Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Al Kossow]

On 11/14/15 5:46 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:


Another thing that I don't know is if XX2247 would possibly be required to pay 
a fee to HP for each license sold. It might be, which would make it hard to 
even give licenses for binary distributions
tricky.



That is the crux of the problem. While XX2247 bought the rights from Mentec as 
the corporation was dissolving, no one in Mentec actually HAD a copy
of the original agreement so the current owner doesn't know what the terms were. 
Trying to chase back HP->Compaq->DEC has essentially become impossible
because the people who would have known aren't with the company any more, and 
HP doesn't want to invest any time trying to find the agreement. That was
as far as I got working with HP's archivist, who has been incredibly helpful 
negotiating non-commercial releases of software for the HP-developed product
lines and for Apollo. As Johnny said, someone on the inside who knows where to 
look would have to deal with this.

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Fred Cisin]

Another thing that I don't know is if XX2247 would possibly be required to 

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote:

That is the crux of the problem. While XX2247 bought the rights from Mentec


Well, XX2247 is at least related to the KEY to the problem, . . .  :-)


Unfortunately, although nobody might be willing to find out the details, 
somebody might be willing to go to the effort/expense of researching it in 
order to file a lawsuit, . . .

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[geneb]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Paul Koning wrote:



"Abandonware" is a term invented as an excuse to steal other people's 
property.  Let's not try to apply it here.


Copyright infringement is not theft... at least according to the Supreme 
Court, but then again, what do they know?


g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: Free IBM 3174 in N. CA

[Cory Smelosky]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Bob Rosenbloom wrote:


Saw this on Craigslist. Anyone interested?



I'm in SJ and have friends in Oakland...the only thing is I have no use 
for just a 3174...



http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/zip/5311274675.html

Bob




--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Mark J. Blair]

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 20:25, Ian Finder  wrote:
> 
> I find the mindset of considering all abandonware scenarios "theft" to be 
> pedantic, toxic, shortsighted, and counterproductive- as well as logically 
> and legally baseless.

I entirely agree. It's my understanding that Archive.org does archive items 
that are not publicly available on its external servers, for the sole purpose 
of preserving them until such time that they might be again needed. I see this 
as laudable, and harmless to present rights-holders (when they can even be 
identified, which is not always the case).

If one preserves the only known copy of some old piece of software before the 
bits rot, and the proper rights-holder later emerges and takes exception to 
that, then there's potential recourse by apologizing at the simplest, or paying 
damages in the worst case. But if one doesn't archive that last copy before the 
media becomes unreadable, then the data is just gone.

In the specific case of RT-11, it doesn't appear to me to be true abandonware 
since one or more potential rights holders are identified. The issue seems from 
the outside to be that none of them can be bothered to figure out who owns 
what. I certainly hope that all of the software in question will be archived by 
*somebody* while it still exists, even if it's kept off of public servers out 
of respect for the rights-holders (or at least, out of concern about being sued 
by them).

I don't accept the argument that the concept of abandonware is nothing more 
than a ploy to steal food from the mouths of others. I've heard more than one 
tale of the legitimate rights holders of pieces of software ceasing to exist, 
with any successors being unidentifiable, unaware that the software in question 
exists, and/or simply not caring. In such a case, I believe that preservation 
of the software for future generations trumps any pedantic adherence to 
arbitrary rules stating that since a clearly identifiable owner has never 
formally released the software, it must simple be allowed to vanish forever.

Preserve the data and software while it's still possible! If an owner comes 
forward later who gets pissed off about it, we can deal with that as it comes 
up.

-- 
Mark J. Blair, NF6X 
http://www.nf6x.net/

Re: Software for small-memory PDP-11s?

[Paul Koning]

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Josh Dersch  wrote:
> 
> Hey all --
> 
> Now that I have my PDP-11/05 running nicely, I'm curious what others are
> running on small systems like this -- until this point I've only played
> with larger (i.e. at least 28KW memory) systems.  I have only 8KW of memory
> (with no viable options for expansion) and there's not much out there that
> I've found.  There's paper-tape BASIC (which is always fun) and FOCAL, and
> PTS-11 (http://iamvirtual.ca/PDP-11/PTS-11/PTS-11.htm) which is pretty cool
> if a bit cumbersome.  Any other suggestions?
> 
> I'm also curious if any version of RT-11 that supports the TU58 could be
> made to run on this system -- I have two SLUs in the system so in theory I
> can boot from an emulated TU58. However RT-11 4.0's SYSGEN manuals suggest
> that 12KW is the minimum supported (and experimentation bears this out) and
> I can't find much in the way of manuals for RT-11 V3B -- which I believe is
> the earliest version with TU58 support.  (V3B seems to be different enough
> from later versions that I'm not quite sure how the SYSGEN process works.)

RT11 V2 SJ will certainly fit easily in that size memory.  DOS will fit even in 
4K (at least the older versions).  Come to think of it, RT might also; I 
haven't tried it that small.

paul

Re: Software for small-memory PDP-11s?

[Jerome H. Fine]

Sorry I forgot to remove the SPAM  KEY notice thsat my e-mail places 
there



>Paul Koning wrote:


On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Josh Dersch  wrote:

Hey all --

Now that I have my PDP-11/05 running nicely, I'm curious what others are
running on small systems like this -- until this point I've only played
with larger (i.e. at least 28KW memory) systems.  I have only 8KW of memory
(with no viable options for expansion) and there's not much out there that
I've found.  There's paper-tape BASIC (which is always fun) and FOCAL, and
PTS-11 (http://iamvirtual.ca/PDP-11/PTS-11/PTS-11.htm) which is pretty cool
if a bit cumbersome.  Any other suggestions?

I'm also curious if any version of RT-11 that supports the TU58 could be
made to run on this system -- I have two SLUs in the system so in theory I
can boot from an emulated TU58. However RT-11 4.0's SYSGEN manuals suggest
that 12KW is the minimum supported (and experimentation bears this out) and
I can't find much in the way of manuals for RT-11 V3B -- which I believe is
the earliest version with TU58 support.  (V3B seems to be different enough
from later versions that I'm not quite sure how the SYSGEN process works.)
   



RT11 V2 SJ will certainly fit easily in that size memory.  DOS will fit even in 
4K (at least the older versions).  Come to think of it, RT might also; I 
haven't tried it that small.

paul


NOTE:  I don't have a real PDP-11/05.  All my tests
were done under Ersatz-11.

I just tried to boot V04.00 of RT-11 on a PDP-11/05
using an RK05 device (RK:) under the RT11SJ.SYS
monitor.  First I set the memory to 32 KB (16KW)
and it worked quite well.  Then I tried with 16 KB
(8KW) and while it did boot, during the boot process
of V04.00 of RT-11, I did see the error message:

Insufficient Memory

On the other hand, I was able to perform a DIR
and a few other tests which did work.

I then attempted to confirm with V2 and 16 KB of
memory and that also worked with the RK05 device.
Obviously, it is not possible to do very much with
just 16 KB (8KW) of memory.

As for support for the TU58 device (DD:), I also
attempted that and came up empty. using V3B
of RT-11.  The V3B distribution which I have
does not seem to support the TU58 since RT-11
crashes when I attempt to use the TU58 device.

There may be some bad code in RT-11 when the
TU58 is used with a PDP-11/05.  I just don't have
the resources in the time that is available to find out.

Josh, you don't mention if you have a disk drive
of any kind on the PDP-11/05,  It would help
if you could describe all of the available hardware.
If the TU58 is the only "disk drive" available, then
I am not sure what to suggest in order to get RT-11
to run in any case.

Jerome Fine

Re: x86/DOS system backup via rs232?

[Fred Cisin]

connected them with a Laplink parallel cable (I've still got a box of
them).

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Jules Richardson wrote:
Roughly what length are the cables? And do you know if they do anything 
special internally regarding shielding of the data lines?


They, and those of other similar products, were 3 to 6 feet long.  There 
is no special shielding requirement up to about 10 feet, or unless you 
have extreme electrical noise next to them.


I think I should probably wire one up, and I have various old printer cables 
etc. laying around to use for donor parts, but I expect that data skew is a 
problem over any significant distance.


So, bring the two computers to within 10 feet of each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LapLink_cable


Before MICROS~1 included an imitation in MS-DOS 6.00, . . .
Traveling Software created "Laplink"

Re: [SPAM key] - Re: Software for small-memory PDP-11s?

[Jerome H. Fine]

>Paul Koning wrote:


On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Josh Dersch  wrote:

Hey all --

Now that I have my PDP-11/05 running nicely, I'm curious what others are
running on small systems like this -- until this point I've only played
with larger (i.e. at least 28KW memory) systems.  I have only 8KW of memory
(with no viable options for expansion) and there's not much out there that
I've found.  There's paper-tape BASIC (which is always fun) and FOCAL, and
PTS-11 (http://iamvirtual.ca/PDP-11/PTS-11/PTS-11.htm) which is pretty cool
if a bit cumbersome.  Any other suggestions?

I'm also curious if any version of RT-11 that supports the TU58 could be
made to run on this system -- I have two SLUs in the system so in theory I
can boot from an emulated TU58. However RT-11 4.0's SYSGEN manuals suggest
that 12KW is the minimum supported (and experimentation bears this out) and
I can't find much in the way of manuals for RT-11 V3B -- which I believe is
the earliest version with TU58 support.  (V3B seems to be different enough
from later versions that I'm not quite sure how the SYSGEN process works.)
   



RT11 V2 SJ will certainly fit easily in that size memory.  DOS will fit even in 
4K (at least the older versions).  Come to think of it, RT might also; I 
haven't tried it that small.

paul


NOTE:  I don't have a real PDP-11/05.  All my tests
were done under Ersatz-11.

I just tried to boot V04.00 of RT-11 on a PDP-11/05
using an RK05 device (RK:) under the RT11SJ.SYS
monitor.  First I set the memory to 32 KB (16KW)
and it worked quite well.  Then I tried with 16 KB
(8KW) and while it did boot, during the boot process
of V04.00 of RT-11, I did see the error message:

Insufficient Memory

On the other hand, I was able to perform a DIR
and a few other tests which did work.

I then attempted to confirm with V2 and 16 KB of
memory and that also worked with the RK05 device.
Obviously, it is not possible to do very much with
just 16 KB (8KW) of memory.

As for support for the TU58 device (DD:), I also
attempted that and came up empty. using V3B
of RT-11.  The V3B distribution which I have
does not seem to support the TU58 since RT-11
crashes when I attempt to use the TU58 device.

There may be some bad code in RT-11 when the
TU58 is used with a PDP-11/05.  I just don't have
the resources in the time that is available to find out.

Josh, you don't mention if you have a disk drive
of any kind on the PDP-11/05,  It would help
if you could describe all of the available hardware.
If the TU58 is the only "disk drive" available, then
I am not sure what to suggest in order to get RT-11
to run in any case.

Jerome Fine

Re: x86/DOS system backup via rs232?

[Jules Richardson]

On 11/13/2015 11:56 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

connected them with a Laplink parallel cable (I've still got a box of
them).


Roughly what length are the cables? And do you know if they do anything 
special internally regarding shielding of the data lines?


I think I should probably wire one up, and I have various old printer 
cables etc. laying around to use for donor parts, but I expect that data 
skew is a problem over any significant distance.


(I'm not sure if a clone of intersvr exists for Linux, but I *think* I can 
run dosemu and map it to the native parallel port anyway)


cheers

Jules

Compulog Two Intercole Systems PAC 16

[Mattis Lind]

Anyone know more about this old 16 bit computer / controller?

http://i.imgur.com/utUfMQe.jpg

According to the current owner it is based on a 16 bit machine made by
Computer Automation. It has core memory and is programmed in assembler and
Fortran. It is from the late seventies.

I found very little while searching the net. Intercole systems seems to
still be in operation. PAC 16 could relate to Varisystems corp which I
found in this document:

ftp://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/topic/minicomputer/ComputerDesign_Apr71.pdf


In any case the Varisystems PAC 16 seems to be a rather simple 16 bit
machine. But is this the same? And is Varisystems related with Computer
Automation somehow?

Any information is appreciated. Is it worth rescuing it? Any software to
look for? The current owner has loads of 8 inch floppies.

Re: Software for small-memory PDP-11s?

[Josh Dersch]

On 11/14/15 7:07 AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Sorry I forgot to remove the SPAM  KEY notice thsat my e-mail places 
there



>Paul Koning wrote:


On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Josh Dersch  wrote:

Hey all --

Now that I have my PDP-11/05 running nicely, I'm curious what others 
are

running on small systems like this -- until this point I've only played
with larger (i.e. at least 28KW memory) systems.  I have only 8KW of 
memory
(with no viable options for expansion) and there's not much out 
there that
I've found.  There's paper-tape BASIC (which is always fun) and 
FOCAL, and
PTS-11 (http://iamvirtual.ca/PDP-11/PTS-11/PTS-11.htm) which is 
pretty cool

if a bit cumbersome.  Any other suggestions?

I'm also curious if any version of RT-11 that supports the TU58 
could be
made to run on this system -- I have two SLUs in the system so in 
theory I
can boot from an emulated TU58. However RT-11 4.0's SYSGEN manuals 
suggest
that 12KW is the minimum supported (and experimentation bears this 
out) and
I can't find much in the way of manuals for RT-11 V3B -- which I 
believe is
the earliest version with TU58 support.  (V3B seems to be different 
enough
from later versions that I'm not quite sure how the SYSGEN process 
works.)




RT11 V2 SJ will certainly fit easily in that size memory.  DOS will 
fit even in 4K (at least the older versions).  Come to think of it, 
RT might also; I haven't tried it that small.


paul


NOTE:  I don't have a real PDP-11/05.  All my tests
were done under Ersatz-11.

I just tried to boot V04.00 of RT-11 on a PDP-11/05
using an RK05 device (RK:) under the RT11SJ.SYS
monitor.  First I set the memory to 32 KB (16KW)
and it worked quite well.  Then I tried with 16 KB
(8KW) and while it did boot, during the boot process
of V04.00 of RT-11, I did see the error message:

Insufficient Memory

On the other hand, I was able to perform a DIR
and a few other tests which did work.
It's interesting; I tried the same thing and while it worked under simh 
booting from RK05, when I tried it on the real thing (after changing the 
boot device to DD:) it fails with:


"?BOOT-U-Insufficient memory"

And halts.  I'm unsure what would cause the discrepancy; simh doesn't 
appear to support the TU58 for the PDP-11 so I can't verify, but perhaps 
the DD: driver requires more memory.  (And yes, I've tested the 8KW 
memory in the 11/05 extensively, it's all there and working :)).




I then attempted to confirm with V2 and 16 KB of
memory and that also worked with the RK05 device.
Obviously, it is not possible to do very much with
just 16 KB (8KW) of memory.

As for support for the TU58 device (DD:), I also
attempted that and came up empty. using V3B
of RT-11.  The V3B distribution which I have
does not seem to support the TU58 since RT-11
crashes when I attempt to use the TU58 device.

There may be some bad code in RT-11 when the
TU58 is used with a PDP-11/05.  I just don't have
the resources in the time that is available to find out.

Josh, you don't mention if you have a disk drive
of any kind on the PDP-11/05,  It would help
if you could describe all of the available hardware.
If the TU58 is the only "disk drive" available, then
I am not sure what to suggest in order to get RT-11
to run in any case.


What I have available (that will work/fit in an 11/05 lacking a UNIBUS 
expansion chassis) are two SLUs and an RX02 controller.  I was hoping to 
bootstrap over TU58 and then see what I can do to get a system running 
off of the RX02 (which will require V4.0 for the DY: driver).


It might just be easier to build an RX02 image on simh and try copying 
it to the '11 over the SLU.  Have to cobble some code together to do that...


- Josh



Jerome Fine

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2015-11-14 22:50, Mark J. Blair wrote:

One of the TRS-80 Model II enthusiasts has recently set up an archive of Model 
II/12/16/6000 software and documentation on GitHub:

https://github.com/pski/model2archive

Perhaps a similar, structured and curated archive for RT-11 materials would be 
awesome? This method makes it very easy for anybody to locally mirror the 
archive, and it provides a complete history of changes to the archive over time.


Not to put people down, but just reminding people that this software is 
not "free". It is still owned by someone...


Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist  || "I'm on a bus
  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive! ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

Re: Compulog Two Intercole Systems PAC 16

[William Maddox]

>According to the current owner it is based on a 16 bit machine made by
>Computer Automation. It has core memory and is programmed in assembler and
>Fortran. It is from the late seventies.
The packaging doesn't look like anything from Computer Automation, but they 
made a line of board-level components they called "The Naked Mini", sold to 
OEMs for integration into their own packaging.  The architecture is probably 
similar to the Alpha-16 and Alpha LSI machines.
--Bill

Re: Compulog Two Intercole Systems PAC 16

[Mattis Lind]

2015-11-14 23:45 GMT+01:00 William Maddox :

>
> >According to the current owner it is based on a 16 bit machine made by
> >Computer Automation. It has core memory and is programmed in assembler and
> >Fortran. It is from the late seventies.
> The packaging doesn't look like anything from Computer Automation, but
> they made a line of board-level components they called "The Naked Mini",
> sold to OEMs for integration into their own packaging.  The architecture is
> probably similar to the Alpha-16 and Alpha LSI machines.
>

You are probably right. I did a closer study of the Alpha-16 reference
manual. The Alpha-16 front panel has more or less exactly the same switches
and lights as this machine.


> --Bill
>
>
>

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[rod]

We have been through this loop before  I believe. Didn't DEC sell the 
PDP-11 rights to Mentec and from there they passed to a mysterious 
unnamed individual.

Is owned by unknown a legal status?

Rod Smallwood




On 14/11/15 22:41, Johnny Billquist wrote:

On 2015-11-14 22:50, Mark J. Blair wrote:
One of the TRS-80 Model II enthusiasts has recently set up an archive 
of Model II/12/16/6000 software and documentation on GitHub:


https://github.com/pski/model2archive

Perhaps a similar, structured and curated archive for RT-11 materials 
would be awesome? This method makes it very easy for anybody to 
locally mirror the archive, and it provides a complete history of 
changes to the archive over time.


Not to put people down, but just reminding people that this software 
is not "free". It is still owned by someone...


Johnny

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Mark J. Blair]

One of the TRS-80 Model II enthusiasts has recently set up an archive of Model 
II/12/16/6000 software and documentation on GitHub:

https://github.com/pski/model2archive

Perhaps a similar, structured and curated archive for RT-11 materials would be 
awesome? This method makes it very easy for anybody to locally mirror the 
archive, and it provides a complete history of changes to the archive over time.


-- 
Mark J. Blair, NF6X 
http://www.nf6x.net/

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Mark J. Blair]

I have no interest in causing any deliberate harm to whoever may hold the 
rights to RT-11, but I am curious about whether the rights holder has shown any 
interest in preserving old RT-11 code and documentation that has no current 
commercial value. I would very much hate to see such stuff lost forever, and 
strongly feel that it should be preserved now to ensure that it will still 
exist at some future time when it either passes into public domain or becomes 
legally owned by somebody interested in preserving it.

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[rod]

I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly 
the same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists program.
Its free  but you need to be  a member of a recognized group. In  my 
case HPUG. I'm also classed as a HP pensioner due to my DEC service.


One thing that has always interested me was could you build the next 
generation of PDP-11.'s

I have an example of an 11/94 which was pretty much the end of the line.
So no DEC CPU parts allowed.
DEC form factor boards and connectors,
No Mentec boards
Physical Q-Bus
No Emulations - Runs say RT native.

Rod Smallwood



On 14/11/15 23:23, Mark J. Blair wrote:

I have no interest in causing any deliberate harm to whoever may hold the 
rights to RT-11, but I am curious about whether the rights holder has shown any 
interest in preserving old RT-11 code and documentation that has no current 
commercial value. I would very much hate to see such stuff lost forever, and 
strongly feel that it should be preserved now to ensure that it will still 
exist at some future time when it either passes into public domain or becomes 
legally owned by somebody interested in preserving it.

Re: x86/DOS system backup via rs232?

[william degnan]

On Nov 13, 2015 9:13 AM, "Johnny Billquist"  wrote:
>
> On 2015-11-13 12:36, william degnan wrote:
>>
>> I used to use a program called Laplink, which came with special serial
and
>> parallel option cables to transfer files from one dos  machine to
another.
>> It was useful to "image" DOS computers with it.
>
>
> Ah, thank you. I have been trying to remember that name since this thread
started. I've used extremely little DOS, but I remember seeing LapLink in
there. I think it could even bootstrap itself across a serial port to a
different machine, as long as DOS was installed. And then it could copy
pretty much everything else over.
>
>

I have a copy of the laplink software should anyone need it.  If the cable
for parallel is just a null modem I suggest a person in this hobby
definitely add laplink to the bag of tricks available.  You just fire it up
on both ends ll.exe ...  and you'll see a directory tree of target  machine
on the right, the source machine on the left.  Pick files and copy.  Copies
recursively etc.

Re: Z8000 Assembler anyone?

[dwight]

You might check with Chris Groessler at ch...@groessler.org.
He has an assembler that you should be able to run that should be
able to switch from non-segmented to segmented.
I have an assembler on my M20 but it only allows non-segmented code.
I suspect to protect the OS. It has a funny memory model that separates
the physical memory of  instruction form the data. This gives 128K in 
non-segmented
but it is confusing to debug because the segment address of the instructions is 
not
the same as the address where the instructions are fetched from. The debugger
needs read/write and the instruction space is read only. A handle in a hardware
memory manager.
Dwight



From: cctalk  on behalf of Oliver Lehmann 

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:30 PM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Z8000 Assembler anyone?

Hi,

it is a working Z8000 system with a ZEUS clone (SYSIII UNIX).
Somehow the assembler must be able to put the segment information
for the absolute adress of this array in the object. No idea how tho,
as $abs will only work on segment 1.
I have the original .o file from Zilog and there is the fixed adress
already in it. But no idea how they did it. The assembler can not be
called with a segment number to work on. The linker can, but the linker
is not involved in creating the .o file

the original object from the system:

#67 nm /usr/sys/conf/u.o
3e00f600 A _u
0100 s u_d
  s u_p


my object generated from my u.s:

#68 nm u.o
0100f600 A _u
0100 s u_d
  s u_p

Regards, Oliver


jwsmobile  wrote:

> Putting things at an absolute address requires putting things into
> segments that are handle by the linker or loader (depending on what
> era you are working in).
>
> the linker may place the output of your assembler into different
> segments.  They may be set up to be relocatable at run time (most
> OSs insist on this feature).
>
> Once you are dealing with either a debugger or loader, or OS you
> have to find out how to get that segment assigned to the space you
> desire in the absolute addressing space.
>
> Usually the assembler will have directives to direct things to I/O
> or such depending on the architecture.
>
> I'd use this info to see if you have any luck figuring out what you
> need to do.
>
> you didn't mention whether this is a cross assembly tool, or if you
> have a working Z8000 OS with the tool.
>
> Others may infer that by knowing more about the things you refer to.
>  however working Z8000 systems running an OS are a bit rare these
> days.
>
> thanks
> Jim
>
>
> On 11/13/2015 12:06 PM, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found out so far, that %3e00 means, that the data is put on
>> segment 62 (0x3e). Regarding to the Z8000 ASM handbook, segmented
>> adresses are notated as <>offset, so in my case
>> <<62>>%F600 - but of course it does not work and the assembler
>> yields and error :(
>>
>>
>> Oliver Lehmann  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> is someone on the list able to write Z8000 PLZ/ASM code? I have an
>>> the following source:
>>>
>>>  u module
>>>  $segmented
>>>  $abs %3E00F600
>>>
>>>global
>>>
>>>  _u array [%572 byte]
>>>
>>>  end u
>>>
>>> The problem is, that it is vital that _u has to be located absolute
>>> on the virtual memory address 0x3E00F600. The problem is now, that
>>> the while the object is compiled, _u is available on 0x0100f600 and
>>> I have no clue why.
>>
>>
>>

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Mark J. Blair]

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod  wrote:
> 
> I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly the 
> same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists program.

Has anybody contacted the RT-11 rights holder to see if they might be 
interested in a program like that? I think it could only work with their 
blessing and cooperation. 

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Paul Koning]

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 6:15 PM, rod  wrote:
> 
> We have been through this loop before  I believe. Didn't DEC sell the PDP-11 
> rights to Mentec and from there they passed to a mysterious unnamed 
> individual.
> Is owned by unknown a legal status?

Just because YOU don't know who the owner is doesn't mean there is no owner.

"Abandonware" is a term invented as an excuse to steal other people's property. 
 Let's not try to apply it here.

paul

Re: x86/DOS system backup via rs232?

[Fred Cisin]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, william degnan wrote:

I have a copy of the laplink software should anyone need it.  If the cable
for parallel is just a null modem I suggest a person in this hobby
definitely add laplink to the bag of tricks available.  You just fire it up
on both ends ll.exe ...  and you'll see a directory tree of target  machine
on the right, the source machine on the left.  Pick files and copy.  Copies
recursively etc.


All Centronics ports have 8 bits going one way, and 4 "handshake" bits 
going the other way.


IFF you can run doftware of your choice on both ends of the cable, Laplink 
and its imitators (such as Interlink) can work just fine.
NOTE: I tend to think of Traveling Software's "Laplink" as being "the 
first", but, as always, there's bound to be a few examples of prior art.

(Such as when did Chuck make his?)
The Laplink cable is a "null printer" cable using those 4 bits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LapLink_cable
it is a defacto standard; Chuck's cable was compatible.

Some Centronics compatible printer ports have bidirectionality of the 8 
data lines, and therefore shouldn't need to do nibble transfers using 
"handshake" signals.  But, you can't always count on the other end having 
that.


And, CAN you run software of your choice on both ends?
Ever try to get document files out of a really alien word processor?
But, sometimes that alien machine, with no practical way to run your 
software might output perfectly normal "centronics" printer output!


About 25 years ago, I put together a somewhat special cable, and "printer 
emulator" software to run on a PC.  With the software running on the PC, 
and special cable, I could simply tell the alien machine that it was 
connected to a simple ASCII printer, and tell it to print the document(s). 
The PC would pretend to be a [very fast] printer, and store whatever was 
coming through that "printer" cable that the alien machine was feeding.


Ran into a couple of problems.  Some machines sent a strobe that was 
so substantially shorter than the standard, that I couldn't respond 
fast enough with polling nor interruptws, so I added a one-shot to the 
cable to extend it to the spec duration for those machines.


I put the cable switch-overs and the oneshot into a hooded 
blue-ribbonF/DB25M adapter, so that it could hang off the back of the PC, 
and the alien printer cable could connect to the blue-ribbon connector.


Then I found out just how futile it was to develop a product that few 
understood.  The purpose was not for doubling Laplink's speed, it was for 
capturing printer output from alien machines.  Many people INSISTED that 
Laplink could install itself through the parallel port onto ANYTHING. 
ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING.  Some of the same people insisted that one of the 
competitors to Chuck's and my programs could read ABSOLTELY ANY disk 
format (disunirregardless of hardware incomapabilities).  A few others 
wanted to know how to connect it to machines that did not connect to 
Centronics compatible printers, including ones with built-in printers.
After 5 days at Comdex, I realized that the people who could appreciate it 
was such an infinitesimal subset of the people who needed it that it was 
unmarketable.


A slightly slower similar solution was already possible by connecting the 
parallel output of the alien machine to a parallel-to-serial printer 
adapter, and then using off-the-shelf serial software on the PC to capture 
that.


So, I never brought the product up to marketable form, and 
XenoComm-Parallel joined XenoFont.  Not with a bang, but a whimper.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Boundless terminals

[jwsmobile]

On 11/14/2015 5:09 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:05:06AM -0500, Sue Skonetski wrote:


I remember at DEC when we all at VT100’s and then the big day came
when we could upgrade to the “New Color” monitors Ah just to think
of the orange glow of the words radiating from the screen.  Of
course you could get green as well.  Not a lot of choice compared to
today but ground breaking at the time.  The company I used to work
for still makes brand new VT’s since folks like them so much.  VT520
and the DEC style keyboards.  Some things never go out of style.

sue

Intrigued by your comment I went on a web trek - after all, one
doesn't hear about a company selling new terminals nowadays (at least
I don't). Found Boundless Tech, but it seems they are preparing to
quit. They ask that those who may need some docs download it from
their website while it is still on material plane.

http://www.boundlessterminals.com/documentation.html

I have no idea it those are of any value to the group members but I
decided to let you know, just in case.

Thanks for the heads up.  I remember when Boundless first came on the 
scene and took over ADDS.  Microdata had used ADDS early in their 
history, and their Prism terminals were all copies of the Adds 580 
protocol, so many Reality customers bought maybe one Prism, and used 
ADDS.  Later ADDS and other vendors took over.


This documentation page appears to be propery captured on Archive.org, 
here is the documentation page, and an example document.


https://web.archive.org/web/20150919155604/http://www.boundlessterminals.com/documentation.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20151115012631/http://www.boundlessterminals.com/manuals/ADDS%203153%20LF%20Manual.pdf

So when they take the pages offline, if you know boundlessterminals.com 
you are good to go too.  This message will probably turn up in google 
searches for people lookng for info as well.


I wanted to double check that the documents were all backed up.

I looked around and didn't find a 580 manual, either schematics or a 
user manual.  Any one have a copy?


thanks
Jim

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[Mark J. Blair]

> On Nov 14, 2015, at 17:27, Johnny Billquist  wrote:
> We need HP to release things.


If XX2247 LLC owns RT-11 as stated in another post, then what does HP have to 
do with it? I am glad that HP continues to license VMS to hobbyists, and I am 
one of the licensees. But I thought they owned VMS, not other works such as 
RT-11. 

Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers

[jwsmobile]

On 11/14/2015 5:32 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

On Nov 14, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Johnny Billquist  wrote:

On 2015-11-15 01:56, Mark J. Blair wrote:



On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod  wrote:

I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly the 
same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists program.

Has anybody contacted the RT-11 rights holder to see if they might be 
interested in a program like that? I think it could only work with their 
blessing and cooperation.

Jerome knows very well who owns it, and have tried various ways to put it into 
the public domain. Unfortunately, him wanting it to happen is not really enough 
to make it happen.

We need HP to release things.

HP?  I know HP acquired VMS, but I always had the impression that all PDP11 stuff (except IAS???) 
went to Mentec, not HP.  So it's Mentec or its successors who own it, and who would have to do the 
licensing.  That might be anything from "no" to a hobbyist license to whatever they want. 
 Public domain?  I suppose one could imagine that being done, but it's rare for stuff to be 
released into the public domain.  A generous license of some sort is more common; open source is 
one good example, hobbyist or "not for profit" licenses are somewhat more restrictive but 
still not a bad deal.

paul
The systems on HP/UX, VMS and the Tandem stuff are now all on Itanium.  
Those markets are the only real ones for that chip I know of.  There may 
be some Linux, but MS dropped all Windows support before any market ever 
developed.


I think all the rest of the DEC stuff went elsewhere like this thread 
says, and I am guessing that people support Three letter agencies, and 
other customers willing to pay a fortune for ancient hardware are making 
it profitable to keep it proprietary or it would be opened and released.


I know that PDP-8 hardware was being serviced and traded on up to 5 
years ago in this area by a vendor, and the above TLA people were the 
main customers.  That fellow retired, as far as I know the systems may 
be being maintained by people who have the means to pay for such old 
hardware wherever it is.


The question of hobbyist or other needs seem to mean nothing to them, or 
there would be word on where that is at.


FWIW the same thing exists for Computer Automation hardware and 
software.  The Syfa software and hardware and certain ancient OS's on 
that hardware are still not releasable.  I got a huge dump of software 
of the stuff what is public and got it to Al a few years ago, but the 
same place had all the software and couldn't and wouldn't release it.


thanks
Jim