Brother TC-600 Terminal/Typewriter

Thu Dec 8 05:18:45 CST 2016

Hi,

recently I acquired a 1980s Typewriter, a Brother TC-600.
While not exactly a classic computer, this typewriter was often used as a
low cost printing terminal (aka teletype).

It has a serial interface and I was able to connect it to my PC. I can SEND
characters and text files to a terminal program. However I have not found
out how to receive something back. Ideally it should print out what the host
sends. On the internet I found a manual for the Brother EP-44 which is
similar, but not identical.

Does someone have a manual for the TC-600?

Thanks,
Martin

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Im Auftrag von cctalk-
> request at classiccmp.org
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 19:00
> An: cctalk at classiccmp.org
> Betreff: cctalk Digest, Vol 30, Issue 7
> 
> Send cctalk mailing list submissions to
> 	cctalk at classiccmp.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	cctalk-request at classiccmp.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	cctalk-owner at classiccmp.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cctalk digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Double Buffer RK11-C (Fritz Mueller)
>    2. Re: UNIBUS/QBUS interface chips Was: Re: MEM11 update (allison)
>    3. Re: Intel C1101A (allison)
>    4. Re: Double Buffer RK11-C (Paul Koning)
>    5. Could somebody please help me identify this board? (Chris Pye)
>    6. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board? (Jon Elson)
>    7. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board? (Chris Pye)
>    8. Miniscribe 6053 HD PCB needed (Mike Stein)
>    9. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
>       (Mike van Bokhoven)
>   10. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
>       (Eric Smith)
>   11. Have lunch with Lee Felsenstein (Evan Koblentz)
>   12. Wanted: Terminator for an RL02 (Tom Moss)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:56:38 -0800
> From: Fritz Mueller <fritzm at fritzm.org>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Double Buffer RK11-C
> Message-ID: <DF227289-9352-4646-8339-72E2640AF202 at fritzm.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> > On Dec 6, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
> >
> > [data fetch] can't be off-loaded onto a separate interface unit, as it
needs
> access to
> > register contents held in the CPU.
> 
> Yeah, it?s pretty interesting!  My guess would be that it was a separate
> register/command oriented interface, sitting on the Unibus, and didn?t
actually
> interface directly with the 11/20 CPU?  Such an interface could limit the
> instructions ?fed? to the FPU to those accessing its internal registers,
etc.  But
> who knows? :-)
> 
> I?ve gotten quite deep into the design of the FP11-B and associated KB11-A
> interfacing during my debug (which is how I noticed all the 11/20 refs in
the
> docs, circuitry, and microcode), but I?m pretty ignorant of the 11/20
having
> never worked on one.
> 
> > I wouldn't be surprised if there's some microcode in the KB11 to support
those
> memory operations.
> 
> Yes, there certainly is ? quite a bit of it actually.  The are F/CLASS
branches off all
> three of the A, B, and C forks.
> 
> 	?FritzM.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:24:21 -0500
> From: allison <ajp166 at verizon.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: UNIBUS/QBUS interface chips Was: Re: MEM11 update
> Message-ID: <8d451f35-e495-5feb-86b4-e0b0992ed2d7 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 12/6/16 10:05 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
> > On 2016-12-06 1:34 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:53 PM, allison <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A bunch of us old digits (former dec engineers) got together and were
> >>> talking
> >>> about old systems and the thing that stood out is a general dislike
for
> >>> having
> >>> to use the limited set of bus interface chips when there were newer
> >>> parts.  It
> >>> was a internal mandate not something that was better than could be
had.
> >>> The
> >>> logic was the parts were known, the vendors vetted for quality and
> >>> reliability
> >>> and when you use hundreds of thousands to millions of a part like bus
> >>> interface
> >>> and ram quality is a critical thing.  Were they special, a flat no.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't fully agree. The receivers (and transceivers) had a threshold
> >> voltage that is not available with modern parts, and that actually was
> >
> > I'm an electronics noob, but do you mean a threshold of 1.5V, as with
> > DS8641?
> >
> I'm not a noob.  I'm an engineer from the the realm of DEC engineering.
> 
> I also forget the 74LS14 hex inverter with hysteresis which has a
> threshold about 1.5V
> depending on whos datasheet you believe.
> 
> Bottom line is the older parts has a low Vih and a high Vil with a
> resulting narrow noise immunity.
> Increasing the Vih helps this and the driver/bus combo can support it.
> The yabut is if the drivers
> have leakage then attaining Vih on the bus is problematic as the leakage
> was a undesired pull down.
> The 8xxx parts used were screened for low leakage with output is in the
> high state (open as they
> are open collector).  The bus loads assert the Voltage high state and
> that is above 2.3V so the only
> limiting factor then is excessive capacitive loading which smears pulsed
> by RC time constant.  The
> other issue with slow edges is where the edge really is and that adds
> uncertainty to timing.   All
> of those things were allowed for in the design of the bus.
> 
> The voltage your hung up about was  tested to insure it was never lower
> than that or the noise
> immunity was terrible.  Its companion was was that the saturated device
> in the package could
> also achieve the limit or less or a low voltage at the rated current, at
> that time (late 60s early 70s)
> this was a hard parameter to control.
> 
> The bottom lime is the better the logic high voltage and logic low
> voltages achieved the greater
> noise immunity.  Adding hysteresis insure that a hig is high and a low
> is low and not some random
> analog voltage inbetween (or oscillation!).
> 
> As to any slew rate testing the issue was that devices that could sink
> the needed current were also
> slow as sludge and had to be tested to insure they were fast enough not
> that they would have a
> slow propagation time and switching speed as that was also a undesired
> in systems where fast
> is important.  Bottom line is the datasheet and purchase spec was to
> insure the part worked to or
> better than expected rather than implying magical properties.
> 
> 
> Allison
> 
> > I'm referring to this part of October's thread:
> > http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/2016-October/028871.html
> >
> >
> > --Toby
> >
> >
> >> important for large systems with multiple bus segments.  That was
> >> particularly important for large Unibus systems, but even Qbus with
only
> >> two bus segments can get finicky when heavily loaded.
> >>
> >> DEC could easily have made custom interface ICs if they had needed
them.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, *no* current production interface ICs have the right
> >> threshold. It's
> >> hard to meet the spec without using either NOS parts or comparators.
> >>
> >> It would certainly be possible to build a functionally equivalent bus
> >> with
> >> modern interface ICs, and it might have significantly better
> >> performance,
> >> but it wouldn't be compatible with the legacy systems.
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:27:22 -0500
> From: allison <ajp166 at verizon.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Intel C1101A
> Message-ID: <33d486b9-62b2-a536-82d5-c9b61c41c71e at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 12/6/16 11:46 AM, Brad H wrote:
> > I kind of thought that might be a possibility.  I might just let things
lie for a
> while.. I was concerned about stock disappearing, didn't think about price
> tripling.  Not sure I want to spend $1400 for 1K of RAM on a clone. :)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Corey
> Cohen
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:27 AM
> > To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts <cctech at classiccmp.org>
> > Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> > Subject: Re: Intel C1101A
> >
> > I do notice these "schlock" IC sellers actually raise the price the more
"hits"
> they get on an item.  So your shopping around will actually make the price
worse
> and my even cause your earlier vendors to raise their price when you
finally do
> place an order.
> >
> > corey cohen
> > u??o? ???o?
> >
> >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:00 PM, jim stephens <jwsmail at jwsss.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 12/4/2016 3:29 PM, Brad H wrote:
> >>> The supplier (a different one from the one I first used) that quoted
> >>> me on C1101A for the second round sent me a picture.. exact same 'lot'
or
> 'job'
> >>> number as the ones I have.  So perhaps even that may not be
meaningful?
> >>> What are the odds I'd hit the exact same dates from two different
suppliers?
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking it's*fairly*  safe to assume white ceramic is pre-76, at
> >>> least.. but yeah.. might be impossible to ever really know.  I'm just
> >>> wondering why the price jumped to $40+ each all of a sudden!
> >> Brad,
> >> a very large number of schlock IC sellers all communicate with each
other.
> They all have a continuous stream of wants or needs that they exchange.
but
> they make their own prices.  The probability is that you may have hit the
original
> stocking guy with your first query.  Querying any others will result in
them
> looking at the wants that others shared, or buys, and he saw someone else
had
> it and quoted you the same info.
> >>
> >> I know this happens as I know two guys who trade in all manner of stock
all
> the time like this and have for 35 to 40 years.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Jim
> Considering the first 1101s I ever bought in the early 70s were around
> 12-14$ each in small volumes (24-48).
> By the mid 1975s they had dropped to a buck or so as there were faster
> and denser parts.  But then the first 2102s
> cost me about 14$ in early 74 so that was the way it was.
> 
> Allison
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 16:13:43 -0500
> From: Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Double Buffer RK11-C
> Message-ID: <E3C0D8A7-1B50-4877-97E1-7E930FDD07A7 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> > On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Fritz Mueller <fritzm at fritzm.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 6, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
> >>
> >> [data fetch] can't be off-loaded onto a separate interface unit, as it
needs
> access to
> >> register contents held in the CPU.
> >
> > Yeah, it?s pretty interesting!  My guess would be that it was a separate
> register/command oriented interface, sitting on the Unibus, and didn?t
actually
> interface directly with the 11/20 CPU?  Such an interface could limit the
> instructions ?fed? to the FPU to those accessing its internal registers,
etc.  But
> who knows? :-)
> 
> I don't know anything of a DEC product along those lines, but a college
> classmate of mine (Bill Black, Lawrence Univ. class of 1975) built a
floating point
> coprocessor for our PDP11/20 that was a Unibus peripheral.  I helped with
the
> software interface.  The device had 4 registers, two for source and two
for
> second source and result.  They appeared at several different bus
addresses;
> you'd select the operation to perform based on which address you used.
The
> device would start when the 4 source words had been loaded, then a read
cycle
> of the result register would simply be held off until the operation was
done
> (since it would complete well within the SSYNC timeout).
> 
> The implementation took, if I remember right, one hex-sized wire wrap
board.
> 
> 	paul
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:57:03 +1000
> From: Chris Pye <pye at mactec.com.au>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <BE8ACBED-16AE-4C35-B519-33E5DF0FFEF7 at mactec.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
> 
> I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 20:32:10 -0600
> From: Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com>
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <584774AA.2050400 at pico-systems.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> 
> On 12/06/2016 06:57 PM, Chris Pye wrote:
> > I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
> on it.  Output for an XY scope?
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:40:49 +1000
> From: Chris Pye <pye at mactec.com.au>
> To: elson at pico-systems.com, "General Discussion: On-Topic and
> 	Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <00BE5D7E-6202-4D62-851D-FAA884636B7A at mactec.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> > On 7 Dec 2016, at 12:32 pm, Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/06/2016 06:57 PM, Chris Pye wrote:
> >> I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> > It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
on it.
> Output for an XY scope?
> >
> > Jon
> 
> Thanks Jon
> 
> If anybody wants it, they can have it for cost of postage. I am in
Brisbane
> Australia, so it?s probably going to be costly outside AU..
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 21:58:24 -0500
> From: "Mike Stein" <mhs.stein at gmail.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Miniscribe 6053 HD PCB needed
> Message-ID: <074CFFA13AFF454581BCC3E1EEEC5306 at 310e2>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I accidentally dropped something on a Miniscribe 6053 44MB HD and cracked
> the board; looks pretty dense and tricky to repair so I'm hoping that
there's a
> kind soul out there somewhere who happens to have a 6053 doorstop and can
> spare the circuit board for a good cause?
> 
> Removing the board shouldn't impair the door-stopping capability in any
way...
> 
> Mike (in Toronto)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:18:36 +1300
> From: Mike van Bokhoven <mike at fenz.net>
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <ed5f1e6c-2028-d7dc-88ea-5090430b2e8b at fenz.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 7/12/2016 1:57 p.m., Chris Pye wrote:
> > I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> 
> It's a Compugraphics board of some sort, I think. Couple of AD or DAs,
> etc. I know nothing about these, just recognised the logo.
> 
> 
> Cheers - Mike
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:57:08 -0700
> From: Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com>
> To: elson at pico-systems.com,  "General Discussion: On-Topic and
> 	Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAFrGgTTLic5hnQRwpDjAc-
> syKRd13cpTtbU0ZC3d41dAFaw=hQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
on
> > it.  Output for an XY scope?
> >
> 
> Extended-length Multibus.  Definitely not Multibus II, which uses Eurocard
> 6Ux220 form factor with two 96-pin DIN 41612 connectors.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 02:34:26 -0500
> From: Evan Koblentz <cctalk at snarc.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Have lunch with Lee Felsenstein
> Message-ID: <42f12b6a-d3ab-8739-2d83-0f7f420145eb at snarc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> Only 12 hours left to bid on lunch with legendary computer engineer Lee
> Felsenstein! This benefits Vintage Computer Federation, a 501(c)3
> non-profit devoted to enabling collectors, growing the hobby, and
> spreading awareness of computer history. Please see
> https://www.charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/lunch-for-3-with-personal-
> computing-social-media-icon-1198500.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:10:16 +0000
> From: Tom Moss <tomjmoss at googlemail.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> 	<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Wanted: Terminator for an RL02
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAN69K+bG2C4xg5i7N_Vyc7gvGVYd7otHJwwqg2Rp4CytokhqfA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Does anyone have a spare RL02 terminator for sale?
> 
> Regards,
> -Tom
> 
> 
> End of cctalk Digest, Vol 30, Issue 7
> *************************************