Re: Original AGC restoration / was Re: Apollo 8 Mission Control printers, or not?
> On Dec 30, 2018, at 12:37 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk > wrote: > > What is dox? New-era-internet term for illegally gaining access to someone's real world “documents" (place of employment, home address, phone numbers, medical records, family members’ info, etc) for harassment, stalking, or worse.
Re: Original AGC restoration / was Re: Apollo 8 Mission Control printers, or not?
On 30/12/2018 06:27, Daniel Seagraves via cctalk wrote: On Dec 29, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote: Yes that would be lucky us. Hotel was no fun but owner understandably did not want to ship or even get separated from his AGC. We have been offered some real lab space in Houston for next time, so hopefully we’ll be in better shape. Considering that I have had more than one person threaten to dox me and show up at my house over KEYBOARDS, I don’t blame him at all. Well you certainly got a long way. What is dox? I am English and I don't speak fluent American anymore. This must all have something to do with 1969 when I watched it all on a 9" mono TV in my little flat in Germany where I was working. I don't know who I admire most. You guys or those who made the AGC all that time ago. --
Re: Original AGC restoration / was Re: Apollo 8 Mission Control printers, or not?
> On Dec 29, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Curious Marc via cctalk > wrote: > > Yes that would be lucky us. Hotel was no fun but owner understandably did not > want to ship or even get separated from his AGC. We have been offered some > real lab space in Houston for next time, so hopefully we’ll be in better > shape. Considering that I have had more than one person threaten to dox me and show up at my house over KEYBOARDS, I don’t blame him at all.
Re: wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please.
I wish I would have known. I joined IEEE Annals at the beginning. I eventually dropped my subscription because I found that the inaccuracies would just make me mad. I threw out a bunch of ACM SIGPLAN notices (the local library didn't want them) from the 1978s. Still need to get rid of a pile of old CACM rags as well as IEEE Computer. I'm staring at a pile of IEEE Micro and a bunch of PC-related magazines from the 80s-90s (e.g. "DOS Developer's Journal", which became "Windows/DOS Developer's Journal", which became "Windows Developer's Journal", which was then thankfully put out of its misery by merging into Doctor Dobbs'). I still have a bunch of "PC Tech Journal" and other various periodicals. If anyone's looking for something special, let me know. They'll all be gone to the recycler by the end of January. --Chuck
RE: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
> Some small companies would give employees extreme discounts if they assembled one themselves using mostly parts which had been deemed too > >obsolete for production. I was thinking something like that, or it was repaired at one point and this particular board was on hand to use as a replacement. The key would be figuring out what the apparent serial number '1-00494' means.
RE: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
I'd love to see a photo of the innards of the prototype if anyone knows where to find them. There were 10 built, and someone took a photo recently enough for it to be of decent quality (the one that appears on oldcomputers.net). Someone must have one somewhere. I think Al might be onto something with the tech manual. The question is, how did the revision scheme work? I have two Revisions noted on the board.. the 2A2011-00 Rev D (in marker), and 3A3005-00 Rev C. Looking at later boards like this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/31731875815/in/photostream/ ... It looks like the trailing 2 digits on the 2A2011 number changed to either 02 or 20. So is a 2A2011-00 Rev D and a 2A2011-20 Rev D the same thing? Don't' know. And then other boards used a 3A-xx number instead of the 2A2001 number. Kind of confusing. Brad -Original Message- From: Sam O'nella [mailto:baryth...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 2:48 PM To: Brad H ; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard Maybe too easy but have you asked the seller if they know anything about it's origins? I'd also guess maybe an employee or it could just be one of the 6 motherboard types as someone else commented. Pretty awesome though with the low serial. Thanks also for the blog. I had no idea about the different designs and cases. I'm curious which one I have now. Sent from my Apple /c > On Dec 29, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: > > Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone > who was involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this > Osborne 1 motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100. > > > > I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related > to the boards produced for the 10 prototypes Osborne built, or a > derivative of them. He couldn't say for sure how it ended up in mine. > But I was hoping if anyone knows any Osborne experts that might help > me on this - it is not currently working and I'm hoping to find > schematics, etc to get it going again. Obviously with the radical > differences in layout, the schematics for the production motherboard isn't terribly helpful. > > > > I've posted a blog about it here with a picture of the board for those > curious: http://bradhodge.ca/blog/?p=1186 > > > > Brad >
RE: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
There are definitely some differences. For example, the ROM BIOS on mine is contained on two 2716s instead of a single 2732 as in the later boards. There's a few jumper wires on the board too. I imagine it's largely the same, although if it were completely I'm not sure why they'd do a full redesign and not, like you said, use some of that extra space for more RAM or something. Lee himself didn't really know.. all he said was that that space, in the prototypes, was occupied by linear voltage regulators that were changed/designed out after. Maybe what I'll do is make a complete list of the ICs and see how it lines up with a later production board. And then compare other components. -Original Message- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jules Richardson via cctalk Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 4:21 PM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard On 12/29/18 2:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: > Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone > who was involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this > Osborne 1 motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100. Is it just the board layout that's different, or does it appear to be a completely different animal, schematic-wise? (I mean, is there a possibility that the common schematics could still be used for fault diagnosis, despite the different chip locations) I wonder why the board layout changed? I mean sure there was a lot of unused space in yours, but it's not like the production boards were physically smaller. I'm surprised that additional space couldn't have been used for some other potential future purpose - RAM expansion or whatever. cheers Jules
Re: wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please.
At 12:05 PM 29/12/2018 -0800, Al Kossow wrote: >On 12/29/18 12:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> Stupid question, but doesn't IEEE CS already have these archived? > >of course they are > >we are speaking with paper obsessed siverfish lovers here though > Coming from you that's a worrying comment, unless you are joking. So Al, just curious, once bitsavers has scanned the manuals and stuff people send them, what happens to those paper originals? Does bit savers return them? Or make them available to others? Can people sending manuals to bitsavers get a guarantee (if they ask for it) the originals won't be destroyed? I'm asking while bearing in mind an instance of tech history loss in Australia a few decades ago, particularly tragic. An outfit called High Country Service Data, located in the Kosciuszko area, had a vast collection of service and user manuals, including a lot of early Oz-tech stuff like from BWD. Their business model was 'rented lending library.' You contacted them (phone or post) and if they had the manual you wanted they'd post it to you for a fee. You kept it a limited time, then posted back to them. Eventually scanners became available. HCSD thought their business would work better if they eliminated physical storage costs. They 'scanned' all the manuals (ultra crap resolution, B, stupid ignorant goofs, etc) then DESTROYED the originals. Because they didn't want to sell or give them away or even donate to the Australian national library, since that might create a competitor. This is not conjecture; the HCSD owner (who made those decisions) personally 'explained' that to me on the phone. The prime benefit of silverfish infested bulky piles of old paper, distributed widely among individuals who value history, is that no central entity can just suddenly decide to destroy them all, for whatever reason. Or 'mass edit' the digital files, like some corporations have been culling schematics from their archives of digitized old manuals. Having freely available digital copies is great. Kudos to bitsavers. But the paper originals have to be preserved in a distributed way too. For *many* reasons. I also have a question about a specific silverfish infested paper manual. On 22 Sep 2018 you wrote, Re: Manual for Documation TM200 punched card reader >I'm pretty sure I just saw a paper copy of the TM200 manual >which is different from the M200. I'll have to dig around to >try to find it again. I guess you never found it? I've asked you about it a couple of times since and you've ignored my queries. If you do find it, after you've scanned it I'd like to buy it if possible. I can't find any other copy and I do need it to get the machine's electronics going. Also I'm another paper obsessed siverfish lover. Aka PDF-hating cynic who thinks current digital document file formats and display utilities are still far too primative to be acceptable for convenient common use and as a reliable 'sole copy.' They are still a last resort. Guy PS naphthalene. Hmm, I'd better stock up before it's banned here too. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/mothballs-warning-sounded-by-experts-20110206-1aif5.html
Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote: Maybe too easy but have you asked the seller if they know anything about it's origins? I'd also guess maybe an employee or it could just be one of the 6 motherboard types as someone else commented. Pretty awesome though with the low serial. Thanks also for the blog. I had no idea about the different designs and cases. Some small companies would give employees extreme discounts if they assembled one themselves using mostly parts which had been deemed too obsolete for production.
Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: I first saw the O1 when Richard showed me into a room with the various bits strewn about on a tabletop (no case yet). I opined that it would never sell with the tiny display. I had known that Lee was working on something like that, but no details until Adam was hanging around while they built one of the most lavish Computer Faire booths across the aisle from mine (which was flush doors on short filing cabinets) with Joe Garner's "Elcompco" already on display, with a couple of sales. We opined, "They've got enough room for larger; first big upgrade will be a bigger screen." Joe's Elcompco also had a 5" screen in a Halliburton attache case, without room for more, but with an RCA jack for external monitor. In those days, my eyesight was so good that I had no problem with it. I sometimes used a viewfinder form a video camera as a portable monitor. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
On 12/29/18 2:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone who was involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this Osborne 1 motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100. Is it just the board layout that's different, or does it appear to be a completely different animal, schematic-wise? (I mean, is there a possibility that the common schematics could still be used for fault diagnosis, despite the different chip locations) I wonder why the board layout changed? I mean sure there was a lot of unused space in yours, but it's not like the production boards were physically smaller. I'm surprised that additional space couldn't have been used for some other potential future purpose - RAM expansion or whatever. cheers Jules
xterm Tektronix xp217 for sale
so, already asked but i haven't yet got a clear answer I have an xterm Tektronix xp217 for sale it comes with *everything* you need to use it - its original PSU, able to operate from 100-to-250V - its original CD with the firmware (it's required a tftpboot server) it's located in Italy let me know if interested, your offer, and your location in order to calculate the shipping cost (I have discount with UPS)
Re: More old stuff incoming
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 18:52, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > > On 12/19/2018 10:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > > 80186? > > I really thought it was 8x86 where the x was 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. :-o No no, never. But there was the i860 and i960 as well, remember. And the iAPX-432. There's more to life than x86. > I think IBM had some special things that were modifications. Supposedly > my model 70 is a special 386 instruction set that has some hybrid CPU in > it. I don't remember the specifics. IBM was fab'ing chips at the time > and had licenses to Intel's IP. So they created a 386 that was somehow > more than / different from a 386. Maybe it was a crippled 486 that only > had the bus of the 386. I don't recall. SLC series? 386SLC & 486SLC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_386SLC I think IBM also rebadged or fabbed these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix_Cx486SLC -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
RE: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
Yeah, I'm thinking mine is a Rev C that met the requirements for Rev D (seems to be a D in marker). If the board serial is what's in marker there, and is 1-00494 - that's pretty close to the serial, so that would kind of line up. I just haven't been able to find any other machines in the same serial range or even lower that don't have the Revision that came after. -Original Message- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Al Kossow via cctalk Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 2:09 PM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard On 12/29/18 12:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: > I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related > to the boards produced for the 10 prototypes Osborne built I'm pretty sure I threw one of those out about five years ago. Will dig through the archive to see if there are any earlier schematics seems like most out there are for the multi-layer board the original technical manual mentions there were 6 revs of the pcb http://bitsavers.org/pdf/osborne/osborne1/2F00153-01_Osborne1TechnicalManual_1982.pdf page 13
Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
Maybe too easy but have you asked the seller if they know anything about it's origins? I'd also guess maybe an employee or it could just be one of the 6 motherboard types as someone else commented. Pretty awesome though with the low serial. Thanks also for the blog. I had no idea about the different designs and cases. I'm curious which one I have now. Sent from my Apple /c > On Dec 29, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: > > Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone who was > involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this Osborne 1 > motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100. > > > > I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related to > the boards produced for the 10 prototypes Osborne built, or a derivative of > them. He couldn't say for sure how it ended up in mine. But I was hoping > if anyone knows any Osborne experts that might help me on this - it is not > currently working and I'm hoping to find schematics, etc to get it going > again. Obviously with the radical differences in layout, the schematics for > the production motherboard isn't terribly helpful. > > > > I've posted a blog about it here with a picture of the board for those > curious: http://bradhodge.ca/blog/?p=1186 > > > > Brad >
Re: CDC transistor boards
Were the brackets on the 1700 cordwood modules shorter than the 6000 series? I've got a switch module here in a desk drawer--it's a 3-position switch labeled A O C and is illuminated with a couple of reed relays on the PCB. PCB size is the same as 6000, as is the connector, but bracket is definitely shorter. Top PCB is labeled E03A; bottom is E04A. I never did discover what it belonged to. --Chuck
Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
On 12/29/18 12:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: > I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related to > the boards produced for the 10 prototypes Osborne built I'm pretty sure I threw one of those out about five years ago. Will dig through the archive to see if there are any earlier schematics seems like most out there are for the multi-layer board the original technical manual mentions there were 6 revs of the pcb http://bitsavers.org/pdf/osborne/osborne1/2F00153-01_Osborne1TechnicalManual_1982.pdf page 13
Re: Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
On 12/29/18 12:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: > I've posted a blog about it here with a picture of the board for those > curious: http://bradhodge.ca/blog/?p=1186 If you can run down any of the old Sorcim crowd, say, Richard Frank or Marty Herbach, they might have saved some information. I first saw the O1 when Richard showed me into a room with the various bits strewn about on a tabletop (no case yet). I opined that it would never sell with the tiny display. --Chuck
Re: CDC transistor boards
On 12/29/18 12:34 PM, William Donzelli wrote: > I think the Cyber 70s used the later modules (the multilayer and/or IC > things). Nope, the Cyber 70s were very minor upgrades to the 6000 series. A bunch of QSEs were made standard features, such as CMU (lower Cyber), CEJ, ILR, etc. Same cordwood modules, though. Blue-glass and fake wood skins, mostly. I witnessed a 6400 being upgraded to a Cyber 73; most of it was cosmetic. The 170s were quite different, however. --Chuck
Osborne-1 with prototype-based motherboard
Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone who was involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this Osborne 1 motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100. I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related to the boards produced for the 10 prototypes Osborne built, or a derivative of them. He couldn't say for sure how it ended up in mine. But I was hoping if anyone knows any Osborne experts that might help me on this - it is not currently working and I'm hoping to find schematics, etc to get it going again. Obviously with the radical differences in layout, the schematics for the production motherboard isn't terribly helpful. I've posted a blog about it here with a picture of the board for those curious: http://bradhodge.ca/blog/?p=1186 Brad
Re: CDC transistor boards
I think the Cyber 70s used the later modules (the multilayer and/or IC things). -- Will On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 3:06 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: > > Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common > > machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to > > distinguish the two types. > > Don't know what the 1700 count was, but each 6600 had about 6,000 > modules--and then there were the 6400s, 6500s and 6700s, as well as ECS > controllers...not to mention the CYBER 70 series... > > --Chuck >
Re: CDC transistor boards
On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: > Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common > machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to > distinguish the two types. Don't know what the 1700 count was, but each 6600 had about 6,000 modules--and then there were the 6400s, 6500s and 6700s, as well as ECS controllers...not to mention the CYBER 70 series... --Chuck
Re: wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please.
On 12/29/18 12:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Stupid question, but doesn't IEEE CS already have these archived? of course they are we are speaking with paper obsessed siverfish lovers here though
Re: wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please.
On 12/29/18 11:49 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote: > I just passed along three boxes of these to the VCFed collection. > Eventually I assume there will be a library to make these available onsite, > not sure. Stupid question, but doesn't IEEE CS already have these archived? (Yes, I know for access, you need to cross their palm with silver, but it might point to copyright issues). --Chuck
Re: wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please.
I just passed along three boxes of these to the VCFed collection. Eventually I assume there will be a library to make these available onsite, not sure. On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 1:01 PM ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote: > > wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or > unbound... dtop us a line off list please ed# SMECC > > Sent from AOL Mobile Mail >
Re: CDC transistor boards
Don't let the (very few) online pictures of early 1700s (1704 and 1706) fool you - the things have a *lot* of modules when the options are added. It might be that while the 6000 series followed the Cray "simple/fewer" design philosophy, the 1700 line may not have. -- Will On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:10 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: > > Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common > > machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to > > distinguish the two types. > > That's an interesting observation, but I'm not sure I'd agree with you. > While there were more 1700s in circulation, the sheer number of modules > used in 6000/Cyber machines and peripherals might tilt the balance the > other way. > > --Chuck >
Re: OCR old software listing.
On 2018-12-29 1:32 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > On 2018-12-29 12:47 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: >> On 2018-12-26 4:29 PM, Mattis Lind via cctalk wrote: >>> Finally I got hold of the sources for the PDP-11 SPACE WAR that was >>> submitted to DECUS by Bill Seiler. >>> >>> The format is scans of the PAL-11S listing output. It is easy to crop the >>> image to only contain actual source. Then running OCR on it. Tried a few >>> online versions and tesseract. >>> >>> The problem is that the paper that the listing is printed on has lines. >>> Very black lines. It makes the OCR go completely crazy. Source lines >>> without black lines OCR ok. The others do not. The files need massive >>> amount of manual intervention. >>> >>> Does anyone have an idea how to process files like this? >>> >>> A good way to remove the black lines? >> >> Hi Mattis >> >> Here's a first cut. Can probably be improved slightly. Let me know how >> much this still confuses Tesseract. >> >> https://docs.telegraphics.com.au/mattis/spcwar_pdp11_edit.tif >> > > That is a multipage TIF, and the page order key is listed below. > > I just noticed that a handful of pages seem to be missing, so I'll look > into that. > Fixed that. I was also able to improve the quality. Same link. The full page manifest is: CHAR-- CHAR--0001 CHAR--0002 CHRTAB-- CHRTAB--0001 CHRTAB--0002 CHRTAB--0003 COMPAR-- COMPAR--0001 COMPAR--0002 COMPAR--0003 EXPLOD-- EXPLOD--0001 EXPLOD--0002 GRAVTY-- GRAVTY--0001 GRAVTY--0002 GRAVTY--0003 MULPLY-- MULPLY--0001 MULPLY--0002 PARM-- PARM--0001 PARM--0002 PARM--0003 PARM--0004 PARM--0005 PARM--0006 PARM--0007 PARM--0008 PARM--0009 PWRUP-- PWRUP--0001 RESET-- RESET--0001 RKT1-- RKT1--0001 RKT2-- RKT2--0001 SCORE-- SCORE--0001 SINCOS-- SINCOS--0001 SINCOS--0002 SINCOS--0003 SLINE-- SLINE--0001 SPCWAR-- SPCWAR--0001 SPCWAR--0002 SUN-- SUN--0001 SUN--0002 UPDAT1-- UPDAT1--0001 UPDAT1--0002 UPDAT2-- UPDAT2--0001 UPDAT2--0002 point-- point--0001 > >> --Toby >> >>> >>> There are only 19 source files with three or four pages each so I don't >>> think it makes sense to try to train tesseract to do it (training tesseract >>> seems to be a huge undertaking). >>> >>> https://i.imgur.com/dvY973s.png >>> >>> /Mattis >>> >> >> > >
Re: CDC transistor boards
On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: > Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common > machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to > distinguish the two types. That's an interesting observation, but I'm not sure I'd agree with you. While there were more 1700s in circulation, the sheer number of modules used in 6000/Cyber machines and peripherals might tilt the balance the other way. --Chuck
Re: CDC transistor boards
Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to distinguish the two types. -- Will On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:10 PM Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > The second one is a 6000 mainframe "cordwood" module. It should have a > two-letter module type code on the front. > > The third looks like small bits cut from such a cordwood module (my wife has > some earrings made that way) but it may be they are actually complete items. > If so, I don't recognize them. > > paul > > > > On Dec 28, 2018, at 3:42 PM, Peter Van Peborgh via cctech > > wrote: > > > > Gentlemen of advanced years who can remember CDC, cradle of Cray. > > > > Can you tell me which CDC computer type these three boards belonged to? It > > is for labeling purposes in my personal museum. > > > > https://postimg.cc/crJHv3Lt > > https://postimg.cc/Z0HnYH4h > > https://postimg.cc/6TtTNgs0 > > > > I am sure this will be easy for the right person. Many thanks! > > > > peter > > > > >
Re: Original AGC restoration / was Re: Apollo 8 Mission Control printers, or not?
think that core pack will ever live again?
wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please.
wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound... dtop us a line off list please ed# SMECC Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
Re: Original AGC restoration / was Re: Apollo 8 Mission Control printers, or not?
> On Dec 29, 2018, at 6:00 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk > wrote: > >> On 2018-Dec-28, at 4:43 PM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote: >> have u seen the agc being fired up videos > > > Yes, videos from list member curiousMarc : >Episode 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU > > He's up to Episode 5, the others should show up in subsequent links from the > 1st. > > Lucky bunch of guys to have the opportunity (although I can't say I'd want to > be stuck in a congested hotel room like that for the task). > Yes that would be lucky us. Hotel was no fun but owner understandably did not want to ship or even get separated from his AGC. We have been offered some real lab space in Houston for next time, so hopefully we’ll be in better shape. Marc
Re: WTD: 9 track open reel for PDP-11
At 06:03 PM 12/28/2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >Let's see you do that with your LTO carts! I suppose we could do the math if we had enough data about the reliability of each. There's more bytes in the LTO basket, but a lot more baskets needed if you want to store the same amount of data on 9-tracks. - John
Re: Which DEC machine made use of th pre Flip-Chip board?
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:37 AM Noel Chiappa via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > AFAIK, the first ICs (in the modern sense) on FLIP CHIPS were on M-series. > The B198, B199, and B250 modules of the KA10 use ICs. First customer shipments are claimed to have been in late 1967. >From something I posted back in 2002, slightly updated: B198 Protection Comparator (used in KT10, KT10A "memory protection and relocation" options) panel 2MN slot 44, panel 2PR slot 5 appears to be an 8-bit magnitude comparator prints drawn 6-18-68, checked 6/21/68, eng. approval 7/2/68 5 74H00N 2 74H40N 4 74H50N 1 74H53N 2 74H55N B199 FM Address Decoder (used in KM10 "fast registers" option) panel 2KL slot 9 acts as a 4-to-16 decoder (similar to 74154), but requires both true and complement inputs prints drawn 3-2-67, checked 4/?/67, eng. approval 7/6/67 8 TI SN7440N or Fairchild 9009 (U6A900959X) B250 FM Module (used in KM10 "fast registers" option), 8 words by 6 bits panel 2KL slots 10-13, 15-18, 20-23 prints drawn 3-2-67, checked 6/30/67, eng. approval 7/6/67 6 Fairchild 9030 (U6A903059X) 4 word by 2 bit RAM chip, 45ns write, 25ns read, 350mW 13 TI SN7440N or Fairchild 9009 (U6A900959X)
