21 Dec
2004
21 Dec
'04
5:27 a.m.
Does anyone have any info/documentation on the XXDP diagnostics for older PDP-11 systems
and peripherals? I'm looking in particular for the 11/40 (11/35), RK05, DZ11, RL02,
MM11 core memory, RX01, RL01 diagnostics. I have found some info on Henk's site, but
would like to know if anyone has a comprehensive list and hints on how to run these, what
the output means, how to answer the prompts, etc.
I have created RL02 packs with XXDP 2.5 and XXDP 2.2 and I can boot and run stuff from
these packs. It appears that the 11/40 diagnostics are on XXDP 2.2, but not on XXDP 2.5.
I have an old 1976 DEC field rep troubleshooting guide that refers to various MAINDECs,
which seem to have been the diagnostics prior to XXDP. Is there a list somewhere showing
what the XXDP equivalents of the old MAINDECs are?
Any help would be appreciated. I want to exercise my 11/40 and attached peripherals and
see if any subtle gremlins are lurking anywhere within. Everything appears to be working
perfectly with the exception of one of my three RK05 drives that I knew was problematic.
Ashley
21 Dec
21 Dec
6:01 a.m.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Ashley Carder wrote:
Does anyone have any info/documentation on the XXDP
diagnostics for
older PDP-11 systems and peripherals? I'm looking in particular for the
11/40 (11/35), RK05, DZ11, RL02, MM11 core memory, RX01, RL01
diagnostics. I have found some info on Henk's site, but would like to
know if anyone has a comprehensive list and hints on how to run these,
what the output means, how to answer the prompts, etc.
I think I have some information in paper form around somewhere. Probably
easiest to ask about specifics.
I have created RL02 packs with XXDP 2.5 and XXDP 2.2
and I can boot and
run stuff from these packs. It appears that the 11/40 diagnostics are
on XXDP 2.2, but not on XXDP 2.5. I have an old 1976 DEC field rep
troubleshooting guide that refers to various MAINDECs, which seem to
have been the diagnostics prior to XXDP. Is there a list somewhere
showing what the XXDP equivalents of the old MAINDECs are?
I think MAINDECs are the specific test program that you can find on your
XXDP pack.
The older test programs should be runnable on new XXDP as well, but one
RL02 is definitely not enough to hold everything, so they probably
stripped away some older test suits.
Any help would be appreciated. I want to exercise my
11/40 and
attached peripherals and see if any subtle gremlins are lurking anywhere
within. Everything appears to be working perfectly with the exception
of one of my three RK05 drives that I knew was problematic.
Ask away.
Might as well do it privately as well. No point in usign the bw of the
list for specific items.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
6:15 a.m.
At 06:01 PM 12/21/2004 +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Ashley Carder wrote:
I would prefer to see the list BW used by topics such as this than the
numerous other completely off topic discussions which seem to congest
my mailbox.
--tom
Does anyone have any info/documentation on the
XXDP diagnostics for older
PDP-11 systems and peripherals? I'm looking in particular for the 11/40
(11/35), RK05, DZ11, RL02, MM11 core memory, RX01, RL01 diagnostics. I
have found some info on Henk's site, but would like to know if anyone has
a comprehensive list and hints on how to run these, what the output
means, how to answer the prompts, etc.
I think I have some information in paper form around somewhere. Probably
easiest to ask about specifics.
I have created RL02 packs with XXDP 2.5 and XXDP
2.2 and I can boot and
run stuff from these packs. It appears that the 11/40 diagnostics are on
XXDP 2.2, but not on XXDP 2.5. I have an old 1976 DEC field rep
troubleshooting guide that refers to various MAINDECs, which seem to have
been the diagnostics prior to XXDP. Is there a list somewhere showing
what the XXDP equivalents of the old MAINDECs are?
I think MAINDECs are the specific test program that you can find on your
XXDP pack.
The older test programs should be runnable on new XXDP as well, but one
RL02 is definitely not enough to hold everything, so they probably
stripped away some older test suits.
Any help would be appreciated. I want to exercise
my 11/40 and attached
peripherals and see if any subtle gremlins are lurking anywhere
within. Everything appears to be working perfectly with the exception of
one of my three RK05 drives that I knew was problematic.
Ask away.
Might as well do it privately as well. No point in usign the bw of the
list for specific items. Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
6:39 a.m.
Ask away.
Might as well do it privately as well. No point in usign the bw of
the list for specific items.
I would prefer to see the list BW used by topics such
as this than
the numerous other completely off topic discussions which seem to
congest my mailbox. 
8:03 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, der Mouse wrote:
Maybe you'd be happier subscribed to cctech instead of cctalk?
(Assuming you aren't already. If you are, I'd say your real beef is
with the moderator(s), for letting offtopic stuff through.)
Look everyone: this is a way too liberal interpretation of the
"off-topicness" of CCTALK. It wasn't intended to be an invitation to post
about just anything you felt like that day. If that was the case, CCTALK
would've devolved into a cesspool about 2 weeks into the experiment.
The purpose of splitting the mailing list was to have one list where the
occasional off-topic posts were tolerated, but it certainly WAS NOT AN
INVITATION TO USE IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE. Google works great if
you would just take the 10 minutes it takes to learn to use it well.
Using the list as an alternative to Google, which "some" folks do, is
violating the spirit of the purpose of CCTALK. At least have the courtesy
to take blatantly off-topic questions off-line (and SPECIFICALLY REQUEST
that any off-topic answers go to private e-mail).
"ON-TOPIC" takes priority over off-topic. Please don't abuse the list.
Other people use it too.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Ask away.
Might as well do it privately as well. No point in usign the bw of
the list for specific items.
I would prefer to see the list BW used by topics such
as this than
the numerous other completely off topic discussions which seem to
congest my mailbox. 
8:42 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, der Mouse wrote:
Maybe you'd be happier subscribed to cctech instead of cctalk?
(Assuming you aren't already. If you are, I'd say your real beef is
with the moderator(s), for letting offtopic stuff through.)
Look everyone: this is a way too liberal interpretation of the
"off-topicness" of CCTALK. It wasn't intended to be an invitation to post
about just anything you felt like that day. If that was the case, CCTALK
would've devolved into a cesspool about 2 weeks into the experiment.
The purpose of splitting the mailing list was to have one list where the
occasional off-topic posts were tolerated, but it certainly WAS NOT AN
INVITATION TO USE IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE. Google works great if
you would just take the 10 minutes it takes to learn to use it well.
Using the list as an alternative to Google, which "some" folks do, is
violating the spirit of the purpose of CCTALK. At least have the courtesy
to take blatantly off-topic questions off-line (and SPECIFICALLY REQUEST
that any off-topic answers go to private e-mail).
"ON-TOPIC" takes priority over off-topic. Please don't abuse the list.
Other people use it too.
Nonononono, Sellam!
*I* am the moderator!
Doc
Ask away.
Might as well do it privately as well. No point in usign the bw of
the list for specific items.
I would prefer to see the list BW used by topics such as this than
the numerous other completely off topic discussions which seem to
congest my mailbox.
8:46 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Doc Shipley wrote:
Nonononono, Sellam!
*I* am the moderator!
So you're saying you'd be happy to wade through dozens of messages about
my hairy ass?
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
9:05 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 11:46 -0800, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Doc Shipley wrote:
Seriously? I suspect he'd just ignore and delete them, as I suspect most
of us do with topics that aren't of interest / relevant to us (hell, I
could kick up a fuss about all the US-specific stuff if I wanted because
it had no bearing on me, but I just delete it and rightly so).
This list is one of the best out there; the OT content is only a tiny
percent of postings and it has a habit of managing itself. It really
ain't worth getting in a stress over the occasional OT post, whatever
the content...
My 2{insert local currency here} anyway...
Nonononono, Sellam!
*I* am the moderator!
So you're saying you'd be happy to wade through dozens of messages about
my hairy ass?
9:18 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Doc Shipley wrote:
Dude, you're *already* showing your ass. What else would be new?
I'm saying I was absent the day you were given the reins to this
list. As far as I can tell, Ron's definition of "permissible off-topic"
carries as much weight as yours, or mine for that matter.
And, as usual, the carping about OT,OT! has generated more lines of
email than the query itself.
Doc
Nonononono, Sellam!
*I* am the moderator!
So you're saying you'd be happy to wade through dozens of messages about
my hairy ass?
10:49 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Doc Shipley wrote:
Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
So just to get this straight, you're saying that if I were to post, on
average, say, 5 messages a day about my ass, describing it in all its
glory, every inch of curve, every sphincter wrinkle, you would simply
delete through them and not raise a stink (so to speak) over it?
I doubt that.
But if you're sincere then let me know and I'll be happy to send volume
after volume of messages about my hairy ass. You just say the word, Doc.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Doc Shipley wrote:
Dude, you're *already* showing your ass. What else would be new? Nonononono, Sellam!
*I* am the moderator!
So you're saying you'd be happy to wade through dozens of messages about
my hairy ass? I'm saying I was absent the day you were given
the reins to this
list. As far as I can tell, Ron's definition of "permissible off-topic"
carries as much weight as yours, or mine for that matter.
I disagree.
And, as usual, the carping about OT,OT! has
generated more lines of
email than the query itself.
No it hasn't. Ron's incredibly off-topic "Help me! I'm lame!"
message
generated around a dozen responses. At this point, if you respond to this
message then you'll be responsible for making it longer. So, your
call. And really, I've heard all your uninspired anti-Me rants before
and, quite frankly, each subsequent one was as ineffective as the first,
so don't bother.
Gun/auto/whatever discussions have broken out before as a result of a
thread that started in vintage computing but spiraled out of control
usually due to some off-hand remark. Ron's message was specifically and
unapologetically out of band for this list. It was started without regard
to the other people here. That's rude and disrespectful. I don't go to
an HTML discussion group and start asking if anyone has a boot disk for
their Apple //c.
That's the difference. Get a clue.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:51 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
Doc wrote:
> I'm saying I was absent the day you were
given the reins to this
> list. As far as I can tell, Ron's definition of "permissible
off-topic"
> carries as much weight as yours, or mine for that matter.
Sellam replied:
I disagree.
I intend to remain neutral in this discussion but I must ask you
Sellam: what is your rationale for making the (apparent) claim
that your opinion is more valuable, relevant, or whatever, than
Ron's?
Sounds kinda arrogant, actually, and doesn't seem to help your
argument much.
Later --
Glen
0/0
6:03 p.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
Seeming as I do little more than read this list my comments may be a
tad unwelcome, but ...
What the heck is wrong with an off-topic message on an off-topic list?
I can see anything "political" being out of bounds. That stuff
generates flame wars, and flame wars are distracting. But the only
"political" issue popping up in these off-topic threads is what is
on-topic/off-topic and what is off-topic/off-topic. So while the
original question (at least in the case of the angelfire incident) was
quite innocent, the blathering about it being off-topic (which
followed it) was not.
On the issue of using Google: I've found that most people use it and
simply have no luck. Now some people have the tendancy to flip
through all 100 pages of results, while some people will resort to
asking questions. Just because I favour the former doesn't mean that
I should discourage the latter. There are far too many people in the
world asking questions simply because they feel intimidated by the
consquences. Furthermore, a well placed question has the opportunity
to generate discussion. There is far too little of that out there
too. (Sorry, but I'm an educator and my views are highly biased. ;) )
Now you may be saying that a person who knows how to use Google will
not turn up 1000 or more results on a search, or they will know how to
refine the results if they do. I disagree. Your success with Google
has far more to do with how well you understand what you are searching
for. For example: if I were to search for something on the Apple II,
I would find what I need in minutes. Flip that around and ask me to
search for particular information on the PDP-11, and I would be
completely hopeless. Because I know considerably more about the
former than the latter, I am considerably more successful in finding
information about the former than the latter.
Anyhow, back into lurk mode I go ...
6:05 p.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:03:43 -0500, Ronald Wayne <appleto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I should discourage the latter. There are far too
many people in the
world asking questions simply because they feel intimidated by the
consquences. Furthermore, a well placed question has the opportunity
Sorry, but that should read 'far too few people'
6:27 p.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
As I understand it, just because cctalk isn't the 100% tech list doesn't make
it okay for everything and anything to be off-topic. CCtalk just means that
the discussion of classic computers needs not be completely technical -- i.e.,
this is where we have discussions about non-technical parts of computer
history, such as people, trends, companies, whatever. So it's still ON the
topic of classic computing -- again, just not AS technical-only as the cctech
version.
So there's a big difference between being "not ENTIRELY technical" vs.
being
"completely off-topic" -- cctalk is supposed to be the former, not the latter.
I intend this comment to no one in particular, since I and everyone else has
had an off-topic comment at some point, but, isn't the above paragraph obvious?
I think the only real problem with cctalk is when the comments get too personal
-- i.e., two people disagree about some classic computing topic, then a third
person says "yeah well person #1 wears ugly baseball hats", and then there are
48 absurd comments where everyone feels obligated to give their opinion about
baseball hats, from which there are 10 other discussions about sports, 5 about
hats, and meanwhile the poor folks who just wanted to have a nice discussion
about whatever didn't get to do so.
History shows us that eventually, after a week or so, these off-shoot topics do
go away. We do all seem to police ourselves, though not as speedily as we
should. A modest proposal: maybe there SHOULD be a serious group of
moderators.
--- Ronald Wayne <appleto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:03:43 -0500, Ronald Wayne
<appleto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
=====
Tell your friends about the Computer Collector Newsletter!
-- It's free and we'll never send spam or share your email address
-- Publishing every Monday(-ish), ask about writing for us
-- Mainframes to videogames, hardware and software, we cover it all
Visit our web site for lots of extra content: http://news.computercollector.com
Contact us at news(a)computercollector.com
620 readers and counting!
I should discourage the latter. There are far
too many people in the
world asking questions simply because they feel intimidated by the
consquences. Furthermore, a well placed question has the opportunity
Sorry, but that should read 'far too few people'
7:12 p.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:27:10 -0800 (PST), Computer Collector
Newsletter <news(a)computercollector.com> wrote:
As I understand it, just because cctalk isn't the
100% tech list doesn't make
it okay for everything and anything to be off-topic.
I just checked with the cctalk web page, and would like to suggest
that the words "off-topic" be axed completely from the description.
The list has clearly defined topics:
<snip>
The general discussion list is appropriate for discussion of the
following topics:
* classic computer hardware, software, and documentation. We
define "classic" as "at least ten years old, plus or minus cool
factor";
* computing in general ten or more years ago; and,
* fringe topics relevant to the pursuit of the hobby, such as
electronics, moving heavy equipment, and cleaning techniques.
</snip>
4:51 p.m.
New subject: REPLY Re: Off-topic message confusion
I have finally gotten around to reading this thread with interest and (some)
amusement.
First - Sellam, I'm not dead yet :)
My view is quite simple. The cctech view of the list should be free of
anything off-topic at all. Nothing but strictly on-topic posts. I think
everyone agrees with that and there's pretty solid consensus on the list
with regards to that one.
However cctalk by definition allows some wandering into off-topicness. Yet
it is still a list for classic computers, not for extended discussion about
cars or guns or politics (including exopolitics) or alien abduction or
personal attacks or whatever. The occasional (short-lived) off-topic thread
is fine. I think this allows it to be more of a community than cctech
(definitely not meant to be a slam on cctech). So the deal is this: in
return for me not killing off the cctalk list and just having 100%
on-topicness, I reserve the right to squash threads and "correct" people who
wander offtopic too long or too often, or who get antagonistic to others.
That is quite a thankless job as you can't please everyone and some will
think I'm being too strict and others will say I'm too loose. And as has
been proven by several posts by specific people who shall remain nameless -
sometimes I'm accused of both by the same person at the same time *GRIN*.
If I don't set some guidelines, people will be afraid to post a quip or
hesitate before a pleasant off-topic post. Sometimes that's good. Most times
it's not. So here's the guidelines I use:
Direct personal inflammatory attacks are never ok, period. If you want to
slam someone in a cutting malicious fashion - take it to private email. We
don't need to hear your beefs.
Political/religious inflamatory discussions are never ok either. This is
hard for me because I'm quite into political discussion, but well, this
isn't the place for it. This doesn't mean an occasional comment inside an
on-topic thread can't say something mildly political. We just don't want to
delve into a long political discussion, or more importantly, don't phrase it
as a put-down to others.
I will say that some of the initial comments that generated this thread were
definitely something I should have dev/null'd before it hit the list.
Inappropriate. My bad for letting it go on.
Anything else off-topic - in moderation (no pun intended) is ok. Just not
Sellams ass. Please.
Geeze kids... get along and play nice!
Jay
24 Dec
24 Dec
4:04 a.m.
New subject: REPLY Re: Off-topic message confusion
Rumor has it that Jay West may have mentioned these words:
[snippage]
If I don't set some guidelines, people will be
afraid to post a quip or
hesitate before a pleasant off-topic post. Sometimes that's good. Most
times it's not. So here's the guidelines I use:
And IMNSHO, this is *your* list now, Jay. I think you've earned it --
you've put in a *lot* of work to keep this community alive and well-homed.
And just in case I haven't said it enough:
10 PRINT "Thank You! ";
20 GOTO 10
:-)
I will say that some of the initial comments that
generated this thread
were definitely something I should have dev/null'd before it hit the list.
Inappropriate. My bad for letting it go on.
No it's not. That would be like saying it's the cop's fault your kid got
high on crack because the cop was on vacation and wasn't there to parent
your kid for ya.
You already moderate one list - why should you [have the extra burden to]
moderate them both? It's up to *us* to be civil to one another - to be the
parents, if you will - and not get suckered into (or start) something
wildly off-topic.
Maybe I'm full of condensed milk, but it's *our* fault things got out of
hand -- not yours.
Merry Xmas!
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
_??_ zmerch(a)30below.com
(?||?) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead
_)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.
23 Dec
23 Dec
4:54 p.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
Using the list as an alternative to Google, which
"some" folks do, is
violating the spirit of the purpose of CCTALK. At least have the courtesy
to take blatantly off-topic questions off-line (and SPECIFICALLY REQUEST
that any off-topic answers go to private e-mail).
I am quite guilty occasionaly of using the list on things I should google
for. But those things are definitely on-topic. Sometimes it's because I'm
lazy. Sometimes it's because I get way too many responses from google to
sift through. Other times it's because I'm trying to start up an on-topic
conversation on the list in order to steer it away from an offtopic one
currently in progress. Hint.
Jay
24 Dec
24 Dec
1:49 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 21:54 -0600, Jay West wrote:
How old is google anyway? Presumably it'll be on topic in a year or
two? ;)
Using the list
as an alternative to Google, which "some" folks do, is
violating the spirit of the purpose of CCTALK. At least have the courtesy
to take blatantly off-topic questions off-line (and SPECIFICALLY REQUEST
that any off-topic answers go to private e-mail).
I am quite guilty occasionaly of using the list on things I should google
for. 
3:58 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
Rumor has it that Eric Smith may have mentioned these words:
> How old is google anyway? Presumably it'll be
on topic in a year or
> two? ;)
Doubtful, Yahoo's only 10 years old, according to one reference - and it
even includes what Yahoo originally stood for:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum9/5082.htm
When this list was started, AltaVista was king with Yahoo not far behind,
IIRC; Google didn't come around for a few years after that.
And did anyone save an old Google for the archives?
:-)
Isn't that what Google's for? Saving things like [g]mail forever, even
after you delete it??? :-P
http://web.archive.org/web/19990209043945/google.stanford.edu/googlehardwar…
According to that, google's got just over 4 years to go before being ontopic...
{{ I just *gotta* add this!!! ;-) }}
Ya know, a simple google search found this and more!
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+old+is+google
Merry Xmas!
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch(a)30below.com
Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
4:19 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Eric Smith may have mentioned these
words:
Interestingly enough, we first learned about Google from someone posting a
message to this list about a "new experimental search engine". I wish I
could find that message to see who it was that posted it. It would have
been back in 1997 or 1998.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
> How old is google anyway? Presumably
it'll be on topic in a year or
> two? ;)
Doubtful, Yahoo's only 10 years old, according to one reference - and it
even includes what Yahoo originally stood for:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum9/5082.htm
When this list was started, AltaVista was king with Yahoo not far behind,
IIRC; Google didn't come around for a few years after that.
4:48 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 07:19 -0800, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Roger Merchberger wrote:
I didn't realise it was that recent (I would have guessed at 1996).
Annoyingly I know I was using the web occasionally in the early days,
but don't remember exactly which years even (1994 or 1995) or when I
first used a search engine, or any specific instances of what I actually
used the web for.
My memory's too bad these days, and I don't have much in the way of
personal data from those days (which is an interesting point - at least
these days storage is cheap enough that people don't tend to delete
anything; shame there's less stuff of interest to actually preserve
though! :-)
cheers
J.
Rumor has it that Eric Smith may have mentioned
these words:
Interestingly enough, we first learned about Google from someone posting a
message to this list about a "new experimental search engine". I wish I
could find that message to see who it was that posted it. It would have
been back in 1997 or 1998. > How old is google anyway? Presumably
it'll be on topic in a year or
> two? ;)
Doubtful, Yahoo's only 10 years old, according to one reference - and it
even includes what Yahoo originally stood for:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum9/5082.htm
When this list was started, AltaVista was king with Yahoo not far behind,
IIRC; Google didn't come around for a few years after that.
11:12 a.m.
New subject: Off-topic message confusion
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 07:19 -0800, Vintage Computer
Festival wrote:
In 1996, eBay was still a small-fry.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Roger Merchberger wrote:
I didn't realise it was that recent (I would have guessed at 1996). Rumor has it that Eric Smith may have mentioned
these words:
Interestingly enough, we first learned about Google from someone posting a
message to this list about a "new experimental search engine". I wish I
could find that message to see who it was that posted it. It would have
been back in 1997 or 1998. > How old is google anyway? Presumably
it'll be on topic in a year or
> two? ;)
Doubtful, Yahoo's only 10 years old, according to one reference - and it
even includes what Yahoo originally stood for:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum9/5082.htm
When this list was started, AltaVista was king with Yahoo not far behind,
IIRC; Google didn't come around for a few years after that.
4:15 a.m.
New subject: Google (was Re: Off-topic message confusion)
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 21:54 -0600, Jay West wrote:
How old is google anyway? Presumably it'll be on topic in a year or
two? ;)
Google's first production cluster server (a homebrew job using
off-the-shelf motherboards mounted on corkboard) is already in the
Computer History Museum's collection (and in the main exhibit area no
less).
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Using the
list as an alternative to Google, which "some" folks do, is
violating the spirit of the purpose of CCTALK. At least have the courtesy
to take blatantly off-topic questions off-line (and SPECIFICALLY REQUEST
that any off-topic answers go to private e-mail).
I am quite guilty occasionaly of using the list on things I should google
for. 
21 Dec
21 Dec
6:14 a.m.
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 08:27, Ashley Carder wrote:
Does anyone have any info/documentation on the XXDP
diagnostics for
older PDP-11 systems and peripherals? I'm looking in particular for
the 11/40 (11/35), RK05, DZ11, RL02, MM11 core memory, RX01, RL01
diagnostics. I have found some info on Henk's site, but would like to
know if anyone has a comprehensive list and hints on how to run these,
what the output means, how to answer the prompts, etc.
I have created RL02 packs with XXDP 2.5 and XXDP 2.2 and I can boot
and run stuff from these packs. It appears that the 11/40 diagnostics
are on XXDP 2.2, but not on XXDP 2.5. I have an old 1976 DEC field
rep troubleshooting guide that refers to various MAINDECs, which seem
to have been the diagnostics prior to XXDP. Is there a list somewhere
showing what the XXDP equivalents of the old MAINDECs are?
OK, the "magic decoder ring" for converting the MAINDECs to XXDP names
is quite simple. The MAINDEC # is of the form:
MAINDEC-11-Dxxxx-*
To convert this to the XXDP diagnostic name keep only the xxxx part of
the MAINDEC #. To run it, do:
R xxxx??
The first letter in the diagnostic name tells you what processor it's
for. If I remember correctly C=11/40, Z=any
There's a document that tells all about it (but I can't remember where I
found it at the moment).
The pack images that you're talking about don't have the correct memory
diagnostic, but I've found that ZMSDD0 (wow! from memory...can you tell
I've used it a bunch?) works OK enough to be able to find bad memory and
you'll know when you hit bad memory. I've also found that having a
hardcopy terminal is preferable to a CRT when you're getting failures.
If a diagnostic loads and then gives you a prompt like "DB>", START is a
good choice as a response.
Any help would be appreciated. I want to exercise my 11/40 and
attached peripherals and see if any subtle gremlins are lurking
anywhere within. Everything appears to be working perfectly with the
exception of one of my three RK05 drives that I knew was problematic.
Ashley
--
TTFN - Guy
6:32 a.m.
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 08:27, Ashley Carder wrote:
I have a copy of the MAINDEC naming convention magic decoder in the
"PDP-11 Mainframe Troubleshooting Guide". I just didn't know how to
make the conversion from MAINDEC name to XXDP name.
Does anyone have any info/documentation on the
XXDP diagnostics for
older PDP-11 systems and peripherals? I'm looking in particular for
the 11/40 (11/35), RK05, DZ11, RL02, MM11 core memory, RX01, RL01
diagnostics. I have found some info on Henk's site, but would like to
know if anyone has a comprehensive list and hints on how to run these,
what the output means, how to answer the prompts, etc.
I have created RL02 packs with XXDP 2.5 and XXDP 2.2 and I can boot
and run stuff from these packs. It appears that the 11/40 diagnostics
are on XXDP 2.2, but not on XXDP 2.5. I have an old 1976 DEC field
rep troubleshooting guide that refers to various MAINDECs, which seem
to have been the diagnostics prior to XXDP. Is there a list somewhere
showing what the XXDP equivalents of the old MAINDECs are?
OK, the "magic decoder ring" for converting the MAINDECs to XXDP names
is quite simple. The MAINDEC # is of the form:
MAINDEC-11-Dxxxx-*
To convert this to the XXDP diagnostic name keep only the xxxx part of
the MAINDEC #. To run it, do:
R xxxx??
The first letter in the diagnostic name tells you what processor it's
for. If I remember correctly C=11/40, Z=any
There's a document that tells all about it (but I can't remember where I
found it at the moment). The pack images that you're talking about
don't have the correct memory
diagnostic, but I've found that ZMSDD0 (wow! from memory...can you tell
I've used it a bunch?) works OK enough to be able to find bad memory and
you'll know when you hit bad memory. I've also found that having a
hardcopy terminal is preferable to a CRT when you're getting failures.
If a diagnostic loads and then gives you a prompt like "DB>", START is a
good choice as a response.
Any help would be appreciated. I want to exercise my 11/40 and
attached peripherals and see if any subtle gremlins are lurking
anywhere within. Everything appears to be working perfectly with the
exception of one of my three RK05 drives that I knew was problematic.
Ashley
--
TTFN - Guy
6:50 a.m.
OK, the
"magic decoder ring" for converting the MAINDECs to XXDP names
is quite simple. The MAINDEC # is of the form:
MAINDEC-11-Dxxxx-*
To convert this to the XXDP diagnostic name keep only the xxxx part of
the MAINDEC #. To run it, do:
R xxxx??
The first letter in the diagnostic name tells you what processor it's
for. If I remember correctly C=11/40, Z=any
There's a document that tells all about it (but I can't remember where I
found it at the moment).
I have a copy of the MAINDEC naming convention magic decoder in the
"PDP-11 Mainframe Troubleshooting Guide". I just didn't know how to
make the conversion from MAINDEC name to XXDP name. > The pack images that you're talking about
don't have the correct memory
> diagnostic, but I've found that ZMSDD0 (wow! from memory...can you tell
> I've used it a bunch?) works OK enough to be able to find bad memory and
> you'll know when you hit bad memory. I've also found that having a
> hardcopy terminal is preferable to a CRT when you're getting failures.
>
> If a diagnostic loads and then gives you a prompt like "DB>", START is
a
> good choice as a response.
Guy, I also meant to say thanks for the good info. That will help me out a
lot
and it helps remove some of the "shroud of mystery" (yep, Al, I picked that
up
from your recent post) that surrounds XXDP.
Does anyone have any older XXDP versions than 2.5 and 2.2?
Ashley
7116
days inactive
7119
days old
28 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
acme＠gbronline.com -
appleto＠gmail.com -
bqt＠Update.UU.SE -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
news＠computercollector.com -
uban＠ubanproductions.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
wacarder＠usit.net -
zmerch＠30below.com