Parts source

2019-03-11 Thread Will Cooke via cctalk
This may or may not be new or useful to anyone here, but I came across this 
website by accident today.  They have a considerable selection of rather hard 
to find parts for old home computers, game consoles, and even arcade machines.  
Figured I would send along the link.
http://www.arcadecomponents.com/index.html


"He may look dumb but that's just a disguise."  -- Charlie Daniels
"The names of global variables should start with    // "  -- https://isocpp.org


Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Jay Jaeger via cctalk



On 3/11/2019 4:37 PM, allison via cctech wrote:
> On 03/11/2019 02:11 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
>> I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
>> enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
>> all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
>> move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
>> lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)
>>
>> So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
>> down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
>> have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
>> IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
>> Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
>> the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
>> RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).
>>
>> So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
>> lines).
>>
>> The pullups average about 470 ohms (1 is 1K, 1 is 220, the rest are
>> 470), so at 5V the output has to sink a bit over 10ma, and all total
>> 120ma.
>>
>> An Arduino Uno with an Ethernet shield would have 20 minus 5 lines
>> available, in theory, but if one wants serial I/O as well for debugging,
>> that sucks up 2 more lines - so only 13 available.  And sinking 120ma
>> would be a bit much though I could likely sprinkle inputs among the
>> outputs to make it work so as to stay within the recommended sink
>> limits, and at least initially have it never run out of tape, and tie
>> Error down.
>>
>> http://playground.arduino.cc/Main/ArduinoPinCurrentLimitations
>>
>> So, I am thinking about an Arduino Mega, as it has more output groupings
>> to sprinkle the sink current around, and 5V interface capability, and
>> more pins to eventually support my PDP-8/L and PDP-12.
>>
>> (I could do it with a PIC - did that for a Documation card reader to PC
>> interface, but I am really tired of fighting Microchip's IDE.)
>>
>> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
>> this?  Any leads / ideas?
>>
>> JRJ
> The Uno or Nano is more than adequate.
> 
> To do the data you need 8 bits but you can bit bang them out using two
> lines on a nano to
> a 74ls164.  The rest you use transistors (open collector) to do high
> current (though 5V,
> 1K pullup is only 5ma) and I'd do that to make the IO more rugged and
> ESD proof.  That
> covers the strobes and control lines.  Just using two lines to get the 8
> data lines via a 164
> frees enogh pins for there to be surplus IO lines.
> 
> Then I can load the Uno (or nano) via USB or Serial  or use 4lines to
> interface a
> uSD loaded with tapes ( MCLK, MSI, MSO). 
> 
> With 32K of program space the RIM and BIN load can be part of the
> standard code base.
> 
> Then a library and software tool to load up the uSD or SD as usb to
> SD/uSD socket adapters
> are common.  It would be great to be able to get a file with all the
> common tapes on it.
> for loading into a 8 via a loader device.
> 
> I've not done this for PDP-8 or 11 but I can easily envision it.  The
> Arduinos are
> often fast enough if not faster than the host so speed is not an issue.
> 
> Allison
> 

My plan is actually to use an Arduino Ethernet shield to load files
(which uses 4 pins off of the Uno).

As I believe I mentioned, I can stay within the Uno's or Mega's current
sink limits by sprinkling outputs and inputs together in the various I/O
banks.  But unless I add additional hardware as you suggested, I am
short an I/O pin unless I punt on out of tape (and have it never report
that condition).

I am trying to avoid having to add additional hardware, even
transistors, if I can, as that makes it easier to replicate for others.

JRJ


Re: Parts source

2019-03-11 Thread ben via cctalk

On 3/11/2019 8:26 PM, Will Cooke via cctech wrote:

This may or may not be new or useful to anyone here, but I came across this 
website by accident today.  They have a considerable selection of rather hard 
to find parts for old home computers, game consoles, and even arcade machines.  
Figured I would send along the link.
http://www.arcadecomponents.com/index.html


This guy sells proms as well and can BURN them.
http://www.eprompro.com/


Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Mattis Lind via cctalk
A few years back AJ Palmgren helped me recover data from a S8000 tape using
his hacked QIC drive.  He fed the data coming off the drive into a Saleae
logic analyzer. I took the gigantic dumps and wrote a software decoder. The
data on the tape are MFM encoded. It went pretty well and I could recover
the entire tape.

http://www.datormuseum.se/computers/others/zilog-s8000/extract-s8000-tapes

So you can read these tapes by other means than the original drive. It just
requires some tinkering with the drive to get the correct tracks and some
software.


Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Jay Jaeger via cctalk
On 3/11/2019 5:15 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
> On 2019-Mar-11, at 2:37 PM, allison via cctech wrote:
>> On 03/11/2019 02:11 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
>>> I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
>>> enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
>>> all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
>>> move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
>>> lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)
>>>
>>> So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
>>> down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
>>> have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
>>> IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
>>> Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
>>> the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
>>> RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).
>>>
>>> So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
>>> lines).
> 
> . . . 
> 
>>> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
>>> this?  Any leads / ideas?
> 
> . . .
>> To do the data you need 8 bits but you can bit bang them out using two
>> lines on a nano to
>> a 74ls164.  The rest you use transistors (open collector) to do high
>> current (though 5V,
>> 1K pullup is only 5ma) and I'd do that to make the IO more rugged and
>> ESD proof.  That
>> covers the strobes and control lines.  Just using two lines to get the 8
>> data lines via a 164
>> frees enogh pins for there to be surplus IO lines.
> 
> . . .
> 
> I've used an RPi for tasks like this in much the same way as Allison is 
> describing -
> reduce the number of I/O pins needed on the modern microcontroller by 
> serialising
> the legacy-device parallel data lines with a simple TTL shift register.
> 2-4 pins (CLK,LATCH,DIN,DOUT, depending on app) from the microcontroller
> can be translated to 8,16,32 or as many data lines as you need.
> 
> 

I had thought about an RPi as well.  But the RPi is it is 3.3v,
requiring additional hardware, which I'd like to avoid.  A 5V Arduino
(or a PIC, for that matter) should be able to drive the interface card's
inputs on its own.


Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Chuck Guzis via cctalk
On 3/11/19 5:51 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
>  > I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
>  > I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..
> 
> Was this thing referred to as a "Funnel"?  Maybe that was a Prime
> specific name though.
>

My wetware threw a parity error--the "funnel" "super funnel" "streaker"
and "serpentine funnel" were DEI terms.

hard keeping the players straight nowadays.

--Chuck



Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Chuck Guzis via cctalk
On 3/11/19 5:51 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
>  > I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
>  > I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..
> 
> Was this thing referred to as a "Funnel"?  Maybe that was a Prime
> specific name though.

No, that was 3M; they had the "Funnel", the "Super Funnel" and the
"Serpentine Funnel" as well as the "Streaker".

--Chuck



Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Al Kossow via cctalk



On 3/11/19 5:51 PM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote:
>  > I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
>  > I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..
> 
> Was this thing referred to as a "Funnel"? 

sounds familiar.

several companies made 6400 bpi four-track non-serpentine drives

DEI, Kennedy, TI, and 3M for example

I'd have to check, but I think there was an ANSI standard for the tape
format (predates the Quarter-Inch Committee).

TI used them in disk/tape combos for the 990,
DSD used Kennedy drives for the same purpose.





Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Al Kossow via cctalk



On 3/11/19 5:19 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

> I've got a 3M DCD-3 4-track drive if you're interested.

I have some Kennedy drives that should work, just have to find the time
to get to it. I'm trying to clear some 1/2" tapes off the shelves this week.




Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Dennis Boone via cctalk
 > I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
 > I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..

Was this thing referred to as a "Funnel"?  Maybe that was a Prime
specific name though.

De


Re: Old Macs available

2019-03-11 Thread David Williams via cctalk

On 2019-03-11 18:49, Paul Koning wrote:


15 pin connector combined with BNC connector suggests it might be an
Ethernet card -- original 10 Mb/s.


Which was pretty much my thought looking at it without opening up the 
system and looking at the card itself.


David Williams
www.trailingedge.com


Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Chuck Guzis via cctalk
On 3/11/19 10:32 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> If you open it up, it should have a DEI tape drive in it, which predates QIC
> The data coming off the tape is NRZ instead of GCR
> 
> I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
> I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..
> 
> This is a problem for a bunch of systems built in the early 80's (Zilog, 
> Onyx, etc)
> 
> I have a stack of tapes in the queue (incl an 816 tubodos tape) for me to get 
> fixed-head 4 track reading working

I've got a 3M DCD-3 4-track drive if you're interested.  It's been
sitting around for a time and comes with a rackmount Lambda PSU that I'm
certain needs recapping.

I'm not sure what the 50-conductor ribbon cable interface is, but I
suspect it's nothing standard.


--Chuck



Re: Old Macs available

2019-03-11 Thread Paul Koning via cctalk



> On Mar 11, 2019, at 3:20 PM, nospam212-cctalk--- via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> ...
> 1) Macintosh SE/30 - Appears to have some expansion card of some sort inside 
> with with a 15 pin connector and what I think was a BNC connector?

15 pin connector combined with BNC connector suggests it might be an Ethernet 
card -- original 10 Mb/s.  The 15 pin connector would be the AUI (transceiver) 
connector.  If the connector has a slide latch (to engage turret posts that 
take the place of the more common locking screws) that would be a pretty solid 
sign it's Ethernet.  If so, the BNC connector should be insulated ground 
(plastic sleeve around the connector body so it doesn't contact the computer's 
chassis).

The easiest way to connect such a device to current equipment is to find a 
10BaseT transceiver.  Any 10/100 switch should talk to that, and compliant 
Gigabit Ethernet devices will too (since the standard calls for them to go all 
the way back to 10 Mb/s) though I would be less confident of that in the real 
world.

paul




Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Chuck Guzis via cctalk
On 3/11/19 3:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

> I use 4mm ID silicone vacuum hose.  Works well and requires no
> adhesive--just stretch it over the bare hub.

e.g. Something like ebay item 132808966973

I use the red stuff, but it comes in a variety of colors.  I re-did the
PVC vacuum hoses on my truck with great success a couple of years ago
and had some left over.  Thus far, I've reworked about 6 drives of
various flavors and all work.

--Chuck






Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Chuck Guzis via cctalk
On 3/11/19 10:49 AM, Patrick Finnegan via cctalk wrote:
> Ah, interesting.
> 
> I've got a drives, but bad rollers (and one burned out EOT lamp to replace,
> which is annoying but should be easy enough).
> 
> Any suggestions on sizes for the rollers? I have one that is starting to
> go, and the other one is goo already.  I can probably guess at sizes but I
> thought I should ask first.

I use 4mm ID silicone vacuum hose.  Works well and requires no
adhesive--just stretch it over the bare hub.

--Chuck



Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Brent Hilpert via cctalk
On 2019-Mar-11, at 2:37 PM, allison via cctech wrote:
> On 03/11/2019 02:11 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
>> I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
>> enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
>> all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
>> move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
>> lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)
>> 
>> So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
>> down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
>> have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
>> IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
>> Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
>> the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
>> RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).
>> 
>> So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
>> lines).

. . . 

>> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
>> this?  Any leads / ideas?

. . .
> To do the data you need 8 bits but you can bit bang them out using two
> lines on a nano to
> a 74ls164.  The rest you use transistors (open collector) to do high
> current (though 5V,
> 1K pullup is only 5ma) and I'd do that to make the IO more rugged and
> ESD proof.  That
> covers the strobes and control lines.  Just using two lines to get the 8
> data lines via a 164
> frees enogh pins for there to be surplus IO lines.

. . .

I've used an RPi for tasks like this in much the same way as Allison is 
describing -
reduce the number of I/O pins needed on the modern microcontroller by 
serialising
the legacy-device parallel data lines with a simple TTL shift register.
2-4 pins (CLK,LATCH,DIN,DOUT, depending on app) from the microcontroller
can be translated to 8,16,32 or as many data lines as you need.



Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Brent Hilpert via cctalk
On 2019-Mar-11, at 2:37 PM, allison via cctech wrote:
> On 03/11/2019 02:11 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
>> I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
>> enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
>> all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
>> move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
>> lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)
>> 
>> So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
>> down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
>> have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
>> IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
>> Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
>> the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
>> RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).
>> 
>> So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
>> lines).

. . . 

>> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
>> this?  Any leads / ideas?

. . .
> To do the data you need 8 bits but you can bit bang them out using two
> lines on a nano to
> a 74ls164.  The rest you use transistors (open collector) to do high
> current (though 5V,
> 1K pullup is only 5ma) and I'd do that to make the IO more rugged and
> ESD proof.  That
> covers the strobes and control lines.  Just using two lines to get the 8
> data lines via a 164
> frees enogh pins for there to be surplus IO lines.

. . .

I've used an RPi for tasks like this in much the same way as Allison is 
describing -
reduce the number of I/O pins needed on the modern microcontroller by 
serialising
the legacy-device parallel data lines with a simple TTL shift register.
2-4 pins (CLK,LATCH,DIN,DOUT, depending on app) from the microcontroller
can be translated to 8,16,32 or as many data lines as you need.



Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread allison via cctalk
On 03/11/2019 02:11 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctech wrote:
> I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
> enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
> all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
> move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
> lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)
>
> So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
> down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
> have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
> IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
> Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
> the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
> RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).
>
> So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
> lines).
>
> The pullups average about 470 ohms (1 is 1K, 1 is 220, the rest are
> 470), so at 5V the output has to sink a bit over 10ma, and all total
> 120ma.
>
> An Arduino Uno with an Ethernet shield would have 20 minus 5 lines
> available, in theory, but if one wants serial I/O as well for debugging,
> that sucks up 2 more lines - so only 13 available.  And sinking 120ma
> would be a bit much though I could likely sprinkle inputs among the
> outputs to make it work so as to stay within the recommended sink
> limits, and at least initially have it never run out of tape, and tie
> Error down.
>
> http://playground.arduino.cc/Main/ArduinoPinCurrentLimitations
>
> So, I am thinking about an Arduino Mega, as it has more output groupings
> to sprinkle the sink current around, and 5V interface capability, and
> more pins to eventually support my PDP-8/L and PDP-12.
>
> (I could do it with a PIC - did that for a Documation card reader to PC
> interface, but I am really tired of fighting Microchip's IDE.)
>
> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
> this?  Any leads / ideas?
>
> JRJ
The Uno or Nano is more than adequate.

To do the data you need 8 bits but you can bit bang them out using two
lines on a nano to
a 74ls164.  The rest you use transistors (open collector) to do high
current (though 5V,
1K pullup is only 5ma) and I'd do that to make the IO more rugged and
ESD proof.  That
covers the strobes and control lines.  Just using two lines to get the 8
data lines via a 164
frees enogh pins for there to be surplus IO lines.

Then I can load the Uno (or nano) via USB or Serial  or use 4lines to
interface a
uSD loaded with tapes ( MCLK, MSI, MSO). 

With 32K of program space the RIM and BIN load can be part of the
standard code base.

Then a library and software tool to load up the uSD or SD as usb to
SD/uSD socket adapters
are common.  It would be great to be able to get a file with all the
common tapes on it.
for loading into a 8 via a loader device.

I've not done this for PDP-8 or 11 but I can easily envision it.  The
Arduinos are
often fast enough if not faster than the host so speed is not an issue.

Allison


Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Jay Jaeger via cctalk
Hi, Henk.

Cool - so sort of the complement of what I am considering doing - your
interface allows connection of a real device to a simulated hardware
processor.

Your thorough documentation will be helpful in confirming the signals I
plan to use.

JRJ

On 3/11/2019 1:39 PM, Henk Gooijen wrote:
> Hi Jay,
> 
> Have a look at www.pdp-11.nl/peripherals/tape/pc05-simh-pc.html
> 
> 
> If you are interested I can tell you more …
> 
>  
> 
> I can read and punch tape. PC05 + interface (PIC 18F4550) connects using
> RX/TX to USB to PC.
> 
> Reading one character at a time works fine (speed some 20 char/sec,
> so-called start-stop mode).
> 
> Reading in “streaming mode” is probably some 300 char/sec, but I get
> unexplained “out-of-paper” state sometimes, and reading stops (of course).
> 
>  
> 
> To read from the PC05 reader you need IOP2, IOP4, and INT*. Maybe BUSY*
> is needed, not sure about that.
> 
> INITIALIZE* is good to have as well. A few other signals (for example
> IOP1) needs to be connected to an appropriate level. And 8 data inputs,
> which need a pull-up resistor. Note that the data from the reader is
> inverted.
> 
>  
> 
> To punch you only need IOP4 (IIRC) and of course 8 data outputs.
> 
> As you know, reader and punch are two completely isolated devices.
> 
>  
> 
> Greetz,
> 
> Henk
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> *Van:* cctech  namens Jay Jaeger via
> cctech 
> *Verzonden:* Monday, March 11, 2019 7:11:46 PM
> *Aan:* General Discussion: On-Topic Posts
> *Onderwerp:* Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation
>  
> I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
> enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
> all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
> move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
> lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)
> 
> So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
> down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
> have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
> IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
> Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
> the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
> RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).
> 
> So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
> lines).
> 
> The pullups average about 470 ohms (1 is 1K, 1 is 220, the rest are
> 470), so at 5V the output has to sink a bit over 10ma, and all total
> 120ma.
> 
> An Arduino Uno with an Ethernet shield would have 20 minus 5 lines
> available, in theory, but if one wants serial I/O as well for debugging,
> that sucks up 2 more lines - so only 13 available.  And sinking 120ma
> would be a bit much though I could likely sprinkle inputs among the
> outputs to make it work so as to stay within the recommended sink
> limits, and at least initially have it never run out of tape, and tie
> Error down.
> 
> http://playground.arduino.cc/Main/ArduinoPinCurrentLimitations
> 
> So, I am thinking about an Arduino Mega, as it has more output groupings
> to sprinkle the sink current around, and 5V interface capability, and
> more pins to eventually support my PDP-8/L and PDP-12.
> 
> (I could do it with a PIC - did that for a Documation card reader to PC
> interface, but I am really tired of fighting Microchip's IDE.)
> 
> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
> this?  Any leads / ideas?
> 
> JRJ


Old Macs available

2019-03-11 Thread nospam212-cctalk--- via cctalk
I am clearing out a storage space and will be offering up some of the old 
systems and miscellaneous peripherals currently stored there as I clear and 
sort things.  To start with I have the following available. If anyone is 
interested or knows where else to offer the various items contact me off list.  
If I can't find anyone interested I'll probably just send things on to recycle 
as I need to clear and close the space.

All of the following are base units, no keyboards or other external peripherals 
although I suspect there may be keyboards somewhere in the storage space but 
can't guarantee it. If I do find some I can pass them along with the units if 
interested.
1) Macintosh SE/30 - Appears to have some expansion card of some sort inside 
with with a 15 pin connector and what I think was a BNC connector?
2) Macintosh SE/30 - Has a ribbon cable coming out the expansion slot in the 
back but no idea what it connects to inside or anything else about it.3) 
Macintosh Plus 1Mb - This sounds like there might be something loose inside if 
you turn it over.
All systems are in unknown state and unopened so I have no idea what is inside 
or what condition they may be in. Systems are located in Houston, TX.

Contact me off list if you need any more info or interest in these systems.

Thanks.
David Williamswww.trailingedge.com


Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread E. Groenenberg via cctalk


snip snip snip

>
> (I could do it with a PIC - did that for a Documation card reader to PC
> interface, but I am really tired of fighting Microchip's IDE.)
>
> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
> this?  Any leads / ideas?
>
> JRJ
>

Yes, see http://www.pdp-11.nl/peripherals/tape/pc05-simh-pc.html
And in action : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l--OHNxXFeE

The PC05 in question is mine, the interface are made by Henk Gooijen,
the software in the vid is only supporting byte for byte, streaming
mode is almost implemented.

Ed
--
Ik email, dus ik besta 




Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Jay Jaeger via cctalk
I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)

So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).

So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
lines).

The pullups average about 470 ohms (1 is 1K, 1 is 220, the rest are
470), so at 5V the output has to sink a bit over 10ma, and all total
120ma.

An Arduino Uno with an Ethernet shield would have 20 minus 5 lines
available, in theory, but if one wants serial I/O as well for debugging,
that sucks up 2 more lines - so only 13 available.  And sinking 120ma
would be a bit much though I could likely sprinkle inputs among the
outputs to make it work so as to stay within the recommended sink
limits, and at least initially have it never run out of tape, and tie
Error down.

http://playground.arduino.cc/Main/ArduinoPinCurrentLimitations

So, I am thinking about an Arduino Mega, as it has more output groupings
to sprinkle the sink current around, and 5V interface capability, and
more pins to eventually support my PDP-8/L and PDP-12.

(I could do it with a PIC - did that for a Documation card reader to PC
interface, but I am really tired of fighting Microchip's IDE.)

BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
this?  Any leads / ideas?

JRJ


RE: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Henk Gooijen via cctalk
Hi Jay,

Have a look at 
www.pdp-11.nl/peripherals/tape/pc05-simh-pc.html

If you are interested I can tell you more …



I can read and punch tape. PC05 + interface (PIC 18F4550) connects using RX/TX 
to USB to PC.

Reading one character at a time works fine (speed some 20 char/sec, so-called 
start-stop mode).

Reading in “streaming mode” is probably some 300 char/sec, but I get 
unexplained “out-of-paper” state sometimes, and reading stops (of course).



To read from the PC05 reader you need IOP2, IOP4, and INT*. Maybe BUSY* is 
needed, not sure about that.

INITIALIZE* is good to have as well. A few other signals (for example IOP1) 
needs to be connected to an appropriate level. And 8 data inputs, which need a 
pull-up resistor. Note that the data from the reader is inverted.



To punch you only need IOP4 (IIRC) and of course 8 data outputs.

As you know, reader and punch are two completely isolated devices.



Greetz,

Henk






Van: cctech  namens Jay Jaeger via cctech 

Verzonden: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:11:46 PM
Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts
Onderwerp: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

I have several PDP-11's in my collection (among other things), and not
enough PC05 tape readers (or enough room) to go around.  But most if not
all of my machines have M7810 PC11 interfaces, and I have one I could
move from machine to machine as needed.  Moving a PC05 around would be a
lot more work, and not every rack has room.  ;)

So, I took a look at what it might take to interface with an M7810 (or,
down the road, a PDP-8/L or PDP-12.  It looks like the emulator would
have to accept as input just 3 lines (Initialize  L, IOP2(1)/Select,
IOP4(1)/Read) [It would not need the redundant Initialize H, IOP1(1),
Qualify or Skip], and would have to drive 11 lines into the pullups on
the M7810 (8 Data lines, IO Bus INT L/Reader Done L, Outtape/Error and
RDR RUN L/RDR Busy L).

So, a total of 14 interface lines. (The 8 or 12 would take a few more
lines).

The pullups average about 470 ohms (1 is 1K, 1 is 220, the rest are
470), so at 5V the output has to sink a bit over 10ma, and all total
120ma.

An Arduino Uno with an Ethernet shield would have 20 minus 5 lines
available, in theory, but if one wants serial I/O as well for debugging,
that sucks up 2 more lines - so only 13 available.  And sinking 120ma
would be a bit much though I could likely sprinkle inputs among the
outputs to make it work so as to stay within the recommended sink
limits, and at least initially have it never run out of tape, and tie
Error down.

http://playground.arduino.cc/Main/ArduinoPinCurrentLimitations

So, I am thinking about an Arduino Mega, as it has more output groupings
to sprinkle the sink current around, and 5V interface capability, and
more pins to eventually support my PDP-8/L and PDP-12.

(I could do it with a PIC - did that for a Documation card reader to PC
interface, but I am really tired of fighting Microchip's IDE.)

BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
this?  Any leads / ideas?

JRJ


Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread Jay Jaeger via cctalk
On 3/11/2019 1:17 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
>> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
>> this?  Any leads / ideas?
> 
> Get an old BlackBox ABCD switch that can handle true 25 pin serial ports?
> 
> It seems like every year at VCFMW there are a few in the free pile.
> 
> --
> Will
> 

That might be fine if the machines were right next to each other.  Some
of mine are not so close.

An emulator would also be really convenient to use, and avoid wearing
out paper tapes.

JRJ


Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation

2019-03-11 Thread William Donzelli via cctalk
> BUT - it also occurs to me someone may have already done something like
> this?  Any leads / ideas?

Get an old BlackBox ABCD switch that can handle true 25 pin serial ports?

It seems like every year at VCFMW there are a few in the free pile.

--
Will


Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Patrick Finnegan via cctalk
Ah, interesting.

I've got a drives, but bad rollers (and one burned out EOT lamp to replace,
which is annoying but should be easy enough).

Any suggestions on sizes for the rollers? I have one that is starting to
go, and the other one is goo already.  I can probably guess at sizes but I
thought I should ask first.

I did think it's interesting that they used a SIO/2 in the system to read
the tape.  I think I realized it was 4 track NRZI encoded from the GEI
manual, but didn't realise that (older) QIC wasn't.

Patrick Finnegan

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 13:32 Al Kossow via cctalk 
wrote:

> If you open it up, it should have a DEI tape drive in it, which predates
> QIC
> The data coming off the tape is NRZ instead of GCR
>
> I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
> I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..
>
> This is a problem for a bunch of systems built in the early 80's (Zilog,
> Onyx, etc)
>
> I have a stack of tapes in the queue (incl an 816 tubodos tape) for me to
> get fixed-head 4 track reading working
>
>
>
> On 3/11/19 10:19 AM, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> > Really? They're DC300 cartridges.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:16 PM Al Kossow via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/10/19 7:48 PM, Patrick Finnegan via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > > One has the TurboDOS backup/install media for a Televideo TS-816
> that I got
> > > from Don Maslin back in the day. I think the other one is related
> too, but
> > > it was unmarked.
> > >
> >
> > TS-816 tapes aren't QIC
> >
>
>


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Paul Koning via cctalk



> On Mar 11, 2019, at 1:13 PM, Robert Feldman via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 17:18:26 -0400
>> From: Murray McCullough 
> 
> 
>> Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>> Instruments
> 
> Merryman died on February 27.
> 
> From the New York Times (March 7, 2019):
> Jerry Merryman, Co-Inventor of the Pocket Calculator, Dies at 86
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/obituaries/jerry-merryman-dead.html
> 
> Bob

The WSJ had a very nice obit on him in the weekend issue.  One interesting 
tidbit is that he learned electronics as a teenager by reading Terman's Radio 
Engineer Handbook.  Wow.

I have that book.  It's a professional engineering textbook.  I would hesitate 
to use it as an undergraduate college text (though it might have served in 
Merryman's youth, given that schools tended to teach better).  I learned 
electronics as a teenager also, but I certainly didn't use anything as tough as 
Terman -- I had a book aimed at youth and graduated from there to the ARRL 
Radio Amateur Handbook.

paul



Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Al Kossow via cctalk
If you open it up, it should have a DEI tape drive in it, which predates QIC
The data coming off the tape is NRZ instead of GCR

I just double-checked and the drive pinouts match the DEI CMTD-3400 manual
I know, it isn't obvious at all from the maint manual..

This is a problem for a bunch of systems built in the early 80's (Zilog, Onyx, 
etc)

I have a stack of tapes in the queue (incl an 816 tubodos tape) for me to get 
fixed-head 4 track reading working



On 3/11/19 10:19 AM, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> Really? They're DC300 cartridges.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:16 PM Al Kossow via cctalk  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/10/19 7:48 PM, Patrick Finnegan via cctalk wrote:
> 
> > One has the TurboDOS backup/install media for a Televideo TS-816 that I 
> got
> > from Don Maslin back in the day. I think the other one is related too, 
> but
> > it was unmarked.
> >
> 
> TS-816 tapes aren't QIC
> 



Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Patrick Finnegan via cctalk
Really? They're DC300 cartridges.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:16 PM Al Kossow via cctalk 
wrote:

>
>
> On 3/10/19 7:48 PM, Patrick Finnegan via cctalk wrote:
>
> > One has the TurboDOS backup/install media for a Televideo TS-816 that I
> got
> > from Don Maslin back in the day. I think the other one is related too,
> but
> > it was unmarked.
> >
>
> TS-816 tapes aren't QIC
>
>


Re: Tape reading question

2019-03-11 Thread Al Kossow via cctalk



On 3/10/19 7:48 PM, Patrick Finnegan via cctalk wrote:

> One has the TurboDOS backup/install media for a Televideo TS-816 that I got
> from Don Maslin back in the day. I think the other one is related too, but
> it was unmarked.
> 

TS-816 tapes aren't QIC



RE: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Robert Feldman via cctalk
>Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 17:18:26 -0400
>From: Murray McCullough 


>Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>Instruments

Merryman died on February 27.

>From the New York Times (March 7, 2019):
Jerry Merryman, Co-Inventor of the Pocket Calculator, Dies at 86
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/obituaries/jerry-merryman-dead.html

Bob


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Jon Elson via cctalk

On 03/11/2019 02:35 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:

IBM 360 32 bits 16 word reg file - 16 bit word.


While some 360 models had a hardware architecture of 8, 16, 
or even 64 bits, all of the 360s (except the model 20, which 
was not really a 360) had 16 32-bit registers as the program 
saw it.


Jon


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread allison via cctalk
On 03/11/2019 04:49 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
> On 2019-Mar-10, at 3:59 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
 Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
 Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
 calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
 beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
 the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
 baby-boomers can attest to.
> . . .
>> Here is a little bit of info on it:
>> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
>
> On 2019-Mar-10, at 10:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>> On 3/10/2019 7:30 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
>>
 Here is a little bit of info on it:
 http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
>>> That's fascinating, thanks. I'd never heard of it.
>>> The Intel 4004 came out in 1971.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
>>> I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a 
>>> 'processor' (though it required some support chips to do anything.)
>>> The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator 
>>> in 1967. I wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability?
>> Looking at the vintage calculator page, I would give the "FAR EAST" my vote 
>> for the first processor type chips. Everything was in-house development you 
>> can say they all came out at the same time. Look at TTL
>> pre 1970 4 gate logic, after 1970 74181 alu 7416x 4 bit counters 7489 16x4 
>> RAM. About 1973 Tristate logic and 32x8 , 256x4 PROMS.
>
> If you read the link provided by Will, the Cal-tech was four ICs, not one.
> It was a forward-thinking lab R project which you would expect to be ahead 
> of the IC technology on the market.
>
> It would be several more years, ca. 1971 before the complete logic for a 
> calculator was stuffed onto one chip and available on the market,
> so coincident in time with the 4004.
> There was the TMS-0100 series from TI , single-chip calculators, 1971.
>   https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/ti/tms0100
>
> TI and others did produce some calculator chip-sets (calc on several 
> dedicated LSI chips) for the market prior to the single-chip implementations.
>
> No, the first 'processor-type' chips didn't come out of the 'far east'.
> The Japanese were producing calculators with hard-wired / random logic / 
> dedicated state-machine architectures in the late 60s.
> With the advent of LSI, they came to the Americans to get chips designed, 
> resulting in one case in the 4004.
>
> See also the TMS1795 (1971) and TMS1000 (1974).
> Rockwell was another of the big players.
>
First I prefix thing with how many of you were over the age of 8 or 10
at the time of the introduction of the calculator?

OK, I was well over that by then.  I started in Jr high with a slipstick
(slide rule) as an early techno geek
so I got to see the industry develop and yes the desk sized computers
were easily early on but the
key thing is pocket calculator just like the Pocket transistor radio. 
Each were of similar level of
change. radios weren't a new idea but mass produced and cheap  pocket
sized was.  So the pocket
calculator was big and when the cost got under 50$ then everyone wanted
it.  I was an early adopter
of the Ti 8 digit 4 banger (-+/*) (TMS103) and took that to college in
the very early 70s.  After that I'd
seen and gotten to use the famous HP65 (then about 650$).  It was a very
different market and use
for the pocket calc than the desktop calc.  The biggest part of the
desktop was printing, the
transactional record of what was done.

The key is we (users and market) went from slide rules in about 69-70 to
calculators in 71-72 and
they were everywhere by 74 and prices dropping very fast.

As to microcomputers and calculators I see them on the parallel path as
they both required the same
technologies to be present to be able to make wither but one was market
driven and the other was
technology driven.  The calculator is however become a dead end in that
it never advanced beyond
a point then it was a computer.  Its utility however is every cell phone
has one.

The CADC Central air data computer was the fly by wire for the F14 and
was a multi-chip system
and programmable, making it the first LSI micro.  The question of single
chip is moot as it was the
later 70s with TMS1000, F8, and 8048 that would put all of the computer
functions on one chip.
The 8080/6502/6800/and friends were all multichip to realize even a
simple functioning system.

Oddly science fiction had computers but calculators were not part of
their forecast..  I know of
only one example that had pocket/portable calculator.

Allison



Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread dwight via cctalk
Calculators are clearly a step in the progression. Also, clearly not the 
beginning.  To pick any one even and say that was the beginning is absurd. 
There are to many steps involved. The need to do mathematical calculations was 
clearly a driving force but that goes back before Babbage.
Dwight


From: cctalk  on behalf of Noel Chiappa via 
cctalk 
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 7:09 AM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Pioneers of computing

> From: Brent Hilpert

>>> Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>>> Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
>>> calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
>>> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway
>>> by the mid-70s.

>> Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field!

> It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
> The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital electronic
> device to be put in the hands of the consumer.

It's not clear which element of the original post that Al was referring to; I
saw several things I might disagree with:

- Unless you look at the date carefully, the notion that TI's work developing
chips was intended to replace the calculator.

- The notion that it was calculators that drove the development of micros;
Intel had actually started work on a micro for Datapoint, which was
eventually released as the 8008, _before_ they started on the 4004 for
Busicom.


I'd have to think long and hard before I rendered a judgement on how
important digital pocket calculators were to where we are today.

My initial reaction is to say 'not very', though - early personal computers,
centered on Silicon Valley, were mostly driven by having, well, a personal
computer. It's not clear that widespread ownership of personal calculators
did anything to drive that.

Noel


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Noel Chiappa via cctalk
> From: Brent Hilpert   

>>> Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>>> Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
>>> calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
>>> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway
>>> by the mid-70s. 

>> Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field!

> It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
> The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital electronic
> device to be put in the hands of the consumer.

It's not clear which element of the original post that Al was referring to; I
saw several things I might disagree with:

- Unless you look at the date carefully, the notion that TI's work developing
chips was intended to replace the calculator.

- The notion that it was calculators that drove the development of micros;
Intel had actually started work on a micro for Datapoint, which was
eventually released as the 8008, _before_ they started on the 4004 for
Busicom.


I'd have to think long and hard before I rendered a judgement on how
important digital pocket calculators were to where we are today.

My initial reaction is to say 'not very', though - early personal computers,
centered on Silicon Valley, were mostly driven by having, well, a personal
computer. It's not clear that widespread ownership of personal calculators
did anything to drive that.

Noel


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Michael Mulhern via cctalk
Talking of calculators, my first full time job was selling HP calculators
and Apple computers which was appropriate, but not necessary for my second
full time job as a calculator. Yes my job title was calculator, where I did
actuarial calculations on insurance products for variations.

So I went from selling them, to being one :)

//m

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 9:43 pm, Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 4:50 AM Brent Hilpert via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> > On 2019-Mar-10, at 5:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> > > On 3/10/19 2:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> > >> Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
> > >> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly
> > underway by
> > >> the mid-70s.
> > >
> > > Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field!
> >
> >
> > It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
> >
> > The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital
> electronic
> > device to be put in the hands of the consumer.
> >
> > Yes, all of us here know there were digital computers and other digital
> > electronic devices around many years before,
> > but the digital pocket calculator has a significant place at the
> > beginnings of the transition to the ubiquity of such technology in
> everyday
> > life,
> > as opposed to being behind-the-scenes in business, labs, and industry.
> >
> > One can argue the transition would have happened without the
> > pocket-calculator market -
> > just how influential it was in driving the innovation can be debated -
> but
> > the historical fact is it was there,
> > and a large market in the context.
> >
>
> Reading this thread...
>
> >
> Not sure why this suddenly became a thing to debate, but I will add that
> the multifunction function 1960s calculators were called "desktop
> computers" by publishers then
>
> https://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread_record.cfm?id=536
>
> Also, I did an talk at HOPE on the subject of the how the early handheld
> calculator class fit into the development of micro computers a few years
> later. The talk was my take on the subject anyway.
>
> Bottom line, one should avoid putting the modern 2019 definition a
> microcomputer/personal computer into what people were talking about in the
> mid 60s into the 70s "small/personal/microcomputer".
>
> Also, the significance of the single chip vs multi chip or single board
> CPU...is independent of the intended use or capacity/capabilities of the
> computer they went into.  Over time the significance of a "single chip" CPU
> will fade.  Modern computers no longer rely on this approach anyway, it was
> only a blip in time that "single chip cou"  mattered as much.
>
> My opinion of course
>
> Bill
>
> Bill
>
> >
>
-- 


*Blog: RetroRetrospective – Fun today with yesterday's gear……..
*
*Podcast*: *Retro Computing Roundtable * (Co-Host)


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Bill Degnan via cctalk
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 4:50 AM Brent Hilpert via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 2019-Mar-10, at 5:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> > On 3/10/19 2:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> >> Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
> >> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly
> underway by
> >> the mid-70s.
> >
> > Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field!
>
>
> It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.
>
> The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital electronic
> device to be put in the hands of the consumer.
>
> Yes, all of us here know there were digital computers and other digital
> electronic devices around many years before,
> but the digital pocket calculator has a significant place at the
> beginnings of the transition to the ubiquity of such technology in everyday
> life,
> as opposed to being behind-the-scenes in business, labs, and industry.
>
> One can argue the transition would have happened without the
> pocket-calculator market -
> just how influential it was in driving the innovation can be debated - but
> the historical fact is it was there,
> and a large market in the context.
>

Reading this thread...

>
Not sure why this suddenly became a thing to debate, but I will add that
the multifunction function 1960s calculators were called "desktop
computers" by publishers then

https://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread_record.cfm?id=536

Also, I did an talk at HOPE on the subject of the how the early handheld
calculator class fit into the development of micro computers a few years
later. The talk was my take on the subject anyway.

Bottom line, one should avoid putting the modern 2019 definition a
microcomputer/personal computer into what people were talking about in the
mid 60s into the 70s "small/personal/microcomputer".

Also, the significance of the single chip vs multi chip or single board
CPU...is independent of the intended use or capacity/capabilities of the
computer they went into.  Over time the significance of a "single chip" CPU
will fade.  Modern computers no longer rely on this approach anyway, it was
only a blip in time that "single chip cou"  mattered as much.

My opinion of course

Bill

Bill

>


Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Brent Hilpert via cctalk
On 2019-Mar-10, at 5:16 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> On 3/10/19 2:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
>> Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
>> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
>> the mid-70s.
> 
> Scotty, more power to the Reality Distortion Field!


It's not an out-to-lunch suggestion.

The digital pocket calculator was the first mass-market digital electronic 
device to be put in the hands of the consumer.

Yes, all of us here know there were digital computers and other digital 
electronic devices around many years before, 
but the digital pocket calculator has a significant place at the beginnings of 
the transition to the ubiquity of such technology in everyday life,
as opposed to being behind-the-scenes in business, labs, and industry.

One can argue the transition would have happened without the pocket-calculator 
market -
just how influential it was in driving the innovation can be debated - but the 
historical fact is it was there,
and a large market in the context.



Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread Brent Hilpert via cctalk
On 2019-Mar-10, at 3:59 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
>> On 3/10/2019 3:18 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
>>> Back in 1965 Jack Kilby, Jerry Merryman and James Van Tassel at texas
>>> Instruments created an integrated circuit designed to replace the
>>> calulator. Historians, though not all, credit this development as the
>>> beginning of the electronic-computing revolution that was truly underway by
>>> the mid-70s. Vintage/classic computing our hobby goes back that far as us
>>> baby-boomers can attest to.
. . .
> Here is a little bit of info on it:
> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html


On 2019-Mar-10, at 10:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 7:30 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote:
> 
>>> Here is a little bit of info on it:
>>> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/ti_cal-tech1.html
>> That's fascinating, thanks. I'd never heard of it.
>> The Intel 4004 came out in 1971.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004
>> I'd understood that was the first chip that could be considered a 
>> 'processor' (though it required some support chips to do anything.)
>> The TI Cal-Tech design was begun in 1965 and they had a working calculator 
>> in 1967. I wonder if the chips in that had any kind of code programmability?

> Looking at the vintage calculator page, I would give the "FAR EAST" my vote 
> for the first processor type chips. Everything was in-house development you 
> can say they all came out at the same time. Look at TTL
> pre 1970 4 gate logic, after 1970 74181 alu 7416x 4 bit counters 7489 16x4 
> RAM. About 1973 Tristate logic and 32x8 , 256x4 PROMS.


If you read the link provided by Will, the Cal-tech was four ICs, not one.
It was a forward-thinking lab R project which you would expect to be ahead of 
the IC technology on the market.

It would be several more years, ca. 1971 before the complete logic for a 
calculator was stuffed onto one chip and available on the market,
so coincident in time with the 4004.
There was the TMS-0100 series from TI , single-chip calculators, 1971.
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/ti/tms0100

TI and others did produce some calculator chip-sets (calc on several dedicated 
LSI chips) for the market prior to the single-chip implementations.

No, the first 'processor-type' chips didn't come out of the 'far east'.
The Japanese were producing calculators with hard-wired / random logic / 
dedicated state-machine architectures in the late 60s.
With the advent of LSI, they came to the Americans to get chips designed, 
resulting in one case in the 4004.

See also the TMS1795 (1971) and TMS1000 (1974).
Rockwell was another of the big players.




Re: Pioneers of computing

2019-03-11 Thread ben via cctalk

On 3/10/2019 9:11 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:



I have seen some claims that this was the first microprocessor -- although not 
a single chip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Air_Data_Computer

Will

I would say it was JUST too early to count as valid microprocessor. I 
expect they all were 'hand picked' from the few chips that tested as 
working.


In some ways those designs seem better developed that the 'consumer'
computer products that came out. I would say the IBM 360 halted any real
progress since the 1960's with packing 4 8 bit BCD/text characters in a
32 bit word. I like 10/20 bits or 12/24 bits as a computer word length 
with byte addressing. IBM 360 32 bits 16 word reg file - 16 bit word.

PDP 11 8 word reg file 16 bit word. RISC 16 word reg file - 16 bit
word. RISC 256 word reg file 32 bit word.

Mostly the same format as reg to reg and load/store as the
be the model for most computer languages around 1970 ish. WOW a new
university computer from IBM ( 360 or clone) or a PDP 11 for the lab.

I was just reading somewhere , a  single user ? linux machine had 233 
threads going. What would that be like multi-user when it starts thrashing?

I think PDP8/e time sharing @ 110 baud got more real work done.

In hindsight, only after the fast 4K x 1 dynamic ram came out did
computing make it from the lab to the public with 16KB for OS
and 32KB+ for user programs. CP/M (8080) and FLEX (6800).

The lack of hefty card edge connectors like for the S100 bus
has me developing a 3 card cpu using 72 pin .156" pitch and
50 pin .156" pitch card edge connectors for a 12/24 bit
CPU. Emulated I/O planned is a TTY (terminal 1200 baud) and RK05
disc (PDP8) on a SDC card.  The time frame is 1975 ish
with the advent of 256x8 PROM's and 2901's and 74LS TTL with
250ns 4K DRAMS.

The bare machine is just burned today into a ALTERA DE1 FPGA development 
kit. Right now I am looking for few good books on a SIMPLE OS

and a SIMPLE programing language in the 1975 to 1980 time frame.
The catch is for now disk I/O is 12 bit words packed into 2 8 bit
bytes.

While it is TOO late to implement, a 8" floppy could be formatted
using GCR to give 8 512 (12 bit word) sectors per track using ballpark
calulations.
Ben.