Can you use one of those with the old IBM PC IEEE interface card?. Has this been covered here? I did not check but I guess the answer would be maybe. Those drives are 720 each 3.5". Bill On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: > I just got my HP-85 working for the first time over the weekend (except > for its tape drive, which is still a work in progress). I'd like to acquire > some accessories for it: > > 1) HP 82903A 16k RAM module > > 2) HP 9122C dual 1.44M 3.2" floppy diskette drive > > Do any of y'all have either of those items available for swap or sale? I'm > located in southern California. > > Those two items are at the top of my HP-85 want list, but I might also be > interested in other related bits such as the 82940A GPIO Interface, other > compatible HPIB mass storage, etc. > > -- > Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net> > http://www.nf6x.net/ > >

No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5" drive units with either 360k or 720k drive capacities. I don't have a compatible IEEE-488 card for use with the HPDrive software. I'm curious about the open source hp85disk project, and might build hardware to work with it sometime. In any case, I'm interested in getting a 9122C drive.

On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Ed Sharpe via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: you have me real curious,as to what is in that padded hp case......

I am still new to this HP-85 stuff, but I think you are correct about the A model system not originally handling the 1.44M drive. I think that the upgraded B model ROMs in the PRM-85 are supposed to let it use the newer drives.

On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Curious Marc <curiousmarc3 at gmail.com> wrote: Yes it does. I have an HP 85A, the PRM 85 and a 9122, and that combo works beautifully. I am not sure I ever tried it with high density diskettes though. I could check that if you want.

I think I can guess what you meant to say there... :) I?ve ordered a PRM-85 (a modern reprogrammable ROM drawer replacement) which includes the HP-85B version of the Mass Storage ROM, and the Extended Mass Storage ROM. Based on what I have read, I think that should let my A model use the newer 9122C drive, and other drives using either the Amigo or SS-80 protocols. I?d like to get the 9122C mostly because I have a much easier time finding 1.44M media than the older double density media. eBay and I don?t talk, so that limits my options a bit. If I had easy access to lots of 3.5? DD media, then I would consider getting one of the more plentiful (?) other 3.5? HPIB floppy drives.

wrote: I think I can guess what you meant to say there... :) I?ve ordered a PRM-85 (a modern reprogrammable ROM drawer replacement) which includes the HP-85B version of the Mass Storage ROM, and the Extended Mass Storage ROM. Based on what I have read, I think that should let my A model use the newer 9122C drive, and other drives using either the Amigo or SS-80 protocols. I?d like to get the 9122C mostly because I have a much easier time finding 1.44M media than the older double density media. eBay and I don?t talk, so that limits my options a bit. If I had easy access to lots of 3.5? DD media, then I would consider getting one of the more plentiful (?) other 3.5? HPIB floppy drives.

It'd be interesting to find out how well that PRM-85 works. I've laid out a board for a rough equivalent but I haven't fabbed it out. It may be cheaper for me to buy that instead. I've also got a 9122C but I don't have the mass storage ROM so I can't use it with my 85. Right now I'm using it with my 9000 series 300. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: Extended or finding so

Hi Eric, It's not urgent, but when you have a chance, could you dump the 9122C ROM(s) and take high resolution photos of the controller board? Since it does HD, I suspect it probably does not use a 600 RPM mechanism. Thanks! Best regards, Eric On Nov 15, 2017 17:45, "Eric Schlaepfer via cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:

I just checked my 9122C I happen to have open and the interval between index pulses is 199.66mS? which would be 300 RPM, which is good news for me I can now proceed with adapting a more common 1.44 drive to replace my broken one. Paul. On 2017-11-17 1:04 PM, Eric Schlaepfer via cctalk wrote: > Check your email. How can you tell if it uses a 600 RPM mechanism or > not? > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 3:17 AM, Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> It's not urgent, but when you have a chance, could you dump the 9122C >> ROM(s) and take high resolution photos of the controller board? >> >> Since it does HD, I suspect it probably does not use a 600 RPM >> mechanism. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best regards, >> Eric >>

On 11/23/2017 07:02 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: In cases like this, I fall back to my favorite--the Samsung SFD-321B: http://www.techtravels.org/wp-content/uploads/pefiles/SAMSUNG-SFD321B-07010… Plenty of them in the wild and very configurable. In most of my cases, pin 34 is ready, pin 2 is Disk changed, DS0 is assumed and the spindle speed is 360 RPM. You can get them readily in black or white faceplates or even faceplate-less. FWIW, Chuck

No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5"

cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: drive has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. Ah! That's technically correct, which is, of course, the best kind of correct. Well, if we're being pedantic, then we might also refer to the drives by their unformatted capacity, as HP themselves sometimes did: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOr81HpVQAAn-X5.jpg That makes them 2-Mbyte drives. ;-) -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net> http://www.nf6x.net/

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their capacity in a given format.? It is a BOGUS marketing term! Referring to a drive by the capacity of most commonly used format for that configuration is indeed inaccurate, but less ambiguous than adopting the marketing terminology.? MOST people will successfully understand what is meant by "360K", "720K", "400K", "800K', "1.2M", "1.44M" (which is just plain wrong, and SHOULD be "1.4M"), "2.88M", even though such names are not technically accurate.? Although there can be, AND ARE, some different configurations that result in the same final capacities, it is generally accepted as to WHICH kind of drive/controller configuration is meant by each of those names.??? "400K" generally means Macintosh single sided, not DEC Rainbow, etc. Unformatted capacity would be a more correct nomenclature, although not always precise, and relatively meaningless to the majority of users, who didn't CARE except for how much space was available to them.?? Formatted capacity is generally between 40 and 60 percent of unformatted capacity. The early drives in the current branch of evolution (ignoring NRZI, phase-modulated, etc.) were "FM" (Frequency-Modulated). The next innovation was to leave out clock pulses that could be interpolated instead of explicitly included, resulting in a "less crowded" signal, which could handle being done at twice the data transfer rate. The engineers called that "MFM" (Modified Frequency Modulation), which was not an optimum choice, since other modulations were possible, including the later MMFM (Modified Modified Frequency Modulation).? The MARKETING people called the current recording system "DOUBLE DENSITY". Intertec/Superbrain called their "DOUBLE DENSITY"/double-sided, "QUAD DENSITY"; although twice the CAPACITY, the density was unchanged.?? When drives became available that had twice the number of tracks (96tpi 5.25"), marketing called that "QUAD DENSITY".? Although twice the CAPACITY, the density was unchanged.?? Intertec/Superbarin had already used the name "QUAD DENSITY" for their DSDD disks, so THEY, and ONLY Intertec/Superbrain called the 96tpi DSDD, "SUPER DENSITY", which they abbreviated "SD", in order to be confused with "SINGLE DENSITY". AFTER "DOUBLE DENSITY" came into being, the previous system becaame known as "SINGLE DENSITY".? I say that it is analogous to the way the "Great War" became known as "World War One" AFTER discussion of "World War Two" began.? Note that archival searches show that "World War Two" as a search term has earlier hits in archives than does "World War One". Fortunately, Kennedy's obsession over Cuba, and Nikita's disappointment over being denied admission to Disneyland did not result in World War Three.? Yet. When improvement in media and drives permitted doubling the data transfer rate, with the same recording method, MARKETING called that "HIGH DENSITY".? Note that "HIGH DENSITY" IS "DOUBLE DENSITY", merely with twice the data transfer rate. When Barrium-Ferrite disks, and perpendicular recording were developed, they were capable of twice the bit density on the disk, so the data transfer rate was doubled again.? MARKETING called that "EXTENDED DENSITY". (cf. sizes of olives: "giant", "enormous", "huge", etc.? There was a comedic few minute documtary about that 45? years ago) Some specifications: 8" FM "Single Density" was 360 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (about 500K unformatted per side) 8" MFM "Double Density" was 360 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (about 1M unformatted per side) 5.25" FM "Single Density" was 300 RPM at 125,000 bits per second. (about 125K unformatted per side) 5.25" MFM "Double Density" was 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (about 250K unformatted per side with 48 tpi, about 500K unformatted with 96tpi) 5.25" MFM "High Density" was 360 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (about 1M unformatted per side) In 5.25" 360 RPM drives that were not capable of switching to 300 RPM, 5.25" MFM "Double Density" in a 360 RPM drive was 300,000 bits per second. The 3" MFM disks that I have seen were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.25" MFM disks were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "Double Density" (sometimes called "720K" due to the most common format, or "400K"/"800K" at Apple) were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second.? (500K unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "High Density" (sometimes called "1.44M", due to the most common formsat being 1.41 Mebibytes, or 1.44 of a unit of 1000*1024 bytes), were 300 RPM at 500,000 bits per second.? (1M unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "ED" (vertical recording?/barrium ferrite) were 300 RPM at 1,000,000 bits per second.? (2M unformatted per side)? NeXT referred to theirs by the unformatted capacity: 4M, further confusing their users. Note that there were always some exceptions. Weltec made a 5.25" drive at 180 RPM, to do "HIGH DENSITY"/"1.2M" at 250,000 bits per second on PC/XT. Sony made some 3.5" drives that were 600 RPM, to use 500,000 bits per second. NEC used 360 RPM 3.5" drives, to have the same format structure on their 8" "DOUBLE DENSITY", 5.25" "HIGH DENSITY", and 3.5" "HIGH DENSITY". Sometimes called "Type 3" Epson (Geneva PX-8) used a 3.5" with 67.5 tpi, instead of the common 135tpi Can you name another 20 exceptions??? (Chuck and Tony probably can) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred???????????? cisin at xenosoft.com

On Nov 15, 2017, at 09:44, Fred Cisin via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their capacity in a given format. It is a BOGUS marketing term!

"400K" generally means Macintosh single sided, not DEC Rainbow, etc

>> No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive >> has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. >> ;-) > > "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their > capacity in a given format. It is a BOGUS marketing term!

Fred, you should know by now that you don't need to tell *me* the correct definitions and terms.

And with "high-density", I didn't mean the media capacity but the analog recording aspects like coercivity, write current, frequency and so on.

Unformatted capacity doesn't tell you much without reference to the recording layout, i.e. no. of tracks, modulation, frequency and so on.

What about 5?" FM "High Density" at 360 RPM?

The Amiga (more exactly, the "HD" Chinon FZ-357A drives used in Amigas) switched to 150 RPM to keep the raw bit rate at 250kbits/s.

What about FM?

Do you want me to start with things like 100tpi drives, GCR, M?FM, hard-sectored and other crazy formats?

Just accept that I am not as dumb as you may think.

Can you name another 20 exceptions? (Chuck and Tony probably can) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

?Floptical? disks 720 rpm 1.6 Mb/s transfer 1250 TPI and 25MB unformatted capacity

Also the Syquest 270mb IDE/parallel port cartridge disk.? I have one that works and over a dozen carts.? Its still in use in a ITX box using the IDE interface.? After two decades of use it seems solid.