Re: "Personal" Computers
Chuck Guzis wrote: > Food and drink around the machines was also a definite no-no. Not just > to prevent contamination (e.g. dumping your Coke into the keyboard of > the operator's console) Coke bottles caught near the DEC-10s MIT-MC and KATIA: http://donhopkins.com/home/catalog/images/mc-console.jpg http://www.qedata.se/bilder/historik/ka10a.jpg
Re: cctech Digest, Vol 38, Issue 14
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 1:00 PM, cctech-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > > -- > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:56:31 -0800 > From: "Mark J. Blair" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > > Subject: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive > Message-ID: <0cb24df8-6d74-4a25-9263-73b24eb19...@nf6x.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I just got my HP-85 working for the first time over the weekend (except for > its tape drive, which is still a work in progress). I'd like to acquire some > accessories for it: > > 1) HP 82903A 16k RAM module > > 2) HP 9122C dual 1.44M 3.2" floppy diskette drive > > Do any of y'all have either of those items available for swap or sale? I'm > located in southern California. > > Those two items are at the top of my HP-85 want list, but I might also be > interested in other related bits such as the 82940A GPIO Interface, other > compatible HPIB mass storage, etc. > > -- > Mark J. Blair, NF6X > http://www.nf6x.net/ > > > > -- > Hi Mark, I believe that I have both of those things available. If you’re interested, please contact me at: stephen.m.pereira.sr AT gmail DOT com smp - - - Stephen Pereira Bedford, NH 03110 KB1SXE
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Curious Marc wrote: > >> I think that the upgraded B model ROMs in the PRM-85 are supposed to let it >> use the newer drives. > Yes it does. I have an HP 85A, the PRM 85 and a 9122, and that combo works > beautifully. I am not sure I ever tried it with high density diskettes > though. I could check that if you want. Thanks for confirming that, Marc. I just picked up my PRM-85 board today, and it looks like I should be able to purchase a couple of different models of HPIB 3.5" floppy drives from other collectors soonish. Has anybody gotten around to sharing CAD models for a 3D-printable PRM-85 case yet, or shall I get to work on that task? -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
IBM 360 front panel on ebay
The ebay seller of this IBM 360/40 front panel asked me if I could put a link on the list. So here it is: https://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-360-model-40-mainframe-CPU-Operator-panel/152780991916 Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the seller other than he has contacted me after seeing one of my own videos about a 360/50 front panel. Marc
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> I think that the upgraded B model ROMs in the PRM-85 are supposed to let it > use the newer drives. Yes it does. I have an HP 85A, the PRM 85 and a 9122, and that combo works beautifully. I am not sure I ever tried it with high density diskettes though. I could check that if you want. Marc On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:40 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: > On Nov 14, 2017, at 20:33, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote: > > ok back in my day.. I do not think 85 adressed modern drive of 1.44 meg..? so > that was what I was going on.. yes if you can use 1.44 do so.. older new > media hard to find... I am still new to this HP-85 stuff, but I think you are correct about the A model system not originally handling the 1.44M drive. I think that the upgraded B model ROMs in the PRM-85 are supposed to let it use the newer drives.
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On Wed, 11/15/17, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > PDP-5 and LINC certainly fit that requirement. Funny the LINC should come up tonight. Earlier this evening I went to a talk given by Mary Allen Wilkes who was the developer of the system software for the LINC. She had one in her parents' house around the 1965 timeframe. Here's a pic of her with that machine. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Mary_Allen_Wilkes_-_LINC_at_Home_-_1965.jpg Hard not to call the LINC "personal" in that context. BLS
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 11/15/2017 09:13 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: On 2017-11-15 10:07 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen" consoles! Take a look at a photo! Jon The IBM 803 proof machine developed in the late 40s had an ash tray built in, it was the only IBM machine I ever saw that had one.I stood right in front of the scopes at a SAGE site but I don't recall the ash trays or lighters. But I do remember the light guns, blue lighting and the aful flash of the high persistance scope when they whrere drawn. Paul. Check out this photo : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment#/media/File:SAGE_console.jpeg next to the ashtray, there's a little round hole with a chrome ring - that's where a standard car cigarette lighter plugged in. A 6 V lighter would work fine off the massive filament transformers these things had. Jon
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 2017-11-15 10:07 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen" consoles! Take a look at a photo! Jon The IBM 803 proof machine developed in the late 40s had an ash tray built in, it was the only IBM machine I ever saw that had one. I stood right in front of the scopes at a SAGE site but I don't recall the ash trays or lighters. But I do remember the light guns, blue lighting and the aful flash of the high persistance scope when they whrere drawn. Paul.
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 11/15/2017 07:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. Ash trays?? HA, they had auto-style CIGARETTE LIGHTERS BUILT INTO the "radar screen" consoles! Take a look at a photo! Jon
Bringing up the Sprite OS (Berkeley)
I'm not sure where one might normally expect to discuss research operating systems from the 1980s and 90s, but since it ran on Sun-2 through Sun-4 and DECstations, I'll start here. I have the Sprite disk image for the DECstation 5000/200 running under GXemul (see https://github.com/OSPreservProject/sprite), but this is a minimal ~80MB image. I'm wondering if anybody has already gone through the exercise of figuring out how to create a new disk image large enough to, for example, load the source tree and see how far it is from compiling. My calendar is full until mid-December, so I won't be taking a swing at this in the next few weeks. But I had a moment and thought I'd start asking if anybody's been down this road in the past decade or two. Thanks, --S.
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 02:12 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" people were allowed anywhere near them. How about "small systems", able to be powered solely from a 115V/20A source (or its 220V equivalent)? PDP-5 and LINC certainly fit that requirement. Jon
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 01:13 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business. Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in various forms - aerospace, minicomputer, industrial controls, etc. But, I guess they were incompetent at competing with IBM in the large systems market. They were included in the BUNCH, however. "BUNCH"? Never heard that one before. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was the term I always heard. Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, CDC and Honeywell. Jon
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > > > Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the > same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. With all of the possibly apocryphal stories of computer users mistaking CD drive trays for coffee cup holders, I can't help but wonder if anybody has ever mistaken the metallic cartridge slot cavity of the Atari 400/800 for an ash tray with a flip-up lid. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Eric Schlaepfer wrote: > > It'd be interesting to find out how well that PRM-85 works. I've laid out a > board for a rough equivalent but I haven't fabbed it out. It may be cheaper > for me to buy that instead. > > I've also got a 9122C but I don't have the mass storage ROM so I can't use it > with my 85. Right now I'm using it with my 9000 series 300. I've just received my PRM-85, and it looks like I have leads on a couple of different floppy drives now. I'll be happy to share my experiences. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > On 11/15/2017 02:39 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > >> Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of >> the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very >> expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special >> power, air conditioning, raised floors, and highly-trained people. >> The "management" of these big machine installations had a lot at >> stake...and as such, they were very protective of their machines, >> which is most of the reason they were encased in glass (they needed >> to be glass to be able to show them off without letting people >> in...in the days, big computer installations were class icons). > > Remember also, that this was long before the indoor "no smoking" rules. > Many folks smoked like chimneys and just about every installation that > I experienced back then prohibited smoking around the machines. Then again, our college computer room (1973) was the place where the computer services director was often see, chain smoking away. No mainframe there, but a large PDP-11 and an IBM 1620. Earlier, there was the SAGE computer (the air defense one, not the PC by the same name), which had built-in ash trays at each operator station. paul
Re: "Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
On 11/15/2017 02:39 PM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of > the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very > expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special > power, air conditioning, raised floors, and highly-trained people. > The "management" of these big machine installations had a lot at > stake...and as such, they were very protective of their machines, > which is most of the reason they were encased in glass (they needed > to be glass to be able to show them off without letting people > in...in the days, big computer installations were class icons). Remember also, that this was long before the indoor "no smoking" rules. Many folks smoked like chimneys and just about every installation that I experienced back then prohibited smoking around the machines. Food and drink around the machines was also a definite no-no. Not just to prevent contamination (e.g. dumping your Coke into the keyboard of the operator's console), but also because food attracts vermin, which can do a number on those cables underneath the raised floor. So the "fishbowl" approach made a lot of sense. --Chuck
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
It'd be interesting to find out how well that PRM-85 works. I've laid out a board for a rough equivalent but I haven't fabbed it out. It may be cheaper for me to buy that instead. I've also got a 9122C but I don't have the mass storage ROM so I can't use it with my 85. Right now I'm using it with my 9000 series 300. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On Nov 14, 2017, at 20:11, Ed Sharpe via cctalk > wrote: > > > > wondervifcthec9122 drives,will work on 85? > > > > I think I can guess what you meant to say there... :) > > I’ve ordered a PRM-85 (a modern reprogrammable ROM drawer replacement) > which includes the HP-85B version of the Mass Storage ROM, and the Extended > Mass Storage ROM. Based on what I have read, I think that should let my A > model use the newer 9122C drive, and other drives using either the Amigo or > SS-80 protocols. > > I’d like to get the 9122C mostly because I have a much easier time finding > 1.44M media than the older double density media. eBay and I don’t talk, so > that limits my options a bit. If I had easy access to lots of 3.5” DD > media, then I would consider getting one of the more plentiful (?) other > 3.5” HPIB floppy drives. >
Re: Playing with HP2640B
is there a dif between 40 a and 40 b with the firmware/loader/etc? Ed# In a message dated 11/15/2017 12:48:24 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes: I have been working on a HP 2640B terminal. It was mostly about fixing the "screen mold" problem and cleaning up the liquids that had been seeping out from the screen down into the bottom. The small coaxial wire that connects the 4.9152 MHz clock signal form the power supply (never seen a crystal controlled SMPSU before!) to the backplane was broken off, but after fixing that the terminal worked fine. Just needed some adjustment to the brightness. With the correct terminfo installed it worked quite well as a serial terminal to a Linux box. Then I tried the short 8008 programs that Christian Corti pointed to http://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/dev_en/hp2644/diag.html and ftp://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/hp/hp2644 I tried both a couple of times. The terminal enter the LOADER mode but just hangs completely at the end. I tried different baudrates but no difference. The selftest STATUS line tell me 40<802 which should indicate that there are 4k memory in the terminal. However there should be 5k since there is one 4k board and one combined control store and 1 k RAM board. Maybe there is a fault in the 1k SRAM? The terminal doesn't complain though. Regardless, the programs listed either starts at adress 3 or 36000 which should then be within the available space. The question is, should these program work for the HP2640B as well? It has a 8008 but my guess is that the firmware is different from the 2644. What is the joint experience regarding this? Has anyone ran these small programs above on a HP2640B? The HP 2640B firmware consists of four EA 4900 ROM chips which annoyingly are not anything like normal EPROMs. So dumping will need special considerations. Has anyone dumped the HP 2640B firmware already? I didn't find it on bitsavers. /Mattis
"Personal" Computers (Was: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers)
I wrote: >> While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending >> on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were >> designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale >> mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" people were allowed >> anywhere near them. ^^ ^^ To which, Rich A. replied: >This, like "Multics never got out of the lab", is a bogo-meme. (Thanks, Neil!) > People did not *need* to get near the mainframes in order to do their jobs, unlike the jobs for which the small systems > (and you forgot the PDP-11 in your list) were created. Most programming on mainframes was special purpose, batch oriented, data >processing connected to accounting systems (GL/AP/AR/PR), and a lot of the rest was high intensity engineering (where at this level >even physics is engineering) which needed lots of data handling for short runs. Yeah...I can agree with that. But, part of the talk was about getting "up close" with the computer, at a personal level - hands-on. The glass-walled room machines weren't that way, and thus weren't considered "personal computers", for just the reason you mentioned -- the work typically done on them was of a different class of work that didn't require any kind of hands-on activity with the machine (except for the operators, who loaded up the jobs, managed the tapes, and gathered the printouts). The discussion had gone from talk about the IBM 709/709X computers, which were more "glass room" type machines, to discussion about personal computers. I suffered some angst over the discussion of machines like Apple IIs or even Altair 8800's as the first personal computers, when in fact, the general term applied to computers that came long before these machines. Perhaps the glass-room meme isn't so much bogus, as it is a sign of the cultural times. In those days, the big machines were very expensive, and required a lot of support -- that meant special power, air conditioning, raised floors, and highly-trained people. The "management" of these big machine installations had a lot at stake...and as such, they were very protective of their machines, which is most of the reason they were encased in glass (they needed to be glass to be able to show them off without letting people in...in the days, big computer installations were class icons). It wasn't really so much that the work that the consumers (I wouldn't use the word "users" to describe them, because they were never really "using" the machine) of the results of the machines didn't need to have access to the machines...it was more because the management only wanted those who had all the necessary training and knowledge operating the machines to assure the maximum amount of productivity for their multi-million dollar investments to gain the best return on that investment, as well as safety for these "delicate" machines. As for the PDP-11, it was indeed a significant omission. Honestly, I ran out of time. I missed the PB 250, which certainly should have been on the list, and the PDP-11...and I'm sure that there are quite a number of other machines that were missed. Compiling a full list of this class of machines, even during this somewhat limited time period, would be a daunting process.There were many companies that popped up in the 1960s, along with those from established computer makers, that marketed small computers that were generally intended to be used on a single-user basis, by individuals. Examples off the top of my head are Computer Automation (PDC-808), Smith Corona/Marchant SCM 7816, 3M (yes, the adhesive people) 2018, Control Data 160/160-A, Digital Equipment PDP-1, HP 2100-series, Data Acquisition Corp. DAC-512.it could go on and on. I was writing my message as I was getting ready to head off to work, and had to stop before I ended up being late. -Rick --- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com
RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending > on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were > designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale > mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" > people were allowed anywhere near them. Chuck responded: >How about "small systems", able to be powered solely from a 115V/20A source >(or its 220V equivalent)? >The PB 250 would certainly fall in this category also. Indeed, a notable omission from my list. The PB 250 definitely is in that class of machine, and the unique part about it is that its main memory and register storage was made of recirculating delay lines. This made the machine somewhat slow, but in most cases, a bit faster than most of the tube-based machines with magnetic drum memories. The delay lines could be a little temperamental, but were less expensive than magnetic drums, making the machine a pretty good value for the time. It was fully-transistorized, and had a Friden Flexowriter for I/O. The machine had interfacing capabilities that allowed a number of various I/O devices to be connected to it. The PB 250 benefitted from the design genius of Stanley Frankel, the Manhattan Project nuclear physicist that went into computing after his A-bomb development work had finished. Frankel assisted with many of the design aspects of the PB 250, as well as doing the complete logic design of the LGP-30, which was based on a small machine he built on his own known as MINAC. He also did the design of the SCM/Marchant Cogito 240 & 240SR electronic calculators, as well as the brilliantly-designed, microcoded Diehl Combitron electronic calculator. -Rick --- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com
RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
From: Rick Bensene Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:59 AM Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote: >> Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not "personal >> computers" > While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending on who > is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were designed to be > used at a much more personal level than the large-scale mainframe machines > housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" people were allowed > anywhere near them.^^ ^^ This, like "Multics never got out of the lab", is a bogo-meme. (Thanks, Neil!) People did not *need* to get near the mainframes in order to do their jobs, unlike the jobs for which the small systems (and you forgot the PDP-11 in your list) were created. Most programming on mainframes was special purpose, batch oriented, data processing connected to accounting systems (GL/AP/AR/PR), and a lot of the rest was high intensity engineering (where at this level even physics is engineering) which needed lots of data handling for short runs. In the latter environment, time sharing was a big win, because multiple people had access to the system for their work, without needing a bunch of underpowered systems assigned to individuals. I grew up in the mainframe world.[1] I liked the idea of timesharing, but it was not important to my job until the administrative DEC-20 was hooked up to the Amdahl v7 via the HASP/RJE front end package for the -20. Suddenly, the EMACS editor which was a toy for me until then because a way to generate JCL and PL/I for the mainframe where my responsibilities lay. I did not need to visit the computer room (several miles away) to do my job. Later, I became a systems programmer on those mainframes, and had physical access to the computers--but not because I was doing anything physical to the hardware. I realize that most people here have an ongoing love affair with small systems. I just want to point out that there were other ways to accomplish some really interesting hacks. Rich [1] My first use of a minicomputer (a PDP-11 of small size, running RT-11) came in grad school, 10 years after I first started programming, in a linguistics class on "Production of Speech": We turned the -11 into a speech synthesizer, for which it was perfectly suited. 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: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 11:59 AM, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote: > While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending > on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were > designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale > mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" > people were allowed anywhere near them. How about "small systems", able to be powered solely from a 115V/20A source (or its 220V equivalent)? The PB 250 would certainly fall in this category also. --Chuck
Re: Drive capacity names (Was: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
On Nov 15, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > "400K" generally means Macintosh single sided, not DEC Rainbow, etc For once, the physical format disambiguates those two! The Rainbow disks are in flexible envelopes (and ~1.75” greater diameter). (Got many of each, couldn’t keep them straight otherwise ;-) )
RE: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
Grumpy Ol' Fred wrote: >Yes, 1968-1973 had time-sharing for personal computing, but not "personal computers" We tend to forget about earlier "personal" computers...machines that were generally designed for one individual to be able to sit down and use interactively. That isn't to say that said individual "owned" the computer, nor did many of these end up originally purchased by individuals for personal use. However, many of them did end up in people's homes as "personal computers" after they aged enough that they were no longer commercially viable and were inexpensive enough for an enthusiast to purchase or even get for free..mainly the machines from the 1950's and early 1960's that, by the late 1960's and early 1970's were completely obsolete. There were a number of small, generally single-user computer systems built even in the 1950's. Examples: - Royal McBee/Librascope/General Precision LGP-30 (1956) -- Tube-based machine with magnetic drum memory and Friden Flexowriter - Bendix G-15 (1956) - Tube based, drum memory, IBM I/O typewriter, punched tape reader. Numerous periperhals - Monroe Monrobot III/V (~1958-1961) -- Desk-sized CPU, drum memory, decimal math, and punched tape programming - IBM 650 Autopoint (1957) -- Tube logic, magnetic drum storage, paper tape programming, decimal math - Autonetics Recomp II (1958) -- Mini-refrigerator-sized, desk-side CPU, IBM typewriter, paper tape, IBM I/O Typewriter - Clary DE-60 (1960) -- Transistor-based, drum memory, decimal math, diode-ROM-based add-on math(Trig, etc.), small numeric printer - IBM 1130 (1965) -- Transistor-based(SLT), core memory, cartridge hard-disk, IBM I/O Typewriter, numerous peripherals - DEC PDP-8 (1965) -- Transistor based 12-bit CPU, core memory, teletype I/O, numerous peripherals - Data General Nova (1969) -- IC-based 16-bit CPU, core memory, teletype I/O, numerous peripherals - Wang 2200 (1973) -- IC-based(TTL) deskside CPU, BASIC built-in, cassette tape, solid state memory, CRT display - HP 9830 (1972) -- IC-based desktop, BASIC built-in, cassette tape, solid state memory, LED alphanumeric display, many peripherals These are just a few examples of computers (or in some of the earlier cases, highly programmable calculators) built before and during the '68-73 timeframe that were designed with the intent of an individual interacting directly with the machine. Most ran off of standard residential/office power, required no special air-conditioning, and were simple enough that only a moderate amount of training was required to allow someone to make use of the machines. While the definition of the term "personal computer" varies depending on who is using the term, these machines, and others like them, were designed to be used at a much more personal level than the large-scale mainframe machines housed in the glass-walled rooms where only "special" people were allowed anywhere near them. -Rick --- Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com
Playing with HP2640B
I have been working on a HP 2640B terminal. It was mostly about fixing the "screen mold" problem and cleaning up the liquids that had been seeping out from the screen down into the bottom. The small coaxial wire that connects the 4.9152 MHz clock signal form the power supply (never seen a crystal controlled SMPSU before!) to the backplane was broken off, but after fixing that the terminal worked fine. Just needed some adjustment to the brightness. With the correct terminfo installed it worked quite well as a serial terminal to a Linux box. Then I tried the short 8008 programs that Christian Corti pointed to http://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/dev_en/hp2644/diag.html and ftp://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/hp/hp2644 I tried both a couple of times. The terminal enter the LOADER mode but just hangs completely at the end. I tried different baudrates but no difference. The selftest STATUS line tell me 40<802 which should indicate that there are 4k memory in the terminal. However there should be 5k since there is one 4k board and one combined control store and 1 k RAM board. Maybe there is a fault in the 1k SRAM? The terminal doesn't complain though. Regardless, the programs listed either starts at adress 3 or 36000 which should then be within the available space. The question is, should these program work for the HP2640B as well? It has a 8008 but my guess is that the firmware is different from the 2644. What is the joint experience regarding this? Has anyone ran these small programs above on a HP2640B? The HP 2640B firmware consists of four EA 4900 ROM chips which annoyingly are not anything like normal EPROMs. So dumping will need special considerations. Has anyone dumped the HP 2640B firmware already? I didn't find it on bitsavers. /Mattis
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 11:18 AM, Alan Perry via cctalk wrote: > Burroughs > UNIVAC > NCR > CDC > Honeywell Ah, so post-Snow White. --Chuck
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/17 11:13 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business. Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in various forms - aerospace, minicomputer, industrial controls, etc. But, I guess they were incompetent at competing with IBM in the large systems market. They were included in the BUNCH, however. "BUNCH"? Never heard that one before. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was the term I always heard. Burroughs UNIVAC NCR CDC Honeywell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BUNCH
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 10:17 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business. > Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous > for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in various forms - > aerospace, minicomputer, industrial controls, etc. But, I guess they > were incompetent at competing with IBM in the large systems market. > They were included in the BUNCH, however. "BUNCH"? Never heard that one before. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was the term I always heard. --Chuck
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
On 11/15/2017 09:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: but because of Honeywell's incompetence at the computer business. (That incompetence eventually resulted in a decision - probably correct from the _business_ point of view, given said incompetence - to get out of the computer business.) MANY companies were quite bad at making a go of the computer business. Xerox is probably legendary, but GE and RCA were certainly also famous for this. Honeywell made a LOT of computers in various forms - aerospace, minicomputer, industrial controls, etc. But, I guess they were incompetent at competing with IBM in the large systems market. They were included in the BUNCH, however. Jon
Re: Drive capacity names (Was: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5" On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. ;-) "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their capacity in a given format. It is a BOGUS marketing term! On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: Bogus as it may be, compatible media for those drives commonly has "HD" printed on the box and molded into the diskette's plastic jacket. It's a useful term for identifying the compatible media. Yes. Sadly, the least ambiguous ways that we can describe what we mean require that we use BOGUS marketing deceptive names.
Re: Drive capacity names (Was: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
Note that there were always some exceptions. Weltec made a 5.25" drive at 180 RPM, to do "HIGH DENSITY"/"1.2M" at 250,000 bits per second on PC/XT. Sony made some 3.5" drives that were 600 RPM, to use 500,000 bits per second. NEC used 360 RPM 3.5" drives, to have the same format structure on their 8" "DOUBLE DENSITY", 5.25" "HIGH DENSITY", and 3.5" "HIGH DENSITY". Sometimes called "Type 3" Epson (Geneva PX-8) used a 3.5" with 67.5 tpi, instead of the common 135tpi Can you name another 20 exceptions? (Chuck and Tony probably can) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Paul Berger via cctalk wrote: HP used 3.5" drives made by Sony that rotated at 600 RPM twice the data rate but same density. One of my favorite examples; mentioned about a dozen lines up!
Re: Drive capacity names (Was: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 09:44, Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: > >>> No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5" > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: >> No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive >> has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. >> ;-) > > "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their > capacity in a given format. It is a BOGUS marketing term! Bogus as it may be, compatible media for those drives commonly has "HD" printed on the box and molded into the diskette's plastic jacket. It's a useful term for identifying the compatible media. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: Drive capacity names (Was: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
On 2017-11-15 1:44 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5" On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. ;-) "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their capacity in a given format. It is a BOGUS marketing term! Referring to a drive by the capacity of most commonly used format for that configuration is indeed inaccurate, but less ambiguous than adopting the marketing terminology. MOST people will successfully understand what is meant by "360K", "720K", "400K", "800K', "1.2M", "1.44M" (which is just plain wrong, and SHOULD be "1.4M"), "2.88M", even though such names are not technically accurate. Although there can be, AND ARE, some different configurations that result in the same final capacities, it is generally accepted as to WHICH kind of drive/controller configuration is meant by each of those names. "400K" generally means Macintosh single sided, not DEC Rainbow, etc. Unformatted capacity would be a more correct nomenclature, although not always precise, and relatively meaningless to the majority of users, who didn't CARE except for how much space was available to them. Formatted capacity is generally between 40 and 60 percent of unformatted capacity. The early drives in the current branch of evolution (ignoring NRZI, phase-modulated, etc.) were "FM" (Frequency-Modulated). The next innovation was to leave out clock pulses that could be interpolated instead of explicitly included, resulting in a "less crowded" signal, which could handle being done at twice the data transfer rate. The engineers called that "MFM" (Modified Frequency Modulation), which was not an optimum choice, since other modulations were possible, including the later MMFM (Modified Modified Frequency Modulation). The MARKETING people called the current recording system "DOUBLE DENSITY". Intertec/Superbrain called their "DOUBLE DENSITY"/double-sided, "QUAD DENSITY"; although twice the CAPACITY, the density was unchanged. When drives became available that had twice the number of tracks (96tpi 5.25"), marketing called that "QUAD DENSITY". Although twice the CAPACITY, the density was unchanged. Intertec/Superbarin had already used the name "QUAD DENSITY" for their DSDD disks, so THEY, and ONLY Intertec/Superbrain called the 96tpi DSDD, "SUPER DENSITY", which they abbreviated "SD", in order to be confused with "SINGLE DENSITY". AFTER "DOUBLE DENSITY" came into being, the previous system becaame known as "SINGLE DENSITY". I say that it is analogous to the way the "Great War" became known as "World War One" AFTER discussion of "World War Two" began. Note that archival searches show that "World War Two" as a search term has earlier hits in archives than does "World War One". Fortunately, Kennedy's obsession over Cuba, and Nikita's disappointment over being denied admission to Disneyland did not result in World War Three. Yet. When improvement in media and drives permitted doubling the data transfer rate, with the same recording method, MARKETING called that "HIGH DENSITY". Note that "HIGH DENSITY" IS "DOUBLE DENSITY", merely with twice the data transfer rate. When Barrium-Ferrite disks, and perpendicular recording were developed, they were capable of twice the bit density on the disk, so the data transfer rate was doubled again. MARKETING called that "EXTENDED DENSITY". (cf. sizes of olives: "giant", "enormous", "huge", etc. There was a comedic few minute documtary about that 45? years ago) Some specifications: 8" FM "Single Density" was 360 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (about 500K unformatted per side) 8" MFM "Double Density" was 360 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (about 1M unformatted per side) 5.25" FM "Single Density" was 300 RPM at 125,000 bits per second. (about 125K unformatted per side) 5.25" MFM "Double Density" was 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (about 250K unformatted per side with 48 tpi, about 500K unformatted with 96tpi) 5.25" MFM "High Density" was 360 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (about 1M unformatted per side) In 5.25" 360 RPM drives that were not capable of switching to 300 RPM, 5.25" MFM "Double Density" in a 360 RPM drive was 300,000 bits per second. The 3" MFM disks that I have seen were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.25" MFM disks were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "Double Density" (sometimes called "720K" due to the most common format, or "400K"/"800K" at Apple) were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "High Density" (sometimes called "1.44M", due to the most common formsat being 1.41 Mebibytes, or 1.44 of a unit of 1000*1024 bytes), were 300 RPM
Drive capacity names (Was: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5" On Wed, 15 Nov 2017, Christian Corti via cctalk wrote: No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. ;-) "high-density" is even more meaningless than referring to them by their capacity in a given format. It is a BOGUS marketing term! Referring to a drive by the capacity of most commonly used format for that configuration is indeed inaccurate, but less ambiguous than adopting the marketing terminology. MOST people will successfully understand what is meant by "360K", "720K", "400K", "800K', "1.2M", "1.44M" (which is just plain wrong, and SHOULD be "1.4M"), "2.88M", even though such names are not technically accurate. Although there can be, AND ARE, some different configurations that result in the same final capacities, it is generally accepted as to WHICH kind of drive/controller configuration is meant by each of those names."400K" generally means Macintosh single sided, not DEC Rainbow, etc. Unformatted capacity would be a more correct nomenclature, although not always precise, and relatively meaningless to the majority of users, who didn't CARE except for how much space was available to them. Formatted capacity is generally between 40 and 60 percent of unformatted capacity. The early drives in the current branch of evolution (ignoring NRZI, phase-modulated, etc.) were "FM" (Frequency-Modulated). The next innovation was to leave out clock pulses that could be interpolated instead of explicitly included, resulting in a "less crowded" signal, which could handle being done at twice the data transfer rate. The engineers called that "MFM" (Modified Frequency Modulation), which was not an optimum choice, since other modulations were possible, including the later MMFM (Modified Modified Frequency Modulation). The MARKETING people called the current recording system "DOUBLE DENSITY". Intertec/Superbrain called their "DOUBLE DENSITY"/double-sided, "QUAD DENSITY"; although twice the CAPACITY, the density was unchanged. When drives became available that had twice the number of tracks (96tpi 5.25"), marketing called that "QUAD DENSITY". Although twice the CAPACITY, the density was unchanged. Intertec/Superbarin had already used the name "QUAD DENSITY" for their DSDD disks, so THEY, and ONLY Intertec/Superbrain called the 96tpi DSDD, "SUPER DENSITY", which they abbreviated "SD", in order to be confused with "SINGLE DENSITY". AFTER "DOUBLE DENSITY" came into being, the previous system becaame known as "SINGLE DENSITY". I say that it is analogous to the way the "Great War" became known as "World War One" AFTER discussion of "World War Two" began. Note that archival searches show that "World War Two" as a search term has earlier hits in archives than does "World War One". Fortunately, Kennedy's obsession over Cuba, and Nikita's disappointment over being denied admission to Disneyland did not result in World War Three. Yet. When improvement in media and drives permitted doubling the data transfer rate, with the same recording method, MARKETING called that "HIGH DENSITY". Note that "HIGH DENSITY" IS "DOUBLE DENSITY", merely with twice the data transfer rate. When Barrium-Ferrite disks, and perpendicular recording were developed, they were capable of twice the bit density on the disk, so the data transfer rate was doubled again. MARKETING called that "EXTENDED DENSITY". (cf. sizes of olives: "giant", "enormous", "huge", etc. There was a comedic few minute documtary about that 45? years ago) Some specifications: 8" FM "Single Density" was 360 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (about 500K unformatted per side) 8" MFM "Double Density" was 360 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (about 1M unformatted per side) 5.25" FM "Single Density" was 300 RPM at 125,000 bits per second. (about 125K unformatted per side) 5.25" MFM "Double Density" was 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (about 250K unformatted per side with 48 tpi, about 500K unformatted with 96tpi) 5.25" MFM "High Density" was 360 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (about 1M unformatted per side) In 5.25" 360 RPM drives that were not capable of switching to 300 RPM, 5.25" MFM "Double Density" in a 360 RPM drive was 300,000 bits per second. The 3" MFM disks that I have seen were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.25" MFM disks were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "Double Density" (sometimes called "720K" due to the most common format, or "400K"/"800K" at Apple) were 300 RPM at 250,000 bits per second. (500K unformatted per side) 3.5" MFM "High Density" (sometimes called "1.44M", due to the most common formsat being 1.41 Mebibytes, or 1.44 of a unit of 1000*1024 bytes), were 300 RPM at 500,000 bits per second. (1M unformatted per side) 3.
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 09:33, Paul Berger via cctalk > wrote: > > 720K media is pretty easy to get as well, I bought 100 "used" disks from > floppydisk.com, and it is hard to tell they have ever been used and I have > not had any problems with them. I also bought a lot on eBay that where > previously used on an Amiga that majority of them where OK and the where a > mix of single and double sided media. That's good to know. I'll check them out. That should open up my options, as well as giving me a way to get more media for machines like my Amigas and early Macs. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
720K media is pretty easy to get as well, I bought 100 "used" disks from floppydisk.com, and it is hard to tell they have ever been used and I have not had any problems with them. I also bought a lot on eBay that where previously used on an Amiga that majority of them where OK and the where a mix of single and double sided media. Paul. On 2017-11-15 12:26 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: On Nov 14, 2017, at 20:11, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote: wondervifcthec9122 drives,will work on 85? I think I can guess what you meant to say there... :) I’ve ordered a PRM-85 (a modern reprogrammable ROM drawer replacement) which includes the HP-85B version of the Mass Storage ROM, and the Extended Mass Storage ROM. Based on what I have read, I think that should let my A model use the newer 9122C drive, and other drives using either the Amigo or SS-80 protocols. I’d like to get the 9122C mostly because I have a much easier time finding 1.44M media than the older double density media. eBay and I don’t talk, so that limits my options a bit. If I had easy access to lots of 3.5” DD media, then I would consider getting one of the more plentiful (?) other 3.5” HPIB floppy drives.
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
On 2017-11-15 12:40 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: On Nov 14, 2017, at 20:33, Ed Sharpe via cctalk wrote: ok back in my day.. I do not think 85 adressed modern drive of 1.44 meg..? so that was what I was going on.. yes if you can use 1.44 do so.. older new media hard to find... I am still new to this HP-85 stuff, but I think you are correct about the A model system not originally handling the 1.44M drive. I think that the upgraded B model ROMs in the PRM-85 are supposed to let it use the newer drives. With something like a PRM-85 and the 85B mass storage, E disk and extended mass Storage you can support SS80 devices such as the 9122C. I believe that the gentleman that created the PRM-80 distributes a configuration for this exact purpose. When I had an 85A I created my own card for these ROMs and others and made my design available. Paul.
Two DEC RA90 and TS05
Denver area, pickup only ... Anybody?
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
FYI - I checked related to the HP 85 IEEE port I have an Microcomputer Systems Corporation MSE 9800 and an HP 9122S b On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > On Nov 15, 2017, at 01:31, Christian Corti via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A > drive has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. > > ;-) > > Ah! That's technically correct, which is, of course, the best kind of > correct. > > Well, if we're being pedantic, then we might also refer to the drives by > their unformatted capacity, as HP themselves sometimes did: > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOr81HpVQAAn-X5.jpg > > That makes them 2-Mbyte drives. ;-) > > -- > Mark J. Blair, NF6X > http://www.nf6x.net/ > >
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 01:31, Christian Corti via cctalk > wrote: > > No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive has > no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. > ;-) Ah! That's technically correct, which is, of course, the best kind of correct. Well, if we're being pedantic, then we might also refer to the drives by their unformatted capacity, as HP themselves sometimes did: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOr81HpVQAAn-X5.jpg That makes them 2-Mbyte drives. ;-) -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: Need help with an odd design construct
Why not just measure the voltage across the resistor. That will tell you the amount of current flowing. Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Brent Hilpert via cctalk Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:29:47 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Need help with an odd design construct On 2017-Nov-14, at 4:51 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > On 11/14/2017 6:32 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote: >> >> Once the cart is pulled the 4008 chip should end up in standby mode - no >> enables asserted. > The 3K3 ties both !CROM and !CRAM high, and they are both open collector > outputs on the port. > > But, I forgot to put one important detail in the original note. I so > apologize. The original cart has a HM62256LP-12, but it is evident from the > traces being cut on the cart that this was not even the original SRAM. I do > believe the original SRAM was 32kB in size, though. > > SInce the original SRAM was not even original, I replaced with the '4008 for > various reasons. >> >> In standby a CMOS chip like this will appear as a near infinite impedance, >> so there isn't much voltage dividing going on with a 6.8K R. >> The full battery voltage (minus epsilon) will be across the chip. > Then, why do the 6K8 there? >> >> The datasheet specs standby current Isb1 at typically 4 uA (50 max). >> Ohm's law will get you an idea of the effective resistance of the chip if >> you really want to calculate what epsilon is here. > I'll try and calculate it for the HM62256LP, which seems to be .5mA under no > load: > > http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/97905.pdf > > (2.7/.0005) = 5K4?That seems incomplete, like I need to also take into > account that .5mA flows through the 6800 resistor, but that means > (6800*.0005) = 3.4V, which can't be right. > > If I put that into a Voltage Divider (2.7V Vih, R1 = 5400, R2 = 6800, output > is 1.5V, implying the GND line is at 1.5V relative to the battery... >> >> >> Why the circuit might be as you have it with the 6.8K I'm not sure, perhaps >> for some current limiting or glitch suppression as the cart is pulled out/in. >> Doesn't really matter much as the only other thing on that gnd side is the >> switches. > And they aren't there on the original. >> >> Those 4 10K resistors are kind of weird, each 'on' switch is chewing up >> orders of magnitude more battery current than the chip, > Good point. I copied the design from the "ROM cart" schematic, where the > battery is not in place, and the switches were there to choose the bank of > 32K that would be visible in the address space. I should reconsider the > schematic, and... >> might make more sense if they went to Vcc where they would be diode blocked >> when the cart is on battery. >> >> > Excellent suggestion. I will do so. With the 62256 drawing consequential standby current, you can't ensure an accurate calculated value for the voltage division from specs as the chip current probably isn't a linear relation to Vcc. But going from what we have: Isb @ 5V Vcc = 0.5ma then chip R = 5V / 0.0005A = 10 Kohms 2.7V Vbatt * 1 / (1+6800) = 1.6V across the chip supply pins. But from the datasheet it also looks like Isb goes down considerably (40uA) if the voltage on nCS approaches Vcc and other inputs pins go to 0V, as it might/would/should with the cart pulled. That would be a higher effective R for the chip and so a higher V supply for the chip. There is another potential problem with those switches though, it's not clear to me whether you resolved whether X1P pins 1 & 27 connect together when plugged into the computer. If not, then when plugged in and operational, the switch 10K Rs form a varying voltage divider with the 6.8K and the input levels on bank-select address pins would be all over the place. I would suggest you redraw the schematic with GND as the chip/computer GND rather than establishing a second GND, and have a bus line across the bottom for the battery negative. If you move the switches R supply it may be a good idea to put another diode in series to give a similar V drop as the main supply diode so the V on the bank address pins doesn't go above the chip Vcc. I'm not clear on what all is going on there between original design and modifications and additions.
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
> From: Ben Franchuk > Multics never really made it out of the lab. This 'bogo-meme' (to use a word I coined) is, well, totally flat wrong. Multics was a reasonably successful product for Honeywell from the end of 1972 (when the H6180 was introduced) to around 1987 (when they stopped selling the DPS8/M, which had been introduced at the end of 1982). At its peak, in 1985, there were almost 100 Multics sites. MIT ceased to be involved in Multics development in 1977. Multics died not because it was a failure (indeed, many systems kept running for years, because the users liked it so much - the last one only shut down in 2000), but because of Honeywell's incompetence at the computer business. (That incompetence eventually resulted in a decision - probably correct from the _business_ point of view, given said incompetence - to get out of the computer business.) More here: http://multicians.org/myths.html and http://multicians.org/hill-mgt.html (which discusses the high-level corporate politics behind the decision to can Multics). Noel
Re: Details about IBM's early 'scientific' computers
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:58 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk > wrote: > > On 11/14/2017 11:20 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> It's always struck me how revolutionary (for IBM) the change in >> architecture from the 700x to the S/360 was. The 709x will probably >> strike the average reader of today as being arcane, what with >> sign-magnitude representation, subtractive index registers and so on. >> The 7080, probably even more so. But then, most of IBM's hardware >> before S/360 had its quirky side; the only exception I can think of, >> offhand, would be the 1130, which was introduced at about the same time >> as the S/360. > Pretty much all computers of that early-60's vintage, where a maze of logic > was used to decode instructions, and everything was done with discrete > transistors and diodes, had quirky arcane instruction sets. Some of this was > due to the prevailing thought on instruction sets, but part of it was done to > save a few transistors here and there, and to heck with the side effects. > Most of these computers had very few registers, or put the "registers" in > fixed core locations, due to the cost of a flip-flop. The 709x series was > certainly like that. Hard to BELIEVE, with 55,000 transistors! I can't remember how many transistors a CDC 6600 has. A lot more than that, I'm pretty sure. On "quirky arcane instruction sets" -- some yes, some no. The CDC 6000 series can make a pretty good argument for being the first RISC machine. Its instructions are certainly quite nicely constructed and the decoding involved is pretty compact. While I don't think the term "orthogonal" had been applied yet to instruction set design -- I first saw that used for the VAX -- it fits the 6000 too. Another example of an instruction set design that's pretty orthogonal is the Electrologica, especially in the X1 (from 1958). It's a one address machine, not a register machine like the 6000 or traditional RISC, but in other ways it looks a lot like RISC. Wide instructions with fixed fields allocated for fixed purposes (like register numbers, operation numbers, conditional execution modifiers, etc.). The 360 was certainly significant in delivering many of these things in a very successful commercial package. And I can believe it being revolutionary for IBM -- but not quite so much for the industry as a whole. paul
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: No, the 9122C model has two 1.44M drives. HP made several earlier 3.5" No, the 9122C has two high-density, two-sided 80 cylinder drives. A drive has no capacity, this is the function of the on-disk format. ;-) Christian
Re: WTB: HP-85 16k RAM Module and HPIB Floppy Drive
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Ed Sharpe via cctalk > wrote: > > you have me real curious,as to what is in that padded hp case.. What are you referring to? -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
