unsub
unsub
Re: bitsavers is showing down here
On 1/17/20 7:36 PM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > Not responding from the bitsavers.org domain. > > I'm guessing if it's down, the list might be ailing, too. > > thanks > Jim Ok, this is a test... How the hell is it that I unsubed this address months ago and all of a sudden I'm getting email (actually 11 of them) here again? What is going on?? Allison
Re: First Internet message and ...
On 11/24/19 5:07 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > The first Internet message was sent 60 yrs. ago on Nov. 21 between SRI and > UCLA. It was one-to-many, or more accurate one-to-one, but the world today > is many-to-many though cctalk runs through a moderator. The Internet > democratizes and gives a certain freedom to us all but it can lead to > mis-information from "one" or mis-interpretation by the "many". > Computerization of society as seen through cctalk tells this story well > mainly through the hardware side. > > Happy computing. > > Murray ☺ > OK, this is gibberish, word salad, English words mangled meaning. Pick a topic and get concise. Gah,
Re: Who changed the gravitational constant (Dec pdp11 stuff)
On 11/22/19 2:36 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > On 11/22/19 11:16 AM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: >> That >> could be a problem if I want to re-load Cobol 81 onto this RSTS/E system. > > weren't RL01s usable in an RL02? > > No for RL. You, maybe thinking RX01/02 interchangeability.
Re: several items for sale and a note.
I can't it's in the way. Space and all are the reasons. You can get the pin out for both ends from the manuals and the prints. If you get it wrong things just don't work but no breakage. On 11/22/19 3:42 PM, Henk Gooijen wrote: > > > > > *Van: *allison via cctech <mailto:cct...@classiccmp.org> > *Verzonden: *vrijdag 22 november 2019 20:01 > *Aan: *cct...@classiccmp.org <mailto:cct...@classiccmp.org> > *Onderwerp: *several items for sale and a note. > > > > Now stuff for sale: > The rules are, none for free, make a reasonable offer. PICKUP only > eastern MA in a reasonable amount of time. I WILL NOT PACK OR SHIP, > too heavy, damage too likely. Make offers offline, anything no > interest will be disposed of. > > First item: > Vt180, complete sans wart box, operating, and with second set of RX180 > drives. I will not break this up. I have some disks for it as well. > Terminal box is 8 or better and not too yellow. > > Allison > > > > > > I hope the buyer (or maybe you Allison?) will take the time to beep > > the floppy disk drive interface cable. > > The floppy drive side has a DB-25 connector, the VT180 side has a > > DC-37 connector. Not much to find about it on the internet, > > See www.pdp-11.nl/vt180/vt180-info.html > <http://www.pdp-11.nl/vt180/vt180-info.html> I would love to get > confirmation that the home-made cable is correct … > when I'm done with them > > > Thanks, > > Henk > > >
several items for sale and a note.
Note: we have some entity scraping the list(how is not determined). If I post I find that I get spam for about a week after until I post again. Most of the SPAM is scamware. It maybe someone with a virus on their system or a account that is for a bogus user. Take from that what you may. Now stuff for sale: The rules are, none for free, make a reasonable offer. PICKUP only eastern MA in a reasonable amount of time. I WILL NOT PACK OR SHIP, too heavy, damage too likely. Make offers offline, anything no interest will be disposed of. First item: Vt180, complete sans wart box, operating, and with second set of RX180 drives. I will not break this up. I have some disks for it as well. Terminal box is 8 or better and not too yellow. Second item: California Computer Systems (CCS) S100, with z80 CPU, 64K ram, Multi-serial IO Floppy disk controller and manuals. System is operational save for no disk drives as I am keeping the set I have. However I have two half height loose drives of unknown status. Future offers when I'm done with them include: Two PDP11 (11/23 series in BA-11 series boxes) Northstar Horizon S100 MDS-A controller, Z80, memory, with at least 1 floppy and working. Allison
Re: Got it: RD54 formatting write protect solved
I Use a spare MicroVAX-2000, the system roms ahve good diags and formatter for floppies and HD. Allison On 11/20/19 1:14 AM, Jacob Ritorto via cctalk wrote: > Nice going! > > Related story: > I had probs formatting a maxtor 11xx (not an actual xt-2190 but really close) > as an rd54 due to geometry differences and binary patched that formatter to > deal with it using the xxdp equivalent of od. Have the patched xxdp > formatter binary on an rl02 pack here if anyone needs it. > > Works a treat, close enough that dec software thinks it’s an rd54. > > Jake > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 19, 2019, at 20:13, Chris Zach via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> Figured it out at last. On a BA23, the RD54 needs to be jumpered at the >> disk as UNIT 3, and I had it as unit 4. Thus the jumper needed to be between >> 3 and C, I had it one stake over between 4 and C. >> >> Fixed that, did the format where you do not select Autoformat, and downline >> load UIT and you get the disk going tick, tick, tick as the sectors are >> formatted. Here is Terry Kennedy's instructions updated to a BA23 instead of >> a BA123: >> >> DR> STA >> >> CHANGE HW (L) ? Y >> >> # UNITS (D) ? 1 >> >> UNIT 0 >> Enter controller IP address (O) 172150 ? >> What unit do you want to format [0-255] (D) 0 ? 0 >> Would you like to revector a single LBN only [Y/N] (L) N ? >> Do you want to use the "AUTOFORMAT" Mode [Y/N] (L) Y ? N >> >> >> Would you like to use the RCT - Revector known bad blocks [Y/N] (L) N ? >> >> WARNING >> >> [text about don't proceed if you're just kidding deleted] >> >> Do you wish to continue [Y/N] (L) Y ? >> >> >> MSCP Controller Model: 19 >>Microcode Version: 4 >> >> Do you want to use manufacturing bad block information [Y/N] (A) N ? >> >> Downline load UIT [Y/N] (A) Y ? >> >> >> UIT Drive Name >> --- >> 0 RD51 >> 1 RD52 part # 30-21721-02 (1 light on front panel) >> 2 RD52 part # 30-23227-02 (2 lights on front panel) >> 3 RD53 >> 4 RD31 >> 5 RD54 >> 6 RD32 >> >> Enter Unit Identifier Table (UIT) [0-7] (D) ? 5 >> >> Continue if bad block information is inaccessible [Y/N] (A) N ? Y >> >> Please type in the serial number [8-10 digits] (A) ? 013284212 (use >> whatever you want) >> >> >> Formatting of Drive 1 Begin. >> >> [a long sequences of messages is displayed here, 1 per minute, showing the >> progress of formatting and what step is in progress on which block number.] >> >> Format Completed. >> >> And Bob's your uncle!
Re: RX01 wants
On 11/17/19 2:17 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> I think you mean RX11. > > Ah, yes — I typo’d that, thanks! > >> Isn't the BC05L-15 folded up in the case? Or did they put a short one to the >> back of the box? I can't remember now. > > I’ll have a look to remind myself when I get downstairs later today. IIRC, > everything is brought out to D-shell connectors on the back of the box? > >> Which are you on located? I know someone who was looking for a box last year. > > I’m in Oakland, CA. I’d gladly pass the box on to some other collector if I > can find rails. > >> Are they the old Calcomp cast aluminum, or the newer DEC 70 class drives? >> The DEC ones >> can sometimes be converted to RX02s. I think the older (RX01 only) were the >> M7726 and M7727. RX02 conversion required two things, both boards from RX02. The drives are not an issue as I have done it. Memory is fuzzy if I reused the old power supply. Pulled it and its the old. Then you must have a RXV21(qbus) RX21(u-bus) as well... > Will check and post back. > >Thanks! > —FritzM. > >
Re: Quantum 2080 and 540 service manuals
On 11/16/19 12:48 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctech wrote: > On 11/15/19 2:21 PM, dwight via cctalk wrote: >> Heads getting stuck on the ramp? >> Maybe it has warn a groove in the plastic. It could be the bearings on the >> head assembly as well. >> Dwight > > Dunno--I only fire the thing up about once every 5 years or so... > > --Chuck > Mine are in the once a year for the lest frequently used and a few at least once a week. I find them bullet proof. Allison
Re: Quantum 2080 and 540 service manuals
On 11/15/19 1:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 11/14/19 1:38 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: >> These showed up on eBay, I'd been looking for them for over twenty years >> >> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/quantum/Q500/81-50466A_Q500_Technical_Reference_Manual_Sep1984.pdf >> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/qunatum/Q2000/81-49218A_Q2080_Technical_Reference_Manual_Jan1984.pdf > > Thanks for that--I've had a Q540 in service for longer than I care to > speculate. Lately, it's gotten to be a little recalcitrant to start up, > but has yielded to repeated power cycling. > > --Chuck I must have about 15 maybe more of the D540s and have found them to be the fastest seeking of the MFM drives and also near unbreakable. The oldest is about 36 years old. Use them in CP/M crates, DOS boxen, PDP-11s (with RQDX2/3 controllers) and Local swap for net booted uVAX2000 and swap file disks on uVAXII (61K blocks is more than enough swap space) for VMS5.44. I've not had stiction problems... likely because I have spares! Its a Murphy's law thing. Allison
Re: TI994/A Power Supply
On 11/15/19 1:29 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Jules Richardson via cctalk wrote: >> OK, the cord "fits", but having looked at it now I'm not at all >> convinced, either. The two-pin socket is actually the same as the >> four-pin socket on the other two machines, but with the upper two pins >> (intentionally) missing. >> The PSU board inside appears to be a switcher, but I'd be inclined to >> agree with Allison that it's intended to run from low-voltage AC (I've >> put the machine back together now, but just realized that I should >> have checked the voltage rating on the rectifier stage's caps). > > If somebody found a mains cord that "fits" and plugged it in with the > low voltage AC input connected to the wall, then it might not be happy now. > > You might want to avail yourself of some of Allison's expertise. > Might I suggest a box of 8" floppies for XMAS? > > Omph, Its close enough to the Early HP detachable cord and yes if thats done (could not scream nooo loud or fast enough) the result is both load and spectacular. I forget the ideal voltage though. The only transformer are ones floating loose are the 4pin plug versions. But there are TI 99/4A sites on the net with all that. I have a crate of 8" used and a box or two of NIB. They seem to last if they don't say noname or Memorex blackwatch ;) I use them more for RX01/02. Allison
Re: TI994/A Power Supply
On 11/15/19 7:46 AM, Jules Richardson via cctalk wrote: > On 11/14/19 3:02 PM, Jules Richardson via cctalk wrote: >>> I'm about 95% certain that it does NOT take line voltage in. >> >> Hmm, I'll see if I can find a moment to take it apart later. It's >> interesting that it's a boxed unit with a cord that fits - but then it >> does have three broken keys (caps are kicking around in the box) so >> it's entirely possible that someone just parked it there for storage. > > OK, the cord "fits", but having looked at it now I'm not at all > convinced, either. The two-pin socket is actually the same as the > four-pin socket on the other two machines, but with the upper two pins > (intentionally) missing. > > The PSU board inside appears to be a switcher, but I'd be inclined to > agree with Allison that it's intended to run from low-voltage AC (I've > put the machine back together now, but just realized that I should have > checked the voltage rating on the rectifier stage's caps). Your inclined to agree, seriously. I have at least one of every model and have run them periodically for the games, refresh the media (tape and disks) and also because its collection. I have all the available documents including user and service manuals. I've even gone as far as to make a hybrid high speed system with 16bit wide memory. When you have excess a few hacked for fun. FOor those that gasp and clutch their chest I use the black model as they are common as house flies. The base early 99/4 and the late beige model are uncommon. That and ratshack used to sell the switcher, transformer, keyboard after TI quit and parted out their stock. I have a few of all. Allison
Re: Question about modems
On 11/13/19 4:16 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
> On 11/13/19 1:31 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> But, stuff like commands to the modem didn't need much of that, and
>> needed to be able to communicate in spite of wrong parameters. It
>> made sense for a modem to recognize a command, even with wrong parity,
>> etc.
>
> Okay
>
> Now I'm thinking that there are really two phases / modes of
> communications: 1) computer to modem commands, and 2) computer to
> computer via modem connection data.
>
> I think my previous statement applies to #2. I can see the value in #1
> being more liberal in what it recognizes and accepts.
>
> But, I'd still be surprised if the following would work for #2.
>
> [A]---(7E2)---{modem}==={modem}---(8N1)---[B]
>
> Would A and B be able to transfer data between each other with different
> (local) settings?
>
>
>
The case presented is an true corner case. Usually modems can be set
for rate, bits, and parity that matches the target system. AS modem
became more sophisticated (26/33/56k) they were easily set and I just a
few I have. Older 300/1200/2400 baud modems like DEC DF02/03 had
switch settings likely others did too. The 9600 were generally smart.
Those that used AT command set were very setable as there was usually
large menu of options.
There were exceptions "winmodems" that were only hardware port
and the system did all the work in software. Generally flaky
to the max. DEC DFxx series had their own non AT command set.
What is forgotten is that many of the modem programs could swich
parameters on the fly after carrier detect went true.
Like RS232/432 signaling the art and science is getting lost
to time and age. I'd bet more than half here never used a
modem or have not in more than 15-20 years.
Allison
Re: Question about modems
On 11/13/19 9:17 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > >> Did Hayes modem really do that? I thought most later modems self >> detected parity and speed and thus would have switched both the comm >> on the serial port and the data sent to the other side in the same >> parity (if the terminal was 7E1, the modem would configure as 7E1 and >> send 7 bit data to the other side. No, well maybe a few of the winmodems did. Generally all the modems I have (ISA,S100 and external serial) you need to set the baud rate, parity and word length to match the modem (is it has at or similar protocal) and also to match the other end (usualy the same). My experience is fairly recent as WSTD.Cm still support dial-in terminal or SLIP. there are also synchronous modems, different critter. Allison > Jim, I'd try reaching out to Dale Heatherington - he wrote the firmware > for the Smartmodem line. http://www.wa4dsy.com/robot/home/about > > At one point either he or Dennis Hayes had source code to the Hayes > 1200B firmware online, but I can't find it any longer. :( > > g. >
Re: TI994/A Power Supply
On 11/11/19 2:12 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 1:46 PM Jules Richardson via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> I've got another /4A however which has a 2-pin plug on the back, and that >> one appears to just take plain ol' 110VAC line voltage and the PSU is >> completely internal (at least, there's a power cord with it which fits, >> but >> that one has a few broken keys and so I've never actually done anything >> with it). >> > > I'm about 95% certain that it does NOT take line voltage in. It just has a > different internal power supply assembly that only uses one of the > low-voltage AC inputs from the external power supply instead of both. As > far as I've ever heard, there was no 99/4 or 99/4A that did not use an > external power supply. > > If it were mine, I wouldn't even consider pluging it into line voltage > until doing a lot more research on exactly what's inside. > I have at least a few 99/4, 99/4a(black), 99/4a (beige cost reduced). NONE of the 99/4 or 99/4a take line in. They differ in the power supply used internally and the brick externally. The two pin uses a single AC voltage brick (dc can be used of correct votlage) and the other uses two windings. How do the two supplies differ is one is linear and old school for the three votlages (+12,+5, -5) and the other is a low voltage switcher based on the 424 IC. NEVER connect the two pin console to 100 or 230V without the transformer. Or you will have a fire hazard! Allison
Re: Andromeda disk controller diag/format disk found
On 11/5/19 10:08 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 11/05/2019 12:11 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: >> it would be good to get it archived. >> I can do it if no one else volunteers >> >> > OK, you're on. It is a 5.25 " disk in RX50 format, RT-11 file > structure, and bootable on both PDP-11 and uVAX-II. Really? I'd like to know how that was done as they are not the same. You mean readable not bootable maybe? Allison > let me know where to send it. > > Jon > >
Re: TI994/A Power Supply
Do better research. The power is external transformer and internal low voltage switch mode power supply. Having carts is good. The bonus is an expansion box with floppy and cards. FYI back when ratshack sold both. Allison IPhoned it in! > On Nov 4, 2019, at 12:59 AM, Kevin Parker via cctalk > wrote: > I may be stating the obvious here but looking for a little advice and reassurance from anyone on the list who may have had experience with these machines. I have a couple of TI99/4A's that I was given quite a long time ago along with about 50 software cartridges (if I understand things correctly the cartridges on their own a quite a bonus). What I am missing are power supplies. On my research the inputs are 12 and/or 5 volt depending on the number of power pins on the back (mine have 2). These voltages appear to neatly align with most PC power supplies so I should be able to tap into an old AT power supply of which I have quite a few. Thank you. Kevin Parker
Re: 50 yrs. ago today
On 10/30/19 10:18 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2019 at 03:34, allison via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The whole story of what was going on was far more complex and interesting.
>
> Conceded.
>
>> Funny thing was DECnet was in 1983 the largest world wide network
>> period. By then is was well over 300 nodes and climbing fast.
>> And none of it used IP or NCP
>
> That's the _point_ here though, isn't it?
I may be a but US centric but hey I lived her all my life...
its what I know. Clearly if it was happening here it was
world wide.
I was fortunate to be an early Compuserve user and BBS user
and I also remember packet radio (amateur).
That that network was interconnected to Arpanet at that time (81 as I
remember and likely earlier) is significant. I really liked that I
could email to Valbone or Galway plants or just as easily the east coast
and Japan facilities. And still be present on the bitnet, news, and
other services and places as well.
It was one of the few large backbone networks that had mixed traffic.
at that time the interconnect and transport was mostly private but
included portals.
> Yes, old hands like list members here know that there were
> inter-computer networks before the ARPAnet.
>
> Yes, there were big WANs of DEC kit and IBM kit using DEC proprietary
> protocols and IBM proprietary protocols. There were also long-distance
> dial-up connections of all sorts but just carrying terminal traffic.
> They weren't network connections, computer-to-computer. They were
> terminal connections. All they carried was a single datastream.
>
> That is not the significance being discussed here, even if it's being
> discussed with the wrong terms.
Not so, the whole of Arpanet was my computer calls your computer a few
times a day and exchanges info/news/email as The "NETWORK" if any was
telco or lease lines.
That was [all of the above and more] before there was and significant
backbone to "hook up to". The backbone is the internet as we know it.
>
> And yes, granted:
>
>> The network wars were warming up about then (1982ish) and it
>> would take till the late 80s early 90s for IP to win that war.
>> The big explosion was WWW.
>
> But the core point here is that the WWW does not equal the Internet,
> and the Internet does not equal the WWW.
True but the point was WWW made the need for the network connectivity
"The Internet" became a commodity thing not unlike the interstate highways.
> The WWW is a 1990s thing, mid-1990s for most people outside academia,
> post-turn-of-the-century for public broadband.
>
> And to 99% of the world, even where I work in a technical company, the
> WWW *is the Internet*. My colleagues are all in their 20s and 30s and
> they do not distinguish the 2. The thought that there is a distinction
> is quite confusing to them.
WWW is not the internet it is a good reason for one and maybe the
worst utilization for one (opine). However it forced more
connectivity which is what the internet is.
Hence my usage... it can be found ON the internet, not in.
> So they honestly believe that the Internet did not exist until the
> mid-1990s and it's about 25 years old. Their age.
It was around far longer before that as my first contact was in the
late 70s.
> But the real Internet is twice as old as that, and it dates to the end
> of the 1960s. The internet is roughly contemporaneous with people
> walking on the Moon.
It is but access for the nonacademic or small company was much later
in the 80s. Back then I investigate getting connected and was basically
you needed to know someone at a Uni and get UUCP going. It was around
then the SOURCE and Compuserve became visible and BBS started to be
interconnected likely by dialup.
> Bickering about there being WANs before that, or larger proprietary
> networks, or how to define "the Internet" is counter-productive.
True as the first WAN was telco! Much of what came later either relied
on telco tech (ESS and T1 lines any one remember them?) or built on it.
For many here in the use the Carterphone decision made interconnecting
easier and competitive for products and other services.
Back before the 80s I used to provide UHF repeater service and
I remember using leased lines ("copper pairs" without equalization)
for interconnect (analog) and the cost was not trivial and the available
interconnect length was limited (miles).Those Arpanet and the like
users had the finances to have leased lines or even privately installed
lines to connect points in their reach. it was a driver to have a
common network for traffic and of course rules for how the traffic was
formed and routed.
> It's not about networks. It's about one particular network, the first
> one that wasn't a proprieta
Re: 50 yrs. ago today
On 10/29/19 8:50 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote: > We celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Internet less than 2 years > ago: > >> https://computerhistory.org/blog/born-in-a-van-happy-40th-birthday-to-the-internet/ > > The ARPAnet was a WAN (wide area network) and not an Internet, but it > was one of the three networks involved in that first test on November > 22, 1977 (after a two network test the previous year). The option to use > TCP/IP in addition to the native NCP became popular on the ARPAnet to > the point that NCP was turned off in 1983. It was hardly the only > network to get assimilated into the Internet, but it was the one with > the most impact. That makes the 50th anniversary of the first ARPAnet > packet an important milestone in Internet pre-history. > > -- Jecel > The whole story of what was going on was far more complex and interesting. Funny thing was DECnet was in 1983 the largest world wide network period. By then is was well over 300 nodes and climbing fast. And none of it used IP or NCP though it did transport P packets encapsulated using DECnet. A lot of DEC hardware was involved in the DARPA/Arpanet. The network wars were warming up about then (1982ish) and it would take till the late 80s early 90s for IP to win that war. The big explosion was WWW. Other names or routable networks, Banyan vines, and IPX come to mind besides DECNET Phase III and IV. Allison
Re: 50 yrs. ago today
On 10/29/19 8:21 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >>> The first "internet" packet was certainly a significant event. > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Paul Koning wrote: >> Indeed. So "remote communication between heterogeneous computers" >> would probably be a good description. > > not so sure, . . . I think that there had been others. BUT, first with > the IP protocol, . . . Maybe so, likely UUCP first. IP networks were a thing that sorta grew as standard developed. Either way it was well before the late 70s. Also Aloha-net was when? I thought that was the first wide area network that also used radios for links. Generally "first" works if your specific enough. But in the old Arpanet days if you said that on a list and were incomplete or wrong you got your head handed to you upside down. Sometimes gently, maybe. ;-) Allison > >> I'm not sure it's "bogus" but you have to understand the qualifiers. >> Columbus is a good example, because it's well known that other >> Europeans traveled to America quite some time before he did. However, >> those earlier visits made no lasting impression on history, while the >> one Columbus made did. > > so, . . . > "first" means earliest that WE are aware of, . . . "first" means the one > that our schoolbooks talk about, . . . Being in the history books may > mean "most important", but not "first"; the textbooks in the schools are > astonishingly inaccurate. And, yes, some of them are going to say that > Steve Jobs invented computers. > >> But it was first in the same sense that the Vikings were first to >> America. > > There were some Asians? quite a bit earlier. The residents did not > evolve here.
Re: Introduction and need help bringing some pdp11's back
On 10/29/19 8:37 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: >> I assume your building up a Qbus PDP-11. > > Yup. They're easier to get going for starters and since I got rid of the > 11/44 the fastest system I've got. I like them for the many flavors of CPU and and possible configurations. I have a few really one of every possible base PDP-11 and a few MicroVax cpus. > >> To go from RQDX3 to any drive you need a distrbution panel as used in >> BA23 or M9058 distribution board usually used in BA123. > > Yup, got one of those in the BA23. Oh, are the floppies DU0/DU1 with the > disk drive DU2 or is it different? Memory test. Look up the standard jumpers. Should be in the MicroPDP-11 handbook or slipcase doc set. >> The M9058 can plug in to any general slot in Qbus for power and does not >> past interrupt or DMA grant. Bottom/end of the bus is fine. > > Interesting, I didn't realize the RQDX series boards didn't use > interrupts or DMA. Does the CPU just poll them endlessly? Oh yes they do! The breakout board m9058 is a dumb beast. The RQDX3 is M7555. And yes you can put a RQDX3 and M9058 in a BA23 for a three drive system using half height drives (two st225 or st250 and a RX33). That is not documented but works just fine. >> Then you need a 50 wide cable from RQDX3 to the distribution board and >> the cable to match floppy from the distribution board (usually 34 wide). > > Got that. The floppy cable I have has a twist between the second and > third plugs, but I'm using the straight section only. The twisted cables are for PCs only the rest of the world never did that. Reason if you did it the normal way you could have up to four drives (but you had to setup the jumper/dip-switches) the twisted scheme maxed at 2 (no setup as both drive were the same). >> Jumper details are up to you to slug out but I have two systems using >> the RQDX3 and M9058. I also have the Micro PDP-11 using the ba23 >> distribution. Don't ask right now I can not get to them for the next >> month. Drive jumpers have to be correct. > > For the RX50's were there any jumpers? If I'm still fiddling with this > in a month I might ask for a pic of the configuration. If no one played with the RX50s (and they actually work) it should be plug and play. About half the RX50s I see are not functional and that was more than 25 years ago and it cannot have gotten better. Ir you end up with a pile you can play mix and match and maybe get lucky. Yes I believe two of them one being drive select. Right now I can maybe touch them, open them up for PICs, your kidding. ;) I'm overhauling space (one 10x14 room) that has both lab, office and ham radio... and a 50" rack of PDP11/73, BA123 MicoVAXII, and 10 Microvax3100s of multiple flavors, 2 MV2000s (one to format media and the other runs ultrix 4.2) plus a few Linux PCs to do day to day stuff. Then there is the S100 collection. >> All of this is in the various manuals but no single one! > > The RQDX3 was kind of out of my price zone the last time I worked on > this stuff. The ESDI controller is extremely fast (and does elevator > seeks so it rocks on RSX11) but doesn't have floppy support. > > I'll see if I can dig out/find any of my RQDX1 boards to cross-check the > RQDX3. Any of them should be able to run a RX50 (and lord be told I have > RD52 and RD53 drives around here) > \ RQDX1 is in compatable with RQDX3 formatted RD disks! best leave that one alone. I was lucky being both Ex-Digit (former dec) and in the immediate area so finding stuff years ago was easy and free. Long since dried up. best advice is get DOCs, as much and varied of the QBUS PDP-11 family and the various packaged systems as you can find or on line. Oh the nasty part, you will have to actually read them to find a lot of the details. Allison
Re: Introduction and need help bringing some pdp11's back
On 10/29/19 2:13 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote: > On 29/10/2019 16:28, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote: >> The real problem is I'm trying to put an RQDX3 in there instead of the >> ESDI controller so I can boot off RX50's. And I have no idea which way >> all the various ribbon cables are supposed to go. Will any 50 pin >> cable work between the RQDX3 and the BA23 distribution bulkhead? >> Anything special about the 34ish pin cable that goes between the >> bulkhead and the RX50? So far when I try to boot all devices DU0-3 >> give me not yet ready. > > Welcome back! > I assume your building up a Qbus PDP-11. To go from RQDX3 to any drive you need a distrbution panel as used in BA23 or M9058 distribution board usually used in BA123. The M9058 can plug in to any general slot in Qbus for power and does not past interrupt or DMA grant. Bottom/end of the bus is fine. Then you need a 50 wide cable from RQDX3 to the distribution board and the cable to match floppy from the distribution board (usually 34 wide). FYI that combo works with RX50, RX33 (teac FD55GFR) , and RX23 (3.5" floppy). The most desirable drive is the RX33 as it stores more and faster plus makes it easier to write a disk from a PC. Jumper details are up to you to slug out but I have two systems using the RQDX3 and M9058. I also have the Micro PDP-11 using the ba23 distribution. Don't ask right now I can not get to them for the next month. Drive jumpers have to be correct. If the cables are upside down you break nothing but noting works. Hint flip only one end! All of this is in the various manuals but no single one! Allisonn
Re: Nuke Redmond!
Its been a while but same game and I'm not a player. I just don't run windows. I jumped that ship back in 06 when burned on NT. Since then its Linux. If you play in the swamp of M$ then your run all the risks and costs. Its just not good enough to be worth the pain. Any new machine I might buy must be bare or come with Linux and in the past Asus did a few that I still run. If not I default to ITX/miniITX boards/boxes as they are easily gotten bare. It also reminded me of Micro$soft Roads, a few of us likely remember that one too. Wait till M$ AI on your car decides some roads do not meet the terms of service and refuses to go there. Since schools and Uni's all seem to be M$ based maybe the terms of service are in effect there. And tubes... I'm like one of the few here that knows how to design with them because I did. Allison On 10/7/19 10:54 AM, Ethan O'Toole via cctalk wrote: >> downloaded for free is meaningless to the actual case. Not saying I >> agree with the law they got him on as there should be some exceptions >> but facts are the facts. Btw. This was the first version of the story >> I read that mentioned that Microsoft sold replacement restore disks to >> computer refurbish shops themselves. > > I thought Microsoft would refer you to Dell, and Dell would be the ones > to sell them. > > Had the discs not looked like the original restore discs then he might > of gotten away with it? Trademark infringement and all. Fake Louie. > > It's stupid. It really is a mess trying to restore the OS when the hard > drive dies on machines that ship with recovery partitions and no media. > > I mean, the fact the restore media is on a CD/DVD just says that it's > for old crusty computers. > > New machines have the license keys baked into the BIOS, the Windows tax > is built in. > > But the Netflix Bill Gates docuemntary says he is cool so the young > people trust Microsoft. And of course the beautiful machines Apple was > making kind of went to hell as they focus on telephones, which are > declining. > > Pretty much trapped. > > - Ethan > >> Now if I made a copy of Raiders for someone else or copied it off a >> free TV transmission and sold DVDs of that, it would be a crime since >> there still is a way to buy a replacement DVD or watch/DVR it on free >> TV when it happens to be on. > > But that is different as Windows is protected by a software key, so the > restore disc is useless without it. > >> >> Cheers, >> Corey >> >> corey cohen >> uǝɥoɔ ʎǝɹoɔ >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Oct 7, 2019, at 7:15 AM, John Foust via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> At 05:51 AM 10/7/2019, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote: >>>> Must be the USA PC World. In the UK they would have tried to sell >>>> you an extended warranty as well which is really just an insurance >>>> policy >>>> .. but the question is why PC World. Don't US universities have >>>> student discount stores? >>> >>> University student discount stores? You mean those state-sponsored >>> computer shops that put all the private computer shops out of business? >>> >>> Only 1.2 :-), as for example in a nearby (10K student) university town, >>> there are no longer any private computer repair shops that a non-student >>> can go to as far as I can tell, so I'm actually picking up more business >>> because I'm one town away. >>> >>> - John >>> >> > > -- > : Ethan O'Toole >
Re: fix? Repair? or leave alone? http://rcade.camden.rutgers.edu/2020symposium.html
On 9/27/19 2:07 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 9/27/19 9:22 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote: >> On 2019-Sep-27, at 6:47 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >>> I make it a habit to assume that every email which contains just a >>> link but no explanation is a scam with a forged sender address. >>> >>> Ed, if this is actually from you and actually real, and you want >>> people to look at it, you need to say what the link is. >>> >>>> On Sep 27, 2019, at 3:10 AM, ED SHARPE via cctalk >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> http://rcade.camden.rutgers.edu/2020symposium.html >> >> >> "... explored these processes of repair and has focused on their >> non-linear temporalities." >> >> "Repair does not necessarily focus solely on “the reproduction of >> social and material order,” but also opens up space for the >> “creative, inventive and innovative work that happens in the process >> of fixing, across human and non-human bodies." >> >> "... offering us a way to historicize and contextualize the work of >> repair and maintenance. That means avoiding the romanticization of >> repair while also recognizing “traditions of women's work, domestic >> and reproductive labor, and all acts of preservation, formal and >> informal.”" >> >> >> Don't waste your time, unless you're going for some entertainment in >> watching ridiculous people. > > My reaction also--bunch of word salad devoid of meaningful information > that reads like someone's attempt at a dissertation. > > --Chuck > This topic has gotten far more words and attention than the poorly written mental spew that pretends to be intellectual. If I were grading their work it would be a D- and a fail is less significant. The scam is eating your time which is worth something with nothing in reward. Lets call it 5 minutes you will never get back. Allison
Re: phone systems, old and less-old
On 9/19/19 12:56 PM, Kevin Monceaux via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 09:05:07PM -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> 25 pairs, where >> >> White Red Black Yellow Violet for each "bank" and within each bank >> Blue Orange Green Brown Gray > > From what I've heard and read, where a 25 pair cable is concerned, it's > slate, not gray. > > > Grey or slate for outer jacket and the listed colors for wire pairs or groups of pairs in the cable. Allison
Re: Vulnerabilities (Was: [Simh] Fwd: VAX + Spectre
On 9/17/19 3:08 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> I could easily imagine a computer science exam question "Describe in >> one paragraph the specific design error that enabled the Meltdown >> attack". > > I used to have some related questions in my microcomputer operating > systems class. One student (who later became my best friend and buddy) > skipped the technical details and said, "The primary design error for > MacOS and Windoze (sic) is that they placed a lower priority on > security, than on being able to transparently and without user action, > add smell-o-vision, dancing kangaroos and yodelling jellyfish." > > (YES, that's where I got that phrase from.) Fred, I love it. My feeling is if you don't stop the mongrel hordes at the door you've lost. After all wasn't it Vonada that indicated computer are at best partially tested? Allison
Re: [Simh] Fwd: VAX + Spectre
On 9/17/19 1:49 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:40 PM Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: > >> Yes, I understand that a number of ISAs are vulnerable. The original >> paper by Kocher clearly mentions both x86 and ARM. >> >> The reason I forwwarded the question is that I'm not aware enough of all >> the VAX variants to answer whether there are any VAXen with speculative >> execution. If no, then we're done, the answer is easy. (That was the case >> when the question was asked for PDP11s.) But if yes, then it becomes >> necessary to read the paper carefully to see if any of the prerequisites >> are implemented in some VAX, and if yes, what the fix might look like. >> > > Early Vaxen are immune. Latter day ones require careful analysis since they > have some out of order things. I'm not expert enough to know for sure, > though, and the latter day stuff is half remembered from marketing material > for one of the final generations of Vax big iron before Alpha drove that > away... But I don't think many of these old beasts are still running even > if my half remembered stuff is right... > > I'm reasonably comfortable assuming that the somewhat-related "Meltdown" >> vulnerability doesn't show up in VAX, because that issue requires a >> designer who'd implement page access checking in a way I would not expect a >> DEC engineer to do. > > > I'm agree. > > Warner > > paul >> >>> On Sep 17, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Clem Cole wrote: >>> >>> Paul - be careful. All CPU's post the IBM AGS that used branch >> prediction are suspect. Russ Robelen (who was the 360/50 lead, worked on >> 360/90 and lead AGS) has the speculative executing patent. I tweaked him >> when it all came out and said - look at what you did. >>> >>> What Russ and team are great ideas and we all have used them since they >> first published about it. And the fact is that it took 40 years before >> someone even proposed that it was an issue and could become security >> exploit (by some folks in German at a security conference) and it Google 18 >> months to reduce it to practice. >>> ᐧ >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:55 AM Paul Koning >> wrote: >>> "Spectre" is one of two notorious bugs of modern CPUs involving >> speculative execution. I rather doubt that VAX is affected by this but I >> suspect others here have a lot more knowledge. >>> >>> paul >>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>> >>>> From: co...@sdf.org >>>> Subject: VAX + Spectre >>>> Date: September 17, 2019 at 5:32:42 AM EDT >>>> To: port-...@netbsd.org >>>> >>>> So, this is a bug report: >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86811 >>>> >>>> GCC would like to know if VAX needs Spectre-related work. >>>> Are any of the VAXes ever made capable of speculative execution? the >>>> first tech for doing it was in 1967, so not entirely far-fetched. >>> >>> ___ >>> Simh mailing list >>> s...@trailing-edge.com >>> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh >> >> I see this as a question of the number of angels that can dance on the point of a pin. But could GCC compile code that has system access to do nasties is a more complex question. Then again how does it get system prives to start with? First VAX represents more than a dozen different implementations from the 780 though the many CMOS versions so what might be an issue for one is likely not for another. The other half is the OS in use may be sufficiently able to keep rogue processes confined. Of course there are the LAVC and bus connected multi-cpu clustered systems. In the end its mostly meaningless as the only reliable way to take a VAX down is trip on the power cord, assuming you can get to it. Allison
Re: RL02s available
On 8/22/19 12:46 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: > I have a pair of RL02 drives available, and can bring them to VCFmw in > about three weeks. Pretty cheap. Untested. > > Contact me off list. > > -- > Will > Where are they now? Allison
Re: GW-DEC-1: A New DEC Prototyping Board
On 8/16/19 5:46 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote:
> On 2019-Aug-16, at 11:56 AM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:53 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 16, 2019, at 2:43 PM, systems_glitch via cctalk <
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure DEC wouldn't have bothered with hard gold plating if their
>>>> connectors were metallurgically incompatible :P The few busted DEC
>>>> connectors I've replaced did indeed have selective gold plating on the
>>>> contact surfaces. Most quality edge connector slots are similarly
>>>> constructed.
>>>
>>> It's been a while and I never looked in depth, but it most definitely is
>>> not true that gold is only compatible with gold.
>>>
>>> From what I remember, the detailed analysis involves an "electrochemical
>>> series", which has metals like sodium at one end, copper closer to the
>>> middle, and gold at or near the other end. Metals are compatible if their
>>> potential value differs by less than a limit. The limit depends on the
>>> environment; in an office you can have a larger limit than on a ship where
>>> you have salt spray, or a tire factory with lots of SO2 in the air.
>>>
>>> There are also some twists; I think stainless steel is compatible with
>>> many things thanks to the alloy ("stainless") properties. In fact, I think
>>> the subject came up in connection with failure analysis of coin cell
>>> battery holders. The battery cases are stainless steel; the question is
>>> what contacts are acceptable. Gold is; there may be others but some things
>>> that are used in the market are not good choices.
>
>> You can look it up in an electronegativity chart for a quick "will these
>> ruin each other" check.
>>
>> I think a lot of this comes from the SIMM era in PCs, where folks were told
>> to only use gold-flash SIMMs in gold sockets, and only tin plated SIMMs in
>> tin plated sockets.
>
>
> I've seen pieces of HP high-end lab equipment from thru the 60s that used tin
> plating on the PCB edge fingers, mating into gold-plated edge connectors on
> the backplane.
> Never quiet understood it, they (HP) were doing gold-plated edge fingers on
> other equipment at the same time.
>
>
Back in the dark ages when MITS Altair (and dirt) was new
Initial board were tin and not the fancy stuff either, sockets were
commonly gold. then came the occasional gold. What was nasty was the
gold over copper not gold/nickel/copper... Can you say Electromigration
and green plague? It was the cause of the shake well disorder as in
before powering up, pull the board and wipe the edge connector,
re-insert boards and it would be hopefully stable, maybe. I had to
retire that machine after about 2 years it was so flakey due to that.
By then the suspect boards were retired and never used again.
Looking back and having it to look at part of the issue was crappy gold
plating (looked good) and also some of the sockets did not have a hard
wipe or high spring tension both of which were likely causative.
I've not see that anywhere else. Dec connector blocks are hard wipe
and very good at what they do, make a connection. Even tin plate seems
to be no trouble at all.
Allison
Re: XXDP on PDP-11/03
IPhoned it in! > On Aug 14, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > > From: Jonathan (systems_glitch) > Yep, fun times on LSI-11/2! Heh, this one was _utterly trivial_ compared to the 'must have working memory at 0 or ODT won't start'! (I don't think I've ever seen that one in DEC documentation anywhere...) Noel ! Seriously? The architecture of pdp-11 has the first 256 words as interrupt vectors and software locations. Memory of some form there is a must. How else would the console vectors at 60 work.
Re: Ill NLS MS-230 ---manual!
On 7/29/19 10:30 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > On 7/29/2019 9:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> >> Since you replaced the batteries did you check the fuse? > Yep, good. >> Also the 4066s > Hmm, all mine are soldered in. Do you suggest I desolder and check? >> sometimes get cranky and/or the sockets. > Only one '00 has a socket. >> >> The tough fail would be the CRT. Check the heater pins with a multimeter >> to see if its open (unplug it as there is a transformer winding across >> it). > I'll check. >> Mine needed one when I got it but they were available then (1977) >> from NLS. Side effect of the hammer mechanic owner. Now it would be a >> hunt though old tube brokers. > Yep, I know that'd be the main issue, but I am hopeful it's something > less problematic. >> >> Allison > >
Re: Ill NLS MS-230
On 7/30/19 2:58 PM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk wrote: > On 2019-Jul-29, at 6:34 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: >> I have an ill NLS MS-230 Miniscope. Is there anyone on list that might be >> interested in getting it running for me? I'm willing pay for the privilege. >> I'd like to see the unit working, but I have no experience with analog >> scopes, and I'd rather just entrust it to someone who can see it to success. >> I did replace the batteries and let it charge for quite a while. The red >> LED lights up on the front when on, but no sign of a trace, even when fed a >> known good 1kHz wave. The CRT does not appear to be on. >> >> Anyone a fan of these units and might be interested in taking a look? > > > It's tempting but I'm across the border and some shipping distance away. > > Looking at the schematic (readily available online), it's fairly > straightforward. > If you're willing to spend a little time on it, you could do the basics and > check > for the power supply voltages as listed on the schematic. > > The power supply is essentially 3 stages: > 1) line -> charging circuit for the batteries, > 2) batt -> +5 regulator, > 3) +5 -> simple switching supply for +/-7V, +80V, +100V, -720V, 0.5V > heater, 12V for U11. > > With nothing on the CRT (esp with the intensity turned full up), suspicion > may fall around the little switching supply. > > A key point to note with 'scopes like this is the cathode/heater runs at high > negative voltage relative to GND, rather than the TV/monitor convention of > the anode running at high positive voltage. This is done so the amplifiers to > drive the electrostatic deflection plates can be be operated near GND level > rather than having to raise them way above GND. > > So according to the schematic the heater (acting as cathode; either pin) > should measure -720V relative to GND and there should be 0.6V across the two > heater pins. > U11 should have 12V across pins 14 & 7, but like the heater, it to is > floating at -720V below GND. > Read the manual as it has troubleshooting information and test points. If you follow that it will bring you to the fault very quickly I've not seen the switching converter fail but there are many parts of the regulators that can. Hint do yourself a favor and expand and print the schematic as at least B if not D size. it will be easier to follow. Allison
Re: Ill NLS MS-230
On 7/29/19 10:30 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > On 7/29/2019 9:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> >> Since you replaced the batteries did you check the fuse? > Yep, good. THe batteries are charged? (about 6.6V or more full charge) >> Also the 4066s > Hmm, all mine are soldered in. Do you suggest I desolder and check? >> sometimes get cranky and/or the sockets. > Only one '00 has a socket. Check only socketed devices. Do not desolder unless you have good reason to believe the part is bad. Hint check for 5-6V on the power pins of the ICs. IF you have the manual, check for all the voltages. >> >> The tough fail would be the CRT. Check the heater pins with a multimeter >> to see if its open (unplug it as there is a transformer winding across >> it). > I'll check. >> Mine needed one when I got it but they were available then (1977) >> from NLS. Side effect of the hammer mechanic owner. Now it would be a >> hunt though old tube brokers. > Yep, I know that'd be the main issue, but I am hopeful it's something > less problematic. The only problem with the CRT is finding a replacement. THey may be more common than thought. Haven't checked in decades. Allison
Re: Ill NLS MS-230
On 7/29/19 9:34 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote: > I have an ill NLS MS-230 Miniscope. Is there anyone on list that might > be interested in getting it running for me? I'm willing pay for the > privilege. I'd like to see the unit working, but I have no experience > with analog scopes, and I'd rather just entrust it to someone who can > see it to success. I did replace the batteries and let it charge for > quite a while. The red LED lights up on the front when on, but no sign > of a trace, even when fed a known good 1kHz wave. The CRT does not > appear to be on. > > Anyone a fan of these units and might be interested in taking a look? > > Jim > Jim, I have a MS15 miniscope that has been my backup since '77. Good tool and I got that one in "not working" condition. I've worked on a few MS-215s over the years. Right now I'm up to my eyes with stuff to do but but if no one answers you, maybe in the late fall (after October). If you don't have the manual its on BAMA and a few other sites. Since you replaced the batteries did you check the fuse? Also the 4066s sometimes get cranky and/or the sockets. The tough fail would be the CRT. Check the heater pins with a multimeter to see if its open (unplug it as there is a transformer winding across it). Mine needed one when I got it but they were available then (1977) from NLS. Side effect of the hammer mechanic owner. Now it would be a hunt though old tube brokers. Allison
Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral crime?)
igh zoom you see pixelated letters, where the 600 >> doesn't. The 1200 is hard to see any big difference and takes 4x as long to >> scan. I think I'll be scanning the remaining rainbow docs at 600dpi. The >> file is 22MB vs 12MB, so that's worth it. The 1200dpi version was almost >> 70MB which is starting to get a bit large for a 60 sheet document. The sweet >> spot seems to be 600dpu, at least for this material. > > Just wondering if you're aware of the freeware util Irfanview? > https://www.irfanview.com/ > It's very capable for batch processing large sets of images. Rescaling, > changing coding, cropping, etc. > > Guy The above is all nice and such. My cut. If the Book is a "one of" as in rare and likely few if any copies exist Then preservation comes first with copies by non destructive means as possible. Other books, manuals, Docs, with print volumes in the likely greater ranges of 10s of thousands or higher... I go the other way getting on line information has priority over preservation as there are plenty of copies to preserve. Crappy scans are never good, but in some cases for radio repair work they were the Rosetta stone. Better scans are not hard any more. But I go back to a 525line black and white camera on a stand taking single frames. My old Cannon CanaoScan and "Xsane" does a slow but very good job. In the end information is valuable and only if it is available as then we can share it. There are cases where we have to suffer a less than best electronic copy as preservation comes first but a copy in some usable if not the best form is still better than "I hear there is a book about it". Based on that I've taken books and manuals that I know more exist and shredded them to make copies or scan. ON preservation: Me I'd love to know what the engineering library (ML4-1) of DEC a massive quantity of aperture cards went to. Generally If I needed or wanted it it was available (during my time at DEC) if I had a valid part or model number. To me that was a preserve at all costs including the systems used to retrieve and print. Allison
Re: Anyone have any info on the obscure MX11 PDP-11 option?
On 06/24/2019 04:38 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > MX11 > Memory Extension Option If it is not KT-11 then its not memory address extension. MX-11 and variants are memory boards or systems. BEst I can do it never appears in my Qbus world so it may be a board/module level reference to the KT1-11B Memory address extension (CPU option). Allison
Re: Wanting to get my first classic computer
On 06/19/2019 10:31 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Ray Jewhurst > > > I would really like to get my own classic computer but I don't know > > where to begin. > > Two questions you need to sort out in your mind, to decide, are i) do you > want something with a bit-mapped video screen, or are you happy with ASCII > serial line only, and ii) what are you prepared to do for mass storage. > > E.g. if you really want video, you're probably looking at something like a > VAXStation or so; if ASCII will do you, a QBUS PDP-11 might be a good > start, as with patience eBay can yield a cheap chassis, CPU etc (although > in the last year or so the really cheap stuff seems to have dried up, > alas). > > Noel > Ray, I'd take that a level deeper. And old machine is like an old car. Parts will be needed, they will come from various places including scrounging, parts may be unobtainium (long gone) or those available are expensive. You will have to do most of the work as most will not touch it. I liken having old systems and keeping them going to be like having an exotic pet that would do better in a zoo and isn't warm and cuddly and might even bite! The likelihood of finding something is high, however it may require work to get it up and running. The work maybe electronic repair, finding and replacing disk drives, or finding software on suitable media. There is also potential for replacing board or repairing them. If you lucky enough to acquire a working system, the task of keeping working is also there (spare cards, media to back up the disks to and so on). For VAXStation and the like disk drives are getting old and replacement is not unlikely. Qbus PDP-11 come in a large array of flavors and you need complete documents for what you may have and is likely not DEC standard configuration so you need all the supplemental documents for the alterations. At the same time finding media to load a copy of the OS is also something to consider. Besides OS specific knowledge you will require hardware specific knowledge lest you run in merry circles for a s simple issue. This means obtaining the needed manuals and reading them, thanks to many the information is on line. In short real hardware comes with real issues to solve and often the interfaces and media are not at all modern PC like. I'd add anything you know about PCs is unlikely to be helpful at best and can lead one down an unproductive path as PCs and most older non-PC machines tend to not be similar (other than being a computer). Allison
Re: M7264 Troubleshooting
On 06/08/2019 10:37 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctech wrote: > > From: Allison > > > ODT for the two systems are very different. .. KDF-11 the ODT is part > > of the higher level code. The larger cards (11/23 and 23+) boot to > > resident (ep)rom. > > Ah, no. (Well, the KDF11 CPU's can boot to EPROM, which in the -11/23+ can be > on the CPU card; the -11/23 is a dual card and has no functionality on the CPU > card except the CPU.) Yes that is what the para quoted above implies. The resence of Eprom and serial are unique to the F11 based and later J11 quad width cards. All of the Qbus processor cards could boot to Eprom (TEV11) just like the Unibus 11s. And yes the KDF11 cpu does rely on higher level code inside the microcode its how that code was structured [and made to fit]. Also there are three cards for the KDF11, one dual width, and two quad width. The 11/23 early did not boot all devices and had different eproms (board level difference) than the later 11/23+ hence the + [and different part designations in the Mseries] designation. Back then FS noted that when requesting replacement boards and history requires it. > > The ODT in the KDF11's (and KDJ11's) is, just like in the LSI-11's, > microcode, not macro-code. From the 1982 'microcomputers and memories' > handbook, pg. 161 (in Chapter 7, "Octal Debugging Technique (Microcode > ODT)"): Save for the CPU and microcode are entirely different. ODT as a function is defined to do certain things how its done is vaguely similar at best. While implemented in ucode how its done and depnendancies are very unique to the each (again cp1600 and F11) > "The console emulator Octal Debugging Technique (ODT)is a portion of > the processor microcode ... The console ODT implemented on the LSI-11/23, > PDP-11/23 and PDP-11/23-PLUS is identical." Yes and unlike many here I have CPUs of all three form factors operational. However ODT on the dual width CPU does require a serial card as there is no way to talk to it without. That is an important difference especially if jumpered for ODT. Actually my "11" series Qbus collection includes all of the CPUs from the LSI11 though J11 based. And the bus versions are greater from the LSI11 early (and H11) though the later ones with PMI some specific to devices like the RL11 controller board set. However LSI-11/23 whatever that is, typo? So I will say the CP1600 processor of LSI-11 and the F11 (KDF-11)processor have major differences in how ODT works internally and on the bus and the code that does that are very different. To the user with a terminal its not very visible but to the service person (or someone assembling a system) it makes a difference. ODT had a specification and if you reffered to it that inside DEC it was not clear if it was microcode only that what the user/field service saw behaved in a very specific way. When applied to a specific processor it had deeper meaning. Some of that was factory test related. That Specification was an evolved thing as LSI-11 (cp1600) lead to additions and minor changes that were important to Field service and manufacturing. > and on pg. 154: > > "Unlike the LSI-11 and LSI-11/2, the LSI-11/23 does not enter console > ODT upon occurrence of a double bus error" Glad to see someone reads the books. There are other differences on power up and run states. Like the ram and console dependencies But all the M7264 posts were boiled down to the problem of not reading and understanding that ODT for that version of the CPU had dependencies. As well as the evolution of Qbus family of PDP11 CPUs and their low level and bus level idiosyncrasies. Most never refer to the LSI-11/23 that way to mean KDF-11 CPU its was a documentation error that propagated in educational services and lead to errors. LSI-11 (CP1600) was the first generation Qbus and later was F11 or J11 (or the T11). The difference was not always small as there were subtle instruction set differences and diagnostic impacts. That always had me during my yeas at DEC going which one are you talking about, as every thing had at least three names (never minding numbers) and one was usually ambiguous or a nonspecific family name. > From which I think is quite clear that the KDF11's have microcode ODT. It's not a question only the implications of how they did it. That they did it using using ucode is too road a generalization and misses implementation details. Its those details that get you when assembling systems and forgetting to include functions that are required if not used. That goes back to how DEC supported their systems when computers no longer had front panels. It was a field service requirement so they were not trying to wake a brick with nothing. Allison > Noel >
Re: M7264 Troubleshooting
On 06/08/2019 07:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > A follow-up to close out something: > > > OK, now a picture of the bus with no console card: > > > http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/jpg/BSYN-BDAL_NoMem.jpg > [Note: image re-named, to correctly say what it's showing] > > > It's a bit hard to interpret what's going on here .. The long assertion > > of BSYNC is undoubtly the CPU trying to get the console CSR to respond, > > and eventually timing out. Not sure what the short assertion following > > it is - without looking at the ucode for the ODT, there's no way to know > > what the CPU's doing. > > > Even harder to understand is what the BDAL line is doing. It looks like > > it's un-asserted (0, i.e. +3V) on the falling (electrically - rising, > > logically) edge of BSYN (which would be incorrect - see above). And then > > it hops around while BSYNC is asserted, which makes no sense at all to > > me. > > So this makes a little more sense now. > > This is actually showing a NXM cycle to main memory (apparently to address 0), > hence the '0' on BDAL10. (The second assertion of BSYNC must be somehow > associated with the NXM.) Apparently it doesn't even try to talk to the > console card unless the memory is there OK; if it can't see the memory, it > must just reset and try again. > > Here: > > > http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/jpg/BSYN-BDAL_NoCon.jpg > > is a system with memory, but without a console. A very similar picture, but > here BDAL10 _is_ '1', as expected. > > > So the original picture did in fact indicate what the problem was - had I > known enough to know how to interpret it! Schaeffer's Law strikes again! > > Although I still don't understand why the LSI-11 wants to see main memory on > the bus, in order for ODT to run. ODT doesn't use memory at all; ODT on the > KDF11 CPUs will run without any memory. ODT for the two systems are very different. The LSI-11 ODT is microcode in the base CPU MICOM set and very low level. Also the 11/2 cpu (dual width is a bit differnt), KDF-11 the ODT is part of the higher level code. The larger cards (11/23 and 23+) boot to resident (ep)rom. Also consider the difference between the restart/run between the two. If memory serves The KDF11 requires enough ram to have a few of the key addresses in low memory operational. There is a lot going on with the LSI-11 as it also initializes internal and external RAM. At the time memory nearly always dynamic and require refresh cycles before it is "on line". The manuals detail it well. Allison > Noel >
Re: M7264 Troubleshooting
On 06/08/2019 12:07 PM, Mister PDP via cctalk wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 7:35 PM Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> PS: Might be useful to check that the DLV11-J works; having a stock of >> known-good >> boards you can swap in is such a tool for QBUS debugging. > > > Tried that one out too, and it works. In fact, unlike my M8017, it will > actually respond to my inputs on my terminal. I'm pretty sure I may just > have the card configured incorrectly, but I'm not going to worry about that > for now. Right now I am working on getting a TU58 emulator set up. You > wouldn't happen to know where I could find detailed instructions > (Address/Vector, Bootstrap, etc..) on how to do this would you? > LSI-11 (or PDP-11) Microcomputer handbook there were many versions over the years earlier maybe more useful to LSI-11 users. First you really want the DLV11J as you need the ports. Configure it with the standard address for DD(TU58) and its vector. There is a list in the various Qbus LSI/PDP11 manuals. Note to boot anything from TU58 you will need a boot program and unless you add a MRV11 (eprom card) that means hand entry via ODT. See http://retrocmp.com/tools/tu58fs/265-tu58fs-pdp-11-boot-loader-operation for details. Also you will want not less that 16Kbytes of memory more its very desirable the upper limits is about 28K words as the upper 4K words is reserved mostly for boot (ep)roms and device addresses. Most common easily loaded OS is RT-11 V3 though 5.4. The most common devices: RX01 floppy LP11 Parallel printer, this can also be a port on the DLV11 for a serial printer. And of course the console VT52 or VT100 were the time frame for LSI-11 but any of the later VT2xx,3xx and later terminals work well. LSI-11 Boot, terminator card (there are variants depending on the bootable devices. ONE LAST REMINDER: LSI-11 was first of its kind and while Qbus did become a standard it did not remain completely in the original format. There is Q16, Q18, and Q22 and that specified both level of change and the address bus width. Not all cards work right in LSI-11 level bus with LSI-11 cpu and some of the older cards common to LSI-11 do not in the newer buses with 11/23 or later cpus. Some of the backplanes did specific incompatible things with the CD portion of the connector chain and in some cases had a EF connector (HEX width). Use care, read up, and have fun. Allison
Re: Modems and external dialers.
On 06/05/2019 12:01 PM, Electronics Plus via cctalk wrote: > > > -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Grant Taylor > via cctalk > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2019 10:42 AM > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Modems and external dialers. > > On 6/4/19 8:30 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> Keep in mins the hardware for auto dial required some for of micro and >> that was a post 1974 thing for the most part. > > Why did it require a micro? Could the host not perform the function > that the micro would do? > >> A few before that had a lot of TTL state machine to do that. >> They obviously weren't cheap. Simple answer was at that time micros were not yet invented. Actually they were but not economical when a 8080 board or 6502 board required a large handful of parts. Before that? Whats an 8080? > Why did that state machine need to be implemented in electronics? It was a way to have rudimentary smarts that was not quite a cpu. > Why couldn't that state machine be implemented in software on the host > using the modem & auto-dialer? > IT was the auto dialer! OR it used manual dialer. >> The dialer was often not at all as it was the human that dialed the phone. > > ~chuckle~ > >> I know of none that did both functions that required a second serial port. > > Okay. > > Reading the links that Ethan provided, it sounds like some auto-dialers > did use a second port, but it was not a second (recommended) standard > 232 port. Instead it was an RS-232 and RS-366. > > Aside: RS-366 sounds odd. A combination of serial signaling and > parallel signaling on the same port. But not the same as a traditional > parallel printer port. > Those likely existed but it was for system that did a lot of dialing out. >> My first modem was a box about 12x8x2.5 inches and it was an all analog >> modem good for 110/300 baud and it required connection to the phone line >> (pre-modular connector) and you dialed the various (and relatively scarce) >> BBSs and when you heard the tone hit the switch that put the modem on >> the phone line and you would see the carrier and data lamps do their >> thing. That was 1978ish. > > Aside: I assume that you're talking about before the small 6-position 2 > or 4 conductor plugs. Or are you referring to the older than that > not-quite-square 4 pin plug? Or was the modem actually hard wired in > with no plug / jack at all? For a lot of years the older hardware TELCO had ws still in place. I still have a 500 series deskset and it works well! So at that time I connected using whatever ways needed, sometimes I upgraded to makes it easier next time. Modular is the RJ stuff newer and still in use, the older was the larger clunky 4 pin plug. My house still has a few. >> A modem that could dial was maybe 1983-5 or so at affordable prices >> (under 300$) for 300 baud. > > *nod* > > I have this mental picture, which I think is based on something I've > seen at some point in the past, that was a device that attached / > actuated / ??? a traditional rotary dial phone. As in it had a finger > that interfaced with the dial and something that could rotate it to dial > the digit in question, rewind (term?), and dial the next digit in question. > Wild idea but never saw that one. I have the advantage of spanning computing from late 60s to now. The intersting case was 1970, PDP10 with PDP8I the 8I did all the communications between the 10 (blkio) and the modem bank which was dial in only. Over 300 users on the BOCES LIRICS computer network and 98% of them were ASR33 with 110baud acoustic coupled modem. the last 2% were ASR35 and Hazeltine 1000 and 2000 terminals in the center (local 1200baud!). So I remember pre-carterphone to 56K modems, then DSL and now fiber. My memory of carterphone was a interconnect for radios (Amateur radio) and how we then just did it being very careful with transformer isolation. By 1970 I was working in the land mobile industry with remote base radios connected with RTL (Radio Tie Lines) which were just a pair of rented wires (owned by TPC aka telco) between the business to the hill where the radios were. They had to pass DC and every so often some bright eyes would add load coils and effectively short out the line. That would cause a day of troubleshooting as it was never the TPCs fault. At least according to them. Allison
Re: Modems and external dialers.
On 06/04/2019 09:45 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > Does anyone have any experience working with modems that didn't include > internal / auto dialers? > Yes, Novation cat, Hays, and a few others. Dial the phone and put it in the cradle or flip a switch. Most of the 110/300boaud bel 101 and bell103 modems were "manual". Keep in mins the hardware for auto dial required some for of micro and that was a post 1974 thing for the most part. A few before that had a lot of TTL state machine to do that. They obviously weren't cheap. > They came up in a conversation in a newsgroup and I realized that I know > of them, but know virtually nothing about them. > > I think they were separate devices, which probably means that they > likely had separate serial ports to talk to each of them. Did they > support some sort of pass through? Or did they really require two > serial ports on the host? The dialer was often not at all as it was the human that dialed the phone. I know of none that did both functions that required a second serial port. For example the DEC ealy modems required the user to dial the phone and pushing a button would connect it. THe DEC modem had a protocal was different from the later ATDT (Hays modems). My first dial up was 1969, Bell 103 external to the TTY. Later versions had rotary dial or touch tone and the modem in the TTY stand. My first modem was a box about 12x8x2.5 inches and it was an all analog modem good for 110/300 baud and it required connection to the phone line (pre-modular connector) and you dialed the various (and relatively scarce) BBSs and when you heard the tone hit the switch that put the modem on the phone line and you would see the carrier and data lamps do their thing. That was 1978ish. A modem that could dial was maybe 1983-5 or so at affordable prices (under 300$) for 300 baud. Allison
Re: 11/93 Rebuild - SCSI HD now boots RT11
On 05/31/2019 03:27 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote: > > On 31/05/2019 19:40, allison via cctalk wrote: >> On 05/31/2019 02:04 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Well I now have a bootable SCSI drive on my 11/93. Its not RSTS/E >>> (yet) but it is RT 11 and reliable. >>> >>> Its a bit baseline but it runs. >>> >>> So next up was to see if we could get the RQDX3 to co-exist with the >>> SCSI controller. >>> >>> I switched the base address to 160336 and it does not stop the SCSI >>> drive booting as DU0. >>> >>> Had the RQDX3 been on the normal base address I think you would get the >>> HD as DU0 and the two halves of an RX50 as the next two drives. >>> >>> But what happens to the RX50's when you move the RQDX3 to 160336 ? >>> >>> Rod >>> >>> >>> >> Under RT-11 you have to do a SET CSR and sometimes Vector when you move >> a device off the default. Its how I could have two DD (tu58) on teo >> serial ports. Same for RX02, RL02, with RQDX3 (with RD52 and RX33) >> where the RQDX was set to a nonstandard address. >> >> As I remember the CMD controller is nominally the same as RQDX3 for the >> same address. so likely RQDX at the secondary address (see the manual) >> will be treated well if not use the set utility. It only comes to mind >> as I had two RQDX3s in one machine to make RD52 to RD52 copies at one >> point. Also my BA123 uVAX-II has both CMD SCSI controller (Rz56 x2) and >> RQDX3 for RD52 wher the RD52 was the swap and page disk (QD540s are fast >> but only 31mb) and by having independent channels helped with system >> performance. >> >> RSTS/E the conventions for non standard device addresses are different >> but there is a mechanism for addressing that. I've not used that. >> >> Any of the PDP11 unix again there is a way but the process varies with >> version and is unknown to me. I tried once to get V^ to talk to more >> than RL02. >> >> In the end first make sure you using the suggested secondary controller >> address. Then use the OS dependent tools for installing additional >> drives. >> >> Allison > > Hi > OK lets see if I can understand whats going on. > > 1. The CQD sits at the normal 17772150 base address > 2. RQDX3 is at the alternate 17760334 base address. OK good address and non interfering. > 3. The map function in the 11/93 monitor sees both > 4. The SCSI drive boots RT11 with the RQDX3 in place. OK that means the RQDX is not causing issues but likely the OS does not see it as the DU/DUX driver is not configured to see that address and the 11/93 map function does not communicate with the OS. So unless the OS is told that RQDX3 is additional 334Q address its not even going to bother with it or by it. > 5. So if I connect an RX50 through the cable splitter as normal then > what device(s) is(are) the RX50 No idea, until you set the du1 (the other is du0 I memory hasn't croaked) its a non sequitur. So at the prompt >set du1 CSR=17760334< or something along those lines (syntax) will connect the controller to the OS. At this point since I've not done it in a decade you may need to init the device and media, copy stuff to it then set the boot device. > Rod Beats me! Never got a 11/93. Latest Qbus-11 I have is a J11 -11/73 the smaller dual width card (no PMI). Never seen the map function. However having said that, the CPU may know what disks are there but once the boot operating gets to the disk resident boot then the OS has to be up to it meaning all the initial setups in place or if the device was bootable a script (or manual entry) that loads and set up everything. That much is certain for RT-11. For example I run RT11XM from VM: [memory disk], however first you have to init VM: and put stuff there and set it up so you can boot it. So happens I do that from DD (tu58 tape) but I've done it from RX02, RL02, and DU. For RSTS and others the game is different but you first muct boot from a device already know to the copy of the OS on a device that the system knows how to boot from. One thing that is consistent is that the boot for any device is often the same in that it calls for the device to access the bootable track and sector or base LBA, the MSCP devices [cmd or RQDXn] have their own thing where the controller knows the place for a given media it can use. In that case the system boot in rom is a message to "give me the boot block at xx ram address" and transfers to that. Allison
Re: 11/93 Rebuild - SCSI HD now boots RT11
On 05/31/2019 02:04 PM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk wrote: > Hi > > Well I now have a bootable SCSI drive on my 11/93. Its not RSTS/E > (yet) but it is RT 11 and reliable. > > Its a bit baseline but it runs. > > So next up was to see if we could get the RQDX3 to co-exist with the > SCSI controller. > > I switched the base address to 160336 and it does not stop the SCSI > drive booting as DU0. > > Had the RQDX3 been on the normal base address I think you would get the > HD as DU0 and the two halves of an RX50 as the next two drives. > > But what happens to the RX50's when you move the RQDX3 to 160336 ? > > Rod > > > Under RT-11 you have to do a SET CSR and sometimes Vector when you move a device off the default. Its how I could have two DD (tu58) on teo serial ports. Same for RX02, RL02, with RQDX3 (with RD52 and RX33) where the RQDX was set to a nonstandard address. As I remember the CMD controller is nominally the same as RQDX3 for the same address. so likely RQDX at the secondary address (see the manual) will be treated well if not use the set utility. It only comes to mind as I had two RQDX3s in one machine to make RD52 to RD52 copies at one point. Also my BA123 uVAX-II has both CMD SCSI controller (Rz56 x2) and RQDX3 for RD52 wher the RD52 was the swap and page disk (QD540s are fast but only 31mb) and by having independent channels helped with system performance. RSTS/E the conventions for non standard device addresses are different but there is a mechanism for addressing that. I've not used that. Any of the PDP11 unix again there is a way but the process varies with version and is unknown to me. I tried once to get V^ to talk to more than RL02. In the end first make sure you using the suggested secondary controller address. Then use the OS dependent tools for installing additional drives. Allison
Re: M7264 Troubleshooting
On 05/29/2019 07:17 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctech wrote: > > From: Josh Dersch > > > how is the backplane in the H11 currently configured? (i.e. what boards > > are in what slots?) Could the issue here be something as simple as a > > break in the qbus due to a misplaced board? > > He did mention that he had the console card in the slot next to the CPU, which > I think is what you're referring to - but it shouldn't matter for ODT, which > doesn't use interrupts, only programmed I/O. > > A QBUS system will work fine without continuity of grant (interrupt, DMA) > lines to boards which only respond to DATI/DATO (memory, non-interrupt I/O, > etc). Just for grins, I took my -11/03, and plugged the console card in a > bunch of slots down, leaving several empty slots between it and the CPU, and > it worked 'fine': ODT was fine, and it would run "BR ." programs fine, too. > > So unless there's actually a break in one of the 'broadcast' bus lines (e.g. > BDALxx, etc) on that backplane, between the CPU slot, and the slot the console > card is in, or something like that... > > I suppose it would be worth while checking BDALn, BSYNC and BDIN _on the > console card_ (I'm not sure where he was looking at them, before) just to > rule out the broken bus line possibility. > > > One thing that's bugging me, though; he said "BDAL3-13 .. are all active and > jump around in some manner". But for the ODT microcode loop trying to read the > console CSR, i.e. 0177560, BDAL7 (0200) and BDAL3 (010) should be 0, i.e. > un-asserted. > > So why are they jumping around too? Is this somehow related to the odd > behaviour > I was seeing on my machine with no console card, where the BDAL line was > behaving > in a way I couldn't understand? > BDAL, Bus Data and Address lines. During the nominal cycle the address, then strobe, then data (from ot to an addresses device or memory) and controls asserted for the cycle type (ReadWord, Read ByteHigh, ReadbyteLOW, WriteWORD and so on. There are also transfers on the same lines for interrupt vector and priority. All that makes the BDAL lines busy... Generally the LSI-11 is a bit stranger as it also does bus level memory refresh for dynamic ram card that do not refresh themselves. The contemporary memory cards did not self refresh and used the early 4K or 16K 16pin devices. Memory used for 11/23 (f11) and later by then self refresh on the local card level was the norm and cut bus traffic load. Many of the functions were replicated as part of the T-11 CPU. > I'm going to look into that more, to try and understand what I'm seeing there, > but it won't be today, which is 'crane day'! Big tree! Allison > >Noel >
Re: Possible PUTR bug?
My Solution is easier, least for me. I have a few Z80 CP/M machines with 765A in it and if it can't read it its likely due to being hard sectored or M2FM. I has 3.6, 5.25 and 8" and the 5.25 are Teac FD55gfh which are dual speed and can do all modes. With my own software and utilities it does whatever even RX180, RX50, RX33, and RX22/23 formats from the DEC pool. The PC machine for when that stuff is needed is a DELL pizza box that has 32mb of ram and 486dx/66 (ISA/ISA16) and can run dos though NT4 as needed as I have a buttload of ST3660As as media for them (have two as a spare). That machine uses a combo IO controller for the FDC seems to do what I ask of it. Also an old Compag with similar features and PII and 32MB and also does Ethernet but the disk controller is a newer ISA16 using a combo chip and most of the combo chips after late 90s-ish seem to have an even shorter VFO sync window (flash blindess). I neither expect nor desire modern machine with anything past NT4 to behave well with old disks. Though Mini-ITX boards all seem to support everything and anything and have all the legacy ports. They all run linux and if needed a partition (60mb of disk is trivial) for MSdos 6.22 or freedos. Oh, unless its under threat the OS is linux, freedos, or if required XP Though the latter is usually under VMware or Virtualbox on Linux.. I just got tired of all the winders hassles and requirements for insane hardware needs every few years. Most stuff runs fine under dosemu or wine. As to RT11, I have run mostly V5.0x and as needed if a device required it a later driver borrowed from V5.04 or later. It just seems to work with out much pain. As to running a RX50 on a PC... That drive was a neat thing but its mostly the interface is incompatible with most standard floppies and a FD55A/B or any of the 48tpi 40 track drives will read and write the media. I make a point of only using it on PDP-11 as transfer media, its low density so its marginal for much. Keep in mine that drive select is used to select the A or B drive of a RX50 there is no side. They had a terrible track record for reliability. I can put Two RX33 [teac fd55gfh] in the same space and store more. Some to think of it most Late PC 5.25 and 3.5 inch drives are incompatable with old standard [TM100 and that era] as many do not have a 1 of 4 drive select jumper and use the funky PC only twist cable. I neatly sidestep all of the cruft and hacks needed for super wizbang winXP and later machines. I figure if I'm going to play with old hardware I need to retain the old hardware to maintain them. So I retained the best of the best old PCs as they bulk of them are crap. I buy new hardware that is not neutered. Mini/Micro-ITX board with atom or celeron CPUs (really all that's needed) are cheap and easily built up into linux boxes or if you must any of the older 32 bit winders incantations. Allison ]On 05/11/2019 11:22 AM, Douglas Taylor via cctech wrote: > I understand your frustration, because all I really wanted to do was > read/write RX33 and RX50 5-1/4" floppies to move data in and out of my > microPDP11. Once, I wanted to write an RX23 3-1/2" floppy with OpenVMS > PAK files that could be read on an DEC Alpha. > > Finding a PC that supports the 5-1/4" floppy drive is difficult, the > BIOS or FDC chips only support 3-1/2" floppies in many late model PC's. > It appeared only a few of the older PC's that supported the 5-1/4" > drives could actually change the spindle speed so you could read/write > RX50 format. > > I dedicated a DELL XPS 233H to this task, 32MB memory, Pentium II cpu. > Boots from 3GB hard disk, DOS and Win 3.1 (if you so need it). I also > have an IDE to CF card adapter standing by when the hard disk dies. > Love to have something with a smaller form factor, but it gets the job > done. > > Doug > > > On 5/11/2019 10:35 AM, Charles via cctalk wrote: >> Just an update... I spent an entire long afternoon wrestling with that >> old PC, trying to find some combination of HDD jumpers and BIOS >> settings that would allow the XP hard drive to boot with another drive >> attached (either on the slave connector or the secondary channel with >> the CD-ROM removed). No dice. >> >> So I had the bright idea to use Minitool's Partition Wizard, and >> shrink my Windows partition so there'd be room for a newDOS partition. >> But it won't even run (probably because I have only 64 MB RAM on that >> box). Grrr. It's unbelievably slow anyhow, so more SDRAM on order, >> which is really cheap these days. >> I'd get a newer PC for the workbench, but need to keep the old >> motherboard because there are a couple of devices (including a PB-10 >> PROM programmer) which are ISA slots. >> >> So, this has become a Windows/PC (ugh) project instead of just being >> able to play with my PDP-11... >> >
Re: How were 32-bit minis built in the 70s/80?
On 05/11/2019 09:30 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
> On 5/11/2019 6:28 PM, allison via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Not all were 74181 based, Thats an early 1972 part and but 1975 it was
>> already getting old though useful as it evolved to 74S and 74F series.
>> The 82s100 and 105 series were out there and even by 1980 the AMD 2900C
>> series was getting long in the tooth. Mask programable gate arrays were
>> in the 1000 and up gate level by 1980 and growing by doubles every 6
>> months to a year. Don't got get programmables like PAL/GAL logic.
>> There was a lot of designs and even inside DEC you might see several
>> approaches depending on what machine and the specific date. For example
>> the 780, 750 and 730 used very different technology. I will not go into
>> those that also went the ECL {10K, 100K, 1M families] route.
>
> 74181 is FAST, but I disagree with the way most computer architecture is
TTl in general is slow a ALU based on 181 is hitting the wall at 5mhz
with 12 or 32 but carry lookahead.
> designed. You have a fast micro code cycle, that is out of sync with
> main memory, that tries to emulate a Harvard? Memory model.
> It looks fast only on paper or demo programs sadly.
> The few schematics I have seen (PDP 8/11) have 74H logic hidden
> inside so you can't say they are pure TTL logic.
Yes, they are mostly TTL and the typical 8efm use MSI ttl such as
7481, a bunch of them.
I'm likely one of the few that took a 8E and ran semiconductor ram then
pushed the clock up to the breaking point and you get to about 4x and
you start getting timing errors and critical path delays that mess with
the logic. However at 4X you doing a lot and decently fast but you
needs a faster generation of logic.
>
> A cpu instruction has 4 parts in general
> a) getting the instruction and literal data from memory
> b) calculating the the effective address
> c) fetching the data from memory c) ouputing data
> d) using the data d) saving to memory.
>
Many of those things can be done in parallel.
Whoever RMW cycles on memory even with very fast memory will slow the
system as you have cycles that cannot be interrupted mostly in the
slow memory.
> It is very hard to speed up this cycle because this has
> sync to extenal memory. Memory is the bottleneck
> is the true speed limit in any sytem. Add in virtual
> memory and in multitasking and graphics
> no wonder the PDP 8 at with TTL gives better response
> time.
Memory is often the bottleneck then IO especially block IO.
The response time of PDP8 was mostly due to a simple OS and nothing to
get in the way.
The name for that is system overhead and PDP-8 had little and what it
did have was written in assembler for speed and compact code as it was
also space constrained.
Allison, have the shirt.
> Ben.
> PS: this message was delayed for about a minute as
> background program froze the sytem.
>
Re: How were 32-bit minis built in the 70s/80?
On 05/11/2019 07:14 PM, Warren Toomey via cctalk wrote:
> I'm building my own 8-bit CPU from TTL chips, and this caused me to think:
> how were 32-bit minis built in the late 70s and early 80s? In particular,
> how was the ALU built? I know about the 74181 4-bit ALU, and I know (from
> reading A Soul of a New Machine) that PALs were also used.
>
> Did companies get custom chips fabricated, or was it all off-the-shelf chips
> with a few PALs sprinkled in?
>
> Thanks, Warren
>
Lets see the VAX 11/780 hit the street in 78 and DG followed with theirs
soon after and of course the IBM 360 was 32bit so the number can be
fairly large. Soul of a new machine was more romantic but it was of
early VAX era and the Eclipse was the result.
Reading the following woould be better as it compared and contrasts DEC
hardware and instill an idea of ISA design and then its hardware
implementation. Its a good read and free!
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/_Books/BellComputerEngineering.pdf
Building now is more based on what you have or can get not what was used
then as most were pushing for speed vs price and the available parts
were never fast enough and cost too much.
Not all were 74181 based, Thats an early 1972 part and but 1975 it was
already getting old though useful as it evolved to 74S and 74F series.
The 82s100 and 105 series were out there and even by 1980 the AMD 2900C
series was getting long in the tooth. Mask programable gate arrays were
in the 1000 and up gate level by 1980 and growing by doubles every 6
months to a year. Don't got get programmables like PAL/GAL logic.
There was a lot of designs and even inside DEC you might see several
approaches depending on what machine and the specific date. For example
the 780, 750 and 730 used very different technology. I will not go into
those that also went the ECL {10K, 100K, 1M families] route.
Your question has to be based on a specific date window and narrow at
that as keep in mind by 1978 16bit CPUs on silicon were a fact
(Ti9900, SBP9900, F11, T11, Nova, 8086).
Re: RT-11 doesn't recognize my 3.5" floppy
On 05/07/2019 11:15 AM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote: > Very interesting , now that you got it to work, what can you use it for? > Will it be an exchange media with PUTR? > > Doug > > On 5/6/2019 6:20 PM, Charles via cctalk wrote: >> I have installed an RQDX3 and the M9058 distribution board in my >> 11/23+. Since I don't have a 5.25" drive yet, I hooked up a 3.5" HD >> (1.44 MB) drive from an old PC. >> After a struggle (which I documented on VCFED's DEC forum), I managed >> to get all the jumpers and cables set correctly, and now my XXDP >> diagnostics (ZRQA?? ... ZRQF??) recognize the drive as an RX33 (DU0:, >> logical drive 0 since no hard disks are attached). It passes all the >> tests, and I can INIT, DIR, and copy files to it using the limited OS >> with the XXDP suite. The LED on the RQDX3 blinks once when the drive >> is accessed. So far so good. >> Did you actually test the drive by formatting, reading and writing? >> But, when I boot the system (with RT-11SJ V5.01), it can't see the >> drive at all. Attempts to access it result in the command hanging >> indefinitely, the drive does not select, and the RQDX3 lamp flashes >> rapidly. SHOW DEV:DU does say that the handler is installed for the >> correct 172150, 154 location. However, SHOW DEV:DUn where n=[0..3] >> displays two blank lines then back to the dot prompt. >> >> Is my version of RT-11 just too old to recognize an RX-33? If so, >> what do I need to fix this? Presumably a later DU.SYS? >> Thanks for any help. Most of my experience is with PDP-8's so this is >> slow going... >> -Charles >> > RT11V5 works for me using RQDX3 and the distribution board in the BA23 box assembled as a MicroPDP-11 with RX33 and RD52 (Quantum 31mb). Never thought much about it other than to make sure the RX33 was jumpers were correct and making a dummy panel for the smaller than RX50 drive. The 11/73 system has the RQDX3 and the signal distribution board (m8058) out of BA123 to hook up RD52, RX33, RX23 and never had issues due to addressing devices under RT11. Is it possible you have a interrupt grant gap between the various boards and the RQDX? That would cause a hang. If you successful it makes using PUTR easier though RX50 works for that too just smaller. Allison
Re: Excessive amount of time in interrupt stack mode
On 04/30/2019 02:02 PM, John Klos via cctalk wrote: >> The system is mostly idle, RAM is mostly free (there's 32mb), >> there is almost no paging, but the CPU is spending upwards of 70% of the >> time in the interrupt stack mode. > > If I had to guess, I'd say the most likely culprit is ethernet. Try > disconnecting ethernet, perhaps the AUI, too, and see if it's any > different. > > John Last time I'd seen that another system on the network was jabbering... it had a bad DEQNA. Allison
Re: Greetings
On 04/29/2019 11:37 AM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 04/29/2019 06:47 AM, allison via cctech wrote: >> On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: >>> On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: >>>> I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in >>>> experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. >>> ACK >>> >>> I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware >>> that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. >>> >>> There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. >>> >>> >>> >> You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and >> typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). > Well, for command-line computing (well, this IS the classic computing > list) you can do a lot. > Our first 11/780 had half a megabyte of memory. Friday afternoon one > memory board went bad, and I pulled it out. A user group ran a > gigantic batch job of mechanical analysis over the weekend on 256 K! > I was amazed, I really thought it would thrash itself to death on that. > > I ran a microVAX-II at home on one meg for years. The typical environment during the DEC years '83-93 was a 780 with a 4-12mb and dozens of users or more. In 83 that meant 3.2 or later and much of the time was V3.8 or 3.9 till maybe 86ish then V4 and soon after V5. The years 83 and 84 I fondly remember V3.6 and later mostly 3.8 and often the best available machine was a PDP-11 [PRINCE] and [VIDEO] as the terminals and printers machines were running RSTS and phase II DECnet. Others of memory were MILRAT, REX, and ROYALT and later (1989) my own work box VIDSYS (uVAXII BA123]. If memory serves V4 was the last that ran in 1meg, V5 pushed that higher as a 4 meg system was more common then. However the Qbus uVAX has a RD54[system] and RD52[swap] on separate MSCP controllers for performance as thats where they bottlenecked when heavy swapping. All my uVAXen have run from V4.4 [MicroVaxII/GPX] or later and my nominal version is 5.4. Though I have a RZ56 with V7.2 on it. All are physical hardware in the Qbus BA123 realm and M3100 series. > > But, I never experienced VMS before about version 3.4, I think. I'd > really hate to run any VMS that didn't have loadable device drivers. > Doing the brute force sysgens was so RSX-11 ish. > I think VMS 1.5 still had a bunch of utilities running in PDP-11 > emulation. > > Jon > Running anything before V3 is painful as it was a build. Also V1 was tied the 780 and that did PDP11 emulation mode for a lot of stuff. VMS changed a lot from 4.2 to 4.6, long file names are one that comes to mind as well as phase III and IV DECnet. That was a long time ago. Allsion
Re: Greetings
On 04/29/2019 09:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 2019, at 7:47 AM, allison via cctech >> wrote: >> >> On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: >>> On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: >>>> I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in >>>> experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. >>> ACK >>> >>> I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware >>> that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. >>> >>> There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. >>> >> You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and >> typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). > Does it support MSCP? If not, RP06 would certainly serve for your disks. > > paul > I believe its pre MSCP. V1.5 is pre 1981 if memory serves. MSCP I think was introduced Qbus systems in the 80s just prior to the MicroVAX. VAX-11/78-- was introduced in '78 and the next generation was around 1980 with the 730 and 750 for the small systems and the 782 and 785 for the larger ones.
Re: Greetings
On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: > On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: >> I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in >> experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. > > ACK > > I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware > that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. > > There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. > > > You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb).
Re: What do to with an Internet-connected PDP-11?
On 04/29/2019 03:20 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 4/28/2019 11:34 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote: >>> Maybe it would be possible to get a text only browser running? >> >> I think Gopher would be a better fit, personally. That's easy to write, >> parse and display. >> > That might be true, but what sites still provide that service. > A web novel app might work. 5K of REAL text, 5Meg of ads,pop ups and > java script. :( > Ben. > > > With a PDP-11/23 and full boat ram (18bit) you can run more than RT-11 and something like V6 unix or maybe RSX might be a better choice for anything networking. An OS that supports swapping and maybe virtual memory would help even at the expense of speed. Networking does require some level of multitasking as well so RT-11/FB is likely more useful than vanilla RT. Allison
Re: Televideo 925 character rom dump
On 04/24/2019 08:47 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > On 4/24/19 5:46 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: > >> The 8049 is readable just like the 8048 save for 2k device. I worked >> for NEC back then and had access to intel parts too. > is that true for "HC" parts or just NMOS? > > All! The HC were different lower power process thats all. if it were 8051 thats different. My samples include NMOS, NMOSII, and HCMOS. and the NEC parts through CMOS Allison
Re: Televideo 925 character rom dump
On 04/24/2019 07:55 PM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk wrote: > At 08:14 AM 24/04/2019 -0700, you wrote: >> >> On 4/24/19 5:39 AM, Guy Dunphy wrote: >> >>> The keyboard controller is an 8049. Firmware not readable. >> 8049s aren't protected. they are 2k versions of the 8048 >> and can be read as 8749s > I did try reading it as an 8749. By 'not readable' I meant it read as all FF. > Using a Topmax device programmer; a fairly good brand. > Interestingly when I selected Intel 8749 it actually hung on reading. > Repeatably. Never seen that happen before. > Selecting NEC 8749, it read, but got all FFs. > Considering there's something odd going on, I was quite relieved to verify > the chip still works afterwards. > I hadn't gone as far as getting out the databooks and checking whether 8049 > should be readable. > I thought they are, but the absense of '8049' type in the chip programmer > seemed to suggest otherwise. Unless they > were 'induced' to leave it out to hinder copying? > Shall look into it further. > > Guy > The 8049 is readable just like the 8048 save for 2k device. I worked for NEC back then and had access to intel parts too. If you can't read it its your programmers fault, FYI the set up is nearly the same as 8749 but the voltage for the read function is lower. Here is except of page 2-19 of the intel MCS48 family manual july 78... "The processor is placed in the READ mode by applying a high voltage (+25V for the 8748, +12V for the 8048/8049) to the EA pin and +5V to the TO (8748 only) input pin. RESET must be at OV when voltage is applied to EA. The address of the location to be read is then applied to the same lines (TTL levels) of BUS and Port 2 which output the address during single step (see below), The address is latched by a "0" to "1" transition on RESET and a high level on RESET causes the contents of the program memory location addressed to appear on the eight lines of BUS." It is possible that the devices is being used with external rom/eprom the test for that is pin7 EA, if EA is high then program access is external. it was very common to use any 8048/49 in place of 8035/39 in a system and often cheaper due to misprogrammed parts that can still be used with external rom. FYI there are no "protection bits". Allison
Re: PDP-11/83 w/FPU?
On 04/18/2019 04:19 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Allison > > > Experience is that an 11/23 or 23+ will run V6 as mine does. > > What changes did you make to get it to run? (I assume the stock binary > wouldn't run.) > > Noel The hardest part was was getting it on a RL02 from the PUPs library. The binary was stock for that device, its only been maybe 15 or more years. V6 was low enough in requirements that a valid mass storage was the big thing. Choices were RK05, RL01/02, and maybe RX01(way too small). Allison
Re: PDP-11/83 w/FPU?
On 04/18/2019 10:56 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: W2HX > > > i have a few CPUs available to me, a 11/23+, an 11/73 and I also have > > available to me an 11/83 > > I would like to try to run as many different OS's as may interest me, > > including some unixes as possible (bsd...etc). > > Early Unixes in general will run on those machines - but not straight off the > tape (since they didn't exist then, and have quirks which aren't supported). > > I've brought up V6 on a /23 (which must have the KTF11-A MMU chip); here: > > http://gunkies.org/wiki/Running_UNIX_V6_on_an_-11/23 > > are instructions on exactly what (minor) changes need to be made for it to > run. > > The /73 and /83 should be subsets of that, although you'll want to start with > m45.s, because those machines support the split-I-D MMU of the -11/45. (A /23 > Unix binary would boot/run on them, if you don't feel like doing a special one > for them.) I haven't yet tried V6 on them; if you want me to, and do a > writeup, let me know. The /73 and /83 have LTC registers, so on those you > won't need the LTC hack. > > Also, you may know this already, but if not, note that the /83 is a PMI: > > http://gunkies.org/wiki/Private_Memory_Interconnect > > machine, and _MUST_ be plugged into a Q/CD backplane _only_; plugging into > a standard Q/Q backplane will _damage_ it. > > > > would I see any improvement in performance with the FPU compared to > > without it? Or does the application running need to be something like > > fortran to see any perceivable difference? > > As someone noted, the /73 and /83 implement thefloating point instructions in > microcode, so the code can't tell if the optional FPJ11 FP hardware > accelerator is plugged in or not. In general, only on applications (the > language is not relevant) which are heavy users of FP would you see any > difference. > > On the /23, with no KEF11-A FPU chip plugged in, there are no floating point > instructions at all, so any application which tries to use them will blow out > (although under V6 there's an emulator); see here: > > http://gunkies.org/wiki/Setting_up_UNIX_-_Sixth_Edition > > and search for 'floating point' to see discussion of it). > > > > From: Ethan Dicks > > > v5, v6, and v7 UNIX shouldn't require any sort of math hardware. > > Don't know v5/v7 in detail, but AFAIK that's accurate. V6 can _support_ > FP hardware on machines which have it, and is otherwised prepared to > emulate those instructions (see above). > > > From: Paul Koning > > > I think that was typically called "EAE" (extended arithmetic element), > > a Unibus peripheral that implemented integer mul/div ... It only > > applies to 11/20 and 11/05 since all the other machines have the > > relevant instructions built into the CPU. > > Also the -11/04 and -11/03 were both missing the EIS; the former could use > the EAE, for the latter the optional KEV11-A or KEV11-B microcode chips both > provide it. > > > From: Josh Dersch > > > The EAE was also an option on the 11/40. > > Technically, on any UNIBUS machine; on the /40, the EIS (added instructions, > not the device model of the EAE) was available via an optional board in > the CPU. > > Noel All, Experience is that an 11/23 or 23+ will run V6 as mine does. REason it does is V6 does not require I support The usual issue is not FPU for Unix as questioned but if there is a need for I spaces. The 11/23 (f11 chipset) does not support that but the J11 (11/73 and 11/83) do support that. I have a 11/73 so I could run BSD and a few others commonly found that require I support. There may be other versions that place less of a burden on requiring I However I've not encountered a need for FPU connected to OS. Also the assumption for many unix is MMU support but not all DEC OS have that requirement. Allison
Re: Adding floppy drives to my PDP-11?
On 04/13/2019 06:07 PM, Charles via cctalk wrote: > I have a PDP-11/23+ with two RL02's in a corporate cabinet but no > floppy drives. Also an RXV21 (M8029) card. > > My PDP-8/A has RX01 drives, and I was hoping just to run the cable > over to the -11 when I wanted to use floppies on it. > But after some searching, it appears that the RXV21 will only work > with an RX02 drive... > > Just wondering what my options are for hooking up any kind of floppy > drives. > I could sell the RXV21 and buy/trade for an RXV11 (M7946) instead, to > use with the RX01 in the other rack. > Or look for an RX02 that won't break the bank - but that won't fit in > the corporate cabinet. I do have another cabinet but it's got other > rack-mount gear in it at the moment. > What about smaller drives (RX50? RX33?)... can those be interfaced to > the 11/23+ Qbus? > Other thoughts? > thanks > Charles > > RX50, RX33, RX23 aall work with the RQDX2,3 controllers The boards and cables are fairly easy to find as they were used in microPDP11 and Qbus Microvax. Depending on the CPU they will be bootable (11/23+ I believe works). IF you lucky and can fine a quantum D540 or St225 you can have a hard disk as well. I have 11/23+ and 11/73 configured using that (rqdx2 in one and Rqdx3 in the other) and the breakout board. Many people skip over the MSCP controller for MFM hard disks as the hard drives are scarce, but floppies a Teac FG55GFR is the hot item as would be a RX50 or 1.44 3.5" floppy or all three as it can interface not less than two floppy drives. Allison
Re: The story of... PDP-1
On 04/01/2019 08:34 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > Nice. The bit about the PDP-1 at the skydiving world championship (in > Orange, MA) is still a well known item in the history of skydiving. > > paul Orange MA airport is still an active skydiving site. I used to fly there regularly for cheap fuel for the 150 and the mid summer hit and miss engine show. For me all of this and the mixx is anything but history as it was where I worked for 10 years and around the area long after. Allison >> On Apr 1, 2019, at 5:23 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> DEC archival docs tell the story of the genesis of the PDP-1: >> >> https://gordonbell.azurewebsites.net/digital/timeline/pdp-1story.htm >> >> -- >> 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: Refillable spray can
On 03/24/2019 02:39 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 3/24/19 11:32 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> So this? >> >> https://www.amazon.com/EWK-Aluminum-Pneumatic-Refillable-Compressed/dp/B00JKED4MS >> >> Just be sure to use a dryer on your compressor output. Compressed air >> can hold a lot of moisture. > I'll also add that at 90 PSI, this won't hold much air for long--in the > reviews, that's the major complaint. Better is a small "pony tank" > that can be charged and transported. > > --Chuck > To spray paint well a drier and regulator as best pressures are down around 20 to maybe 40psi. With lower pressure the need for additional tank and all not required. I do a lot of work with an airbrush as its small volume and you can do fine detail work very well. Airbrushes also need lower volume of air so lower pressures require the regulator. Allison
Re: Thinking about PDP11 PC05 Emulation
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: Pioneers of computing
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: 11/70 - original or 570 model more desirable?
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:49 PM Bill Degnan via cctech < > cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Random question >> would you prefer having, if you had to pick only one, the original PDP >> 11/70 or the newer "blue cabinets" PDP 11/70, assuming both were complete >> configurations with racks of storage etc as they would have been sold, more >> or less. >> >> Assume space and power are not issues, consider just the machine itself. >> >> Bill >> At first i treated this as troll bait. Then thought about it some. First despite caveats I don't have space so the likelihood is nil. Also its outside what I do collect, that crates conflicts for space, power and documents. The reasons I could give for one or another are multidimensional. Esthetic, the early 11/70 was of an era and that had a look. The later one as well. Historical significance, thats limited to the general model the biggest fastest 11 made but having say serial number 001 or whatever was first off the line for sale is as significant as the last one off the line or both. Also any along the way that had a instruction set or major hardware difference of some historical note. An example of that would be an 11/74 as those were truly rare (maybe 4 assembled). Operational, as in running it. definitely a late model near last built as it would have all the ECOs, be the least old, and should run well Opportunity to save a machine that might be scrapped. In itself thats important and it would be model independent. Being a Qbus 11 collector there are still critters I might gather. Allison
Re: PDP-11 ID page, a few images needed
On 01/24/2019 10:38 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:41 PM Allison Parent via cctalk > wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk >> wrote: >>> On Jan 23, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/PDP-11_Models.html >>> >> A variant of the LSI-11 is the H-11 sold by Heathkit. Is that actually the >> same board? Either way it would be worth mentioning > I have an H11 and it has a real DEC CPU board. The backplane is > Heath, with industry-standard (not DEC's zig-zag) backplane edge > connectors, and Heath parallel and serial cards, but the CPU card is > 100% DEC. > >> The heath h11 and the lsi11 are >> The same right down to the handle. The prime difference >> Is the heath backplane is smaller number of slots and user assembled along >> with the case and power supply. The memory, io, and disk system >> was all heath and could be used in dec backplanes and DEC cards in heath. >> The heath disk was RX01 comparable and could format media. > Right. The H-27 disk system definitely worked with RX01 media and > could format blank media. I have an H-27 that came with my H-11 but > the former owner (my boss at the time) never used the H-27 and I never > got it working to boot from it. My boss did a massive case mod to > extend the width of the box several inches and made a simple 2-slot > CD-interconnect (two Heath backplane connectors and some wire) so he > could fit in an RLV11. That's how I used it at work, and when the > company closed and he gave me the old box, I undid the mod (it was > functional but not strong and definitely not pretty) and so now I > can't use the RLV11 in there any more (yes I have an RLV12 now). The > point here being, we didn't use the H-27 and I never got it working to > boot from it. All I ever had for this box was real DEC RT-11 (v5.4). > I never got the original HT-11 disks, so if the H-27 needs a special > RT-11 driver, that's likely where I'm getting stuck. The H27 is media compatible with RX01 but the boot and driver for it is unique. RT11 then likely V4 with heath driver and was supplied as a special version from heath (HT11). UCSD pascal with a H27 driver was also available. Also TinyC interpreter as a language for HT11. Back then that was about it for the H11. Common H27 issue was the hub clamp plastic would get brittle and die. That clamp is likely extinct. Its the one item I do not have is the H27. I have ram, single serial cards (DL copies), and a parallel card that was used with the punch reader. Most people found the H11 power supply rather flaky and usually moved to a BA11 as both upgrade and mechanical improvement. Most that had the H11 moved to more mainstream DEC hardware and OS. All my systems use RX11, RX21, or RQDX2/3 with M7555 breakout board for floppies and MFM disks (RD52 Quantum), one has tu58, and one system has RLV21, RQDX3, RX21-RX02, RLV21-RL02. Allison
Re: PDP-11 ID page, a few images needed
iPhoned this in! On Jan 23, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > On Jan 23, 2019, at 5:37 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > > In response to a request a couple of years back from Cindy, I've been slowly > working on a page to help scrappers identify PDP-11's, and give them an idea > what to look for. I have it _mostly_ done: > > http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/pdp11/PDP-11_Models.html > > Comments/error-checking etc welcome. Also, I still need images of a few > things: -11/60 and -11/94 front consoles, the original LSI-11 card, the > KDJ11-E, and most of the DEC QBUS boxes. (Yeah, I could try looking for free > images, I've been busy!) > > Any help gratefully received! > > Noel Google "pdp11/60" turns up some good pictures, one showing the console panel closeup is from a UK computer museum. The 11/44 picture is a bit strange looking because the innards show through the perforated panel, which is probably not how it would be perceived by most observers when just looking at one. The same goes for the 11/24. It seems like a problem caused by taking the photo with flash; lit by ambient light it would probably look better. PDP11/84 and I think 94 also can be found on the cover of some of the Handbooks in Bitsavers. A variant of the LSI-11 is the H-11 sold by Heathkit. Is that actually the same board? Either way it would be worth mentioning The heath h11 and the lsi11 are The same right down to the handle. The prime difference Is the heath backplane is smaller number of slots and user assembled along with the case and power supply. The memory, io, and disk system was all heath and could be used in dec backplanes and DEC cards in heath. The heath disk was RX01 comparable and could format media. Allison Do you want to show the PRO system boards? And maybe the I/O boards? Those both are quite different looking, especially the I/O boards with their odd connector and differing number scheme. (PRO boards are marked with the ROM ID number, a 16-bit value shown in 6 octal digits.) In the discussion of boards, you might mention that "FLIP CHIP" often appears (on older boards? All boards? Many boards regardless of age?). And there will be a "digital" logo, the 7-box kind. And the handles are either plastic or metal as shown, but either way always have a module number on them. If it looks like one of those cards but doesn't have a module number, or it's a large logic board with a white handle, it's probably from some other company though it may well be a DEC-compatible board. The "Miscellaneous Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-11 Information" link lands me on a "Forbidden" error page. paul
Re: PDP-11 Memory
On 01/12/2019 05:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > On 1/12/19 4:30 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> On 01/12/2019 04:14 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >>> On 1/12/19 2:25 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >>>> On 01/12/2019 12:29 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote: >>>>> On 12/01/2019 01:24, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I’m pretty sure you could get the /23+, /53, /73, /83, and /93 in >>>>>> either a BA23 or a BA123. I have an actual badged BA23 pedestal for >>>>>> my /23+. >>>>> I'm fairly certain all microPDP-11/23+ systems were only sold in BA23 >>>>> boxes, and I think microPDP-11/73 and the later, cheaper, cut-down >>>>> 11/53 were as well. But almost all the 11/83 systems I've ever seen >>>>> were in BA123 boxes, though they did sell some in BA23 pedestals - >>>>> I've got one. >>>>> >>>> Pete, >>>> >>>> Your right the 11/23+ showed up on a lot of boxes but not the BA123 >>>> though it would fit. >>> My 11/23+ is in a box labeled PDP-11/23PLUS on the front with >>> three toggle switches. :-) It has a 9276-A backplane labeled >>> OPTION 11/23B. It is a 9 slot, Q22 A-B-C-D . That's the home >>> for my next system which will (hopefully) have 2 meg of memory, >>> a DEQNA and an Andromeda Card for a small hard disk and 8" floppy. >> BA11 box with one of the usual two common backplanes or standard BA23. >> >> Problem with DEQNA is what OS? RT11 does nothing with it. RSX-11 >> I don't have a recent enough version so its often unused/ > My only problem is I have 3 DEQNA and 1 DELQA. I thought I read > somewhere recently that the DEQNA was the better of the two. DELQA replace the DEQNA as often they didn't work, high failure rate in service. There was also a DAta corruption bug that also turned up so DELQA was the replacement. > As for software, what about the Kent TCPIP package? Will that > not work with the DEQNA? I thought the two Ethernet controllers > for QBUS were functionally the same. Roughly as the DEQNA carried a mop boot loader but it didn't use it for RT-11. RT does nto that I know of through 5.4 support the Ni device for any internal use, an application can but you get to write code and create a Decnet endpoint. I know of now IP stacks for PDP11, they may exist but not in my vocabulary. I can't see why not though but then you likely need UNIX and what version? I know V6 doesn't and I have that on RL02. > And, while we are at it, if I type BOOT XH does it look for a > MOP Server? For RSX it may work as RSX later versions supported networking. >>> I also plan on another small 11/23 with 128KW of memory and an >>> 18 bit backplane so I can use the RX02 emulator. And, probably >>> an Andromeda in there, too >>> >>> >>> To bring my part of this discussion to an end, I now have a BA23 >>> MicroPDP box with an 11/73 CPU, 4 meg of memory, DHV11 for eight >>> serial lines (probably only use one to talk to a TU58 emulator >>> but the DHV11 was just sitting there looking lonely) a DEQNA >>> and a CMD SCSI Controller set for 6 disks and one tape. Only >>> thing it lacks at this point is software. >> The TU58 like a responsive IO a DLV11J is a better choice for console and DD >> and works best if first card after the memory (early in the interrupt >> grant chain). > My 11/73 only has a console, thus the need for the DHV11 but really > only one port. (Although I may try putting multiple serial ports in > all the boxes and doing some "networking" over them. :-) Right the 11/23 and later quad 11/73 have console the dual width without pulling out the rack to look did not. >> The simulators are faster than tu58 so it makes for fewer retries. >> I use DHV11 for terminal and modem lines (slower stuff). >>> On to my next project. >>> >>> Thanks for all the help. I had forgotten just how much fun >>> real computers were compared to PC's and MAC's. >> Yes they are. Their performance without all the gui gunk is often a >> suprize to many that have not worked with them. I've had people running stuff on a 486/dx33 with 8mb (win3.11 as DOS 5.22) and RT11 on PDP11/23 with 512kbyte and totally blew their minds. The 11 ran a lot of stuff that the PC could and was faster. Then they got to see it as a multiuser system with RSTS, push them over with a feather. The multitasking and multiuser aspect shows it off. Side effect of time and maturity of OS and Instruction set with good hardware. The Storage systems were better and MMU made swappi
Re: PDP-11 Memory
On 01/12/2019 04:14 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > On 1/12/19 2:25 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> On 01/12/2019 12:29 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote: >>> On 12/01/2019 01:24, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: >>> >>>> I’m pretty sure you could get the /23+, /53, /73, /83, and /93 in >>>> either a BA23 or a BA123. I have an actual badged BA23 pedestal for >>>> my /23+. >>> I'm fairly certain all microPDP-11/23+ systems were only sold in BA23 >>> boxes, and I think microPDP-11/73 and the later, cheaper, cut-down >>> 11/53 were as well. But almost all the 11/83 systems I've ever seen >>> were in BA123 boxes, though they did sell some in BA23 pedestals - >>> I've got one. >>> >> Pete, >> >> Your right the 11/23+ showed up on a lot of boxes but not the BA123 >> though it would fit. > My 11/23+ is in a box labeled PDP-11/23PLUS on the front with > three toggle switches. :-) It has a 9276-A backplane labeled > OPTION 11/23B. It is a 9 slot, Q22 A-B-C-D . That's the home > for my next system which will (hopefully) have 2 meg of memory, > a DEQNA and an Andromeda Card for a small hard disk and 8" floppy. BA11 box with one of the usual two common backplanes or standard BA23. Problem with DEQNA is what OS? RT11 does nothing with it. RSX-11 I don't have a recent enough version so its often unused/ > I also plan on another small 11/23 with 128KW of memory and an > 18 bit backplane so I can use the RX02 emulator. And, probably > an Andromeda in there, too > > > To bring my part of this discussion to an end, I now have a BA23 > MicroPDP box with an 11/73 CPU, 4 meg of memory, DHV11 for eight > serial lines (probably only use one to talk to a TU58 emulator > but the DHV11 was just sitting there looking lonely) a DEQNA > and a CMD SCSI Controller set for 6 disks and one tape. Only > thing it lacks at this point is software. The TU58 like a responsive IO a DLV11J is a better choice for console and DD and works best if first card after the memory (early in the interrupt grant chain). The simulators are faster than tu58 so it makes for fewer retries. I use DHV11 for terminal and modem lines (slower stuff). > On to my next project. > > Thanks for all the help. I had forgotten just how much fun > real computers were compared to PC's and MAC's. Yes they are. Their performance without all the gui gunk is often a suprize to many that have not worked with them. Allison > bill
Re: PDP-11 Memory
On 01/12/2019 12:29 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote: > On 12/01/2019 01:24, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > >> I’m pretty sure you could get the /23+, /53, /73, /83, and /93 in >> either a BA23 or a BA123. I have an actual badged BA23 pedestal for >> my /23+. > > I'm fairly certain all microPDP-11/23+ systems were only sold in BA23 > boxes, and I think microPDP-11/73 and the later, cheaper, cut-down > 11/53 were as well. But almost all the 11/83 systems I've ever seen > were in BA123 boxes, though they did sell some in BA23 pedestals - > I've got one. > Pete, Your right the 11/23+ showed up on a lot of boxes but not the BA123 though it would fit. The BA23 as the micropdp11 or 11/53.. names and models were a large jumble. The J11 based CPU were showing up int BA123 as the later ones had PMI and a natural for the 123 as anyone using J11 likely wanted storage, memory and space for it. Not not all of the dual width 11/73s were slow chips only that the were run at 15mhz. No advantage for faster as Qbus transactions are slower for memory so the PMI versions were faster by default. My BA23 (micropdp11was upgraded to microVAXII by me before DEC left me and the machine next to it under the desk was VIDSYS: a MicrovaxII GPX They both came home with me on last day. The BA23 was put back to the micropdp11 config and VIDSYS: remains though with larger disks. I also have a rack based system (11/73 CPU) and multiple BA11 series mostly 11/23(various flavors) based but have the 11/2 board and LSI-11. Even An H11 backplane with LSI-11 and Heath ram and IO. While there were many sold systems and a larger number of supported systems Qbus PDP-11 was more mix and match than most any and the early Qbus microVAX series did that for a while. Allison
Re: PDP-11 Memory
On 01/12/2019 12:36 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > On 1/12/19 12:24 PM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk wrote: >> On 11/01/2019 23:58, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:51 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk >>> wrote: >>>> Mine are all BA23. Wasn't the BA123 for the MicroVAX? >>> As sold, most likely. I don't think DEC ever configured any MicroPDP >>> systems in a BA123 but no reason it doesn't work. >> Absolutely not so - there were very many microPDP-11/83 systems sold in >> BA123 cabinets, in fact probably more in BA123 than in BA23. The >> MicroPDP-11 System Maintenance Manual features the BA123 heavily >> throughout, as do other microPDP-11 manuals. >> > None of my MicroPDP-11 manuals show anything but the BA23. Most > show the install as being in a deskside pedestal. But even the > one that shows rack mount installation is only BA23. > > bill And my older manuals don't show anything other than BA11, later manuals are useful for that reason. Allison
Re: PDP-11 Memory
On 01/11/2019 02:32 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Allison Parent > > > Most Probable cause is interrupt grant is broken. > > The only -11 that complains if the grant chain is broken that I know of is > the /34 (maybe the /04 too). I certainly have a QBUS chassis right next to my > workstation here that i) has a bunch of empty slots, and ii) works fine, as > long as there are no empty slots between the CPU and the devices. I'm far from a newby to Qbus 11s as I stated with LSI-11 nearly 4 decades ago and I ahve all Qbus models of note from LSI-11(quad), 11/2 (dual) , 11/23(dual) 11/23(quad), 11/23B(quad), 11/73(dual) in various BA11VA, BA-11s, BA11N, BA23, BA123, and also microVAXII in BA23 and BA123. Which covers about eight different Qbus backplane variations not including the Heath H11 and a engineering one off (8 slot dual width with bigger supply sorta like taller a BA11VA 4 slot. Small advantage to being a Millrat. I forgo most non-Qbus 11s to specialize. All of my 11s are Qbus and yes they complain if the interrupt grant chain is broken. Missing CSR is the usual complaint. Typical micorpdp-11 Qbus is: First three slots after CPU the CD slots are open use, or be used or memory private bus. ABCD CPU ABCD where CD is memory wired not bus ABCD ABCD up to this slot memory does not have to grant interrupts on the right (CD)side of quad cards ABAB All cards dual or quad must have int grant jumper of the board or grant card. ABAB ABAB ABAB > Also, IIRC he said it works with 3 cards plugged in, but not 4; how can > plugging a card _in_ cause grant problems? See the above... Qbus is can or cannot be uniform for quad or dual width cards. For most only bus slots that are AB bussed are data/address. But they can be serpentine for quad wide systems and most quad wide board have interrupt grant jumpers on the board or are just hardwired that way. Qbus is not Unibus. You can build a Qbus system of all dual width cards, some Qbus system memory uses PMI. For example I have an 11/23b+ in a quad width BA11-N but the backplane is nonstandard ,18 slots of Q22 ABAB (serpentine wired). It has a quad width 11/23B and 8 MSV11 256KB dual width Q22 memory. RQDX3 dual width, RXV21 RX02, DRV11J and a M7555 (also found in MicroVAXII in BA123 boxes, takes the 50pin wide RQDX breaks it out for multiple RX33 floppy and RD32 drives). There are many Qbus backplanes and several different configurations for DUAL/QUAD mixes of cards. The Microvax Qbus backplanes also fit in that realm such as BA123 with J11 cpus installed and PMI ram. Also many of the Qbus can be Q16(not many), Q18(fairly common) and Q22(only late and MicroVax) address bus width. The microcomputers handbook is a start and the modules manuals. Typically you need a 1980 version and a later 80s versions. Also the LSI-11 Systems Service Manual Volumes 1 and 2. Generally the more docs you have for Qbus 11 systems and the MicroVAX kin the less pain you will have configuring them especially for non standard configurations or systems with mix and match boards. Allison
Re: PDP-11 Memory
Most Probable cause is interrupt grant is broken. For most microspheres backplanes the first three slots are different than remaining. Phoned this in! On Jan 11, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: Well, it has been so long since I had to put together an entire system I forgot what fun it can be. With almost documentation I was able to configure 4 1meg memory modules and I tested them all in my 11/23+ box. KDJ11-B with 4 different (but similar) memory cards. "MAP" option of the KDJ11 shows 4 meg (minus the I/O Page) and all the right CSR's for the first four blocks. Really wanted to make this a deskside so I moved the cards to a MicroPDP box (Yes, I have a coule of the deskside pedestals). Power on, Memory CSR error. Move then back to the 11/23+ works fine. If I only put the first three in the MicroPDP box it works. But as soon as I try to put in a fourth module I get the memory CSR error. Tried different cards (although working in the 11/23+ box would make me think it is not a problem with the card) no help. Anybody care to take a stab at what might be causing this problem? bill
Re: Netronics EX85 BASIC dump
Looked... Hartetechnologies.com Look in Netronics folder. Phoned this in! On Jan 10, 2019, at 8:55 PM, Allison Parent wrote: Seriously? You haven’t looked. Start with bitsavers, then Dave dunfelds old computers. That’s from memory as I’m on the phone. iPhoned this in! On Jan 10, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: Wondering if anyone has any EPROM dumps of Netronics' BASIC for the Explorer/85. I'd like to set up my own EX/85 for that but also have this little Atlantis 8085 board that I was hoping to experiment with. I've looked all over the interwebs and have had no luck finding a dump, although I have found reference to people dumping them for backup purposes. Many thanks! Brad
Re: Netronics EX85 BASIC dump
Seriously? You haven’t looked. Start with bitsavers, then Dave dunfelds old computers. That’s from memory as I’m on the phone. iPhoned this in! On Jan 10, 2019, at 6:25 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote: Wondering if anyone has any EPROM dumps of Netronics' BASIC for the Explorer/85. I'd like to set up my own EX/85 for that but also have this little Atlantis 8085 board that I was hoping to experiment with. I've looked all over the interwebs and have had no luck finding a dump, although I have found reference to people dumping them for backup purposes. Many thanks! Brad
Re: Bogus "account hacked" message
On 01/08/2019 04:29 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > On 01/08/2019 02:09 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> Its actually funny. The password given is three yahoo (groups) hacks >> ago (about 10 years) but the email address used was a public one way >> reflector (arrl.net). > > So you are (or were) a licensed ham. 73 to you. :-) Still am. Hence the reflector as myc...@arrl.net. But the reply if there is one will be from a different address. Anyone with a functional brain can look that up. > >> So all and all its a crude phishing attempt. I write down old >> passwords to keep from reuse and I use long mixed ones. So I know it >> was from that and meaningless. > > Hopefully you keep that list in a way that's not cleartext on your > computer. > Cleartext on paper in my handwriting... ok, that may mean loosely encrypted. Generally anything useful is walled off or encrypted. I also maintain an air gapped archive. Hardware is cheap and disk cheaper. Someone hacks this machine with ransomware, I wipe and reboot as a 64gb disk is not big and not the motherlode. Better is the stuff on the VAX under VMS user account... I put it on the net on occasion and the fun begins as the script kiddies try to log in. Mind you need both an account name and a password longer than 15 chars. Standard lockout after three fails is 15 minutes. No Apache and other webby stuff plus Decnet over IP messes with them. Once I put up an VMS account with the directiories all write-locked with virus copies (maybe a few megabytes of oldies) in it and a guest password it was funny to watch the access and then nothing from that IP. > I too have lists of old passwords in my password vault. > >> The source is useless as the address is a bogus hack as well. > > I'm still curious. Mainly because I run my own mail server and wonder > if the messages would have been stopped by my filtering. > Like I said the reflector is public and they used the right call, easy to look up and verify. >> Same claims of rude and crude caught off the camera save for the >> systems use never had one or are blocked/disconnected(laptops) and at >> best a stupid threat. I run linux on multiple flavors/platforms so >> typical M$ hacks don't fly either. > > Scare tactics. > Or hilarity! As a women it was funnier to read. Like, really!?! >> I was tempted to buy the smallest bitcoin possible maybe 0.1 cent (1 >> milliDollar) for laughs and send that as they deserve the very least >> for a dumb hack. > > I would avoid doing anything good to the miscreants. A millibuck is a pFFT (raspberry noise) to someone demanding kilo bucks. I have mostly contempt for them. Been at it longer too. > >> Ignore the phoolz and if the password matches current change it. > > Yep. The usual is that that password accessed as many as a dozen or more sites and accounts. If one is hacked then which one of the many if even remembered. >> consider changing them periodically. > > I thought there had been some research and reports, particularly from > NIST (?) about a year ago where /forced/ periodic password changes > were actually a bad thing. > > Yes, many when forced to do that on 30 or 90 day rotations use poor passwords (weak) or worse write them down and tape them under the keyboard. The interval can be random and long or anytime a hack has been reported somewhere even if not the known systems. I worked one place where "123" was a low level password for a decade and still every Monday I'd get called "did the password change?" because they forgot it. If used from outside it got you mostly nothing and access to very slowest machines if you made it through the firewall (discrete hardware). Allison
Re: Bogus "account hacked" message
On 01/08/2019 03:41 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > On 01/08/2019 01:25 PM, John Rollins via cctalk wrote: >> That they found an address used only for a certain mailing list makes >> it more interesting. Doing a quick Google search it looks like the >> list archives can be searched through, and while the addresses appear >> to be slightly obfuscated using “at” instead of “@“, it’s feasible >> that the address was picked up by a random email address scraping of >> web data. > > I've wondered if some unscrupulous person has subscribed to the list > so that they can receive a steady stream of email addresses that they > can potentially send spam / phishing emails to. > > I don't remember ever getting one of these types of messages. So I > can't comment about them with anything other than 2nd (or more) hand > knowledge. Though I run fairly tight anti-spam / anti-virus > configuration on my server. > > I would actually be interested in seeing full messages source, > including headers, for some of the messages. (If anyone is willing > and interested in sharing.) > I to have received that phishing attempt many times. Its actually funny. The password given is three yahoo (groups) hacks ago (about 10 years) but the email address used was a public one way reflector (arrl.net). So all and all its a crude phishing attempt. I write down old passwords to keep from reuse and I use long mixed ones. So I know it was from that and meaningless. The source is useless as the address is a bogus hack as well. Same claims of rude and crude caught off the camera save for the systems use never had one or are blocked/disconnected(laptops) and at best a stupid threat. I run linux on multiple flavors/platforms so typical M$ hacks don't fly either. I was tempted to buy the smallest bitcoin possible maybe 0.1 cent (1 milliDollar) for laughs and send that as they deserve the very least for a dumb hack. Ignore the phoolz and if the password matches current change it consider changing them periodically. A=
Re: so far off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8?
On 01/07/2019 07:25 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 1/7/2019 8:20 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > snip... >> made though more likely 74F, AS, or LS variant and of course CMOS 74ACT >> (and cmos friends) as I just bought a bunch. Dip is getting harder to >> get but >> the various SMT packages are easy. Prices for 10 or more of a part are >> cheap to cheaper from primary suppliers. The second tier suppliers are >> often several times that. > > I got ebay... The bottom of the heap. > >> I figure most of what I did back then is years before many here were >> born. >> >> However I have enough NOS TTL 74LS, 74AS, 74F series to build several >> machines. > > I have been playing around with a early 70's TTL computer design > and 74LS181's are too slow by 30 ns. Using a BLACK BOX model for core > memory, I can get a 1.2us memory cycle using a 4.912 MHz raw clock > but I need a few 74Hxx's in there. Proms are 256x4 60 ns and 32x8 50 ns. > > Do you have your 74Hxx spares? Eastern Europe still has a few on ebay > with reasonable shipping for 100% American Russian parts. > No use for 74H parts though I have a bunch. the 74LS are slow you are paying for lower power with speed. tHe 74181 and 74S181 were far faster. Proms are small and slow, last time I used them was for the address decode used on the Northstar* MDS-A controller. I built the last big machine with ram back 1980 and was in the 1us instruction cycle time for single cycle instructions without pipelines. Core was never considered. Trick is throw hardware at it. Adding adders to the address calculation rather than reuse the ALU saves a lot of time and wires. Not like it was for manufacture or anything like that. More of an exercise. I still want to make a stretched 8, PDP8 ISA with 16 bits and faster. No good reason save for it wold be fun. >> I'm still building, current project is a very compact Z80 CP/M system >> using CF >> for disk. Mine uses all Zilog CMOS for very low power. Its a variant of >> the >> Grant Searle Z80 with memory management added to utilize all of the >> 124k ram and eeprom. If you want go look there. > > What do you use all that memory for? > CP/M the allocation block store for each drive and deblocking buffers for performance can be large plus its easy to hide part of the Bios in banked ram. Background processes are easier when you have lots of ram for that. Most of the larger aps like C compilers and such run better with more than 48K, 56k is easy, and 60k is doable with the right memory map. For EEprom its more than boot, the system is in EEprom (about 8K) and with 32K or more things like romdisks and utilities are easily parked there. I've been building nonstandard CP/M systems since 79. In all cases he aps think it is standard CP/M but the bios and such have been tuned even CP/M Bdos it self. Though I often use ZRdos or ZSdos as they are very good. Not much you cant do to it. Allison >> > > The Chinese elves have been busy, My 5V 15 amp $20 power supply arrived > in the mail today. I have power to spare for my BUS and blinking lights. > So long as you load it at least 10% it will be good. > Ben. > >
Re: so far off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8?
On 01/07/2019 09:51 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 02:54:08PM -0700, ben via cctalk wrote: >> On 1/6/2019 12:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >>> The small beauty of being there... FYI back then (1972) a 7400 was about >>> 25 cents and 7483 adder was maybe $1.25. Least that's what I paid. >> Checks my favorite supplier. >> $1.25 for 7400 and $4.00 for a 7483. >> It has gone up in price. > Thanks to inflation, $0.25 in 1972 is worth $1.51 now. Likewise, $1.25 has > inflated to $7.54. So they're cheaper in real terms than they used to be. > > However, it's still not entirely comparable, as I suspect nobody's making > 74-series chips any more so you're buying NOS. A modern equivalent would be a > microcontroller, which start at well under a dollar. > First I wasn't guessing back. I was building and buying back then. So that was what I actually paid in 1972, I've been at it since RTL hit the streets. The 74 series still made though more likely 74F, AS, or LS variant and of course CMOS 74ACT (and cmos friends) as I just bought a bunch. Dip is getting harder to get but the various SMT packages are easy. Prices for 10 or more of a part are cheap to cheaper from primary suppliers. The second tier suppliers are often several times that. I figure most of what I did back then is years before many here were born. However I have enough NOS TTL 74LS, 74AS, 74F series to build several machines. I'm still building, current project is a very compact Z80 CP/M system using CF for disk. Mine uses all Zilog CMOS for very low power. Its a variant of the Grant Searle Z80 with memory management added to utilize all of the 124k ram and eeprom. If you want go look there. Allison
Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP
On 01/06/2019 01:54 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: >> And then the PDP-11 put the nail in that coffin (and in 1980, there were more >> PDP-11's, world-wide, than any other kind of computer). > I bet the guys at Zilog might have something to talk to you about. > > -- > Will And Intel! 8008 and 8080 was a byte machine as was 8085, z80, 8088, 6800, 6502, and a long list to follow. The PDP-11 was unique that it was 8/16 bit in that memory (and by default IO) supported both byte and word reads and write. Instructions were 16bit but data was byte word. There were more Z80 based machines (TRS-80 alone exceeded 250,000) than PDP-11. History guys, we are about history! Allison
Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP
On 01/06/2019 02:08 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: > On 1/6/19 11:25 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote: >> I think it’s also telling that the IETF uses the term octet in all of >> the specifications to refer to 8-bit sized data. As “byte” (from >> older machines) could be anything and is thus somewhat ambiguous. >> >> It *may* have been the IBM 360 that started the trend of Byte == >> 8-bits as the 360’s memory (in IBM’s terms) was byte addressable and >> the instructions for accessing them were “byte” instructions (as >> opposed to half-word and word instructions). > Yes it was. Machines around them and in that time frame (mainframe) were 12, 18, 36, 60 bit words. The big break was mid 1970s with micros first 8008, 8080, 6800 and bigger machines like PDP11 (did byte word reads and writes) and TI990. The emergence of VAX and other 32bit machines made 8bit common as terminal IO was starting to standardize. > Thank you for the clarification. > > My take away is that before some nebulous point in time (circa IBM's > 360) a "byte" could be a number of different bits, depending on the > computer being discussed. Conversely, after said nebulous point in > time a byte was standardized on 8-bits. > > Is that fair and accurate enough? - I'm wanting to validate the > patch before I apply it to my mental model of things. ;- There is no hard before and after as systems like DEC10 and other persisted for a while. Also part of it was IO codes for the EBDIC, Flexowriter, ASr33 (8level vs Baudot), and CRT terminals emerging with mostly IBM or ANSI. I am somewhat DEC and personal computer (pre IBM PC) centric on this as they were he machines I got to see and work with that were not in rooms with glass and white coated specialists. Allison
Re: off topic - capatob - saratov2 computer Russsian pdp8? HELP
On 01/06/2019 01:19 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Grant Taylor > > > Is "byte" the correct term for 6-bits? I thought a "byte" had always > > been 8-bits. > > I don't claim wide familiary with architectural jargon from the early days, > but the PDP-10 at least (I don't know about other prominent 36-bit machines > such as the IBM 7094/etc, and the GE 635/645) supported 'bytes' of any size, > with 'byte pointers' used in a couple of instructions which could extract and > deposit 'bytes' from a word; the pointers specified the starting bit, and the > width of the 'byte'. These were used for both SIXBIT (an early character > encoding), and ASCII (7-bit bytes, 5 per word, with one bit left over). As far as what other systems supported especially the 7094 and GE, that is already out of context as the focus was a Russian PDP-8 clone. Any other machines are then thread contamination or worse. In the early days a byte was the smallest recognized group of bits for that system and in some case its 9 bits, 6bits as they were even divisible segments of the machine word. This feature was the bane of programmers as everyone had a different idea of what it was and it was poison to portability. For PDP-8 and friends it was 6 bits and was basically a halfword, also used as stated for 6bit subset of ASCII (uppercase, TTY codes). Most of the 8 series had the bit mapped instructions (DEC called the microcoded) for doing BSW, byte swap, swap the lower half of the ACC with the upper half. Very handy for doing character IO. > > I would have blindly substituted "word" in place of "byte" except for > > the fact that you subsequently say "12-bit words". I don't know if > > "words" is parallel on purpose, as in representing a quantity of two > > 6-bit word. > > I think 'word' was usually used to describe the instruction size (although > some machines also supported 'half-word' instructions), and also the > machine's 'ordinary' length - e.g. for the accumulator(s), the quantum of > data transfer to/from memory, etc. Not necessarily memory addresses, mind - > on the PDP-10, those were 18 bits (i.e. half-word) - although the smallest > thing _named_ by a memory addresses was usually a word. > > Noel The PDP-8 and 12bit relations the instruction word and basic architecture was 12bit word. There were no instructions that were a half word in length or other fragmentations. The machine was fairly simple and all the speculated concepts were well outside the design of the PDP-5/8 family. For all of those the instruction fetch, memory reads and write were always words of 12bits. I'd expect a Russian PDP-8 clone to be the same. After all DEC did widely gave out the data books with nearly everything but schematics. The value of copying is software is also copied. It happened here with the DCC-112 a PDP-8e functional clone. While its possible to use half word ram with reconstruction the hardware cost is high (registers to store the pieces) and it would take more to do that than whole 12bit words. Any time you look at old machine especially pre-IC registers were costly and only done as necessity dictated as a single bit flipflop was likely 4 transistors (plus diodes and other components) or more to implement never minding gating. Minor history and thread relative drift... The only reason people didn't build their own PDP-8 in the early 70s was CORE. It was the one part a early personal computer (meaning personally owned then) was difficulty to duplicate and expensive outright buy. Trying to make "random" core planes that were available work was very difficult due to lack of data, critical timing, and the often minimal bench (and costly) test equipment. The minimum gear for seeing the timing was a Tek-516 and that was $1169(1969$). Semiconductor ram was either a few bits (4x4) or 1101 (three voltage 256x1) at about 8$ in 1972 dollars. That made the parts for a 256x12 a weeks pay at that time (pre-8008) and a 4Kx12 with parts was nearly that of a new truck (2100$)!. Compared the basic logic of the 8e (only three boards of SSI TTL) core/ram was the show stopper. About 7 years later a 8K8 S100 ram was about (early 1979) 100$, by 1980 64kx8 was 100$. Moore's law was being felt. The small beauty of being there... FYI back then (1972) a 7400 was about 25 cents and 7483 adder was maybe $1.25. Least that's what I paid. Allison
Re: music dec tapes? (paper)
On 01/03/2019 11:15 PM, Kyle Owen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, 17:48 allison <mailto:allisonporta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't think this album has been forgotten; I have a copy, and I >> know others with copies, too. It seems as though "Unplayed by >> Human Hands" (both versions) are less well-known. I would like to >> work on getting the original software archived, assuming it's >> still out there, as it ran on a Straight-8. >> > ITs also on line. > > > The recordings, or the software? If you're referring to the latter, > please send a link! I know someone has a GitHub repository, but it's > missing any and all PDP-8 files. > > Kyle > Recording as in record album on Vinyl.
Re: music dec tapes? (paper)
On 01/03/2019 05:22 PM, Kyle Owen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:29 PM allison via cctech > mailto:cct...@classiccmp.org>> wrote: > > Those were likely with a PDP12 or LAB-8 with DAC board. The code > actually is a roughly > digital version of tones in 10 or 12 bit form by writing sequential > words (waveforms) to > the DAC. > > > Do you have any information on the AA01-A DAC that was used with the > PDP-12? No but RICM as a PDP12or two. Worth contacting them and all. They might like a copy of the tapes if they don't already have them. > I see in the PDP-12 System Reference Manual that it is capable of > supporting three channels, 12 bits each. It gives an example of one > instruction, 6551, which loads the first DAC. Is it safe to assume > that 6552 and 6554 are the other instructions to load the other two DACs? > Unknown. > I see the AA50-A in the 1972 PDP-8 Small Computer Handbook has > sequential instructions for updating the DAC channels (up to 8). > > AA05-A/AA07 use a more complex address/data method to address more > total channels, but that is listed in the Laboratory Computer Handbook > as an option on the Negibus. > > Never played with 8s in any form other than omnibus. > Of course everyone here forgets the First Philadelphia Computer Music > Festival on vinyl from '78 > with samples of computer played music. I run my copy on occasion just > to remember being there. > > > I don't think this album has been forgotten; I have a copy, and I know > others with copies, too. It seems as though "Unplayed by Human Hands" > (both versions) are less well-known. I would like to work on getting > the original software archived, assuming it's still out there, as it > ran on a Straight-8. > ITs also on line. Allison
Re: music dec tapes? (paper)
On 01/03/2019 09:03 AM, Bill Degnan via cctech wrote: > I have tapes with labels > > 8-152a 8 Music Coding Program Symbolic #1 > 8-152 8 Music Coding Program Symbolic #2 > 8-152 Teddy Bear's Picnic Symbolic > 8-152a Penny Lane Symbolic > 8-152 Joy to the World Symbolic > 8-152 Your Mother Should Know Symbolic > > 8-152a Penny Lane 0037-7720, 0170= > 0171=, 0172=7750, > 0173=6020 Binary > > 8-152 When I'm 64 > 0037=720, 0170=7776 > 0172-7750 > > 8-162 MUSIC FOR THE PDP-8 > Load Tunes: 440 > Play Tunes: 400 > > "Start 8 Music" (hand-written, no printed label) > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:03 PM Kyle Owen via cctalk > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019, 15:18 Adrian Stoness via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org >> wrote: >> >>> anyone seen these music tapes before i grabed this trays for the oddnes >> of >>> the content of these tapes? also apears to have the software to play >> them? >>> >>> >> https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Lot-of-15-digital-decus-Paper-Tapes-w-Case/273628629483?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649 >>> >>> >> https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Lot-of-8-digital-decus-Paper-Tapes-w-Case/273628539210?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649 >>> would this be some weird synthy type thing? >>> control points for the sound boaerd used for automation on some fancy >> desk? >>> or somthing els? >>> >> Vince has a listing for some version of DECUS 8-152 on his website ( >> >> http://svn.so-much-stuff.com/svn/trunk/pdp8/src/decus/8-152/decus-8-152-lst.pdf >> ). >> I have reverse engineered it enough to have his version play a few songs. >> However, it seems like there's a difference between the music tapes I have >> and the listing he has. >> >> I don't know what hardware was required of this software, but I suspect it >> to be a DAC responding on address 055. This seems to match with an AA01 >> option. >> >> Did you end up buying these tapes? I have digitized the music tapes I >> bought from the seller and will post them soon. It would be excellent if >> the buyer of this lot would do the same. >> >> Musically, >> >> Kyle >> Those were likely with a PDP12 or LAB-8 with DAC board. The code actually is a roughly digital version of tones in 10 or 12 bit form by writing sequential words (waveforms) to the DAC. Before that it was done setting link and clearing link bit with a timing routine. There was a version of that also for MINC-11 and I've see variant back when that used multiple DAC cards for stereo or multiple voices. It was also a thing for the S100 8080/z80 set (using a DAC) and many other systems (Kim-1, Apple, Cosmac, Commodore). Of course everyone here forgets the First Philadelphia Computer Music Festival on vinyl from '78 with samples of computer played music. I run my copy on occasion just to remember being there. Allison
Re: Origin of 'Straight 8' name
On 12/21/2018 01:10 PM, Al Kossow via cctech wrote: > > On 12/21/18 10:03 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > >> "Straight-8" seems to be a fairly modern name coming from collectors >> >> I never heard it called that before then. > Anyone feel like doing a alt.sys.pdp-8 search for it by date? > > I don't feel like going down the rathole of trying to find a way to > search Usenet by date right now. > > Not I, that is a deep hole to dredge. I do know it was a clear way to differentiate the various family of 8 machines and it was on alt.sys.pdp-8 I'd seen it way back like mid 80s. It may have been old by then. I used to peek there as my first PDP-8e was in hand around late 1983. And the automotive reference was not it. It was the straight as in not later lettered versions. Best similar use is: Whiskey straight, water on the side. One of the DEC history things about the era was often engineering went may different directions at the same time making for a plethora of systems that were or mostly PDP-8ish like the PDP-12 that was PDP-8 and LINK. RICM has a really pretty one. Allison
Re: Origin of 'Straight 8' name
On 12/21/2018 10:10 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > Does anyone know where the 'Straight 8' name for the first PDP-8 model came > from? Obviously, it's probably a play on the car engine configuration name, > but how did the connection get made? Thanks - I hope! > > Noel > ssrsly? It was the first PDP-8 no model letter like S, L, I, E, F, M, or A. It was also the direct decedent of the PDP-5 (1963 and transistors) which was the first 12bit machine and largely compatible with later family of 8 machines. The PDP-8 series started in 1965 and grew from there. When looking at the history LINK and LINK-8, PDP12, and later LAB-8 are also related and interleaved as laboratory machines. Simple answer, it was DECs first blockbuster machine that was manufactured in high volume and was very low cost in terms of the day. The transistor to IC change... The 8I: Also commenting on ICs the 1970 Omnibus 8 (PDP-E) was the largely MSI IC based machine (M series). The 8I/8L was the first TTL machine prior to that the systems were transistor. The march to higher density ICs was well underway. FYI my first contact was the DEC PDP8I fall of 1969 as part of the BOCES LIRICS timeshare system (NY, LI, Sufflok county schools). The following year (fall 1970) it was integrated into and part of the larger DEC System 10 timeshare system running TOPS-10. None of this is secret or difficult to find. Doug Jones has a great archive. http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~jones/pdp8/ Allison
Re: Which DEC machine made use of th pre Flip-Chip board?
On 12/21/2018 09:33 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > through (I think) the PDP-7; at least, this PDP-7 internals image > > .. seems to show System Modules at the top, and FLIP CHIPs at the > > bottom. > > After groveling through the 'PDP-7 Maintainence Manual' (F-77A), this seems to > be accurate. In "Module Identification" (pg. 6-5), it refers to both types; > the > example on the next page uses a 4303, a 4000-Series System Module. > > What's interesting is the physical layout; all System Modules at the top of > that image, and FLIP CHIPs at the bottom. No doubt this is partially for > mechanical reasons (the two used different backplanes), but I wonder about the > division into sub-systems; were the two types interspersed among each other in > individual sub-systems (rewquiring running wires from the top to the bottom), > or were sub-systems exclusively one or the other (so that the top of the bay > is one sub-system, and the bottom another)? > > No doubt I could answer this by studying the prints, but time is short; > perhaps > someone who worked on the one at the LCM and already knows the answer can > enlighten us! > > Noel IC as in digital logic were in production in the early 60s and RTL/DTL the oldest I was playing with as a kid by '66 and TTL started to appear well before 1970. The stuff of the day was 2input Nand, Nor, 4 bit counters, and similar SSI logic. We forget the AGC Apollo guidance computer used a dual 3input NOR RTL dating to 1960. This was already old by 1970. People were building frequency counters with RTL (uL914/923, MC789 and friends as "hobbyist chips" it by then. Least I was able to buy uL9xx, MC7XX, MC10K, in the late 60s for under a dollar a package. The transition from transistors to ICs was fast. Cost and space were drivers and generally speed as well. The industry needed faster and more reliable and interconnects needed to be fewer. At the same time ICs went from 1960 dual 3input nor to MSI (7483 quad full adder and 74181 ALU) in about 10 years. The computer industry were the early consumers. Allison
Re: flashx20 - Floppy and screen for the Epson HX-20
On 12/16/2018 11:39 PM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > On December 16, 2018 at 11:14 PM allison via cctalk > wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Norbert Kehrer via cctalk wrote: >>>> I have not tested it, but I suppose, that also the PX-8 and PX-4 used >>>> the protocol, >>>> because the protocol specification defines the following device numbers: >>>> - HX-20: 0x20 (probably also used for the HC-20) >>>> - PX-8: 0x22 >>>> - PX-4: 0x23 >>> >>> >> PX-8! >> > A subject dear to me. I still have the px-8 I bought new (borrowed the money > from my sister) as a young man in 1984. Alas, I could never afford the PF-10 > disk drive. > > >>> However, the PX-8 3.5" had 40 cylinders, with 67.5 tpi, instead of the >>> common 80 cylinder 135 tpi of other 3.5" disks. >>> Those 40 cylinder 3.5" drives are quite rare. > Somewhere in my searches I recall reading that the 3 1/2" drives used the > same format as the 5 1/4" ones. Maybe 40 tracks of 16 256 byte sectors. > Oddly, I believe that 2 tracks are "reserved for CP/M" even though it is in > ROM and not stored on disk. > > >> ceramic magnet lost its stuff over time. When I have time the next >> project will be a Atmega2650 running >> a CF to via serial interface. The drive table can be patched for a >> larger (up to 8mb) drive. > I've been planning something very similar for a while, but using an Arduino > (ATMega 328) or bare AVR chip and probably a smaller/simpler flash chip. I > din't know about the drive table. That's interesting. Would a new ROM have > to be burned with the new table? Do you have an links to the info? The system in the base PX-8 has a system area for user patches. the drive table is part of the BIOS and there are provisions for intercepting the calls to there and patching in changes or extensions. Its detailed in the manuals. >>> With appropriate format handling software on the PC, it should be >>> possible for a PC connected using your system to work with actual >>> Epson diskettes, and emulate the Epson external drives. >>> >> There are several software packages on the net to do the fake of the >> disk via serial and manuals of the system to >> explain the format. Likely that software could do the earlier HX20 (and >> friends) with minor tweaks. > Here is one I am familiar with that runs on Linux. Only does drives, AFAIK, > no display. > https://fjkraan.home.xs4all.nl/comp/px4/vfloppy/ Thats true, but the IO on the PX-8 allows for redirection to the serial port for console and even keyboard. I've many times used it with my VT320 to save my poor eyes. > And if anyone is interested here are some more links: > http://oldcomputer.info/8bit/hx20/index.htm#links > Navigating through some of those links takes you to the protocol: > https://fjkraan.home.xs4all.nl/comp/hx20/epsp.html > Note at the bottom of the page it says the PX-8 and CP/M only use four of the > functions. > This link has lots of HX-20 info. > http://electrickery.xs4all.nl/comp/hx20/doc/index.html > The tms files near the bottom (ch 10-11?) describe the protocol and how it > functions in detail. > > Will > Indeed. its all there.
Re: flashx20 - Floppy and screen for the Epson HX-20
On 12/16/2018 11:56 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >> On December 16, 2018 at 11:14 PM allison via cctalk >> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Norbert Kehrer via cctalk wrote: >>>>> I have not tested it, but I suppose, that also the PX-8 and PX-4 used >>>>> the protocol, >>>>> because the protocol specification defines the following device >>>>> numbers: >>>>> - HX-20: 0x20 (probably also used for the HC-20) >>>>> - PX-8: 0x22 >>>>> - PX-4: 0x23 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> PX-8! >>> >> A subject dear to me. I still have the px-8 I bought new (borrowed >> the money from my sister) as a young man in 1984. Alas, I could >> never afford the PF-10 disk drive. >> I've had one for many decades and 2 more for well, now its two decades. Handy little critter and they do see use. >> >>>> However, the PX-8 3.5" had 40 cylinders, with 67.5 tpi, instead of the >>>> common 80 cylinder 135 tpi of other 3.5" disks. >>>> Those 40 cylinder 3.5" drives are quite rare. > > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote: >> Somewhere in my searches I recall reading that the 3 1/2" drives used >> the same format as the 5 1/4" ones. Maybe 40 tracks of 16 256 byte >> sectors. Oddly, I believe that 2 tracks are "reserved for CP/M" even >> though it is in ROM and not stored on disk. > > It was not uncommon for CP/M disks to have "reserved" or "system" > tracks, even when the particular disk was not a bootable "system" disk. > Standard SSSD 8" that is the case the fist two tracks are for "system" and the system is loaded from those. Most other do a variation depending on format and space. CP/M ( the modules CCP, BDOS, BIOS) fits in about 8k so that defines the size of system tracks. CP/M revolves around logical sectors of 128 bytes so anything larger 2556/512/1k requires blocking and deblocking in the bios. > I don't remember for sure, and don't have convenient access to my > materials, but 16 256 byte physical sectors makes sense. > Yes, it would be enough. Save for the PX8 has CP/M loaded into ROM so the system tracks are largely wasted. I believe there is some drive and system level configuration information there but we are talking less than a sector or two. > The drive manual > http://electrickery.xs4all.nl/comp/px8/doc/PF-10Manual.pdf > SAYS 9 512 byte sectors, but that seems likely to be in error from a > cut and paste boilerplate from a different machine, because the more > specific information is all for "64 sectors", which means CP/M RECORDS > or "logical sectors" of 128 bytes each. THAT would be consistent with > either 8 512 byte PHYSICAL sectors, or 16 256 byte PHYSICAL sectors. > It seems that way as it matches the PF-20 5.25" drive. However the format on the drive also seems consistent at 9x512. Its not uncommon to use the whole system track or two even if it has "excess" space. Often the first sector contains the full disk book rather than a minimal 1 sector boot. There is a lot of latitude and mostly why copy format programs such as yours existed due to same drive and media and many many different formats. I've gotten away from rotating media on a few of my CP/M systems and they go to the edge of what CP/M permits as in EPROM loaded, ROMdisks, RAMdisks and CF. Allison
Re: Core memory emulator using non volatile ram.
On 12/15/2018 09:32 PM, Charles Anthony via cctech wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 6:15 PM Rod G8DGR via cctalk > wrote: > >> All very interesting.. 1201 alarm while I deal will all of the information >> Rod >> >> > 1202 coming up... > > I don't know specifically about the various memory types being bandied > about, but I do know that the destructive read behavior of core memory my > be required for some architectures; "load and clear" type instructions rely > on the suppressing the write-after-read cycle to make the instruction > atomic, allowing the implementation of data locking instructions. For some > architectures, it may be that any replacement memory would have to support > the suppression signal to work correctly. > > -- Charles That's all fairy land speculation and guessing. The person that started this is working with a PDP-8E so the above does not apply. the 8E and later had both DEC made ram and third parties did when 2102 were cheap enough about 78ish. Later it was battery backed up cmos. For system with disk a rom based booter was enough as who cares if the ram held valid stuff. As to realism, the cost of a core was high enough then if it broke or worse now if it breaks its out of sight. Breakage back then was costly, not its possibly unobtainium. The for the most part with the covers on the only thing noted was binary blisters from the switches and the incessant loud fans. In the mean time the user was interacting with a TTY with its notable noises and if needing service a sometimes bad attitude. The fact that CORE does a R-Rewrite or RMW cycle is both unseen without a scope and had no impact while running a file though PAL-III in all caps. In the end, current generation CMOS ram is the easy out, battery is small, cost is small, and produces much less of the heat that is killer to systems. The only reason to do that is core cost big if you can find it for your machine. I can cost more if you want to run an OS that needs a fair amount of it. AC as well as it can help heat the room and also power as in makes the meter spin. So much lathering and speculation about what and how. When the point is totally missed. Allison
Re: Core memory emulator using non volatile ram.
On 12/15/2018 03:51 PM, Jon Elson via cctech wrote: > On 12/15/2018 02:45 PM, Anders Nelson via cctalk wrote: >> Serial flash has an endurance between 10K-100K writes per cell so I >> think >> that would break down quickly. Wear-leveling on a serial device would be >> very slow... >> >> > If you intend to use it as main core memory on an old CPU, it will > perform VERY poorly, as these memories need to erase a page at a time, > and the erase takes milliseconds. So, writing ONE SINGLE word at a > time would invoke an erase cycle each time, slowing it to 1/1000 or > worse the speed of the original core memory. Also, most old CPUs have > the memory timing built into the CPU, and can't handle a memory that > says "wait". > > Jon The only place where Flash or similar tech fits is applied to the mass storage problem such as replicating a RF/DF32 multihead disk. The cycle life is a limiting factor for things like swapping drums/disks but for something that's read mostly its ok. Core is RAM, and not serial anyway. Allison
Re: Core memory emulator using non volatile ram.
On 12/16/2018 10:07 PM, ben via cctech wrote: > On 12/16/2018 8:00 PM, allison via cctech wrote: > >> In the end, current generation CMOS ram is the easy out, battery is >> small, cost is small, and >> produces much less of the heat that is killer to systems. The only >> reason to do that is core >> cost big if you can find it for your machine. I can cost more if you >> want to run an OS that >> needs a fair amount of it. AC as well as it can help heat the room and >> also power as in >> makes the meter spin. >> >> So much lathering and speculation about what and how. When the point is >> totally missed. >> >> Allison >> > > What programs or operating sytems require non volatile core? > Did DEC have any BOOTSTRAP programs in prom for the 8? > A small prom and regular slow mos memory may be the solution. > Ben. > None. Non volitility was handy if you wanted to power down go home and restart where you were the next day but at the OS level that was never a consideration. CMOS is MOS! Current generation parts are cheap and easy to use. Its not a speed issue as core was so slow, PDP-8 the fastest core was 1.5uS and even current cmos (5101) was under 1uS. No advanatage for slow memory as everything from 1978 on was likely much faster than an 8e needed anyway. The easy way if obvious use cmos as its cheap and common as house flies. Leave out the small lithium cell. The problem is PROM cards for PDP-8 omnibus was not common at at then then time cheap and used parts likely to be unobtainium now. The machines that had it used an abbreviated front panel maybe 12 sense switches for the OSR instruction and a boot/start switch. Not many made and FS contract required the full panel to do checkout and fix. So cost wise the boot card was not common. Call it an artifact of systems then. The loader for most stuff was small anyway, toggle it in, usually rim or bin loaders. Run the reader and that loaded whatever. Typical small non disk systems were CPU, TTY and maybe a high speed reader. Next level added TU56 or maybe RX01 floppy, from there a DF32 disk and maybe a RK05 or two. The user interacted with them the box ala the CPU was a small part of that interaction/experience. Allison
Re: flashx20 - Floppy and screen for the Epson HX-20
On 12/16/2018 10:59 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Norbert Kehrer via cctalk wrote: >> I have not tested it, but I suppose, that also the PX-8 and PX-4 used >> the protocol, >> because the protocol specification defines the following device numbers: >> - HX-20: 0x20 (probably also used for the HC-20) >> - PX-8: 0x22 >> - PX-4: 0x23 > > > PX-8! > The Epson Geneva PX-8 had an external 3.5" floppy available, and CP/M! CP/M was in rom so your disk was a paltry 24k(bare PX8), 60K(multiwedge) or 120K (Ramdisk wedge) and of course both a 5.25 or 3.5 floppy. The 3.5" drive could run on internal battery. > However, the PX-8 3.5" had 40 cylinders, with 67.5 tpi, instead of the > common 80 cylinder 135 tpi of other 3.5" disks. > Those 40 cylinder 3.5" drives are quite rare. > I don't know about the track width; for reading, a PC can simply look > at every other track. And formatting a virgin disk and writing to it > should work. But, there is a definite possibility that RE-writing a > PX-8 disk would result in one that the PX-8 couldn't handle (EXACTLY > the same problem as RE-writing a 40 track 5.25" disk with an 80 track > 5.25" drive) > Many of the drives have dead spots and need a manual push to start. I have two like that. I suspect the ceramic magnet lost its stuff over time. When I have time the next project will be a Atmega2650 running a CF to via serial interface. The drive table can be patched for a larger (up to 8mb) drive. > > With appropriate format handling software on the PC, it should be > possible for a PC connected using your system to work with actual > Epson diskettes, and emulate the Epson external drives. > There are several software packages on the net to do the fake of the disk via serial and manuals of the system to explain the format. Likely that software could do the earlier HX20 (and friends) with minor tweaks. Allison
Re: Core memory emulator using non volatile ram.
On 12/15/2018 01:01 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctech wrote: > FRAM or MRAM. I make extensive use of them in my projects. > > Everspin has a few (all SMT and 3.3v). As I recall they run ~$20/ea for 4Mb > (512K x 8 or 256K x 16). > > TTFN - Guy > >> On Dec 15, 2018, at 1:22 AM, Rod G8DGR via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> I have an idea to produce an MM-8 clone using RAM that acts like core when >> turned off. >> Can anybody suggest a chip that will do this? >> >> Rod Smallwood >> >> My call on this is that cmos static ram 4Bit wide does the job well I have 32K of it in my PDP-8 to get past possible failure of hard to find and get core. A Panasonic BR-1 lithium cell has enough capacity at the measured drain for about 6-7 years and the Dallas power management chip makes it a non hack. Flash, EEprom and Magnetic FRAM and MRAM) types have many unacceptable properties for a random access read write memory. It makes no difference to the PDP8(ILEFMA) that read is not destructive as it will write back as needed anyway. There is a design on the 'net for using CMOS ram in a straight forward buildable array for Omnibus with battery back up that is fine. Don;t get wraped around the axle about RMW as any sufficiently fast ram can do that without wearout. And compared to core it doesn't take much speed. EEprom and Flash work fine for read mostly disks or disk simulators. Allison
Re: PET peve thing... Editors
On 12/13/2018 12:05 AM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote: > It was thus said that the Great allison via cctalk once stated: >> On 12/12/2018 03:04 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote: >>> It was thus said that the Great allison via cctalk once stated: >>>> The whole thing comes from a project for myself... >>>> I wanted a very basic screen based editor written in 8080/8085/z80 asm >>>> and compact >>>> (as in under 4K). I figured first lets inquire of the Internet to see >>>> if I need to and code exists... >>> I remember typing in TED.ASM from one of the PC magazines in the late >>> 80s. >>> Yes, it's for MS-DOS, but: >>> >>> 1) The 8086 is somewhat, kind of, source compatible with the >>> 8080/Z80 (if you squint hard enough) >> Your not serious? Z80 or 8080 to 8086 is not too bad but the other way >> is plain nuts. > I learned assembly on the 6809, then the 8086 (technically the 8088). I've > always heard that it was designed to make porting code from the 8080/Z80 > easy. But I never really learned the assembly for the 8080/Z80. I only > mentioned it because I think (if I recall) TED.COM was limited to editing > around 60K or so (one segment's worth of memory). The 6809 is one of the few I pay attention to as it was remarkably close to the PDP-11. The 8088/86 is that it was designed as a 8085 with a bag on the side. The register correspondence from 8080/8085 to 8088 is good and lofting code usually works if you watch for odd errors like AH, is that the value A hex, or Accumulator high. Z80 however in base is 8080/8085 but had a second set of identical registers and 8088 has nothing like that. So unless one keep the Z80 code to the 8080 register model it does not translate well. In the reverse direction the 8088 has register (segment) and a few other that would have to be sorted out by hand. The size limit of 60K is not a problem as what I want is aimed at files in the 7-32K range. > But I can see it won't fit your needs. If it wasn't a handful to get ported to z80 it might have made a start. I found EDIT and EDITM both are based on EDIT CPMSIG vol 16 where edit M is more cleaned up and handles some things better. Both are very small under 2.8K. So that makes for a platform to add to by wiring in a set of recurrent edit macros that repeat and update the screen. Allison
Re: PET peve thing... Editors
On 12/12/2018 03:04 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote: > It was thus said that the Great allison via cctalk once stated: >> The whole thing comes from a project for myself... >> I wanted a very basic screen based editor written in 8080/8085/z80 asm >> and compact >> (as in under 4K). I figured first lets inquire of the Internet to see >> if I need to and code exists... > I remember typing in TED.ASM from one of the PC magazines in the late 80s. > Yes, it's for MS-DOS, but: > > 1) The 8086 is somewhat, kind of, source compatible with the > 8080/Z80 (if you squint hard enough) Your not serious? Z80 or 8080 to 8086 is not too bad but the other way is plain nuts. > 2) It was 3K when assembled into TED.COM Its not nice code either. It assumes a memory mapped video, as in the usual PC video. Kaypro is a pretty close example of that but this will not be used on a kaypro. The executable did run ok in .dosemu. > 3) Was full screen. And quite basic. > > I'm not sure how hard it would be to translate it to 8080/Z80. Pretty nasty as Z80 does not know of segments, DOS IO, or can be assumed to have a memory mapped video. For S100 that would be a PT VDM-1,or one of the similar flavors. If it were my usual S100/Kaypro/AMproLB+ or any of the CP/M machines I have its VEDIT. But this machine is maybe 1/3rd the size of a S100 card. All IO is serial initially. Allison
Re: PET peve thing... Editors
On 12/12/2018 03:08 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote: > It was thus said that the Great allison via cctalk once stated: >> The whole thing comes from a project for myself... >> I wanted a very basic screen based editor written in 8080/8085/z80 asm >> and compact >> (as in under 4K). I figured first lets inquire of the Internet to see >> if I need to and code exists... > There is this page: > > http://www.texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?CPMEditorFamily Its been bookmarked for years. Lot of stuff there many dead links and some only lead to executables. Many just repeats of the Walnutcreek CP/M CDrom and i've had that for well over 20 years. The real hunt was good links, source or source that could uncrunched, unLBR, UnLZH, Unhuffed, unarced or unarked. Most however lead to a compredded vversion of a executable only and exceeds the size of edit and the one from DRdobbs is large. regardless of the C compiler used. > That might have what you want. Finally found the source for Edit. Not a favorite as its line but i can build in a simple flavor of VTECO with it Its from SIGM vol16. My usual editor for CP/M is VEDIT and has been since late '79. In between that KED on RT-11 and TPU on VAX/VMS it wasn't till the mid 386 era that I had to use a PC for anything and it was VEDIT there too till winders then Notepad+ Why not Vedit, 11K. Linux is generally gedit with language selections added even 8080/z80 asm. > -spc (On the basis that CP/M ran on the 8080/Z80 CPU ... ) Sheesh it originated there and was ported to 68K and Z8K. When One says CP/M they are Its safe to assume 8080/8085/z80/z180/280/NSC800 or other z80 core. Allison
Re: P112 redesigned for Z280? terminal
>> That is the easy part, where is the 99 cent dumb terminal to go with it? >> Ben. > Ben, look at Grant Searle's display system, not the Z80 CP/M but his three chip display system. Take two Atmel Atmega328Ps and a 74ls166 monitor and P2 keyboard required. That yields a 24line x 80char display that is a subset of Vt100/Ansii. Its not 99cents but at list prices under 7$ Monitor and keyboard not included. Or you can use an arduino with a 40char by 4 line LCD. Allison
Re: PET peve thing... Editors
On 12/12/2018 02:49 PM, emanuel stiebler via cctalk wrote: > On 2018-12-12 14:41, allison via cctalk wrote: >> The whole thing comes from a project for myself... >> I wanted a very basic screen based editor written in 8080/8085/z80 asm >> and compact >> (as in under 4K). I figured first lets inquire of the Internet to see >> if I need to and code exists... > Probably something like the > "TEA an 8080/8085 Co-Resident Editor/Assembler" > > Have the book in the shelf, I think I used it once, > and IIRC, the Source was once on the internet ... I also have the book. TEA is both an assembler (not needed) and line oriented editor like ED (gag). There are many others just like it others like it including EDASM (trs80), PT ALS-8, MITS Programming package 1 (and II), a similar package for IMSAI as well as Dave Dunfields ALPS. None are screen oriented and all add the weight of an assembler. If I wanted ED I have it as its native and supplied with CP/M. Best I can tell over the last 4 decades most people like me suffered it to get the system up and bought something a bit less painful. And deleted ED. What would be worse? Typing in TEA from the book, stripping the assembler and making it CP/M friendly. Since that seems rather high effort its easier to take SCS-1, ALPS, or ALS-8 as at least I have source on line. The project will be a z80 system and the boot device is a 32K EEProm with system and a very small disk image so every K of code I can save/avoid is a program to fit in the available 24K. Wit a little magic DDT, ASM, and an editor has to fit. That's bridge code mostly as the next level is a large device (IDE/CF/SD). Seems simple but, not. Allison
PET peve thing... Editors
The whole thing comes from a project for myself... I wanted a very basic screen based editor written in 8080/8085/z80 asm and compact (as in under 4K). I figured first lets inquire of the Internet to see if I need to and code exists... Well google is a rats bottom as now matter how you write it it either thinks your talking about assemblers, no i'm not. emulators, srsly? PC based editor, still not close HTML editors, aw come on now! ALS or any of the line editor (aka ED), yuck and I have that already... They must have existed how'ed all that CP/M code get written before Vedit or other programmers editors? So now I'm going to have to write my own as the "world search tools" are willfully dumb and stupid. Allison
