3 Jan
2007
3 Jan
'07
5:46 a.m.
Owner's manual has a date of 1997...
Someone is giving one of these to me with 4 CPUs. What should I do
with it? Its got no graphics, but I figure I could make it compute
arbitrary precision deep Mandelbrot set zooms.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
2 Jan
2 Jan
2:34 p.m.
Just because a computer is 10 years old does not mean it's on topic. So no,
it's not officially vintage ;)
Jay
3 Jan
3 Jan
4:19 p.m.
In article <006001c72e7b$17f6bdd0$6500a8c0 at BILLING>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
Just because a computer is 10 years old does not mean
it's on topic. So no,
it's not officially vintage ;)
You and your crazy rules! ;-)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
4:37 p.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <006001c72e7b$17f6bdd0$6500a8c0 at
BILLING>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
I thought it is 20 years anyway ;-)
Just because a computer is 10 years old does not
mean it's on topic. So no,
it's not officially vintage ;)
You and your crazy rules! ;-) 
8:44 p.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <006001c72e7b$17f6bdd0$6500a8c0 at
BILLING>,
"Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org> writes:
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp website which takes into
account things like:
age
physical size
production count / rarity
operational noise level
number of flashing lights
case styling 'coolness' factor
number of mouse nests / dead insects inside
number of times system has inflicted injuries on the owner
etc.
... and then makes a call as to whether it will be seen by the list at large
as on-topic or not.
;-)
Just because a computer is 10 years old does not
mean it's on topic. So no,
it's not officially vintage ;)
You and your crazy rules! ;-) 
9:09 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
age
physical size
production count / rarity
operational noise level
I pass all of those tests :-)
number of times system has inflicted injuries on
the owner
That seems reasonable - I'm sure we all agree every QBUS enclosure
ever produced is on topic :-) :-)
Antonio
9:47 p.m.
number of
times system has inflicted injuries on the owner
That seems reasonable - I'm sure we all agree every QBUS enclosure
ever produced is on topic :-) :-)
Antonio 
10:01 p.m.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't believe I've ever been injured by a Q-Bus enclosure. You just need
to be careful! :^) I can't remember loosing any skin, even on a BA23.
Granted most of the time I've used a BA123.
I've never used such a thing, but I have gashed my hand on the corner of a
disused one.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
number of times system has inflicted injuries on
the owner
That seems reasonable - I'm sure we all agree every QBUS enclosure
ever produced is on topic :-) :-) 
4 Jan
4 Jan
8:02 a.m.
David Griffith wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't believe I've ever been injured by a Q-Bus enclosure. You just need
to be careful! :^) I can't remember loosing any skin, even on a BA23.
Granted most of the time I've used a BA123.
I've never used such a thing, but I have gashed my hand on the corner of a
disused one.
I was never fond of the physical construction of DEC machines, things like
heavy gauge stamped metal with no cleanup of the sheared edges. Can't say I
was ever injured by it but I always approached it with a wary eye when working
inside the cabinets.
number of times system has inflicted injuries on
the owner
That seems reasonable - I'm sure we all agree every QBUS enclosure
ever produced is on topic :-) :-)
3 Jan
3 Jan
10:32 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
I don't believe I've ever been injured by a
Q-Bus enclosure. You
just need to be careful! :^)
It was usually reaching under the bottom cards of a full BA23
to fish out the RQDX3 internal connecting cable that did it.
Or the TQK50 one.
Happy days :-)
Antonio
10:55 p.m.
On 3/1/07 22:32, "arcarlini at iee.org" <arcarlini at iee.org> wrote:
Zane H. Healy wrote:
The thing that got me the most was the cabling associated with the RQDXE,
purely because it had to be last on the bus. Just before xmas when I was
troubleshooting my Micro 11/73 (on work's time, heh) I thought I'd beaten
myself by reassembling the whole cardcage in reverse order but the bloody
thing still got me :)
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
I don't believe I've ever been injured by
a Q-Bus enclosure. You
just need to be careful! :^)
It was usually reaching under the bottom cards of a full BA23
to fish out the RQDX3 internal connecting cable that did it.
Or the TQK50 one.
9:19 p.m.
In article <459C15A8.4050006 at yahoo.co.uk>,
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account things like:
age
physical size
production count / rarity
operational noise level
number of flashing lights
case styling 'coolness' factor
number of mouse nests / dead insects inside
number of times system has inflicted injuries on the owner
etc.
... and then makes a call as to whether it will be seen by the list at large
as on-topic or not.
By that metric, I think a majority of cctalk list traffic doesn't qualify!
:)
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
9:27 p.m.
--- Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Richard wrote:
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account things like:
age
physical size
production count / rarity
operational noise level
number of flashing lights
case styling 'coolness' factor
number of mouse nests / dead insects inside
number of times system has inflicted injuries on
the owner
etc.
... and then makes a call as to whether it will be
seen by the list at large
as on-topic or not.
;-)
Uh no we don't. If Jay says it ain't, it ain't.
<CTRL>Z<ENTER>. He's king here and his word prevails
above all others. Let's not stage a coup or something
creepy here.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
In article
<006001c72e7b$17f6bdd0$6500a8c0 at BILLING>,
"Jay West" <jwest at
classiccmp.org> writes:
> Just because a computer is 10 years old does not
mean it's on topic. So
no,
it's
not officially vintage ;)
You and your crazy rules! ;-)
9:29 p.m.
In article <683045.1310.qm at web61017.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
Uh no we don't. If Jay says it ain't, it
ain't.
Not that being off-topic has ever stopped anyone before....
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
10:02 p.m.
--- Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:
In article <683045.1310.qm at web61017.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
True, but by legitimizing it you're invalidating the
list's mission. I hate to admit, but I'm frequently
amused to see the zanies go off on all sorts of
bizzare tangents. I don't read each and every message,
but now and again I'll open something with a title to
which I have no particular interest. Sure enough I'll
obtain an education on some totally disparate topic.
After I do a double take.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Uh no we don't. If Jay says it ain't, it
ain't.
Not that being off-topic has ever stopped anyone
before....
11:53 p.m.
In article <272619.29878.qm at web61011.mail.yahoo.com>,
Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com> writes:
[...] I hate to admit, but I'm frequently
amused to see the zanies go off on all sorts of
bizzare tangents. [...]
Heh heh, yep. I try to make a habit of adjusting the subject line
when I am responding on a thread with a side-topic. That way the
people who have been skimming/skipping a long thread may pick up on my
divergence as more "interesting" -- or perhaps less interesting!
Either way, accurate labelling helps :-).
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
9:30 p.m.
On 3 Jan 2007 at 14:44, Jules Richardson wrote:
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account things like: <snip>
Well, there you go! Someone submits a system for consideration and
list votes on it.
You know, there's vintage and then there's vintage. That Mac 6100
that I picked up certainly qualifies as "vintage" by the 10-year
rule, but as a sample of something,unique it's very [yawn!]. I find
some of the PC-like things more interesting. Even my modem running
Linux is more interesting.
Cheers,
Chuck
9:37 p.m.
In article <459BAFF4.19008.F51E8B at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Well, there you go! Someone submits a system for
consideration and
list votes on it.
I think that will just lead to lots of argument about what qualifies
as a "vintage" system when instead you're really arguing about which
vintage systems are "interesting".
Very uninteresting machines become vintage simply because there are so
few around anymore. Take a Beehive terminal for instance. There's
absolutely nothing special about it and nothing "good" about it,
particularly if you're the guy who had to keep them working in the
80s!
But its certainly vintage and its certainly scarce.
Then there's the VIC-20 and C=64. As common as dirt, but certainly
interesting and also vintage.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
11:11 p.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <459BAFF4.19008.F51E8B at
cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
Yikes. I was very, very much joking :-) But some sort of: "is it vintage or
not" page on the classiccmp website could be fun; questions could be weighted
somehow so that it doesn't favour the stereotypical computer that's huge and
has lots of flashing lights...
Well, there you go! Someone submits a system for
consideration and
list votes on it.
I think that will just lead to lots of argument about what qualifies
as a "vintage" system when instead you're really arguing about which
vintage systems are "interesting".
11:59 p.m.
In article <459C383E.8040901 at yahoo.co.uk>,
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> writes:
Yikes. I was very, very much joking :-)
I know :) But, just like always, that has never stopped us!
But some sort of: "is it vintage or
not" page on the classiccmp website could be fun; questions could be weighted
somehow so that it doesn't favour the stereotypical computer that's huge and
has lots of flashing lights...
Yes, if it has to be huge and have lots of blinking lights, then
surely that leaves out most S-100 and CP/M systems of the 70s and 80s.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
4 Jan
4 Jan
12:14 a.m.
Richard wrote:
Maybe an additional question is something like: "would it cost more than
$500US to move it 100 miles?" so that we can skew the result to favour the
smaller systems a bit more too :-)
But some sort
of: "is it vintage or
not" page on the classiccmp website could be fun; questions could be weighted
somehow so that it doesn't favour the stereotypical computer that's huge and
has lots of flashing lights...
Yes, if it has to be huge and have lots of blinking lights, then
surely that leaves out most S-100 and CP/M systems of the 70s and 80s. 
3 Jan
3 Jan
9:42 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 3 Jan 2007 at 14:44, Jules Richardson wrote:
Bah. Then everything becomes vintage just cuz someone
says so. There has to be an unimpeachable criteria -
age. I say 20 YEARS! I have spoken.
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account things like: <snip>
Well, there you go! Someone submits a system for
consideration and
list votes on it. You know, there's vintage and then there's
vintage.
That Mac 6100
that I picked up certainly qualifies as "vintage" by
the 10-year
rule, but as a sample of something,unique it's very
[yawn!].
The 10 year rule was revoked, probably too late in
time also. With regards to the PM 6100, it depends on
how you look at things (pertaining to interesting, not
vintage). It was the first PPC based Mac. Yeah the
slightly later ones were more expandable, more fun.
But those were pretty exciting times. I can remember
when the first COLOR Macs came out (now that's a
vintage topic, or nearly :). It felt like the dawn of
a new era. Why we loved those skeevy little b & w
boxes so much I don't know LOL LOL.
I find
some of the PC-like things more interesting. Even
my modem running
Linux is more interesting.
I'd say anywhere up to the very first few 386's are
vintage (grudgingly). We can always make the case for
innovative, stylish, mod. But those are separate
issues from deeming something vintage. If you start to
blur the line all heck breaks loose.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
4 Jan
4 Jan
12:36 a.m.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Jules Richardson wrote:
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account things like:
nahh.
codable in FORTRAN and a few dozen assembly languages
age
physical size
production count / rarity
operational noise level
number of flashing lights
case styling 'coolness' factor
number of mouse nests / dead insects inside
number of times system has inflicted injuries on the owner
etc.
... and then makes a call as to whether it will be seen by the list at large
as on-topic or not.
Do you have a formula to use for the algorithm?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
12:42 a.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
Hell, no. I came up with the idea - you guys can bash out the details :-)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Jules Richardson wrote:
Hmm, interesting. It's not vintage unless you can download the code and run it
to find out if it's vintage or not. I like it :-)
We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account things like:
nahh.
codable in FORTRAN and a few dozen assembly languages ...
... and then makes a call as to whether it will be seen by the list at large
as on-topic or not.
Do you have a formula to use for the algorithm?
12:56 a.m.
--- Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
languages
Hmm, interesting. It's not vintage unless you can
download the code and run it
to find out if it's vintage or not. I like it :-)
Say what?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Jules Richardson wrote:
> We need a page reachable through the classiccmp
website which takes into
account
things like:
nahh.
codable in FORTRAN and a few dozen assembly 
7:32 p.m.
Jay West wrote:
Consider this, it's been nearly 10 years since a Mac containing a 68000 CPU
was even able to run the current version of the operating system. I forget
if support was dropped with System 7.6, or Mac OS 8.0.
Zane
Just because a computer is 10 years old does not
mean it's on topic. So
no, it's not officially vintage ;)
I just what to know if the MAC is vintage if contains a 68000? 
7:46 p.m.
I just what to
know if the MAC is vintage if contains a 68000?
Consider this, it's been nearly 10 years since a Mac containing a 68000 CPU
was even able to run the current version of the operating system. I forget
if support was dropped with System 7.6, or Mac OS 8.0.
7:48 p.m.
Just because a computer is 10 years old does not mean
it's on topic. So
no, it's not officially vintage ;)
I just what to know if the MAC is vintage if contains a 68000?
8:37 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Surely the current version of the OS wasn't available ten years ago - unless
all Macs included a time travel device, which may well have explained their
high cost... ;-)
Jay West
wrote:
Consider this, it's been nearly 10 years since a Mac containing a 68000 CPU
was even able to run the current version of the operating system. Just because a computer is 10 years old does not
mean it's on topic. So
no, it's not officially vintage ;)
I just what to know if the MAC is vintage
if contains a 68000?
9:55 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Surely the current version of the OS wasn't available ten years ago - unless
all Macs included a time travel device, which may well have explained their
high cost... ;-)
I meant what was current at that time. Actually as of January '97 I don't
believe System 7.6 was out yet.
Zane
Jay West
wrote:
Consider this, it's been nearly 10 years since a Mac containing a 68000 CPU
was even able to run the current version of the operating system. Just because a computer is 10 years old does not
mean it's on topic. So
no, it's not officially vintage ;)
I just what to know if the MAC is vintage
if contains a 68000? 
10:43 p.m.
On 1/3/07, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Jay West wrote:
> Just because a computer is 10 years old does not mean it's on topic. So
> no, it's not officially vintage ;)
We were thinking about auctioning off the original E450 that was the
SETI at home server as a fund raiser. (Actually the original server is
an Ultra-10 sitting on my desk. ellie aka jill nee sagan).
Unfortunately university rules don't allow departments or groups to
sell things and use the proceeds. University salvage sells them and
the university gets the money. :(
But SETI at home isn't 10 years old yet... (sun gave us an old E450).
Even though it may be a collectible, it's not quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
10:48 p.m.
Eric J Korpela wrote:
On 1/3/07, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
wrote:
The Alpha 21064 (EV4) came out in 1992. I think that probably qualifies.
Peace... Sridhar
Jay West wrote:
> Just because a computer is 10 years old does not mean it's on topic. So
> no, it's not officially vintage ;)
We were thinking about auctioning off the original E450 that was the
SETI at home server as a fund raiser. (Actually the original server is
an Ultra-10 sitting on my desk. ellie aka jill nee sagan).
Unfortunately university rules don't allow departments or groups to
sell things and use the proceeds. University salvage sells them and
the university gets the money. :(
But SETI at home isn't 10 years old yet... (sun gave us an old E450).
Even though it may be a collectible, it's not quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
11:03 p.m.
On 3/1/07 22:48, "Sridhar Ayengar" <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
$hells no, the Alpha is still a valid and working architecture, and people
like me are wondering when the EV9 will be released because it MUST happen
soon :D It's still the best CPU ever...discuss.
(yes yes yes I'm bang up to speed with Alpha developments,and the lack of,
but one can hope :))
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
SPARCstations
and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
The Alpha 21064 (EV4) came out in 1992. I think that probably qualifies.
11:22 p.m.
Adrian Graham wrote:
On 3/1/07 22:48, "Sridhar Ayengar"
<ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
$hells no, the Alpha is still a valid and working architecture, and people
like me are wondering when the EV9 will be released because it MUST happen
soon :D It's still the best CPU ever...discuss.
Just because it evolved into something that is currently in use doesn't
make the original Alpha a non-classic. End-of-line S/370's are not all
that different architecturally from the latest System/z's.
Can you say that an early '60's Corvette isn't a classic because they
still make the Corvette today? Come on.
Peace... Sridhar
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
The Alpha 21064 (EV4) came out in 1992. I think
that probably qualifies.
4 Jan
4 Jan
12:49 a.m.
On 3/1/07 23:22, "Sridhar Ayengar" <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
Can you say that an early '60's Corvette
isn't a classic because they
still make the Corvette today? Come on.
Hm, the current 'vette does nothing for me because it had to conform to
current US design rules, the original now looks ugly to me thanks to a
recent showing on a UK TV advert for car insurance...
Help! I'm growing old, but not, at the same time! :)
Alpha, OTOH, for me, will always be groundbreaking technology because I was
involved with it from the beginning; maybe that's why I don't think about
Chevy stuff the same way?
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
3 Jan
3 Jan
10:51 p.m.
Eric J Korpela wrote:
Even though it may be a collectible, it's not
quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I believe the MIPS R4000 was
even earlier.
Peace... Sridhar
11:57 p.m.
In article <459C337F.1090406 at gmail.com>,
Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> writes:
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I believe the
MIPS R4000 was
even earlier.
MIPS R3000 was used in the ESV in 1989. I think the R4000 came out in
1990/1991?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
4 Jan
4 Jan
8:15 a.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <459C337F.1090406 at gmail.com>,
Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> writes:
Sounds right.
The R3K wasn't 64-bit in the slightest, though.
Peace... Sridhar
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I
believe the MIPS R4000 was
even earlier.
MIPS R3000 was used in the ESV in 1989. I think the R4000 came out in
1990/1991? 
12:04 a.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Eric J Korpela wrote:
R4000 is only 32-bit, though.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Even though it may be a collectible, it's not
quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I believe the MIPS R4000 was
even earlier. 
12:37 a.m.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:04:34 +0000
From: Pete Turnbull <pete at dunnington.plus.com>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
;
Subject: Re: Sun E450 server officially vintage
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
No, The R4000 is 64 bits and probably the first 64 bit Microprocessor...
Eric J Korpela wrote:
R4000 is only 32-bit, though. Even though it may be a collectible, it's not
quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I believe the MIPS R4000 was even
earlier.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Peter Wallace
11:08 a.m.
Peter C. Wallace wrote:
Actually, now that I think about it, that's true -- partly. It just
didn't work properly in 64-bit mode, and so all the systems it was ever
used in (SGI Crimson and Indigo, mainly) are 32-bit systems and the CPU
is fixed in 32-bit mode, with 32-bit registers and a 32-bit bus.
The R4400 and R4600 were fixed, but the only R4400 system I know of that
was 64-bit capable was the top end SGI Challenge, and I don't know if it
was ever supported in that mode (the R8000 Challenge and Onyx systems
were the first ones with 64-bit support). I don't know of any R4600
64-bit systems, and the later R4xxx devices are mostly 32-bit chips
anyway (like R4300).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Sridhar
Ayengar wrote:
No, The R4000 is 64 bits and probably the first 64 bit Microprocessor... Eric J Korpela wrote:
R4000 is only 32-bit, though. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I believe the MIPS R4000 was
even earlier. 
12:42 a.m.
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 17:51, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Eric J Korpela wrote:
But the R4x00 was 32-bit...
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Even though it may be a collectible, it's not
quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
I already mentioned the Alpha 21064, but I believe the MIPS R4000 was
even earlier.
12:45 a.m.
--- Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
But the R4x00 was 32-bit...
Pat
No it's not Pat, read the previous post. Sheesh.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1:08 a.m.
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 19:45, Chris M wrote:
--- Patrick Finnegan <pat at
computer-refuge.org> wrote:
Actually, I'm half right. The 4400 and 4600 ARE 32-bit, and are the only
R4x00 variants I've ever seen. According to Wikipedia, the R4000 itself
was 64-bit, but I've never seen one in the wild.
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
But the R4x00 was 32-bit...
Pat
No it's not Pat, read the previous post. Sheesh. 
3 Jan
3 Jan
11 p.m.
New subject: Dual Posts (was Re: Sun E450 server officially vintage)
Hi Eric,
I tried emailing you off-list, but your filters bounced my email (and your
message back looked like spam to Hotmail!).
Your posts are coming through twice because you are sending to cctech with a
CC: to cctalk. All cctech posts go to cctalk by default, and on-topic cctalk
posts go to cctech, after moderation (correct Jay?). So, you don't need the
CC:
Regards,
Bob
From: "Eric J Korpela" <korpela at
ssl.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts"<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
CC: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Sun E450 server officially vintage
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:43:06 -0800
<snip>
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/
11:56 p.m.
In article <d67e42a90701031443i437fde05p80d68ceb251e1583 at mail.gmail.com>,
"Eric J Korpela" <korpela at ssl.berkeley.edu> writes:
Even though it may be a collectible, it's not
quite vintage. Yet.
Things branded "Sun 4," I think would count, as would various
SPARCstations and Solbournes. Has any 64-bit microprocessor been
declared officially vintage yet?
Vintage Suns I have:
- GTX graphics tower sans interface card (anyone got one?)
- Sun 3/110 w/expansion chassis
Is a SPARCstation 5 vintage yet?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
7 Jan
7 Jan
10:12 a.m.
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:43 -0800, Eric J Korpela wrote:
On 1/3/07, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca>
wrote:
How about donating them to a relevant institution, like the CHM? Just
another E450 is unlikely to fetch much at a salvage auction, just like a
U10...
-Tore :)
Jay West wrote:
> Just because a computer is 10 years old does not mean it's on topic. So
> no, it's not officially vintage ;)
We were thinking about auctioning off the original E450 that was the
SETI at home server as a fund raiser. (Actually the original server is
an Ultra-10 sitting on my desk. ellie aka jill nee sagan).
Unfortunately university rules don't allow departments or groups to
sell things and use the proceeds. University salvage sells them and
the university gets the money. :(
14 Jan
14 Jan
2:06 a.m.
On 1/7/07, Tore Sinding Bekkedal <toresbe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
How about donating them to a relevant institution,
like the CHM? Just
another E450 is unlikely to fetch much at a salvage auction, just like a
U10...
Unfortunately, I don't think the University would let us do that
either. But it's worth checking...
Eric
7:31 a.m.
On Jan 3, 2007, at 12:46 AM, Richard wrote:
Owner's manual has a date of 1997...
Unreal. I know of dozens of these in production. This "10 year"
rule really just doesn't fit sometimes.
Someone is giving one of these to me with 4 CPUs.
What CPUs?
What should I do with it? Its got no graphics,
E450s were primarily designed to be servers, not workstations.
But I know a guy (ahem Doc!) who has a very tasty workstation-config
E450, rather drool-worthy.
Depending on your network setup, I'd use it as a centralized
server. Mail, spam filtering, NFS (or samba if you're still running
legacy Windows systems), etc.
but I figure I could make it compute
arbitrary precision deep Mandelbrot set zooms.
Bad idea. SPARCs, even the later UltraSPARCs, don't do very well
in the floating point department. But...if you could code up an
integer-based routine it'd scream. The dynamic range of the numbers
required in these calculations is very, very small. One thing that
comes to mind is that Ciarcia did a nice integer implementation years
ago, to run on 8051 microcontrollers. I've looked at that project in
some detail but haven't built one...yet.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Cape Coral, FL
9:33 p.m.
On 1/3/07, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
E450s were primarily designed to be servers, not
workstations.
But I know a guy (ahem Doc!) who has a very tasty workstation-config
E450, rather drool-worthy.
I'm hoping to run across an E3000 (pedestal, FC-AL external, SCA
internal drives, up to 8? CPUs in 4? trays...) sometime soon. I
spec'ed and ordered one for Lucent in 1997 or 1998, so not quite
on-topic, but I do know a few have surfaced for free/cheap recently.
That's about the only Sun I'm trying to keep an eye out for that has a
CPU enclosure larger than a 3U box. I also worked with some E5000s,
but that's a lot more Sun than I need in my house.
-ethan
(whose present active Sun is a SPARC5/110)
10:05 p.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
I'm hoping to run across an E3000 (pedestal, FC-AL
external, SCA
internal drives, up to 8? CPUs in 4? trays...)
6 CPUs on three cards. Mine has 6 400Mhz with 6 1GB memory kits. There
are also 2GB memory kits to take the machine to 12GB. They are still
rather pricey. It is possible to run 464Mhz processors, but they are
still not easy/cheap to obtain. Be careful about what configuration you
acquire. I bought mine for cheap, but ended up replacing the
processor/memory boards to accommodate the move to the 400MHz from the
original pair of 167MHz processors. I also had to replace the 83Mhz bus
I/O cards with 100MHz I/O boards to support the faster procs. :( I also
talked myself into swapping the SBUS video for UPA (creator) graphics.
My cheap E3000 didn't end up being so cheap. I do enjoy playing with it,
but I am glad that I can keep it at my office, and not have to pay for
the electricity. With all 10 drive bays filled, it makes for a dandy
little space heater. :)
Jon
10:05 p.m.
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:33, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On 1/3/07, Dave McGuire <mcguire at
neurotica.com> wrote:
Actually, only up to 6 CPUs - the system has 4 systemboard slots, but
you need to have at least one I/O board in the system. The E3500 fixed
that particular dumbness by having 5 slots, so you can have 8 CPUs (4
CPU/mem boards) + 1 I/O board, but introduced FC-AL internal drives,
which are a pain in the butt (and make the internal disk bays basically
useless for Linux).
Ethan, I've got some spare E4000s, which can be "desk mounted", and have
more cpu/i/o board slots than the E3000, and internal optical/tape
drive slots (but no internal disk bays, unless you use a "disk board").
8U tall, perhaps? I've even got a set of desk-top side covers for
it -- but of course, I don't have the top or bottom covers. The E4000s
I've got came as rack-mounted systems.
The only real annoying thing about E4000 systems vs E3000 systems is
that they only support the 83MHz bus speed, not the 100MHz bus speed;
and the "clock board" they come with only supports a 4:1 CPU clock
multiplier - so you can only do 336MHz CPUs instead of 400MHz, unless
you replace the clock board with one that does a 5:1 multiplier.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
E450s were primarily designed to be servers,
not workstations.
But I know a guy (ahem Doc!) who has a very tasty
workstation-config E450, rather drool-worthy.
I'm hoping to run across an E3000 (pedestal, FC-AL external, SCA
internal drives, up to 8? CPUs in 4? trays...) sometime soon. I
spec'ed and ordered one for Lucent in 1997 or 1998, so not quite
on-topic, but I do know a few have surfaced for free/cheap recently.
That's about the only Sun I'm trying to keep an eye out for that has
a CPU enclosure larger than a 3U box. I also worked with some
E5000s, but that's a lot more Sun than I need in my house.
10:13 p.m.
On 1/3/07, Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:33, Ethan Dicks
wrote:
Ah, yes... that sounds familiar now. We only had 2 CPU boards, so it
wasn't an issue for our machine.
I'm hoping to run across an E3000 (pedestal,
FC-AL external, SCA
internal drives, up to 8? CPUs in 4? trays...) sometime soon...
Actually, only up to 6 CPUs - the system has 4 systemboard slots, but
you need to have at least one I/O board in the system. The E3500 fixed that particular dumbness by having 5
slots, so you
can have 8 CPUs (4 CPU/mem boards) + 1 I/O board...
Handy...
but introduced FC-AL internal drives, which are a pain
in the butt
(and make the internal disk bays basically useless for Linux).
Good to know, but if I'm going to run Sun hardware, it'll be running Solaris.
Ethan, I've got some spare E4000s, which can be
"desk mounted", and have
more cpu/i/o board slots than the E3000, and internal optical/tape
drive slots (but no internal disk bays, unless you use a "disk board").
8U tall, perhaps? I've even got a set of desk-top side covers for
it -- but of course, I don't have the top or bottom covers. The E4000s
I've got came as rack-mounted systems.
Interesting. I don't know much about E4000s.
The only real annoying thing about E4000 systems vs
E3000 systems is
that they only support the 83MHz bus speed, not the 100MHz bus speed;
and the "clock board" they come with only supports a 4:1 CPU clock
multiplier - so you can only do 336MHz CPUs instead of 400MHz, unless
you replace the clock board with one that does a 5:1 multiplier.
I'm not such a CPU speed slut that that is likely to matter to me. I
still fiddle with Sun hardware because they make nice servers and have
more robust hardware than commodity Intel stuff. If I wanted speed,
I'd go out and get the latest X GHz box and throw Linux on it and wait
for it to break. ;-)
As for taking on more Sun hardware myself, at the moment, I have a
Netra (off-topic) that I still need to press into full service. I
picked up some more RAM for it and need to get Solaris loaded, but
that will lead to questions to the "Suns at Home" list, not this one
(the kit is too new).
Cheers,
-ethan
10:36 p.m.
I'm hoping to run across an E3000 (pedestal, FC-AL
external, SCA
internal drives, up to 8? CPUs in 4? trays...) sometime soon. I
spec'ed and ordered one for Lucent in 1997 or 1998, so not quite
on-topic, but I do know a few have surfaced for free/cheap recently.
That's about the only Sun I'm trying to keep an eye out for that has a
CPU enclosure larger than a 3U box. I also worked with some E5000s,
but that's a lot more Sun than I need in my house.
-ethan
(whose present active Sun is a SPARC5/110)
There is something to be said for older slower Sun's. While my current
SunBlade 1000 (dual 750Mhz UltraSparc III) system is surprisingly quiet,
it's the largest system besides my PDP-11/73 that I have at home (I do have
larger). Additionally it sucks a *LOT* of power, and generates a *LOT* of
heat.
I'd hate to think about how much heat something like an E3000 will generate!
Zane
10:46 p.m.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Zane H. Healy wrote:
There is something to be said for older slower
Sun's. While my current
SunBlade 1000 (dual 750Mhz UltraSparc III) system is surprisingly quiet,
it's the largest system besides my PDP-11/73 that I have at home (I do have
larger). Additionally it sucks a *LOT* of power, and generates a *LOT* of
heat.
My first experience with Sun was a desktop 3/60. THAT was a space
heater.
Mike Loewen mloewen at cpumagic.scol.pa.us
Old Technology http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldtech/
11:40 p.m.
There is something to be said for older slower
Sun's. While my current
SunBlade 1000 (dual 750Mhz UltraSparc III) system is surprisingly quiet,
it's the largest system besides my PDP-11/73 that I have at home (I do
have
larger). Additionally it sucks a *LOT* of power, and generates a *LOT* of
heat.
*LOT* of power translates to how much amperes/hour? :o)
4 Jan
4 Jan
1:29 a.m.
There is something to be said for older slower
Sun's. While my current
SunBlade 1000 (dual 750Mhz UltraSparc III) system is surprisingly quiet,
it's the largest system besides my PDP-11/73 that I have at home (I do
have
larger). Additionally it sucks a *LOT* of power, and generates a *LOT* of
heat.
*LOT* of power translates to how much amperes/hour? :o)
3 Jan
3 Jan
12:12 p.m.
Richard wrote:
Owner's manual has a date of 1997...
Someone is giving one of these to me with 4 CPUs. What should I do
with it? Its got no graphics, but I figure I could make it compute
arbitrary precision deep Mandelbrot set zooms.
Hmmm, as Dave says, they're really suited to server type apps with lots of
integer math. I believe there's a few coming up for disposal locally (UK-side)
fairly soon as the support contracts run out (and the renewal expense isn't
justified). I can't think of a good reason for having them, though [1].
[1] Although the bulk of the A3000/A1000 storage units which "belong" with one
of our E6500 machines were kept back to be used with these, so I should find
out what's happening about those purely in order to reunite them with their
original machine.
cheers
Jules
6565
days inactive
6576
days old
62 comments
29 participants
participants (29)
-
alexandre-listas＠e-secure.com.br -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
auringer＠tds.net -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
emu＠e-bbes.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
legalize＠xmission.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mloewen＠cpumagic.scol.pa.us -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
pcw＠mesanet.com -
pete＠dunnington.plus.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
r_a_feldman＠hotmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
toresbe＠ifi.uio.no -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk