On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:25 AM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote: I'm running an older NetBSD on my HP9000/360 only because it was the only OS I could get running on it. I don't have the monitor/keyboard/mouse and I don't have a working disk drive to use with it and I was able to get NetBSD to boot over the network from my Linux server. I'd much rather have HPUX running, but I'm pretty sure you still need to purchase a license from HP in order to install it, and I have no idea if it can even be installed to netboot. I do have a 7957 drive with an ESDI hard drive in it, but when I power it up it the fault light turns on. I don't know if there's anything I can do to diagnose it further, the only HPIB computers I have are the 9000/360 and a couple of HP150s. I don't have any ESDI controller cards that go in a PC.

On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:42 AM, J. David Bryan <jdbryan at acm.org> wrote: I've seen that project but I don't have the HPIB hardware for a PC to support it. The prices for HPIB cards on eBay are much too expensive. I almost jumped on a couple under $50 ones once, but fortunately I checked that site and saw that the chipset of the "cheap" cards was incompatible and saved myself a lot of disappointment.

ahum: https://github.com/Hyvok/USB-GPIB-adapter. search phrase in google: GPIB AVR On 16-07-14 21:46, Chuck McManis wrote: -- Met vriendelijke Groet, Simon Claessen drukknop.nl

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Chris Osborn wrote: I bought two National Instruments AT-GPIB/TNT (PnP) cards from eBay three years ago for $45 and $50. These are ISA-bus cards, so they won't work in modern PCs, but I'm running them in a pair of 400 MHz AMD K6 systems running Windows 2000 that I picked up for free from my car mechanic, who was throwing them out. I also have three other ISA-capable systems (as shelf spares) that various relatives were discarding. I'm using one system as a dedicated CS/80 disc drive, and the other as a dedicated 7970E tape drive. For these purposes, the old systems work well, and they're networked to my regular PC, so that I can transfer disc and tape images back and forth. -- Dave

This seems like an odd list to ask that question on. (The answer, of course, is, most of the same reasons anyone would run '80s hardware at all.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

I agree. My main interest is in VAX systems, and for me, it's going to be either VMS or 4.3BSD Quasijarus. Speaking of which, I've noticed Michael Sokolov doesn't post here anymore. Anyone know what happened? I tried NetBSD 1.6.1 on a uVAX 3100 years ago, and it wasn't what I'd call usable. OpenVMS 7.1, however, made it a lot nicer. Enough that I used that same machine as an internal DNS server for my home network for a number of years. Interesting that such a new VMS would be so usable. Right now, my goal is to set up a VAXstation with DECWindows as my main work machine, as I can export my display to it from the Linux machines on which I do my day-to-day work activities (mostly MUMPS programming on GT.M).

This is what lead to my not doing much additional work on NetBSD for VAX. Basically if you're going to run period hardware, it makes sense to run period software, otherwise you end up with one of those oldtyme radios that is spewing gangsta rap from an embedded transistor receiver :-) Of course the challenge then is of course documentation. Early 90's was the 'great darkening' where suddenly everything became 'not consumer friendly'. Computer companies stopped publishing hardware descriptions, appliance manuals stopped including schematics, cases because locked together and more "appliance" like. A sad time we have not recovered from. --Chuck On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote: > On 7/14/14 8:07 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > >> On 14 July 2014 15:39, Christian Liendo <christian_liendo at yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> One person's take on retro computing older Unix machines. >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qkuRiDS-gU >>> >> >> Engagingly inept in places -- I'm amused at how XScreensaver kept >> kicking in -- but enthusiastic and he raised a lot of good points. >> >> For me, part of the appeal of old kit is old software, but running it >> with a modern OS would reduce a lot of the problems, it's true... >> >> >> > Someone needs to write a real introduction. As you say, 'engagingly inept'. > The one thing that struck me was he glossed over how difficult detailed > hardware maintenance information is to find for all of these machines. I've > been actively looking for it for 30 years, the tiny bit of early Sun and > SGI > docs I have came from old-timers I knew at the companies that saved it. > > I guess it isn't surprising that people are having trouble now finding > software > and docs for late-80s, early-90's Multiframes, etc. > > > >

Or the old hardware does something the new hardware doesn't? Personally, that "something" is twofold. One is giving me warm fuzzies (I went through much of my larval phase on SPARCstations); the other is keeping me, as a software author, honest about algorithmic efficiency and the like, rather than letting me cover for sloppiness with a flood of raw computrons. Yes...in large part because SGI never documented their hardware. It's one reason I don't go for SGI machines much. Yes. If your reason for running old hardware is "for the original experience", then yes, you probably want the old OS. So far, for me, that effect hasn't been strong enough to outweigh my reasons for sticking strictly to open-source software. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

When I started out retrocomputing I was a very heavy NetBSD user because oftentimes it was the only operating system available for the equipment in question (as a high schooler, who never got media with the equipment, and wasn't about to shell out for a license). As well, a lot of the equipment was "still good" as far as I was concerned, for server duties, and if you're going to put a machine out there on the public Internet and you're just focused on using it to provide services: HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, DNS, etc. or maybe local services like NFS/SMB/Appletalk file and print, you really want as a new a UNIX as you can get; it's nice to have something that isn't vulnerable to 20+ year old security holes, you can get the kernel source; you don't have to hack free software as much just to get it to build as on an ancient UNIX. As time has gone on (and I've become more concerned about the electric bill, as well as more cognizant of making the most of each power-on hour of this equipment) I've moved completely towards using commodity Intel Atom gear to provide services, and keep the old stuff just to run "for fun" in a sort of "retrocomputing playpen". I've been fortunate to acquire a lot of the proprietary operating systems over the years as I picked up more equipment or as manufacturers were doing various hobbyist licensing specials... I've Solaris 2.5 thru 10, Tru64, NeXTstep, IRIX, OpenVMS 7.2 and 7.3, A/UX (lol), etc. Now, it's true, for most of the hardware I run, I generally use the "vintage" operating system in concert, since I have it, the machines are isolated from malicious folks, etc. Although I will permit that some operating systems are more interesting than others (to me); I'd rather see a NeXT running NeXTstep, a SGI running IRIX and a VAX running VMS; those are fun & interesting to play with because they are a little different (esp. VMS, of course). I'm less attached to Solaris/SunOS, Ultrix/Tru64, etc. I don't really have any HP-UX or AIX stuff tho on those platforms free software support is a little limited anyway. Christian is right, SGI machines can still make very nice UNIX desktops, and they probably "age the best" out of all their contemporaries. My R10k/175 Indigo2, R5000/150 Indy and R4400/150 Indigo are all very quick, relatively speaking :) Best, Sean On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Christian Liendo < christian_liendo at yahoo.com> wrote: