Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/05/2017 05:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 01:27 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote:
>
>> I once had a Tecmar SASI adapter  (I still have the documentation
>> and diskette) I seem to recall that it was mostly buffers which
>> would suggest that most of the work was done by the device driver.
>> The disks that went with it where  ST506 drives connected to Xebec
>> S1410 bridge cards.   This card/device driver also supported having
>> multiple initiators  so more than one PC could share that massive 10,
>> 15 or 33MB disk.
> My Ampex card is a not-very dense full-length card with LSTTL and one
> 2732 EPROM.  Connection is made by a 25-position dual row (0.1) header
> poking through the rear bracket.  Probably cheaper than any D-sub or
> "Centronics" type connector of the same pincount.
>
> IIRC, the PC Megastore also included a streaming 1/4" tape drive in the
> same box.  According to Infoworld, the MSRP was about $3775.  Disks
> weren't cheap in 1985.
>
> Ampex used the "Megastore" tag on a bunch of things, including their
> memory-as-a-fixed-disk for minicomputers.
>
> --Chuck
>
know about Plus. This is a WD product and has a 21mb model 93028-5-20-1989.
its 40 pin IO is IDE and the board has eprom and nus interface  parts
only.  It carries
a board date of 1988 and all the chips on the board have '88 or earlier
date codes.
It is ISA-8 (small card) in a frame that carries the card and the drive
with is the
1.5" thick 3.5" format.  CHS written on it from my system days using it has
c=782,h=2,s=27.  FYI its slower than sludge as its a stepper drive for
the heads.

I find odd stuff when I go in the closet where I store things.it was
under 4 Compaq 1.05 GB
SCSI-2 drives.-

Allison

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/05/2017 03:46 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 04:22 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Funny the market knew of the 386 in the fall of '85 but it would be
>> three years before I'd see
>> one in the field.  Disks and CPUs lagged the introductions by  years due
>> to cost.
> It was hard to rationalize the extra cost of a 16MHz 80386 when there
> was little software or performance gain over a fast 80286 box when
> running MS-DOS--the dominant OS of the day.
>
> I recall an Intel engineer opining on the subject.  "We give you a
> 32-bit advanced architecture CPU and you p*ss it away running DOS."
>
> Compatibility is a tough mistress.
>
> --Chuck

Moore's law only worked for hardware, software lagged typically two
years behind.

Of course when we did get something else Venix and winders  winders was
the winner
and a poor one at that.

Allison

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/5/17 5:53 AM, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
Also, the early desktop PS/2 (model 50 and such) had the controller 
integrated on the drive and those were Maxtor as I recall.  The PS/2 
shipped in 1987 and we had the drives in labs at least 12-18 months 
prior (memory is dim on this right now).


No. The IBM 8550 has the controller on a special card and the drive 
had a PCB edge that inserted into the PCB connector on the side of the 
controller. The 8550-021 used a 20MB IBM WD-325N disk drive (P/N 
90X6806). The controller is a ST-506 type MFM controller (with DMA, so 
it rocks with a sustained data rate of above 500kB/s!). My father 
upgraded the system with a standard Rhodime 50MB MFM drive. There was 
a purely passive adapter that split the card edge connector into the 
normal 20+34 pin connectors plus power. I still have that system and 
drive :-)


Christian
I have the 10MB hardcard, WD I think.  Its a 10mb 8bit IDE interface on 
the ISA-8 full length card.
The card has EPROM and bus level interface only (buffers) and I think 
512k of ram (have to check).
I got it second hand after an upgrade in '94ish but then most users were 
happy to have 10 or

20mb of disk.

Funny the market knew of the 386 in the fall of '85 but it would be 
three years before I'd see
one in the field.  Disks and CPUs lagged the introductions by  years due 
to cost.


Allison

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

Seriously,

one name was forgotten, WD, that the drive maker but the chip maker. 
The chipset used for
board then drive level was the same or successors and the came from WD.

Allison


On 10/04/2017 03:03 PM, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
> Adam – thanks for the research, can I assume that the other ads u found were 
> also CompuAdd clone ads?
>
>  
>
> CompuAdd is really interesting because it clearly predates the CAM meeting in 
> early 1989.  Here is a quote from the March 9, 1989, CAM minutes
>
> “Gene Milligan pointed out that there is some standardization activity being 
> done by Conner and Miniscribe in the area of mechanical and electrical 
> characteristics of the AT controller interface (with specific application to 
> embedded AT controller interface disk drives)”
>
>  
>
> “Embedded AT Controller” in some form (even just “AT”) seems to be the term 
> of the industry prior to “IDE” and “ATA”
>
>  
>
> I have some fairly complete files on disk drive companies and from the 
> limited material I have it appears that neither Conner, nor MiniScribe, nor 
> Quantum, nor Imprimis used “IDE” in any form in their advertisements and 
> product literature until well after the CAM meeting.  Here are some examples:
>
> YYY-MM   Company   Quote Source
>
> 1987-06  Conner   an embedded IBM PC/AT controller
>  CP342 announcement Press Release
>
> 1988-02  Conner   designed to operate on an IBM PC AT 
> CP3022 Product Spec
>
> 1989-03  Imprimis A choice of industry-standard interfaces — 
> SCSI, ESDI, AT, ST506  OEM Product Catalog
>
> 1989-04  CAM Com. Definition - ATA (AT Attachment):   
>   ATA-1 rev 2
>
> 1989-09  Quantum   the new ProDrive products are available with 
> embedded SCSI or AT-Bus controllers. ProDrive 120-210 
> announcement PR
>
> 1989-10  Miniscribe ST412, XT, AT, SCSI , or SCSI Macintosh 
> interface 1989 Product Guide
>
> 1989-10  PrairieTek  DRIVE W ITH EMBEDDED AT OR XT CONTROLLER 
> PT120 & PT240 data sheer
>
> 1989-11  Kalok   Full SCSI, PC/AT or PS/2 interface 
> compatibility Octagon I Family
>
> 1990-07  Arealdrives with the SCSI or AT interface
>   
>EN article
>
> Of course my files are not as complete as Porter’s so if this becomes 
> important I might have to visit the CHM and check them out.
>
>  
>
> The question becomes whose drives were CompuAdd using?  BTW if you scan two 
> pages on in the cited PC Magazine u will find CompuAdd offering add-on “HDDs” 
> for the “IBM-ATs” and “IBM-XTs”  from MiniScribe and Seagate - at that time 
> Seagate did not have an ATA (or IDE) drive so maybe CompuAdd’s drives weren’t 
> ATA as we now know it.
>
>  
>
> In any event this discussion started with an assertion that IDE preceded ATA 
> and so far the evidence suggests IDE was at best contemporaneous.
>
>  
>
> Tom
>
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Sampson [mailto:a...@offog.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 12:57 PM
> To: Tom Gardner via cctalk
> Subject: Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM 
> drives on a IBM PC]
>
>  
>
> Tom Gardner via cctalk < <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> writes:
>
>  
>
>> But again if anyone has any documents dating IDE in the 1980s I d love 
>> to see them
>  
>
> Don't forget the Internet Archive's impressive collection of scanned 
> magazines for questions like this! There are several references in 1989 in 
> Infoworld and similar periodicals.
>
>  
>
> The earliest I could find from a quick search is this ad from CompuAdd 
> Corporation in PC Magazine, December 27th 1988, listing PC clones with 
> "Integrated Drive Electronics fixed disk drive interface" and "IDE fixed disk 
> drive interface":
>
>  <https://archive.org/stream/PC-Mag-1988-12-27#page/n227/mode/2up> 
> https://archive.org/stream/PC-Mag-1988-12-27#page/n227/mode/2up
>
>  
>
> The ad in the 1988-11-15 issue doesn't mention IDE, so it looks like that's 
> one of the first times CompuAdd thought it was useful for marketing...
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/3/17 12:10 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 10/03/2017 05:37 AM, wrco...@wrcooke.net wrote:


fwiw in the late 80s I was the service department at a small PC
store. I remember seeing these newfangled drives in Compaq
computers, but I don't remember exactly when.  Perhaps 88?  Wikipedia
backs me up that it was Compaq (with WD drives?) as the first large
customer.

Wikipedia is many times wrong, edit please.

Everyone seems to be calling the Compaq drives "Western Digital".  They
weren't WD--they were CDC Wren II HH drives with a WD controller
embedded.  WD didn't get into the drive business until much, much later.

Likely cause, they fact they used WD chipset (1100 series). so it must be WD
which was far from true.

I went back and checked my documents.   The ATA drive that I had was, in
fact, a Wren II.  For all I know, it was the same one that Compaq put in
its boxes, as I picked it up on the surplus market.

It was not a good drive--it failed within a year or so and I scrapped
it.  I understand that my experience with the drive was not unique.

I had three, two crapped fast and one has held up for years...  Then again
I have a Bigfoot 1gb drive that has been good too but that is unusual as 
well.


The market saw a lot of that like Segate ST3660, very bad!   The ST3660A
however was a good drive with better than average life.

That's very different from my experience with the FH Wren drives.   I've
still got a SCSI one installed and running in a 386 box.
Same here.  the worst drive was a WD 8gb scsi, failure date (note rate!) 
was
about one year after install in the server rack.  I had 5 fail and all 
got replaced

with Baracudas.

I ahve a few oddballs from Compaq (of the we own DEC era) hardware that
look like SCSI (50 pin) but are not.  They are 3.5" but fat.

Allison

--Chuck

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/2/17 10:13 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:

On 10/02/2017 08:29 AM, allison via cctech wrote:



On 10/2/17 8:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:

On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee 
of X3T9.2
(SCSI-2) on 30 Sept 1988 and they first met on 19 Oct 1988. The 
primary
goal was to come up with a SCSI subset to facilitate it support in 
multiple

OSs and BIOS on PCs. At the first meeting, two items mentioned in the
minutes seem relevant. 1. Jim McGrath of Quantum was interested in
embedding SCSI in the drive without a physical SCSI bus and described
problems with reference to the PC/AT.


So in effect the IDE was a minimal interface that would interface to the
computer bus
with no more than buffering.


True, I suppose the command structure was more complex with SCSI. It's 
a shame though, it would have been nice if SCSI had been the PC 
standard, what with the large number of devices available, more 
flexibility, and performance potential.


It was/is widely used in PCs.  It put Adaptec on the map.  Servers and 
high end systems

commonly used it especially for early shadow and RAID systems.


Early SCSI disks
were MFM drives with Adaptec or Xybec host boards (SCSI to MFM, local 
cpu

was Z80 on the adaptor).


Xebec... but yeah, and I forgot that they used a Z80 (I was thinking 
it was some Intel 80xx thing). 

Later versions of bridge boards had the 8088 or 80188 16bitter.

I don't know if Xebec actually made a SCSI one, I think they may all 
have been SASI (at least the ones that I've used). I remember there 
was a little schematic in the back of the manual for a suitable 
controller.


Some were SASI and later firmware was SCSI...  Only difference as I had 
both.


Adaptec, Emulex and OMTI all made similar bridge boards... and there 
were probably others, too.



Yes, them too.

Oddly the first VAX to use SCSI or SCSI like was uVAX-2000 as the extra 
box with TK50 Tape

used that.

Allison

cheers

Jules

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/2/17 9:40 AM, william degnan wrote:



ATA-IDE and SCSI (OK SASI) are about the same age but had
different adoption and growth rates.

Earliest SASI/SCSI was AmproLB+ and Visual 1050 with adaptor.  I
have both with hard disks.
FYI the Z80 powered AMPROLB+ was 1984 introduction.


The Commodore D9060/D9090 pre-dates these and was a SASI derivative, 
right?  Not that it matters which was first, but just wanted to 
mention the CBM hard drive too. I have worked with the Visual and CBM 
drives, but never seen the AMPRO.



Hi Bill,

I used those as I knew the dates well having them since new.

Ampro was a basic 64K Z80 system with mini (5.25) or micro(3.5) inch 
floppy interface and if purchased the 5380 parallel/SCSI/SASI adaptor 
chip.  With it you could use the varios boards (Adaptec or Xybec) and 
the Shugart 20mb SASI drive with the existing software supplied.  I 
modded the BIOS to adapt it for a Fujitsu 45mb 3.5" SCSI drive a few 
years later. and it would work with most current generation SCSI-1 
drives save for partitioning and initializing.


The visual was actually older and used TTL to create SASI (scsi look 
alike) bus and the same adaptors

and drives to complete the hard disk side like the Ampro.

I still feel the SCSI bus was inspired by IEE488 (GPIB).

In the systems world my first SCSI on VAX was microVAX ba123 (uVAXIIgpx) 
with CMD controller
and a RD54(MFM 150mb) on an Adaptec Controller and later replaced with 3 
RZ56s (drive with SCSI internal).


Memries of the first SASI/SCSI was 33 years ago for Me, and VAX SCSI was 
1995 as that's when I got

the CMD controller.

Allison

Bill

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/2/17 8:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:

On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee of 
X3T9.2

(SCSI-2) on 30 Sept 1988 and they first met on 19 Oct 1988. The primary
goal was to come up with a SCSI subset to facilitate it support in 
multiple

OSs and BIOS on PCs. At the first meeting, two items mentioned in the
minutes seem relevant. 1. Jim McGrath of Quantum was interested in
embedding SCSI in the drive without a physical SCSI bus and described
problems with reference to the PC/AT.


Does anyone know why IDE/ATA even came about? I mean, why SCSI wasn't 
used? It would have been an established standard by then, the drive 
complexity seems comparable to IDE/ATA (i.e. intelligent commands over 
a parallel bus), and SCSI controllers can be extremely simple - just a 
handful of LS logic ICs - unless you want to add loads of command 
queuing and such (again, comparable to IDE)


Roughly the same at the complexity level but SCSI was more costly as it 
was a defined bus
and did not include the actual device level hardware which SCSI disks 
needed same as IDE.
The ya but was to get SCSI to go faster it needed a complex chip in the 
computer (anyone

remember the NCR 5380 and its kin...) that was costly and PITA to program.

So in effect the IDE was a minimal interface that would interface to the 
computer bus
with no more than buffering.  SCSI required translation from PC buses to 
SCSI BUS and then
from SCSI to IDE(essentially the same electronics with SCSI bus 
interface).  IDE was always a
register interface where SCSI was a protocol that needed a smarter 
target.  Early SCSI disks
were MFM drives with Adaptec or Xybec host boards (SCSI to MFM, local 
cpu was Z80 on the adaptor).


ATA-IDE and SCSI (OK SASI) are about the same age but had different 
adoption and growth rates.


Earliest SASI/SCSI was AmproLB+ and Visual 1050 with adaptor.  I have 
both with hard disks.

FYI the Z80 powered AMPROLB+ was 1984 introduction.
Did it simply come down to pressure from vendors, wanting to 
distinguish between expensive workstation-class drives and something 
cheaper which could be associated with the lowly PC?


It was price...  ATA-IDE was cheaper and PC industry was working hard to 
push the price down.

SCSI always remained more costly.

Allison

cheers

Jules

Re: The origin of the phrases ATA and IDE [WAS:RE: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC]

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/01/2017 04:55 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> On 10/01/2017 02:58 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> On 10/01/2017 12:46 PM, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
>>> I've looked for but cannot find any WD or Compaq documents publically
>>> using IDE to describe what ultimately issued as ATA-1.  My search
>>> included various Compaq maintenance manuals.  The earliest public use
>>> of ATA and AT attachment that I can find is March 1969 at the CAM
>>> committee draft standard long before IDE was linuga franca for these
>>> drives.  The earliest public disclosure of the interface that I can
>>> find is revision IV to the Conner CP3022 specification dated Feb
>>> 1988; it doesn’t name the interface other than in terms of “task file
>>> emulation.”  It is likely that such documents existed from Conner
>>> prior to Feb 1988, perhaps as early as shipping the CP344 in 4Q86.
>>> My point is the interface was public before it was named.
>>>
>>> My recollection (possibly flawed) is WD tried to have the responsible
>>> committee change the name to IDE and failed.
>>>
>>> I do have a confidential WD document from 1965 which does use the
>>> term IDE for "Integrated Drive Electronics" referring to their chips,
>>> a drive built with these chips was called an "Integrated Drive" or an
>>> ID.
>>>
WD didn't exist till sometime after 1970.  You must mean 1985.


>>> The earliest advertisements and specifications for what we would now
>>> call ATA-1 drives from Conner, MiniScribe and Quantum did not use
>>> either the term IDE or ATA.  I have a list of terms used if anyone
>>> cares.
>>>
>>> As best I can tell WD began publically using the term IDE for its
>>> drives sometime around 1990 - if anyone can find a public usage prior
>>> to March 1989 of IDE to describe what became ATA-1  I'd really like
>>> to see it.
>>>
Their first parts were UARTs and maybe USARTs.However ATA is before 1989
just not a lot more before.

>>> The CAM and ANSI committees have since March 1969 defined ATA == AT
>>> Attachment and NEVER used "Advanced Technology" as an acronym for AT
>>> in any standard or draft including the one cited below!  There are
>>> 134 possible definitions <https://www.acronymfinder.com/AT.html>  of
>>> “AT,” including for example, “Appropriate Technology”  – sure the
>>> connection to IBM’s PC/AT  is obvious, but the authors, editors and
>>> reviewers of the standards never meant it to mean “Advanced
>>> Technology” so I suggest we respect their definition and not leap to
>>> an obvious but incorrect conclusion.
>> Tom, I think your dates are about 20 years early.
>>
Since the PC that is the IBM first is 1981 late summer intro before that
is error.

During the prior to time IE pre IBM PC the world was Apple II, CP/M
(8080,8085,Z80)
and machines like the TRS80.  Disks were expensive and rare For floppies
and hard
disks were EXPENSIVE and even more rare.  I was bleeding edge with a
Teltek and ST506
in 1980(summer) and it was over 1K in hardware then never minding
integrating
it myself with CP/M 2.2.  The then current disks were removable packs
(10mb and over 5K$)
and 4mb and larger 8" disk systems using SA4000 drives like Morrow and
others.  In
two years that would change greatly and disk sizes would be
multiplying.  It was about 1987
when PCs started to run larger than 30mb.

Allison
>>
> 1969??  Yes, sounds REALLY early to me, too.  The 8080, or even the
> 4004, had not been developed yet!
> The only "PC" was the Biomedical Computer Lab's Programmed Console (to
> avoid the use of the
> word "computer" which set the corporate suite in a tizzy) which was a
> 12-bit computer built into a desk,
> descended from the LINC.  Mostly used for radiation treatment planning.
>
> In 1969, the only chips you could buy were SMALL scale integration, a
> few gates or FF to a package,
> in RTL, DTL, and ECL.  TTL was just coming out in 1969-1970.
>
> Western Digital was formed in 1970.  I got seriously into the
> minicomputer arena in about 1973 with
> Data General and DEC PDP-11 systems.  Small disks like the Diablo
> cartridge drive and larger ones that were essentially plug-compatible
> IBM 2314-type drives were available in the early 1970's.  These had
> very little electronics
> in the drive.  A little bit of head seek logic and read and write
> amps, that was about it.
>
> Jon

Re: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC

[allison via cctalk]

On 09/29/2017 06:42 PM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:08:24PM -0700, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>> On 09/29/2017 11:20 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> [...]
>>> Older BIOS firmware provided no means for the user to define the geometry of
>>> a connected drive - just a list of predefined types, and those often maxed
>>> out at far less than any 512MB limit. There were various software solutions
>>> to get around it, though.
>>> Of course operating systems had various limits on the maximum size of a
>>> partition on top of that - e.g. I think it was 32MB in earlier versions of
>>> MS-DOS.
>> What are the current drive size limits?
> The latest relevant standards seem to be ATA-6 for ATA, and SBC-3 for SCSI,
> which have 48- and 64-bit logical block addresses (LBAs) respectively.
>
> ATA LBAs are *always* 512 bytes no matter what the physical sector size is, so
> this sets a hard limit of approximately 144EB. This limit also implies that
> sectors must be a multiple of 512 bytes (e.g. modern 4kiB-sectored disks) and
> unusual sector sizes are not supported.
>
> SBC-3 does not specify the size of a block, but it notes that most disks
> support 512 bytes with some also supporting 520 or 4096. Assuming 512-byte
> logical blocks, the limit is 9.44ZB.
>
> Since the hard disk equivalent of Moore's Law seems to be running out of steam
> at mere tens of terabytes, we probably won't need to raise either limit for a
> while yet :)

What not mentioned is that LBA addressed drives have cache.  With that
sector size is meaningless
as the track (most likely) or several are read into the cache.  There is
LRU applied to keep the media
up to date and also insure the cache is not stale.  With cache it makes
doing 512byte blocks a trivial
issue.

Now we have SSDs...  Whole new game same old protocols.

Allison

Re: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC

[allison via cctalk]

On 9/28/17 10:21 AM, Geoffrey Oltmans wrote:



On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:16 AM, allison via cctalk 
<cctalk@classiccmp.org <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:




IDE disks format usually meant high level only.  SCSI could be
either depnding on the specific controller and media.


Seems like the omission of low level formatting of IDE drives had more 
to do with preserving the servo track data, (and maybe aforementioned 
firmware/bad sector data) yes?
IDE was supposed to be near plug and play so low level formatting was 
not required and undesired.
With that most did not low level format, just leaving room for the 
likely exceptions.  The key was the drive interface was embedded on the 
drive to remove the need for a board in the bus.


Even IDE cam in flavors, LBA, bus interface speeds, then large LBA types 
as we know them now.
That also includes the CF cards as they had an IDE mode as well as 8bit 
data bus interface mode.

Its all PATA... (IDE, EIDE, ATAPI...)

SCSI/SASI was the exception for all.  It ws a system to device interface 
and the endpoint could be a drive controller with formatting capability 
and a raw ST506 drive or it could be a Drive very similar to IDE
(Embedded Disk Electronics) with a SCSI interface.  Again I've used all 
flavors, CP/M (Micromint SB180
with SCSI adapter) and Xybec controller to a 20mb ST225, PC with Adaptec 
and D540, microVAX with

CMD SCSI (bus card) and M3100s with internal SCSI and RZxx type drives.

Were any earlier MFM/RLL voice coil/servo controlled, or were they all 
stepper drives?


YES to all.  The early drives came in all flavors.  SA412(10mb) was 
stepper, Quantum D540
was voice coil with embedded servo yet it could be reformatted (RQDX1/2 
and RQDX3 had
different formats and I've used the same after formatting on 
Teltek(CPM), PC (1003MFM and
1005-RLL controllers), plus my PDP11s/MicroVAX (RQDX3 andRQDX2) which 
are all very
different.  Generally Drives of the MFM or RLL (ST506/412) interface 
were low level formatted

though exceptions existed.

There was a lot of evolution in disks within the PC world some ideas and 
developments
originated from outside that and others were exported.  SCSI and MFM 
interfaces were
from outside PCs realm and added in and IDE was uniquely PC in origin 
though it was a morph
of the "host controllers" which were bus level interfaces similar to but 
not IDE.


For a few years you could get the same controller for a MFM drive that 
could have
Host interface, SCSI, IDE, and all the various PC busses (MicroChannel, 
ISA8, ISA16, EISA a and more),
and then buses from DEC, DG and others.  That list is far from complete 
but serves the example.


Allison

Re: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC

[allison via cctalk]

On 9/27/17 10:59 AM, Ethan via cctalk wrote:
IIRC, the first time I had problems with the low level format was 
with one

of the early IDE controllers and a 230MB Maxtor. Crapped out the entire
firmware, was never able to get it to admit who it was again. Seemed to
work okay with earlier MFM/RLL 40 MB and 80 MB Conner drives (I 
think, it's

been a while).


AFAIK a lot of IDE drives store part of the firmware on the spinning 
disk in a special section of the disk. Not sure if those early models 
used that trick to cut costs or not?




Not so for MFM.  All and IDE drive is in essence is a MFM with a WD1003 
controller as IDE is the buss

level view of the 1003 (or the later 1005 RLL encoded version).

The idea of IDE, as my understanding, is the controller that existed 
as an ISA card was moved onto the actual drive, and then what became 
the controller was mostly just extending the ISA bus over to the drive.



Correct.
My first hard drive was a SCSI-1 ?Fuji? on a Seagate 8-bit ISA card. 
Families Tandy 1000sx. I remember in the end playing with low level 
formatting tools and interleves, then the drive dying at the same 
time. I correlated the two together then, but looking back I think the 
issue was drive motor/bearings/stuck rotation of platters.


My first drive was a ST506 on S100 using the Teltek controller (CP/M) I 
was an early adopter and
5MB felt like a a lot of space when floppies were maybe 720K (2side 
double density 80track) back
in 1980.  After that it included over time St506, st412(RD50), RD51(also 
sold as MFM for PCs 31mb) then SA225(RD31), sa250 (RD32), Quantum D540 
(RD52) and a long list of others including most of the drives to 150mb.  
Those larger than 30mb woere used in my QBUS PDP11's and MicroVAX 
systems.  Least that was
true up to about 93ish when I started using PCs (XT class running 
dos/WIN3.11).


DEC for MFM RDxx disks had different formats depending on system those 
being Rainbow, PRO, QBUS(RQDX1,2 or RQDX3) which was PDP11 and MicroVAX( 
MV2000 and QBUS).  That's for Low level format.  FOr High level
format for the different file systems were handled by the OS.  While 
they were sometimes called format it was really writing a bland initial 
filesstem on formatted media.


IDE disks format usually meant high level only.  SCSI could be either 
depnding on the specific controller and media.


PCs forced the issue with multiple controlled not all the same  For 
example the ST225 could be formatted

with WD1003(plain MFM) or WD1005 (RLL encoded).  There were many versions.

In the CP/M s100 days you had teltek, Konan and many others all 
different.  Media must be formatted for the controller and there was 
code supplied for that. Those were the bus installed controller as 
Xyebc, WD, Adaptec also had host controllers as well as SASI/SCSI 
interfaced versions to drive MFM drives.


The whole of that is 5.25 disks and the later 3.5inch IDE class 
devices.  Other formats were well, different.


Allison

Re: formatting MFM drives on a IBM PC

[allison via cctalk]

On 9/27/17 12:04 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

On 26 September 2017 at 21:33, Phil Blundell via cctalk
 wrote:

Low-level formatting (which, at the time, was just called "formatting")
used to be quite a routine operation on ST-506 MFM and RLL hard disks.
They usually came completely blank from the factory and you had to
format them according to whatever sector layout and interleave your
particular controller wanted before they were usable.  Once the drive
was formatted you then had to run a separate process to lay out an
actual filesystem.

All true, although by the time I entered the industry in 1988 or so,
it was normal for drives to ship low-level formatted, at least.

I remember that Netware came with a special tool called COMPSURF to do
a "comprehensive surface analysis".

There's still a passing mention of this here:
https://support.novell.com/subscriptions/readmes/114.html


Everyone forgets Norton Utilities...

Re: Fwd: Chasing Digiac...

[allison via cctalk]

Huge temporal disconnect.

The smcc manual is from 1966...  S100 was first seen as the MITS altair
in late 1974.

Allison


On 09/17/2017 03:03 PM, Ed via cctalk wrote:
> well there is  this total  cool  book and picture! 
>  
> http://www.smecc.org/digiac.htm
>  
> we  would love to  find the system!
>  
>  
>   
> 
>  From: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Reply-to: ge...@deltasoft.com
> To:  cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Sent: 9/17/2017 11:55:38 A.M. US Mountain Standard  Time
> Subj: Chasing Digiac...
>
>
> I'm trying to find out more information about a Digiac 4500  S-100 bus 
> system that will eventually be coming my way.  The machine  was originally 
> obtained through an estate sale and all the docs were  thrown out. :(
>
> It appears to be some kind of computer system trainer,  but information on 
> the 'net is VERY scarce.  In fact, the only time  I've found "Digiac 4500" 
> _anywhere_ is where it's listed as having  software support in an ad for a 
> robot  arm.
>
> Thanks!
>
> g.
>
>

Re: pdp-8/e restoration.

[allison via cctalk]

On 8/16/17 9:38 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote:

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 8:35 AM, allison via cctalk
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

Note: TU58 (variant of DC100 tape) to my knowledge was never used with PDP-8
in any flavor.  There is no reason why not other than no driver and it 8bit
only and the blocking is 512bytes.

I remember a lot of discussion in PDP-8 user group newsletters about
the TU-58 when it came out (due to cost, size, and convenience), but
one technical problem dominated the articles - how to generate a break
from various types of PDP-8 serial ports.  ISTR some of the talk was
around hacking the hardware to make it possible (jamming multiple
nulls into the transmit latches without waiting for the previous one
to complete, for one).

In the end, I think it never worked out to be a favorable peripheral
to go with, perhaps because floppies got cheaper and easier and older
machines declined in active use.

-ethan

it was odd and optimized for 16/32bit machines of the day.  The transfer
speed for a well buffered system was limited to about 25kbits/S average.
Without buffering or low response the rate was easily much less.  On the 
whole
I've limited TU-58 to physically small Qbus PDP11 systems as its 
painfully slow

but very portable (even RX02 is heavy).

For modern implementation it would be easier to take an Arduino or R-PI
and match the serial limitations of the PDP-8 with a more suitable protocol
and also handle 8/12bit more transparently.  That and large storage using
SD or microSD would be very cheap.  Over ten years ago I  went the route of
a simple serial using 8749 and a 128kx8 ram to store 6bit half words
in an block addressable form (256 6bit or 128 12bit words).   It didn't
try to emulate a popular PDP-8 storage so it was easy to get going. Today
I'd use Arduino and either battery backed up ram or SD.

The alternate to that in modern hardware is to emulate the DF32 using
three cycle data break.  The actual storage can be a pair of 8bit ram as a
12 bit wide memory wich is cheap and easy as cmos parts for 32K bytes
abound and larger to 1mb can be found easily.  A PDP-8 with 128K words
of very fast no latency "disk" would be a interesting.  The basic hardware
can be copied from the 3cycle databreak foundation module.  Most of the
PDP-8 OSs supported DF32 if only for swap.

Allison

Re: pdp-8/e restoration.

[allison via cctalk]

Note: TU58 (variant of DC100 tape) to my knowledge was never used with PDP-8
in any flavor.  There is no reason why not other than no driver and it 
8bit only

and the blocking is 512bytes.

The 8bit part is solved by storing 2 words (12bit word) to 3 bytes (24bits).

It could be quite handy as a DECTape substitute.

As distribution it was the same as RX01 in size (256K max) and not cheaper.
it was more compact as a system loader typically used on VAX730 and PDT110.


On 8/8/17 1:09 AM, Ian S. King via cctalk wrote:

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:



On 08/08/2017 00:01, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote:


On 8/7/2017 3:50 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote:



One other thing - I have a working TU58.
The two cassette drives in a box type with serial interface.
Now the pdp-8/e DECTapes were also called TU58.


The typical DECtapes used with the PDP-8 were TU56's, a completely
different (and much more rare) beast.

The M8650 is on the list of what you can connect it to.

So does the one substitute for the other and raise the possibility of
booting from tape?


No, they're not substitutes.  I'm not aware of any PDP-8 systems booting
and running from a TU58, but I suppose it's not impossible. Mostly the
problem with the TU58 at this point is that (a) the capstan rollers in your
drives are most likely tar, and (b) the rubber parts in the tape itself
have done the same, and (c) the tape itself probably isn't in great shape
either.

- Josh



Rod



Mmm senior confusion.

Its a working TU58 - Restored including fixing the roller problem.
Runs on a PC OK.

Just fixed the echo test problem.
RS232 on M8650 needed a jumper E-M on board or plug.


So now to check out that  rim loader stuff.
Its in C but I can get round that problem.


Rod

--
Wanted one pdp-8/i rocker switch leaver to copy.



For verily, LINCtape begat DECtape, and DECtape begat DECtape II.  LINCtape
and DECtape were legitimate backing store, DECtape II was a cheap way of
delivering software updates.

And since when is C a 'problem'?  :-)  -- Ian

Re: Visual 1050

[allison via cctalk]

On 8/7/17 1:43 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 08/06/2017 04:16 PM, Gary McGill via cctalk wrote:

I have an Visual 1050 computer (CPM based) with screen and keyboard.
Probably works but I have not tried it yet.  Will likely uncover boot
disks, and other software.

Anyone interested to pay shipping from Bellingham, WA?



Gary, there's a CP/M collector's community over at vcfed.org.  You might
want to try posting on the forum over there.

--Chuck
As someone that has three of them with hard disk its nearly the last 
word on
Z80 CP/M systems with the 6502 doing terminal and graphics.  Worth 
collecting.


Allison

Re: WTB: RX02 Floppy Disks

[allison via cctalk]

On 8/2/17 8:49 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:


On 8/1/17 10:36 PM, Ulrich Tagge via cctalk wrote:


Looks like I was wrongly under the impression, that there is no way to 
reformat, disks to work in an RX02.

There is no way to low-level format disks on a DEC RX01 or RX02. The hardware 
doesn't support it in the controller
inside the DEC disk drive. DEC expected you to buy media from them.

You can do it with third-party controllers like Qbus Sigma, DSD, or MTI using 
standard Shugart interface disk drives.
Some also support "RX03" double-sided drives.

You could also clone a formatted double-density disks with a flux-level 
reader/writer board.





RX02 drives can "reformat" RX01 media to RX02.  So if you need RX02 
media any soft sector
single sided single density (26 by 128 byte sectored) will do.  I use my 
S100 CP/M system
to format media to that then the RX01 can be used to init (initialize 
directory) or reformat (to DD).

Least the PDP11 can.

Allison

Re: ✉Re: an interesting article

[allison via cctalk]

For those of us with robust well protected systems (or disposable 
machine running in VM) the URL is for a papers (as in assignments) for a 
price site.   The first page is fairly safe but its a malware site.



Allison

On 7/25/17 11:39 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

On Jul 25, 2017, at 11:33 AM, geneb via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Paul Koning wrote:


On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:50 AM, geneb via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Leigh Paulson via cctalk wrote:


Hey!


I've just found that article and thought it might be really helpful to you, you 
may find it here http://coffeesystem.malware/principal.php?4647


Warm regards, Leigh Paulson

Jay, I'll take "EMail Accounts That Have Been Comprimised" for $200.

Be careful with that assumption.  It is very common for criminal email to have 
forged source addresses.  Just like it's common for criminal phone calls to 
have forged caller IDs.  A look at the routing headers will often give you a 
clue; most of the time the source of the message is some nameless third world 
computer nowhere close to the server responsible for the faked sender address.

It's a pretty safe assumption considering the fact that any mail admin worth their salt 
(and Jay certainly is) will have their mail systems configured to reject mail from 
non-authorized senders.  For example, if you sent classiccmp.org an email with your 
"from" header tweaked to be from ge...@deltasoft.com, the mail server will 
reject it because your mail server isn't an authorized sender for the deltasoft.com 
domain.

Maybe so, but in this case 30 seconds of inspection of the original message 
headers makes it very clear that the sending email string is a forgery.

paul

Re: What Is This Component?

[allison via cctalk]

On 07/23/2017 06:12 PM, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote:
> It's a "watch" quartz crystal...
>
> http://www.explainthatstuff.com/quartzclockwatch.html
>
> probably used to set the master frequency for the UART/Serial interfaces...

NO, not at all.  To low a frequency as many of them use 16x clock for
baud rates
(To 57.6 or115Kb).  That will be derived off 14.318mhz or some harmonic or
subharmonic of that.


> Dave 
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rob
> Jarratt
>> via cctalk
>> Sent: 23 July 2017 23:05
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>> 
>> Subject: What Is This Component?
>>
>> I am trying to repair my DECstation 220 after a battery leak, and making
> some
>> reasonable progress. I have reached a component that is unknown to me, so
>> I don't know how it is supposed to behave. It is connected to the inputs
> of a
>> CMOS NAND gate, where I measure a steady voltage of 1.8V, but the output
>> of the gate is oscillating, which suggests to me that the gate can't
> decide
>> what the input is. So perhaps this mystery component could be to blame.
>> The marking on it is "KDS0B" (the zero could be an "oh", I am not sure). I
> have
>> a spare board with the same component where there is a marking of
>> "32768". Some searches suggest it might be an oscillator.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is QZ1 in the following picture:
>> https://rjarratt.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/wp_20170723_22_38_20_pro.j
>> pg
>>
>>
>>
>> The U56 component in the picture is what QZ1 is connected to (pins 5 and
> 6),
>> on the reverse side of the board the pins are also connected to a resistor
> and
>> a capacitor.
>>
>>
>>
>> If anyone can tell me what QZ1 is I would be grateful, and if there is a
> modern
>> equivalent, that would also be good to know.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob
>

Re: What Is This Component?

[allison via cctalk]

On 07/23/2017 06:09 PM, Mattis Lind via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is QZ1 in the following picture:
>> https://rjarratt.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/wp_20170723_22_38_20_pro.jpg
>>
>> It is a 32768 Hz crystal / resonator.
> /Mattis
> \

No question about it a 32768Hz crystal.  Likely used  to TOD/TOY clock.

Allison

Re: Any info about Plessey floppy drive/controller?

[allison via cctalk]

On 07/11/2017 04:31 PM, Mattis Lind via cctalk wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a Plessey floppy as part of a 11/34 system. Does anyone have info
> about it? It appears that the controller is similar to the XCV21
> controller.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/NxGPBFN.jpg
> https://i.imgur.com/NOg7WfZ.jpg
> https://i.imgur.com/HnhmO33.jpg
>
> The XCV21 manual is available on bitsavers. It appears that it supports
> double sided drives. How would that be compatible RX01 and RX02?
Well its not. sorta!

If you use a single sided drive its compatable with RX01/02 and can read
and write them.
If you have a two sided drive its still compatable but media generated
in two sided mode will
be incompatable with RX01/02.  That simple.

The yabut is you must have the Plessy driver for it as the stock DX/DY
knows nothing of the
two sided modes..  And any two or single sided drive will only be used
single sided.

Allison

Re: Cipher F880 with S100 interface card on local CL

[allison via cctalk]

On 07/09/2017 01:43 PM, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>> On 07/09/2017 07:30 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/8/17 5:18 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>>> From his photo, it does appear to be S100-sized.
>>> I didn't see any 50 pin connectors, or regulators. If you look
>>> closely it's 8-bit ISA. You can see the HD connector on the back
>> I took his photo and enlarged it 800% and came to a similar conclusion.
>>
>> It's an ISA card all right, but 16-bit to my eye.  I posted the
>> information on the VCFed forum.
>>
>> --Chuck
>>
>>
> Maybe an Overland Data TX-8?
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/272743761884
>
> Doesn't look like a Computer Logics PCTD16

Its clearly NOT S100.  ISA is likely.


Allison

Re: Steve Garcia / Micromint SB180

[allison via cctalk]

On 07/05/2017 04:14 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
>
>
> On 7/5/2017 12:32 PM, GerardCJAT via cctalk wrote:
>> PLEASE, under what directory you put the pdf of the manual  ??
> http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/micromint/
Thats only for the SB180FX... there are two versions the SB180 and the
later FX.
Never mind also the BCC180.  All z180 powered but not the same.

The first SB180 was limited to 256K of ram, the FX used the Z180 in the
higher lead
count J-lead package and could address 1MB.  The BCC180 was for control
aps and
carried 156Kof Dram and up to 128K of 32K eprom or ram but had no disk
IO but tons
of 8255 (times 2) IO.

I have the BCC180 and the SB180 (first version).

Allison

Re: TV Typewriter project nearing completion

[allison via cctalk]

On 06/26/2017 11:29 AM, Brad H via cctech wrote:
> Thanks Nick!
>
> I had thought about selling PCBs or creating a kit, but I lack the skill to 
> draft it in PCB CAD software.  The boards I made come from scans of the plans 
> (on swtpc.com), and I really had to tweak those to get them to work.  And 
> even then, while I was able to correct for size I missed de-skewing them, so 
> the molex connectors for the bus between boards do not line up perfectly, 
> making connecting boards a bit of a trick.  I hadn't realized just how badly 
> scanning could distort artwork until I got my hands on an original copy of 
> the Radio Electronics construction guide for the Mark-8.  Comparing the 
> artwork in it to the scanned copies online showed just how bad the scanner 
> mangled things.  
>
> Unfortunately I missed a perfect opportunity to acquire an original 
> construction guide when an actual vintage TVT came up on ebay.  The auction 
> was for the TVT and the seller threw in the guide he'd bought.  I lost that 
> auction to Grant Stockly.  As it turns out, he plans to diassemble that TVT, 
> scan the boards and make kits available.  I was disappointed that he was 
> going to dismantle an original piece (he does intend to reassemble it), but 
> am glad some quality kits will come as a result.  We had been negotiating to 
> send my original Mark-8 boards for a scan, since they are unbuilt, but I have 
> been leery about shipping them off to the US ever since they were almost lost 
> in transit to me.
>
> If folks are interested I could make my 'corrected' (photoshopped) artwork 
> available somewhere.  Maybe someone could fix it further.  I may even fix it. 
>  Last week I acquired some actual vintage 1973 PCB stock, and now have an 
> opportunity to go the last mile on authenticity and actually rebuild the TVT 
> with correct PCBs.  That'd make it almost indistinguishable from an original. 
>  But.. it'd also be a ton of (re)work.. 
>
> Brad
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Nick Allen 
> via cctalk
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 12:54 PM
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: TV Typewriter project nearing completion
>
> wow impressive work Brad!  Thanks for blogging about it, it's fun to watch 
> you progress.  Ever consider selling some of the PCB boards, and coming up 
> with a BOM list, so we can recreate some too?
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>

I'll have to pull out the one I built in '75 as my first Altair non TTY
terminal. 
Bet it still works and has the 64 char mod.  The only issue was
stability of the
position adjustments.   One shots for timing... still not a fan.

Allison

Re: Random musing: VCB02 on VAX-11/750

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/27/2017 09:15 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote:
> So I had a random thought in the wee hours this morning and I leave it
> to you, the cctalk braintrust, to tell me exactly how stupid this idea
> is:
>
> I have a VAX-11/750, an Able QNiverter (UNIBUS->Qbus adapter), a
> 22-bit Qbus backplane, and a VCB02 (QDSS) 4-bit graphics boardset.
>
> Theory: With an appropriately modified NetBSD driver for the VCB02,
> such that it provides only 18-bit addresses to the VCB02's DMA engine,
> I can get X running on the VCB02 on the 11/750.
>
> That is, the configuration is: 11/750->Unibus->QNiverter->Qbus->VCB02.
>

Should work with one thing I can think of the VCB02 is Q22 not Q18.  Its
22bit. 

The VAX hardware is for memory 32bit and for IO only 16bit.  ( A 16 bit
segment mapped to IO.)
The bit map is mapped as Q22 memory.

> Obviously the console functionality of the VCB02 won't work since that
> requires support on the VAX side of things that won't be present, but
> I think everything else should work.  I've browsed the technical
> manual and I don't see anything that should get in the way, I'll just
> need to hack up the driver appropriately.
>
It works in a Qbus microVAX!  However starting up you will need a
terminal until it all works.

Part of getting it all working is a NETBSD build for the odd concoction.

> But this is something that randomly popped into my head (I was
> inspired by a research paper, "A VAX Based Data Acquisition Computer
> System at the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory" wherein a Matrox
> QRGB Qbus graphics board was lashed to an 11/750 in a similar manner...
>
> What say you all?
>
> - Josh
>

Re: Kryoflux or Catweasle

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/25/2017 12:18 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> On 05/24/2017 12:49 PM, allison via cctalk wrote:
>
>> I remember when RTL was new and uRTL was a later improvement.
> Flatpack and TO-100.  I probably still have a few mW RTL packages
> around.  DIPs came later.
Both and 3 input nors in a flat pack about 5000 of them were used in
AGC.


Allison


> --Chuck
>

Re: Kryoflux or Catweasle

[allison via cctalk]

On 5/24/17 3:35 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 05/24/2017 11:19 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:


But who wants to write the software?

Yes, just so.  I learned about that one decades ago.


I am building a 1977 ttl style computer because now I have spare time.
Finding vintage or similar devices is being a challenge as well fighting
modern OS to have even a C compiler and a TEXT editor.
Technology is not better, just cheaper

Modern technology is not only cheaper, but it's faster and uses less
power--and is usually more flexible.

Its why I keep all my old machines.  We have an understanding, that is I
understand them fully, hardware and software.

Oddly the assumption is 16 bit, PDP-11, why not DG Nova, TI990.
Could easily be 8 bit, 12bit, 18 bit as well.


I suspect that a PDP-11 in FPGA is quite a bit more reliable than the
real thing--and when you're done you have a nice abstract description of
the hardware in VHDL format.

And yes, I have a pile of old CMOS/ECL/TTL logic.

And Germanium transistors...


Remember when CMOS logic was new-- +15V Vdd and 1MHz top speed?

--Chuck

I remember when RTL was new and uRTL was a later improvement.


Allison

Re: Directory of old computer collectors

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/24/2017 03:58 AM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Randy
>> Dawson via cctalk
>> Sent: 24 May 2017 07:47
>> To: jim stephens <jwsm...@jwsss.com>; steven stengel <tost...@yahoo.com>;
>> General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Directory of old computer collectors
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>>
>> Anybody that is paranoid about telling their location and the computer
>> dinosaurs running in their basement needs a head alignment.
>>
>
> It seems that you are suggesting people are worried about their collections
> being attractive to thieves. Well, that may be true for the lucky few, but
> for me it is simply about coordinates for identity theft and other kinds of
> criminality.
>
> Regards
>
> Rob
>
>
Rob hit the nail.

I think the collection has limited value at best and likely only a few
select pieces.

However,  To make the point to someone I showed them what they put on
the net and then
compiled it into a picture of who, what, and even when.  They
immediately stopped posting
all their daily activities and much of the personal stuff.

In my case if you can't figure out where I am from a ham call your
beyond hope
and unlikely to be a risk.

Allison

Re: Directory of old computer collectors

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/22/2017 07:44 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
>> On May 22, 2017, at 1:19 PM, steven stengel via cctalk 
>> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Please let me know if I may, or may not, place your information on the 
>> public webpage.
> As long as it's just city and email address, I don't mind being on the list. 
> My email address and city are already all over the place, anyway. And while 
> I'm here, thanks again for the items which you have helped move to my 
> collection, and in one case through my collection to an even better home.
>
Same here city, state and email address is good.

Allison Parent, Framingham, MA  Email: kb1...@arrl.net (spam proofing
via reflector.)

Re: KDF 8189 processor board foobared (ebay warning)

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/21/2017 01:02 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>
> On 5/21/17 8:51 AM, Rob Doyle via cctalk wrote:
>
>> How 'bout a brand new J11-based board for oldie S-100 systems?
> Reinventing incompatible I/O for existing operating systems.
>
> Maybe if they wrote a new unencumbered OS, but I'm not holding my breath.

Its a PITA for even simple os like RT11.
> I don't get why they abandoned their original Eurocard form factor for 
> something truly
> braindead.
S100 fits everthing, even if not well.

> Linear regulators on every card is stupid in the era of high efficiency 
> switchers.

Its the BUS  Switchers back then were expensive and not efficient,
nor quiet.
back then they were large too.  It also meant a better buss structure to
distribute
5V without undue voltage drop.  It is why DEC Qbus is only so large
before they
went BA123 with two power supplies.  Ever heard a DEC H780 sing,
loudly!  Your
critical of tech as it was.In the end S100 was the cheap way for the
day not
expecting to become a monster system that they tended to become.

I have a s100 box I made up without them and its a pain to use boards
across
systems without mods.

Systems I do now don't need S100, SS50, or Multibus as I can put all that
on one small card.

> Now he's talking about Multibus, so he can use all of those 8" SMD disk and
> Pertec tape controller boards. Maybe my boxes of that junk will be worth 
> something now.
>
Multibus was nicer and cleaner but in the end one multibus card can hold an
entire system now and be big and clunky.


Allison

Re: KDF 8189 processor board foobared (ebay warning)

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/21/2017 11:51 AM, Rob Doyle via cctalk wrote:
> On 5/20/2017 7:01 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:
>> Best chip for hacking and useful off a board (Falcon, KXT11, RQDX,
>> others) is the T11.  Its easily > useful like a 8085 or Z80.
>
> How 'bout a brand new J11-based board for oldie S-100 systems?
>
> <http://www.s100computers.com/My%20System%20Pages/PDP11%20Board/PDP11%20Board.htm>
>
>
> Rob.
Rob,

A T-11 was easier and fewer issues.

The biggest issue with T/F/J-11 is that all IO is RBW (read before
write, even if read is not used)
making IO difficult.  This is solved by DEC by reading one address and
writing another.  For S100
 doing IO you create BBS7 (bank select 7, logical or of high order 3
bits) as IO/ROM space
and munge the IO address for read and write to be offset for a given target.

Allison

Re: KDF 8189 processor board foobared (ebay warning)

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/20/2017 06:40 PM, jim stephens via cctech wrote:
>
>
> On 5/20/2017 3:20 PM, Paul Anderson wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I have the M8189 11/23+ boards here. call me tonight if you want.
>>
>> Paul
>>
> Are there any reasonably priced boards with the processor and memory
> of either the KDF or KDJ processors?
>

There are no boards with memory in the KDF family (11/23, 23+).  The J11
has one.
IF you want to take a different path find a Pro350(KDF-11) or Pro380(KDJ-11)

> The ones I've seen recently are astronomically priced.  Would be
> interesting to find one with memory, processor and console.
>
A complete system is usually cheaper than the random boards.  I know I
have two sitting.

Allison

> Thanks
> jim
>
>
> Th

Re: KDF 8189 processor board foobared (ebay warning)

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/21/2017 02:10 AM, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:
> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 3:08 AM, allison via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> The only boards with T11 I have are RQDX1/2/3.  However I have a few
>> T11s that were ES parts from
> As an aside, there's a T11 in the VT240 terminal. I am certainly not 
> suggesting
> raiding such a terminal for the T11 chip though.
>
> I always thought it was a pity there was no way to run user programs on the
> VT240, unlike the GT40. That would have made an interesting 'PDP11' system.
>
> -tony
Just change the Eproms...  it has the resources save for all the IO will
be "odd" compared
to most 11s.

Allison

Re: KDF 8189 processor board foobared (ebay warning)

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/20/2017 05:56 PM, jim stephens wrote:
>
>
> On 5/20/2017 7:01 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:
>> Argh,  CPU chips used on dec board loose value as the complete board
>> carries the value.
>>
>> KDF with the second chip is useful but the logic needed to may a "CPU"
>> of the raw chips is not trivial.
> That was what I figured.  Hopefully the lister will put the two back
> together, but has not done so for now.  he did bring down the price
> per my suggestion he had messed up the value by pulling the chip.
>> Best chip for hacking and useful off a board (Falcon, KXT11, RQDX,
>> others) is the T11.  Its easily
>> useful like a 8085 or Z80.
> I've got two boards with T-11's very nice.  The T-11's listed right
> now were higher in cost than the KDJ processor I have, and I have a
> full page archived with the project to bring it up.  Just seemed like
> an interesting project for sometime.
>
The only boards with T11 I have are RQDX1/2/3.  However I have a few
T11s that were ES parts from
my days at DEC and when the group moved they were going to trash them. 
Its an interesting part
as its unique in that the bus width and processor cycles are
configurable and that includes refresh
if needed for Dram (Z280 can do it but it was years later).It was
intended to be implemented like
the z80 and 8085 for system applications that needed more.

A projects archive for T11, I have to see that.

Allison

> Thanks
> Jim

Re: KDF 8189 processor board foobared (ebay warning)

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/20/2017 04:59 AM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:
> I just ran across a sale on epay by a guy who thought you could pull
> the processor chip off the board and sell each in separate auctions.
>
> I couldn't find the processor from the huge number of gold scrap chip
> auctions he had, but he said it (or the other) chip(s) for the board
> were listed.
>
> I think giving him the benefit of the doubt, he thought that the two
> were separable like motherboards and processors are now day.  Worst
> case he was just an unfortunate idiot that destroyed the board.
>
> I sent him an email telling him the value I place on it (tested) and
> suggested that he think of older boards as the full components to be
> kept together unless he wants to destroy the board, or knows what he
> is doing breaking them up.  Of course on old Qbus and the like boards,
> one does have some components that are more valuable if you break up
> the board, and pull "unobtainium" chips.  But pulling out the KDF
> processor isn't one of them in general.
>
> I just bought a KDJ Jaws chip for a "round 2it" project to try to get
> it running, as I archived a PDP11 "Hack" page indicating how to get
> one running on a proto board with minimal hardware.
>
> I don't know if you could do that with the KDF, but that isn't what
> this guy is doing.
>
Argh,  CPU chips used on dec board loose value as the complete board
carries the value.

KDF with the second chip is useful but the logic needed to may a "CPU"
of the raw chips is
not trivial.

Best chip for hacking and useful off a board (Falcon, KXT11, RQDX,
others) is the T11.  Its easily
useful like a 8085 or Z80.
 
Allison

> thanks
> Jim
>

Re: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/19/2017 07:49 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> On 19 May 2017 at 13:36, Bill Gunshannon  wrote:
>> Nope. Take a trip to Amazon and look at just how much power this stuff
>> actually consumes.  And, if you go back to the days when we started
>> running this stuff in our homes, compare the draw of a QBUS PDP-11 to
>> a TV with a picture tube, standard incandescent lights, a refridgerator,
>> window air conditioners, etc.  Our toys draw much less power than most
>> people think.  Heck, I have seen modern PC's (you  know, the kind gamers
>> use) that draw more power and are frequently run 24/7.
Running a BBS I can think of several machines that re power frugal in the
DEC realm alone. 

Vt180 it a Vt100 power needs plus maybe 80W for the VT180 board and
four Floppies.   The total is under 120W based on an old measurement.

A PDP-11 Qbus machine with a 11/23 cpu and a RL02 or a RQDX/Hard disk 
was enough for running TSX and a few people timeshare in an office then
a BBS with one modem would be under utilized.  

A microVAX3100/20 with two 420MB disks would do that easy at under
150W.

Remember a BBS with 1 modem is ruing at less (back then) than
1200 baud (120CPS!).  Name one CPU that can't grab one byte and
act on  it in 8.333mS?  The rest is enough storage to do a useful library
(download and upload programs, and some form of mail and forum/board).

> I wonder if this is one of those USA-vs-Rest-of-world differences.

Likely and also time frame.  PDP-11s had their peak life just like PDP-8s
and VAXen. 

>
> I think I have seen a running PDP-11 twice in my life, and it was the
> same one -- a machine I had to get exchanging files with Mac clients
> acting as terminal emulators, in about 1989 in my first job. It was
> already very old kit by then. I've no idea how much power they draw.
The power draw from from the micro level to the monster level.
For example a PDP11/150 was desktop and it plus the VT100 was maybe
150W, the 11/70 with a few RK07s and RM disks likely reuired a 230V 30A
line or more.

Most of the Qbus 11s (LSI-11 though 11/73) in single BA11 or BA23 box
were in the sub 300 W range as that was the limit of the power supply.
The disks for them could be PC class (early 80s) 5.25"  or RL02 and RX02.

My rack system with RX02, rl02, RD52x2 and 4mb ram and 11/73 cpu is
under 420W(460 with VT330) at 120V.My former towerbox Xeon4/3ghz
with 4g of ram and a 160gb disk ran at 220W (24/7) the LCD added another
55W as a comparison.

I fired up the MicroPDP11 with a 11/23+ and 4mb ram, RD52 and floppy
and a VT320 and the KillaWatt was under 215W for the pair.

For comparison, my current desktop is a Mintbox and its maybe under
full load 12W (with usb keyboard and mouse).  The display dwarfs it.

> Window air conditioners are another thing I've never seen,
> incandescent lights are now a rarity in Europe, hoarded by some
> old-timers -- i.e. older than me, at a hair under 50. I've never
> bought a new TV set with a CRT, either. In fact most of my CRT
> monitors over my whole home computing time period -- nearly 40y --
> were cast-offs, hand-me-downs, or bought 2nd hand.
Led lights, an early adopter as I'm cheap(frugal) so between replacement
cost, heat load in the summer, and power consumption LEDs are cheap. 
I use incandescent for the times when color temperature is important
and LEDs can't cut it.

Then again I power my ham station off grid with 400W of solar and
150Ah of NiCd (industrial) battery.

CRT monitors I still have a few and one TV as its rarely used but
excellent quality.  I use terminals like Vt100, Vt180, Vt320 and even
VT1200 based on need or convenience.

By doing that I have the luxury of powering things like older computers
off of savings.

> I've bought a few 2nd hand LCD monitors now, because I like big ones.
> (Oo er missus, etc.) I'm currently running a 23" + a 24" on a 2011 Mac
> mini with a 1987 Apple Extended keyboard. All bought used. New kit is
> for suckers.
If you can buy it its obsolete, by used or cheap.  Also used is a good deal
by time one buys it the reliability of that model is known.

> So I don't look into power consumption -- used price is more important
> to me, TBH. Probably bad of me, but wotthehell archie wotthehell.
>

Re: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/18/2017 03:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
> COSMAC Elf?  :-)
Why not, or a PdP-8.  It really is not a high load operation.  It was
more about storage.


Allison

> bill
> 
> From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of geneb via cctalk 
> [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 1:45 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: BBS software for the PDP 11
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2017, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:
>
>> So a 11/03 aka a lsi11 would be to slow for such things? Such as those
>> Heathkit h11 lsi11 macheans? Witch was a hobyist pdp11 for those that are
>> unfamiliar with the hearhkits
> The machine is plenty fast.  There's been BBSes run on a VIC-20.  You
> can't get much slower than that. :)
>
> 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: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 5/18/17 3:14 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 05/18/2017 10:44 AM, geneb wrote:


Because.  That's why. :)

Well, okay--but then let's be period-correct.  The PDP-11 dates from
1970, when, AFAIK, BBSes, if they existed, were far from what people
think they were.

I'm thinking of,say, Call Computer in Mountain View, frequented by the
HCC people.   300 baud, usually acoustic coupler-type (in 1970, the
implications of the Carterfone decision had just begun to set in.)

Mostly a real bulletin board in the sense of posting group messages.

That ran on what, an HP 3000?  And whatever happened to Alex?

--Chuck
BBSs are really the thing from about 1978 to pre-internet (varied where 
you lived).
Examples of the big BBS are Source, Delphi, Well, STD(software tool and 
die), and
the big one Compuserve.  Small ones like Sage and those mentioned by 
inference

on the Walnutcreek CD are the more common small guys.

BBSs sorta were the big deal around 1980 to 19?? and the early ones were 
mostly '
Either Z80 or 6502 based with a few others of the era.  PCs were later 
and kept it
going.  They didn't offer speed but they were the platform of the day 
and during

the clone wars (Tandy, and others) offered cheaper hardware it moved there.

Never forget, BBS were about storage and cheap which at that time were 
mostly
opposed (disks weren't cheap!).  The amount of Ram and CPU were less 
important
considering what had to be done.  Often the modem and hard disk were as 
costly
as the basic system and we didn't exceed 2400 baud till '85or later.  
Most anything

could keep up with IO at under 4800 baud.



Allison

Re: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 5/18/17 3:19 PM, geneb via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017, allison via cctalk wrote:




On 5/18/17 12:51 PM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:

So a 11/03 aka a lsi11 would be to slow for such things? Such as those
Heathkit h11 lsi11 macheans? Witch was a hobyist pdp11 for those 
that are

unfamiliar with the hearhkits

No,  BBSs were run with 4mhz Z80s...  compared to LSI-11 (H11 or 
PDP11/03)
The -11 is a bit faster.  The H11 was not slower, the ram used didn't 
inject

bus waits.

...and 2Mhz Z-80s.  The first Citadel appeared on a bone stock H-89 
with a pair of hard-sectored floppy drives.  I think Ward's original 
S-100 box was that clock or maybe slower, using an 8080.


Wards S100 crate started with a 2mhz 8080 and not a full rack of ram 
(64K for then was full rack.).

Most moved to Z80 at 4MHZ by 1979 as they were common by then.

The speed needed to handle one line at speeds below 2400 was not a 
stress, there were 6800

based boards.

Allison


g.

Re: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 5/18/17 1:53 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:



On 5/18/2017 9:51 AM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:

So a 11/03 aka a lsi11 would be to slow for such things? Such as those
Heathkit h11 lsi11 macheans? Witch was a hobyist pdp11 for those that 
are

unfamiliar with the hearhkits

My take and extension on Chuck's and Allison's question is that you 
can take a USB R232 dongle, and a 56k modem (if your pots line still 
supports it, 33k if not (hopefully), and run a BBS on a Raspberry Pi 
if nothing else for nothing in power and infrastructure cost.


An 11 is novel, but hard to see why running it on simh wouldn't be a 
better deal if you want something on the pdp11 architecture.


Keeping any PDP11 up 24 / 7 so it is a useful BBS isn't an undertaking 
for the faint hearted, nor is it something easy on the pocketbook in 
the way of power.  (not to mention space possibly).


Actually a 11/23 with RQDX (or scsi) hard disks can be one paltry BA23 
and fairly

low total power needs.  I have such a beast, MicroPDP-11, 11/23+, 4MB ram,
RQDX3 with RD52(31mb), RX33(5.25 two side floppy).  Its small and has 
the pedestal
case to it is in the corner of a bedroom with a VT320 ( and I think 
still I have a DF03).
 Sucks down about the same power as an old 486 loaded tower with about 
the same
disks (around 160-300W).   Qbus machine help with that.  One with an 
11/73 board

would be fast.

A larger machine with Rk, RL or RM drives will be power hungry.

IF VAX based, a 3100 or related series would do that with minimal pain.

Older boxen like 11/34 or 11/40 are going to suck down watts and need AC.

Allison
Unless you are a couple of well known museums and others very few do 
the real hardware.

thanks
Jim


On May 18, 2017 11:45 AM, "Chuck Guzis via cctalk" 
<cctalk@classiccmp.org>

wrote:


On 05/18/2017 08:16 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:


The real question is why BBS?  What is it trying to fix or enable?

You put the words into my mouth.  Thank you.

--Chuck

Re: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 5/18/17 12:51 PM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:

So a 11/03 aka a lsi11 would be to slow for such things? Such as those
Heathkit h11 lsi11 macheans? Witch was a hobyist pdp11 for those that are
unfamiliar with the hearhkits


No,  BBSs were run with 4mhz Z80s...  compared to LSI-11 (H11 or PDP11/03)
The -11 is a bit faster.  The H11 was not slower, the ram used didn't inject
bus waits.

Actually the limiting item back then as disk performance.  The later 
hard disks

(rd50 to 54, RD31, RD32, RZxxx) really can help.

Allison



On May 18, 2017 11:45 AM, "Chuck Guzis via cctalk" <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
wrote:


On 05/18/2017 08:16 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:


The real question is why BBS?  What is it trying to fix or enable?

You put the words into my mouth.  Thank you.

--Chuck

Re: BBS software for the PDP 11

[allison via cctalk]

On 5/18/17 9:45 AM, william degnan via cctalk wrote:



There may have been Rainbow BBS programs, but I doubt anything for the

11/34.  You may have to write this.


That reminds me of a bit of obscure trivia...

Back in the early days of FidoNet, one or more of the Fido BBS sysops had
DEC Rainbows.  The machines could run Fido just fine, but the serial port
address/port didn't follow the convention laid down by the IBM PC.  At the
time, there were other MS-DOS compatibles that also had a similar issue
with the serial port and some of those folks wanted to run Fido.

Tom Jennings, Wynn Waggoner III(sp?) and Thom Henderson(sp?) got together
to create the FOSSIL standard.

FOSSIL is Fido Opus Seadog Serial Interface Layer and provided a mechanism
via INT 14 for any MS-DOS compatible computer to run any BBS or mailer
software that had FOSSIL support and a FOSSIL driver available for it.

FOSSIL continued to be a thing long after the issue of serial port
incompatibility was a thing of the past.  In fact there's modern software
out there now such as NetFossil that telnet-enables software that can talk
to a FOSSIL driver.

The two popular FOSSIL drivers that I recall from back in the day were BNU
and Ray Gwinn's X00.

As an aside, if anyone has or knows where I can find the source code for
Opus BBS, I'd be interested in hearing from you!




That's what I was thinking.  I have some FidoNET files and mail from the
Rainbow.  My guess the BBS would have been written in Pascal or C if for
the Rainbow (guess only) so if you wanted to attempt to port, after you
find a Rainbow BBS?  I'd start with a Rainbow BBS disassembly/decompile and
see if you can convert to the PDP 11 running the same language/compile it.
Strongest comment on this is that a Rainbow ran DOS (like most PCs of 
the day)
and there was no security context and barely a foreground background as 
part

of DOS.

All a DOS BBS was  was a user interface that provided security by 
requiring user/password
and limiting the commands usable.  The easy was to do that was a version 
of the CMD module

rewritten to not have things like RMDIR and DEL.

FYI BBSs were running on CP/M z80 boxes before that using BYE.

The closest OS to DOS is RT11, no security and the FB monitor can do 
background.
IF the UI for RT11 was rewritten to disallow some utilities and what not 
it could then
stand as a limited BBS.Myself I'd consider RSX or RSTS as a better 
platform as you can
easily control user prives and issue accounts based on privs with 
libraries for global

access to software.

The real question is why BBS?  What is it trying to fix or enable?

Allison

Re: Morrow 8" disk image CP/M uploaded

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/09/2017 09:56 PM, william degnan via cctech wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was contacted though my site by someone looking for a boot disk for their
> California Computer System S-100 2200 computer with Morrow's Disk Jockey
> DJ/DMA floppy disk controller.  I checked and found what might be a
> suitable disk.
>
> I imaged the disk and the file has been uploaded to my web site along with
> a PDF of the directory the original owner printed and inserted into the
> disk sleeve. Does anyone have such a drive controller and would like to
> take a look at this image to see if it's usable?  Uploaded, here:
>
> http://vintagecomputer.net/disk_images/Morrow/
>
> There may be something wrong with the disk.  The label reads
> 8" Morrow E14 Phil's System Disk Backup 9/22/86
> Permanent error on boot track
>
> Despite what was printed on the lable I was able to image the disk without
> error.  I am hoping the error referred to in the hand-written label is not
> a physical error and can be edited/corrected.  Maybe this disk is
> salvageable, maybe the error is a BIOs thing.
>
> There was talk about trying to find a diskJockey boot disk on this list a
> few weeks ago (right?), if so I hope this is useful.  If anyone attempts to
> read, let me know how it goes.
>
> Bill
>
As you have found out the system tracks (the first two tracks/cylinders)
on the media
are very system specific.  It can be perfect but wrong controller and it
will
not boot or it can even be the right controller but wrong serial ports
then it boots but can't communicate.

FYI the CCS system CPU board (IF CCS) has a good monitor on the board
and can do a fair amount of stuff.  IF he has the CCS IO board and disk
controller life is easier as the DISK controller carries the boot code.

bitsavers has manuals.

If one has the sorurce for bios building a bootable disk is not terrible
to do
by hand.  In that case the existing disk may be at least partially useful
as CP/M (CCP and BDOS) is universal and only the bios is system specific.


Allison

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

After looking at all that...

The prompt is VMS the $.  The date makes it V3.6 to 4.2.
I'd still bet that its Files-11 not ODS-II.

I'd have to check of the DCL prompt under RSX-11 is also $.

Either way the save command under VMS will have defaults for the device
target
and that a lookup on the Orange or Grey wall (manuals).

Allison


On 05/05/2017 06:26 PM, Jerry Weiss via cctalk wrote:
>> On May 5, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Jerry Weiss <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 5, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Terry Stewart via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org 
>>> <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In case not everyone noticed, but Terry's already given up on this
>>> Lol, true. The disks will be given back on Monday.  It's no big deal.  The
>>> owners can decided what they want to do.  Even if I can't read it the
>>> disks, however, pondering just what the format might be is fun. I'm
>>> certainly learning something. Feel free to keep speculating if you are so
>>> inclined.
>>>
>>>> I still think the best suggestion was the one about posting what's on the
>>>> printed sheet that appears to be a directory listing
>>> Here it is:
>>>
>>> http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/images/2017-04-15-vax-disk-cover.jpg
>>>  
>>> <http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/images/2017-04-15-vax-disk-cover.jpg>
>>>
>>> Some more info.  Anadisk tells me the disks are Single Sided, Single
>>> Density.  It can see ID marks as it tracks a disk but that is all.  It
>>> can't see any data.  Could be an RX02 disk as people say...
>>>
>>> Terry (Tez)
>>
>> Looks like ODS2.  The files appear to be RUNOFF.   Quick guess is that they
>> are the appendices to some document or manuscript.
>>
>>
> Mr Obvious here (missed the handwritten text in the label at first). 
>
> The .RNO files should contain human readable text.  It no-one has a VAX
> with an RX02, it should be possible to image the disk from a PDP11 and
> then mount the image in elsewhere to recover the data.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 8:50 AM, allison via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org 
>>> <mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/05/2017 03:39 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>>>>>> Terry is doing it for fun; we can't expect the others to.
>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>>>>>> I would.  :-)  Or maybe for beer.
>>>>> I doubt that Allison will want to underbid THAT!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Free beer?!?  No, no,no...
>>>>
>>>> Allison
>>>>
>> Jerry Weiss
>> j...@ieee.org <mailto:j...@ieee.org>
>>
>>
>>
> Jerry Weiss
> j...@ieee.org
>
>
>

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/05/2017 03:33 PM, Fred Cisin via cctech wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>> But I thought the problem was that most disk controllers can't do RX02.
>> Everybody doesn't have a Catweasel or Cryoflux.
>
> That's right.
> Chuck's suggestion would require that somebody who has a
> flux-transition device (Catweasel, Kryoflux, Central Point Option
> board, etc.) would have to do the sector imaging.
>
> Well, or, . . .
> somebody who has an RX02 setup, such as you or Allison, could image
> the sectors, instead of copying the files,  which might be appropriate
> if it turns out that the OS that these were created with is
> unavailable.   How many operating systems use RX02?
>
>
In the PDP-8 realm not less than two maybe others.
In the PDP-10 realm not less than a handful Tops10. ITC, more.
In the PDP-11 realm not less than four, RT11, RSTS, RSX11, TSX-11,
unix(several) and XXDP come to mind.
In the VAX realm not less than 3 come to mind, VMS, VAX-RT, Ultrix,
Unix, Others?

Different version may have also added variations.

Allison

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

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/05/2017 03:39 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> > Terry is doing it for fun; we can't expect the others to.
>
> On Fri, 5 May 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>> I would.  :-)  Or maybe for beer.
>
> I doubt that Allison will want to underbid THAT!
>
>
Free beer?!?  No, no,no...

Allison

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/04/2017 07:01 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:
> From: Terry Stewart
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 2:41 PM
>
>> Just tying up some unfinished business.  Right at the beginning of this
>> thread I said...
>>> Guys in the building next door to me (a Science lab) have found some 8 inch
>>> floppy disks.  They want to see what’s on them, or at least to archive them.
>>> They have no idea what machine these disks were used with, or the software
>>> was used to write the files.  They may be CP/M, or some other format
>>> entirely.
>> It turns out these disks are from a VAX machine. Assuming the OS is VMS, I
>> scoured the Internet for something that might read them.
> Stop there.
>
> 8" floppies on a VAX are more likely to be an RT-11 file system for the front
> end PDP-11/03 than anything else you can think of.
>
> The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Not absolutely true!   THe boot system is a PDP-11, however the VAX can
have a Unibus or QBUS (depending on flavor) where a RX02 controller can
plug in.

The likely file system is FILES-11.  But can be "othter", especially if
its a unix machine.

Allison
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Alderson
> Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
> Living Computers: Museum + Labs
> 2245 1st Avenue S
> Seattle, WA 98134
>
> mailto:ri...@livingcomputers.org
>
> http://www.LivingComputers.org/

Re: Extracting files off unknown 8 inch disks. Any thoughts

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/04/2017 09:27 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> Now, the question will be whether Allison has some free time to check
> them out for Terry.
>
I could...  If I had the time and no other competing projects.

I'm far from the only one around with a PDP-11 with RX02 or a
microVAX-II with a
RXV21/RX02 spare to swap in.

The process would be reading the media and transfering to a PC via
serial line at
maybe 19.2K.

If the media is good its not so bad at 500k max.  If the media is past
its "use by"
date it will gum the heads and require pulling out the drives to clean
the heads.
Thats time consuming.  If the format is not as expected then it s a read
and
capture sectors project, more time. 

The key is are you sure the media is formatted as ODS-II?   I'd consider
that very
unlikely as the overhead is high.  Even VAXen could save to small media
with
multiple formats not the same as whats on the big RDxx, RLxx, RAxxx or
RZxx media.
Typical it is likely files-11.

Suggesting to Terry, learn DEC systems.

One or two for giggles maybe, a significant volume of them comes with
cash as
its a time consuming commercial effort.


Allison

>
> Experience always beats speculation:
>
> On Thu, 4 May 2017, allison wrote:
>> First if they are DEC its one of two formats either FM aka RX01 or FM2
>> aka RX02.
>>
>> RX01 base format is 128byte sectors and 26 per track  PC can read them.
>>
>> RX02 base format is 256 bytes per sector byte the timing encoding is
>> totally
>> unreadable with any LSI controller.  It uses FM headers to confuse
>> the act.
>> To read that you need:
>> - RX02 and a compatible system.
>> -  one of the many DEC clones (DSD, and many others usually using 8X300
>> family chips)  in a DEC box (and cpu).
>> -Catswesel or one of the other flux readers in a PC.
>>
>> Note the RX02 drive is dual format, it can read/write rx01 media ( 8"
>> SSSD).  It can also read and write
>> RX02 format or "init" RX01 media to RX02 format and back to RX01.   RX02
>> format was unique to DEC
>> and the only other that could read or write it were DEC hardware
>> compatible controllers.
>>
>> First you have to satisfy the first (able to read sectors) to do the
>> second.
>>
>> Then the possible 8" ODS formats are
>>
>> DEC format (RX01 or 2) include PDP-8 family mostly OS8 (odd 12bit
>> formatting).
>>
>> The  PDP-11 group  RSX, RSTS, RT11, unix, are most common.  Note PDT150
>> is also PDP-11 RX01.
>> This was the most likely and populous hardware group using RX01/2 disks.
>> The Qbus PDP-11 systems could also support RQDX controller for 5.25 and
>> 3.5 inch floppies. That made later systems with RX01/02 less common over
>> time.
>>
>> VAX, 11/78x uses a PDP11 (LSI11) to load microcode.  It is PDP11 and
>> RX01 media.
>> Most of the later systems *if* they have 8" RX drives are likely any
>> format compatible with
>> the PDP-11 group as that's the likely exchange partner/target.
>>
>> I've not seen VAX format on RX01/2 media, its not impossible except for
>> the VAX78x family
>> as the PDP11(lsi-11) physically own the drive.   To do that it had to
>> have a unibus  RX controller
>> and a RX01/2 drive and then the file format can be anything as VMS had
>> utilities for most all the
>> PDP11 formats.
>>
>> Latter vaxen used RL02 or TU58 or other media to load microcode.
>> Microvax and later machine
>> did not load microcode save for exception code during the normal boot
>> sequence.   In those
>> cases a RX01/2 was unusual to the extreme save for maybe a Qbus microvax
>> (not a supported config)
>> assembled as a hack.  Most of the Qbus VAX systems with floppy used
>> RX33(5.25" RX50) or RX23(3.5")
>> as the RQDX1/2 controllers supported 5.25" floppies initially and later
>> firmware supported 5.25" Teac
>> and 3.5" Sony drives as well.  RQDX3 5.25" Teac and RX50  and 3.5" Sony
>> drives.  Because of this
>> and far more space per drive RX01/2 was rarely used.  The RQDX
>> controllers could do the stated
>> floppies even is MFM  disks were not connected.
>>
>> Also the VAXes may have run unix and that was likely user save media.
>>
>> in short if RX01 anything that can read SSSD 8" is good enough.  IF RX02
>> a pdp11 and RX02(or third party
>> equivalent) makes it easy.To do RX02 on PC you must have a flux
>> reader, 765 and later clones cannot.
>>
>> How do I know.  I have PDP-8, PDP11 (with RX02) and VAX (qbus uVAX,
>> uVAX2000, and 3100 family).
>> I used to and still do exchange between RT-11 and CP/M using RX01 mode
>> and a CP/M utility that
>> knew RT11 format.  IF it was RX02 media, I'd rewrite on the PDP11 to
>> RX01 media using FIT or other
>> tools.
>>
>>
>> Allison

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/04/2017 07:39 PM, Terry Stewart via cctech wrote:
>> And yet, if there were an RX02 somewhere on this VAX, I don't believe
> you'd be able to read them at all... RX02 seeming more likely with a VAX.
>
> Interestingly PUTR, does seem to accommodate this, and the kind of system I
> have set up (i.e. 1.2 MB 5.25 inch in CMOS even though it's an 8 inch
> drive).  From the readme file...
>
> "SET x: type
>
>
> Sets the drive type for one of the four possible PC floppy
> drives A:-D: (note that actual PCs rarely have more than one or
> two floppy drives).  The type must be RX01, RX02, RX03, RX50,
> RX33, RX24, RX23, or RX26.  The default value for each drive is
> whatever was stored in CMOS memory by the ROM BIOS setup
> utility.
Yes but RX02 uses FM headers and FM2 sectors.  NO FDC CHIP CAN READ THAT.
None of the 765 family or WDC 179x and cousins can.

It was unique to DEC though Intel did similar but not the same on the
MDS800 dual density drives their difference was the whole media
was one recording format either single or double density.

You need a PDP11 with RX02 (or DSD880) or a catsweasel.

I know this as I have the former. 

Allison

> This command may be useful when the drive types stored in CMOS
> RAM are incorrect for some reason.  It's also helpful when an 8"
> drive, or a real DEC RX50 drive, has been attached to the PC
> using a D Bit "FDADAP" adapter, or something equivalent.  There
> is no standard for representing these drive types in CMOS RAM.
> Using real RX50 drives (or other 300 RPM quad-density drives
> such as the Tandon TM100-3 and TM100-4) is different from RX33s
> (which is what PUTR calls regular PC 1.2 MB drives) because the
> motor speed is slower, so the FDC chip must be programmed for a
> lower data rate to match."
>
>  I didn't spend too much time on PUTR as it seemed to be more for the older
> DEC OSs rather than Vax VMS.  VMS wasn't mentioned as an option in PUTR
> which is why I spent more time experimenting with ODS2, which was VAX
> specific.  And...as I said, PUTR tries to figure out what DEC OS (if any)
> is on the disk and failed to find one.
>
> Maybe I should play around with the switches in PUTR more before I give up
> though
>
> Terry

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/04/2017 06:35 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2017, Terry Stewart via cctalk wrote:
>> Yes, reading them with IMD was one of the first things I tried. 
>> Couldn't
>> do it at all.  Tons of errors, no tracks could be read.  IMD didn't
>> recognise the layout at all.
>> All the disks I tried were like this.
>
> Then, either it is impossible to read with the PC FDC, or we missed
> something.
>
> Is your 8 inch setup capable of FM/single density?
> I think that Dave has a utility to test that.
>
>
> Do you have access to any sort of "flux-transition" device (Central
> point option board, cat-weasel, kryoflux, etc.)?


First if they are DEC its one of two formats either FM aka RX01 or FM2
aka RX02.

RX01 base format is 128byte sectors and 26 per track  PC can read them.

RX02 base format is 256 bytes per sector byte the timing encoding is
totally
unreadable with any LSI controller.  It uses FM headers to confuse the act.
To read that you need:
- RX02 and a compatible system.
-  one of the many DEC clones (DSD, and many others usually using 8X300
family chips)  in a DEC box (and cpu).
-Catswesel or one of the other flux readers in a PC.

Note the RX02 drive is dual format, it can read/write rx01 media ( 8"
SSSD).  It can also read and write
RX02 format or "init" RX01 media to RX02 format and back to RX01.   RX02
format was unique to DEC
and the only other that could read or write it were DEC hardware
compatible controllers.

First you have to satisfy the first (able to read sectors) to do the second.

Then the possible 8" ODS formats are

DEC format (RX01 or 2) include PDP-8 family mostly OS8 (odd 12bit
formatting).

The  PDP-11 group  RSX, RSTS, RT11, unix, are most common.  Note PDT150
is also PDP-11 RX01.
This was the most likely and populous hardware group using RX01/2 disks.   
The Qbus PDP-11 systems could also support RQDX controller for 5.25 and
3.5 inch floppies. That made later systems with RX01/02 less common over
time.

VAX, 11/78x uses a PDP11 (LSI11) to load microcode.  It is PDP11 and
RX01 media.
Most of the later systems *if* they have 8" RX drives are likely any
format compatible with
the PDP-11 group as that's the likely exchange partner/target. 

I've not seen VAX format on RX01/2 media, its not impossible except for
the VAX78x family
as the PDP11(lsi-11) physically own the drive.   To do that it had to
have a unibus  RX controller
and a RX01/2 drive and then the file format can be anything as VMS had
utilities for most all the
PDP11 formats.

Latter vaxen used RL02 or TU58 or other media to load microcode.  
Microvax and later machine
did not load microcode save for exception code during the normal boot
sequence.   In those
cases a RX01/2 was unusual to the extreme save for maybe a Qbus microvax
(not a supported config)
assembled as a hack.  Most of the Qbus VAX systems with floppy used
RX33(5.25" RX50) or RX23(3.5")
as the RQDX1/2 controllers supported 5.25" floppies initially and later
firmware supported 5.25" Teac 
and 3.5" Sony drives as well.  RQDX3 5.25" Teac and RX50  and 3.5" Sony
drives.  Because of this
and far more space per drive RX01/2 was rarely used.  The RQDX
controllers could do the stated
floppies even is MFM  disks were not connected. 

Also the VAXes may have run unix and that was likely user save media.

in short if RX01 anything that can read SSSD 8" is good enough.  IF RX02
a pdp11 and RX02(or third party
equivalent) makes it easy.To do RX02 on PC you must have a flux
reader, 765 and later clones cannot.

How do I know.  I have PDP-8, PDP11 (with RX02) and VAX (qbus uVAX,
uVAX2000, and 3100 family).
I used to and still do exchange between RT-11 and CP/M using RX01 mode
and a CP/M utility that
knew RT11 format.  IF it was RX02 media, I'd rewrite on the PDP11 to
RX01 media using FIT or other
tools.


Allison

Re: Extracting files off “unknown” 8 inch disks. Any thoughts…

[allison via cctalk]

On 05/04/2017 09:05 PM, Terry Stewart via cctalk wrote:
>> The 'RX02' format used by PUTR is actually IBM System 34 format,
>> since DEC's 8" DD disks use a strange combination of SD headers
>> with non-standard ID marks, and DD data fields, that can't be
>> accessed with a standard PC FDC regardless of the software used."
> Right.  It's definitely a possibility then.
PUTR can do RX01 media formats.  Since the PC cannot do the unique mixed
density format
saying RX02 is potentially inaccurate.

Reason is that RX02 is a dual density drive system .  Its also a RX02
512Kb media *or* RX01  256kb.
That meas RX02 drive can read and write RX01 media in RX01 mode and
hence system 34
compatible media.  The  RX02 had three interfaces, omnibus, qbus, unibus.

RX01 is a drive system that is older and only does the 256K system 34
aka SSSD 8".  The media
is called RX01 as well.  PCs can do this.  Neither can read RX02 media
unless reformated
to RX01 (if full, you need two to hold the data due to storage capacity
difference ) or
using Catsweasel or similar.   This subsystem had three different bus
level interfaces
Omnibus, Qbus, Unibus.

The difference between the two is the bus controller and the logic in
the drive subsystem.
Both use the same physical disk drive and on first glance look the same.


Allison

Re: Oscilloscope Recommendation

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/29/2017 01:28 PM, Michael Thompson via cctech wrote:
> The RICM just received $1,000 to buy a new oscilloscope. I would like a
> four channel. and color would also be nice. The bandwidth doesn't need to
> be high because we usually work on ancient equipment.
>
> What would you suggest?
>
I use a RIgol DSO at work to replace a 200mhz Tek with power issues. 
Far better scope.
For the money we paid, 4 channels and wide band its very decent.  Being
able to get
screen grabs to a USB stick is a big plus.

I personally have a Rigol DS815T spec analyser with tracking generator
and its a good performer.
Not up to the standards of a R FSH6 but about 1/15th the price.


Allison

Re: PDP-8/a cleaning

[allison via cctalk]

On 4/25/17 8:57 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

On Apr 25, 2017, at 6:06 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:

On 25/04/2017 10:08, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:

On 4/25/2017 1:39 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote:

"Little residue" would be more accurate, and some of that residue
will be water (look up "azeotrope") - plus you need a lot of
alcohol for something the size of a PDP-8 backplane.  Blow dry,
even after an alcohol rinse.

I should perhaps have mentioned that the idea is to flush the remaining
water or alcohol out by blowing, not evaporate it like your hairdresser
would :-)  And you ought to use dry air, ideally - most compressors have water 
in their air.

Worse yet, a lot of compressors have oil in their air.  You can attached a 
dryer/filter to the compressor outlet to block that.  Compressors intended for 
air brush use tend to be set up that way, and/or use a mechanism that doesn't 
use oil (such as a diaphragm pump).
A water trap/oil filter is a trivial thing to add.  Most come with a 
regulator which is handy.
However,  Generally the water and oil content is low to start with 
unless the compressor
is seriously worn or your taking air form the bottom of the tank. 
Normally its good
practice to drain the tank of water anyway.  I've painted a few things 
in my day like

racing cars.

The alternate is a canister of nitrogen gas or cans of "air".  The 
quantity needed

is not all that great.

Even after all that I'd still dry it with a little heat (oven at 180F or 
a clean empty

container in the sun.

I've used the dishwasher (sans caustic dish detergent) for cleaning then 
in the

oven to dry  for radios, computer boards, analog boards, and assemblies
that can trap water.  Things that turn or move like switches (open wafer 
for example)

need to have contact treatment and bearing lubrication afterwards.

Allison

paul

Re: PDP-8/a cleaning

[allison via cctalk]

On 4/25/17 6:06 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctech wrote:

On 25/04/2017 10:08, jim stephens via cctalk wrote:


On 4/25/2017 1:39 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote:


"Little residue" would be more accurate, and some of that residue
will be water (look up "azeotrope") - plus you need a lot of
alcohol for something the size of a PDP-8 backplane.  Blow dry,
even after an alcohol rinse.


I should perhaps have mentioned that the idea is to flush the remaining
water or alcohol out by blowing, not evaporate it like your hairdresser
would :-)  And you ought to use dry air, ideally - most compressors 
have water in their air.



In the process of cleaning optics indeed you need air and other
means to do that, you are right.  But in this case I'm suggesting
the alcohol as a way to displace water out of internal parts. The
spotting or such is not much to worry about in the cleaning job on a
computer part.


Except those spotty residues are usually hygroscopic, which can lead to
corrosion later.


But in optics the process is much longer and elaborate, but still
needs the ventilation to be sure you don't have a problem with
fumes.


Sure.  Outside of electronics, my experience is in a chemistry lab 
needing clean dry glassware.  The process would go something like this:


- preliminary clean with whatever is best, often water and a little
  detergent/surfactant, then drain most off
- rinse with distilled water
- rinse with ethanol to flush out remaining water, then drain
- rinse with acetone to remove the alcohol/water residue
- air dry

Considering your also trying to remove possible hazardous material and 
leave a noncontaminating

surface its overkill to the max for a backplane.


In photography, on the other hand, the final rinse would just be water 
- tap water if not too hard - with a tiny amount of a wetting agent 
(eg detergent) in it.



Again you are striving to neutralize the chemistry used.

For a backplane or some PCBs I'd compromise, but closer to the 
photographic example than the chem lab.  In fact I've done that with 
my PDP-8s, rinsing the backplanes then blowing out most of the residue.


Considering a fan(s) has been blowing dust and who knows what else at it 
for years
cleaning is good and any residue is nothing compared to the crud that 
was formerly there.


In the pre-freon days the standard cleaner (when they did!) was a 
modified dish washer.
The usual mod was reshape the racks to hold the boards and lower the 
heater temperature
used for drying.  A week rarely went by that someone had open it mid 
cycle to see if

it was done.


We had a booboo in assembly that required cleaning and we no longer
had freon cleaner we wanted to use in that quantity, so we went with
the water / alcohol process.  A switch had defective sticky seals on
it and they had all gotten waterlogged.  Vendor claimed they would
survive water process wash and they were wrong.  Paid us quite a bit
in credit for messing up a couple hundred boards before we caught
the problem.


Ouch!


Plastics and elastic materials require more care for compatibility.
Water is usually the safest but, none can remain.

Allison

Re: PDP-8/a cleaning

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/25/2017 03:45 AM, ben via cctech wrote:
> On 4/24/2017 1:19 PM, Pontus Pihlgren via cctech wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> My PDP-8/A is up for restoration. More specifically and 8A100 according
>> to it's ID plate. It is in overall "ok" shape but oh so dusty.
>>
>> I'd like to give it a good cleaning so I'm tearing it down. And I'm
>> looking for suggestion to cleaning the backplane and regulator board.
>>
Dishwasher.   Its what I do.

>> I'm considering putting the Omnibus part under warm water and perhaps a
>> bit of mild detergent. Should I get distilled water or will tap do? The
>> water here is not very "hard"
>>
Tap will do since you will rinse with alcohol.

>> The regulator backplane has a relay and a button which will never dry
>> out if I soak it...
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Pontus.
>>
>>
> I would go for distilled water, tap water could have chlorine it it.

The amount of chlorine (or its analog) is not a enough to be a factor.
If you can drink it and its not pool water.

Allison

> Ben.
>

Re: TU-58 in simh

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/21/2017 10:13 PM, Don North via cctalk wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 6:55 PM, allison wrote:
>> On 04/21/2017 09:34 PM, Don North via cctalk wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2017 4:25 PM, Brian L. Stuart via cctalk wrote:
>>>> I've seen suggestion that TU-58s are emulated in simh on
>>>> PDP-11s.  However, I'm not seeing it in a show dev and my
>>>> google-fu is failing me to find any info on how to use it.  Any
>>>> pointers on how to boot from a TU-58 image?
>>>>
>>>> TIA,
>>>> BLS
>>>>
>>> Using simh v4.0 from github, in the PDP11 simh ini file:
>>>
>>> *set tdc enable**
>>> **attach tdc0 tu58.dsk*
>>>
>>> then assuming tu58.dsk is a bootable image:
>>>
>>> *boot tdc0*
>>>
>>> Only two units 0,1 are supported (just like a real dual drive) and the
>>> images must be 262,144 bytes in size (like a real tu58 cartridge).
>>>
>> I remember TDC was DECcassette (TU-60).
>>
>> The boot for RT-11 would be BOOT DD:  the tape image should be built
>> with a DD driver or DDX for RT11XM.
>> Least that how it works for my physical PDP-11/23 RT11 system.
>> Generally all the files that should be on
>> a RT11 floppy needs to be on the tape.
>>
>> For other OSs it first has to fit on the device and have a suitable
>> driver for TU58.
>>
>> Allison
>>
> TU58 is really not much useful for running any real DEC OS other than
> XXDP, to run diagnostics; that is what I use it for on my 34 and 44
> (real hardware). I don't use TU58 at all under SIMH (does not make
> much sense).
>
> RT-11SJ works running from TU58, but just barely, and it is not really
> usable. RT11 is barely usable once you move up to a dual drive RX02.
>

Actually maybe

IF you set up RT-11 XM and have an 11/23 or larger the memory over 32KW
can be used as a virtual disk.
The process boots using Tu58 and copies to VM and set the boot device as
XM and then boots XM.  The
com file basically copies the tape to VM then configures the boot for XM
and the boots it.  Then the tu58
is free for use as storage and to add programs to VM.  The down side is
a boot is about 5-8 minutes but
once VM is up and booted very fast and useful.

I've done this in a BA-11VA 4slot with 11/23cpu, 256K ram, MRV11, DLV11J
and the TU58 stacked above it.
The result si 192K of VM and two drives.  Its compact as PDP-11s go and
actually runs useful programs.

An enlarged system is a DEC 12 slot dual width Q22 cage with 11/23 cpu
(M8156), 2mb of ram (M8059),
and a MRV11 (Carries boot roms) plus DLV11J.  The roms are copies of
11/23+.  I enjoy playing with real
hardware.

I have larger BA11S boxes with 11/23, 11/23+, 11/73 and a ba23
microPDP11 as test systems and working
systems with a full array of disks, floppies and the only tape that
seems to work the TU58 (don't mention
the TK50, please).

The only PDP-11 sim I've used is John Wilson's Ersatz-11, its very good.


Allison

>
> test[991] pdp11
>
> PDP-11 simulator V4.0-0 Betagit commit id: 17903827
> sim> set tdc enable
> sim> att tdc0 11xxdp.dsk
> TDC: buffering file in memory
> sim> boot tdc0
>
> BOOTING UP XXDP-XM EXTENDED MONITOR
>
> XXDP-XM EXTENDED MONITOR - XXDP V2.5
> REVISION: F0
> BOOTED FROM DD0
> 124KW OF MEMORY
> NON-UNIBUS SYSTEM
>
> RESTART ADDRESS: 152000
> TYPE "H" FOR HELP !
>
> .DIR
>
> ENTRY# FILNAM.EXTDATE  LENGTH  START VERSION
>
> 1  XXDPSM.SYS   1-MAR-89 2947 E.0
> 2  XXDPXM.SYS   1-MAR-89 39000104 F.0
> 3  DRSSM .SYS   1-MAR-89 24000153 G.2
> 4  DRSXM .SYS   1-MAR-89 48000203 C.0
> 5  DATE  .SYS   1-MAR-89  2000263 B.0
> 6  DB.SYS   1-MAR-89  2000265 C.0
> 7  DD.SYS   1-MAR-89  3000267 D.0
> 8  DIR   .SYS   1-MAR-89  7000272 D.0
> 9  DL.SYS   1-MAR-89  4000301 D.0
>10  DM.SYS   1-MAR-89  4000305 C.0
>11  DR.SYS   1-MAR-89  3000311 C.0
>12  DU.SYS   1-MAR-89  4000314 E.0
>13  DUSZ  .SYS   1-MAR-89  2000320 C.0
>14  DY.SYS   1-MAR-89  3000322 D.0
>15  LP.SYS   1-MAR-89  1000325 B.0
>16  MM.SYS   1-MAR-89  3000326 C.0
>17  MS.SYS   1-MAR-89  4000331 C.0
>18  MU.SYS   1-MAR-89  4000335 E.0
>19  HELP  .TXT   1-MAR-89 29000341
>20  PATCH .BIC   1-MAR-89 31000376
>21  SETUP .BIC   1-MAR-89 27000435
>22  UPDAT .BIC   1-MAR-89 29000470
>23  XTECO .BIC   1-MAR-89 26000525
>24  FLOAT .BIN   1-MAR-89 18000557
>
> FREE BLOCKS:   126
>
> .
>
>

Re: TU-58 in simh

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/21/2017 09:34 PM, Don North via cctalk wrote:
> On 4/21/2017 4:25 PM, Brian L. Stuart via cctalk wrote:
>> I've seen suggestion that TU-58s are emulated in simh on
>> PDP-11s.  However, I'm not seeing it in a show dev and my
>> google-fu is failing me to find any info on how to use it.  Any
>> pointers on how to boot from a TU-58 image?
>>
>> TIA,
>> BLS
>>
> Using simh v4.0 from github, in the PDP11 simh ini file:
>
> *set tdc enable**
> **attach tdc0 tu58.dsk*
>
> then assuming tu58.dsk is a bootable image:
>
> *boot tdc0*
>
> Only two units 0,1 are supported (just like a real dual drive) and the
> images must be 262,144 bytes in size (like a real tu58 cartridge).
>

I remember TDC was DECcassette (TU-60).

The boot for RT-11 would be BOOT DD:  the tape image should be built
with a DD driver or DDX for RT11XM.
Least that how it works for my physical PDP-11/23 RT11 system. 
Generally all the files that should be on
a RT11 floppy needs to be on the tape.

For other OSs it first has to fit on the device and have a suitable
driver for TU58.

Allison

Re: WTB: BYT-8 Computer/Chassis

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

On Apr 13, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Systems Glitch via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:

> All,
> 
> I'm on the virge of making a deal with vintagecomputermuseum on eBay over his 
> BYT-8 he's had up for years. It's still overpriced but I can probably sell 
> the boards out of it and make it a reasonable purchase. I already have a 
> board set so really I just need the empty chassis.
> 
> Before I commit to buy from him (gag!) does anyone have a BYT-8 they want to 
> sell me? The turnkey or full front panel versions are both acceptable. It can 
> be totally empty, or if you want to sell the cards with it I can pay 
> accordingly.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan

Whats the big deal with that?  Its no more significant than a Compupro chassis 
or a Integrand box in the S100 realm.
If thats rare then the BYT-8 boards must be worth  a bundle.  Without boards 
the box is a common S100 crate and
value is dime a dozen and costly to ship.

That makes my complete working CCS system about the value of solid gold by 
weight.


Allison

Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/12/2017 05:33 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Sean Conner via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>   Yeah, I'm having a hard time with that too.  I mean, pedantically, it
>> should be:
>>
>> #include 
>> int main(void) { return EXIT_SUCCESS; }
>>
>> where EXIT_SUCCESS is 0 on every plaform except for some obscure system no
>> one has heard of but managed to influence the C committee back in the late
>> 80s.
>>
> Returning zero from main to indicate success is perfectly valid according
> to the most recent three C standards.  ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) §7.10.4.3,
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E) §7.20.4.3 ¶5 and ISO/IEC 9899:2011(E) §7.22.4.4 ¶5
> both requires that either 0 or EXIT_SUCCESS as an argument to exit() be
> considered success.  EXIT_SUCCESS may or may not be zero, but zero is
> considered success regardless of that.
>
> One annoyance with the way the standard defines the EXIT_x macros is that
> if you use other exit status values, including those from sysexits.h (not
> part of the C standard), it's possible that an intended failure status
> value might happen to match EXIT_SUCCESS on some standard-compliant
> implementation.
>
> §5.1.2.2.3 ¶1 of both :1999 and :2011 state that if execution reaches the
> closing brace of main without a return statement, that it is equivalent to
> returning zero, so even the return statement in this alleged non-portable
> example is unnecessary.
>
> On the other hand, the earlier ISO/IEC 9899:1990(E) §5.1.2.2.3 says that
> main returning with no value yields an undefined termination status.
>
> -- Eric "not a language lawyer but I play one on the internet" Smith

What the heck its religion.  So here's my stir...

BASIC, why is that the most universal language implemented on nearly every
micro and many other systems. 

Seriously it is a suck language but it gets work done.

The yabut, is its THE only language that is somewhat portable and
generally implemented
on most everything can be named.  Regardless of the CPU there basic on
it or for it.
Its been stuffed into 1k or EPROM if you can live with integers.   Can't
say that with
C until recently with cross compilers,  or Fortran, Pascal, Java, or
Perl.  The only
exception is maybe assembly but porting a program from say 6502 to z80 is a
major pain.

C isn't perfect.  Come to think of most of the languages are pretty much
in that boat.

Me,  Assembly the native machine knows it and if need be I can crank a
small program
by hand.  C is nice what you want some structure and still get close but
not quite
married to the iron.  Pascal is good, it will typecheck you sensless. 
Never saw Java,
Ruby, or python with anything under 32 bits.LUA is cool if you have
at least a meg
of ram.  The list goes and the problems go on.  In the end you use what
you  know
and what is available.

So I have a Tandy M100 with an 80C85, and 32K of ram... Pick  BASIC,
peak and poke
assembly (from inside basic) or out of choices.   Same for the PX-8 but
that runs a
Z80 and OS (CP/M) but even it is space constrained enough that without a
disk
C or any other compiler will not fit (even with the 120K ramdisk wedge) 
but BASIC
is in ROM. 

Sure the S100 machines run it well with lots of ram and disk.  Even
compilers
like BDS-C.  But with two floppys around 240 or 360K your in tight spaces
for that. 

So from a long term STAB (Society To Abolish Basic,  down with GOTO!) member
its often the only choice to get something done.

In the end its about getting something done.  If your being paid more so
and less
choice.

Allison

Re: TRS-80 curiosity

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

On Apr 12, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Alexandre Souza via cctalk 
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> 

That cable had the same connector on both ends and labels!  The later version 
added a pair 
of cables with 5pin connectors.  Later they redesigned the EI to work right as 
the early 
versions were timing critical for the Dram (bad implemntation).


Allison

Re: TRS-80 curiosity

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

On Apr 12, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Tony Duell via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> So, I just picked up an MISE from Bartlett Labs (cause I really liked
>> the M3SE I had) and decided to revive one of my TRS-80 MOdel I's.
>> In my box of "stuff" I found an interesting ribbon cable the function
>> of which I don't know.  It is a 40 pin to 50 pin ribbon cable with a
>> black box connecting them that is labeled TANDY.  I know of nothing
>> the Tandy made that used a 50 pin connector other than a hard disk.
>> Could that be what this is for?  Anybody ever seen one?  I no longer
>> have any Tandy External HD's but then, with things like MISE and FreHD
>> why would one still want one other than for nostalgia.
>> 
>> bill
> 
> Although I never had one, I beleive Tandy made an adapter that plugged
> into the Model 1 expansion bus (40 pin) and gave you a (cut down?)
> Model 3 expansion bus (50 pin). As you suggest it was commonly used
> to connect Model 3 hard disks to the Model 1, but I think it worked with
> some other devices too.
> 
> -tony

Maybe...

The only device  I know of like that was trs80 to a printer (Centronics or 
compatible ).

Allison

Re: Bernie Appel, ‘Mr. RadioShack, ’ Dies ushered in TRS 80

[allison via cctalk]

On 04/04/2017 05:32 PM, Richard Cini via cctalk wrote:
> I worked for Radio Shack from about 1982 to 1989 and I remember him from the 
> internal RS publication "Intercom". 
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Ed via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Bernie Appel, ‘Mr. RadioShack,’ Dies 
>>   http://www.twice.com/news/people/bernie-appel-mr-radioshack-dies-85/64710
>>
>> Ed#  _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)  
>
I got to know Bernie during the many trips to FT Worth in the very
earliest days of TRS-80.
He will be missed.


Allison

Re: Stuffing boards with pulled QFP chips

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/31/2017 02:00 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2017, at 1:51 PM, allison via cctech <cct...@classiccmp.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/31/2017 06:32 AM, David Griffith via cctalk wrote:
>>>> I'm down to the last few P112 boards for sale and am pondering
>>>> another run of them because demand is steady.  One of the biggest
>>>> challenges for the last run was getting the QFP-packaged 100-pin
>>>> chips[1] in a state such that the pick-and-place robot wouldn't throw
>>>> a fit about slight differences in lead position.  The stuffing house
>>>> insisted that I send them new chips.  Pulls, though they looked
>>>> perfectly okay to me, were not acceptable.  Does anyone here know
>>>> anything about pick-and-place robots using pulled 100-pin QFPs,
>>>> particularly a stuffing house that can work with such chips and not
>>>> screw up?
>>>>
>>>> [1] The now-obsolete super-io chips
>>>>
>>>>
>> Is this something that an experienced hand can manually do?
> Yes, definitely.  100 lead PQFP is perfectly doable if the lead pitch is not 
> insanely small.  It takes a good fine tip soldering iron (mine is a Weller 
> with a PTS tip), fine solder (preferably real, i.e., 63/37 non-PC solder).  
> Liquid flux is a big help, as is a magnifier and bright light or modest 
> magnification microscope.
>
> If you have to do a couple of dozen boards this gets very tedious, but for 
> 5-ish it isn't a big deal.
>
>   paul
>
So happens I'm fully equipped on all counts.  Including the PTS tip. 
However my preference
for years has been the PTA7K (WTCP60) which is 1/4" wide!  Gets a few
pins done at a time... ;)

I've not gone over to the Rohs side, most of the solders are not fun to
work with though a
few have very active fluxes and solder aluminium well.   So its Kester
44 in 10 and
20 mil (inch mil) diameters.

I've done more than a few AD537 and similar Blackfin CPUs with their 288
BGA package that's
a challenge to pull and replace.

Allison

Re: Stuffing boards with pulled QFP chips

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/31/2017 06:32 AM, David Griffith via cctalk wrote:
>>
>> I'm down to the last few P112 boards for sale and am pondering
>> another run of them because demand is steady.  One of the biggest
>> challenges for the last run was getting the QFP-packaged 100-pin
>> chips[1] in a state such that the pick-and-place robot wouldn't throw
>> a fit about slight differences in lead position.  The stuffing house
>> insisted that I send them new chips.  Pulls, though they looked
>> perfectly okay to me, were not acceptable.  Does anyone here know
>> anything about pick-and-place robots using pulled 100-pin QFPs,
>> particularly a stuffing house that can work with such chips and not
>> screw up?
>>
>> [1] The now-obsolete super-io chips
>>
>>
>
Is this something that an experienced hand can manually do?

Of all the CP/M platforms its one of the few I haven't done.  But
it keeps popping after I've long figured its long gone.

I'm not afraid of SMT as I proto using 0603 and 0402 parts
at uhf/microwave freehand.

Baving delt with layouts for BGA and large pinout devices usually getting
fiducial marks on the board so it can locate and position without
optical works.
One time the board designer messed up and we had to use existing fixed
points
for that.  PITA but it worked. After that I got into the board layout
bit and DFM.


Allison

Re: Cross-talk square-wave?

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/30/2017 06:01 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
> On 2017-Mar-30, at 1:13 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
>>> From: Allison
>>> FYI this is the same problem designers hit with DRAMS back 40 years ago.
>> This didn't ring (pun not intended) a bell for me; can you say a bit more?
>>

Early Dram memories were fickle to design and many poor designs got out
with notable consequences.  Examples wer common in the S100 realm and
others too.  The MITS 88-4K was replaced with 88-S4K for that reason it was
that bad and that was using the non-multiplexed 22 pin 4K parts.   The
later 16K
multiplexed 16 pin parts 4116 were worse Tandy TRS80 EI version 1(no buffer)
and 2(buffered cable) leading to the later third try a complete redesign.

The problem was a high capacitance load of many NMos Drams and the
address and
data drive.  The fix was not trivial.  A fairly hard source like a
74S157 (treat as similar
in this case to a voltage source) provides a fast stepped input to a
signal line and
if the line were terminated in its characteristic impedance it would
simply transfer
the signal and preserve waveform.  But an array of 16 DRAM for one
address line
with board and input capacitance looks like a roughly 160pf capacitor to
ground.
Your S157 switches and a step waveform goes from ground to +2.7V (lets say)
and the instantaneous current is rather large with an exponential decay. 
Since the line does not see a termination like its characteristic
impedance or
anything acceptable much of the energy in the pulse is reflected back
and you
see ringing or waveform distortion (depends on length of the line).  So
the then
simple fix was series resistance by experimental (maybe empirical too)
testing
for the best waveform and timing compromise.  Usually this lead to both
re-layout
of the board as when you get 8 or 9 lines doing this the ground gridding
starts
showing  noise too.  In the end its all transmission lines that have
poor termination.

What people often forget at DC and very low frequencies the MOS/CMOS
input are
essentially open circuits.  At high frequencies (pulse rates) its a
capacitor which is
an energy storage device.  Changing that voltage across the cap takes
energy and
time and is not a friendly load by any cable/transmission line.

So putting a SD or even a CF at the end of a ribbon or spectra cable
without adequate
grounds (every other wire or a backplane ground) means the field around
those
wires will couple and be the fields around its neighbours and make
itself known in
the most offensive ways.

For those that have forgotten those that forget history will relive it.

*Vonada's Engineering Maxims* are a group of pithy observations about
computer engineering
compiled by Don Vonada, an engineer at DEC
<http://gunkies.org/wiki/DEC>, and reproduced in:

  * C. Gordon Bell, J. Craig Mudge, John. E. McNamara, "/Computer
Engineering/"

They are:

 1. There is no such thing as ground.
 2. Digital circuits are made from analog parts.
 3. Prototype designs always work.
 4. Asserted timing conditions are designed first; unasserted timing
conditions are found later.
 5. When all but one wire in a group of wires switch, that one will
switch also.
 6. When all but one gate in a module switches, that one will switch also.
 7. Every little pico farad has a nano henry all its own.
 8. Capacitors convert voltage glitches to current glitches
(conservation of energy).
 9. Interconnecting wires are probably transmission lines.
10. Synchronizing circuits may take forever to make a decision.
11. Worse-case tolerances never add - but when they do, they are found
in the best customer's machine.
12. Diagnostics are highly efficient in finding solved problems.
13. Processing systems are only partially tested since it is impractical
to simulate all possible machine states.
14. Murphy's Laws apply 95 percent of the time. The other 5 percent of
the time is a coffee break.



Allison

>>> From: Chuck Guzis
>>> I'll offer a suggestion that if your SD card *must* be a significant
>>> distance from its host
>> Like I said, this is a pre-prototype; on the production units, there will be
>> _no_ cable. The SD socket will be about 1-2" from the FPGA.
>>
>>> From: Dwight Kelvey
>>> this behavior on my PDP-8/e where a 7474 flip flop chip was bad. The
>>> input looked great and the output was "half baked"
>> There's no chip at all on the driving end of the line (just that 470K
>> resistor); we see this with the SD card _unplugged_. And we see the exact
>> same thing on several lines.
>>
>>
>> I'm still not clear, from the discussion, how exactly that nice 'square-wave'
>> interference is happening - could it be capacitative crosstalk? (I'd have
>> thought capacitative cross-talk would be inverted - driving a pos

Re: Cross-talk square-wave?

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

IT was not terminated, 270K is way to high a value (likely 1000*).  Its low 
enough to 
assert a weak pull-up or down to a CMOS input but not terminate a line.
Typical transmission line for that is in the 120-250ohm range and the input 
to a SD/MMC is a roughly 10pf cap to ground and DC open (equivalent).

Also SD have two modes, one being SPI similar and the other a faster 4bit 
varient.
I know that as I’ve used SD as “disk” for CP/M systems with 8085 and Z80.

FYI this is the same problem designers hit with DRAMS back 40 years ago.

Allison

On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:06 PM, W2HX <w...@w2hx.com> wrote:

> There are few things that come to mind here. The op seemed to indicate the 
> lines are terminated. If they are not terminated in the characteristic 
> impedance of the source and the transmission line, it is very unlikely he 
> would be seeing nice square waves at either end. The reflections would 
> distort the square wave. Given the reported squareness and that the op 
> indicates terminated line, I do not think impedance mismatch is the issue 
> here. 
> 
> I also agree that an induced current in an adjacent line would not be square. 
> So I agree with the op's thoughts that this signal is getting on this line in 
> some other fashion, I don't believe this is an issue of cross talk. However, 
> some pictures of some waveforms would be interesting to see
> 
> Eugene W2HX
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Parent 
> Allison via cctalk
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:54 AM
> To: Noel Chiappa; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Cross-talk square-wave?
> 
> 
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, a question about generic analog stuff.
>> 
>> In the process of getting SD cards to work, Dave is seeing square-wave 
>> noise on a line. (1V of square wave, with pulses about 400ns long, 
>> running at
>> 375kHz.) The line runs through a flat cable of modest length, along 
>> with other signal-carrying lines. (No, we were not smart, and didn't 
>> put ground lines between each pair of signal lines!)
> 
> Oops!  
> 
>> 
>> Could cross-talk cause this kind of noise? We would have thought that 
>> you'd only get spikes, associated with the rising and trailing edges 
>> of a signal in a parallel wire, not a whole square-wave. During the 
>> constant-current period in the middle of the pulse, there shouldn't be 
>> any cross-talk? Is there some mechanism I/we don't understand that could do 
>> that?
>> 
> Transmission line theory applies.  Adjacent lines see the electric and 
> magnetic fields nominally seen along transmission lines.  Some would say it 
> this way, you get induction from one line to another based on how those wires 
> are routed and terminated.
> 
> Its only 375khz... No, its pulses with rise and fall times in the Nanosecond 
> region with bandwidth of hundreds of Mhz.
> 
> 
>> (My guess is there's a leakage path in the circuitry on one end or the 
>> other, not cross-talk in the cable, but...)
> 
> No.  You have to treat those wires as transmission lines ( like coaxial 
> cable or parallel pair) for signals.  Its not DC leakage.  You send a pulse 
> (or a train of them) down a transmission line and if the line is not 
> terminated the pulse energy will be reflected rather than absorbed.  Is there 
> is a signal line next to it it will see the resulting fields from the 
> currents flowing.
> 
> Add to that your ground for the SD card is remote so there will be a current 
> flowing on that lead as well from circuit ground and the actual ground pin.
> 
> This is why people do not remote SD cards (unless someone is forcing it).  
> Its input looks like a capacitor at the end of a transmission line and 
> incorrectly handled you get reflections and ringing.  Just like backplanes 
> and all sorts of other media.
> 
> 
> Allison
> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>>  Noel
> 

Re: Cross-talk square-wave?

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:40 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:

> Hi, a question about generic analog stuff.
> 
> In the process of getting SD cards to work, Dave is seeing square-wave noise
> on a line. (1V of square wave, with pulses about 400ns long, running at
> 375kHz.) The line runs through a flat cable of modest length, along with
> other signal-carrying lines. (No, we were not smart, and didn't put ground
> lines between each pair of signal lines!)

Oops!  

> 
> Could cross-talk cause this kind of noise? We would have thought that you'd
> only get spikes, associated with the rising and trailing edges of a signal in
> a parallel wire, not a whole square-wave. During the constant-current period
> in the middle of the pulse, there shouldn't be any cross-talk? Is there some
> mechanism I/we don't understand that could do that?
> 
Transmission line theory applies.  Adjacent lines see the electric and magnetic 
fields 
nominally seen along transmission lines.  Some would say it this way, you get 
induction
from one line to another based on how those wires are routed and terminated.

Its only 375khz… No, its pulses with rise and fall times in the Nanosecond 
region
with bandwidth of hundreds of Mhz.


> (My guess is there's a leakage path in the circuitry on one end or the other,
> not cross-talk in the cable, but…)

No.  You have to treat those wires as transmission lines ( like coaxial 
cable or parallel pair)
for signals.  Its not DC leakage.  You send a pulse (or a train of them) down a 
transmission line 
and if the line is not terminated the pulse energy will be reflected rather 
than absorbed.  Is there is 
a signal line next to it it will see the resulting fields from the currents 
flowing.

Add to that your ground for the SD card is remote so there will be a current 
flowing on that lead as well 
from circuit ground and the actual ground pin.

This is why people do not remote SD cards (unless someone is forcing it).  Its 
input looks like a capacitor 
at the end of a transmission line and incorrectly handled you get reflections 
and ringing.  Just like backplanes 
and all sorts of other media.


Allison

> Thanks!
> 
>   Noel

Re: QIX game on PDP-11

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

On Mar 28, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Henk Gooijen via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi PDP-11 game players 
>> 
>> I found that the famous QIX game was ported to the PDP-11 !!
>> See http://imgur.com/a/gtPfh
> 
> I don't know which PDP-11 that is either.  It's a 3rd party card.
> Anyone recognize it?
> 
> -ethan

Its defiantely J11 powered, the white ceramic chip carrier gives that away.

Likely a J11 power Q or Unibus CPU of late vintage.

Allison

Re: New addition to the collection

[Parent Allison via cctalk]

On Mar 25, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Terry Stewart via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
wrote:

> Re NEC 8201a...
> 
> This is a machine I have  a lot if fondness for.   Wrote many article
> drafts and crunched a lot of numbers on that little unit.
> 
> Terry (Tez)

My only wish is the tech manual it is terrible and inaccurate to boot.

Neat machine and moving toward getting 32k ram and bank 2 installed per club100.


Allison

Re: MC68K's on DEUNA's

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/24/2017 04:02 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2017, at 1:40 PM, allison via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> The 68K came in two major forms one was 16 bit bus the other was 8bit bus.
> Isn't that the 68008?
Ah yes.  Its still logical 68K and the 8bit bus form.

Allison

>   paul
>
>
>

Re: MC68K's on DEUNA's

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/24/2017 01:19 PM, John Wilson via cctalk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:44:37PM -0400, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
>> So all the DEUNA's I've seen have L10 (ceramic package, 10Mhz) 68K's in them.
>> Has anyone tried using anything else, and did it work?
>>
>> I _assume_ an x12 would work, but until someone has acutally tried it...
> I don't know, but isn't the DEUNA T11-based?  So I think this is DELUA?
> I'm getting old ... could have it wrong.
DEQNA and DELQA (Qbus Ethernet adaptor) DELUA is Ubus and older.

> Anyway I'd be inclined to just try it.  How is a slightly-wrong CPU likely
> to do more damage than the definitely-fried CPU (right?) that's in there now?
I'd be surprised the CPU is fried.  Stolen for other uses maybe. 

The 68K came in two major forms one was 16 bit bus the other was 8bit bus.
That swap would be likely to hurt the cpu.  The other variants are package,
mask revision levels ( due to bugs in the microcode) and Clock maximum.


Allison
> John Wilson
> D Bit
>

Re: MC68K's on DEUNA's

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/24/2017 12:44 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
> So all the DEUNA's I've seen have L10 (ceramic package, 10Mhz) 68K's in them.
> Has anyone tried using anything else, and did it work?
>
> I _assume_ an x12 would work, but until someone has acutally tried it...
>
> The Pxx's (plastic packaging) might not work - according to the datasheet,
> they are 2mm wider than the ceramics (why, I have no idea - it probably means
> they aren't interchangeable, which makes no sense at all to me).
>
>  Noel
>
The 68K dips regardless of package use the same pin pads (center to
center location).
The issue was at the start the only 68K fast enough was only in ceramic
then.
You should be able to use any 68K that will clock at that speed ( I
forget what
the DEUNA ran at).

I have the big Moto microprocessor data book and that confirms all the DIP
parts are mechanically interchangeable.  The ceramic is smaller but the
lead
shape (bend) defines the landing point and the socket pin location.

Allison

New addition to the collection

[allison via cctalk]

I felt the poor 8085 CPU was under represented and my Tandy M100 was lonely
so I added a NEC PC-8201A. 

The 8201 needed some help to get it going.  Things like the foam around
the LCD to front bezel
was turning to powder and regardless of the battery used it was faulting
on low volts (blank screen)
plus the internal NiCd was dead and starting to leak.  Attacking the
power supply corrected the
/LPS (low power shutdown) fault due to a bad transistor and now it works
well.

Next step is to fill the two banks of ram as it only had the factory 16K
and can carry 96k.

The first software project is to get to near the bare metal.  That is a
way to load machine
language programs and run them where the first code will be a simple
Monitor.

At some later point I'd like to mod it so the load and store (cload
cstore in basic) insted of using
audio cassette tape will be to CF or SD mass storage.  I may have to
resource the rom to  to
do that or go from scratch.  I haven't decided on an OS or start from
scratch CP/M is a likely
candidate as porting it to 8085 is done deal and adding modern mass
storage of any sort
is easy (BIOS).  The CP/M route opens a door to a great deal of software
that will run on 8085
as not all that much required the Z80.   The only requirement is  64K of
ram from H
and the as built memory management can do that. 


Allison

Re: I hate the new mail system

[Allison Parent via cctalk]

My puff of smoke.  The email provider used decided to quit (verizon) so its
gmail.

The list works.  It broke from time to time before and kept sending
everything at least
twice if not many more times.

This whole discussion is a waste of bandwidth and a disrespect to those
that keep it functioning.

Allison

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Tor
> > Arntsen via cctalk
> > Sent: 17 March 2017 15:38
> > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> > <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> > Subject: Re: I hate the new mail system
> >
> > On 17 March 2017 at 14:43, Philipp Hachtmann via cctalk
> > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 03/16/2017 10:07 PM, Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I'm pretty confident that every member of the list appreciates the
> > >> time, effort and whatever else you and certain others have
> > >> contributed to keep this list humming as well as it almost always
> > >> does;
> > >
> > > Full ack, of course!
> > >
> > > But the new addressing scheme still sucks, sorry.
> >
> > I still maintain that the change solved every issue I've had, reading
> with gmail.
> > No more posts ending up in the spam folder unless I configured 'never
> send
> > to spam' (which has its own issues), no more of the weekly or bi-weekly
> > automatic de-registrations, and addressing (when replying) at the same
> level
> > of difficulty as before (i.e. not much, just edit out what's not needed).
>
> The same here. Much better.
>
> Dave
>
>

Re: sourcing Atmel 29Cxxx series flash roms

[allison via cctalk]

On 3/13/17 12:39 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

On 03/13/2017 02:23 AM, David Griffith via cctalk wrote:


I'm almost out of Atmel 29C256 flash roms.  I use these primarily for 
P112 boot roms.  I'd like some more because I still have P112 boards 
to sell... and I want them for other projects.  Mouser, Digikey, and 
Jameco don't have it anymore. What are you guys doing to get these 
and equivalent chips?



I have some 27C256, don't know if those are compatible. Alltronics in 
San Jose (or thereabouts) used to have a massive stock of older chips.


Jon



FYI:

27Cxxx is an EPprom
28Cxxx is an EEprom
29Cxxx is a  flash prom

Then can be pin compatible in SOME system but they program very differently.
IT the system expects to be able to rewrite some locatons then you need 
EEPROM.

If the system expects to be able to rewrite blocks then it s flash.
If you put a Eprom in you can do none of those things without a UVlamp 
and an external programmer(most cases).


The P112 can use all or any save for being in system writable if needed.

Allison

Re: Aquired PDP 11/23

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/12/2017 04:56 PM, Systems Glitch via cctech wrote:
>> Are dectape II tapes expensive?
> TU58? They're hard to come by, but the good news is you can *emulate* them 
> with a PC and a serial port (or USB adapter). That's how I run XXDP on most 
> of my systems, and pretty much all of the systems I check out for people. 
> You've got a DLV11-J in there so you've already got SLU0 in place (or can 
> strap it up for it). AK6DN has a bunch of useful TU58 images premade, with 
> listings of what XXDP utilities are on them.
What makes them hard to come by is that they must be preformatted for
the TU58, as far as I know
only DEC had hardware to do that.  The Drive as it stands cannot do that,

It is not capable of higher storage capacity as a result (hardware
limit, programming and no formatting).
> It's also possible to boot other OSes on TU58, like RT-11. There's even a 
> patched RT-11 driver to fudge the capacity on TU58s so you can use the 
> emulator(s) to store a much larger volume of data. Helps to set SLU0 for a 
> higher speed than 9600 if you plan on doing that :)
I run RT-11XM using TU58 a real one.  Boot times to load the RT-11XM:
driver and copy the tape and boot
to XM: virtual disk that takes about 5 minutes.  That's with the files
optimally placed on the tape
(in order of need) to limit the number of rewinds.

The VAX750 used TU58 to load microcode and diagnostics. Any os that can
fit on the 256K per tape
times two tapes would likely be bootable if it can do the serial
protocal used for the booter and the OS.

A PC emulation (or Rpi) can do this a bit faster (just over a minute for
a boot can copy to VM:) but you are
limited to the max baud rate (38K) of the serial port use by the DD
driver. 

There was at least one company that used a floppy drive (360K 5.25 or
720K for two sided) with a TU58 emulation
that was somewhat faster than tape due to faster seeks to a block.

Allison

> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>

Re: Compaq Portable 286 and Portable III - IDE drives?

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/03/2017 03:52 PM, Jules Richardson via cctalk wrote:
>
> Just checking here, as someone told me that this is the case, but do
> the Compaq Portable 286 and Portable III take stock 40-pin IDE hard
> drives? I just wanted to make sure that they weren't expecting
> something that might be a bit non-standard before I go trying to find
> modern replacements for a pair of failing disks.
>
> Assuming that an enormous modern(ish) drive is OK, are there any other
> gotchas involved in configuration and formatting? Obviously I don't
> need a partition bigger than a few tens of MB, but perhaps there are
> things to keep in mind when fitting a drive that's most likely to be
> getting on for a thousand times the capacity of the original.
>
> cheers
>
> Jules
>
>
>
>
One caveat...  Max drive size was 500mb.  You can use larger but the
first partition must be 500mb and the second is only
usable to the limits of the OS version.  For example the hardware (BIOS)
will boot the OS in the first 500mb partition and
of the OS such as Win3.11 can handle up to only 500mb if memory serves
but there can be many partitions.

The other thing is the BIOS much be able to setup for the drive
geometry, some only have a predefined list.

That machine was seen with drives in the up to 340 or 420mb scale over
time and larger than 40mb was not uncommon.
If you can find a working ST3660A (500mb) that might be a good one to go
with.

I'd max the drive at 1Gb.  Larger may not work.

Allison

Re: Full immersion emulation

[allison via cctalk]

On 3/1/17 3:07 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

On 03/01/2017 11:14 AM, Charles Anthony via cctalk wrote:

Part of the iconic mainframe experience is the cold room sounds; for
early

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk

There is no way that I'd wish anyone would have to put up with the 80+
dB "white noise" of fans and vacuum pumps (tape drives), not to mention
the scream of a train printer working or a high speed card punch or the
clatter of a high-speed card reader.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Tony Duell via cctalk wrote:

But presumably on an emulator there will be some kind of volume control.
Or even unplug the speaker(s) if you want silence...


But, the REAL experience did not include volume control or speaker
disconnect!   THAT was part of the real experience.

The Computer History Museum had a running 1401 room.  But, they did more
conscientious maintenance that we were accustomed to in the old days, so it
just didn't SMELL the same.A dish of oil on a hotplate might be close
enough, until SMELL-O-VISION catches on.


No idea what the big deal is about  ;)

I just fire up the PDP-11/73 (RL02, RX02, RD52x3,), then 
Microvax-II/GPX, Then the PDP-8f


WHAT? OH YES IT'S LOUD!

The 11.73 has fans in the RX02, BA11 box, Rack back door near top and 
then the RL02 spinning.

The PDP8f has two very high volume fans.
The only thing I have that's close to that is the homebrew S100 case 
with two 120cfm fans
that blow across the boards and a pair of 8" shugart drives (with fans 
as well).


Warms the room well and makes the power meter spin pretty good too.

Allison

Re: Cassette Interface Assistance

[allison via cctalk]

On 03/01/2017 01:40 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
> On 2/28/2017 2:34 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote:
snippage
> Obviously, given the LM339 issues, this is unworkable in the end, but
> it did get me to realizing some outputs on the LM339, so thanks to
> both of you.
>
> I can plainly see the oscillation on the comparator transitions, so it
> is obvious I need a better comparator.  I'll have to source a few
> different comparator options from Digikey to fill my parts box.
> Suggestions are welcome.
OR  a bit of positive feedback.

>> Using the internal AVR comparator sounds like a better final solution
>> (fewer components), but in devising an
>> input circuit for the AVR you may be running into the same issue of
>> loading a high-impedance source.
> Though it plays into Tonly's notes about my analog understanding (or
> lack thereof), I was so disillusioned by the analog uncertainties that
> I initial focused on the AVR comparator.  By correctly biasing the
> comparator, I was able to get much better results tonight, but the
> lack of any ability to add hysteresis into the design hindered my
> success.  At transition, the signal simply bounces badly.  I tried to
> construct a low pass filter (22pF and 5K6), and some variations, but I
> was not able to overcome.  I then tried to deal with it in SW, but I
> have not yet been successful.  I'll try again, but lack of hysteresis
> is a big issue.
>
Single transistor audio amp before it.

Allison


> Jim
>
>

Re: Cassette Interface Assistance

[allison via cctalk]

On 2/28/17 1:43 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

On 2/28/2017 12:17 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:

It sounds like he is contemplating a battery-powered tape drive
emulator that plugs on the outside of the machine for users to use
without opening their boxes.  It would then be portable to other
machines.  Sounds like a great idea.
This year's CocoFEST is open to all TRS-80 models, not just the Coco, 
and I noticed that many of the models have a similar cassette port 
connector (I think they have variations on the format), and so I 
thought of a neat project that might be of interest to all of the 
participants of the show.


The TRS-80 used two formats!  THe base 4K with 4K basic was a slower 
format than the 12K basic machine.

The MM100 was a modem (bell 103 compatable).
The pocket computer was again different I forget the format.
COCOs I think were not all the same.

Lots of ground to cover.

Allison
As you note, picking off 5V from inside, while entirely possible, is 
far from optimal, and a uC is the intended recipient.  Besides, as 
Tony implies, I should know this stuff, but I have indeed managed to 
move along in my efforts for so many years without needing to use a 
comparator :-)

Re: Cassette Interface Assistance

[allison via cctalk]

On 2/28/17 12:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 02/28/2017 09:42 AM, Seth Morabito via cctalk wrote:


Synertek used an LM311 (an LM358 would work just fine) to build a
comparator circuit. I _think_ you could use this exact circuit to
take the analog output from the CoCo and turn it into a 5V sqauare
wave.


I don't know a thing about the CoCo cassette format.  I know that back
in the day when things like the KC standard were the rage, a NE567 PLL
was considered the cat's whiskers for data recovery.  But again, I don't
know what the CoCo cassette standard looks like

Only works for FM and frequency shift based formats.

Everyone had their own favorite.  I used to flip a bit doing biphase in 
software

at 2400 baud.  Minimal parts to none.

Allison

Also, you may want to look at the IBM  5150 (PC) cassette circuit.  My
recollection was that it was pretty robust, even if few made use of the
facility.

--Chuck

Re: Cassette Interface Assistance

[allison via cctalk]

On 2/28/17 1:17 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:21 AM, allison via cctalk
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

On 2/28/17 10:55 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

I have a cute idea for a cassette port project for the Tandy line of
computers (the ones with the cassette port)


Why not just go inside and grab the signal at it source before any of the
analog?  it starts life at TTL waveforms (not 5V).

It sounds like he is contemplating a battery-powered tape drive
emulator that plugs on the outside of the machine for users to use
without opening their boxes.  It would then be portable to other
machines.  Sounds like a great idea.

A sound recorder, how novel.  My I phone and androids already do that.
Before that I use tape recorders.

Why are you trying to get to 5V in the first place?

Digital input to the AVR.

Sounds more complicated than need be.

AVR can measure small signals using the A/D and then do a bit of looking 
for zeo crossing to

detect bit times.

Allison

-ethan

Re: Cassette Interface Assistance

[allison via cctalk]

On 2/28/17 12:09 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote:
74LS of 74HC gates are not going to work, the signal level is only 1V 
the threshold for 74LS is 2V and for 74HC it is 3.7V.  I would 
probably use something like a compatator or an opamp but I don't have 
a circuit handy to use, but tehy should be easy to find.



Simply bias it in the middle of the range it works well then.

All digital circuits start as analog designs.


Paul.

On 2017-02-28 11:59 AM, Alexandre Souza via cctalk wrote:

74hc(or ls)14

Enviado do meu Tele-Movel

On Feb 28, 2017 12:55 PM, "Jim Brain via cctalk" 
wrote:


Analog, which is my nemesis, curses me again.

I have a cute idea for a cassette port project for the Tandy line of
computers (the ones with the cassette port).  I have a Coco 3 on the 
bench,
so I scoped the output line while doing 'csave "jim"'.  The signal 
looks to
be just under 1V PtP (0-1V on the scope), and rests at about .3V 
when not

sending data.

I have tried 6 different ways to boost the signal to 5V digital, to no
avail, and so I ask humbly if someone with analog knowledge might be 
able

to assist.

I first tried to boost the signal with a transistor (with variations 
using
a N channel FET as well). Arguably, that was foolhardy, and it did 
not work.


My second attempt was based on this link that was shared with me:

http://labs.rakettitiede.com/12kbps-simple-audio-data-transfer-for-avr/

The output from the Coco3 does not appear to be "loud" enough to 
work with

this circuit.

So, I finally decided a comparator solution would be required.

First, I tried a design using a 741 op-amp, which failed miserably, but
probably would have worked, but I tried to merge the design from the 
Coco1,
and replace the LM339 in the Coco 1 design with the 741, and I feel 
I did

not merge the designs well :-)

I then tried using the comparator in an Atmel AVR, and had minimal
success.  By biasing one input via a variable resistor to around 
.8V, I was
able to get a digital stream, but it did not look like the data 
stream of

the cassette format.

I then pried an LM339 out of my Coco1 and replicated the circuit int 
the

Coco 1, as noted in the tech manual:
Color Computer Technical Reference Manual (Tandy).pdf <
http://www.colorcomputerarchive.com/coco/Documents/Manuals/
Hardware/Color%20Computer%20Technical%20Reference%
20Manual%20%28Tandy%29.pdf>

I was shocked that I had no success with that design at all. I assumed
(wrongly, it appears) that the Coco cassette input circuit would 
read the
output of it's output circuit.  Beyond the possibility that my 
components

are defective or I wired it up wrongly, I can only theorize that Tandy
assumed that all tape recorders would AGC the output and then feed a 
2V PtP
signal back to the Coco (the Coco 1 circuit looks to bias the 
comparator at

1.05V (not sure about the feedback resistor's impact))

I can fiddle around with the AVR solution, which might work if I can
smooth out the spikes and bias the comparator right, but it just 
bothers me
that the Coco 1 circuit does not work, as I assumed I would at least 
have

success by copying a working design.

Jim



--
Jim Brain
br...@jbrain.com
www.jbrain.com

Re: Cassette Interface Assistance

[allison via cctalk]

On 2/28/17 10:55 AM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:

Analog, which is my nemesis, curses me again.

I have a cute idea for a cassette port project for the Tandy line of 
computers (the ones with the cassette port).  I have a Coco 3 on the 
bench, so I scoped the output line while doing 'csave "jim"'.  The 
signal looks to be just under 1V PtP (0-1V on the scope), and rests at 
about .3V when not sending data.


I have tried 6 different ways to boost the signal to 5V digital, to no 
avail, and so I ask humbly if someone with analog knowledge might be 
able to assist.



Why?

I first tried to boost the signal with a transistor (with variations 
using a N channel FET as well). Arguably, that was foolhardy, and it 
did not work.


My second attempt was based on this link that was shared with me:

http://labs.rakettitiede.com/12kbps-simple-audio-data-transfer-for-avr/

The output from the Coco3 does not appear to be "loud" enough to work 
with this circuit.


So, I finally decided a comparator solution would be required.

First, I tried a design using a 741 op-amp, which failed miserably, 
but probably would have worked, but I tried to merge the design from 
the Coco1, and replace the LM339 in the Coco 1 design with the 741, 
and I feel I did not merge the designs well :-)


I then tried using the comparator in an Atmel AVR, and had minimal 
success.  By biasing one input via a variable resistor to around .8V, 
I was able to get a digital stream, but it did not look like the data 
stream of the cassette format.


I then pried an LM339 out of my Coco1 and replicated the circuit int 
the Coco 1, as noted in the tech manual:
Color Computer Technical Reference Manual (Tandy).pdf 
<http://www.colorcomputerarchive.com/coco/Documents/Manuals/Hardware/Color%20Computer%20Technical%20Reference%20Manual%20%28Tandy%29.pdf> 



The 339 is a very strange beast and can behave very badly.  The 741 is 
slow but should work as an amplifier and as a comparator
with minimal grief.  Trying to use 339 or 714 circuits for each other 
will usually fail as they behave differently.


I was shocked that I had no success with that design at all.  I 
assumed (wrongly, it appears) that the Coco cassette input circuit 
would read the output of it's output circuit. Beyond the possibility 
that my components are defective or I wired it up wrongly, I can only 
theorize that Tandy assumed that all tape recorders would AGC the 
output and then feed a 2V PtP signal back to the Coco (the Coco 1 
circuit looks to bias the comparator at 1.05V (not sure about the 
feedback resistor's impact))


The tape recorders used had no agc.  They were simple portables and used 
the mic or line input and headphone output.


The big thing is most of those circuits took advantage of the audio out 
of the recorder (low level and fairly low impedance)

easily but larger they would overload (sometimes badly).

The output was for a low level input and loading it usually lowers the 
output more (high impedance source).


I can fiddle around with the AVR solution, which might work if I can 
smooth out the spikes and bias the comparator right, but it just 
bothers me that the Coco 1 circuit does not work, as I assumed I would 
at least have success by copying a working design.


Why not just go inside and grab the signal at it source before any of 
the analog?  it starts life at TTL waveforms (not 5V).


Why are you trying to get to 5V in the first place?


Allison


Jim

Re: story of Mel

[allison]

On 2/23/17 11:16 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:


From: cctech [cctech-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of allison 
[ajp...@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:04 AM
To: cct...@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: story of Mel

On 2/23/17 3:23 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:18:50PM -0500, allison wrote:

The sound (not music) card was actually a internally built and not sold
(that I know of).

There must have been a few though, since several claim to have one and
it even showed up on ebay.

(I'm just hoping I'l get lucky and find one.. I have an 11/73 with
graphics, it would be nice to add sound to it)

/P


Last time I needed just a beep it was the DTR line on the async card
being flipped
by a simple loop.  If you flip it and leave it you get a click
Obviously you need
an amplifier(maybe or a transistor) and speaker to hear it.

The sound card I have is not part of the OS (any) and there is no
support so it does
nothing without code and a d/a or even a few bits will do sound.

FYI there was many articles in the micro world on doing sound and music
in Byte and DDJ back when (1975 to mid 80s) in the time before PCs and
sound cards.  For example Processor Technologies Music system.

See http://www.sol20.org/manuals/music.pdf for the manual on that.

I believe it was Polymorphic systems that did a polyphonic sound system
for z80 computers.

Those are samples of interest connected with computer music back then.



I always thought music in the old days was more about MIDI and letting
something designed for it do the work ala Usenix Nashville 1991.

bill
Right after the creation of dirt was the first Philadelphia computer 
music Festival...

I have the vinyl created back then for it and its interesting listening.

https://www.vintagecomputermusic.com/notran_system.php

This is how it was done when programmer wrote  code.  ;)

Allison

Re: story of Mel

[allison]

On 2/23/17 11:16 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:


From: cctech [cctech-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of allison 
[ajp...@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 11:04 AM
To: cct...@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: story of Mel

On 2/23/17 3:23 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:18:50PM -0500, allison wrote:

The sound (not music) card was actually a internally built and not sold
(that I know of).

There must have been a few though, since several claim to have one and
it even showed up on ebay.

(I'm just hoping I'l get lucky and find one.. I have an 11/73 with
graphics, it would be nice to add sound to it)

/P


Last time I needed just a beep it was the DTR line on the async card
being flipped
by a simple loop.  If you flip it and leave it you get a click
Obviously you need
an amplifier(maybe or a transistor) and speaker to hear it.

The sound card I have is not part of the OS (any) and there is no
support so it does
nothing without code and a d/a or even a few bits will do sound.

FYI there was many articles in the micro world on doing sound and music
in Byte and DDJ back when (1975 to mid 80s) in the time before PCs and
sound cards.  For example Processor Technologies Music system.

See http://www.sol20.org/manuals/music.pdf for the manual on that.

I believe it was Polymorphic systems that did a polyphonic sound system
for z80 computers.

Those are samples of interest connected with computer music back then.



I always thought music in the old days was more about MIDI and letting
something designed for it do the work ala Usenix Nashville 1991.

bill


To you that's the old days.  To me its recent history.

Midi became the common bus to talk to instruments and drivers 
(keyboards, synthetic strings and all) of
all sorts.  It popped up in the early 80s as a viable bus for music and 
stage control IO.


Before midi...  when dirt was relatively new then, we used computers and 
software to do things like
flip the PDP-8 link bit and a speaker attached.Fancy would have been 
a R2R of 5 or 8 bits as simple
D/A on a parallel output port (or LP11) and with the right timing loops 
and maybe some data you could
synthesize any waveform and most any pitch.  if the machine was fast 
enough.  Of course you need a
music input too and something to compile it to data and commands (or did 
it using a #2 and paper).


There was a major conference in the 70s for computer generated music.  
Look up NOTRAN.


Allison

Re: Q Bus Music Board

[allison]

On 2/23/17 8:25 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:


From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Noel Chiappa 
[j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 1:49 PM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Q Bus Music Board

 > From: Jim Stephens

 > That A6006 produces a hit in this document
 > ...
 > AAV11-C ANALOG OUTPUT BOARD
 > ...
 > 4 DACs, and a DC-DC converter.

Sounds like it might be a standard analog output board, for lab settings.
I'll bet the music thing is some marketing ploy, like the card game in 'The
Story of Mel'. (What, you haven't read 'The Story of Mel'?!? :-)

 Noel



I think IO have a couple of them but I never heard them play music. :-)

bill


I have two of them and a RT-11 program in macro that can output tones 
and clicks

music is just an extension of that.

To do music (or sounds with an D/A) card its a matter of moving a 
sequence of bytes/words
in a regular periodic rate representing the voltage for instant of the 
wave form.

For tones its a loop with values for amplitude, frequency, and wave shape.
For a simple output card its a matter of changing the state of a single 
bit at the required rate

(flip it once every half millisecond and you get a 1khz tone).

If an PDP-8, 6502, 8080 and many others can do it a pdp-11 and any 
output can.
Hell I've heard Line printers play music and asr33s rattling out a crude 
version of

Jingle bells complete with bell!

Allison

Re: story of Mel

[allison]

On 2/23/17 3:23 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:18:50PM -0500, allison wrote:

The sound (not music) card was actually a internally built and not sold
(that I know of).

There must have been a few though, since several claim to have one and
it even showed up on ebay.

(I'm just hoping I'l get lucky and find one.. I have an 11/73 with
graphics, it would be nice to add sound to it)

/P

Last time I needed just a beep it was the DTR line on the async card 
being flipped
by a simple loop.  If you flip it and leave it you get a click 
Obviously you need

an amplifier(maybe or a transistor) and speaker to hear it.

The sound card I have is not part of the OS (any) and there is no 
support so it does

nothing without code and a d/a or even a few bits will do sound.

FYI there was many articles in the micro world on doing sound and music
in Byte and DDJ back when (1975 to mid 80s) in the time before PCs and
sound cards.  For example Processor Technologies Music system.

See http://www.sol20.org/manuals/music.pdf for the manual on that.

I believe it was Polymorphic systems that did a polyphonic sound system
for z80 computers.

Those are samples of interest connected with computer music back then.


Allison

Re: story of Mel

[allison]

On 02/23/2017 03:23 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 02:18:50PM -0500, allison wrote:
>> The sound (not music) card was actually a internally built and not sold
>> (that I know of).
> There must have been a few though, since several claim to have one and 
> it even showed up on ebay.
>
> (I'm just hoping I'l get lucky and find one.. I have an 11/73 with 
> graphics, it would be nice to add sound to it)
>
> /P
>
The sound card was a rare item and i'd guess there are very few ever
built and never sold.

Why not find the very much more common D to A card and drive that with
software
to make noise or music.  Or even a single bit output!

Allison

Re: story of Mel

[allison]

On 2/22/17 1:58 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

On Feb 22, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Noel Chiappa <j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:


From: Jim Stephens
That A6006 produces a hit in this document
...
AAV11-C ANALOG OUTPUT BOARD
...
4 DACs, and a DC-DC converter.

Sounds like it might be a standard analog output board, for lab settings.
I'll bet the music thing is some marketing ploy, like the card game in 'The
Story of Mel'. (What, you haven't read 'The Story of Mel'?!? :-)

Speaking of which, I wonder if the code for that program still exists.  Would 
be nice to run on the LGPs that are still around (or on the simulator).


The AAV11-C is an analog output board and I know of no code for it as it 
was usually part of a user application.
Same for its complementing Analog input board  ADV-11 M8000 and in 
systemss ussually appered with M6010
digital output card, IBV-11 M7954 instrument bus interface.  See MINC-11 
systems for more.


The sound (not music) card was actually a internally built and not sold 
(that I know of).  But people did use the D/A
cards to do music by outputting in real time created waveforms or by 
toggling bits on parallel cards.


Allison



paul

Re: Q Bus Music Board

[allison]

On 2/21/17 9:17 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:

Hi

This has been discussed on this mailinglist before (back in -95 and
-03). But with very little information came out of that.

I'm curious about the "Q Bus Music Board" that DEC made. What system was
it used in, what software was available that took advantage of it, how
would you program it?

All I know is from the cctalk threads and a few pictures from an ebay
auction, with missleading description, that I missed out on. The number
on the green handle is "93 08036" and on the PCB there is the number
"EY-0105E-MS-0101" and it looks like it has two AY-3-8192 synthesiser
chips.

So, does anyone know anything more?

And if anyone has one they could part with, I'd be interested.

Kind Regards,
Pontus.


The board was called Gigilo.

I have one and last I tried it it was operational I also have a minor 
chunk of code to do
some music under RT11.   Currently deeply buried and not in my easy 
search path.


It was as believed at the time I worked for DEC that it was developed 
internally for
things like DECworld.   Its never been clear if it was for QBUS PDP-11 
use or MicroVAX.
I don't think it was ever made in quantity and mine is a unit that was 
floating around

terminal and printers engineering in a random 11/23 that I still have.

The number on the handle was the handle part number and not relevant to 
any product.

The AY-3 are the sound generator chips as it does two channels of sound.
The EY-0105e may be a document (spec or drawing).

Allison

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

[allison]

On 2/2/17 2:32 PM, william degnan wrote:

All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP
11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05?  Wouldn't all of the C and wake
calls, etc issues have been solved then?  Why is this an issue now?  I am
largely ignorant to the details but from 2 feet it would seem like this
would have been taken care of long ago.  No need for pre-processing code,
etc.  Please educate me if I am wrong, just curious.

Bill Degnan


for laughs I wandered over to:

http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/mirrors/minnie.tuhs.org/PDP-11/Boot_Images/

To see if the copy of V6 on RL02 is still there yep it is.  and it 
runs on a 11/23 just fine

as thanks to someone I have a copy on RL02 that I boot from time to time.

Seems the problem is solved.  If memory serves it cannot use more than 
256K even if the

machine is Q22.

Allison

Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery

[allison]

On 01/22/2017 02:46 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 01/22/2017 10:57 AM, allison wrote:
>> I don't know about most people but this solution has been around for 
>> decades.
>>
>> I locate the battery on the failed part with a small magnet, then
>> grind the epoxy down to it then pick it out with a sharp pointed
>> tool.  Once I expose the connection point I older two wires then
>> epoxy a small coin-cell holder in that spot and it s done.  I've done
>> this more times than I care to count and its effective and the
>> replacement battery some over 10 years old now have not failed.  But
>> just in case I have a bag of NOS replacements (and pulls from
>> socketed boards) all with dead batteries from age.  There is no magic
>> to this.
> It's worth noting that the original post was about fabricating a
> replacement using the DS12885A RTC chip.  However, most old PCs used the
> DS1285 RTC (inside of a DS1287  module).  The DS12885A is supposed to be
> drop-in compatible with the DS1285, but apparently, in some cases is not.
>
> So there's logic in reworking the old DS1287 modules, as the DS1285 chip
> is long out of production--you'll most likely have to be content with
> pulls or the occasional NOS lot.
>
> --Chuck

I haven't seen that version for a while.  The later are fully versions
are epoxy filled.
Same for the MT48T part, same fix.

The problem with NOS parts is manufacture date.  Some are really old.

Allison
>

Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery

[allison]

I don't know about most people but this solution has been around for
decades.

I locate the battery on the failed part with a small magnet, then grind the
epoxy down to it then pick it out with a sharp pointed tool.  Once I expose
the connection point I older two wires then epoxy a small coin-cell holder
in that spot and it s done.  I've done this more times than I care to count
and its effective and the replacement battery some over 10 years old
now have not failed.  But just in case I have a bag of NOS replacements
(and pulls from socketed boards) all with dead batteries from age.  There
is no magic to this.


Allison


On 01/22/2017 01:20 PM, Ali wrote:
> Jon,
> Then why not use a dip compatible version of the DS chip? I mean yes this 
> allows for switchable battery which is very nice but SMT soldering is not for 
> everyone.
>
> I wonder if there is a way to determine if there will be BIOS issues by 
> switching the DS12887?
>
>  Original message 
> From: Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> 
> Date: 1/22/17  9:16 AM  (GMT-08:00) 
> To: gene...@classiccmp.org, "discuss...@classiccmp.org:On-Topic and Off-Topic 
> Posts" <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
> Subject: Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery 
>
> On 01/22/2017 10:07 AM, Ali wrote:
>> Al,
>> I thought the problem with switching these chips was that part of the ROM 
>> code was embedded in them? I.e. it isn't just an issue of battery? Am I 
>> wrong? If I am then why not use one of the replacement chips that are 
>> available?
>>
> These don't have a lot of memory on them.  many early PCs 
> stored some config info there, but generally the BIOS can 
> reconstruct it if it isn't there.  I suppose there is a 
> possibility that random data in the CMOS memory could cause 
> the BIOS to try to use unavailable features and hang.  I 
> don't think anybody put actual executable code in there.
>
> Jon

Re: How do you clean your vintage computers?

[allison]

nd just keep and use it.  

A lot of this reflects my underlying reasons for collecting.  First
being I always wanted one to
play with where time and dollars were not forthcoming to do so.  The
other is the occasional
true rare find that stays and may even get repairs and used and kept
safe.  Other are remainders
and reminders of my days on the cutting edge (Altair 8800) that either
still work or were
FISH (First In Stays Here) and maybe even became part of my junkbox to
be pulled out as
"valuable do not destroy".

I do have a collection of personal oddities.  Things found that were
re-purposed for example.
The best is a BA11VA box save for it was a proto in aluminium and devoid
of anything inside.
An AmproLB+, 3.5" floppies, Fujitsu scsi 45MB hard disk and a random
power supply were
fitted into it over 30 years ago and lives there still in it original
DEC Gray 68.

In the end cleaning has to do several things.  Remove things that may be
hazardous to the
longevity of the unit(artifact) or the user.  Bring the unit to a usable
functional state.  For the
odd beauty pageant aka static non functional display items look like new
and pretty.

Allison

Re: Compatibility of 1101A and 1101A1

[allison]

On 01/20/2017 04:49 PM, dwight wrote:
> Most often, a number past the letter meant the speed.
>
> Usually a 1 indicated 100 ns but I don't know if that makes
1101s never hit 100ns.  The  slow parts were slower than 1uS
and the were some fast parts at 800ns.

Ever occur to look up the data sheet?

> sense for 1101As. I suspect it still means something related
>
> to the speed but I'm not sure what speed that might be.
Speed select but it varies with vendor and rough year.  For intel in the
mid 70s
I think that was 1uS from memory but the 8008 is so slow that should be
fast
enough.  The slowest had no trailing suffux and that was 1.6us


Allison
> My guess is that it would work at some speed.
>
> Dwight
>
>
> 
> From: cctalk <cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org> on behalf of Brad H 
> <vintagecompu...@bettercomputing.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:19:24 PM
> To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
> Subject: Compatibility of 1101A and 1101A1
>
> I have some C1101A RAMs I was planning to use in my Mark-8 project.  I'm
> having trouble finding more, as previously mentioned because the price has
> shot up so much.  I'm wondering, I'm finding lots of P1101A1 RAMs with the
> correct date codes.. are those compatible with C1101A/P1101A?  I don't
> understand what the 1 at the end signifies.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: 8085 IO ports

[allison]

On 1/17/17 11:38 AM, Adrian Graham wrote:

On 17 January 2017 at 02:14, allison <ajp...@verizon.net> wrote:



snippage>>>>>

<http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/intel/MCS80/MCS80_85_Users_Manual_Jan83.pdf>

That's the later 1983 version but its the book you want.


Thanks, that was some light reading over lunchtime. The descriptions of the
interfacing helped a lot so tonight I need to finish tracing out the
SAA5070 LUCY circuit and the non data bus lines going to the keyboard
because I've not found anything that (I'm guessing) should interrupt the
CPU to say there's been keyboard activity.


Figured that may help.

On the tape drive controller board are a pair of very messy 25V caps that

I


thought had rotted because of damp - the tape transport itself is

probably

beyond saving through rust - but could they have exploded I wonder.


Likely history but if the parts move and the head is ok then clean it
really well replace the caps and try.


The transport motors move fine but the head unit itself is badly rusted
around the edges. I also don't know what capacitance the ex-caps are since
they're that badly damaged but that's info I can hopefully get from the
other unit since that one isn't damaged internally but is equally dead.


The important spaces are the tape head face and the backside where the 
leads are.



in that system working to this day (along with a 8085A subprocessor).

Strewth, that's some troubleshooting effort!

I had bought the Netronics explorer 8085 just before that bolt.  That
gave me
a S100 chassis that would run even bad cards (think SDK85 with S100 bus
interface).


Just googled it, that must've been expnsive when it was new!

As systems of the day went it was cheap as the base unit plus the upgrades
like the s100 frame, backplane and all were fairly inexpensive.  I had 
power

supply, memory and many of the parts to populate it.

THe basic main board was not that expensive ass it was mostly unpopulated...
Adding Level A though E added stuff but their cost barely doubled it to 
maybe

the 400$ level.  At that point its S100 bus but NO S100 boards and 4K ram
on the main board and 8K of eprom (with M$ rom basic), the 8755 with a
2K monitor/debugger, and uses bit bash serial IO (very minimal hardware).

I caught a break as around theyn I was testing JAWS 64K S100 dram board
for Netronics in as many s100 crates as I had access to in 1978-79 
(quite a few)
so I worked a deal.  Paid less as I could get the boards and mechanical 
bits and populate
from my stocks.  The Jaws memory was the best Dram design for S100 of 
the day

as it worked in everything I'd tried 8080/8085 or z80 plus one 1802!

For the longest time the config was 64kdram board (Jaws), VDM-1, MITS SIOB,
and NS* MDS floppy controller and it ran NS*dos or CP/M as needed. 
Without S100
boards in it it had monitor and 4K ram plus basic so that was enough to 
exercise ram

cards, Io boards and the MDS controller.

I later rewrote the monitor and pulled the MDS controller, VDM-1, and 
MITS SIO, to
a Compupro interfacer II, so now it has an early IDE disk project for 
disk (a paltry

100mb drive).   I still have it and use it.

That's the rest of the story.



The turned pin are heavy and will stand that the copper under them
or leading to them may be gone


I tested the sockets by resting the board on a sponge wrapped in tin foil
connected to one lead of my DMM.


Yes, but do the pins connect to other ICs now?  I've see that stuff 
remove copper and leave pads.



FYI vinegar or lemon juice will neutralize it, the battery (likely nicd)
is alkaline.
Rinse with water and dry.


Oh yes, that was the first thing I did when I removed the battery :)



You can always inject a really slow processor clock, isn't rated for it
but it does
run down to less than 1khz. You can then watch signal with a bunch of leds.


I bought a test clip so I can watch every line with a logic analyser. It's
proved to be a useful investment!
I must have a dozen or more with leads.  handy for its here but not 
there... why?


Allison



Cheers,

Re: 8085 IO ports

[allison]

On 01/16/2017 08:37 PM, Adrian Graham wrote:
> On 15/01/2017 16:59, "allison" <ajp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> I've thought of that which is why I'm chasing down details on the Viewdata
>>> chip and the D8741A which I assume is being used as a keyboard controller.
>>> There are also 3 modules on the phone side which I can't find anything
>>> about, marked "NKT NMC1515", NMC1516 and NMC1517.
>> 8741A is likely keyboard controller.  FYI its the eprom version of 8041A
>> (the a is important). That part is easy to dump the EPROM and analyse as its
> only 1K.
>
> Yep, done that fortunately. My MQP programmer can read it and also the PAL
> that does the ROM selection so I know they're both OK.
>>  
>> You can use a 8048 disasembler on that, nearly the same part save for
>> the slave IO structure and a few instructions.
> Glen Slick has already done that for me, much better results than what I
> could get out of the d48 disassembler.
>
>> So its possible to use those pins (4 of them) as inputs without interrupts
>> on all or none as you can read their state.  RST7.4 is also special as
>> its edge
>> triggered (and transition activates it and it sets a latch) so unlike
>> the other
>> the state of the pin can be a pulse rather than a LEVEL.
> OK, that might explain why there's only two entry points for those interrupt
> pins in the code.
>  
>> So it seems there is a keyboard interrupt and video (scan line) interrupt
>> plus the RTC (time keeping and ?).  You also have phone line events in
>> there.
> Tonight I discovered the D8741A is a controller for the little microcassette
> unit that's seriously not well with rust and damaged/rotted/exploded caps :/
>  
>> FYI the software structure is familiar and likely straight out of the
>> book for the 8085.
>> You are preserving cpu status (AC-PSW), BC, DE, HL pairs, then working
>> on the interrupt event.
> OK.
>
>>> Ok, it never gets interrupted then.
>> You would also see /INTA (interrupt acknowledge) trigger.
> I don't remember seeing that when I was monitoring all the control lines and
> I've just noticed on my drawings I've left out INTA, must rectify that.
>  
>> Do find a copy (its definitely on line) of the 8085 users manual,
>> september 1978
> I'll have a look for that at work tomorrow, there's every chance we've got
> it in the library.


http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/intel/MCS80/MCS80_85_Users_Manual_Jan83.pdf

That's the later 1983 version but its the book you want.  

>> It really sounds like the unit suffered a high voltage transient
>> (lighting, ESD, power supply
>> over voltage).
> Yeah, the previous owner did power it up and got smoke but I thought that
> was just the RIFA mains filter popping. Currently I'm up to 6 replaced chips
> that all had dead inputs and the startup opamp (ICL7611). Fortunately the
> non-replaceable ones are OK.
>
> On the tape drive controller board are a pair of very messy 25V caps that I
> thought had rotted because of damp - the tape transport itself is probably
> beyond saving through rust - but could they have exploded I wonder.
>  
Likely history but if the parts move and the head is ok then clean it
really well
replace the caps and try.

>> of TTL across 12 boards to bring it back to life.  The only MOS device
>> (had a hole in it)
>> was a 8251A USART to the H19 terminal (also toasted).  Z80 was still
>> good and still
>> in that system working to this day (along with a 8085A subprocessor).
> Strewth, that's some troubleshooting effort!

I had bought the Netronics explorer 8085 just before that bolt.  That
gave me
a S100 chassis that would run even bad cards (think SDK85 with S100 bus
interface).
That made it possible to go a card at a time for function and level of
function.
Figure maybe 250 more more hours to get it running again and almost a year
chasing random failures that were overstress induced.  I still use that
machine
after dumping the 8kx8 cards for a larger 64K static it has performed well.
Around 1980 it went through a series of mods and adds to upgrade it to
multiporcessor.

>> Sockets on the other hand have caused me no small amount of bedevilment.
>> If its not machined pin and old its likely trouble.
> I do wonder about the sockets though they're all turned pin. The RAM refresh
> and first ROM socket were badly verdigris'd with the battery leaking all
> over that part of the board but they test OK with a DMM.
>  
The turned pin are heavy and will stand that the copper under them
or leading to them may be gone

FYI vinegar or lemon juice will neutralize it, the battery (likely nicd)
is alkaline.
Rinse with water and d

Re: Origins of the term 'WYSIWYG?

[allison]

On 1/16/17 1:48 PM, william degnan wrote:

Maybe Ted Nelson used the term to refer to computing specifically in late
1960s or within Dream Machines?
b



On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:


Yes, but the actual phrase comes from the Flip Wilson show

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


On 1/16/17 10:25 AM, Tony Duell wrote:


I wonder what predates that usage (if anything)



First time I heard wizzywhig (wysiwyg pronounced) was at DEC in the 
early 80s in the context
of terminals (less than 100dpi then) and printers (greater than 300dpi) 
and typset quality documents

and images.


FYI the same group of us used WYGINS  (wiginns, what you get is no 
surprize) to refer to

printing what you meant vs what you see.

In both terms the spoken references are old but the acronyms were newer 
with their own unique

pronunciation.

My favorite was WYPI-WYGO for virtual connections that simulated wires. 
Wippy-whygo was
what you put in will be what you get out.Sorta like GIGO save for 
its for valid stuff in will

always be the exact valid stuff out.

DEC was a haven for acronyms and even had an internal guide for those in 
use by group or system.

BTDT HTS, been there did that have the t-shirt.

Allison