8 Jun
2000
8 Jun
'00
12:44 p.m.
Here's a question for the group. I have a PC running Bob Supnik's PDP-11
simulator and a PDP-11/45 front panel with no CPU boards. I'd like to do
sort of a faux PDP-11/45 with this setup by somehow wiring the front panel
up to the PC running Sim.
Am I completely out of my mind, or is there even the remotest chance of
getting something like this to work?
-- Tony
8 Jun
8 Jun
12:50 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1242 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000608/5eaffd2b/at…
1:31 p.m.
There are plug-in boards that provide an extra SPP/EPP/ECP port, which is
safer than simply using the motherboard-resident one. That would be less
trouble if you were to break it than would be the one on the motherboard.
The EPP port is more desirable, IMHO, simply because it isolates your
"hobby-project" from the inards of the computer. It also provides a handy
connector, and a simple protocol by which to provide yourself with up to 256
I/O ports in either direction, without having to open the box except to plug
in the parallel port card. If one happened to come with a DLL with which
you can write WINDOWS code for your port, so much the better!
One rather important aspect, of course, is that the printer port can really
drive the properly terminated cable, while a "normal" MOS LSI for parallel
I/O, e.g. 8255, 6821, etc, can't.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
>
> Here's a question for the group. I have a PC running Bob Supnik's
PDP-11
> simulator and a PDP-11/45 front panel with no CPU
boards. I'd like to
do
> sort of a faux PDP-11/45 with this setup by
somehow wiring the front
panel
up to the PC
running Sim.
Am I completely out of my mind, or is there even the remotest chance of
We're all out of our minds on this list ;-)
getting something like this to work?
It's _possible_. It's probably less work to find a set of 11/45 CPU
boards and get them working, but it's still _possible_ to do what you ask.
The hardware shouldn't be too bad. The 11/45 frontpanel board is just the
lights, switches, and lamp drivers IIRC. So you'd need to provide :
Power supplies (+5V for the logic and +15V for the lamps IIRC).
Input ports on the PC to take inputs from the switches
Output ports on the PC to drive the lamps.
You could either build your own I/O port cards using (say) the 8255
chip, or buy them ready made ($$$ since they don't sell in the quantities
of most PC bits), or with a bit (OK, a lot) of logic, hang the whole
thing off a printer port.
Then you have to modify the simulator to talk to these I/O ports. Just a
Simple Matter of Programming (tm). Eeek!
-tony
9 Jun
9 Jun
1:07 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1781 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000609/3767c19b/at…
5:48 p.m.
You'll have to sell me on this one, Tony. blinking the lights in sync with
a simulator via EPP is dirt-simple and very fast. I2C requires either
hardware or time-consuming software to generate, and generating and
debugging the software will consume a lot of time too. Further, it requires
lots of specialized ( I haven't got any of those parts here . . .) hardware
at the receiving end, and I have lots of parts . . .
The EPP is infinitely extensible, i.e. it's possible, though unrealistic, to
build a system with 64K 64K-bit ports all controlled by a single PC from its
parallel port. The thing thats beautiful about that is that it's possible
to build the system as wide, or deep, as you like without using any
different hardware at the PC end.
More below ...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
You don't need a bit-level definition beyond the standard, since all EPP
ports are defined/characterized in IEEE standard 1284. There are dozens of
sites that provide details and code examples on the web.
I'm not familiar with the 11/45 FP. Does it have receivers that can get by
with the less-than half milliamp source and little more than a single
milliamp sink current of these devices ( one port may drive 2 mA . . . ??)
I don't know how well the 6821 or 8255 like driving cables. I've never
tried it because they always were buffered in applications I've studied. In
fact, I've found the buffers normally work more conveniently than the LSI's
they serve, so I normally do things with TTL/CMOS logic and leave out the
fancy LSI's unless there's a specific requirement (in writing) for them.
>
> There are plug-in boards that provide an extra SPP/EPP/ECP port, which
is
> safer than simply using the motherboard-resident
one. That would be
less
> trouble if you were to break it than would be the
one on the
motherboard.
>
> The EPP port is more desirable, IMHO, simply because it isolates your
> "hobby-project" from the inards of the computer. It also provides a
handy
> connector, and a simple protocol by which to
provide yourself with up to
256
> I/O ports in either direction, without having to
open the box except to
plug
The other possibility (which is _very_ easy, and fast enough for
human-readable lamps and switches) is to bit-bang I2C over a couple of
lines of the printer port (you need 1 input (data in) and 2 outputs (data
out and clock out) -- you don't need the clock input for most common
devices). Then hang a few PCF8584 and PCF8584A chips off it (each is a
single 8 bit I/O port, and you can have 8 of _each_ on a single I2C bus).
> in the parallel port card. If one happened to come with a DLL with
which
you can write
WINDOWS code for your port, so much the better!
Well, if you _must_ use that so-called OS, I suppose so... Personally,
I'd rather have a linux system, a copy of gcc and a bit-level definition
of the registers on the card....
>
> One rather important aspect, of course, is that the printer port can
really
> drive the properly terminated cable, while a
"normal" MOS LSI for
parallel
That is, alas, not always the case. A lot of printer ports have pretty
poor drive characteristics. Maybe some modern ones (particularly
high-speed/EPP/etc ones) are better.
I think you may be misinformed, here, Tony. The original port (LSTTL) was
CERTAINLY able to drive a cable of up to 20' length, though it wasn't
recommended. The extremely popular 82C11 that occupies about two thirds of
the pre-IEEE-STD-1284 port boards I have lying about, drives harder than the
original TTL version after which it is patterned. The TTL used by the
original PC was probably the least hefty driver set ever used on the PC
printer port.
I/O, e.g. 8255, 6821, etc, can't.
Yes, but for this application (driving an 11/45 panel) you need to drive
normal TTL loads not that fast.
-tony
12 Jun
12 Jun
9:05 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2379 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000612/700681e4/at…
8:48 p.m.
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
IIRC an EPP port gives you 8 data lines, which is no
way enough to talk
to an 11/45 front panel (there are 18 data/address input switches, 18
EPP gets you eight data signals, a R/W* line, an address strobe, and
a data strobe. It's equivalent to a multiplexed-address-and-data
peripheral bus. So you can hang basically as many I/O signals off it
as you're willing to wire up.
There's even a signal that can be used as an interrupt input.
The nice part is that the "SuperIO" sort of chipsets do all the handshaking
for you, so if you want to write a 0x32 to EPP device register 0x2a, all
you have to do is two write cycles. No bit-banging of the control lines
or handshake inputs required.
It's pretty handy. The only annoying part is the need for the EPP device
to generate a transfer acknowledge signal. I would have been slightly
happier if they spec'd a standard default cycle time, and required the
peripheral to assert a wait signal if it couldn't complete the transfer
that quickly. That would allow for very simple devices with less logic.
9:28 p.m.
Being somewhat more specific, the EPP gives you an Address Strobe, a Data
Strobe, a Wait, an interupt, and eight data lines. It also gives you a
Write line (indeed a R/w*) but what's important is that your software
doesn't have to manipulate these strobes, since the hardware does it
automatically.
As a consequence, the timing is always as fast as your hardware can do the
job, provided you've hooked up the handshakes properly. As with many
standards, this one doesn't tell you what, exactly, that might be, and
that's where you are right again. However, it's intended, if you can
believe the many write-up's that make this claim, that it's capable of ISA
bus speeds.
That, in short, means two clock ticks at 8 MHz per transfer, if the sync
between the handshake lines, strobe and wait, happens just so, else it will
probably take three ticks. I've never seen one that fast, and I've only
managed to build an interface that moves that fast when I have access to the
bus clock, which ABSOLUTELY should be verboten, as the interface is supposed
to work without that. If you're not concerned that the sync be exactly the
same all the time, you can use a local oscillator of some harmonic of 8 MHz
and use a counter to generate the signals you use synchronously with that,
always temporally spaced the same amount due to the value that's loaded into
the counter whenever a signal from the PC changes state. That will keep you
at a minimal phase shift from what's going on in the machine MOST of the
time. Now and then there will be a frame slip due to the difference in the
oscillator rates, but that will be just about the same as if you had a PLL
running, except the jitter will be much larger but much less frequent.
Not all systems will like this approach as well as others, but if you're
into synchronous state machines and want purely deterministic results, or as
nearly so as you can have, then this is a, not THE, way to get there.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
handshaking
IIRC an EPP port gives you 8 data lines, which is
no way enough to talk
to an 11/45 front panel (there are 18 data/address input switches, 18
EPP gets you eight data signals, a R/W* line, an address strobe, and
a data strobe. It's equivalent to a multiplexed-address-and-data
peripheral bus. So you can hang basically as many I/O signals off it
as you're willing to wire up.
There's even a signal that can be used as an interrupt input.
The nice part is that the "SuperIO" sort of chipsets do all the
for you, so if you want to write a 0x32 to EPP device
register 0x2a, all
you have to do is two write cycles. No bit-banging of the control lines
or handshake inputs required.
It's pretty handy. The only annoying part is the need for the EPP device
to generate a transfer acknowledge signal. I would have been slightly
happier if they spec'd a standard default cycle time, and required the
peripheral to assert a wait signal if it couldn't complete the transfer
that quickly. That would allow for very simple devices with less logic.
8 Jun
8 Jun
1:45 p.m.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Tony Duell wrote:
Actually, I think that adding blinking lights, and switches, to any
computer is a good idea, and, as my PDP-11s don't have lights and
switches, I think it's time to add them... by creating a separate rack
panel, of course. Has anyone here added lights and switches to one of
the PDP-11s of incomplete design?
simulator and
a PDP-11/45 front panel with no CPU boards. I'd like to do
sort of a faux PDP-11/45 with this setup by somehow wiring the front panel
up to the PC running Sim.
Am I completely out of my mind, or is there even the remotest chance of
We're all out of our minds on this list ;-) It's _possible_. It's probably less work to
find a set of 11/45 CPU
boards and get them working, but it's still _possible_ to do what you ask.
The idea of finding a set of PDP-11 boards is a better idea, as then the
front panel could be used with non-toy computer equipment.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
2:17 p.m.
Actually, I think that adding blinking lights, and
switches, to any
computer is a good idea, and, as my PDP-11s don't have lights and
switches, I think it's time to add them... by creating a separate rack
panel, of course. Has anyone here added lights and switches to one of
the PDP-11s of incomplete design?
Interesting idea, a Q-bus front panel.
The address lines are present, just wire those up to lights. Various
signals are there as well. A DMA cycle can take forever so you could build
the switch register to deposit directly into memory. Decoding an address
for the switch register in the top 4K would be pretty straightforward as
well. Does anyone know if there is a defined location for it? Displaying
registers would be difficult to do "on the fly" however you could probably
force the CPU to execute a MOV Rx, #DISPLY fairly easily.
On a tangentially related subject there was a recent series of articles in
Circuit Cellar Ink on building your own CPU in an FPGA (see
www.fpgacpu.org) and it included a VGA interface (which they displayed
characters on) clearly however if you were using it as God intended you
would create a virtual front panel :-)
--Chuck
8 Jun
8 Jun
3:27 p.m.
Careful, now . . . due to the passage of time and the change of the
"climate" the PDP's, Vaxen, Cray's, etc, that are sitting in basements
and
garages are the toys now, and the former toys, the PC's, are the "real"
computers. Bizzarre, isn't it?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: R. D. Davis <rdd(a)smart.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
ask.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Tony Duell wrote:
> > simulator and a PDP-11/45 front panel with no CPU boards. I'd like to
do
> > sort of a faux PDP-11/45 with this setup by
somehow wiring the front
panel
> > up to the PC running Sim.
> >
> > Am I completely out of my mind, or is there even the remotest chance
of
We're all out of our minds on this list ;-)
Actually, I think that adding blinking lights, and switches, to any
computer is a good idea, and, as my PDP-11s don't have lights and
switches, I think it's time to add them... by creating a separate rack
panel, of course. Has anyone here added lights and switches to one of
the PDP-11s of incomplete design?
> It's _possible_. It's probably less work to find a set of 11/45 CPU
> boards and get them working, but it's still _possible_ to do what you
The idea of finding a set of PDP-11 boards is a better idea, as then the
front panel could be used with non-toy computer equipment.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
4:30 p.m.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Careful, now . . . due to the passage of time and the
change of the
"climate" the PDP's, Vaxen, Cray's, etc, that are sitting in basements
and
garages are the toys now, and the former toys, the PC's, are the "real"
computers. Bizzarre, isn't it?
It's not only bizarre, it's apparently someone's idea of a sick joke,
that the most boring and poorly designed systems are the ones that
most people depend on these days which have replaced the VAXen, etc.
Is it not true, however, that all computers are toys, and that PDP's,
VAXen and Crays could have been considered toys when they were new?
Whether I've "worked" with computers as a hobby at home, for clients,
or for employers, I've always felt as though they were toys to play
with and to experiment with. Of course, I did make sure that my
employers didn't see me in the computer rooms with screwdrivers,
etc. as I took things apart to examine them, although I did get in big
trouble when a former supervisor, who told me that there were no
programming languages installed on the company's VAX, discovered a
bunch of assembly code in with my files... I sure proved her wrong!
:-) ...of course I hacked a game of adventure in DCL there as well, I
showed here again that there was indeed a programming language on the
VAX, and that wasn't exactly appreciated when discovered either,
oddly. Ah well... some employers can be rather strange. I don't have
to wonder what that employer would have done if they found out that I
found a stray dog outside during my break (I was working the graveyard
shift at the time, about a decade ago), and took it back into the
building, let it sleep on the couch in the waiting room during my next
break, and roam around the computer room until it was time for me to
go home. I found the dog's owner for it the next day. :-) :-) :-)
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
4:54 p.m.
Unfortunately, though the behemoths of yesteryear still do what was then
asked of them, what's evolved more than anything else is what people (oh,
yes ... the people have changed a mite, too) ask of them. Since they CAN
play this week's fantasy game, they do, and since they can show detailed
pictures of the smut, gore, or whatever else someone's into, they do that,
too. The CRAY and VAX machines didn't do that as well. That's not to say
they couldn't, but, since nobody would pay what they'd have had to, they
didn't.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: R. D. Davis <rdd(a)smart.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Careful, now . . . due to the passage of time and the change of the
> "climate" the PDP's, Vaxen, Cray's, etc, that are sitting in
basements
and
garages are
the toys now, and the former toys, the PC's, are the "real"
computers. Bizzarre, isn't it?
It's not only bizarre, it's apparently someone's idea of a sick joke,
that the most boring and poorly designed systems are the ones that
most people depend on these days which have replaced the VAXen, etc.
Is it not true, however, that all computers are toys, and that PDP's,
VAXen and Crays could have been considered toys when they were new?
Whether I've "worked" with computers as a hobby at home, for clients,
or for employers, I've always felt as though they were toys to play
with and to experiment with. Of course, I did make sure that my
employers didn't see me in the computer rooms with screwdrivers,
etc. as I took things apart to examine them, although I did get in big
trouble when a former supervisor, who told me that there were no
programming languages installed on the company's VAX, discovered a
bunch of assembly code in with my files... I sure proved her wrong!
:-) ...of course I hacked a game of adventure in DCL there as well, I
showed here again that there was indeed a programming language on the
VAX, and that wasn't exactly appreciated when discovered either,
oddly. Ah well... some employers can be rather strange. I don't have
to wonder what that employer would have done if they found out that I
found a stray dog outside during my break (I was working the graveyard
shift at the time, about a decade ago), and took it back into the
building, let it sleep on the couch in the waiting room during my next
break, and roam around the computer room until it was time for me to
go home. I found the dog's owner for it the next day. :-) :-) :-)
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
6:18 p.m.
New subject: Wirin' up blinkenlights (pack o' wild dogs)
I don't have
to wonder what that employer would have done if they found out that I
found a stray dog outside during my break (I was working the graveyard
shift at the time, about a decade ago), and took it back into the
building, let it sleep on the couch in the waiting room during my next
break, and roam around the computer room until it was time for me to
go home. I found the dog's owner for it the next day. :-) :-) :-)
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
I used to work for as a network admin for a snowboard company outside of
Seattle, and dogs were allowed in the office. Every morning, there would be
a pack of wild dogs making the rounds, desk to desk, begging for food, etc..
We had 22 dogs in the office at one time, on certain days, and they put on
quite a show. It was fun but I'll bet that you won't see it happening soon
at the offices downtown.
Ernest
9 Jun
9 Jun
1:09 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 734 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000609/8ae51266/at…
5:57 p.m.
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Tony Duell wrote:
A totally mad project that somewhere on the
to-be-hacked pile is to
modify the 8085 console system on an 11/44. Hang blickenlights and
switches off that processor (which would mean hardware mods to the MFM
card, but I have the prints...) and modify the console firmware to look
at them, and to edit PDP11 memory, etc, from them. And to still use the
serial port as the normal console terminal port.
That sounds like great fun; a PDP-11/44 to PDP-11/44t conversion
project! Does anyone know of any sources for some colorful, and
well-made, switches that would look like they belong on an older
computer's front panel?
For the blinkenlights, my least favorite choice is LEDs; does anyone
have a reason for a preference of Ne2 bulbs over incandescent bulbs or
vice versa? Front panel analog meters for monitoring the PSU voltage
levels would be useful as well.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
12 Jun
12 Jun
9:09 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 812 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000612/bfe2705f/at…
8 Jun
8 Jun
1:55 p.m.
How many people on this list have fantasized for even a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
P.S. a PIC is a pretty good way to get 32-1 signals in and
out over an SIO line.
2:21 p.m.
I haven't had -that- particular fantasy, but another one...
... creating copies of certain "classic" machines. If you were able to buy,
say, an original Nova in a box that for all the detail you wanted was the
same as the original, and inside had the same chips on the same size PC board,
would that be cool? Sure, you're have to use materials you could get today
to do it, but accurately done, it might be interesting.
I'm -not- saying building up clones of certain rare old computers and trying
to pass them off as originals, but rather, trying to make clones that are
undistinguishable from the original.
Maybe it's nuts, but, as Tony recently said, we're all nuts on this list! ;-)
-Mike
p.s. To those who posted pointers to the "6-chip" Woz diskette interface,
thanks! Nice stuff.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, John Allain wrote:
How many people on this list have fantasized for even a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
P.S. a PIC is a pretty good way to get 32-1 signals in and
out over an SIO line.
9 Jun
9 Jun
1:15 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1883 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000609/24df7746/at…
5:28 p.m.
It's probably exactly the way you suggest, Tony, but I'd say you ay be
overlooking the most obvious way to do this sort of thing, i.e. use volatile
programmable logic. I doubt any patent will be violated if you use an old
schematic as the model for an implementation that couldn't have existed in
the timeframe within which a patent might have been valid. A patent applies
to the implementation of the items that are claimed as original or
innovative. It will be your implementation that is innovative if you do it
this way.
Another point worth considering is the relative risk of being sued. If you
build a single copy of your implementation, even if it is on a standard FPGA
board sold for many purposes, it is a unique effort, yielding a unique
product, no longer really the same board built by the manufacturer, yet it
will be able to execute, and quite precisely if your implementation is good,
the instructions the original one did. However, if there were any money in
this implementation, someone would be building it and you'd have THEM to
worry about, not the original maker. If one's dreaming of making a bundle
supplying an old war-horse that died years back, even at a 50-fold
preformance increase, it's not likely to be worth the filing fees.
If you don't like how it works, you can fiddle with it to your heart's
delight, without any resoldering or cut and paste. Now, there is, actually
a risk you might not be able to preserve pinouts, so what I'd recommend is
to build a board with your FPGA (one is normally better than two or more,
since many pins of I/O are lost if you try to use small devices where a
larger one is indicated) surrounded with dual row pin-fields over which you
can interconnect the signal paths with longer jumpers if need be in
subsequent revisions or other architectures.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
trying
>
> I haven't had -that- particular fantasy, but another one...
>
> ... creating copies of certain "classic" machines. If you were able to
buy,
> say, an original Nova in a box that for all the
detail you wanted was
the
> same as the original, and inside had the same
chips on the same size PC
board,
> would that be cool? Sure, you're have to use
materials you could get
today
to do it, but
accurately done, it might be interesting.
Yes, I've thought about this too....
Technically, it's not that hard, if you allow 'minor' changes in the
chips -- using 74HCT chips in place of plain 74xx (and making other
necessary changes), for example. Or using larger, more modern SRAM chips
to replace ones that are hard to find and expensive now.
Legally there are at least 2 problems. Firstly, the design is probably
still covered by some form of copyright (IANAL). Most schematics of these
old computers have notices on them preventing them from being used to
make copies of the machine. My guess is that some manufacturers might
well give the permision, though.
The second problem is that these old machines may well not meet modern
standard for RFI emissions, etc. Which (at least in the UK) matters even
if you're only making a 1-off :-(
>
> I'm -not- saying building up clones of certain rare old computers and
> to pass them off as originals, but rather, trying
to make clones that
are
undistinguishable from the original.
I would want to make some change that made it impossible to pass it off
as the original. Perhaps putting the text 'Copy created by <name>
<date>'
in an inside layer of the PCB, so it could be seen if the board were held
up to the light, but couldn't be removed without destroying the board. I
have no interest in making fakes, I have every interest in playing with
machines that I otherwise wouldn't be able to see.
-tony
12 Jun
12 Jun
8:56 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2338 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000612/4f79177c/at…
8 Jun
8 Jun
2:39 p.m.
How many people on this list have fantasized for even
a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
And active? How would they be active? I don't even know what most
of them do, but they generally control hardware that isn't going to
be useful except in an actual Apollo mission or equivalent. Certainly
I have no reason to want to be able to control a secondary coolant loop
pump or SPS gimbal motors, for instance.
As it happens, I have an "Apollo 13 Controls and Displays" poster less
then three feet from where I'm sitting. See
http://www.papertrainer.com/
4:16 p.m.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, John Allain wrote:
How many people on this list have fantasized for even
a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
No. Such space flights amount to little more than a massive waste of
taxpayer money, and take place just to appease those who are into
science fiction, or who make money from it, and I don't fantasize
about having my money wasted.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
4:51 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:16:04PM -0400, R. D. Davis wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, John Allain wrote:
Yeah! Just like that damn pesky ARPAnet.
-Seth
How many people on this list have fantasized for
even a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
No. Such space flights amount to little more than a massive waste of
taxpayer money, and take place just to appease those who are into
science fiction, or who make money from it, and I don't fantasize
about having my money wasted. 
4:31 p.m.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, sjm wrote:
The Sethinator!
Touche!
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
On Thu, 8 Jun
2000, John Allain wrote:
Yeah! Just like that damn pesky ARPAnet. How many people on this list have fantasized for
even a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
No. Such space flights amount to little more than a massive waste of
taxpayer money, and take place just to appease those who are into
science fiction, or who make money from it, and I don't fantasize
about having my money wasted.
6:09 p.m.
New subject: New HP150 software finds.
I picked a big stack of HP150 single sided software disks today, most of
which I didn't have.
Wordstar Ver. 3
Spellstar
Correctstar
Mailmerge
The Speller
Interex CSL/150 (no idea what this is?)
Polyplot
Statistix Ver. 2.0
Sidewinder Ver. 2.1 (no idea what this is?)
1987 Portable Paper Subscriber's disk (for 100/110 maybe?)
1988 Subscriber's disk
Crosstalk (is this for 100 to 150 communication?)
Norton Utilities Ver. 4.0 (for portables and 150)
Turbo Pascal Ver. 2.0
Read HP150 (ss/ds) for IBM PC (this could be interesting)
Compuserve HP Forum Programs (?)
100/150 System Demo
150 System Master (DOS 2.01)
150 Computer Tutor
150 MS Basic
150 Application Master
150 MS Pascal
150 System Work disk
150 Application Work disk
100 series MS Fortran
These all look to be original disks. Copies of these will be going onto my
FTP site soon.
Ernest
9 Jun
9 Jun
4:41 a.m.
New subject: New HP150 software finds.
Hello -
What is the address of your ftp site?
john
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:09:11PM -0700, Ernest wrote:
I picked a big stack of HP150 single sided software disks today, most of
which I didn't have.
Wordstar Ver. 3
Spellstar
Correctstar
Mailmerge
The Speller
Interex CSL/150 (no idea what this is?)
Polyplot
Statistix Ver. 2.0
Sidewinder Ver. 2.1 (no idea what this is?)
1987 Portable Paper Subscriber's disk (for 100/110 maybe?)
1988 Subscriber's disk
Crosstalk (is this for 100 to 150 communication?)
Norton Utilities Ver. 4.0 (for portables and 150)
Turbo Pascal Ver. 2.0
Read HP150 (ss/ds) for IBM PC (this could be interesting)
Compuserve HP Forum Programs (?)
100/150 System Demo
150 System Master (DOS 2.01)
150 Computer Tutor
150 MS Basic
150 Application Master
150 MS Pascal
150 System Work disk
150 Application Work disk
100 series MS Fortran
These all look to be original disks. Copies of these will be going onto my
FTP site soon.
Ernest
--
************************************************************************
* * *
* John Ott * Email: jott(a)saturn.ee.nd.edu *
* Dept. Electrical Engineering * *
* 275 Fitzpatrick Hall * *
* University of Notre Dame * Phone: (219) 631-7752 *
* Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA * *
* * *
************************************************************************
4:53 p.m.
New subject: New HP150 software finds.
It isn't actually officially open yet but I'm hoping to have it all ready by
next weekend. I'm trying to tie it into a web page that I'm making. I'll
post it here as soon as it's open, so look for a notification by next
weekend.
Ernest
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:owner-classiccmp@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of John Ott
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 6:41 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: New HP150 software finds.
Hello -
What is the address of your ftp site?
john
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:09:11PM -0700, Ernest wrote:
I picked a big stack of HP150 single sided software disks today, most of
which I didn't have.
Wordstar Ver. 3
Spellstar
Correctstar
Mailmerge
The Speller
Interex CSL/150 (no idea what this is?)
Polyplot
Statistix Ver. 2.0
Sidewinder Ver. 2.1 (no idea what this is?)
1987 Portable Paper Subscriber's disk (for 100/110 maybe?)
1988 Subscriber's disk
Crosstalk (is this for 100 to 150 communication?)
Norton Utilities Ver. 4.0 (for portables and 150)
Turbo Pascal Ver. 2.0
Read HP150 (ss/ds) for IBM PC (this could be interesting)
Compuserve HP Forum Programs (?)
100/150 System Demo
150 System Master (DOS 2.01)
150 Computer Tutor
150 MS Basic
150 Application Master
150 MS Pascal
150 System Work disk
150 Application Work disk
100 series MS Fortran
These all look to be original disks. Copies of these will be going onto my
FTP site soon.
Ernest
--
************************************************************************
* * *
* John Ott * Email: jott(a)saturn.ee.nd.edu *
* Dept. Electrical Engineering * *
* 275 Fitzpatrick Hall * *
* University of Notre Dame * Phone: (219) 631-7752 *
* Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA * *
* * *
************************************************************************
14 Jun
14 Jun
6:35 p.m.
New subject: New HP150 software finds.
I picked a big stack of HP150 single sided software
disks today, most of
which I didn't have.
Sidewinder Ver. 2.1 (no idea what this is?)
There have been a number of programs that use the graphics mode of a
dot-matrix printer to print pages sideways (you might say in landscape
mode). One of those programs was even _called_ Sideways. They were usually
aimed at spreadsheet users, because spreadsheets are much wider than they
are tall. Your disk could be one of these programs.
-- Derek
22 Jun
22 Jun
3:01 p.m.
New subject: New HP150 software finds.
I picked a big stack of HP150 single sided software
disks today, most of
which I didn't have.
I've started to make copies of these HP150 disks, and since I have a minute,
I was wondering why my WinPC won't recognize these disks. What I've been
doing to get around this problem is to copy each disk to the HD on my 150,
and then copy the new files from the 150 to a blank 720k disk, which my
Pentium system can see but this is really tedious.
What's happening is that my Pentium system doesn't recognize the format of
these old SS 3.5 disks, even though they are formatted with MSDOS (FAT 12 I
think.) My Pentium will see the 720k disks that I format on the HP but not
the old SS disks. Does anyone know why?
Are the old disks copy protected? Or is because they're single sided? I'm
curious because I would like to find a better way to copy these disks.
Thanks
Ernest
23 Jun
23 Jun
7:37 a.m.
New subject: HP15 disk format (was: New HP150 software finds.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Ernest wrote:
I've started to make copies of these HP150 disks,
and since I have a minute,
I was wondering why my WinPC won't recognize these disks.
Because that is NOT one of the "official" MS-DOS disk formats that
MICROS~1 supports.
MICROS~1 had provision for OEMs to be able to modify certain pieces
(IO.SYS) of MS-DOS, particularly in version 2.11, to be able to add their
own unique formats.
Starting in version 3.20, all variants of MS-DOS support a 720K format,
although that is NOT always the same as the 720K format that some
OEMs had been using prior to that.
What I've been
doing to get around this problem is to copy each disk to the HD on my 150,
and then copy the new files from the 150 to a blank 720k disk, which my
Pentium system can see but this is really tedious.
What's happening is that my Pentium system doesn't recognize the format of
these old SS 3.5 disks, even though they are formatted with MSDOS (FAT 12 I
think.) My Pentium will see the 720k disks that I format on the HP but not
the old SS disks. Does anyone know why?
Yes.
There are literally hundreds of mutually incompatible MS-DOS disk formats
(as well as thousands of CP/M ones)
Are the old disks copy protected?
No.
Or is because they're single sided? I'm
curious because I would like to find a better way to copy these disks.
There are several programs available for transferring files between
different disk formats. http://www.xenosoft.com/xcflyer.html
But what you are currently doing seems to be working reasonably well.
Does your HP support the "phantom B: drive"? Quick experiment: Even with
only one physical floppy, ask for a DIR B: Most MS-DOS systems will NOT
say "Invalid Drive Specification" to that! Instead, they will prompt you
to put the drive B: disk into the drive! The system uses the one physical
drive for both A: and B: ! You could simply type COPY A:*.* B: and it
will prompt you for disk swaps. WRITE-PROTECT ALL OF YOUR SOURCE DISKS
BEFORE YOU START, since sometime you will put the wrong disk into the
drive.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
2210 Sixth St. (510) 644-9366
Berkeley, CA 94710-2219
9:08 a.m.
New subject: New HP150 software finds.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1482 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000623/b9f4348d/at…
8 Jun
8 Jun
6:09 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Date sent: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 18:51:11 -0700
From: sjm <sethm(a)loomcom.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Send reply to: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 09:16:04PM -0400, R. D. Davis
wrote:
<rant>
Absolutely. If you only take a narrow view of life, the internet could
look like a tremendous waste of money and time.
The space program, while costing the taxpayers a sizable amount
of money, has produced huge quantities of spinoff projects and
technologies that have definitely benefitted mankind.
If you take the previous poster's comments back several hundred
years, the Spanish could have said, "Why should the Queen spend
our money on that Columbus guy? He's just some obnoxious
"explorer" who only wants to satisfy his curiosity. What a waste!
We have everything we need, right here."
I've been following the space program for as long as I can
remember, and it always irritates me when someone says that the
only reason we're doing it is to make some sci-fi geeks happy.
Most of the people in the space industry, I would venture to guess,
are probably not sci-fi nuts but damn good engineers and scientists
who are gaining a lot of valuable research from NASA and the like.
</rant>
Paul Braun WD9GCO
Cygnus Productions
nerdware_nospam(a)laidbak.com
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, John Allain wrote:
Yeah! Just like that damn pesky ARPAnet.
-Seth
How many people on this list have fantasized for
even a
moment building an Apollo spaceflight simulator with all
the lights & switches accurate and active?
No. Such space flights amount to little more than a massive waste of
taxpayer money, and take place just to appease those who are into
science fiction, or who make money from it, and I don't fantasize about
having my money wasted.
5:43 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Braun wrote:
The space program, while costing the taxpayers a
sizable amount
of money, has produced huge quantities of spinoff projects and
technologies that have definitely benefitted mankind.
Yeah! Like Tang and Velcro!
If you take the previous poster's comments back
several hundred
years, the Spanish could have said, "Why should the Queen spend
our money on that Columbus guy? He's just some obnoxious
"explorer" who only wants to satisfy his curiosity. What a waste!
We have everything we need, right here."
Bad example :)
I've been following the space program for as long
as I can
remember, and it always irritates me when someone says that the
only reason we're doing it is to make some sci-fi geeks happy.
Most of the people in the space industry, I would venture to guess,
are probably not sci-fi nuts but damn good engineers and scientists
who are gaining a lot of valuable research from NASA and the like.
Yeah!
;)
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
7:21 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Sellam Ismail wrote:
I think the space programme is invaluable. How else are we going to find
a place to ship Trent Lott?
I've been
following the space program for as long as I can
remember, and it always irritates me when someone says that the
only reason we're doing it is to make some sci-fi geeks happy.
Most of the people in the space industry, I would venture to guess,
are probably not sci-fi nuts but damn good engineers and scientists
who are gaining a lot of valuable research from NASA and the like.
Yeah!
8:35 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Merle K. Peirce wrote:
I think the space programme is invaluable. How else
are we going to find
a place to ship Trent Lott?
ROFL! :-) Hopefully it will be a place where he can't continue to
protect horse abusers... I understand he's all for the protection of
the torture, called soring, that some Tennessee Walker horses endure
in order for their walk to be "ehnanced." Maybe it will be to some
planet where they'll apply those chemical irritants to Lott's lower
limbs to teach him how to walk so as to better entertain the aliens.
ObClassiccmp:
-------------
Do any computer preservationists seriously use their systems to heat their
houses in the winter in place of a furnace?
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
10:07 p.m.
New subject: OT Ranting (blather drool spit) Re: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, R. D. Davis wrote:
ObClassiccmp:
-------------
Do any computer preservationists seriously use their systems to heat their
houses in the winter in place of a furnace?
TANG!
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
10:08 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Do any computer preservationists seriously use their
systems to heat their
houses in the winter in place of a furnace?
Well, the room in the house with all the computers (well, except the ones
living in the garage) has the heating blocked off, and often has the window
open in the middle of the Winter. It also happens to be the room that has
the Airconditioner which gets used during the spring, summer and fall.
The rest of the house is usually pretty chilly by comparison.
Zane
OTOH, most of that heat comes from 1 21" monitor, and the real problem is
the design of this house. Even without the computer equipment on this room
is considerably hotter than the rest of the house.
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | Linux Enthusiast |
| healyzh(a)holonet.net (alternate) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
10 Jun
10 Jun
4:41 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Braun wrote:
Tang was developed by General Foods in the 1960's. It was an
'also ran' product until chosen by nasa as an alternative to
plan water during space missions.
NASA and the space race has developed technologies such as
artificial satelites, which gives us 100's of TV channels,
cell phones, and pagers... The bastards!!!
clint
PS all spelling errors are due to staying up too late to play Drakan
(on my wizzy new Pentium III - 600!!! with an antique (1 year old
design) motherboard :)
The space program, while costing the taxpayers a
sizable amount
of money, has produced huge quantities of spinoff projects and
technologies that have definitely benefitted mankind.
Yeah! Like Tang and Velcro!
6:31 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Clint Wolff (VAX collector) wrote:
Ok, so both of my examples have been shot down. So I'll propse two
alternates:
Food in a squeeze tube and suction toilets!!
Two obviously very useful inventions.
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
Yeah! Like
Tang and Velcro!
Tang was developed by General Foods in the 1960's. It was an
'also ran' product until chosen by nasa as an alternative to
plan water during space missions.
8 Jun
8 Jun
8:16 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Braun wrote:
<rant>
Absolutely. If you only take a narrow view of life, the internet could
look like a tremendous waste of money and time.
Well, the ARPANET did have a big flaw in it didn't it, I mean, they
spent all that money, and look what still happened: the invasion of
the AOLers (no offense to any AOL users here, I'm talking about the
onslaught that nearly crippled Usenet several years ago that was like
an infinite influx of first semester students who'd just gotten their
usernames and passwords in CS101). ;-)
In all seriousness, the internet, like many other things, is a double
edged sword. It allows us to communicate more easily, and is
extremely useful; it's a wonderful research tool. On the other hand,
the Internet is a great wasy for some people to wasts vast sums of
time, and, look at how easy it makes things for the government to spy
on vast numbers of citizens due to the way it's been set up. Is
the lack of security on the Internet possibly a well designed feature
disguised as a flaw? Had the ARPANET never existed, isn't it likely
that some other, perhaps more secure, form of communication may have
originated without government intervention and become just as popular?
The space program, while costing the taxpayers a
sizable amount
of money, has produced huge quantities of spinoff projects and
technologies that have definitely benefitted mankind.
Yes, I remember as a child, there was that new orange powdered space
age drink mix called Tang, which was marketed as a spinoff of the
space program, the drink of the astronauts, available in supermarkets
everywhere. :-) :-) :-)
If you take the previous poster's comments back
several hundred
years, the Spanish could have said, "Why should the Queen spend
our money on that Columbus guy? He's just some obnoxious
"explorer" who only wants to satisfy his curiosity. What a waste!
We have everything we need, right here."
Hmmm... interesting to think about.
I've been following the space program for as long
as I can
remember, and it always irritates me when someone says that the
only reason we're doing it is to make some sci-fi geeks happy.
You may be surprised that I agree with you: there are other reasons
besides that. For example, the space program also exists so that
large corporations can make billions of dollars in profits and use
some of those profits to grant favors to the politicians who helped
them make the profits extorted from taxpayers.
More seriously, I know that there will come a day when the earth may
become uninhabitable, and space exploration may be our only key to the
survival of creatures living on earth. However, I seriously doubt
that everyone would be able to leave, and imagine that only a
relatively small number of carefully selected people and other
creatures would get to leave and possibly survive, leaving the
majority of the earth's inhabitants here to perish. What's the point
in that?
However, at the rate things are going, we'll probably cause our own
extinction because of overpopulation and the resulting damage to the
environment, long before we can find another planet to destroy.
Most of the people in the space industry, I would
venture to guess,
are probably not sci-fi nuts but damn good engineers and scientists
Unquestionably true, and I have a lot of respect for the skills and
abilities of such engineers and scientists; however, could not their
abilities have been put to better use for society?
who are gaining a lot of valuable research from NASA
and the like.
Yes, but I wonder how much of this is actually necessary, and if it
really does do much to improve the quality of people's lives. After
all, the technology used in building comfortable houses to live in has
been stable for many years. The automobile hasn't really improved
much since the 1970s. The field of medicine would probably have done
just as well, and perhaps better, if the money was spent on it, and,
who knows, those horrid HMOs may never have even come to exist. Have
the foods we eat improved as a result of the space program? Have
people become kinder and more civil to one another as a result of the
space program? Has the space program had any positive influence on
spirituality and humanity's relationship with Nature?
Yes, I can see how some of the technolgy has benefitted the U.S. and
it's allies throughout the free world militarily, and has possibly
been beneficial in that respect, but, again, perhaps a double edged
sword, not always used for peaceful, or defensive means, a sword that
can also slice the one who created it. Perhaps it's been useful for
the strategic defense initiative, but, that's been delayed and our
most trustworthy and esteemed (<-sarcasm intended) president has
crawled on his hands and knees to Russia asking for their permission
for us to implement it! Perhaps he's so used to crawling on his hands
and knees submitting to Hillary that he just can't help this, but
that's no excuse, is it?
I look foward to your answers, and if I'm wrong or am overlooking
something, I'd very much like to know about it.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
10:06 p.m.
New subject: OT Ranting (blather blather blather) Re: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, R. D. Davis wrote:
Well, the ARPANET did have a big flaw in it didn't
it, I mean, they
spent all that money, and look what still happened: the invasion of
the AOLers (no offense to any AOL users here, I'm talking about the
onslaught that nearly crippled Usenet several years ago that was like
an infinite influx of first semester students who'd just gotten their
usernames and passwords in CS101). ;-)
It's OK, R.D. You can take your foot out of your mouth now.
In all seriousness, the internet, like many other
things, is a double
edged sword. It allows us to communicate more easily, and is
extremely useful; it's a wonderful research tool.
Ok, stop there. No? Sigh...
On the other hand, the Internet is a great wasy for
some people to
wasts vast sums of time, and, look at how easy it makes things for the
government to spy on vast numbers of citizens due to the way it's been
set up. Is the lack of security on the Internet possibly a well
designed feature disguised as a flaw? Had the ARPANET never existed,
isn't it likely that some other, perhaps more secure, form of
communication may have originated without government intervention and
become just as popular?
Remember what I was saying about your foot?
More seriously, I know that there will come a day when
the earth may
become uninhabitable, and space exploration may be our only key to the
survival of creatures living on earth. However, I seriously doubt
that everyone would be able to leave, and imagine that only a
relatively small number of carefully selected people and other
creatures would get to leave and possibly survive, leaving the
majority of the earth's inhabitants here to perish. What's the point
in that?
The problem is not the sheer number of people on this planet, but the
percentage of those that are complete and utter morons.
Unquestionably true, and I have a lot of respect for
the skills and
abilities of such engineers and scientists; however, could not their
abilities have been put to better use for society?
Yeah! We could use a LOT more creative ways to kill and maim people.
Nukes just didn't go far enough, eh?
I look foward to your answers, and if I'm wrong or
am overlooking
something, I'd very much like to know about it.
Dude, one word: TANG!
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
9 Jun
9 Jun
3:29 a.m.
New subject: OT Ranting (blather blather blather) Re: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Sellam Ismail wrote:
Yeah, the quality of the tool is over rated.
edged sword.
It allows us to communicate more easily, and is
extremely useful; it's a wonderful research tool.
Ok, stop there. No? Sigh... The problem is not the
sheer number of people on
this planet, but the percentage of those that
are complete and utter morons.
Dude, it's both.
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
4:48 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
At 01:16 AM 6/9/00 -0400, R. D. Davis wrote:
Yes, I remember as a child, there was that new orange
powdered space
age drink mix called Tang, which was marketed as a spinoff of the
space program, the drink of the astronauts, available in supermarkets
everywhere. :-) :-) :-)
I knew Tang would be mentioned early in this thread. I may have
been born in 1963, but by what stretch is Tang considered an
invention, never mind a significant one? I'd find it hard to
believe that Kool Aid is more recent than Tang, never mind no doubt
dozens of other flavored powders. So Tang had the sugar built-in?
They couldn't have been the first to try that. Tang has some
sort of extra vitamins in it? That's a big invention?
(As an aside, these "freeze-dried ice cream" globs they sell at
NASA are horrid. Grandma and Grandpa brought some back for the
kids, and even they wouldn't touch them. Tang? Tang? How come
no one is talking about the awful freeze-dried ice cream?)
Velcro was invented by a fellow in Japan, as I recall - "velvet
closure" and burdock seeds were the name and the inspiration.
As for integrated circuits, etc. no doubt space funding might've
paid for the R&D and motivation for companies to improve and
shrink their products, but what - they didn't think there would
be a giant worldwide market for smaller and cheaper radios, lower
battery consumption, better transistors, etc? They wouldn't have
done it on their own, eventually, or perhaps even at the same speed,
as quickly as they could figure it out?
- John
7:20 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, John Foust wrote:
As for integrated circuits, etc. no doubt space
funding might've
paid for the R&D and motivation for companies to improve and
shrink their products, but what - they didn't think there would
be a giant worldwide market for smaller and cheaper radios, lower
battery consumption, better transistors, etc? They wouldn't have
done it on their own, eventually, or perhaps even at the same speed,
as quickly as they could figure it out?
Yeah, things like the Space Race and WWII did nothing for rapid
technological evolution and development, the least of which benefitted
from this was computers.
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
8:41 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
So many of these major discoveries were made purely by accident. Accidents
which might not have happened if Engineers and Scientists hadn't had the
freedom, and the funding, to take time with this or that strange phenomenon
observed in conjunction with an accident.
I certainly hope you're joking!
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Sellam Ismail <foo(a)siconic.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
<snip>
Yeah, things like the Space Race and WWII did nothing
for rapid
technological evolution and development, the least of which benefitted
from this was computers.
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and
Danger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
1:45 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Ahoi Dick,
Seriously, I doubt that any usefull development has been done by accident.
None of these technologies have been invented because of the space race,
it's plain old hard work to do it - and this will have happened anyway.
Of course the space exploration did bring a vast amount of new knowledge
about nature and the universe, but no new technology that wouldn't have
been developed at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro space exploration,
we just should be smart enough to see marketing schemes when they creep
around.
Yeah, things
like the Space Race and WWII did nothing for rapid
technological evolution and development, the least of which benefitted
from this was computers.
So many of these major discoveries were made purely by
accident. Accidents
which might not have happened if Engineers and Scientists hadn't had the
freedom, and the funding, to take time with this or that strange phenomenon
observed in conjunction with an accident. I certainly hope you're joking!
He is :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 2.0 am 28./29. April 2001 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
1:32 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Hans Franke wrote:
Seriously, I doubt that any usefull development has been done by accident.
None of these technologies have been invented because of the space race,
it's plain old hard work to do it - and this will have happened anyway.
Of course the space exploration did bring a vast amount of new knowledge
about nature and the universe, but no new technology that wouldn't have
been developed at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro space exploration,
we just should be smart enough to see marketing schemes when they creep
around.
No, I'm not. As usual, I have no idea what Dick was blathering about.
But, the point is that WWII and the Space Race brought about unprecedented
advancements in many fields of technology, not the least of which was
computing technology.
This is moronically obvious and I am not making any sort of astute
observation here.
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
Coming soon: VCF 4.0!
VCF East: Planning in Progress
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
Yeah, things like the Space Race and WWII did nothing
for rapid
technological evolution and development, the least of which benefitted
from this was computers.
So many of these major discoveries were made purely by
accident. Accidents
which might not have happened if Engineers and Scientists hadn't had the
freedom, and the funding, to take time with this or that strange phenomenon
observed in conjunction with an accident. I certainly hope you're joking!
He is :)
2:12 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
At 12:45 AM 6/10/00 +0200, Hans wrote:
Seriously, I doubt that any usefull development has
been done by accident.
None of these technologies have been invented because of the space race,
it's plain old hard work to do it - and this will have happened anyway.
If you want to be blunt, the absolute best "engine" for developing new
technologies is a good old fashioned war. One school of thought would argue
that the "space race" was simply the cover story for developing better
missile technology and other armaments.
However, I will strongly disagree with anyone who believes we would be in
the same place technologically as we are today if there had _not_ been a
space program (regardless of the motivations for pursuing space). By and
large "mainstream" entities (ie business, banking, etc) do not
"develop"
technology, they "adopt" it. This is true of computers, fax machines (which
were in vented in the 1700's BTW), and telecommunications. Without some
other force driving the creation of technology, mainstream folks don't
change their ways.
--Chuck
4:15 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Without getting into detail, which would require I refresh my memory about a
number of these examples, I'd point out that EPOXY is one that came about by
accident, although there are many others. I'd be surprised to find that
someone set out to build a semiconductor, knowing that the physical
chemistry of the substances involved, and that people, though they knew in
advance that such things could be done, simply hadn't bothered for one
reason or another. Likewise, I recently saw a PBS program that went into
some detail about the invention of RADAR. That certainly wasn't planned out
in advance. Nobel (according to another PBS program) didn't set about to
invent Nitrogycerin, nor, knowing about nitrogycerine, did he set out to
invent nitrocellulose, And, of course, there's the Post-It. That certainly
was an accident, resulting from a spill, according to the inventor, who was
interviewed on an NPR program.
I'd be really surprised to learn that someone sat down one day saying, "I'm
going to invent CMOS devices now!"
I'd be really pleased, in fact, to know even one significant invention that
was produced by a typical over-organized and micro-managed NASA engineering
team of the sort I remember from back in the Apollo days.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
It's true that it requires great deal of effort to turn any invention into
something useful. By definition, however, it's really difficult to find
even one case wherein someone set about to invent new technology knowing
that he could do it. The vast sums of money have to be justfied by the
promise of some well defined result. Invention is, by definition, not well
defined in advance of its occurrence.
Ahoi Dick,
> > Yeah, things like the Space Race and WWII did nothing for rapid
> > technological evolution and development, the least of which benefitted
> > from this was computers.
> So many of these major discoveries were made purely by accident.
Accidents
> which might not have happened if Engineers and
Scientists hadn't had the
> freedom, and the funding, to take time with this or that strange
phenomenon
observed in
conjunction with an accident.
Seriously, I doubt that any useful development was done by accident.
None of these technologies have been invented because of the space race,
it's plain old hard work to do it - and this would have happened anyway. Of course the space exploration did bring a vast
amount of new knowledge
about nature and the universe, but no new technology that wouldn't have
been developed at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro space exploration,
we just should be smart enough to see marketing schemes when they creep
around.
Fuel cell technology, not of tremendous interest in many places outside the
space-flight realm, certainly was an outgrowth of the space effort that
would still be undeveloped but for the need for it presented by space
exploration and satellite communication. However, if there had been no
space exploration effort afoot, low-power semiconductor technology would
probably not yet have evolved.
My own experience in the electronics engineering field certainly has shown
me more examples of a technology developed elsewhere and a potential
entrepeneur looking at it with the question, "How can I captialize on this
to make some money?" It's not until someone finds an answer to this
question that most of us even learn of a new technology. Exceptions abound,
of course, over the course of the space exploration effort, where the
government, anxious to justify its vast expenditures, has publicized newly
developed technology intended for application in the military or in space,
but for which undeveloped potential in the commercial world exists. The
military is somewhat more judicious about what it publicizes, but the same
principles apply.
I certainly hope you're joking!
He is :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 2.0 am 28./29. April 2001 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
8:33 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Without getting into detail, which would require I
refresh my memory about a
number of these examples, I'd point out that EPOXY is one that came about by
accident, although there are many others. I'd be surprised to find that
someone set out to build a semiconductor, knowing that the physical
chemistry of the substances involved, and that people, though they knew in
advance that such things could be done, simply hadn't bothered for one
reason or another. Likewise, I recently saw a PBS program that went into
some detail about the invention of RADAR. That certainly wasn't planned out
in advance. Nobel (according to another PBS program) didn't set about to
invent Nitrogycerin, nor, knowing about nitrogycerine, did he set out to
invent nitrocellulose, And, of course, there's the Post-It. That certainly
was an accident, resulting from a spill, according to the inventor, who was
interviewed on an NPR program.
And don't overlook one Charles Goodyear. If he had not accidentally
dropped a sample of latex laced with carbon black on a hot stove, we
might still be on wooden wheels with iron treads.
- don
________O/_______
O\
9:16 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
At 10:33 PM 6/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
And don't overlook one Charles Goodyear. If he had
not accidentally
dropped a sample of latex laced with carbon black on a hot stove, we
might still be on wooden wheels with iron treads.
- don
Am I missing something? Isn't S+heat what is actually required
for latex vulcanization? Or was that a particularly sulphur-rich
carbon?
carlos.
10 Jun
10 Jun
5:33 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Well, I don't know about how much sulphur is required, but quite a bit of
carbon-black is required to make the stuff sufficiently rigid and durable to
resist abrasion sufficiently for use in tires. Of course, that's not all it
takes, but the process was set in motion by accident, and that was Don's
point.
The Latex laced with carbon-black, and perhaps a bit of sulphur, after lots
of refinement, remained the preferred material for truck tires long after
the discovery of synthetic (styrene-butadiene) rubbers suitable for normal
automobile tires.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Murillo <cem14(a)cornell.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
At 10:33 PM 6/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
And don't overlook one Charles Goodyear. If
he had not accidentally
dropped a sample of latex laced with carbon black on a hot stove, we
might still be on wooden wheels with iron treads.
- don
Am I missing something? Isn't S+heat what is actually required
for latex vulcanization? Or was that a particularly sulphur-rich
carbon?
carlos.
9:48 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, Carlos Murillo wrote:
At 10:33 PM 6/9/00 -0700, you wrote:
Nope, I was!
- don
And don't overlook one Charles Goodyear. If
he had not accidentally
dropped a sample of latex laced with carbon black on a hot stove, we
might still be on wooden wheels with iron treads.
- don
Am I missing something? Isn't S+heat what is actually required
for latex vulcanization? Or was that a particularly sulphur-rich
carbon?
carlos. 
9 Jun
9 Jun
6:57 a.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Well, the ARPANET did have a big flaw in it didn't
it, I mean, they
spent all that money, and look what still happened: the invasion of
the AOLers (no offense to any AOL users here, I'm talking about the
onslaught that nearly crippled Usenet several years ago that was like
an infinite influx of first semester students who'd just gotten their
usernames and passwords in CS101). ;-)
More properly, it was not ARPAnet, but the NSFnet. While the ARPAnet laid
all of the groundwork, it did not survive to become the "Internet" today.
The NSFnet did survive, especially the switch to commercialization in the
early-mid 1990s.
In all seriousness, the internet, like many other
things, is a double
edged sword. It allows us to communicate more easily, and is
extremely useful; it's a wonderful research tool. On the other hand,
the Internet is a great wasy for some people to wasts vast sums of
time, and, look at how easy it makes things for the government to spy
on vast numbers of citizens due to the way it's been set up.
Why pick on the AOLers (and the rest of the masses that have jumped on
the net since 1992)? If anything, they (or rather the commercialization)
has been a big benefit.
If the NSFnet stayed a non-profit network, unlike today, we would see the
following:
* Today's network would be a ploddingly slow set of saturated T1s and
T3s. T5s would have been out of the question, as would SONET. The NSFnet
just couldn't afford an upgrade like those. Competeing backbones just
would not be what they are today.
* Dialup access would be unavailable to nearly all people, either because
POPs were too far away or the extreme price. $19.95/month unlimited
access would be a fantasy.
* Modem technology would probably be stuck at 33.6 kbps, as there would
not be any huge incentive for the race to 56K. The same holds true for
router technology.
These three points are all pretty important - in fact if just one of the
three were true, the net would be a great deal less of a tool.
So what's wrong with AOLers and AOL? Not much. Sure some a clueless, but
then some of the smartest people in the world use it. AOL doesn't choke
the network, as they mostly use their own stuff. Many very interesting web
pages full of useful content have now sprung up because John Q. Public can
sign up with AOL with any knowledge of supergeeky Unix and modem stuff.
There is lots of garbage as well, but the key to not letting it bother you
is simply not to view it.
Is
the lack of security on the Internet possibly a well designed feature
disguised as a flaw?
No, it is because much of it is Unix oriented. And Unix security is just
not that good.
Had the ARPANET never existed, isn't it likely
that some other, perhaps more secure, form of communication may have
originated without government intervention and become just as popular?
In the 1970s, there were other networks that ran around the U.S and
Europe, but these were all very closed systems. Some were private
ventures, most were academic. They were mostly, however, a mess. Some
still exist, but completely out of the public eye. If the NSFnet never
existed, most people would not even know what the word "network" means.
The automobile hasn't really improved
much since the 1970s.
Whatever.
Yes, I can see how some of the technolgy has
benefitted the U.S. and
it's allies throughout the free world militarily, and has possibly
been beneficial in that respect, but, again, perhaps a double edged
sword, not always used for peaceful, or defensive means, a sword that
can also slice the one who created it.
A large portion - probably a majority - of the technologies that we use
in our computers was in some major way influenced by military
developement. Even though military technology tends to be roughly ten
years ahead of the commercial technology at any given time, the effects
are felt in time (usually about ten years). Yes, it may seem unethical
that Uncle Sam is dumping tons of money into equipment that is basically
used to kill people, but that same technology will benefit people in a
very large, peaceful way in time.
WIlliam Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
1:09 p.m.
New subject: In defense of NASA: was Re: Wirin' up blinkenlights
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, R. D. Davis wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Paul Braun wrote:
Possibly, but the same criticism can be made of radio, telephone, fax,
and most other modes of electronic communication. It is all monitored.
<rant>
Absolutely. If you only take a narrow view of life, the internet could
look like a tremendous waste of money and time.
Well, the ARPANET did have a big flaw in it didn't it, I mean, they
spent all that money, and look what still happened: the invasion of
the AOLers (no offense to any AOL users here, I'm talking about the
onslaught that nearly crippled Usenet several years ago that was like
an infinite influx of first semester students who'd just gotten their
usernames and passwords in CS101). ;-)
In all seriousness, the internet, like many other things, is a double
edged sword. It allows us to communicate more easily, and is
extremely useful; it's a wonderful research tool. On the other hand,
the Internet is a great wasy for some people to wasts vast sums of
time, and, look at how easy it makes things for the government to spy
on vast numbers of citizens due to the way it's been set up. Is
the lack of security on the Internet possibly a well designed feature
disguised as a flaw? Had the ARPANET never existed, isn't it likely that some other, perhaps more secure, form of
communication may have
originated without government intervention and become just as popular?
May we presume boarding 'two by two'?
The space program, while costing the taxpayers a
sizable amount
of money, has produced huge quantities of spinoff projects and
technologies that have definitely benefitted mankind.
Yes, I remember as a child, there was that new orange powdered space
age drink mix called Tang, which was marketed as a spinoff of the
space program, the drink of the astronauts, available in supermarkets
everywhere. :-) :-) :-)
If you take the previous poster's comments
back several hundred
years, the Spanish could have said, "Why should the Queen spend
our money on that Columbus guy? He's just some obnoxious
"explorer" who only wants to satisfy his curiosity. What a waste!
We have everything we need, right here."
Hmmm... interesting to think about.
I've been following the space program for as
long as I can
remember, and it always irritates me when someone says that the
only reason we're doing it is to make some sci-fi geeks happy.
You may be surprised that I agree with you: there are other reasons
besides that. For example, the space program also exists so that
large corporations can make billions of dollars in profits and use
some of those profits to grant favors to the politicians who helped
them make the profits extorted from taxpayers.
More seriously, I know that there will come a day when the earth may
become uninhabitable, and space exploration may be our only key to the
survival of creatures living on earth. However, I seriously doubt
that everyone would be able to leave, and imagine that only a
relatively small number of carefully selected people and other
creatures would get to leave and possibly survive, leaving the majority of the earth's inhabitants here to
perish. What's the point
in that?
However, at the rate things are going, we'll probably cause our own
extinction because of overpopulation and the resulting damage to the
environment, long before we can find another planet to destroy.
Blame it on the Soviets and the rich kid (with the rich father) from
Boston ;-P
- don
Most of the people in the space industry, I would
venture to guess,
are probably not sci-fi nuts but damn good engineers and scientists
Unquestionably true, and I have a lot of respect for the skills and
abilities of such engineers and scientists; however, could not their
abilities have been put to better use for society?
who are gaining a lot of valuable research from
NASA and the like.
Yes, but I wonder how much of this is actually necessary, and if it
really does do much to improve the quality of people's lives. After
all, the technology used in building comfortable houses to live in has
been stable for many years. The automobile hasn't really improved
much since the 1970s. The field of medicine would probably have done
just as well, and perhaps better, if the money was spent on it, and,
who knows, those horrid HMOs may never have even come to exist. Have
the foods we eat improved as a result of the space program? Have
people become kinder and more civil to one another as a result of the
space program? Has the space program had any positive influence on
spirituality and humanity's relationship with Nature? Yes, I can see how some of the technolgy has
benefitted the U.S. and
it's allies throughout the free world militarily, and has possibly
been beneficial in that respect, but, again, perhaps a double edged
sword, not always used for peaceful, or defensive means, a sword that
can also slice the one who created it. Perhaps it's been useful for
the strategic defense initiative, but, that's been delayed and our
most trustworthy and esteemed (<-sarcasm intended) president has
crawled on his hands and knees to Russia asking for their permission
for us to implement it! Perhaps he's so used to crawling on his hands
and knees submitting to Hillary that he just can't help this, but
that's no excuse, is it?
I look foward to your answers, and if I'm wrong or am overlooking
something, I'd very much like to know about it.
--
R. D. Davis
rdd(a)perqlogic.com
http://www.perqlogic.com/rdd
410-744-4900
8 Jun
8 Jun
1:22 p.m.
This may be workable if the PDP-11 simulator runs under DOS or LINUX. If it
runs under Windows, the OS will interfere with your attempts to talk
directly to I/O.
If you have a version for LINUX, you'll need one of the EPP port drivers,
but that's what I'd recommend you attempt first. EPP uses the parallel
printer port to mux and steer data into your target application. You must
understand what it does, and how slowly, ( it's more or less rate-limited to
about a 4 MB/sec transfer rate, but that's an asymptote.) If you find a way
to make it work, and it works quite straightforwardly under DOS, then you
write addresses and commands to one location mapped into the parallel data
port, 0x37C, and data to 0x37C.
The hardware will generate strobes to facilitate such transfers, so you
don't have to wiggle the strobes with software. It has a Data Strobe and an
Address strobe, provides for an interrupt if you want one, and various other
features, none of which require you use them.
Though this form of bus-isolated I/O is very tempting, it's a good idea to
keep in mind that the IC in which the printer port lives is normally a
high-pin-count device soldered to the motherboard. If you break it, you
have to use an off-motherboard circuit to provide the printer port, as well
as whatever other peripherals are lost along with it. That, these days, can
include lots of functions you'd rather not lose.
It's a good idea to isolate your circuitry from the motherboard with series
resistors, or even picofuses, and provide adequate buffering to make it safe
to use.
If you know enough about the PC and the way the simulator runs on it, you
need merely drive your indicators in a way that reflects the status of the
simulated PDP-n, hving patched your code into the simulator's primary
dispatch loop.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Eros, Anthony <Anthony.Eros(a)compaq.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:44 PM
Subject: Wirin' up blinkenlights
Here's a question for the group. I have a PC
running Bob Supnik's PDP-11
simulator and a PDP-11/45 front panel with no CPU boards. I'd like to do
sort of a faux PDP-11/45 with this setup by somehow wiring the front panel
up to the PC running Sim.
Am I completely out of my mind, or is there even the remotest chance of
getting something like this to work?
-- Tony
4:20 p.m.
New subject: Blinkenlights and Simulation
Here's a question for the group. I have a PC
running Bob Supnik's PDP-11
simulator and a PDP-11/45 front panel with no CPU boards. I'd like to do
sort of a faux PDP-11/45 with this setup by somehow wiring the front panel
up to the PC running Sim.
Am I completely out of my mind, or is there even the remotest chance of
getting something like this to work?
-- Tony
What I'd love to see is the 11/45 front panel added to the Sim under
X11 so it would have an emulated panel like the Mac and Doug Jones'
PDP8e emulator.
Any Unix/C/X11 programmers out there?
Bill
--
bpechter(a)monmouth.com | Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
| Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
| BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
8801
days inactive
8816
days old
60 comments
25 participants
participants (25)
-
Anthony.Eros＠compaq.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
at258＠osfn.org -
aw288＠osfn.org -
cem14＠cornell.edu -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
donm＠cts.com -
dpeschel＠eskimo.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ernestls＠home.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
John.Allain＠donnelley.infousa.com -
jott＠saturn.ee.nd.edu -
mac＠Wireless.Com -
nerdware＠laidbak.com -
pechter＠pechter.dyndns.org -
rdd＠smart.net -
richard＠idcomm.com -
sethm＠loomcom.com -
vaxman＠uswest.net -
wilson＠dbit.dbit.com