Jerome Fine replies: I actually have a couple of VT103 systems. Only ONE has the STP paddleboard. So if someone has a spare paddleboard, it would be appreciated - if you have a VT103 that no longer works is about the only way that will happen. In point of fact, while the paddleboard is convenient - actually extremely convenient - it is not necessary. From what I understand, the paddleboard has the circuitry to re-route the "console port" from the DLV11-J directly to the terminal without going through the DB-25 in the back as a normal VT100 would require. PLUS, the second channel in the paddle board then takes over the circuit to the DB-25 in the back which becomes an output port - usually to a printer, but it can be sent to any other device as well including another terminal. What is VERY unique at that point is that the SETUP selections which normally control the baud rate for the console device are used instead for the DB-25 in the back (as they were designed to control in the first place). If someone is interested in this explanation and did not understand, please ask for clarification. NOW, without the paddleboard, just use everything in the usual manner. The backplane in the VT103 and the "console" device are now entirely separate. Use the DLV11-J in the normal manner and connect the cable from the "console port" on the DLV11-J to the DB-25 on the back of the VT103 (VT100 in a wolf's costume). One point which probably needs to be clarified is that when the paddle board is in use, DO NOT connect the baud rate wire wrap pins for those channels to the baud rate pins. The use of the paddleboard means that the baud rate must "float". The console is automatically set to 9600 baud at that point and the "secondary port" is set by the SETUP options on the VT103 itself. If the paddleboard is not used, set the baud rate wire wrap pins in the normal manner. FINALLY, the 2 VT103 systems that I have are 22 bit backplanes. The extra 4 address lines have been soldered at each of the 8 required points. Thus, they are able to (and on occasion just to test that it was possible) manage all 4 MBytes of memory for a PDP-11 system. HOWEVER, (EXTREME????) WARNING!! I have been told to never put a M8190 (KDJ11-Bx) board into this backplane. Since the backplane is ABAB, NOT ABCD, the M8190 quad boards do not feel comfortable and may be severely damaged. Can someone please comment on this point?? The use of a dual M8192 11/73 is very acceptable, but some sort of boot rom is then required - usually on a third party disk controller. ALSO EXTREME WARNING!! The standard power supply for a VT103 is able to output ONLY 16 amps on the 5 volts and very little on the 12 volts. That includes the video board and the AVO as well. I don't have the figures handy - ask if you need them. However, with a third party MFM disk controller which needs only 2 amps on the 5 volts plus an 11/23 (M8186), DLV11-J, 256 KBytes of memory, RXV12 (M8049) and even a DRV11 (5 boards all together), there is still enough power left over to run an RD51 (ST412 (it had to be squeezed in very carefully) to spare. The incarnation I saw running even had a switch on the front to transfer the power feed from internal to external for long term running of the disk drive - evidently the person who placed the hard drive under the tube wanted to be able to run the hard drive from an external power supply - probably a PC power supply so as not the overload the VT103 except for short demos (or so I was told). There was also a set of cables out the back to allow a second MFM drive to be attached to the controller to expand the hard drive capacity. Needless to say, that system was much faster than using a TU58 as the system device. While I definitely agree that the VT103 was a very interesting piece of hardware, what I do not understand is why it was not extended - unless DEC was so loath to admit that it could not add a hard drive at that point since an RQDX1 or RQDX2 (both quad boards) required 6 amps on the 5 volts just for the controller plus another board for the boot ROMs and that would have required a much better power supply. The VT103 appeared long before the RQDX3 was available. What was very interesting when the VT103 was used for a demo was that it could not be distinguished, at first glance, from a simple VT100. So when the system was turned on and it started up running an OS and all that by itself, it made quite an impression - especially with the hard drive inside which was totally unexpected. This was especially true if the usually unlabeled VT103 top plastic housing was switched with a VT100. The only clue would be that the VT103 has a fan inside the space where the boards are kept whereas the VT100 does not. Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine