Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 2015-09-22 06:58, tony duell wrote: HOWEVER, while the PDP-11 is still unable to perform an LLF on an RX50 when an RQDX3 is present, it is possible to perform an LLF on a floppy in an RX33. Does that still seem compatible with your explanation? Yes, that confused me too. The RQDX3 is

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

tony duell wrote: > > > > For both the DEC RX01 and the DEC RX02 8" floppy drives, > > while it might have been possible that DEC engineers were unable > > to initially figure out how to allow users to perform an LLF (Low > > Level Format) on the 8" floppy drives, it seems certain that after >

RE: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> HOWEVER, while the PDP-11 is still unable to perform an > LLF on an RX50 when an RQDX3 is present, it is possible > to perform an LLF on a floppy in an RX33. Does that still > seem compatible with your explanation? Yes, that confused me too. The RQDX3 is clearly capable of LLFing a floppy. So

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 2015-09-21 22:27, Paul Koning wrote: On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2015-09-21 17:03, Paul Koning wrote: And it would certainly be possible to write a driver that can handle both controllers; it would start by

RE: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> > > Epson PX8? > > That's a commercial or industrial system? Did it run an EDM setup, > turret lathe or vacuforming machine? Anyone keep their AR, AP, GL, > payroll and inventory on one? I doubt that one could run a PBX. I guess it depends on what you call a 'commercial' system. I

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

>Johnny Billquist wrote: In any case, adding and correcting the extra code was quite easy. The challenge was to also add support for a user buffer being above the 1/4 MB boundary in a PDP-11 with all 4 MB of memory when a Mapped RT-11 Monitor was used since the controller supported only 18-bit

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 2015-09-21 19:20, Paul Koning wrote: On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: ... I suppose you could on a Pro, since that had its own particularly disgusting junk controller. But I haven't seen RX50 formatting there. My impression was that they came

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 2015-09-22 03:09, Jerome H. Fine wrote: >Johnny Billquist wrote: In any case, adding and correcting the extra code was quite easy. The challenge was to also add support for a user buffer being above the 1/4 MB boundary in a PDP-11 with all 4 MB of memory when a Mapped RT-11 Monitor was

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

>tony duell wrote: If it was possible to perform a LLF using the same RX50 drive on the Rainbow, what was the reason why an LLF could not also be It is. Remember the RX50 is just a drive, it does not include any of the controller electronics. performed on a PDP-11? There seems to be a

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: > > On 9/21/2015 4:30 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote: Chuck Guzis wrote: >>> Note that the RX50 was the same. DEC finally changed >>> their marketing policy with the RX33

RE: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> > Not CP/M admittedly, but small contemporary > Burroughs machines certainly used cassettes, both > for program and data storage. I wrote several > fairly complex diskless accounting systems using > four cassette drives, one or two card readers and > a line printer (in addition to the console >

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

g> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 1:42 AM Subject: Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was On 09/20/2015 09:55 PM, tony duell wrote: Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M here. How many CP/M systems used cassette for storage. Better yet, how many commerical/indust

RE: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> Why not; not much different conceptually after all > from early systems using open-reel mag tape, or > even punch(ed) cards. On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, tony duell wrote: I feel there are 2 distinct types of cassette system from the user perspective. The first is the sort used on 1980s home

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 09/21/2015 10:22 AM, tony duell wrote: Have you ever read the technical manual for the QX10? It appears there were 2 keyboards sold for it. One had Valdocs-specific keys, the other (which seems more common over here, not that the QX10 is a common machine) doesn't and was used for a more

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

>Rod Smallwood wrote: >On 21/09/2015 10:30, Johnny Billquist wrote: >On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote: You bring up a VERY notable lack of support by DEC of that situation!! For both the DEC RX01 and the DEC RX02 8" floppy drives, while it might have been

RE: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> If it was possible to perform a LLF using the same RX50 drive on > the Rainbow, what was the reason why an LLF could not also be It is. Remember the RX50 is just a drive, it does not include any of the controller electronics. > performed on a PDP-11? There seems to be a number of

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > ... >> I suppose you could on a Pro, since that had its own particularly disgusting >> junk controller. But I haven't seen RX50 formatting there. My impression >> was that they came factory formatted, with the

RE: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> > and, of course, as a third type, Exatron Stringy-Floppy > computer based, but NOT entirely usable. Along with its inferior friend the Sinclair Microdrive which was entirely NOT useable. -tony

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 9/21/2015 11:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > For RX50? On standard PDP11s, those used an MSCP controller, which means the > controller would have to do it. Did it? The only MSCP controller I remember > that did formatting was the UDA50. > > I suppose you could on a Pro, since that had its

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: > > >Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> >On 2015-09-21 17:03, Paul Koning wrote: >> >>> And it would certainly be possible to write a driver that can handle both >>> controllers; it would start by determining which

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

Holm Tiffe wrote: [..] ..forgot to mention one interesting thing: The E60 is that PDP11 clone on which Alexei Paschitnow wrote the original of Tetris... Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Straße 42, 09600 Oberschöna, USt-Id:

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

Ah, but when people with Valdocs wanted to change to another word-processing system, as was likely to happen often in business, they would contact, Chuck, me, or any of our colleagues in the disk format conversion field. The CP/M users might not have as frequent a conversion need, and/or

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

and, of course, as a third type, Exatron Stringy-Floppy computer based, but NOT entirely usable. The department chair at one of the colleges attempted to convert an entire TRS80 based student computer lab over to stringy floppy. He was the same one who later had a lab full of TRS80 model 3s

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

>Jay Jaeger wrote: On 9/21/2015 11:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote: For RX50? On standard PDP11s, those used an MSCP controller, which means the controller would have to do it. Did it? The only MSCP controller I remember that did formatting was the UDA50. I suppose you could on a Pro, since

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote: I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the time. Even that gave a very small amount memory per track. Ben. single sided FM/SD 77

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

>Chuck Guzis wrote: >On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: >On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote: I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the time. Even that gave a very small amount memory per track.

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

single sided FM/SD 77 tracks, 26 sectors per track, 128 bytes per sector 256,256 bytes (250.25K) On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote: There was a good reason for that. Many early disk controllers did not have a "write index to index" fucntion that also enabled writing special (i.e. missing

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 9/20/2015 7:55 PM, Chuck Uzis wrote: So it was still fragmented. So did it matter? You ran Basic or played games from cassete. That was for domestic systems, heaven help you lived out of USA for computers. --Chuck Ben.

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 09/20/2015 09:55 PM, tony duell wrote: Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M here. How many CP/M systems used cassette for storage. Better yet, how many commerical/industrial CP/M systems used cassettes for program storage. Epson PX8? That's a commercial or industrial system?

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 09/20/2015 05:32 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: But, I had thought that there should then be a SECOND standard for 5.25", for those machines without 8" support. Gary disagreed. Having more than ONE "standard" makes it not completely a standard. Still, a 5.25" "recommended" format, or a specific

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 09/20/2015 03:46 PM, ben wrote: On 9/20/2015 2:19 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: There were several reasons why there was never a STANDARD 5.25" CP/M format. I once had the opportunity to ask Gary Kildall what the standard would be for 5.25". He replied, "8 inch single sided single density".

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote: So did it matter? You ran Basic or played games from cassete. Sure. But, I was never happy with cassette for program nor data storage. I bought an Expansion Interface the day that it became available, but I never bought a drive from Radio Shack nor IBM. Bare

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 09/20/2015 08:48 PM, ben wrote: OS/9 was nice for the 6809 but all I had was 1 floppy with the COCO II. Ben. Before I got a (dual) floppy drive with my personal system, I used a Techtran dual cassette drive. One side was read-write, the other was read-only.It was intended as a

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote: I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the time. Even that gave a very small amount memory per track. Ben. single sided FM/SD 77 tracks, 26 sectors per track, 128 bytes per

Re: Multi-platform distribution format (Was: Backups [was

On 9/20/2015 2:19 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: There were several reasons why there was never a STANDARD 5.25" CP/M format. I once had the opportunity to ask Gary Kildall what the standard would be for 5.25". He replied, "8 inch single sided single density". I repeated, "Yes, but waht about 5.25"?