7 Aug
2001
7 Aug
'01
6:51 a.m.
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Gunther Schadow wrote:
Right, Jeff.
And this was a conversation I meant to finish with Tony Duell. I made
a remark about the speed I was seeing in a particular simulator of old
iron as run on a 233MHz Pentium-1 PC. Tony remarked that he didn't have
a machine of the host class (the Pentium-1 PC), so the simulator was
therefore not available to him, but that it didn't matter much to him
because he prefers the *real* original iron anyway.
And that's fine... I too, would love to own a Cyber 172, but even if I
ever find one (doubtfull), I wouldn't be able to afford to turn it on
even one time. So I wouldn't be able to enjoy it as a *computer*, but
rather as an *object* (d'art or whatever).
I suppose for someone who didn't have a history with a particular
machine, that is, an old beast like a CDC 6600 or similar, that being
able to recreate the *software* environment by having a simulator just
doesn't mean much. But for mean, it means everything. The operating
system and the language translators and utilities were my points of
familiarity as a programmer; again, had I been an engineer on one of
these systems, having something I could bootstrap might be less important.
Now, the FPGA route is even better than a simulator, of course, because
it's faster. Also, getting real old peripherals to work with a re-
implemented CPU is also promising- in many cases, the FPGA board could
be set in open space in old iron and the system be made to appear
operational even if not!
Oops, time for more coffee...
-dq
Re-implementations of PDPs, VAXen or other computers are one thing,
also new IO modules for old computers are another
interesting use are
conceivable.
That's right. For each part, there will come a time when there are no
more original, functioning instances. Our ability to continue the
tradition will then lie in our ability to put something else in their
place. 
7 Aug
7 Aug
1:32 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1683 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010807/3994ff0f/at…
2:39 p.m.
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tony Duell wrote:
FWIW, FPGA-based re-implementations of classic computers don't satisfy my
interests either. For 2 main rasons :
1) I don't have any machine (read : lusedoze box) that will run the
development tools, so I can't get in there and 'tinker'
You dont need too much though, free web accessable tools are available
That's right. For each part, there will come a
time when there are no
more original, functioning instances. Our ability to continue the
tradition will then lie in our ability to put something else in their
place.
Right, Jeff.
And this was a conversation I meant to finish with Tony Duell. I made
a remark about the speed I was seeing in a particular simulator of old
iron as run on a 233MHz Pentium-1 PC. Tony remarked that he didn't have
a machine of the host class (the Pentium-1 PC), so the simulator was
therefore not available to him, but that it didn't matter much to him
because he prefers the *real* original iron anyway. from Xilinx (webfitter) and probably others,
2) You can't clip a logic analyser onto the internal signals of an
FPGA... Remember I think of computers in terms of gates and flip-flops...
Sure you can, its easy to build the logic probe into the FPGA and access
it through some free I/O pins...
I am not at all convinced that there will be a time when it will be
impossible to keep something like a PDP11 running, either. All the chips
in something like an 11/10 or 11/45 are documented. You could, if you had
to, re-implement a single chip in an FPGA. Sure it would be a waste of
FPGA, but if the time came when you couldn't get (say) a 74S181, and you
needed one, that would be a way of keeping the machine operational.
[...]
Peter Wallace
Now, the FPGA route is even better than a
simulator, of course, because
As I menitoned above, to me they're much the same in that they don't
provide what I am interested in...
-tony
5:14 p.m.
At 07:32 PM 8/7/01 +0100, Tony wrote:
FWIW, FPGA-based re-implementations of classic
computers don't satisfy my
interests either. For 2 main rasons :
1) I don't have any machine (read : lusedoze box) that will run the
development tools, so I can't get in there and 'tinker'
You assume too much Tony. The tools run on UNIX systems as well as Windows
machines. If you read the page on the PDP-8/X you will note that the author
wrote _his own_ tools and those of course you could run under RSX-11M.
Further it would be possible to port them to Fortran but that might be too
painful.
2) You can't clip a logic analyser onto the
internal signals of an
FPGA... Remember I think of computers in terms of gates and flip-flops...
Actually this isn't quite true either. Especially with respect to the
Xilinx RAM based FPGAs. Those nets on your schematic can be "bound out" to
any spare I/O pin. Generally I/O isn't a killer if you're using a BGA package.
I am not at all convinced that there will be a time
when it will be
impossible to keep something like a PDP11 running, either. All the chips
in something like an 11/10 or 11/45 are documented. You could, if you had
to, re-implement a single chip in an FPGA. Sure it would be a waste of
FPGA, but if the time came when you couldn't get (say) a 74S181, and you
needed one, that would be a way of keeping the machine operational.
There is the concern however that the only FPGAs you could get would run at
3.3V or worse 1.8V. The smallest one would probably be a 36pin SOIC package
that you would have to dig out your old microscope to solder on to an
adapter board of some type. I've suggested for a while that the Xilinx
folks should take their 9500 CPLD series, put it into 14, 16, 18, and 22
pin packages, surround the die with 74S TTL compatible i/os and then have a
machine that allowed you to type in the TTL part you wanted and push the
button. And "poof" you'd get one of those. They don't think there would
be
enough of a market to justify the tooling costs.
--Chuck
5:19 p.m.
At 07:32 PM 8/7/01 +0100, Tony wrote:
>I am not at all convinced that there will be a
time when it will be
>impossible to keep something like a PDP11 running, either. All the chips
>in something like an 11/10 or 11/45 are documented. You could, if you had
>to, re-implement a single chip in an FPGA. Sure it would be a waste of
>FPGA, but if the time came when you couldn't get (say) a 74S181, and you
>needed one, that would be a way of keeping the machine operational.
Scarcity is relative to how hard one looks for something. I think a
guy named Simon wrote a thesis about this once. He was talking about
natural resources, and I think sort of overmade his point, due to his
ideological bias against environmentalism. But with regard to chips,
there are bunches of them all over the place, and a diminishing demand
for the ones people on this board would be looking for. They get
harder to find, yes, but they are always still there, somewhere. Greek
and Roman coins, for example, are relatively common.
-- John Tinker
8 Aug
8 Aug
3:12 a.m.
harder to find, yes, but they are always still there,
somewhere. Greek
and Roman coins, for example, are relatively common.
Coins have value even to idiots, where old chips can reach a point where
typical people will decide there value is less than storage cost and into
the trash it goes.
4:04 a.m.
Mike Ford wrote:
>harder to find, yes, but they are always still
there, somewhere.
>Greek and Roman coins, for example, are relatively common.
Coins have value even to idiots, where old chips can
reach a point
where typical people will decide there value is less than storage
cost and into the trash it goes.
But that does not destroy them, just more difficult to locate.
-- HBP
2:02 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010808/04d4b89e/at…
9 Aug
9 Aug
8:55 a.m.
At 08:02 PM 8/8/01 +0100, Tony Duell wrote:
Do you honestly think that the average garbage dump is
even close to
being an anti-static environment?
I'd say most of them are pretty close to ground. :-)
Apart from a rush of charges that might be generated when
picked up and dumped, isn't the environment rather unchanging?
- John
10:53 a.m.
New subject: The Pros and Cons of Dumps! Re: Now *this* is cool
At 08:02 PM 8/8/01 +0100, you wrote:
Do you honestly think that the average garbage dump is even close to
being an anti-static environment?
Actually yes. All the ones that I've seen are dripping with
moisture. Besides the fact that cases, garbage, newspaper and the like
holds moisture extremely well, they also spray the area with water to keep
down the dust that's stirred up by the heavy trucks and other
machinery. Everything so damp that I don't expect that steel and the
like would last very long there. I expect static would be the least of
the problems with anything gathered from a dump!
Joe
Coins have value even to idiots, where old chips can
reach a point
where typical people will decide there value is less than storage
cost and into the trash it goes.
But that does not destroy them, just more difficult to locate. -tony
8 Aug
8 Aug
8:37 a.m.
Mike Ford wrote:
Yes, if I had a dollar for everytime I heard, "i used to have baseball
cards,
but my mom through them out when I went off to college", I'd be rich
today!!
Eric
harder to find,
yes, but they are always still there, somewhere. Greek
and Roman coins, for example, are relatively common.
Coins have value even to idiots, where old chips can reach a point where
typical people will decide there value is less than storage cost and into
the trash it goes.
8613
days inactive
8615
days old
10 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
chomko＠greenbelt.com -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com -
hansp＠aconit.org -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jtinker＠coin.org -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
pcw＠mesanet.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net