Then, Toshib NMRI in Silicon Valley needed to be able to handle
Toshiba 80 track format disks for communication with home office, so
I gave the T300s to them.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote:
So a Toshiba office did not have computer equipment compatible with what its
Then, Toshib NMRI in Silicon Valley needed to be able to handle
Toshiba 80 track format disks for communication with home office, so
I gave the T300s to them.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2023, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote:
So a Toshiba office did not have computer equipment compatible with what its
Fred Cisin says:
> Then, Toshib NMRI in Silicon Valley needed to be able to handle
> Toshiba 80 track format disks for communication with home office, so
> I gave the T300s to them.
So a Toshiba office did not have computer equipment compatible with what its
headquarters used?
--
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 11:18 PM Yeechang Lee via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Warner Losh says:
> > The DEC Rainbow also hit these issues and needed its own custom
> > version of kermit...
>
> Yes, but DEC did not claim that Rainbow is fully PC compatible. Eagle and
> Seequa did.
>
Warner Losh says:
> The DEC Rainbow also hit these issues and needed its own custom
> version of kermit...
Yes, but DEC did not claim that Rainbow is fully PC compatible. Eagle and
Seequa did.
--
geo:37.78,-122.416667
Dimmemory Selliam... that computer would run pm.or msdos on saMe box. Or 8band
16bit... bal in 80s eone how ended up with one.. Only one I ever saw...ED#
SMECC
Sent from AOL on Android
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 7:19 PM, Sellam Abraham via
cctalk wrote: On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 4:41 PM
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 4:41 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote:
> > Hyperion was not alone in having trouble with comm ports. Columbia
> > University (my alma mater) reported in January 1984 that unmodified
> > Kermit ran on Compaq and Columbia
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote:
Hyperion was not alone in having trouble with comm ports. Columbia
University (my alma mater) reported in January 1984 that unmodified
Kermit ran on Compaq and Columbia PCs, but Eagle and Seequa needed
custom code.
This is the first that I'v
May I suggest compatibility is like pregnancy – you either are or
you are not.
On Wed, 7 Jun 2023, Yeechang Lee via cctalk wrote:
Agreed. This is why every non-highly compatible MS-DOS computer, like
the Tandy 2000 and TI Professional, failed versus IBM. Even if a buyer
only intended to use
On 2023-06-07 17:14, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023, 1:59 PM Yeechang Lee via cctalk
wrote:
db says:
As we were painfully made aware when people tried to run comm
programs and they didn't work because we used the Z8530 to get dual
serial ports.
Hyperion was not alone in
On Wed, Jun 7, 2023, 1:59 PM Yeechang Lee via cctalk
wrote:
> db says:
> > As we were painfully made aware when people tried to run comm
> > programs and they didn't work because we used the Z8530 to get dual
> > serial ports.
>
> Hyperion was not alone in having trouble with comm ports.
db says:
> As we were painfully made aware when people tried to run comm
> programs and they didn't work because we used the Z8530 to get dual
> serial ports.
Hyperion was not alone in having trouble with comm ports. Columbia University
(my alma mater) reported in January 1984 that unmodified
Tom Gardner says:
> May I suggest compatibility is like pregnancy – you either are or
> you are not.
Agreed. This is why every non-highly compatible MS-DOS computer, like the Tandy
2000 and TI Professional, failed versus IBM. Even if a buyer only intended to
use Lotus—widely ported to various
> On Jun 6, 2023, at 11:03 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:47 PM Paul Koning via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>> I'm reminded of a comment about the PDP-11 family:
>>
>> "A PDP-11/xx is compatible with a PDP-11/yy if and only if xx == yy".
>
> That I suspect is actually false.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:47 PM Paul Koning via cctalk
wrote:
> I'm reminded of a comment about the PDP-11 family:
>
> "A PDP-11/xx is compatible with a PDP-11/yy if and only if xx == yy".
That I suspect is actually false. The11/05 and 11/10 were the same
machine, ditto the11/35 and 11/40.
In 1981, IBM immediately released the "PC Technical Reference Manual"
which included schematics, and source code for the BIOS ROM. The
I gave my copy of that to someone on this list in Toronto a few years ago.
If you buy a replacement of the old manual, the V2.02 is quite a bit
better.
If/when I dig it out, how much should I ask for it? (Berkeley
California)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, Ali wrote:
The 5150 or the ROM? :) I don't know about either but prices have been
getting ludicrous lately. I would be interested in playing around with the
ROM so if you ever dig it up and dump the
> If/when I dig it out, how much should I ask for it? (Berkeley
> California)
The 5150 or the ROM? :) I don't know about either but prices have been
getting ludicrous lately. I would be interested in playing around with the
ROM so if you ever dig it up and dump the contents. Or I can
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
The primary distinguishing features of the very first run of 5150's are:
1) No "B" inside a circle stamped on the back panel
2) Only two case screws on lower right and left of back panel (none on top)
3) Black power supply
Here's a photo that
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
I thought the goal back then was not 100% hardware compatibility, it was
MS/IBM DOS compatibility. To be able to load/run/copy files from one PC to
another, dBASE, Lotus, Wordstar, etc. I don't think most manufacturers
cared as long as the
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 1:21 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> If/when I dig it out, how much should I ask for it? (Berkeley California)
> NO, Ed, I won't give it away AND pay shipping.
:D
> EARLY 5150, but with trivial modifications, such as additional holes in
> brackets for 4 half-height
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:01 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk
wrote:
> >> "The only possible way to have 100% compatability is copyright
> infringement. But, you can certainly come up with something that is
> similar enough to do what you need."
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, Paul Koning wrote:
> > That's not
"The only possible way to have 100% compatability is copyright infringement. But,
you can certainly come up with something that is similar enough to do what you need."
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, Paul Koning wrote:
That's not always true. Another way to get it is to implement from
sufficiently
> On Jun 6, 2023, at 6:13 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> "The only possible way to have 100% compatability is copyright infringement.
> But, you can certainly come up with something that is similar enough to do
> what you need."
That's not always true. Another way to get it is
"The only possible way to have 100% compatability is copyright
infringement. But, you can certainly come up with something that is
similar enough to do what you need."
In 1983 or 1984?, PC-World magazine ran an article comparing compatability of
the clones. They "tested" based on which software would run, such as "Flight
Simulator". They used version 1.00 of XenoCopy, which deliberately would
only run on real genuine IBM 5150 PC, although the versions of
The 5150, as released in August 1981, had SIX ROM sockets. It had one
8K ROM for the BIOS, four 8K ROMs totaling 32K for BASIC, and one empty
socket, which usually stayed empty. A company calling itself MBI sold
an accessory ROM for that socket thatr added some trivial features.
On Tue,
> The 5150, as released in August 1981, had SIX ROM sockets. It had one
> 8K
> ROM for the BIOS, four 8K ROMs totaling 32K for BASIC, and one empty
> socket, which usually stayed empty. A company calling itself MBI sold
> an
> accessory ROM for that socket thatr added some trivial features.
>
I
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
Hi:
Doing some research for historical purposed – no litigation at all –
trying to identify the first “legal” PC-DOS compatible PC,
“legal” in the sense that it’s BIOS was not a copy of an IBM BIOS.
Eagle gets the honor of being first MS-DOS
> On Jun 6, 2023, at 2:33 PM, Tom Gardner via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> May I suggest compatibility is like pregnancy – you either are or you are not.
I'm reminded of a comment about the PDP-11 family:
"A PDP-11/xx is compatible with a PDP-11/yy if and only if xx == yy".
:-)
paul
On 6/6/23 10:22, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
> Thanks but I'm pretty sure the Hyperion was not PC-DOS compatible.
We have to be careful when tossing around the term "PC-DOS compatible".
In particular, I'm reminded of a dodge used by Bill Godbout and his
Compupro S-100 8086 and 8088 products.
s
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2023 11:03 PM
To: Tom Gardner via cctalk
Subject: [cctalk] Re: First non-IBM PC-DOS Compatible PC
On 6/5/23 22:28, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
> Can anyone identify a PC-DOS compatible PC announced earlier than October
> 1984? Citations would be greatly a
I remember running SCO Xenix on a generic 286 with 1MB main RAM and an
Intel Above Board with 4MB of RAM. The Above Board board cost $4000
with the 4MB of RAM on it at the time.
The Above Board was populated with 256K x 1 DRAMS so it had 128 chips on
it. 64 on the main board and 64 on a
On 6/6/23 08:08, js--- via cctalk wrote:
>>
> As much as these writings are appreciated, I often find myself
> frustration by the assumption that the audience knows everything you're
> talking about. Just what are you talking about? I searched this
> entire thread for mentions of "Poppy" and
Chuck mentioned he world at Durango and there was a Poppy computer. I
quick Google search turned up a mention here:
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/30/business/sperry-introduces-personal-computer.html
"Still later, they designed a 80186/80286 based 16-bit system, the Durango
"Poppy"; MS-DOS was
On 6/6/2023 10:22 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 6/6/23 04:25, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
There were a articles in the more technical journal-type mags 1981/82 that
discussed porting IBM DOS to non IBM 8088 systems that go into the
mechanics of it. DOS v 1.25 was the OEM version for
On 6/6/23 04:25, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
> There were a articles in the more technical journal-type mags 1981/82 that
> discussed porting IBM DOS to non IBM 8088 systems that go into the
> mechanics of it. DOS v 1.25 was the OEM version for the early ports.
> *indirectly* from these you
There were a articles in the more technical journal-type mags 1981/82 that
discussed porting IBM DOS to non IBM 8088 systems that go into the
mechanics of it. DOS v 1.25 was the OEM version for the early ports.
*indirectly* from these you might find references to IBM BIOS porting and
who did it,
On 6/5/23 22:28, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
> Can anyone identify a PC-DOS compatible PC announced earlier than October
> 1984? Citations would be greatly appreciated.
That's a tricky one,I think. For example, if a single programmer read
the IBM PC BIOS listing (or even disassembled it)
39 matches
Mail list logo
