New Items Listed in Sellam's VWoCW (Many DEC Handbooks)

[Sellam Ismail via cctalk]

Hi Folks.

Here are the new items for July 17, 2018:

IBM PS/2 Model P70 386
Morrow Designs Micro Decision 1
ACCTON EtherCombo-32 Ethernet Card
Inmac SP-16 Serial-To-Parallel Converter
Apricorn EZ-GIG Hard Drive Update Kit
HP Series 80 Data Communications Pac
HP Series 80 BASIC Training Pac
HippoConcept

The following are all DEC manuals and handbooks:

Autoconf manual
A Practical Guide to Word Processing and Office Management Systems
Communications Handbook
dBase III v1.0
DECmate II Handbook
DECSYSTEM-20 Technical Summary
Digital's Office Solutions: ALL-IN-1 Handbook
Distributed Systems Handbook
Emulex Controller Handbook: Communications and Periperhals
Introduction to BASIC
Introduction to Local Area Networks
IDEAS Education Software Referral Catalog
IDEAS: Index and Description of Educational Application Software: 4th
edition
Guide to Small Business Computing
Guide to Personal Computing
Introduction to Computer-Based Education
Large Systems Software Referrral Catalog: 4th Edition
Letterprinter 100 Installation Guide
Letterprinter 100 Operator Guide
Letterprinter 100 Programmer Reference Manual
Logistics Management: Concepts and Techniques
Maintenance Aids Handbook
MBASIC VT180 BASIC-80 Reference Manual
MBASIC VT180 Getting Started with MBASIC VT180
Microcomputers and Memories
Microsoft Multiplan Manual
Network Management I Student Guide
Networking: The Competitive Edge
Office Information Systems Guidebook
Overview of DIGITAL Networking Products
PDP-11 Architecture Handbook
PDP-11 Microcomputer Interfaces Handbook
PDP-11/04/34/34A Maintenance Card
Peripherals Handbook
Professional Handbook
Rainbow Handbook
RSTS/E PDP-11 Operating System
RSX-11 Handbook
Spares Kit Handbook
Terminals & Printers Handbook
The DECmate Family Handbook
The Guide to Team Computing
ULTRIX Software Guidebook: A Reference to UNIX Software
ULTRIX-32 Reference: Volume 1
ULTRIX-32 Software Development: Volume 2
UNIX Software Guidebook
VAX Architecture Handbook
VAX Hardware Handbook
VAX Software Handbook
VAX Software Tools: Languages
VAXcluster Technical Summary
VAX/VMS Software: Information Management Handbook
VAX/VMS Software: VMS System Software Handbook
VAX/VMS Technical Summary Version 4
VEDIT User's Manual

The index of links to the specific items above is, as always, here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...72371=A1


For the month of July 2018 I'm offering 10% off for new buyers, and 15% off
for past buyers.

Thanks!

Sellam

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On 07/17/2018 04:11 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

When 3.5-inch floppy drives and hard drives were introduced, most used the
same 34-pin interfaces as their 5.25-inch counterparts.


On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

Can't say much about 3.5" hard drives (the only really early ones I've
seen are standard ST505-type 2-cable interface).


I interpreted Eric's comment as meaning that the 3.5" hard drives used 
same interface as the 5.25. inch hard drives (34 pin and 20 pin), and the 
3.5" floppy would be same as 5.25" floppy 34 pin.



But initially, the 3.5' floppies used a 26-pin interface (13 signal lines):
http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/sony/floppy/Sony_Micro_Floppy_Disk_Drive_Model_0A-D30V_OEM_Manual_Mar82.pdf
And of course, the drives spun at 600 RPM, which was really nice if you
were used to 8" or 5.25" drives.   The Drivetek 5.25" high-capacity
drives would also spin at 600 RPM when a conventional floppy was
used--again, a nice feature.


Could the Gotek firmware, and some drivers on PC's with "HD" or "ED" 
controllers, be kludged together to get faster data transfers?


ALthough the early 3.5" were 600 RPM and 26 pin, they soon changed over to 
34 pin. (some MS-DOS 2.11 laptops)   I'm assuming to make them a drop-in 
replacement for 5.25".

But, yes, when first introduced, they were not yet 34 pin.


And, of course there were a few 5.25" drives that were not the standard 34 
pin interface, such as Apple.  (SA390 (SA400 without the "logic" board"))


My first "1.2M" 5.25" drive (Mitsubishi EARLY 4854?) had a 50 pin 
connector!  That made me think that they were targetting 8" replacement, 
rather than 5.25" storage increase.


Unsubstantiated story from a Microsoft person was that during the initial 
stages of AT-BIOS and DOS 3.00 programming, they thought that there was an 
8" machine coming.



3" and 3.25" were also almost completely compatible with the "standard" 34 
pin interface.  Although I remember one drive that had 5V and 12V swapped 
in its 4 pin power connector!   And my 8" drives did not standardize power 
connector and requirements.

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 07/17/2018 04:11 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

> When 3.5-inch floppy drives and hard drives were introduced, most used the
> same 34-pin interfaces as their 5.25-inch counterparts.

Can't say much about 3.5" hard drives (the only really early ones I've
seen are standard ST505-type 2-cable interface).

But initially, the 3.5' floppies used a 26-pin interface (13 signal lines):

http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/sony/floppy/Sony_Micro_Floppy_Disk_Drive_Model_0A-D30V_OEM_Manual_Mar82.pdf

And of course, the drives spun at 600 RPM, which was really nice if you
were used to 8" or 5.25" drives.   The Drivetek 5.25" high-capacity
drives would also spin at 600 RPM when a conventional floppy was
used--again, a nice feature.

FWIW,
Chuck

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

more history of it than you probably wanted:


I think that it is worth adding in the amusing anecdote of the name 
"Seagate".


Alan Shugart as "Shugart Associates" changed 8" drives to what became the
industry standard form.  And then created the SA400 5.25" drive.

There is some dispute over the creation of 5.25".  One story goes that 
Adkisson (of Shugart Associates) was talking with Wang, who wanted a 
smaller drive and diskette.  When asked what size did they want, Wang 
picked up the bar napkin.  That bar napkin became the model for the 5.25" 
diskette.Massaro denies the story.



Shugart sold "Shugart Associates" to Xerox.

Later, Shugart formed "Shugart Technology", to develop small hard drives.
Xerox lawyers objected to the name, and Shugart had to change it to 
"Seagate Technology".
Which goes to show you, do not name your company after yourself, or 
selling the company could cost you your name.

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I conceptually get that the GoTEK can't go any faster than the Floppy's
> IDE (I thought floppy was a derivative of IDE.) bus can carry the data.


IDE came much later and isn't very similar to the floppy interface. Here's
more history of it than you probably wanted:

IBM invented the 8-inch floppy drive and had a proprietary interface to it
(discussed here recently). Memorex made plug-compatible drives, but the IBM
interface did not become an industry standard.  With IBM's earliest floppy
drives (23FD "Minnow"), even the medium, rotation rate, data encoding, and
index hole locations weren't compatible with what became the industry
standard. Minnow was shipped to customers as part of IBM mainframes and
control units as a read-only device to load microcode, though obviously
internally IBM had equipment to write the disks.  IBM redesigned it as the
33FD "Igar", and that did set an industry standard for the media format,
but still did not standardize the electrical interface.

The Shugart SA-900/901 drive standardized a 50-pin interface for eight-inch
floppy drives. The Shugart SA-4000 series 14-inch winchester hard disk
drives used a similar but not identical 50-pin interface. The SA-1000
series 8-inch winchester hard drives moved the data to a "radial" interface
using separate connectors for each drive, while keeping the 50-pin
interface for control and status. The SA-4000 and SA-1000 series
established defacto standards for early winchester drives.

Shugart invented the 5.25-inch floppy drive. The Shugart SA-400 drive
standardized a 34-pin interface for 5.25-inch floppy drives, which was for
the most part a subset of the 50-pin interface, with the pins rearranged.
Most 5.25-inch floppy drives provided spindle motor on/off control over the
interface but had no head load solenoid, where previously most 8-inch
floppy drives gave the interface control over the head load solenoid but
had no spindle motor control. (Many of the later 8-inch half-height floppy
drives followed this trend.)

The Shugart Technology (a different company, later renamed Seagate) ST-506
drive standardized a 34-pin interface for 5.25-inch winchester hard drives,
which was in most regards a subset of the SA-1000 interface, with a
different pinout, and a different differential signalling standard (RS-422)
on the radial data connector.

When 3.5-inch floppy drives and hard drives were introduced, most used the
same 34-pin interfaces as their 5.25-inch counterparts.

All of the drives and interfaces previously described are bit serial, with
discrete control lines for all drive functions. The interfaces have no
parallel bus structures for either data or control.

There were third-party hard disk systems for the IBM PC, but the first
official IBM hard disks for PCs were for the PC/XT and PC/AT. The PC/AT
controller in particular was based on a Western Digital design.The IDE hard
disk interface was essentially the host interface of the Western Digital
hard disk controller. As such, it uses a parallel data bus for both data
and commands. There are no discrete drive control signals.



> I was hoping to avoid some timings of the physical aspects of spinning the
> disk and seeking.
>

Unfortunately not. A floppy drive doesn't have any way to know what sector
the host wants, so a drive emulator has to simulate the rotation process.
Most floppy interfaces, including those used on PCs, don't have buffered
seek, so there's no easy way for the emulator to short-circuit the step
process either, though you could possibly tell the computer to configure
the floppy disk controller chip for a faster seek rate.

Re: Why GoTEK SFR1M44-U100 is slow...

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Just a question, you’re not expecting the Gotek to whizz files onto the 
Compaq are you?


On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:

No, not as such.
It may be something modern emulating a floppy drive but it also has to 
emulate the floppy drive rotational speed so it should be the same speed as 
a real drive.
I am guessing that there is some false hope ~> expectation on my part that 
things might be a little bit faster than they were.
That being said, there is every chance that this process was doing extra work 
and likely verifying the format (I think format has a flag to test a floppy 
as it's formatted), thus making it take longer.





The MS-DOS VERIFY command meant that every time that a sector was written, 
the computer would then check the CRC, and confirm that it was a valid 
sector.  Contrary to popular ASSUMPTION, it absolutely did NOT compare the 
content of the sector with what it should be.  (re-read sector and 
compare?  Nope, just confirm that it is readable)  A drive with dead write 
electronics can "write" and VERIFY, simply because the unaltered previous 
content does VERIFY as valid sectors).


Some people would turn VERIFY OFF, and disable PARITY, in a performance 
attempt because they assumed that it wasn't actually doing anything.

Q: Do you want to know whether there are errors?

A FORMAT VERIFY that formats all tracks, and THEN verifies them is slower, 
but more reliable than format and verify of each track, since it is a 
recheck that each track is written on the correct cylinder.  A Format and 
verify before changing track, on a drive with broken stepper, could format 
and verify every track all on the same cylinder.




I conceptually get that the GoTEK can't go any faster than the Floppy's IDE 
(I thought floppy was a derivative of IDE.) bus can carry the data. I was 
hoping to avoid some timings of the physical aspects of spinning the disk and 
seeking.


Floppy interface (SA800/SA400 and derivatives) was long before the IDE 
("Integrated Device Electronics") hard disk interface, so the derivation 
is mostly the other direction.


The disk spins at 360 (8", 1.2M, NEC) or 300 (5.25", 3.5") RPM. (180RPM 
for Weltec 1.2M kludge to get 1.2M on XT; 600RPM for one of the Sony 3.5")


The data transfer rate was
125,000 bits per second (5.25" SD)
250,000 bits per second (8" SD, 5.25" DD, 3.5" DD, Weltec 1.2M)
300,000 bits per second (360K disk in 1.2M drive)
500,000 bits per second (8" DD, 1.2M, 3.5" HD)
1,000,000 bits per second (2.8M)

Each controller only supported some of those.
5150 was 250,000.
5170 (AT) was 250,000, 300,000, 500,000.
Spinning the disk at 300RPM, and transferring at 250,000 bps controlled 
the positioning of the bits on the track.
Spinning faster, even if only virtual, can't change that data transfer 
rate.  Well ALMOST not.  Weltec had a slower than normal drive to permit 
1.2M on slower controllers, and Sony had a 3.5" drive that sun at 600RPM 
requiring controller with faster data transfer rate).
To over-simplify, you can think of the rotational speed as being solely 
to match the controller data transfer rate; and therefore, not helped by 
this.


So, those preset data transfer rates in the controller are the sole 
determining factor of the speed that you will get.



On the other hand, SEEK could be improved.
You could probably get some minor speed improvement by tampering with 
the seek time parameters!  The computer waits after a "STEP" command to 
give the drive time to step and settle.  When IBM used the Qumetrak 142 
drives (PCJr), they had to release a new version of PD-DOS (2.10) to 
slow down that time for the SLOW-ASS drives.  Check out INT 1Eh (pointer 
to where those vaariables are stored)


So, other than the possibility of a faster virtual SEEK/STEP time, this 
will be exactly the same speed as a real floppy.


It also might be possible to create new firmware AND drivers on PC, that 
would fake being at 600RPM, to let the FDC use its 500,000 bps data 
transfer rate.  Or use the 1,000,000 bps rate on 2.8M capable controllers.



I think I've been messing with virtualization too much that can simply do 
things a LOT faster because more of the computer is emulated.  (This does 
come with it's own problems too.)


yep.  that would also does away with the FDC data transfer rate 
bottleneck.







It will be interesting to see the track count on the OLED once I install it.


That will be a sweet add-on



Bit like watching a kettle boil :)

Or watching paint dry.

Or grass growing.


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

Re: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes

[Brent Hilpert via cctalk]

The HP9830 (1972) with it's ROM'ed BASIC works this way.
LIST produces a 'cleaned up' version of the source code.



On 2018-Jul-17, at 1:21 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:

> I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the BASIC program is 
> entered, the original
> source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are 
> retained as-is).   The
> LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well 
> close to it anyway).
> 
> TTFN - Guy
> 
>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via cctalk  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
 isn't the  basic  programs  also stored in tokinized  forms!?!?
>>> 
>>> Yes.
>>> And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or 
>>> even between different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
>>> http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC
>> 
>> I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
>> 
>> I think it was called a "decompiler" though.  Seemed like magic at the time.
>> 
>> Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
>> decompiler under RSTS.  RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
>> The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
>> between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
>> could get back very reasonable code."
>> 
>> And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
>> 
>> https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp=121804804023540=2
>> 
>> - John
>> 
> 

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 07/17/2018 02:04 PM, Adrian Graham via cctalk wrote:
Just a question, you’re not expecting the Gotek to whizz files onto the 
Compaq are you?


No, not as such.

It may be something modern emulating a floppy drive but it also has 
to emulate the floppy drive rotational speed so it should be the same 
speed as a real drive.


I am guessing that there is some false hope ~> expectation on my part 
that things might be a little bit faster than they were.


That being said, there is every chance that this process was doing extra 
work and likely verifying the format (I think format has a flag to test 
a floppy as it's formatted), thus making it take longer.


I conceptually get that the GoTEK can't go any faster than the Floppy's 
IDE (I thought floppy was a derivative of IDE.) bus can carry the data. 
I was hoping to avoid some timings of the physical aspects of spinning 
the disk and seeking.


I think I've been messing with virtualization too much that can simply 
do things a LOT faster because more of the computer is emulated.  (This 
does come with it's own problems too.)


One thing that sometimes makes it seem slow to me is that I don’t 
have the little piezo speaker for mine so you’re getting no audible 
feedback, and with no OLED either you have no idea about which tracks 
its reading, etc.


Fortunately for me, my GoTEK does have an activity LED.  Apparently some 
models don't even have that.


It will be interesting to see the track count on the OLED once I install it.

As it is, I go from starting to assumed finish without any progress 
indicator.



Bit like watching a kettle boil :)


Or watching paint dry.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Re: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

I should also mention that for the IBM S/23, once the BASIC program is entered, 
the original
source is discarded and only the tokenized code remains (comments are retained 
as-is).   The
LIST command runs a de-tokenizer and reconstructs the original source (well 
close to it anyway).

TTFN - Guy

> On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:33 PM, John Foust via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
>>> isn't the  basic  programs  also stored in tokinized  forms!?!?
>> 
>> Yes.
>> And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or 
>> even between different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
>> http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC
> 
> I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.
> 
> I think it was called a "decompiler" though.  Seemed like magic at the time.
> 
> Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
> decompiler under RSTS.  RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
> The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
> between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
> could get back very reasonable code."
> 
> And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp=121804804023540=2
> 
> - John
> 

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Adrian Graham via cctalk]

> On 17 Jul 2018, at 18:49, Grant Taylor via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> I don't know if the GoTEK is itself slow or if it's a result of what the 
> computer was doing with it.  —  My only experience was trying to have a 
> Compaq System Utility Partition back itself up to the GoTEK.  The first 
> ""disk worked without a problem.  The backup routine fails complaining about 
> a file after formatting the second disk.  I suspect this may be more source 
> than the destination.

Just a question, you’re not expecting the Gotek to whizz files onto the Compaq 
are you? It may be something modern emulating a floppy drive but it also has to 
emulate the floppy drive rotational speed so it should be the same speed as a 
real drive. One thing that sometimes makes it seem slow to me is that I don’t 
have the little piezo speaker for mine so you’re getting no audible feedback, 
and with no OLED either you have no idea about which tracks its reading, etc.

Bit like watching a kettle boil :) 

-- 
adrian/witchy
Owner of Binary Dinosaurs, the UK's biggest home computer collection?
t: @binarydinosaursf: facebook.com/binarydinosaurs
w: www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk

Re: BASIC (Was: Reading HP2000 tapes

[John Foust via cctalk]

At 03:53 PM 7/14/2018, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote:
>>isn't the  basic  programs  also stored in tokinized  forms!?!?
>
>Yes.
>And the tokens are not the same between different brand implementations, or 
>even between different versions, such as MBASIC 4 and MBASIC 5.
>http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/Tokenized_BASIC

I remember a detokenizer for RSTS BASIC-PLUS that's not on that list.

I think it was called a "decompiler" though.  Seemed like magic at the time.

Googling reveals "You may be remembering the BASIC PLUS
decompiler under RSTS.  RSTS BASIC PLUS was interpreted from "push-pop" code.
The symbol table was available in the compiled file, and the correspondence
between push-pop operations and BASIC PLUS source was very close, so you
could get back very reasonable code."

And our previous discussion of it a decade ago:

https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp=121804804023540=2

- John

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 07/17/2018 10:49 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:

> I'm sure there is a healthy dose of my ignorance of using the GoTEK.
> There was zero documentation that came with it.  Online searches turn up
> a myriad of versions for the different models and it's all combining
> into a … cesspool seems like the proper word.
> 
> I think I'm going to like the GoTEK as I get more experience with it.  I
> am planing on trading out the firmware and moding it to add an OLED
> display so I'll have more information on what it's doing.

Why not put a scope on the INDEX pin output and see if it's nice and
regular or it skips revs when the firmware has to ge fetch a track's
worth of data?

Just a suggestion...

--Chuck

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 07/13/2018 03:12 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with the GoTEK SFR1M44-U100 floppy drive 
emulator that reads ""images from a USB flash drive?


In case anyone is interested.

I have received my GoTEK and my initial impression is something between 
neutral and positive.


I'm still running the stock firmware on it but plan to transition to 
FlashFloppy (?) after my new soldering iron arrives.  (My last one 
didn't make a cross country move.)


I don't know if the GoTEK is itself slow or if it's a result of what the 
computer was doing with it.  —  My only experience was trying to have a 
Compaq System Utility Partition back itself up to the GoTEK.  The first 
""disk worked without a problem.  The backup routine fails complaining 
about a file after formatting the second disk.  I suspect this may be 
more source than the destination.


I'm sure there is a healthy dose of my ignorance of using the GoTEK. 
There was zero documentation that came with it.  Online searches turn up 
a myriad of versions for the different models and it's all combining 
into a … cesspool seems like the proper word.


I think I'm going to like the GoTEK as I get more experience with it.  I 
am planing on trading out the firmware and moding it to add an OLED 
display so I'll have more information on what it's doing.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Peter Corlett via cctalk]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 03:21:43PM +0200, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> But then, when I look at school examination papers from 50 or 100 years
> before I was at school, *I'm* terrified. I feel like I am retarded, compared
> to schoolchildren of the turn of the 20th century who were expected by 11 to
> be fluent in 3-4 foreign languages, to play several musical instruments, to
> be able to confidently quote literature in multiple languages, and so on.

That's an extraordinary claim that sets off my bullshit detector. Snopes offers
this commentary: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1895-exam/

50-100 years before you were at school would be roughly 1870-1920, which is
right at the start of both state-provided schools and compulsory education. The
UK only raised the school leaving age to 11 in 1893. Truancy was rife, because
parents still expected their children to work instead and contribute to the
household. The average child was very poorly educated if at all.

Children actually taking examinations at age 11 are already on the academic
track for those who are both clever and rich enough to continue their education
further. It may even be the entrance exam for a posh public school. Your
average working-class oik is never going to get anywhere near that exam paper.

For fun, have a crack at some of the recent exam papers given to 13 year olds
hoping for a scholarship: https://www.etoncollege.com/KSpapers.aspx

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 07/17/2018 07:21 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

…but they don't see them as particularly important.


Sadly, many of my generation and younger, don't understand that the 
perception of importance often doesn't match the actual importance.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 07/17/2018 09:50 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:

> The latter, two single single-sided heads, each opposed by a pressure pad.
> 
> Aside from the provision for extra fingerprints, a problem with this scheme
> was that they varied the rotation rate depending on the position of the
> head in use. Unfortunately since there was only a single actuator, when the
> top head was near the inside, the bottom was near the outside, and vice
> versa. Except for the middle few tracks, it was never fast to switch from
> one head to the other without seeking. The logical disk organization was
> all of side zero followed by all of side one, rather than by cylinder.

It was probably one of the more insane things that Apple did.  871K
using variable speed spindle motors (very irritating if you were a user)
and GCR.  Just across the street on Bubb Road, we were getting 960K
using GCR on stock Micropolis drives in 1978.  No fancy zoned recording
schemes or non-standard drives.

The Apple Mentality:  NIH sometimes backfires badly.

--Chuck

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Fred Cisin  wrote:

> On the Lisa "Twiggy" diskettes, they made special provision to get more
>>> thumb prints.
>>>
>>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> I imagine you're aware of the actual reason for the two diametrically
>> opposing jacket cutouts for the read/write heads.
>>
>
> I'm NOT sure.  I speculate:
> 2) To have two sets of heads.  Either performance, or simply two single
> sided heads, to have felt pad instead of head to head pressure
>

The latter, two single single-sided heads, each opposed by a pressure pad.

Aside from the provision for extra fingerprints, a problem with this scheme
was that they varied the rotation rate depending on the position of the
head in use. Unfortunately since there was only a single actuator, when the
top head was near the inside, the bottom was near the outside, and vice
versa. Except for the middle few tracks, it was never fast to switch from
one head to the other without seeking. The logical disk organization was
all of side zero followed by all of side one, rather than by cylinder.

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 14:36, Noel Chiappa via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Yikes.
>
> Send them this:
>
>   http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/sflovers/

*Chuckle*

I doubt they'd understand. This quiz was in the basement bar of a
youth hostel. I would guesstimate that these kids are all young enough
that they don't remember the 20th century.

They're highly media-literate -- my team only won by 1 point, although
if they'd listened to me it would have been 3 -- but the quizmaster
struggled with the task of reading the team names out.

Ours was called "Intravenous de Milo". This had to be explained to
him. He confessed embarrassment that he didn't know the reference --
he hadn't heard of the sculpture -- nor did he know the word
"intravenous".

Most team names were puns. He struggled with every one, simply to pronounce it.

To mark another team's paper, you need to be able to add up and count
to between 10 and 12. Several times we've had to ask for a recount
because that much mental arithmetic is hard for them. The former quiz
mistress, who's ~32, totally them wrongly about 3 weeks ago and gave
the prize to someone else who'd got 3 less than us.

These are abstract skills that are not handled well by millennial kids.

It scares the pants off me, because in a decade, some of these people
will be running companies. Some will employ thousands.

These are smart, monied, well-travelled kids, travelling the world
alone for fun. They're probably among the brighter of their
generation.

But then, when I look at school examination papers from 50 or 100
years before I was at school, *I'm* terrified. I feel like I am
retarded, compared to schoolchildren of the turn of the 20th century
who were expected by 11  to be fluent in 3-4 foreign languages, to
play several musical instruments, to be able to confidently quote
literature in multiple languages, and so on.

My generation were considerably dumber than that.

Now, my generation is running things -- I'm broadly of an age with the
government members of most of the English-speaking world.

And they are, very evidently, making a total mess of it.

So I am perversely reassured that it's not just me. Nope, my
generation were dumb too. Yes, the next generation seem very stupid to
me, but they know stuff I don't know, have skills I don't have. I
marvel that they lack skills that seem basic to me, like the "three
Rs", but they don't see them as particularly important.

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Liam Proven

> one of the questions was about "the early days of the old-time
> internet, if you're old and you've been online forever."
> It was about Myspace.

Yikes.

Send them this:

  http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/sflovers/

Noel

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 03:41, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> On 8", notch is write protect; no notch is write enabled.
> on 5.25", notch is write enabled; no notch is write protected.
> I think that that justifies calling the 8" a "write protect notch", and
> calling the 5.25" a "write enable notch".

I was not aware of that.

Thank you, once again, ClassicCmp, for making me feel relatively young.

I think I have seen live working systems with 8" floppies about twice
in my entire working life, both in the late 1980s. I have never used a
system with them, not even once.

I'm 50 and my first memory of any kind is the first moon landing.

Last night, in a pub quiz, which to the organizers'  amazement we won
-- we were the "old people" team (3 × ~50, 1 × ~35), when one of the
questions was about "the early days of the old-time internet, if
you're old and you've been online forever."

It was about Myspace.

>_<

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 00:17, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Or maybe it's the need for fingerprint oils on the media!  3.5" keeps
> fingers away more than 5.25 or 8".  On the Lisa "Twiggy" diskettes, they
> made special provision to get more thumb prints.

*Chuckle*

Even if I never saw them, IKWYM.

I am slowly staggering towards having my ZX Spectrum machines up and
running again -- and I hope my QL, too. They both have 5¼" drives.
When I kitted out my Spectrum with an MGT DISCiPLE and a single DS/DD
80t drive, circa 1986 or so, 5¼" drives were ~½ the price of 3½" ones,
and the media were much less -- maybe 1/10th of the price.

Due to acute media shortage, if my old disks can still be read, now
I'm looking at moving over to 3½" drives and media.

I do have a µSD card interface too, but it doesn't feel the same...

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 17:31, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> There were a couple of versions of web-browser with OS that fit on a
> 1.44M floppy.

I know about the famous QNX Demo Disk. It's the only one I knew of, though.

http://toastytech.com/guis/qnxdemo.html

Although I guess I could, just for laughs, try to do a modern DR-DOS +
web browser demo disk... I have some already...

https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/58013.html

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: Apple and Sun keyboards

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 20:23, Electronics Plus via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> AEK II are here
> https://www.elecshopper.com/input-devices/keyboards/wired-keyboards/desktop-
> keyboards/apple-extended-keyboard-1.html

If any list members want an Apple Extended 1 in German QWERTZ layout,
I have one that is cleaner than those... and I can supply it with an
ADB-USB convertor, as well. Drop me a line.

> AOL IM elcpls

I think that doesn't work any more. AFAIK AIM has been shut down -- I
lost my 22y old ID, too. Yahoo and MSN IM have both gone too. ICQ is
about the oldest and it's still going, but nobody seems to use it any
more.

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

[dwight via cctalk]

I still don't know for sure which way to do 8 inch compared to 5.25. I usually 
try to write both ways but soon forget which is which.

It won't do any good to tell me as I'll still forget. I just remember the 8 
inch drives were different.

Another good quiz question is where the index hole was on a 8 inch disk for the 
various flavors of 8 inch disk.

Dwight



From: cctalk  on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
cctalk 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 7:28:19 PM
To: Fred Cisin via cctalk
Subject: Re: GoTEK SFR1M44-U100...

On 07/16/2018 06:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> On 8", notch is write protect; no notch is write enabled.
> on 5.25", notch is write enabled; no notch is write protected.
> I think that that justifies calling the 8" a "write protect notch", and
> calling the 5.25" a "write enable notch".
> Used 8" drives that I got sometimes had write-enable tabs in them that
> had fallen off.  Once out of the enclosure, you did not need tiny
> fingers to work on 8" drives.

Well, it's a matter of half-full/half-empty.  The 5.25" notch was always
called write-protect, so go figure.

I've got a few old 5.25" DSDD floppies with a very clover
adaptation--they use a little aluminum slider in the jacket so that one
doesn't have deal with finding sticky things for protection.

The placement of the 5.25" notch, under whatever terminology--on the
jacket *side* was very convenient.  It was possible to poll the sensor
to detect disk insertion/removal without the need for powering the
spindle motor.   I coded some stuff up in the late 70s for a "Put that
back!" alarm when the disk contained files open for writing.

I've got some 3M-branded 8" notched floppies that came with a strip of
transparent *red* stick-ons.   The result was that even when applied,
the disk to some drives was still write-protected.   Very frustrating
the first time encountered.

--Chuck