9 Sep
2007
9 Sep
'07
1:04 p.m.
Subject: 8-bitters and multi-whatever
From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:49:03 -0400
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
So I was poking around at bitsavers after snagging those TI databooks, and
stumbled across some files pertaining to TurboDOS. I'd read about that
before, might even have some manual or other on it someplace, but I've
never had the pleasure. I do have one box that was supposed to be a
multi-user system, that being my TeleVideo 816, which had TurboDOS as an
option but the one I have came with something called MMMOST, which I wasn't
all that impressed with. A guy was talking about sending me a tape but that
never happened.
I remember hearing about one or two other packages that were similar (never
mind MP/M, which I've also not messed with and don't get the impression I
want to bother with really), but have never had the pleasure of running any
of them.
A while back I *almost* got a hold of one of those "z80 network in a box"
systems, it wasn't S-100 but something else I can't recall, I think that's
the one I have the book on, but I never did snag it.
Multibus, very nice bus and expensive cards. I have a few multibus cards.
Intel used it in their MDS800 and a few otehrs as well.
Unfortunately instead of RS232 Televideo has something
else going there
(RS422?), not easy to interface too, and they distribute their "network"
out amongst what other Televideo boxes you have, which in my case is none.
I guess with an S-100-based system you could always add more cards, and
somehow or other make it work.
And speaking of the networking aspect of it, do any of you guys know how they
did it? I recall one time getting a glimpse of some system or other that was
S-100 but also had a set of connectors at thet op of each card, which is
what they used for their inter-processor linking rather than trying to push
it through the bus. The reason for this is not apparent to me.
Many ways to do it, using a commmon port or a pool of common memory for
in box networking and serial ports as well. There were also ARCnet, pre
Ethernet and even Ethernet.
I've also seen some "CP/M networking"
stuff referred to that was supposed to
work through serial ports, which pretty many machines had, althogh they
appeared in at least one case to be using diodes to wire-OR RS232 signals,
which doesn't strike me as too terribly robust. And what software support
there was for this wasn't real apparent.
That was a poor mans networking. Basically the serial ports were used as
CD/CSMA bus and there was some protocal like Ethernet but slower and could
use the usually common async chips. I have such a net going for my CP/M crates
and all.
I dunno, I've just got this fascination for
assorted 8-bit parts talking to
each other through some smallish number of wires, I guess it's easier to
deal with than some of the big iron you guys handle regularly, which I can't
afford to go get never mind housing. And I've seen multiple processors used
in stuff already, as in some musical equipment that passed "event
information" from one chip to the next with only a couple of pins, or the
daisywheel printer that had _four_ 804x procesors in it for different
functions.
This is not a new thing.
TurboDOS is neat, and has some good design aspects in
it, but there's too
much legacy stuff in there for being able to run CP/M software, stuff I'd
leave out if it were me and too much emphasis on the same old Console /
Printer / Disk Drives in the system, as opposed to something different or
unique. I found the same thing to be the case when I looked at FORTH, too
much of the usual stuff, and that was supposed to have been used in some
control applications? I must've missed something there...
???? Whats the question or point?
Allison
10 Sep
10 Sep
1:24 p.m.
On Sunday 09 September 2007 16:04, Allison wrote:
I remember seeing that in some sales literature and it always did strike me as
being more spendy than I wanted or could afford to get into. :-)
I know of ARCnet, went to a short seminar on that once at a trade show, and
in fact even have a couple of ISA cards around here someplace, though I
don't forsee me ever using them.
What does that take on the software side of things?
Nope. It's just my particular fascination these days. And probably a lot
easier to deal with than lots of big iron. :-)
Just that I'd like to see some stuff that isn't oriented that way. You have a
SBC, you obviously need some way to talk to it, but the standard "console"
stuff gets a little old, I probably don't want to hook a printer up to it,
and may not even want a disk drive of any sort, depending on what I wanna do
with it. I'm up for exploring some alternative approaches to doing things.
Unfortunately the embedded stuff that's out there doesn't satisfy too often,
the design being too specific to the app, source code not available, etc.
I'm thinking that it should be possible to have some sort of a more
generalized framework to hang things on, and then you could optimize it for
specific uses, or expand it in different directions. Even from the earliest
days "personal" computers all seemed to take pretty much the same approach to
things...
I realized in other messaging a while back that it's been well over a year
since I fired up a soldering iron, and this is a bad thing. :-) And even
then, it was a matter of scrapping stuff, not building anything new and
interesting. I need to get out of that particular rut and get back to it,
or there's no point to all those parts I've been scrounging for decades.
Maybe one of these days I will...
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
A while back I
*almost* got a hold of one of those "z80 network in a box"
systems, it wasn't S-100 but something else I can't recall, I think
that's the one I have the book on, but I never did snag it.
Multibus, very nice bus and expensive cards. I have a few multibus cards.
Intel used it in their MDS800 and a few otehrs as well. Unfortunately
instead of RS232 Televideo has something else going there
(RS422?), not easy to interface too, and they distribute their "network"
out amongst what other Televideo boxes you have, which in my case is
none. I guess with an S-100-based system you could always add more cards,
and somehow or other make it work.
And speaking of the networking aspect of it, do any of you guys know how
they did it? I recall one time getting a glimpse of some system or other
that was S-100 but also had a set of connectors at thet op of each card,
which is what they used for their inter-processor linking rather than
trying to push it through the bus. The reason for this is not apparent
to me.
Many ways to do it, using a commmon port or a pool of common memory for
in box networking and serial ports as well. There were also ARCnet, pre
Ethernet and even Ethernet. I've also
seen some "CP/M networking" stuff referred to that was supposed
to work through serial ports, which pretty many machines had, althogh
they appeared in at least one case to be using diodes to wire-OR RS232
signals, which doesn't strike me as too terribly robust. And what
software support there was for this wasn't real apparent.
That was a poor mans networking. Basically the serial ports were used as
CD/CSMA bus and there was some protocal like Ethernet but slower and could
use the usually common async chips. I have such a net going for my CP/M
crates and all. I dunno,
I've just got this fascination for assorted 8-bit parts talking
to each other through some smallish number of wires, I guess it's easier
to deal with than some of the big iron you guys handle regularly, which
I can't afford to go get never mind housing. And I've seen multiple
processors used in stuff already, as in some musical equipment that
passed "event information" from one chip to the next with only a couple
of pins, or the daisywheel printer that had _four_ 804x procesors in it
for different functions.
This is not a new thing. TurboDOS is
neat, and has some good design aspects in it, but there's
too much legacy stuff in there for being able to run CP/M software,
stuff I'd leave out if it were me and too much emphasis on the same old
Console / Printer / Disk Drives in the system, as opposed to something
different or unique. I found the same thing to be the case when I looked
at FORTH, too much of the usual stuff, and that was supposed to have
been used in some control applications? I must've missed something
there...
???? Whats the question or point? 
1:51 p.m.
On 10 Sep 2007 at 16:24, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
I remember seeing that in some sales literature and it
always did strike me as
being more spendy than I wanted or could afford to get into. :-)
For the purist, Multibus has a lot more going for it than any of the
"hobbyist" buses. If you look at the signal layout, it appears that
some thought actually went into the design. AFAIK, Multibus cards in
some incarnation are still being produced or at least sold.
And the MDS-800 was built like a battleship.
re: CP/M Networking:
What does that take on the software side of things?
A CP/M add-on called CP/NET. The downside is that it takes valuable
memory.
PC's had a number of "cheap" networking setups. I've got one here
called "The $25 Network", basically run through serial (maybe
parallel) ports. There were others, some with low-cost cards, such
as "The Invisible Network". I wonder if a ring could be set up using
the old DOS Interlink.
MS-DOS has had some flavor of networking "hooks" for a very long
time. CD-ROM access is implemented as a networked device. I've
implemented a number of foreign filesystem drivers using networking
where file naming conventions or oddball block sizes weren't amenable
to normal DOS filesystem conventions.
Cheers,
Chuck
6084
days inactive
6085
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
ajp166＠bellatlantic.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
rtellason＠verizon.net