've done it. It's chunky, but readable. Sans-serif fonts work best.
Peace... Sridhar
Hmm, I
don't suppose NTSC TV is good enough to offer 80x25 text on a
TV set, is it? That'd be rather useful as a way of sneaking a
terminal into the lounge :-)
Probably not, but now that most people will probably have some sort of 
8:40 p.m.
>> Hmm, I don't suppose NTSC TV is good
enough to offer 80x25 text on a
>> TV set, is it? That'd be rather useful as a way of sneaking a
>> terminal into the lounge :-)
> Probably not, but now that most people will probably have some sort of
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I've done it. It's chunky, but readable.
Sans-serif fonts work best.
. . . and yet, the original CGA fonts had serifs!
9:47 p.m.
Bob Armstrong wrote:
I and a couple of other people thought it would be
fun to build our own
stand alone video terminal. The prototype is a 3x5" PCB that is completely
self contained - all you need to connect is a VGA monitor, a PS/2 keyboard,
12V power, and a RS-232 connection to a host computer of your choice. The
idea is that you could easily stick one inside the case of an old VGA
monitor,
add a keyboard, and then have an ASCII terminal. No PC required :-)
How does well does it work with SCB6120?
Bob
PS: while the wrong list, Bob have many people finished the PDP/8 front
panel
PCB's? I don't plan to since I am going to scoff the switches for a 18
bit cpld
cpu I am designing.
3 Dec
3 Dec
9:22 a.m.
How does well does it work with SCB6120?
Haven't actually tried it yet, but the SBC6120 has a regular RS232
connection there's no reason why it wouldn't work.
PS: while the wrong list, Bob have many people finished
the PDP/8 front
panel
PCB's?
I don't know - the majority of people who buy kits never write back to
tell me what happened.
Bob
10:11 a.m.
I've successfully built the SBC6120, the Life board and the ELF2K as
well as the recent VT4 terminal.
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Bob Armstrong wrote:
How does well
does it work with SCB6120?
Haven't actually tried it yet, but the SBC6120 has a regular RS232
connection there's no reason why it wouldn't work.
PS: while the wrong list, Bob have many people
finished the PDP/8
front
panel
PCB's?
I don't know - the majority of people who buy kits never write back
to
tell me what happened.
Bob
12:18 p.m.
PS: while the wrong list, Bob have many people
finished the PDP/8
front panel
PCB's? I don't plan to since I am going to scoff the switches for a 18
bit cpld
cpu I am designing.
Does this mean you have a SBC6120 kit lying around. I could think of a
few that would buy it from you :) Me included if you have the nice front
panel.
Also, closer related to the topic. I've just laid my hands on a Minec
1000, a pretty awesome terminal depicted here:
http://flickr.com/photos/zachetus/535850501/
and described here:
http://groups.google.fi/group/comp.terminals/msg/3c973de6e6e0be06
The form factor rocks! Any new terminal I would build would resemble the
Minec as much as possible.
Regards,
Pontus.
1:33 p.m.
Pontus wrote:
No, I plan to keep the SBC6120 kit I have here. I just have not built
the front panel kit since I started DIY - hi - fi valve amp project about
3 years ago. Upgrading to better audio is a real challenge for me
as I only have beer budget, budget. Note even if you get the $16
tube amp PCB you still need $1,600 for a set of real speakers like
I have found. See below for good audio speakers.
http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm
PS: while the
wrong list, Bob have many people finished the PDP/8
front panel
PCB's? I don't plan to since I am going to scoff the switches for a 18
bit cpld
cpu I am designing.
Does this mean you have a SBC6120 kit lying around. I could think of a
few that would buy it from you :) Me included if you have the nice front
panel.
7 Dec
7 Dec
9:46 a.m.
Also, closer related to the topic. I've just laid
my hands on a Minec
1000, a pretty awesome terminal depicted here:
Hmmm...Now I remember...HP-95LX / 100LX / 200LX / 1000CX are CHEAP
PC-XTs running at 7 MHz that you can use in your pocket...and has a serial
interface :) I even have one myself! :D
1:59 p.m.
Hmmm...Now I remember...HP-95LX / 100LX / 200LX /
1000CX are CHEAP
PC-XTs running at 7 MHz that you can use in your pocket...and has a serial
interface :) I even have one myself! :D
THey also have kermit in ROM, Xmodem (I think) and plain ASCII capture
and upload. Oh, and a reasonable text editor.
The 95 just has TxD and RxD on the serial port, the 100 (and later
machines) have the flow control lines as well IIRC.
-tony
5711
days inactive
5717
days old
66 comments
30 participants
participants (30)
-
alexandre-listas＠e-secure.com.br -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bob＠jfcl.com -
brain＠jbrain.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dbetz＠xlisper.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
evan＠snarc.net -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net -
grant＠stockly.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
ian_primus＠yahoo.com -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
joachim.thiemann＠gmail.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
Paul_Koning＠Dell.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
pontus＠update.uu.se -
slawmaster＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com