12 Dec
2005
12 Dec
'05
1:04 a.m.
When I worked for Zebra Systems in the 1980's, we were
selling a Floppy Disk System for the Timex/Sinclair
2068 (which also worked for the Sinclair ZX-Spectrum
with a different Adaptor), that was basically a
seperate Z-80 Computer with 64k of RAM and could run
CP/M in 80 Column Mode on an RGB Monitor plugged into
the Controller Unit.
At the time, Timex Portugal who made these units...
Gave us a choice of 5.25" Disk Drives, 3.5" Disk
Drives or 3" Disk Drives made by Amdek.
They pushed the Amdek drives the hardest on us.
And I BEGGED Stewart to go with either NO Disk drives
as we could buy them cheaper in the U.S. and add them
to the Controller ourselves... Or, go for 5.25"
Drives.
For reasons I don't fully understand... Stewart opted
for the Amdek 3" Drives.
They were plenty reliable, but... We couldn't get
media for them from anywhere but Timex Portugal, which
meant importing large orders of blank media from
overseas. Rather than getting them from a domestic
source as we did our 3.5" and 5.25" media for our
Coco, Atari-ST, Amiga and other products.
To this day, I think we would have sold MANY more
units had we gone to another media format than 3"
Amdek disks.
I still have a couple here with the OS for that system
on them.
I have a ZX-Spectrum Bus Adapter here, but no drive
controller or drives.
Al Hartman
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
12 Dec
12 Dec
5:21 a.m.
Hi Al,
I have a couple of Amdisk drives, love the little buggers, yeah the
whole 3" drives vs the 3.5"s was weird, its what sank the drives in the
long run as Sony really pushed those drive hard and of course Apple's
adoption of them into its Mac's in 84' then Atari and Amiga following in
85/86 with their systems using 3.5's and eventually IBM catching up in
87' with its PS/2 line.
Curt
Al Hartman wrote:
When I worked for Zebra Systems in the 1980's, we
were
selling a Floppy Disk System for the Timex/Sinclair
2068 (which also worked for the Sinclair ZX-Spectrum
with a different Adaptor), that was basically a
seperate Z-80 Computer with 64k of RAM and could run
CP/M in 80 Column Mode on an RGB Monitor plugged into
the Controller Unit.
At the time, Timex Portugal who made these units...
Gave us a choice of 5.25" Disk Drives, 3.5" Disk
Drives or 3" Disk Drives made by Amdek.
They pushed the Amdek drives the hardest on us.
And I BEGGED Stewart to go with either NO Disk drives
as we could buy them cheaper in the U.S. and add them
to the Controller ourselves... Or, go for 5.25"
Drives.
For reasons I don't fully understand... Stewart opted
for the Amdek 3" Drives.
They were plenty reliable, but... We couldn't get
media for them from anywhere but Timex Portugal, which
meant importing large orders of blank media from
overseas. Rather than getting them from a domestic
source as we did our 3.5" and 5.25" media for our
Coco, Atari-ST, Amiga and other products.
To this day, I think we would have sold MANY more
units had we gone to another media format than 3"
Amdek disks.
I still have a couple here with the OS for that system
on them.
I have a ZX-Spectrum Bus Adapter here, but no drive
controller or drives.
Al Hartman
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005
5:53 a.m.
On 12/12/2005 at 12:21 AM Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
I have a couple of Amdisk drives, love the little
buggers, yeah the
whole 3" drives vs the 3.5"s was weird, its what sank the drives in the
long run as Sony really pushed those drive hard and of course Apple's
adoption of them into its Mac's in 84' then Atari and Amiga following in
85/86 with their systems using 3.5's and eventually IBM catching up in
87' with its PS/2 line.
The discussion of 3.5" floppies probably wouldn't be complete wtihout
mentioning HP. What follows is a case of IIRC.
Sony had originally brought the 3.5" drives out as 40 track 600 RPM
drives.(OAD-1). While impressive with their shorter latency, the 600 RPM
drive was not compatible with existing controllers. HP adopted the Sony
3.5" format but standardized on a 300 RPM 80 track drive.
Cheers,
Chuck
6:37 a.m.
Interesting... 600rpm? Wow!
Didn't Seagate/Shugart dabble in 3.5 disk drives early on around 83 or
84'ish???
Curt
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 12/12/2005 at 12:21 AM Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005
I have a couple of Amdisk drives, love the
little buggers, yeah the
whole 3" drives vs the 3.5"s was weird, its what sank the drives in the
long run as Sony really pushed those drive hard and of course Apple's
adoption of them into its Mac's in 84' then Atari and Amiga following in
85/86 with their systems using 3.5's and eventually IBM catching up in
87' with its PS/2 line.
The discussion of 3.5" floppies probably wouldn't be complete wtihout
mentioning HP. What follows is a case of IIRC.
Sony had originally brought the 3.5" drives out as 40 track 600 RPM
drives.(OAD-1). While impressive with their shorter latency, the 600 RPM
drive was not compatible with existing controllers. HP adopted the Sony
3.5" format but standardized on a 300 RPM 80 track drive.
Cheers,
Chuck
8:50 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Interesting... 600rpm? Wow!
Yes, but with a 500K data transfer rate, giving the same "720K" for DS.
Didn't Seagate/Shugart dabble in 3.5 disk drives
early on around 83 or
84'ish???
Shugart Associates.
Alan Shugart started Shugart Associates, and produced floppy drives.
Then he sold the company to Xerox?
Then he started a new company, "Shugart Technology" and produced hard
drives. Xerox's lawyers pointed out that they had bought the name
"Shugart", so he renamed Shugart Technologies to "Seagate".
Moral: don't name your company after yourself, or you could lose ownership
of your name when you sell.
The earliest Shugart 3.5" diskettes did not have a shutter.
Later diskettes had a shutter that required manual opening, but had a
spring to slam it shut when you "pinched" the corner. They had an arrow
pointing to the correct "pinch" location.
Some relatively modern "fully automatic shutter" disks still have that
arrow! 'course most folk prob'ly think that it's to tell them which end
of the disk to put into the drive.
>>adoption of them into its Mac's in 84'
then Atari and Amiga following in
>>85/86 with their systems using 3.5's and eventually IBM catching up in
>>87' with its PS/2 line.
January 1986, PC-DOS 3.20 supported 720K
3.5".
Later in 1986, PC-DOS 3.30 supported 1.4M.
Q: Did IBM ever "catch up"?
Q: when did Gavilan switch from 3" to 3.5"?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
9:17 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/12/2005 at 12:50 PM Fred Cisin wrote:
January 1986, PC-DOS 3.20 supported 720K 3.5".
Later in 1986, PC-DOS 3.30 supported 1.4M.
The 720K 3.5" drive was introduced by IBM in 1986 as an option for the
standard PC-PC/AT product line. What I recall about the PS/2 was the
support for DSHD and DSED 3.5 diskettes. In fact, drivers had been
available earlier than PC-DOS 3.2 from third parties for 720K 3.5" drives.
Cheers,
Chuck
9:42 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
>January 1986, PC-DOS 3.20 supported 720K
3.5".
>Later in 1986, PC-DOS 3.30 supported 1.4M.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Chuck Guzis
wrote:
The 720K 3.5" drive was introduced by IBM in 1986
as an option for the
standard PC-PC/AT product line. What I recall about the PS/2 was the
support for DSHD and DSED 3.5 diskettes. In fact, drivers had been
available earlier than PC-DOS 3.2 from third parties for 720K 3.5" drives.
Numerous machines came out with 3.5" drives using "customized" versions of
MS-DOS 2.11.
2.11 and 3.31 seem to be the primary versions of MS-DOS that were
customizable by OEMs.
The "official", "standardized" support of 3.5" 720K in 3.20 was
with use
of DRIVER.SYS and/or DRIVPARM. DRIVPARM was incompatible with IBM's BIOS,
and therefore was undocumented in PC-DOS.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:22 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/12/2005 at 1:42 PM Fred Cisin wrote:
Numerous machines came out with 3.5" drives using
"customized" versions of
MS-DOS 2.11.
...and let's not forget a few systems came out with 5.25" 96 tpi drives
running MS-DOS 1.25 or earlier. These certainly would support 3.5" 720K
drives.
Cheers,
Chuck
13 Dec
13 Dec
2:08 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:22:19 -0800
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2005 at 1:42 PM Fred Cisin wrote:
I have heard of (but not seen) machines with 8" floppies that run
MS-DOS 1.x (not real sure what version). I could probably
contrive my MicroMint MPX-16 to behave in that fashion if I
installed an 8" drive on it to do the conversion. (would be
tricky getting it to support 5-1/4" and 8" simulatneously, and
maybe even impossible).
Numerous machines came out with 3.5" drives
using "customized"
versions of MS-DOS 2.11.
...and let's not forget a few systems came out with 5.25" 96 tpi
drives running MS-DOS 1.25 or earlier. These certainly would
support 3.5" 720K drives.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:58 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/12/2005 at 9:08 PM Scott Stevens wrote:
I have heard of (but not seen) machines with 8"
floppies that run
MS-DOS 1.x (not real sure what version). I could probably
contrive my MicroMint MPX-16 to behave in that fashion if I
installed an 8" drive on it to do the conversion. (would be
tricky getting it to support 5-1/4" and 8" simulatneously, and
maybe even impossible).
You may want to look at what the NEC APC did for MS-DOS and 8" drives. I
think I've got a couple of original 8" MS-DOS diskettes for the APC, but I
don't recall what version.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:05 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:42:04 -0800 (PST)
Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
I installed a drivparm line in the config.sys file of a true-blue
IBM PC-XT just this morning with good results. However, it is a
machine with a BIOS extension on the controller card. And it's
running MS-DOS.
>January
1986, PC-DOS 3.20 supported 720K 3.5".
>Later in 1986, PC-DOS 3.30 supported 1.4M.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Chuck Guzis
wrote:
The 720K 3.5" drive was introduced by IBM in
1986 as an option
for the standard PC-PC/AT product line. What I recall about
the PS/2 was the support for DSHD and DSED 3.5 diskettes. In
fact, drivers had been available earlier than PC-DOS 3.2 from
third parties for 720K 3.5" drives.
Numerous machines came out with 3.5" drives using "customized"
versions of MS-DOS 2.11.
2.11 and 3.31 seem to be the primary versions of MS-DOS that
were customizable by OEMs.
The "official", "standardized" support of 3.5" 720K in 3.20 was
with use of DRIVER.SYS and/or DRIVPARM. DRIVPARM was
incompatible with IBM's BIOS, and therefore was undocumented in
PC-DOS.
2:09 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
Scott Stevens wrote:
I installed a drivparm line in the config.sys file of
a true-blue
IBM PC-XT just this morning with good results. However, it is a
machine with a BIOS extension on the controller card. And it's
running MS-DOS.
What does your CONFIG.SYS line look like?
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
3:49 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:09:03 -0600
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
Scott Stevens wrote:
DrivParm=/D:0 /F:7 /H:2 /S:18 /T:80
I used a /D:1 for the B: drive.
It all makes sense when you look at the DOS 3.2 manual. For
'ordinary' supported media, you use the /F: to directly cite the
drive types. /F:7 is 'other' and then you spell out
heads/sectors/tracks. If your DOS is 3.3. or newer your task is
simpler.
I used google to find it at work today. The URL where I ended up
finding what I needed was:
http://www.computing.net/dos/wwwboard/forum/14041.html
(I had to repeat my error from this morning to find relocate the
actual citation in google- I searched on 'drvparm' when at work.
If you search on the actual keyword, you're lost in a sea of
results. There are only 47 results found for the misspelled
'drvparm' but the discussion that cites the exact arguments to use
for a 1.44 drive in an environment that doesn't directly support
1.44M was one of the 47. So voila!)
I installed a drivparm line in the config.sys
file of a
true-blue IBM PC-XT just this morning with good results.
However, it is a machine with a BIOS extension on the
controller card. And it's running MS-DOS.
What does your CONFIG.SYS line look like?
-- 
4:39 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
Quoting Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>:
The "official", "standardized"
support of 3.5" 720K in 3.20 was with use
of DRIVER.SYS and/or DRIVPARM. DRIVPARM was incompatible with IBM's BIOS,
and therefore was undocumented in PC-DOS.
Do you remember the details of the problem with DRIVPARM?
Mike
5:55 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/13/2005 at 8:39 AM mbbrutman-cctalk at brutman.com wrote:
Quoting Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com>:
IIRC, the definition of cluster size and therefore FAT length differed
between PC-DOS and MS-DOS at one point; i.e., there was the iBM 720K and
then there was the Microsoft 720K format.
Cheers,
Chuck
The "official",
"standardized" support of 3.5" 720K in 3.20 was with use
of DRIVER.SYS and/or DRIVPARM. DRIVPARM was incompatible with IBM's
BIOS,
and therefore was undocumented in PC-DOS.
Do you remember the details of the problem with DRIVPARM?
9:14 p.m.
New subject: DRIVPARM (Was: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
The
"official", "standardized" support of 3.5" 720K in 3.20 was with
use
of DRIVER.SYS and/or DRIVPARM. DRIVPARM was incompatible with IBM's BIOS,
and therefore was undocumented in PC-DOS.
Do you remember the details of the problem with
DRIVPARM?
I never researched the actual causes.
Data (from about 1986 on) :
MS-DOS with DRIVPARM worked properly, as documented, with half a dozen
generic 286 ATs
Although undocumented in the PC-DOS manual, PC-DOS with DRIVPARM worked
properly in the same machines.
Both MS-DOS with DRIVPARM and PC-DOS with DRIVPARM, used with some real
IBM PC/ATs and PS/2 (model 50?) gave "unrecognized command in CONFIG.SYS"
(an error message that probably resulted from incorrect handling of the
problem)
A couple of generic 286 ATs that worked with DRIVPARM ceased working with
DRIVPARM when the BIOS ROMs were successfully replaced with EPROM copies
of IBM's AT BIOS.
Conclusions, subject to further analysis and experimentation:
DRIVPARM exists in both PC-DOS and MS-DOS, although undocumented in
PC-DOS.
Behavior of PC-DOS and MS-DOS appears to be the same.
Neither will work with some real IBM computers.
Change of BIOS altered whether DRIVPARM would work.
Therefore, it appears to be a BIOS related issue, rather than motherboard,
or brand of OS.
I have found the discussions of DRIVPARM on the web quite amusing.
Particularly the one that Scott Stevens referenced, where nobody
questioned the FDC, and one fellow insisted that there needed to be a path
for DRIVPARM!, and that said path (to an internal config.sys option) could
be set by AUTOEXEC.BAT (which is processed AFTER CONFIG.SYS).
10:03 p.m.
New subject: DRIVPARM (Was: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/13/2005 at 1:14 PM Fred Cisin wrote:
Although undocumented in the PC-DOS manual, PC-DOS with
DRIVPARM worked
properly in the same machines.
There's a tickle at the back of my brain that says that one of the versions
of DOS allowed the use of DRIVPARM, but only through a very shifty
"workaround". IIRC (and I'm not sure that I do), you had to prefix the
word "DRIVPARM" with a hex FF byte.
Can someone with a better memory confirm this one?
Cheers,
Chuck
2:02 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:17:53 -0800
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2005 at 12:50 PM Fred Cisin wrote:
The IBM PC-Convertible exclusively uses 720K 3-1/2" diskettes.
And the face of the Convertible floppy drives have the appearance
(for an Apple machine, they call it 'trade dress') of the PS/2
line. It's a real shame the Convertible doesn't support 1.44M
floppies, like the Toshiba 1000sx. That would make it a much more
current and usable machine.
January 1986, PC-DOS 3.20 supported 720K
3.5".
Later in 1986, PC-DOS 3.30 supported 1.4M.
The 720K 3.5" drive was introduced by IBM in 1986 as an option
for the standard PC-PC/AT product line. What I recall about the
PS/2 was the support for DSHD and DSED 3.5 diskettes. In fact,
drivers had been available earlier than PC-DOS 3.2 from third
parties for 720K 3.5" drives.
Cheers,
Chuck
12 Dec
12 Dec
9:21 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/12/05 20:50, "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Later diskettes had a shutter that required manual
opening, but had a
spring to slam it shut when you "pinched" the corner. They had an arrow
pointing to the correct "pinch" location.
I was sent a picture of one of those not so long back. I can dig it out if
anyone's interested.....
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
11:56 p.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
I've been observing this discussion with some interest. Was not the first
computer with a 3.5" floppy drive the Sony SMC-70? It is if you believe
this: http://old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=362/ . I've just
obtained 2 of these (actually one is a 70g) and something else called the
Mindset. My understanding is the person who originally owned this equipment
used them for video editing and such. All three systems along with some
other items were won at a local auction, all thrown in a box, without any
manuals or software. Is there anyway of getting official documentation or
software for any of these machines?
Tom Hudson
Rossiter, PA
13 Dec
13 Dec
12:31 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On 12/12/2005 at 6:56 PM Tom Hudson wrote:
I've been observing this discussion with some
interest. Was not the first
computer with a 3.5" floppy drive the Sony SMC-70? It is if you believe
this: http://old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=362/ .
Well, I've got a BIOS listing for a luggable Z80 CP/M system by a firm
called Preis that used 3.5" SS Sony drives that has a date of 1981. I was
asked to add support for an Evotek hard drive to it.
Wish I still had the machine.
Cheers,
Chuck
1:59 a.m.
New subject: Early 3.5" Floppy Drives
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Curt @ Atari Museum wrote:
Just today, after installing a BIOS-extending floppy controller in
a PC-XT at work, I had to put a 'drivparm=' line in the config.sys
file of the 360K boot floppy (the machine in question has a 360K
A: and a 1.44M B:, and no hard drive) to get the system to
properly recognize the 1.44 drive. The system in question runs
MS-DOS 3.21. The DOS (3.21) Reference manual I looked in had a
switch for drivparm to directly support 720K and 1.2M floppies but
none for 1.44M floppies, so I had to define head/cylinder/sector
counts instead. I also had to pull up a web page to remember how
to set switches 7 and 8 on the motherboard DIP switch for two
floppies (the machine previously has had just the one 360K floppy.
Boot, load the program, replace program disk with data disk, and
go)
Probably by upgrading to DOS 3.3 I could use a simplified drivparm
line in config.sys, but I haven't seen a legal licensed copy of
MS-DOS 3.3 anywhere in the lab. And 3.2 works fine.
Interesting... 600rpm? Wow!
Yes, but with a 500K data transfer rate, giving the same "720K"
for DS.
Didn't Seagate/Shugart dabble in 3.5 disk
drives early on
around 83 or 84'ish???
Shugart Associates.
Alan Shugart started Shugart Associates, and produced floppy
drives. Then he sold the company to Xerox?
Then he started a new company, "Shugart Technology" and produced
hard drives. Xerox's lawyers pointed out that they had bought
the name "Shugart", so he renamed Shugart Technologies to
"Seagate". Moral: don't name your company after yourself, or you
could lose ownership of your name when you sell.
The earliest Shugart 3.5" diskettes did not have a shutter.
Later diskettes had a shutter that required manual opening, but
had a spring to slam it shut when you "pinched" the corner.
They had an arrow pointing to the correct "pinch" location.
Some relatively modern "fully automatic shutter" disks still
have that arrow! 'course most folk prob'ly think that it's to
tell them which end of the disk to put into the drive.
>>adoption of them into its Mac's in
84' then Atari and Amiga
>following in >85/86 with their systems using 3.5's and
>eventually IBM catching up in >87' with its PS/2 line.
January 1986,
PC-DOS 3.20 supported 720K 3.5".
Later in 1986, PC-DOS 3.30 supported 1.4M.
12 Dec
12 Dec
11:21 p.m.
The discussion of 3.5" floppies probably
wouldn't be complete wtihout
mentioning HP. What follows is a case of IIRC.
Sony had originally brought the 3.5" drives out as 40 track 600 RPM
drives.(OAD-1). While impressive with their shorter latency, the 600 RPM
Hmmm.. The original Sony drives were certainly 600 rpm units, but I
thought 80 cylinder ones were there from the start. There are 40 cylinder
3.5" drives (67.5 tpi), in fact I've just been working on one (the Epson
PF10 floppy drive unit for the PX8). I haev never seen a 600 rpm 40
cylinder unit, though
drive was not compatible with existing controllers.
HP adopted the Sony
3.5" format but standardized on a 300 RPM 80 track drive.
No. NP used 600 rpm drives. Both the 'original' full height ones with a
26 pin connector, as used in the 9121, 9122, 9123, 9133, 9114A, etc and
the half-helght ones used in the 9153 and 9114B. I am absolutely sure of
this (darn it, enough of them have passed my bench :-)).
Remember that HP drive untis were intellegent, they included the
controller, and communicated to the host via an HPIB or HPIL link. It
didn't actually matter what speed the disk turned at (the bit density is
the same on an HP 600 rpm disk as on a normal PC disk).
IIRC, HP only used 70 cylinders on single-sided units and 77 cylinders on
double sided units for user data. The remainder were used to replace bad
tracks (!). This was handled by the drive unit (HP's controller board)
rather than the host.
I suspect that all HP PC clones had 300 rpm drives, though.
-tony
9:08 p.m.
Hi Al,
On 12/12/05 01:04, "Al Hartman" <alhartman at yahoo.com> wrote:
I still have a couple here with the OS for that
system
on them.
Have you got any pictures of the units? I don't think I've heard of that
subsystem at all!
Cheers
--
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?
6967
days inactive
6968
days old
23 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
alhartman＠yahoo.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
curt＠atarimuseum.com -
generalordertwentyfour＠gmail.com -
mbbrutman-cctalk＠brutman.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
witchy＠binarydinosaurs.co.uk