From brain at jbrain.com Mon Feb 1 01:03:56 2010 From: brain at jbrain.com (Jim Brain) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:03:56 -0600 Subject: Minimig (was new non-x86 mobos) In-Reply-To: <20100106203601.GB7096@mail.loomcom.com> References: <4B44E738.4030303@e-bbes.com> <6dbe3c381001061210i2996f576i9c9b8e5d13c487cf@mail.gmail.com> <20100106203601.GB7096@mail.loomcom.com> Message-ID: <4B667CDC.5090100@jbrain.com> On 1/6/2010 2:36 PM, Seth Morabito wrote: Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but I meant to respond and it's taken this long. > > Probably the most interesting thing about it is that it's something of a > mystery! The original project was designed by Jeri Ellsworth (of the C64 > DTV project), but the schematics and design docs were permanently lost > and Jeri moved on to new projects. Even now, the maintainers are making > new discoveries about how the damn thing is put together and how to > write cores for it. They're reverse-engineering their own product. > Due to some significant disagreements over the design of the PCB and compensation, Jeri all but abandoned the C1 and directed her efforts to the DTV. Jens, who had the money invested, took the boards, some other FPGA developers, and went his own way. The truth of who's right and who's wrong may never be known, but that is why Jen has precious little of the information. It's a shame, truly it is, because it could have been the minimig or a similar system, selling lots of units. As it is, its history is significantly marred by a disagreement between the designer and the manufacturer. Jim -- Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X) brain at jbrain.com Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times! Home: http://www.jbrain.com From als at thangorodrim.de Mon Feb 1 01:57:54 2010 From: als at thangorodrim.de (Alexander Schreiber) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:57:54 +0100 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> References: <4B6257C6.3090706@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6262D4.70307@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> Message-ID: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 07:29:00PM -0500, Jerome H. Fine wrote: > >Dave McGuire wrote: > >>>> And you do realize "PDP-11" spanned some two and a half decades >>>> and more >>>> than a dozen implementations with a huge range of processing power >>>> ranging from "wimpy" to "big clanging brass balls", right? >>> >>> Yes, but the PDP 11 was designed to have raw power from the original >>> design. OK, they goofed on a basic address space of 18 bits. >> >> 16 bits, actually. The two MMU architectures extended that to 18 and >> 22 bits. I wouldn't call it a goof considering the first one came >> out in 1970. For a small lab minicomputer in 1970, 64KB isn't bad at >> all. > > Considering the cost of CORE memory in 1970, 64KB was > much larger than any PDP-11 at that time. 8KB was a > common system. Even up to around 1975, I don't think > there was an MMU available in any case. Does anyone > know when the MMU was first used with more than 64KB > of memory for the system? > > As for total memory available to use for temporary > work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a > system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that > WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends on the specific hardware. Kind regards, Alex. [0] Although with current PC mainboard, a lot of those 'periphericals' are on the same mainboard, even part of the mainboard chipset. -- "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison From ploopster at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 02:07:41 2010 From: ploopster at gmail.com (Sridhar Ayengar) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:07:41 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup In-Reply-To: <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Message-ID: <4B668BCD.8050207@gmail.com> Where are you located? Peace... Sridhar Daniel Snyder wrote: > Still thinning my vintage stuff.. > Go to http://picasaweb.google.com/DanielDSnyder for a look, category is: > Old stuff looking for a new home > > Available is: > > 1 - Centronics 761 KSR - serial > 1 - Centronics 779 - parallel > 1 - Centronics 781 - serial? > 1 - IBM PS/2 TV - complete > 2 - IBM PS/2 model 30-286 > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 25 B&W > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 50 > 2 - IBM PS/2 model 70 386 & 486 > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 80 with Kingston 486 > 1 - IBM PS/2 B&W monitor > 2 - IBM PS/2 keyboards > > Contact me offine. I really do not want to ship this stuff, but I am > willing to relay > the stuff and at this moment there is no time limit, I am not going to > toss the stuff.. > > Note all items have been stored in my home and have been known to work. I > know for a fact the Centronics printers have been in my home for almost > 30 years. > > I need the space, would like to pass the items to someone else to > enjoy.. whatever > the reason may be, I have narrowed my focus to VAX, Alpha and Integrity > based VMS > boxes. This is one of the few constants in my career in the last 31 years. > > Dan Snyder > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Hartman" > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: Free for pickup > > >> Of the items I posted earlier, the following is still available: >> >> Qty 2 - HP Laserjet IIIP Printers >> >> Box of Misc Network Adapter cards, ISA mixed 8 and 16 bit. Mostly 16 >> bit. All are Novell, Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and Lantastic Compatible. >> >> I have the following to add: >> >> 1 ZIP 100 Drive and Power Supply >> 1 Ditto Tape Backup Drive (Not sure if it still works due to age of >> rubber rollers) >> 1 Apple Imagewriter II >> >> Items are located in Keansburg, NJ 07734 >> >> Contact me off-list via PM. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Al Hartman >> >> > From pete at dunnington.plus.com Mon Feb 1 02:32:36 2010 From: pete at dunnington.plus.com (Pete Turnbull) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:32:36 +0000 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B6668AF.6080007@tx.rr.com> References: <4B65EC26.2040509@dunnington.plus.com> <4B6668AF.6080007@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4B6691A4.3060201@dunnington.plus.com> On 01/02/2010 05:37, CSquared wrote: > Pete Turnbull wrote: >> I am really puzzled by this. The ACIA has no hardware reset line, but >> it's very easy to send it a master reset command in software. > I'm pretty sure they were Motorola parts. As I told Geoffrey, it has > been a very long time - like probably 40 years - and I've forgotten a > lot of the details, and just sort of remember the pain. I think the > ACIA would somehow get into a state where it would not pay attention to > the master reset command. I don't recall that ever happening to me, but I can well believe it :-) -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York From ragooman at comcast.net Mon Feb 1 07:22:53 2010 From: ragooman at comcast.net (Dan Roganti) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:22:53 -0500 Subject: Reminder for Workshop: Installing CP/M on your S-100 computer , signup begins today Feb.1st Message-ID: <4B66D5AD.8060205@comcast.net> Reminder: Installing CP/M on your S-100 computer workshop signup begins today Feb.1st For the vintage computer enthusiasts, in conjunction with the MARCH Computer Museum and the Delaware Hackerspace group, we like to invite you to a new workshop this year involving vintage computers. This new workshop is about CP/M and it will teach you how to install, build and configure CP/M on your vintage S-100 computer system. All the necessary steps are shown during the lecture and afterward is a hands-on training session which will let you upgrade your S-100 computer with a floppy disk based system and CP/M. Instruction and lecture will be provided by Rich Cini of the Altair32 emulator project. Please look at the link below about the workshop checklist for a detailed list of requirements about this workshop. You'll need to know what to prepare beforehand to get ready for this workshop. Ask any questions you have about getting ready before the start of the workshop. A knowledge of assembly programming, S-100 hardware, and CP/M operation is required for this workshop. Please do not come unprepared. We currently have seats for 12 workbenches for those who want the hands-on training. An additional 10 seats are available for those who like to watch and learn. If we happen to get more requests for this workshop, we will try to accommodate as many people as possible. This is a first come, first serve event, sorry, but we cannot accommodate latecomers. Once the registration opens, please specify which seat you like to reserve. The workshop is located very close to I-95 for those that are drivng. More information can be found at the Delaware Hackerspace website below. Workshop Checklist - view message thread http://www.vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=310 Address: 103 W. 7th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Registration opens: Feb. 1st, 2010 Signup deadline: Apr. 1st, 2010 Workshop Date: Apr. 10th, 2010 hours: Sat: 12noon - 7pm SPONSORS: Bill Degnan http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ Delaware Hackerspace http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Delaware_Hackerspace Altair32 emulator project http://www.altair32.com/ MARCH Computer Museum http://www.midatlanticretro.org/ Please send any questions offline. Dan Roganti ragooman at comcast.net see you there ! -- http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ragooman/ From jules.richardson99 at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 07:32:07 2010 From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com (Jules Richardson) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:32:07 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B66D7D7.7020308@gmail.com> Tony Duell wrote: >> Tony Duell wrote: >>>> Having learned assembly language programming on the beautifully >>>> simple architecture and instruction set of the 6800, the Byte magazine >>>> article linked to below that I read when it was originally published >>>> really impressed me. In the 6809 they made one of the earliest efforts >>>> I know of to really tweak an already great uP instruction set based upon >>>> an analysis of existing software: >>> I found the 6809 to be by far the nicest 8-bit CPU I ever worked with. >>> The instruction set was simple and very orthogonal, the fact that you had >>> various relative addressing modes meant you could write truely >>> position-independant code, there were 2 stack points, and so on. Unlike >>> certain chips I could name, there were no major misfeatures that I came >>> across. >>> >>> Of course the problem (as we all know) is that it came out too late. By >>> that tine everybody was using the Z80 or 6502. Oh well. >> Around here, it was Apple ]['s and C-64's. The Coco was the only cost >> 6809 machine I can think of, but RS designed for BASIC rather than >> business machine. RS did have a 68000 machine, but I think the next year >> they switched to in house PC clones. > > The only common 6809 machine in the UK was the Dragon, which was based > on the same Motorola application note as the CoCo. Of cource the CoCo was > also sold here (althohgh AFAIK the CoCo3 never was). > > Acorn made a 6809 CPU board for their Eurocard based System machines, it > normally ran Flex09. It's not easy to find. No... I spent many a year searching, too. I have the manual, which I think includes the schematic (if not, I got that separately), but I never did come across the physical board. > The curious Tiger used a 68B09 for I/O (along with a Z80A for the main > processor and a 7220 graphics chip). The HH machine? I've never seen a real one, but it sounded like an interesting beast. > There were, of course, various special-purpose embeeded 6809 controller > boards. I do have a Control Universal 6809 board (I don't recall if it's System bus or STE now), so making that 'do' something is a possibility one day. I pulled a whole stack of 6809s off some scrap telephone exchange boards many years ago. I'm not sure whose product it was - AFAIK BT never used an exchange which had 6809s, so it must have been some kind of private branch exchange. >>> It always suprised me that hre BBC micro used the 6502 rather than the >>> 6809. By the time the Beeb was designed, Acorn had made a 6809 processor >>> board for their System machines, so they must have had experience with >>> the chip. THe Beeb is nice, but a Beeb with a 6809 processor would have >>> been something else :-) >> I thought the BBC micro was designed, just before the 6809 came out. > > I'm not sure. The Beeb was 1982 or so. I thought the 6809 was out by > then. If not, it implies Acorn were still working on their System > machines, which seems a little curious. I'm not sure quite when Acorn sold the rights to the System range to Control Universal, but 1984 sticks in my head for some reason. If so, it implies that in 1982 they still thought there was some mileage left in the System hardware. I suppose that at the very least there were still quite a few System-based fileservers around. Remember that there was a *lot* of in-house expertise in 6502 development; the Atom was almost a "System rack in a home computer box", just as the BBC was an "Atom on steroids". I'm sure they considered other CPUs, but it made sense to stick with what they knew. cheers Jules From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 1 08:14:08 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:14:08 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> References: <4B6257C6.3090706@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6262D4.70307@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> Message-ID: <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >> As for total memory available to use for temporary >> work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >> system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >> WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), > > Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of > RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of > the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. > memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit > less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends > on the specific hardware. The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From pat at computer-refuge.org Mon Feb 1 08:43:32 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:43:32 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> References: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Monday 01 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: > >> As for total memory available to use for temporary > >> work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a > >> system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that > >> WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), > > > > Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of > > RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of > > the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. > > memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit > > less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends > > on the specific hardware. > > The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this > problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? Not all PC chipsets support the address lines to do this. My friend's Core2 Duo box (yes, a 64-bit machine) doesn't support more than 3.25GB of RAM because of this. It's "cost cutting" I guess. :( Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 1 08:52:45 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:52:45 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <92CB0159-B003-40D8-A6E9-92D1C5EB7C56@neurotica.com> On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: >>>> As for total memory available to use for temporary >>>> work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >>>> system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >>>> WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), >>> >>> Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of >>> RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of >>> the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. >>> memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit >>> less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends >>> on the specific hardware. >> >> The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this >> problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? > > Not all PC chipsets support the address lines to do this. My friend's > Core2 Duo box (yes, a 64-bit machine) doesn't support more than 3.25GB > of RAM because of this. > > It's "cost cutting" I guess. :( Holy cow, that's pretty nasty! Machines that can take that much memory (and machines for which one would reasonably expect to have that much memory) in which it won't actually function? I've never seen such a machine. I hope I don't ever. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From rickb at bensene.com Mon Feb 1 09:01:28 2010 From: rickb at bensene.com (Rick Bensene) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:01:28 -0800 Subject: TU56 Heads In-Reply-To: <4B667CDC.5090100@jbrain.com> References: <4B44E738.4030303@e-bbes.com> <6dbe3c381001061210i2996f576i9c9b8e5d13c487cf@mail.gmail.com><20100106203601.GB7096@mail.loomcom.com> <4B667CDC.5090100@jbrain.com> Message-ID: Hi, all, I have two DEC TU56 (DecTape) read/write heads which appear to be in good shape, though I have no way to test them. Is there any interest in these? I don't want to give them away, so I am entertaining offers, Buyer would also need to pay shipping. I really don't want to let them go, but I need some cash. Email me with your offer. Rick Bensene From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 1 09:09:23 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:09:23 -0800 Subject: More Free stuff In-Reply-To: <000501caa2a8$c961b670$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> References: , <000501caa2a8$c961b670$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Message-ID: <4B667E23.30492.1D3D69@cclist.sydex.com> On 31 Jan 2010 at 14:08, Daniel Snyder wrote: > Micro Cornucopia magazines: > Issue 1 to 21 inclusive. others up to 1989 If someone wants to assemble a complete set, I believe that I have the remainder of the issues until the magazine closed. Free for shipping or pickup (Eugene, OR). --Chuck From spectre at floodgap.com Mon Feb 1 09:41:14 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:41:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <92CB0159-B003-40D8-A6E9-92D1C5EB7C56@neurotica.com> from Dave McGuire at "Feb 1, 10 09:52:45 am" Message-ID: <201002011541.o11FfEZ7011462@floodgap.com> > > Not all PC chipsets support the address lines to do this. My friend's > > Core2 Duo box (yes, a 64-bit machine) doesn't support more than 3.25GB > > of RAM because of this. > > It's "cost cutting" I guess. :( > > Holy cow, that's pretty nasty! Machines that can take that much > memory (and machines for which one would reasonably expect to have > that much memory) in which it won't actually function? I've never > seen such a machine. I hope I don't ever. Every time I drive by Worst Buy ... -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- I can't type any long sentiments in this .sig file because it's not wide enou From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Mon Feb 1 09:46:40 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:46:40 -0700 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B6691A4.3060201@dunnington.plus.com> References: <4B65EC26.2040509@dunnington.plus.com> <4B6668AF.6080007@tx.rr.com> <4B6691A4.3060201@dunnington.plus.com> Message-ID: <4B66F760.1050100@jetnet.ab.ca> Pete Turnbull wrote: > On 01/02/2010 05:37, CSquared wrote: >> Pete Turnbull wrote: > >>> I am really puzzled by this. The ACIA has no hardware reset line, but >>> it's very easy to send it a master reset command in software. > >> I'm pretty sure they were Motorola parts. As I told Geoffrey, it has >> been a very long time - like probably 40 years - and I've forgotten a >> lot of the details, and just sort of remember the pain. I think the >> ACIA would somehow get into a state where it would not pay attention >> to the master reset command. > > I don't recall that ever happening to me, but I can well believe it :-) > Intel parks I can see, Motorola parts no! From ray at arachelian.com Mon Feb 1 10:18:05 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:18:05 -0500 Subject: Classic Epson printer emulators? In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c1001301000o2b1de736ge2ae894ed58efb94@mail.gmail.com> References: <8dd2d95c1001301000o2b1de736ge2ae894ed58efb94@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B66FEBD.7030802@arachelian.com> Michael Kerpan wrote: > Are there any free or open-source programs that can convert raw ESC/P > (Epson printer code) data into bitmap images or PDFs or something? > Many classic home computer programs rely on having a printer of this > sort in order to print, and while many emulators have a way to dump > serial or parallel output to a file, the only interpreters I can find > to turn that raw data into something useful are commercial programs > that I can't really justify the purchase of, given my student > budget... > Not sure of Epson ones, but there is one for the Apple Imagewriter I/ADMP which is part of LisaEm. It's based on a C-Itoh 8510 (I think). So if that's enough for your needs, you could rip out that piece of LisaEm and use it. If you have full docs on specific Epson printers that you're looking to emulate, somewhere on the net, that might be useful too. From jules.richardson99 at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 10:19:05 2010 From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com (Jules Richardson) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:19:05 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B66FEF9.8010104@gmail.com> Tony Duell wrote: >> Hi! When I designed the N8VEM 6809 host processor it is loosely based on an >> article I read for the BBC computer called "Dragon in the tube". I am not > > THe Dragon was, of course, the most common 6809-based computer in the UK. Yes, there never was an official 6809 copro from Acorn - although there have been at least two homebrew ones (not including the linking of the Dragon). >> very familiar with the UK microcomputers but apparently 6809 "coprocessors" >> were fairly common peripherals on their Z80 and 6502 designs. I used a > > Were they? I've never heard of one. > > Acorn never (AFAIK) made a 6809 second processor for the BBC micro. The > original series of second processors (in 'chesse wedge' cases to fit > alongside the BBC micro) were the 65C02, Z80A, 32016 (originally 16032 > :-)) and ARM 1. There was also a 32016 board with 4 times as much RAM > that was used in the Acorn Cambridge WOrkstation No, there was no 'official' 6809 that I know of. My list of commercial ones is as follows (notional OSes in square brackets): Acorn 6502 Acorn 65C02 Acorn 65C102 (Master internal TUBE) Acorn Z80 [CP/M] Acorn ARM-1 AEK Acorn ARM-1 A500 (*not* the standalone machine) [Arthur, ARX, RISC OS] Acorn 32016 "small board" (256k/1M) [PANOS, poss. Xenix or ARX] Acorn 32016 "large board" (1M/4M) [PANOS, poss. Xenix or ARX] Acorn 32016 (Master internal TUBE) [PANOS, poss. Xenix or ARX] Acorn 80186 (Master internal TUBE) 512K [DOS+/GEM] Acorn 80186 (Master internal TUBE) 1M [DOS+/GEM] Acorn 80286 [DOS+/GEM likely] Torch Z80 "Communicator" [CP/N] Torch Z80 "Tosca" (with local serial comms) [CP/N] Torch 68000 "Neptune" [Uniplus, CP/N] Torch 68000 "Atlas" [Uniplus, CP/N] Torch 80188 "Graduate" [MSDOS] Cumana 68008 "Upgrade" [OS-9] PEDL Z80 [unknown] Crombie Anderson Associates 68000 "Casper" [FLEX] And known "homebrews": Dragon/beeb hybrid 6809 Graham Toal's 6809 Jonathan Harston's PDP-11 Acorn's VAX* Sprow's ARM7 * I have confirmation that it really did exist, but nobody seems to recall exact details. Near as I can tell, it ran a serial link between the BBC micro and the VAX though (rather than TUBE or 1MHz bus), so it's perhaps a loose definition of coprocessor... > Is this article available on-line anywhere? Or do you have a reference to > it? It sounds as though it might be worth reading. I have it, but I'm only finding scans of the second part on the server right now (from Electronics and Computing Monthly, September 1985). I think the first part of the article from the previous month's issue is buried in an email somewhere - if nobody else has it (& you don't happen to have those magazines anyway) I can go hunting for it. The software (FLEX, customised for the BBC/Dragon hybrid) had to be sent away for, and I never could find a copy - if someone has it, I'd love a copy for the archive... (not least because hooking one of my Dragons to a beeb would be a fun project one day :-) cheers Jules From mtapley at swri.edu Mon Feb 1 10:25:38 2010 From: mtapley at swri.edu (Mark Tapley) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:25:38 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC Message-ID: At 4:59 -0600 1/31/10, CSquared wrote: > All this discussion is making me want a >CoCo unfortunately. Never had one when they were "new" but always >thought they would be a lot of fun - maybe a garage sale will turn one >up some day. If you don't mind spending a bit, http://www.cloud9tech.com/ might be a useful alternative to eBay. Refurbished CoCo3's are among the other goodies on the site. For the "power user", you can get 512k memory expansions, a serial link to your PC to use as disk storage ("Drivewire"), NitOS-9 in ROM, 6309 CPU upgrade, IDE or SCSI adaptors, etc. etc. No connection other than as a satisfied customer. Hope this helps ... >Just what I don't need of course - yet another project or >piece of hardware. ... Oops. ;-) -- - Mark 210-379-4635 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Large Asteroids headed toward planets inhabited by beings that don't have technology adequate to stop them: Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward. From als at thangorodrim.de Mon Feb 1 10:27:47 2010 From: als at thangorodrim.de (Alexander Schreiber) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:27:47 +0100 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> References: <4B6257C6.3090706@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6262D4.70307@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <20100201162747.GA7869@sam.angband.thangorodrim.de> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:14:08AM -0500, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >>> As for total memory available to use for temporary >>> work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >>> system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >>> WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), >> >> Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of >> RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of >> the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. >> memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit >> less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends >> on the specific hardware. > > The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this > problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? For values of 'easily' that require PAE, which complicates things and also has some limitations. For instance, no single process can access more than 4 GB without some ugly hackery remininescent of MS-DOS EMS. And then there is the fun and games that is MS Windows licensing, which limits what certain OS editions can do. If that isn't enough, there are also driver issues - not all drivers support PAE. Regards, Alex. -- "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 1 10:45:07 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:45:07 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <20100201162747.GA7869@sam.angband.thangorodrim.de> References: <4B6257C6.3090706@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6262D4.70307@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <20100201162747.GA7869@sam.angband.thangorodrim.de> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >>>> As for total memory available to use for temporary >>>> work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >>>> system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >>>> WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), >>> >>> Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of >>> RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of >>> the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. >>> memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit >>> less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends >>> on the specific hardware. >> >> The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this >> problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? > > For values of 'easily' that require PAE, which complicates things and > also has some limitations. For instance, no single process can access > more than 4 GB without some ugly hackery remininescent of MS-DOS EMS. Well, we are talking x86 here...an architecture not exactly known for its forward-looking design. The PAE stuff seems to work ok. > And then there is the fun and games that is MS Windows licensing, > which > limits what certain OS editions can do. If that isn't enough, there > are > also driver issues - not all drivers support PAE. I've set up lots of Linux and a few Solaris x86 systems with PAE and have had zero problems with anything, ever. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From spectre at floodgap.com Mon Feb 1 10:51:07 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:51:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B66FEF9.8010104@gmail.com> from Jules Richardson at "Feb 1, 10 10:19:05 am" Message-ID: <201002011651.o11Gp7d9016326@floodgap.com> > Yes, there never was an official 6809 copro from Acorn An unfortunate typo? -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- God is the tangential point between zero and infinity. -- Alfred Jarry ----- From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 1 11:03:28 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:03:28 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <201002011651.o11Gp7d9016326@floodgap.com> References: <201002011651.o11Gp7d9016326@floodgap.com> Message-ID: <6F36D7D4-8CE0-4976-A08B-EBCA9354FAEC@neurotica.com> On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: >> Yes, there never was an official 6809 copro from Acorn > > An unfortunate typo? soda -> keyboard -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Mon Feb 1 11:20:48 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:20:48 -0700 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: References: <4B6257C6.3090706@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6262D4.70307@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <20100201162747.GA7869@sam.angband.thangorodrim.de> Message-ID: <4B670D70.8010303@e-bbes.com> Dave McGuire wrote: >> And then there is the fun and games that is MS Windows licensing, which >> limits what certain OS editions can do. If that isn't enough, there are >> also driver issues - not all drivers support PAE. > > I've set up lots of Linux and a few Solaris x86 systems with PAE and > have had zero problems with anything, ever. Funny, how much truth can be in one sentence ;-) From rickb at bensene.com Mon Feb 1 11:39:11 2010 From: rickb at bensene.com (Rick Bensene) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:39:11 -0800 Subject: TU56 Heads [Gone] In-Reply-To: References: <4B44E738.4030303@e-bbes.com> <6dbe3c381001061210i2996f576i9c9b8e5d13c487cf@mail.gmail.com><20100106203601.GB7096@mail.loomcom.com><4B667CDC.5090100@jbrain.com> Message-ID: The TU56 heads have all been claimed. -Rick From alhartman at yahoo.com Mon Feb 1 11:48:25 2010 From: alhartman at yahoo.com (Al Hartman) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:48:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Minimig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Minimig was only a partial reimplementation of the Amiga 500 hardware. When last I checked the website, which is now down... much work was left to be done to fully implement all the video modes, sprites, collision detection and other parts of the custom chip functionality. I think that floppy support had yet to be implemented, so one had to make images on a real Amiga and transfer them via SDCard to the Minimig. I'd love a modern reimplementation of classic Amiga 1000 - 2000 class hardware. I was following the Minimig until it was sold to another company, and am still following the Natami project. I no longer have an Amiga 500, but will probably look for one in the next few months. I still have a working, though bare Amiga 1000 system. And was recently given an Atari-ST Mega 2 system with hard drive. Since I have that, I'm probably going to be selling the SH502 Atari Drive case (complete except for software and drive, the DMA Cable, power supply, case and ASCSI to SCSI adapter is there) on eBay. My original Jan 1979 TRS-80 Model I took a fall during the move and is now damaged. The case is cracked and is missing chips, and two keys broke off the keypad. I'm not even going to try to apply power to the system until I open it up and check it over carefully. That system has a lot of the mods from "TRS-80 and Other Mysteries" by Dennis Kitsz. It has an Electric Pencil Lowercase mod. The Speedup mod from the book, which automatically throttles down during disk or cassette access, composite out, easily reachable reset switch, built-in Alpha Compatible Joystick port, and an external keyboard port my friend added so we could play 2 player games (He wired up a surplus Coco Chiclet keyboard that Tandy used to sell off the rack, on a long ribbon cable.) I was able to snag an LNW-80 Model I two years ago, but I'd like to get my old system running and setup on a desk in my new house for old-time's sake. Since the LNW will run CP/M besides TRS-DOS compatible OS'es, it would be nice to get it going too. If I spot a Model 4 at a flea someday, I might grab one of those too. I really miss those days. Micros were a lot more fun in the early 80's than they are today. I used to wait for each new issue of 80-Micro with the latest hardware mod, or NewDos zap article with anticipation. Al Hartman Keansburg, NJ From curt at atarimuseum.com Mon Feb 1 11:52:51 2010 From: curt at atarimuseum.com (Curt @ Atari Museum) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:52:51 -0500 Subject: Minimig In-Reply-To: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B6714F3.8000903@atarimuseum.com> I thought I saw some minimigs up on Ebay for sale? Al Hartman wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Minimig was only a partial reimplementation of the Amiga 500 hardware. > > When last I checked the website, which is now down... much work was left to be done to fully implement all the video modes, sprites, collision detection and other parts of the custom chip functionality. > > I think that floppy support had yet to be implemented, so one had to make images on a real Amiga and transfer them via SDCard to the Minimig. > > I'd love a modern reimplementation of classic Amiga 1000 - 2000 class hardware. I was following the Minimig until it was sold to another company, and am still following the Natami project. > > I no longer have an Amiga 500, but will probably look for one in the next few months. I still have a working, though bare Amiga 1000 system. And was recently given an Atari-ST Mega 2 system with hard drive. > > Since I have that, I'm probably going to be selling the SH502 Atari Drive case (complete except for software and drive, the DMA Cable, power supply, case and ASCSI to SCSI adapter is there) on eBay. > > My original Jan 1979 TRS-80 Model I took a fall during the move and is now damaged. The case is cracked and is missing chips, and two keys broke off the keypad. I'm not even going to try to apply power to the system until I open it up and check it over carefully. > > That system has a lot of the mods from "TRS-80 and Other Mysteries" by Dennis Kitsz. It has an Electric Pencil Lowercase mod. The Speedup mod from the book, which automatically throttles down during disk or cassette access, composite out, easily reachable reset switch, built-in Alpha Compatible Joystick port, and an external keyboard port my friend added so we could play 2 player games (He wired up a surplus Coco Chiclet keyboard that Tandy used to sell off the rack, on a long ribbon cable.) > > I was able to snag an LNW-80 Model I two years ago, but I'd like to get my old system running and setup on a desk in my new house for old-time's sake. > > Since the LNW will run CP/M besides TRS-DOS compatible OS'es, it would be nice to get it going too. If I spot a Model 4 at a flea someday, I might grab one of those too. > > I really miss those days. Micros were a lot more fun in the early 80's than they are today. I used to wait for each new issue of 80-Micro with the latest hardware mod, or NewDos zap article with anticipation. > > Al Hartman > Keansburg, NJ > > > From emu at e-bbes.com Mon Feb 1 12:04:21 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:04:21 -0700 Subject: Minimig In-Reply-To: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B6717A5.2070404@e-bbes.com> Al Hartman wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Minimig was only a partial reimplementation of the Amiga 500 hardware. Probably, but not as bad as some people think. A lot of games are working on it. > > When last I checked the website, which is now down... Try here : http://www.minimig.net/index.php And please get an email client which cuts long lines ;-) Cheers From emu at e-bbes.com Mon Feb 1 12:06:22 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:06:22 -0700 Subject: Minimig In-Reply-To: <4B6714F3.8000903@atarimuseum.com> References: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B6714F3.8000903@atarimuseum.com> Message-ID: <4B67181E.2070903@e-bbes.com> Curt @ Atari Museum wrote: > I thought I saw some minimigs up on Ebay for sale? Assembled minimigs are sold on ebay. But if you insist, all the documentation is still out there, so you can make you very own. Most people don't notice, but there are actually three different version out there, one is even in mini-itx format. Cheers From keithvz at verizon.net Mon Feb 1 12:14:36 2010 From: keithvz at verizon.net (Keith) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:14:36 -0500 Subject: Minimig In-Reply-To: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <22152.6673.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B671A0C.6010909@verizon.net> Al Hartman wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Minimig was only a partial reimplementation of the Amiga 500 hardware. Al, that is correct. You can read the source files to see basically what isn't done. > > When last I checked the website, which is now down... I've mirrored the old site, and provided links to new site http://www.techtravels.org/amiga/minimig/minimig.html much work was left to be done to fully implement all the video modes, sprites, collision detection and other parts of the custom chip functionality. I honestly have played with it too much, but a lot of games, etc run fine on it. I would think that a large portion of what you mention is sufficiently completed for that to be true. > I think that floppy support had yet to be implemented, so one had to make images on a real Amiga and transfer them via SDCard to the Minimig. There is no interface for a floppy drive on the minimig. Most software is available in .ADFs --- or you have to make them yourself. > I really miss those days. Micros were a lot more fun in the early 80's than they are today. No doubt. I had a CoCo II where I learned a fair bit about computers. Keith From quapla at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 1 13:26:05 2010 From: quapla at xs4all.nl (Ed Groenenberg) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:26:05 +0100 Subject: Mentec SBC M70 Usermanual Message-ID: <04acd6aade9729f0e3b1b9ae26173446.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Found during cleanup, a Mentec SBC M70 Usermanual in pristine condition. First edition from November 1st, 1987. It is A4 format with a spiral ring spine and comes from Dublin, Ireland. Make me an offer off-list. -- Certified : VCP 3.x, SCSI 3.x SCSA S10, SCNA S10 www.groenenberg.net www.witte-kat-batterijen.nl From rogpugh at mac.com Mon Feb 1 14:06:00 2010 From: rogpugh at mac.com (Roger Pugh) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:06:00 +0000 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B66FEF9.8010104@gmail.com> References: <4B66FEF9.8010104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B673428.8020307@mac.com> I have a HH Tiger that consists of a 6809 and a Z80, separate RAM for each, also a graphics chip with its own RAM. The 6809 afaik is only there to handle the disks, i/o and other peripherals. One day i will be brave and plug it all in !!! If anyone needs it i have some software for the Tiger. CP/M and some others by the names of tigertel, tigerplan, tigerdem, tigerword and M(icrosoft)? basic. rog From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 1 13:46:16 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:46:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <4B66204C.4050807@compsys.to> from "Jerome H. Fine" at Jan 31, 10 07:29:00 pm Message-ID: > > 16 bits, actually. The two MMU architectures extended that to 18 and > > 22 bits. I wouldn't call it a goof considering the first one came > > out in 1970. For a small lab minicomputer in 1970, 64KB isn't bad at > > all. > > Considering the cost of CORE memory in 1970, 64KB was > much larger than any PDP-11 at that time. 8KB was a > common system. Even up to around 1975, I don't think > there was an MMU available in any case. Does anyone > know when the MMU was first used with more than 64KB > of memory for the system? The MMU appears to have been planned from the very start, if only because 18 address lines were dedined on the Unibus. AFAIK the first machien to have an (optional) MMU was the 11/45 which came out in 1972. I don't know whne the MMU itself came out, but the backplne was designed to take it fro mthe very start (there were considerable changes at S/N2000 in the 11/45, and even machines before that serial number could take the MMU). -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 1 13:53:01 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:53:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Classic Epson printer emulators In-Reply-To: <4B6639B5.42702BFA@cs.ubc.ca> from "Brent Hilpert" at Jan 31, 10 06:17:25 pm Message-ID: > I thought the fading issue was quite commonly realised, esp. if you're the type > that hangs on to receipts. It's certainly well-known among the users of old HP calculators which have thermal printers. But few opther people seem to realise it. > On the other hand, I have dozens of printouts from high school in 1976, from > the printer for a HP9830 computer/calculator, taped to sheets and bound in a I assume this was the HP9866 thermal prionter. THe one that stacks on top of the 9830 and looks like part of the main machine. I mention that becuase while the 9830 has a built-in interface for that 9866 printer, you could link all sorts of other printers to it (there was certainly a daisywheel, the HP9871). The built-in interface was similar in concept to a Cnetronics port (7 parallel data lines, strobe, acknowledge IIRC), and could fairly easily be hacked to something else. > folder, all of which are completely legible, very slight fading, except for > some corners under 3M tape which have faded completely. Assuming it was the 9866 thermal printer, I guess whether the printout fades or not depends more on the peper than the printer itself. YOu can uuse normal thermal fax paper in this printer (I assume you can still buy that), but I guess you were using the genuine HP stuff. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 1 14:02:46 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:02:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B66D7D7.7020308@gmail.com> from "Jules Richardson" at Feb 1, 10 07:32:07 am Message-ID: > No... I spent many a year searching, too. I have the manual, which I think > includes the schematic (if not, I got that separately), but I never did come > across the physical board. You're going to hate me. I've got _2_ of them. One with the normal ROM for the 40 column VDU card, the other with a ROM for the rare 80 column VDU (and yes, I have that card too). > > > The curious Tiger used a 68B09 for I/O (along with a Z80A for the main > > processor and a 7220 graphics chip). > > The HH machine? I've never seen a real one, but it sounded like an interesting > beast. There's one under my bed (seriously). Alas I don't have the disk unit, which makes it farily useless (the ROMs in mine are simply a disk bootstrap). > Remember that there was a *lot* of in-house expertise in 6502 development; the > Atom was almost a "System rack in a home computer box", just as the BBC was an To the extent that the expansion bus was a System bus connector. You could fit one System eurocard inside an Atom -- at least one of my Atoms has the econet interface doen that way (another one of my Atoms has the 'proper' econet interface PCB plugged into the solder side of the mainboard). The video ciorcuitry was very differnt, though. THe Atom used the 6847 VDG chip. The System VDU cards used 6845s, and in the case of the 40 column one, an SAA5050 teletext charactger geenrator ROM. -tony From dave09 at dunfield.com Mon Feb 1 16:30:15 2010 From: dave09 at dunfield.com (Dave Dunfield) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:30:15 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <0317F94D04B5407E9E515FAF55CCAD25@andrewdesktop> Message-ID: <5ECE0D7B2AA4@dunfield.com> > I think the N8VEM 6809 host processor is the only system I am aware of other > than Dave's homebrew that is running CUBIX. There maybe some other homebrew > systems out there too I can't find them after some searching. > Thanks and have nice day! I've corresponded with a number of people over the years who have built up Cubix systems - probably a dozen or so... it's definately not mainstream, but there has been a small following. Btw - anyone wanting to fool with the 6809 from a software point of view, including running CUBIX, can simply load up my D6809 simulator ... it will happily run on an old 386/486 DOS PC if you like (you can put it in a box and pretend it's a 6809 system :-) Dave -- dave09 (at) Dave Dunfield dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com com Collector of vintage computing equipment: http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html From dave09 at dunfield.com Mon Feb 1 16:43:59 2010 From: dave09 at dunfield.com (Dave Dunfield) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:43:59 -0500 Subject: DOS Widgets Message-ID: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> Not many DOSheads left (I still have a DOS machine on my desk which I use daily), but perhaps someone will still benefit from this... FWIW - I've started to catalog and post some of the various widgets I've created for DOS over the years. Items range from trivial utilities to fairly complex packages. Some of these were commercial packages that I once sold mail-order (and later the web), while others are just things I put together for my own use. I'm not sure if/where I'll post it permanantly, however for now I've put a link at the bottom of "Dave's old computers" - Enjoy. Dave -- dave09 (at) Dave Dunfield dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com com Collector of vintage computing equipment: http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html From jonas at otter.se Mon Feb 1 04:21:24 2010 From: jonas at otter.se (Jonas Otter) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:21:24 +0000 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 31 Jan 2010 , Pete Turnbull wrote: >I am really puzzled by this. The ACIA has no hardware reset line, but >it's very easy to send it a master reset command in software. In fact, >you have to do that to clear the hardware reset condition after a power >up, because the ACIA stays in the inactive/reset condition until you >program it. > >Charlie, you weren't using GTE 68C50s, were you? They did have a few >weird bugs. > I seem to remember having to send three consecutive software reset commands to something or other, quite possibly 6850:s, and probably Motorola ones. If you sent only one, the chip did not reset, you had to send three at once. /Jonas From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Mon Feb 1 06:27:01 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (ddsnyder at zoominternet.net) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 07:27:01 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup Message-ID: <20355.1265027221@zoominternet.net> Oops, forgot to mention my location, Butler, PA, USA, near Pittsburgh, PA On Sun 01/31/10 9:01 PM , Mark Davidson mdavidson1963 at gmail.com sent: If you said this before, I somehow missed it... where are you located? Thanks. Mark On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Daniel Snyder wrote: > Still thinning my vintage stuff.. > Go to http://picasaweb.google.com/DanielDSnyder [2] for a look, category is: Old > stuff looking for a new home > > Available is: > > 1 - Centronics 761 KSR - serial > 1 - Centronics 779 - parallel > 1 - Centronics 781 - serial? > 1 - IBM PS/2 TV - complete > 2 - IBM PS/2 model 30-286 > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 25 B&W > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 50 > 2 - IBM PS/2 model 70 386 & 486 > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 80 with Kingston 486 > 1 - IBM PS/2 B&W monitor > 2 - IBM PS/2 keyboards > > Contact me offine. I really do not want to ship this stuff, but I am willing > to relay > the stuff and at this moment there is no time limit, I am not going to toss > the stuff.. > > Note all items have been stored in my home and have been known to work. I > know for a fact the Centronics printers have been in my home for almost 30 > years. > > I need the space, would like to pass the items to someone else to enjoy.. > whatever > the reason may be, I have narrowed my focus to VAX, Alpha and Integrity > based VMS > boxes. This is one of the few constants in my career in the last 31 years. > > Dan Snyder > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Hartman" > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: Free for pickup > > >> Of the items I posted earlier, the following is still available: >> >> Qty 2 - HP Laserjet IIIP Printers >> >> Box of Misc Network Adapter cards, ISA mixed 8 and 16 bit. Mostly 16 bit. >> All are Novell, Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and Lantastic Compatible. >> >> I have the following to add: >> >> 1 ZIP 100 Drive and Power Supply >> 1 Ditto Tape Backup Drive (Not sure if it still works due to age of rubber >> rollers) >> 1 Apple Imagewriter II >> >> Items are located in Keansburg, NJ 07734 >> >> Contact me off-list via PM. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Al Hartman >> >> > > Links: ------ [1] mailto:ddsnyder at zoominternet.net [2] https://webmail2.agoc.com/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2FDanielDSnyder [3] mailto:alhartman at yahoo.com [4] mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org From jules.richardson99 at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 16:36:17 2010 From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com (Jules Richardson) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:36:17 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B675761.6050402@gmail.com> Tony Duell wrote: >> No... I spent many a year searching, too. I have the manual, which I think >> includes the schematic (if not, I got that separately), but I never did come >> across the physical board. > > You're going to hate me. I've got _2_ of them. One with the normal ROM > for the 40 column VDU card, the other with a ROM for the rare 80 column > VDU (and yes, I have that card too). Git ;) Was the 80-col VDU just the stock System one (Acorn p/n 200,019), or something else? I've got at least one of the System ones (along with many of the other System boards that they made). The 6809 CPU board has always proved elusive, though... I've never heard of another 80x25 board than the '019 one, but I think my System-era document collection's only about 80% complete so I might be missing something! >>> The curious Tiger used a 68B09 for I/O (along with a Z80A for the main >>> processor and a 7220 graphics chip). >> The HH machine? I've never seen a real one, but it sounded like an interesting >> beast. > > There's one under my bed (seriously). Alas I don't have the disk unit, > which makes it farily useless (the ROMs in mine are simply a disk > bootstrap). Yes, I remember you telling me about it... I recall the museum being offered one quite a few years ago, but then the donor went all quiet (as sometimes happens!) so I've never seen a 'live' one. Was there something unusual (local processor or strange interface etc.) about the disk unit that makes it hard to just couple some drives up? >> Remember that there was a *lot* of in-house expertise in 6502 development; the >> Atom was almost a "System rack in a home computer box", just as the BBC was an > > To the extent that the expansion bus was a System bus connector. You > could fit one System eurocard inside an Atom -- at least one of my Atoms > has the econet interface doen that way (another one of my Atoms has the > 'proper' econet interface PCB plugged into the solder side of the mainboard). Indeed - I've seen a couple of Atoms with System lab interface boards shoe-horned into the case like that (and my Atom with the disk unit just uses a System FDC, as I'm sure you know). I've seen two different board layouts for System Econet cards, incidentally. > The video ciorcuitry was very differnt, though. THe Atom used the 6847 > VDG chip. The System VDU cards used 6845s, and in the case of the 40 > column one, an SAA5050 teletext charactger geenrator ROM. Yep. I always wanted to build a colour encoder board for the Atom (I've got the documentation, but never had the physical board) but maybe that's irrelevant now I'm in a non-PAL country :-) Oh, I've got a couple of Control Universal "CU Graph" graphics boards with a System bus. These use the EF9366 graphics display processor for the "grunt work". There are two boards in each set, one containing the I/O decoding logic, 9366 IC, 16KB of DRAM and video outputs, the other containing 32KB of DRAM and a mysterious* 26-way IDC connector brought out to the card edge. According to the EF9366 docs, the boards should do 256x512 in 8 basic colours. * I don't have proper documentation for them and have never traced a schematic out. I wondered about light-pen connectors (and the 9366 chip does support a light pen), but 26 pins seems a bit excessive. Maybe they just bring some other useful signals out to that connector. cheers Jules From ken at seefried.com Mon Feb 1 16:38:33 2010 From: ken at seefried.com (Ken Seefried) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:38:33 +0000 Subject: Heurikon HK68/M130 or M140 manuals? Message-ID: Long shot, but would anyone have manuals for the Heurikon HK68/M130 or M140 (or both)? These are pretty nice 680[34]0 based Multibus-1 boards. KJ From trixter at oldskool.org Mon Feb 1 16:38:47 2010 From: trixter at oldskool.org (Jim Leonard) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:38:47 -0600 Subject: DOS Widgets In-Reply-To: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> References: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> Message-ID: <4B6757F7.3000108@oldskool.org> On 2/1/2010 4:43 PM, Dave Dunfield wrote: > FWIW - I've started to catalog and post some of the various widgets > I've created for DOS over the years. Items range from trivial utilities > to fairly complex packages. Some of these were commercial packages that > I once sold mail-order (and later the web), while others are just things > I put together for my own use. > > I'm not sure if/where I'll post it permanantly, however for now I've > put a link at the bottom of "Dave's old computers" - Enjoy. Very nice! I've had fun just browsing some of the micro-c source and library source for about 30 minutes now. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/ From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 1 16:27:27 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:27:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: from "Jonas Otter" at Feb 1, 10 10:21:24 am Message-ID: > I seem to remember having to send three consecutive software reset > commands to something or other, quite possibly 6850:s, and probably > Motorola ones. If you sent only one, the chip did not reset, you had to > send three at once. That sounds more like the Intel 8251 USART. IIRC on that chip you have to send the reset command 3 times to ensure it's treated as a command and not as data to be loadrd into one of the configuration registers. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 1 16:51:30 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:51:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B675761.6050402@gmail.com> from "Jules Richardson" at Feb 1, 10 04:36:17 pm Message-ID: > > Tony Duell wrote: > >> No... I spent many a year searching, too. I have the manual, which I think > >> includes the schematic (if not, I got that separately), but I never did come > >> across the physical board. > > > > You're going to hate me. I've got _2_ of them. One with the normal ROM > > for the 40 column VDU card, the other with a ROM for the rare 80 column > > VDU (and yes, I have that card too). > > Git ;) Was the 80-col VDU just the stock System one (Acorn p/n 200,019), or > something else? I've got at least one of the System ones (along with many of As far as I know it'sjust hte standard System one. The 6809 and 6502 buses are very similar, so there'd be no need to have special cards for the 6809. Certainly the memory and FDC cards are the normal ones. > the other System boards that they made). The 6809 CPU board has always proved > elusive, though... > > I've never heard of another 80x25 board than the '019 one, but I think my > System-era document collection's only about 80% complete so I might be missing > something! > > >>> The curious Tiger used a 68B09 for I/O (along with a Z80A for the main > >>> processor and a 7220 graphics chip). > >> The HH machine? I've never seen a real one, but it sounded like an interesting > >> beast. > > > > There's one under my bed (seriously). Alas I don't have the disk unit, > > which makes it farily useless (the ROMs in mine are simply a disk > > bootstrap). > > Yes, I remember you telling me about it... I recall the museum being offered > one quite a few years ago, but then the donor went all quiet (as sometimes > happens!) so I've never seen a 'live' one. > > Was there something unusual (local processor or strange interface etc.) about > the disk unit that makes it hard to just couple some drives up? The disk cotnroller was in the drive unit. The connectors on the bottom of the Tiger are essentially system buses (and all 3 are differnt -- I think 2 of them carry differen subsets of the Z80 bus, the other one the 6809 bus, but I might be mis-remembering it).And I don't have schematics of the disk controller board. I suppose I could disassmeble the ROMs and see what sort of FDCchip it's probalby looking for and at what address, but I've got a lot of other projects to complete first. > > >> Remember that there was a *lot* of in-house expertise in 6502 development; the > >> Atom was almost a "System rack in a home computer box", just as the BBC was an > > > > To the extent that the expansion bus was a System bus connector. You > > could fit one System eurocard inside an Atom -- at least one of my Atoms > > has the econet interface doen that way (another one of my Atoms has the > > 'proper' econet interface PCB plugged into the solder side of the mainboard). > > Indeed - I've seen a couple of Atoms with System lab interface boards > shoe-horned into the case like that (and my Atom with the disk unit just uses I think I've got one like that. > a System FDC, as I'm sure you know). I've seen two different board layouts for > System Econet cards, incidentally. > > > The video ciorcuitry was very differnt, though. THe Atom used the 6847 > > VDG chip. The System VDU cards used 6845s, and in the case of the 40 > > column one, an SAA5050 teletext charactger geenrator ROM. > > Yep. I always wanted to build a colour encoder board for the Atom (I've got > the documentation, but never had the physical board) but maybe that's > irrelevant now I'm in a non-PAL country :-) > > Oh, I've got a couple of Control Universal "CU Graph" graphics boards with a > System bus. These use the EF9366 graphics display processor for the "grunt > work". There are two boards in each set, one containing the I/O decoding > logic, 9366 IC, 16KB of DRAM and video outputs, the other containing 32KB of > DRAM and a mysterious* 26-way IDC connector brought out to the card edge. > According to the EF9366 docs, the boards should do 256x512 in 8 basic colours. > > * I don't have proper documentation for them and have never traced a schematic > out. I wondered about light-pen connectors (and the 9366 chip does support a > light pen), but 26 pins seems a bit excessive. Maybe they just bring some > other useful signals out to that connector. My guess is that it's the connector for a parallel-interfaced keyboard, thus putting human input and output on the same PCB. -tony From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 1 17:26:25 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:26:25 -0800 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: from "Jonas Otter" at Feb 1, 10 10:21:24 am, Message-ID: <4B66F2A1.18064.1E449C8@cclist.sydex.com> On 1 Feb 2010 at 22:27, Tony Duell wrote: > That sounds more like the Intel 8251 USART. IIRC on that chip you have > to send the reset command 3 times to ensure it's treated as a command > and not as data to be loadrd into one of the configuration registers. The problem arose because after a reset, the 8251A (the 8251 is a miserable botch), expects a mode command upon reset. The trouble occurs when you're trying to use the same routine to reset the chip (command mode) and program the mode because both the mode command bytes (1 or 3, depending on sync or async) use the same I/O port. If you came to the routine from a power-on or external reset, the attempted reset command would be interpreted as the first byte of a mode sequence. The workaround was to fire off three 00 bytes, which had no effect other than to terminate a pending mode sequence (if any) and put the 8251A into a command state. The next command would be an "internal reset", which would drop the chip into a mode state, whereupon you could issue the necessary mode bytes. Note that you had to be in the mode state to change between synchronous or async operation, character length, parity or sync character length (1 or 2 characters). Yes, it was clumsy, but the 8251A was a good choice for synchronous mode operation, so most folks sucked it up and dealt with it, probably because the 8251A was very easy to design for DMA mode operation. If you could restrict your needs to asynchronous operation, there were many other good choices. --Chuck From ragooman at comcast.net Mon Feb 1 17:27:09 2010 From: ragooman at comcast.net (Dan Roganti) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:27:09 -0500 Subject: Reminder for Workshop: Installing CP/M on your S-100 computer , signup begins today Feb.1st In-Reply-To: <4B66D5AD.8060205@comcast.net> References: <4B66D5AD.8060205@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B67634D.8020206@comcast.net> Dan Roganti wrote: > > Reminder: > Installing CP/M on your S-100 computer workshop > > signup begins today Feb.1st > NOTE: If you have other computers such as the Kaypro, Advantage, etc which already have CP/M running, you can use this too. They just need to be 100% working. As this is not a repair workshop. Basically, even though it would have CP/M already running on this, the hands-on training will show you all the technical details about how to configure and install CP/M on your current machine. Then you can apply this knowledge to any other machine that wouldn't have CP/M already. You would need to get prepared with all the technical manuals for your machine to extract the configuration info so you can edit and patch the CP/M source code to support your machine (that's what you will learn). We would help in locating any manuals you might be missing. =Dan http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ragooman/ From wdonzelli at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 21:03:09 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:03:09 -0500 Subject: WW sockets Message-ID: I have a few packs of wire wrap sockets - all 40 pin Texas Instruments - maybe about 45 pieces total. Free for postage from 10512. Inquire off list, please. -- Will From teoz at neo.rr.com Tue Feb 2 00:55:11 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 01:55:11 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Message-ID: <9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> Get much interest in that lot yet? The Model 70 486 is interesting along with the PS/2 TV box. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Snyder" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:59 PM Subject: Free for pickup > Still thinning my vintage stuff.. > Go to http://picasaweb.google.com/DanielDSnyder for a look, category is: > Old stuff looking for a new home > > Available is: > > 1 - Centronics 761 KSR - serial > 1 - Centronics 779 - parallel > 1 - Centronics 781 - serial? > 1 - IBM PS/2 TV - complete > 2 - IBM PS/2 model 30-286 > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 25 B&W > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 50 > 2 - IBM PS/2 model 70 386 & 486 > 1 - IBM PS/2 model 80 with Kingston 486 > 1 - IBM PS/2 B&W monitor > 2 - IBM PS/2 keyboards > > Contact me offine. I really do not want to ship this stuff, but I am > willing to relay > the stuff and at this moment there is no time limit, I am not going to > toss the stuff.. > > Note all items have been stored in my home and have been known to work. I > know for a fact the Centronics printers have been in my home for almost 30 > years. > > I need the space, would like to pass the items to someone else to enjoy.. > whatever > the reason may be, I have narrowed my focus to VAX, Alpha and Integrity > based VMS > boxes. This is one of the few constants in my career in the last 31 years. > > Dan Snyder > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Al Hartman" > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 9:00 AM > Subject: Re: Free for pickup > > >> Of the items I posted earlier, the following is still available: >> >> Qty 2 - HP Laserjet IIIP Printers >> >> Box of Misc Network Adapter cards, ISA mixed 8 and 16 bit. Mostly 16 bit. >> All are Novell, Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and Lantastic Compatible. >> >> I have the following to add: >> >> 1 ZIP 100 Drive and Power Supply >> 1 Ditto Tape Backup Drive (Not sure if it still works due to age of >> rubber rollers) >> 1 Apple Imagewriter II >> >> Items are located in Keansburg, NJ 07734 >> >> Contact me off-list via PM. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Al Hartman >> >> > From csquared3 at tx.rr.com Mon Feb 1 20:52:27 2010 From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com (CSquared) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:52:27 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B67936B.20508@tx.rr.com> Jonas Otter wrote: > On 31 Jan 2010 , Pete Turnbull wrote: > >> I am really puzzled by this. The ACIA has no hardware reset line, but >> it's very easy to send it a master reset command in software. In fact, >> you have to do that to clear the hardware reset condition after a power >> up, because the ACIA stays in the inactive/reset condition until you >> program it. >> >> Charlie, you weren't using GTE 68C50s, were you? They did have a few >> weird bugs. >> > > I seem to remember having to send three consecutive software reset > commands to something or other, quite possibly 6850:s, and probably > Motorola ones. If you sent only one, the chip did not reset, you had to > send three at once. > > /Jonas Hi Jonas, I sure wish you'd suggested that about 40 years ago. :) Seriously, thanks for the tip, I'll have to try and remember that in case I ever encounter an ACIA again. I would have been glad to send 3 or however many commands were necessary if would have unstuck the things. I think that when your ACIA is locked up somehow, you're suddenly no longer in a real big hurry. Later, Charlie C. From csquared3 at tx.rr.com Mon Feb 1 21:09:20 2010 From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com (CSquared) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:09:20 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B679760.10208@tx.rr.com> Mark Tapley wrote: > At 4:59 -0600 1/31/10, CSquared wrote: >> All this discussion is making me want a >> CoCo unfortunately. Never had one when they were "new" but always >> thought they would be a lot of fun - maybe a garage sale will turn one >> up some day. > > If you don't mind spending a bit, > > http://www.cloud9tech.com/ > > might be a useful alternative to eBay. Refurbished CoCo3's are among the > other goodies on the site. For the "power user", you can get 512k memory > expansions, a serial link to your PC to use as disk storage > ("Drivewire"), NitOS-9 in ROM, 6309 CPU upgrade, IDE or SCSI adaptors, > etc. etc. > > No connection other than as a satisfied customer. > > Hope this helps ... > >> Just what I don't need of course - yet another project or >> piece of hardware. > > ... Oops. ;-) Heh! That's OK Mark, I couldn't resist bookmarking the site anyway; it does look interesting. Later, Charlie C. From philpem at philpem.me.uk Mon Feb 1 19:03:37 2010 From: philpem at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:03:37 +0000 Subject: [Fwd: [BBC-Micro] UK Vintage Computer Festival 2010] Message-ID: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> Hi guys, I spotted this on the BBC-Micro mailing list -- figured a few UK-based classiccmp'ers might be interested... It looks like the VCF has finally made its way across the pond. Them ferries sure are slow! :) "David Hunt" said: > Hi Folks, > > I am involved with the National Museum Of Computing at Bletchley Park and we > have been working hard on bringing the VCF to the UK. We are pleased to > announce the event to take place this June. There will be an emphasis on > British computers. I hope many people from this list and the STH list will > attend the event, it'll be great! > > Cheers > > Dave > > ----------- > > "Britain's largest celebration of vintage computing is to be held at The > National Museum of Computing (TNMOC) in Bletchley Park from 19-20 June 2010. > > Originating ten years ago in California's Silicon Valley, to celebrate our > computing heritage, Vintage Computing Festivals are now regular events held > across the USA and in Germany. The June 2010 event at TNMOC will be the > first in the UK and will pay particular tribute to the British contribution > to the development of computing. > > The festival, which is open to the general public and welcomes private > exhibitors, will have exhibition stands, a full lecture programme, machine > demonstrations, computer games and challenges, bring-and-buy sale, and > performances of electronic music. > > Kevin Murrell, VCF co-ordinator and a trustee and director of TNMOC said: > "The enthusiasm for this festival is already remarkable and we have only > just started to publicise the event. The historic and spacious setting of > Bletchley Park is perfect for the event - and with The National Museum of > Computing on the same site, it will surely draw visitors from overseas as > well as from across Britain. With visitor numbers expected to exceed one > thousand, the Festival offers a great opportunity for potential sponsors." > > Exhibitions already committed include Acorn, Amiga, Atari, PDP11, Retro > Computer Museum, Sinclair, and Sundown Demoparty. There will be performances > by Pixelh8 and a guest appearance by one of the pioneers of British > synthpop. > > Lots more will be announced soon. To keep up-to-date, see www.vcf-gb.org. > > For general enquiries and to join the mailing list, email Simon Hewitt/Kevin > Murrell at vcf at tnmoc.org. > > Potential sponsors should contact Kevin Murrell of TNMOC at > kevin.murrell at tnmoc.org. > > Media and PR enquiries please contact Stephen Fleming of Palam > Communications at sfleming at palam.co.uk. -- Phil. philpem at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From csquared3 at tx.rr.com Mon Feb 1 21:25:14 2010 From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com (CSquared) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:25:14 -0600 Subject: DOS Widgets In-Reply-To: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> References: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> Message-ID: <4B679B1A.50409@tx.rr.com> Dave Dunfield wrote: > Not many DOSheads left (I still have a DOS machine on my desk which > I use daily), but perhaps someone will still benefit from this... > > FWIW - I've started to catalog and post some of the various widgets > I've created for DOS over the years. Items range from trivial utilities > to fairly complex packages. Some of these were commercial packages that > I once sold mail-order (and later the web), while others are just things > I put together for my own use. > > I'm not sure if/where I'll post it permanantly, however for now I've > put a link at the bottom of "Dave's old computers" - Enjoy. > > Dave > > -- > dave09 (at) Dave Dunfield > dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com > com Collector of vintage computing equipment: > http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html > Thanks for that Dave, I'll have to take a look. After all, why would anyone abandon the only OS that actually works. ;) Ducking for cover, Charlie C. From csquared3 at tx.rr.com Mon Feb 1 21:37:40 2010 From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com (CSquared) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:37:40 -0600 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B66F760.1050100@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B65EC26.2040509@dunnington.plus.com> <4B6668AF.6080007@tx.rr.com> <4B6691A4.3060201@dunnington.plus.com> <4B66F760.1050100@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B679E04.2000605@tx.rr.com> Ben wrote: > Pete Turnbull wrote: >> On 01/02/2010 05:37, CSquared wrote: >>> Pete Turnbull wrote: >> >>>> I am really puzzled by this. The ACIA has no hardware reset line, but >>>> it's very easy to send it a master reset command in software. >> >>> I'm pretty sure they were Motorola parts. As I told Geoffrey, it has >>> been a very long time - like probably 40 years - and I've forgotten a >>> lot of the details, and just sort of remember the pain. I think the >>> ACIA would somehow get into a state where it would not pay attention >>> to the master reset command. >> >> I don't recall that ever happening to me, but I can well believe it :-) >> > Intel parks I can see, Motorola parts no! > I really like Motorola stuff too, but ISTR the 6850 package was pin limited and there was no room for a discrete reset line. Y'all are going to force me to see what I can dig up on that old project yet. :) It's been so long though, and since I think the project was scuttled, I really doubt I have any documentation of any kind left. Maybe some of my old REI friends remember more about it than I seem to, though I think I've lost touch with the other folks who worked on that system. Of course I could get myself a 6809 system, connect a 6850 and figure out how to lock it up. Hey, what a great idea... Later, Charlie C. From josecvalle at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 04:11:19 2010 From: josecvalle at gmail.com (Jose carlos Valle) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:11:19 -0200 Subject: Free for pickup In-Reply-To: <9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> <9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> Message-ID: Al.. I would like to get that stuffs, but, I am in Miami.. could you send by ground I will pay here? I am curator of computer Museum in Brazil, I will appreciate that machines in my museum. please Jose Carlos Valle 2010/2/2 Teo Zenios > Get much interest in that lot yet? > > The Model 70 486 is interesting along with the PS/2 TV box. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Snyder" < > ddsnyder at zoominternet.net> > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:59 PM > Subject: Free for pickup > > > Still thinning my vintage stuff.. >> Go to http://picasaweb.google.com/DanielDSnyder for a look, category is: >> Old stuff looking for a new home >> >> Available is: >> >> 1 - Centronics 761 KSR - serial >> 1 - Centronics 779 - parallel >> 1 - Centronics 781 - serial? >> 1 - IBM PS/2 TV - complete >> 2 - IBM PS/2 model 30-286 >> 1 - IBM PS/2 model 25 B&W >> 1 - IBM PS/2 model 50 >> 2 - IBM PS/2 model 70 386 & 486 >> 1 - IBM PS/2 model 80 with Kingston 486 >> 1 - IBM PS/2 B&W monitor >> 2 - IBM PS/2 keyboards >> >> Contact me offine. I really do not want to ship this stuff, but I am >> willing to relay >> the stuff and at this moment there is no time limit, I am not going to >> toss the stuff.. >> >> Note all items have been stored in my home and have been known to work. I >> know for a fact the Centronics printers have been in my home for almost 30 >> years. >> >> I need the space, would like to pass the items to someone else to enjoy.. >> whatever >> the reason may be, I have narrowed my focus to VAX, Alpha and Integrity >> based VMS >> boxes. This is one of the few constants in my career in the last 31 years. >> >> Dan Snyder >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Hartman" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 9:00 AM >> Subject: Re: Free for pickup >> >> >> Of the items I posted earlier, the following is still available: >>> >>> Qty 2 - HP Laserjet IIIP Printers >>> >>> Box of Misc Network Adapter cards, ISA mixed 8 and 16 bit. Mostly 16 bit. >>> All are Novell, Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and Lantastic Compatible. >>> >>> I have the following to add: >>> >>> 1 ZIP 100 Drive and Power Supply >>> 1 Ditto Tape Backup Drive (Not sure if it still works due to age of >>> rubber rollers) >>> 1 Apple Imagewriter II >>> >>> Items are located in Keansburg, NJ 07734 >>> >>> Contact me off-list via PM. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Al Hartman >>> >>> >>> >> > -- Muito obrigado Jos? Carlos Valle - Curador/eventos "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land." ~II Chronicles 7:14 amem TWITTER: http://twitter.com/curadordomuseu Eventos do Museu assistam os videos http://www.orkut.com.br/Main#FavoriteVideos?uid=4556187644461453698&sm=add O Curador no Jornal Nacional. agosto 2009. Assista agora no link abaixo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJEIuMcYtzA O Curador no Antena Paulista: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO_JFfNiGlE NOVO LOCAL DO MUSEU DO COMPUTADOR. ABERTO AO PUBLICO. www.museudocomputador.com.br Rua dos Andradas, 237 - Cep 01208-000 Telefone - (11) 4666-7545 - 8874-0100 Claro ou 88794-6730 TIM -Ligue para agendar. Contato: Jos? Carlos Valle ? Curador E-mail: curador at museudocomputador.com.br - Agendamento de Escolas, ligue para detalhes. Aberto para Escolas de segunda a sexta das 1'0:00 as 16:00 horas. Pre?o: R$5,00 com monitoria. Para publico sem monitoria: R$ 2,00. Informa??es sobre doa??es no Blog: http://blogdocurador.museudocomputador.com.br PALESTRAS COM O CURADOR: http://blogdocurador.museudocomputador.com.br/?p=50 MAPA DO MUSEU NOVO http://maps.google.com.br/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=pt-BR&geocode=&q=RUA+DOS+ANDRADAS,+237+-SP&sll=-23.69859,-46.826904&sspn=0.008704,0.014141&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=R.+dos+Andradas,+237+-+Rep%C3%BAblica,+S%C3%A3o+Paulo+-+SP,+01208-000&z=16 From wdonzelli at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 07:54:22 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:54:22 -0500 Subject: WW sockets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I have a few packs of wire wrap sockets - all 40 pin Texas Instruments > - maybe about 45 pieces total. Free for postage from 10512. Inquire > off list, please. Gone! -- Will From evan at snarc.net Tue Feb 2 11:14:28 2010 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:14:28 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [BBC-Micro] UK Vintage Computer Festival 2010] In-Reply-To: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B685D74.2030701@snarc.net> > Hi guys, > > I spotted this on the BBC-Micro mailing list -- figured a few UK-based > classiccmp'ers might be interested... It looks like the VCF has > finally made its way across the pond. Them ferries sure are slow! :) Indeed! This event is in addition to Hans' VCF Europa (Germany). And, of course, it's 100% Sellam-endorsed. From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 2 11:39:53 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:39:53 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter Message-ID: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> I'm working on clearing out my warehouse, and I'm selling one of my Calcomp 565 plotters on ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220550441602 It came with a load of DG Nova gear that I rescued, but I've never had the opportunity to test it out. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 2 11:44:11 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:44:11 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: > I'm working on clearing out my warehouse, and I'm selling one of my > Calcomp 565 plotters on ebay. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220550441602 > > It came with a load of DG Nova gear that I rescued, but I've never had > the opportunity to test it out. URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 2 11:49:19 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:49:19 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <201002021249.19124.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Tuesday 02 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: > > I'm working on clearing out my warehouse, and I'm selling one of my > > Calcomp 565 plotters on ebay. > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220550441602 > > > > It came with a load of DG Nova gear that I rescued, but I've never > > had the opportunity to test it out. > > URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! Don't worry, I have another one left. :) I don't plan on selling that one for a while. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From keithvz at verizon.net Tue Feb 2 11:52:22 2010 From: keithvz at verizon.net (Keith) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:52:22 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: >> I'm working on clearing out my warehouse, and I'm selling one of my >> Calcomp 565 plotters on ebay. >> >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220550441602 >> >> It came with a load of DG Nova gear that I rescued, but I've never had >> the opportunity to test it out. > > URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! > Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) Keith From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 2 12:10:21 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:10:21 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Keith wrote: >>> I'm working on clearing out my warehouse, and I'm selling one of my >>> Calcomp 565 plotters on ebay. >>> >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220550441602 >>> >>> It came with a load of DG Nova gear that I rescued, but I've >>> never had >>> the opportunity to test it out. >> URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! > > Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) Smartass. ;) But no, sorry, not true. These machines don't need to be replaced every six months, so they're far more economical than PC garbage. ;) -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 2 12:10:34 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:10:34 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <201002021249.19124.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <201002021249.19124.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <7A52FAD8-65BF-47E8-9259-624BF770AED7@neurotica.com> On Feb 2, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: >>> I'm working on clearing out my warehouse, and I'm selling one of my >>> Calcomp 565 plotters on ebay. >>> >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220550441602 >>> >>> It came with a load of DG Nova gear that I rescued, but I've never >>> had the opportunity to test it out. >> >> URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! > > Don't worry, I have another one left. :) I don't plan on selling that > one for a while. 8-) -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From keithvz at verizon.net Tue Feb 2 12:15:30 2010 From: keithvz at verizon.net (Keith) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:15:30 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net> Dave McGuire wrote: >>> URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! >> >> Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) > > Smartass. ;) But no, sorry, not true. These machines don't need to > be replaced every six months, so they're far more economical than PC > garbage. ;) > > -Dave Hahaha. I was going to add the lost productivity due to the fact that it's OSX, but I didn't want to send you over the edge. :) Keith From jules.richardson99 at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 12:15:33 2010 From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com (Jules Richardson) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:15:33 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: [BBC-Micro] UK Vintage Computer Festival 2010] In-Reply-To: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B686BC5.5000708@gmail.com> Philip Pemberton wrote: > Hi guys, > > I spotted this on the BBC-Micro mailing list -- figured a few UK-based > classiccmp'ers might be interested... It looks like the VCF has finally > made its way across the pond. Them ferries sure are slow! :) :-) It was mainly a politics which held it up in the past - then it took a while for the national museum once established to "find its feet", so this is the first year that it's really been viable. From jack.rubin at ameritech.net Tue Feb 2 12:36:27 2010 From: jack.rubin at ameritech.net (Jack Rubin) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:36:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: pdp11 bus - how long can it go? Message-ID: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> As I slowly dig into "my" new 11/34A, I'm amazed by the bus configuration. Starting from the CPU, the main BA11 chassis has a double (9-slot) system unit, joined to a single (4-slot) SU by an?M9202 jumper. From the last slot in the chassis, a Unibus cable runs to a junction block on the cabinet back door. A second cable runs from there to a remote BA11, also with 2 SUs. A third cable runs back to the rack door/junction block (labled "bus station", BTW) and finally a fourth cable runs to a small rack mounted I/O box with a single SU and?an M9302 terminator in the last slot. Cable runs must be about 20-25 feet total. At first, I was worried that the length was too long (though it was a working system in use for several years) but after a quick websearch (www.psych.usyd.edu/pdp-11/unibus.html), I see that the bus can be up to FIFTY FEET before a repeater is needed. My short term plan is to pull all the cables and move the 9302 into the system box for testing. Now I'm worried that the bus might be too short - do I need to look for one of the "new" jumpers with two feet of cable or should it work with my old M9202 jumper block? Jack From healyzh at aracnet.com Tue Feb 2 12:48:04 2010 From: healyzh at aracnet.com (Zane H. Healy) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:48:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Keith wrote: > Hahaha. I was going to add the lost productivity due to the fact that it's > OSX, but I didn't want to send you over the edge. :) That tends to be increased productivity. Zane From pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 13:29:50 2010 From: pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com (Alexandre Souza - Listas) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:29:50 -0200 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org><36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com><4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> Message-ID: <05b901caa43e$3b66c940$0132a8c0@Alexandre> >> Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) > Smartass. ;) But no, sorry, not true. These machines don't need to be > replaced every six months, so they're far more economical than PC > garbage. ;) I still use my thinkpad Pentium 233 (yes!) everyday, running windows 2000 and doing embbedded programming on it, running office, etc. (of course, I'm open to offers of newer thinkpads, maybe someone has a spare lying as a doorstopper, who knows? :D) From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Tue Feb 2 13:59:07 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:59:07 +0000 Subject: [Fwd: [BBC-Micro] UK Vintage Computer Festival 2010] In-Reply-To: <4B686BC5.5000708@gmail.com> References: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> <4B686BC5.5000708@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B68840B.8060202@philpem.me.uk> Jules Richardson wrote: > :-) It was mainly a politics which held it up in the past - then it > took a while for the national museum once established to "find its > feet", so this is the first year that it's really been viable. Yeah, I've heard the rumours. In any case, once there's a little more info released, I'll look into booking a day (or a weekend) off work to go. Should be interesting... If I can get the disc analyser finished for then, I might look into getting a bench and showing it off (assuming it doesn't fall foul of the "no PCs or related hardware!" rule). I've actually finished the preliminary schematic for the disc analyser (which one of my friends suggested I call "DiscFerret" as a subtle jab at the Catweasel). I've swapped out the microcontroller for a newer, cheaper part -- to get the full 12MIPS out of the 18F4550 you have to run it at 5V, which means a 16-bit level-translator is needed to make it talk to the FPGA. Using a PIC18F87J50 means I can scrap the translator and run the whole thing off 3.3V. I can also tidy up some of the FPGA logic to use 8-bit register addressing (the J50 has 8-bit addressing on the muxed parallel port, the 4550 uses 4-bit addressing). I'm going to shut up now, I'm giving far too much away... :) -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From IanK at vulcan.com Tue Feb 2 14:03:03 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:03:03 -0800 Subject: Classic Epson printer emulators In-Reply-To: <4B65CE25.2948.1DDBBFC@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6639B5.42702BFA@cs.ubc.ca> <4B65CE25.2948.1DDBBFC@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:38 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Classic Epson printer emulators > > On 31 Jan 2010 at 18:17, Brent Hilpert wrote: > > > I thought the fading issue was quite commonly realised, esp. if > you're > > the type that hangs on to receipts. On the other hand, I have dozens > > of printouts from high school in 1976, from the printer for a HP9830 > > computer/calculator, taped to sheets and bound in a folder, all of > > which are completely legible, very slight fading, except for some > > corners under 3M tape which have faded completely. > > Or old faxes printed out on thermal fax paper. I've got a few from > about 15 years ago (technical reference stuff sent by a considerate > manufacturer) that are all but unreadable today. I should have made > photocopies, too late now. > > Another bit of proof that the story of our civilization is written in > sand... > Another thing I learned about thermal paper: I had a small fountain on my desk. It was well-behaved and didn't leak or spray onto the desk, but thermal printouts (e.g. credit card receipts) left next to it would shrivel up in short order! -- Ian From IanK at vulcan.com Tue Feb 2 14:07:22 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:07:22 -0800 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <05b901caa43e$3b66c940$0132a8c0@Alexandre> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org><36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com><4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> <05b901caa43e$3b66c940$0132a8c0@Alexandre> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Souza - Listas > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:30 AM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter > > >> Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) > > Smartass. ;) But no, sorry, not true. These machines don't need > to be > > replaced every six months, so they're far more economical than PC > > garbage. ;) > > I still use my thinkpad Pentium 233 (yes!) everyday, running > windows > 2000 and doing embbedded programming on it, running office, etc. > > (of course, I'm open to offers of newer thinkpads, maybe someone > has a > spare lying as a doorstopper, who knows? :D) > I'm not sure I'd trust a ThinkPad to serve reliably as a doorstop - at least not without the latest service pack. Having said that, the X61 I was issued by my employer is a reasonably useful machine (after I purged it of Vista). But my personal laptop is a PowerBook G4. :-p -- Ian From henk.gooijen at hotmail.com Tue Feb 2 14:25:31 2010 From: henk.gooijen at hotmail.com (Henk Gooijen) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:25:31 +0100 Subject: pdp11 bus - how long can it go? In-Reply-To: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: "Jack Rubin" Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:36 PM To: Subject: pdp11 bus - how long can it go? > As I slowly dig into "my" new 11/34A, I'm amazed by the bus configuration. > Starting from the CPU, the main BA11 chassis has a double (9-slot) system > unit, joined to a single (4-slot) SU by an M9202 jumper. From the last > slot in the chassis, a Unibus cable runs to a junction block on the > cabinet back door. A second cable runs from there to a remote BA11, also > with 2 SUs. A third cable runs back to the rack door/junction block > (labled "bus station", BTW) and finally a fourth cable runs to a small > rack mounted I/O box with a single SU and an M9302 terminator in the last > slot. Cable runs must be about 20-25 feet total. > > At first, I was worried that the length was too long (though it was a > working system in use for several years) but after a quick websearch > (www.psych.usyd.edu/pdp-11/unibus.html), I see that the bus can be up to > FIFTY FEET before a repeater is needed. My short term plan is to pull all > the cables and move the 9302 into the system box for testing. Now I'm > worried that the bus might be too short - do I need to look for one of the > "new" jumpers with two feet of cable or should it work with my old M9202 > jumper block? > > Jack Hi Jack, If I understand you correctly, you want to get the remote BA11 and I/O box out of the loop. The quickest way is to pull the BC11 cable from the last slot of the 4-slot SU in the main BA11 chassis, and put the M9302 where the BC11 cable was. That all. If the 4-slot SU in the main BA11 box is further empty (not clear to me), you can even get rid of that 4-slot SU too by pulling the bridging M9202 and put the M9302 in the last slot of the 9-slot processor backplane. The M920 jumper connects directly from the left to the right connector PCB, it is the M9202 jumper block that actually has 2 feet of "BC11" cable between the PCBs. The M920 was used in the PDP-11/20 and 11/40 AFAIK. The M9202 is typically found in the 11/34(A). - Henk. From useddec at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 15:00:18 2010 From: useddec at gmail.com (Paul Anderson) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:00:18 -0600 Subject: pdp11 bus - how long can it go? In-Reply-To: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <624966d61002021300g39e519edi688b60b8bcce5833@mail.gmail.com> We had an 11/45 ( as I recall) at the U of Illinois that was said to be the longest unibus in the world. It had 2 DB11 repeaters on it, and there was talk or putting on a third. I can't remember how many bus loads were on there, but this sys was loaded. Paul On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jack Rubin wrote: > As I slowly dig into "my" new 11/34A, I'm amazed by the bus configuration. > Starting from the CPU, the main BA11 chassis has a double (9-slot) system > unit, joined to a single (4-slot) SU by an M9202 jumper. From the last slot > in the chassis, a Unibus cable runs to a junction block on the cabinet back > door. A second cable runs from there to a remote BA11, also with 2 SUs. A > third cable runs back to the rack door/junction block (labled "bus station", > BTW) and finally a fourth cable runs to a small rack mounted I/O box with a > single SU and an M9302 terminator in the last slot. Cable runs must be about > 20-25 feet total. > > At first, I was worried that the length was too long (though it was a > working system in use for several years) but after a quick websearch ( > www.psych.usyd.edu/pdp-11/unibus.html), I see that the bus can be up to > FIFTY FEET before a repeater is needed. My short term plan is to pull all > the cables and move the 9302 into the system box for testing. Now I'm > worried that the bus might be too short - do I need to look for one of the > "new" jumpers with two feet of cable or should it work with my old M9202 > jumper block? > > Jack > From useddec at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 15:05:13 2010 From: useddec at gmail.com (Paul Anderson) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:05:13 -0600 Subject: pdp11 bus - how long can it go? In-Reply-To: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <776859.26814.qm@web83713.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <624966d61002021305x359fa3b2s14632fe09cb8d5d9@mail.gmail.com> In case you didn't know, the legnth of most DEC cables is usually in the -xx after the part number. The unibus cable BC11A-10 is a ten foot cable. A BNxxx-xx is usually in meters Paul On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Jack Rubin wrote: > As I slowly dig into "my" new 11/34A, I'm amazed by the bus configuration. > Starting from the CPU, the main BA11 chassis has a double (9-slot) system > unit, joined to a single (4-slot) SU by an M9202 jumper. From the last slot > in the chassis, a Unibus cable runs to a junction block on the cabinet back > door. A second cable runs from there to a remote BA11, also with 2 SUs. A > third cable runs back to the rack door/junction block (labled "bus station", > BTW) and finally a fourth cable runs to a small rack mounted I/O box with a > single SU and an M9302 terminator in the last slot. Cable runs must be about > 20-25 feet total. > > At first, I was worried that the length was too long (though it was a > working system in use for several years) but after a quick websearch ( > www.psych.usyd.edu/pdp-11/unibus.html), I see that the bus can be up to > FIFTY FEET before a repeater is needed. My short term plan is to pull all > the cables and move the 9302 into the system box for testing. Now I'm > worried that the bus might be too short - do I need to look for one of the > "new" jumpers with two feet of cable or should it work with my old M9202 > jumper block? > > Jack > From bmachacek at pcisys.net Tue Feb 2 15:29:07 2010 From: bmachacek at pcisys.net (Bill Machacek) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:29:07 -0700 Subject: IBM PCAM info needed Message-ID: <022701caa44e$c071ac80$0200000a@NITRO> Hi, I am applying to the VA for disability benefits based on a hearing problem that occurred while I was in the Air Force (early '60s). I worked in a very noisy PCAM room with lots of IBM 407s, repro punched card machines, and sorters. I have been trying to find articles or people who can verify these machines were sufficiently noisy to cause hearing problems. The VA turned down my first basic request, so now I need more details in just how loud these machines were. I know we have quite a few "old timers" on this board and I'm hoping someone can help me find the information I'm looking for. Let me know offline the names of any books, magazines or people that I may look for or contact concerning this issue or if you know of any websites that may contain this information. This note may not be quite "on topic", but I've run out of places to look for this information. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.... Bill Machacek Colo. Springs, CO bmachacek at pcisys.net From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 2 16:24:09 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:24:09 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net> Message-ID: <906D14D2-C265-47E8-841E-C6950509D6FE@neurotica.com> On Feb 2, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Keith wrote: >>>> URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! >>> >>> Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) >> Smartass. ;) But no, sorry, not true. These machines don't >> need to be replaced every six months, so they're far more >> economical than PC garbage. ;) >> -Dave > > Hahaha. I was going to add the lost productivity due to the fact > that it's OSX, but I didn't want to send you over the edge. :) Shall we have a productivity challenge, my friend? ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cisin at xenosoft.com Tue Feb 2 16:49:13 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:49:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fwd: [BBC-Micro] UK Vintage Computer Festival 2010] In-Reply-To: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <20100202144742.K12983@shell.lmi.net> Is that affiliated with VCF? Or have they appropriated the name without authorization (under an assumption that that is a generic descriptive name?) From evan at snarc.net Tue Feb 2 16:59:14 2010 From: evan at snarc.net (Evan Koblentz) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:59:14 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [BBC-Micro] UK Vintage Computer Festival 2010] In-Reply-To: <20100202144742.K12983@shell.lmi.net> References: <4B6779E9.9010908@philpem.me.uk> <20100202144742.K12983@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4B68AE42.9010208@snarc.net> > Is that affiliated with VCF? > > Or have they appropriated the name without authorization (under an assumption that that is a generic descriptive name?) > As I mentioned a few posts ago in this thread, VCF-UK is 100% Sellam-endorsed. :) From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 2 18:23:51 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:23:51 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B686656.7000702@verizon.net> Message-ID: <201002021923.51198.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Tuesday 02 February 2010, Keith wrote: > Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) Wow, off-topic on the 3rd reply. I think that's a new record. :( Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From geoffr at zipcon.net Tue Feb 2 18:40:49 2010 From: geoffr at zipcon.net (Geoffrey Reed) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:40:49 -0800 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net> Message-ID: On 2/2/10 10:15 AM, "Keith" wrote: > Dave McGuire wrote: > >>>> URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! >>> >>> Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) >> >> Smartass. ;) But no, sorry, not true. These machines don't need to >> be replaced every six months, so they're far more economical than PC >> garbage. ;) >> >> -Dave > > Hahaha. I was going to add the lost productivity due to the fact that > it's OSX, but I didn't want to send you over the edge. :) > > Keith I far prefer my mac-pro to any of the commodity pc hardware I have. From dkelvey at hotmail.com Tue Feb 2 19:17:59 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:17:59 -0800 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: References: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net>, Message-ID: Hi I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) on ebay. One of the pictures shows me with a working machine but the machine on ebay is not my machine ( although it might be thought as being mine ). It is one of the two machine that mine was one of that is mentioned on one of the web pages and serial numbers. The working state of the one on the web is unknown to me. I would be willing to help, anyone that buys the machine, to bring it to life. I can provide a boot disk, disk images and even help diagnose problems. I think his asking price is a little high but he seems to be open to offers as well. Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ From spectre at floodgap.com Tue Feb 2 20:50:55 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:50:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <201002021923.51198.pat@computer-refuge.org> from Patrick Finnegan at "Feb 2, 10 07:23:51 pm" Message-ID: <201002030250.o132otH6010610@floodgap.com> > > Maybe if you didn't spend so much on your macs, you'd have money. :) > > Wow, off-topic on the 3rd reply. I think that's a new record. :( I'm going to go ahead and finish this thread: anyone who doesn't use a Mac is Hitler and Windows users are Nazis, etc. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- GODWIN BINGO! -------------------------------------------------------------- From jpero at sympatico.ca Tue Feb 2 21:21:54 2010 From: jpero at sympatico.ca (jpero at sympatico.ca) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:21:54 -0500 Subject: off topic: video processing for quality picture reasons from SD source. Message-ID: Hi anyone, I have been researching and trying some softwaresolutions and hardware with poor success and output to a 1080 LCD TV (high end) thus bypassing the TV's scaler and display direct without processing. Canada still do SD stuff till Aug 12 20011 HDTV switch over. flat panel TVs with built in tuner do rather hack job of SD video that I knew these should do good job. Ditto with composite and s-video. But there is bit of unique issues that will be addressed below. I have tried three video capture cards and software solutions, constant fussing and long start up, average picture quality, tend to be darker. And second issue is EIA608 is closed caption (CC) decoding for SD and displaying does not exist or erratic working in many software and hardware. I already tried a JVC HM-DT100U and it has tuner and output on component or HDMI but internal video processing for SD is not up to standard and as bad as youtube quality with heavy artifacts. Video processors, DVDO Edge does not have CC capability. I sent email to Anchor Bay Tech of their product and they do not implement this at all. If it was, that would be end of the story and bought the 800 buck video processor. But I'm still not sure of their quality. So I still exploring options and thinking of solutions. I intend to use a old S-VHS VCR as tuner and output on S-video. I have not found a decent a device that has high quality processing and output on HDMI or all analog circuitry and output on component to take advantage of higher quality A/D coverters found in TVs than composite or s-video. Options: 1. Buy DVDO Edge and s-video CC decoder. But I'm not sure on DVDO Edge's performance. 2. Buy up broadcaster quality equipment: Obtain RF demodulator (channel selectable via keypad or remote control of some type (remote or PC) with SDI output box (some can deal with CC onboard which is nice), or same idea except output on component if there's one. If it is SDI output and no CC, buy SDI CC decoder with CC overlay box, and get Blackmagic Design's "Monitoring HDLink Pro DVI" to hook all up. I have found one or two on some of these but cost for new one is way over 2,000 to 5,000. Ouch. Used source is best option but where to go? I tried broadcasting engineering forum and smartcow both does not address what I'm trying to find and get suggestions. Another reason I really like broadcaster equipment concept is these have deep bandwidth and little processing (selectively is good) and easily plugs together, setup and forget it, just punch in channels. I'm that fussy. CRT on SD quality is excellent and I use cable, built in video processors in TV threw away too much, soften and lose details to brother me so much enough to get me in a tizzy. I know broadcaster digitize all in and out feeds but quality is much higher. Cheers, Wizard From rborsuk at colourfull.com Tue Feb 2 21:42:24 2010 From: rborsuk at colourfull.com (Robert Borsuk) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:42:24 -0500 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: References: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net>, Message-ID: What is the auction number? On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:17 PM, dwight elvey wrote: > > Hi > I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) > on ebay. One of the pictures shows me with a working machine > but the machine on ebay is not my machine ( although it might > be thought as being mine ). It is one of the two machine that mine > was one of that is mentioned on one of the web pages and serial > numbers. > The working state of the one on the web is unknown to me. > I would be willing to help, anyone that buys the machine, to > bring it to life. I can provide a boot disk, disk images and even help > diagnose problems. > I think his asking price is a little high but he seems to be open > to offers as well. > Dwight > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ Rob Borsuk email: rborsuk at colourfull.com Colourfull Creations Web: http://www.colourfull.com From trixter at oldskool.org Tue Feb 2 21:54:22 2010 From: trixter at oldskool.org (Jim Leonard) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:54:22 -0600 Subject: Free for pickup In-Reply-To: <9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> <9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> Message-ID: <4B68F36E.3010203@oldskool.org> On 2/2/2010 12:55 AM, Teo Zenios wrote: > Get much interest in that lot yet? > > The Model 70 486 is interesting along with the PS/2 TV box. What *was* the PS/2 TV box? I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek describing a particular type of monitor. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/ From trixter at oldskool.org Tue Feb 2 21:57:01 2010 From: trixter at oldskool.org (Jim Leonard) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:57:01 -0600 Subject: off topic: video processing for quality picture reasons from SD source. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B68F40D.7000805@oldskool.org> I'm not sure what actual questions you're asking -- you regurgitated a lot of information without any clear questions or problems you're trying to solve -- but if you have an analog-to-digital question or a scaler question you should ask them on AVS's forums at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/ On 2/2/2010 9:21 PM, jpero at sympatico.ca wrote: > Hi anyone, I have been researching and trying some softwaresolutions and > hardware with poor success and output to a 1080 LCD TV (high end) thus > bypassing the TV's scaler and display direct without processing. > > Canada still do SD stuff till Aug 12 20011 HDTV switch over. flat panel > TVs with built in tuner do rather hack job of SD video that I knew these > should do good job. Ditto with composite and s-video. But there is bit of > unique issues that will be addressed below. > > I have tried three video capture cards and software solutions, constant > fussing and long start up, average picture quality, tend to be darker. > And second issue is EIA608 is closed caption (CC) decoding for SD and > displaying does not exist or erratic working in many software and hardware. > I already tried a JVC HM-DT100U and it has tuner and output on > component or HDMI but internal video processing for SD is not up to > standard and as bad as youtube quality with heavy artifacts. Video > processors, DVDO Edge does not have CC capability. I sent email to > Anchor Bay Tech of their product and they do not implement this at all. If it > was, that would be end of the story and bought the 800 buck video > processor. But I'm still not sure of their quality. So I still exploring options > and thinking of solutions. > > I intend to use a old S-VHS VCR as tuner and output on S-video. I have > not found a decent a device that has high quality processing and output on > HDMI or all analog circuitry and output on component to take advantage of > higher quality A/D coverters found in TVs than composite or s-video. > > Options: > > 1. Buy DVDO Edge and s-video CC decoder. But I'm not sure on DVDO > Edge's performance. > > 2. Buy up broadcaster quality equipment: > Obtain RF demodulator (channel selectable via keypad or remote control of > some type (remote or PC) with SDI output box (some can deal with CC > onboard which is nice), or same idea except output on component if there's > one. If it is SDI output and no CC, buy SDI CC decoder with CC overlay > box, and get Blackmagic Design's "Monitoring HDLink Pro DVI" to hook all > up. I have found one or two on some of these but cost for new one is way > over 2,000 to 5,000. Ouch. Used source is best option but where to go? > I tried broadcasting engineering forum and smartcow both does not address > what I'm trying to find and get suggestions. > > Another reason I really like broadcaster equipment concept is these have > deep bandwidth and little processing (selectively is good) and easily plugs > together, setup and forget it, just punch in channels. > > I'm that fussy. CRT on SD quality is excellent and I use cable, built in > video processors in TV threw away too much, soften and lose details to > brother me so much enough to get me in a tizzy. I know broadcaster > digitize all in and out feeds but quality is much higher. > > Cheers, Wizard > -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/ From tosteve at yahoo.com Tue Feb 2 22:00:29 2010 From: tosteve at yahoo.com (steven stengel) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:00:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <419360.31452.qm@web110604.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ebay 200421292409 Only $7,999 !! I guess it's pretty rare... --- On Tue, 2/2/10, Robert Borsuk wrote: > From: Robert Borsuk > Subject: Re: Poly8813 on ebay > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 7:42 PM > What is the auction number? > > > On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:17 PM, dwight elvey wrote: > > > > > Hi > > I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( > actually a 8812 ) > > on ebay. One of the pictures shows me with a working > machine > > but the machine on ebay is not my machine ( although > it might > > be thought as being mine ). It is one of the two > machine that mine > > was one of that is mentioned on one of the web pages > and serial > > numbers. > > The working state of the one on the web is unknown to > me. > > I would be willing to help, anyone that buys the > machine, to > > bring it to life. I can provide a boot disk, disk > images and even help > > diagnose problems. > > I think his asking price is a little high but he seems > to be open > > to offers as well. > > Dwight > > > > ??? > ???????? > ?????? ??? > ? > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful > SPAM protection. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ > > > > Rob Borsuk > email: rborsuk at colourfull.com > Colourfull Creations > Web: http://www.colourfull.com > > From tosteve at yahoo.com Tue Feb 2 22:10:38 2010 From: tosteve at yahoo.com (steven stengel) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:10:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Available: IBM Displaywriter in Weldon, NC Message-ID: <542075.68026.qm@web110608.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Not my system, please contact Margaret if interested: > I have an IBM Displaywriter I purchased in 1983. > The Displaywriter still works and has a Selectric Printer. > I also have all eleven "Dick and Jane" instruction manuals > That came with the machine. > > mhofmann at 3rddoor.com > > Not my system, please contact Margaret if interested ^^ I believe that she wishes to donate it. From teoz at neo.rr.com Tue Feb 2 22:21:29 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:21:29 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428><9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> <4B68F36E.3010203@oldskool.org> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Leonard" To: ; "Discussion at mail.mobygames.com :On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:54 PM Subject: Re: Free for pickup > On 2/2/2010 12:55 AM, Teo Zenios wrote: >> Get much interest in that lot yet? >> >> The Model 70 486 is interesting along with the PS/2 TV box. > > What *was* the PS/2 TV box? I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek > describing a particular type of monitor. > http://ohlandl.ipv7.net/video/PS2_TV.html From marvin at west.net Tue Feb 2 22:46:11 2010 From: marvin at west.net (Marvin Johnston) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:46:11 -0800 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B68FF93.2020402@west.net> > From: dwight elvey > > Hi > I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) > on ebay. One of the pictures shows me with a working machine > but the machine on ebay is not my machine ( although it might > be thought as being mine ). It is one of the two machine that mine > was one of that is mentioned on one of the web pages and serial > numbers. I tend to think his asking price ($8000) is WAY too high in spite of the condition since it doesn't include any docs or disks. But if anyone decides to buy it, I can supply a copy of the manuals and other board documentation if they aren't already online. But for a mere $4000, I'd be more than happy to provide a working Poly 8813 (not 8812) with documentation and boot disks as I currently have at least two :). And for a mere $4000, I can do the same with a working Poly 88 AKA the Orange Toaster :) as I currently have maybe four or five. FWIW, only two Polymorphic items have closed on ebay in the last 90 days; a set of four Poly S-100 boards (two memory boards, CPU, and ???) at $225.00 and a Poly 88 flyer at $9.99 not sold. I love ebay (NOT) :). Marvin From stephane.tsacas at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 22:52:09 2010 From: stephane.tsacas at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Tsacas?=) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:52:09 +0100 Subject: New PDP 11/34 Message-ID: Hi, A PDP11/34 has just arrived... I need some basic help before I'll power it on. The description of the current setup can be seen there : http://www.conservatique.com/pdp/pdp-1134?. 1- There is 2 wires cable coming out the front panel, pins TB1/TB2, which goes to the rear of the box, towards the power supply. From the schematics Fig 9-5 (p64): http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/1134/KY11-LB_MaintMan.pdf this cable should go to a M9301 ? What if I don't have a M9301? Is there a M9301 Boostrap/Terminator Maintenance Manual available somewhere by any chance? 2- How can I test the power supply? I don't see any voltage control points, I couldn't find how I can?access?to the boards under the transformer. If anyone has the following boards for sale/trade, please drop me a mail: - a M9301 ! - any memory which can fit (MOS or CORE). I have some 11/70 core modules for trade I think ;-) Thanks! -- Stephane http://DECpicted.blogspot.com From ggs at shiresoft.com Tue Feb 2 23:24:57 2010 From: ggs at shiresoft.com (Guy Sotomayor) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:24:57 -0800 Subject: New PDP 11/34 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2010, at 8:52 PM, St?phane Tsacas wrote: > Hi, > > A PDP11/34 has just arrived... I need some basic help before I'll power it on. > > The description of the current setup can be seen there : > http://www.conservatique.com/pdp/pdp-1134 . > > 1- There is 2 wires cable coming out the front panel, pins TB1/TB2, > which goes to the rear of the box, towards the power supply. From the > schematics Fig 9-5 (p64): > http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/1134/KY11-LB_MaintMan.pdf > this cable should go to a M9301 ? What if I don't have a M9301? > Is there a M9301 Boostrap/Terminator Maintenance Manual available > somewhere by any chance? I think bitsavers has documentation on it. An M9312 is a better bootstrap terminator board and can be used in place of an M9301. Those wires go to the "boot" pins on the bootstrap boards. > > 2- How can I test the power supply? I don't see any voltage control > points, I couldn't find how I can access to the boards under the > transformer. While there are no specific test points, you can pull *all* of the boards and measure the supplies at the distribution points. If you take the bottom off of the BA11 box you'll see it. That will also give you access to the individual power supply "bricks". They have individual adjustment points on the "bricks". The different "bricks" have different numbering to indicate what voltage(s) they supply. > > If anyone has the following boards for sale/trade, please drop me a mail: > - a M9301 ! I probably have some and maybe some extra M9312. > - any memory which can fit (MOS or CORE). I have some 11/70 core > modules for trade I think ;-) Any MUD memory should work (I have some). TTFN - Guy From pmille2 at cox.net Tue Feb 2 12:26:21 2010 From: pmille2 at cox.net (Pete Miller) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:26:21 -0500 Subject: Honeywell 316 on govliquidation Message-ID: <37EA32D65C48498CB1F68C19285B55A7@owneraf75c46b7> Got any info on the Honeywell 316 station ? Thanks E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514) Database version: 6.14270 http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor/ From jonas at otter.se Tue Feb 2 14:54:40 2010 From: jonas at otter.se (Jonas Otter) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:54:40 +0000 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 , ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote: > >That sounds more like the Intel 8251 USART. IIRC on that chip you have to >send the reset command 3 times to ensure it's treated as a command and >not as data to be loadrd into one of the configuration registers. > >-tony > Hmm, I must be getting old. Between about 1983 and about 1990, I wrote a fair amount of software for a communications board which I designed, and which used an 8088, an 8259, an 8253, 8255s, and, for some reason I cannot remember now, I think it used 6850s for the serial ports. We started out with all Motorola peripheral chips but found out that the timer chip wouldn't work properly together with the Intel bus, so we switched to Intel. I do have the distinct impression that we kept the 6850s for some reason, probably price, and, I think, simplicity. We had no need for synchronous communications so that would have been a reason. We had an earlier all-Motorola design (6809-based) we got ideas from (I had never designed any microprocessor circuitry before), and IIRC, I started out sending a single reset command, which didn't work, and then I looked at the other design and saw that their software sent 3 resets, which I then understood the reason for. I may be wrong, as this was 27 years ago, but it would be easy to test. I can't, as I have nothing to test on. And Charlie C, had you asked me 27 years ago I could have told you exactly what to do ;-) Whatever it was I did, it worked well, because we sold a number of those boards, each of which used 4 serial interfaces. It annoys me that I can't be sure whether we kept the ACIAs or changed to Intel. Wh?t I do remember is that the Motorola chips were simple and elegant compared to the Intel chips. /Jonas From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Tue Feb 2 17:58:04 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (Daniel Snyder) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:58:04 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com><000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> <9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> Message-ID: <002701caa463$8f4aec10$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Teo, Only the 30's generated some interest. The PS/2 TV and the Model 80-486 is still available. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Teo Zenios" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Free for pickup > Get much interest in that lot yet? > > The Model 70 486 is interesting along with the PS/2 TV box. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Snyder" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:59 PM > Subject: Free for pickup > > >> Still thinning my vintage stuff.. >> Go to http://picasaweb.google.com/DanielDSnyder for a look, category is: >> Old stuff looking for a new home >> >> Available is: >> >> 1 - Centronics 761 KSR - serial >> 1 - Centronics 779 - parallel >> 1 - Centronics 781 - serial? >> 1 - IBM PS/2 TV - complete >> 2 - IBM PS/2 model 30-286 >> 1 - IBM PS/2 model 25 B&W >> 1 - IBM PS/2 model 50 >> 2 - IBM PS/2 model 70 386 & 486 >> 1 - IBM PS/2 model 80 with Kingston 486 >> 1 - IBM PS/2 B&W monitor >> 2 - IBM PS/2 keyboards >> >> Contact me offine. I really do not want to ship this stuff, but I am >> willing to relay >> the stuff and at this moment there is no time limit, I am not going to >> toss the stuff.. >> >> Note all items have been stored in my home and have been known to work. I >> know for a fact the Centronics printers have been in my home for almost >> 30 years. >> >> I need the space, would like to pass the items to someone else to enjoy.. >> whatever >> the reason may be, I have narrowed my focus to VAX, Alpha and Integrity >> based VMS >> boxes. This is one of the few constants in my career in the last 31 >> years. >> >> Dan Snyder >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Al Hartman" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 9:00 AM >> Subject: Re: Free for pickup >> >> >>> Of the items I posted earlier, the following is still available: >>> >>> Qty 2 - HP Laserjet IIIP Printers >>> >>> Box of Misc Network Adapter cards, ISA mixed 8 and 16 bit. Mostly 16 >>> bit. All are Novell, Windows 3.x, Windows 95 and Lantastic Compatible. >>> >>> I have the following to add: >>> >>> 1 ZIP 100 Drive and Power Supply >>> 1 Ditto Tape Backup Drive (Not sure if it still works due to age of >>> rubber rollers) >>> 1 Apple Imagewriter II >>> >>> Items are located in Keansburg, NJ 07734 >>> >>> Contact me off-list via PM. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Al Hartman >>> >>> >> > > From mjohnson at simconsultants.com Tue Feb 2 21:07:23 2010 From: mjohnson at simconsultants.com (Marty Johnson) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:07:23 -0500 Subject: For Trade: SGI 4D series boards, memory, etc Message-ID: <003101caa47e$0384cd70$0a8e6850$@com> Hi Mark, I know you posted this many years ago but I was wondering if you still have any of the SGI SAMZ audio modules for sale (030-0753-005). Best Regards, Marty Johnson CentraTech Corp From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 3 01:22:07 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:22:07 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> References: <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Jonas Otter wrote: > I may be wrong, as this was 27 years ago, but it would be easy to > test. I > can't, as I have nothing to test on. And Charlie C, had you asked > me 27 > years ago I could have told you exactly what to do ;-) > Whatever it was I did, it worked well, because we sold a number of > those > boards, each of which used 4 serial interfaces. It annoys me that I > can't be sure whether we kept the ACIAs or changed to Intel. > > Wh?t I do remember is that the Motorola chips were simple and elegant > compared to the Intel chips. This holds true for most of their chips. ;) -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From teoz at neo.rr.com Wed Feb 3 01:34:58 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:34:58 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com><000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428><9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> <002701caa463$8f4aec10$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Message-ID: <93BCF40F2FBD4A999C1632B28574E71C@dell8300> Any interesting cards in the model 80? Looks like it has a nice cdrom and bezel installed. When do you need the stuff gone by anyway? I was hoping to snag them at the Wallmart we meet at when the weather is decent if that is ok? Of the list the Model 80, Model 70 (486), and the PS/2 TV would be cool. From mtapley at swri.edu Wed Feb 3 10:44:13 2010 From: mtapley at swri.edu (Mark Tapley) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:44:13 -0600 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 22:10 -0600 2/2/10, Cameron Kaiser wrote: >I'm going to go ahead and finish this thread: anyone who doesn't use a Mac >is Hitler and Windows users are Nazis, etc. ROFLMAO! This may become a .sig on my email program, for classic-cmp replies at least. Well done, Sir! -- - Mark 210-379-4635 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Large Asteroids headed toward planets inhabited by beings that don't have technology adequate to stop them: Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward. From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 3 11:50:15 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:50:15 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> References: , <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> Message-ID: <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> On 2 Feb 2010 at 20:54, Jonas Otter wrote: > Between about 1983 and about 1990, I wrote a fair amount of software > for a communications board which I designed, and which used an 8088, > an 8259, an 8253, 8255s, and, for some reason I cannot remember now, I > think it used 6850s for the serial ports. We started out with all > Motorola peripheral chips but found out that the timer chip wouldn't > work properly together with the Intel bus, so we switched to Intel. I > do have the distinct impression that we kept the 6850s for some > reason, probably price, and, I think, simplicity. We had no need for > synchronous communications so that would have been a reason. One of the more common chips used for async (as well as sync) back then was the Signetics 2651 (and 2661). A 28 pin package, simple to interface, with a built-in baud rate generator. The successful orphan of the 2650 CPU family. Another popular chip used was the Intel 8274 dual-channel chip, basically a clone of the Z80 SIO chip. There were many other comm chips by the major makers, but these two packed a lot of bang-for-the-buck. Cheers, Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 3 12:01:01 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:01:01 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <143ECF1C-D298-4D66-B368-801C23A57016@neurotica.com> On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Between about 1983 and about 1990, I wrote a fair amount of software >> for a communications board which I designed, and which used an 8088, >> an 8259, an 8253, 8255s, and, for some reason I cannot remember >> now, I >> think it used 6850s for the serial ports. We started out with all >> Motorola peripheral chips but found out that the timer chip wouldn't >> work properly together with the Intel bus, so we switched to Intel. I >> do have the distinct impression that we kept the 6850s for some >> reason, probably price, and, I think, simplicity. We had no need for >> synchronous communications so that would have been a reason. > > One of the more common chips used for async (as well as sync) back > then was the Signetics 2651 (and 2661). A 28 pin package, simple to > interface, with a built-in baud rate generator. The successful > orphan of the 2650 CPU family. > > Another popular chip used was the Intel 8274 dual-channel chip, > basically a clone of the Z80 SIO chip. > > There were many other comm chips by the major makers, but these two > packed a lot of bang-for-the-buck. Z8530. 'Nuff said. Well, not quite 'nuff...it's an AMAZINGLY nice chip! I've done quite a bit with it (both in my designs and in existing systems) and have always been impressed with its capabilities. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From alhartman at yahoo.com Wed Feb 3 12:20:39 2010 From: alhartman at yahoo.com (Al Hartman) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:20:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Looking for TRS-80 Model I Keyboard unit... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <973924.13504.qm@web55301.mail.re4.yahoo.com> During my recent move, my Model I took a tumble and has a broken case and keyboard. I'm not even going to try to power it on until we can look it over carefully. I'm looking for a donor unit that can contribute a bottom case and keyboard with keypad. The logic board does not have to be working, and no power supply is needed. If someone has such a unit, or can point me to someone I can buy a new keyboard from, I'd be most appreciative. Al Hartman Keansburg, NJ From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 12:29:25 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:29:25 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <143ECF1C-D298-4D66-B368-801C23A57016@neurotica.com> References: <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> <143ECF1C-D298-4D66-B368-801C23A57016@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On 2/3/10, Dave McGuire wrote: > Z8530. 'Nuff said. > > Well, not quite 'nuff...it's an AMAZINGLY nice chip! I've done > quite a bit with it (both in my designs and in existing systems) and > have always been impressed with its capabilities. We used the Z8530 on our later COMBOARD designs for bisync and SNA comms. I did quite a bit of low-level programming in M68K assembler for it. Except for the fact that we had an early system design (1985) with a 4MHz chip on an 8MHz platform and needed to be careful about how fast we hammered the registers, it was really fun to program. One way we leveraged it in our embedded design was to keep the primary SIO channel in sync mode and the secondary in async mode so we could use the secondary channel for debugging/tracing. If I needed more than a INS6402/RCA1854 or a 6850 could do in a new hobby design, I'd happily reach for a Z8530. -ethan From billdeg at degnanco.com Wed Feb 3 13:09:09 2010 From: billdeg at degnanco.com (B Degnan) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:09:09 -0500 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B69C9D5.2050007@degnanco.com> > > >> > From: dwight elvey >> > >> > Hi >> > I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) >> > on ebay. >> > > > I tend to think his asking price ($8000) is WAY too high in spite of the > condition since it doesn't include any docs or disks. But if anyone > decides to buy it, I can supply a copy of the manuals and other board > documentation if they aren't already online. > > The 8812 is not the original and much rarer Polymorphic Micro-Altair, later called Poly-88. Those came out in 1976 and might fetch $8000. The 8813 series were advertised into early 1979 and are worth more like $400-600 at best, in unknown condition. Bill From pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 13:07:58 2010 From: pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com (Alexandre Souza - Listas) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:07:58 -0200 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428><9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300><4B68F36E.3010203@oldskool.org> Message-ID: <0fec01caa504$a05074c0$0132a8c0@Alexandre> >> What *was* the PS/2 TV box? I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek >> describing a particular type of monitor. > http://ohlandl.ipv7.net/video/PS2_TV.html Photos?! Wasn't able to google it :( From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 3 13:49:01 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:49:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <81MllFuZ.1265144080.3045340.jotter@howe.textdrive.com> from "Jonas Otter" at Feb 2, 10 08:54:40 pm Message-ID: > Wh=E1t I do remember is that the Motorola chips were simple and elegant > compared to the Intel chips. That is almost always the case :-). In fact just about every Intel chip I've ever used has had a major dsesign misfeature. Heck, they're the only company that managed to screw up the design of a parallel interface chip. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 3 13:56:55 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 19:56:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: New PDP 11/34 In-Reply-To: from "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Tsacas?=" at Feb 3, 10 05:52:09 am Message-ID: > A PDP11/34 has just arrived... I need some basic help before I'll power it = > on. > > The description of the current setup can be seen there : > http://www.conservatique.com/pdp/pdp-1134=A0. > > 1- There is 2 wires cable coming out the front panel, pins TB1/TB2, > which goes to the rear of the box, towards the power supply. From the > schematics Fig 9-5 (p64): > http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=3Dhttp://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.= > bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/1134/KY11-LB_MaintMan.pdf > this cable should go to a M9301 ? What if I don't have a M9301? > Is there a M9301 Boostrap/Terminator Maintenance Manual available > somewhere by any chance? IIRC, that cable is associated with the BOOT button on the panel, and is used to get the M9301 to start a ROM bootstrap. If you don't have a bootstrap ROM board, and are going to be entering the bootstrap programs on the keypad, you can leave this cable disconnected. But I recomend findign an M9301 or M9312. > 2- How can I test the power supply? I don't see any voltage control > points, I couldn't find how I can=A0access=A0to the boards under the > transformer. Take the bottom off the PCU box (slacken one screw each side and slide it to disenage the fixing slots). You will then see the wire-wrap side of the backplanes. You can unplug the power input conenctors (6 pin and 15 pin AMP plugs from the power distrbution PCB (this will disconenct the logic from the PSU) and check the voltages at the sockets on the power distributuion PCB. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 3 14:09:04 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:09:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 3, 10 09:50:15 am Message-ID: > One of the more common chips used for async (as well as sync) back > then was the Signetics 2651 (and 2661). A 28 pin package, simple to > interface, with a built-in baud rate generator. The successful > orphan of the 2650 CPU family. On the 6800/6809/6502 bus, I much prefered the 6551 to the 6850. The former included a baud rate generator, and just needed an external crystal. I seem to rememebr a Rockwell dual serial chip for this bus, but I can't remmebr the number off the top of my head. AndI mentiond the 6852 and 6854 in an earlier message. > Another popular chip used was the Intel 8274 dual-channel chip, > basically a clone of the Z80 SIO chip. I didn't think they were that similar... IIRC the 8274 is very similar to the NEC7201. > There were many other comm chips by the major makers, but these two > packed a lot of bang-for-the-buck. There was obvisouly the 8250 (Intel) used in the original IBM PC Async card, and its improved versiuons (16450, 16550, etc). For some inexplicable (to me) reason, HP used the 8250 on the simple RS232 cards for their HP9000/200 machines (which were 68000 based). The more complcated serial card used a Z80-SIO with a Z80 CPU controlling it. There were the well-known 40 pin dumb UARTs (6402, AY-5-1013, etc). They had the advantage that they could easily be used without a procesor, althogh interfaceing them to a microcomputer bus was very easy if you wanted to do that. There was a pair of chips from Western Digital, the PR1472 (receiver) and PT1482 (transmitter). They were a bit like the dumb UART in that you could easily configure them without a processor (but again you could easily link them to a processor if you wanted to), but they did both sync and async modes. HP used them in the fancy serial interface for the 9830 (HP11284 IIRC), and in the HP59403 HPIB common carrier (modem) interface. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 3 14:11:43 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:11:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <143ECF1C-D298-4D66-B368-801C23A57016@neurotica.com> from "Dave McGuire" at Feb 3, 10 01:01:01 pm Message-ID: > Z8530. 'Nuff said. > > Well, not quite 'nuff...it's an AMAZINGLY nice chip! I've done > quite a bit with it (both in my designs and in existing systems) and > have always been impressed with its capabilities. It has one gotcha that I remember. As ever, they ran out of pins on the package, and didn't have room for a reset pin. Instead you do a hardware reset by asserting rd/ and wr/ at the same time. This is only a problem if you're trying to produce rd/ and wr/ from a R/W line and you don't realise a momentaruy overlap (and the 'glitch' from one LS TTL gate is enough) will reset the Z8530, or worse still partially reset it. Please don't ask how I foudn that out... -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 3 14:19:35 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:19:35 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9017D573-6462-4BE8-A7BD-80F48E6C3091@neurotica.com> On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >> Wh=E1t I do remember is that the Motorola chips were simple and >> elegant >> compared to the Intel chips. > > That is almost always the case :-). In fact just about every Intel > chip > I've ever used has had a major dsesign misfeature. Heck, they're > the only > company that managed to screw up the design of a parallel interface > chip. The 8255 with its stupid reset-all-pin-states-on-mode-change business? -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 3 14:32:16 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:32:16 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <143ECF1C-D298-4D66-B368-801C23A57016@neurotica.com> References: , <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com>, <143ECF1C-D298-4D66-B368-801C23A57016@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B696CD0.16046.D1FD53@cclist.sydex.com> On 3 Feb 2010 at 13:01, Dave McGuire wrote: > Z8530. 'Nuff said. > > Well, not quite 'nuff...it's an AMAZINGLY nice chip! I've done > quite a bit with it (both in my designs and in existing systems) and > have always been impressed with its capabilities. It's not bad, but if you don't need the sync capabilities, Exar also has some pretty amazing offerings, all based on the 16550 UART. --Chuck From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 3 14:52:48 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:52:48 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 3, 10 09:50:15 am, Message-ID: <4B6971A0.26732.E4C994@cclist.sydex.com> On 3 Feb 2010 at 20:09, Tony Duell wrote: > > Another popular chip used was the Intel 8274 dual-channel chip, > > basically a clone of the Z80 SIO chip. > > I didn't think they were that similar... IIRC the 8274 is very similar > to the NEC7201. The uPD7201 *is* an 8474, just with NECs own part number. This scheme obtained with most x80 and x86 support chipsets. Why NEC used its own numbering is an unknown. Compare the programming information for the Z80 SIO (Z8441) and the 8474. The register definitions line up virtually bit for bit. I received a job to do some 8474 programming and noticed right away that I could just about work from the Z80 SIO datasheet which I had from a previous job. I believe the same person designed both chips. In that respect, the Z8530 bears a certain family resemblance. > There was obvisouly the 8250 (Intel) used in the original IBM PC Async > card, and its improved versiuons (16450, 16550, etc). For some > inexplicable (to me) reason, HP used the 8250 on the simple RS232 cards > for their HP9000/200 machines (which were 68000 based). The > more complcated serial card used a Z80-SIO with a Z80 CPU. ISTR that the 8250 was originally a National part, not an Intel part. Televideo used the 8474 on its early RS-422 network system (InfoShare, which I believe was done by Novell or whatever its predecessor was named). The brain-dead (async only) Z80 SIO is the Z80 DART. I don't think there's a corresponding Intel part related to the 8474 with disabled synchronous capabilities. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 3 15:34:11 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:34:11 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6971A0.26732.E4C994@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 3, 10 09:50:15 am, <4B6971A0.26732.E4C994@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <95C08CA9-B446-4A41-B289-B40D239585B5@neurotica.com> On Feb 3, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > The brain-dead (async only) Z80 SIO is the Z80 DART. I don't think > there's a corresponding Intel part related to the 8474 with disabled > synchronous capabilities. I wouldn't exactly call the Z80 DART brain-dead...it's still a pretty fancy chip, even without the sync hardware. Perhaps "lobotomized". ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 3 15:43:55 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:43:55 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <95C08CA9-B446-4A41-B289-B40D239585B5@neurotica.com> References: <4B6946D7.10966.3DA937@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6971A0.26732.E4C994@cclist.sydex.com>, <95C08CA9-B446-4A41-B289-B40D239585B5@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B697D9B.10575.1139948@cclist.sydex.com> On 3 Feb 2010 at 16:34, Dave McGuire wrote: > I wouldn't exactly call the Z80 DART brain-dead...it's still a > pretty fancy chip, even without the sync hardware. > > Perhaps "lobotomized". ;) "Cost reduced?" What happens if one tries to put a DART into synchronous mode? Always wondered, never got the opportunity to try. --Chuck From technobug at comcast.net Wed Feb 3 15:53:11 2010 From: technobug at comcast.net (CRC) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:53:11 -0700 Subject: Data I/O System 20B MOS Memory Programmer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BC364AE-9887-40E6-8472-E1B0EFBAD73F@comcast.net> I just was given the above named beast and a search of the usual places produces nil. Anyone have any info or manuals on this item? CRC From jhfinedp3k at compsys.to Wed Feb 3 18:35:54 2010 From: jhfinedp3k at compsys.to (Jerome H. Fine) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:35:54 -0000 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <4B4137FD.70706@compsys.to> >Patrick Finnegan wrote: >On Monday 01 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > > >>On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >> >> >>>>As for total memory available to use for temporary >>>>work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >>>>system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >>>>WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), >>>> >>>> >>>Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of >>>RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of >>>the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. >>>memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit >>>less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends >>>on the specific hardware. >>> >>> >> The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this >>problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? >> >> > >Not all PC chipsets support the address lines to do this. My friend's >Core2 Duo box (yes, a 64-bit machine) doesn't support more than 3.25GB >of RAM because of this. > I am confused over how the hardware responds to a physical address for hardware as opposed to actual memory at the same physical address? The mother board being used (ASUS P5B) actually allows 8 GB of memory in total, so PAE hardware must be present to allow 64 bit Windows to reference the extra 4 GB of memory. My less than complete understanding of how an MMU operates is limited to the PDP-11 where the top 8 KB of memory is lost to the IOPAGE registers. As far as I can understand, all PAR7 address references are redirected to the IOPAGE registers which results in the top 8 KB of memory not being able to be used. This redirection takes place BOTH with and WITHOUT an MM being present. When there is 4 MB of memory available to the system, the loss of 8 KB was not considered a major problem and we all considered ourselves fortunate if we actually had 4 MB of physical memory in the backplane. I get the impression that a PC does something very different with physical memory addresses (out of a 2 * 2 GB sticks for example) vs something like the video controller which has its own memory. However, I still get the impression that a 32 bit Windows XP could set up the necessary pointers to allow the operating system to use the unused 1 GB of physical memory for some rather useful functions such as cache for the hard disk drives. Is my impression correct? And what about Windows 7 running a 64 bit? I realize that this seems to be a discussion about Windows, but the only goal is to be able to run a 32 bit application, specifically Ersatz-11, with reasonable, or at least as close to reasonable as possible, efficiency. If a 64 bit Windows can still run a 32 bit application, are there any penalties imposed as a result. I realize that the maximum memory that could be assigned to a single 32 bit process will almost certainly be 4 GB, but that is substantially more than the maximum of 2 GB under a 32 bit version of Windows XP which is running at the moment. Please pardon my almost total lack of understanding of the Windows environment, however I shudder at having to learn all of that stuff just to be able to run Ersatz-11. Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine From dkelvey at hotmail.com Wed Feb 3 18:42:22 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:42:22 -0800 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: <4B69C9D5.2050007@degnanco.com> References: , <4B69C9D5.2050007@degnanco.com> Message-ID: > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:09:09 -0500 > From: billdeg at degnanco.com > To: cctech at classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Poly8813 on ebay > > > > > > > >> > From: dwight elvey > >> > > >> > Hi > >> > I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) > >> > on ebay. > >> > > > > > > I tend to think his asking price ($8000) is WAY too high in spite of the > > condition since it doesn't include any docs or disks. But if anyone > > decides to buy it, I can supply a copy of the manuals and other board > > documentation if they aren't already online. > > > > > The 8812 is not the original and much rarer Polymorphic Micro-Altair, > later called Poly-88. Those came out in 1976 and might fetch $8000. > The 8813 series were advertised into early 1979 and are worth more like > $400-600 at best, in unknown condition. > > Bill Hi I have it from several sources that the Micro-Altair was never anything more than an empty case for an advertising picture. I still wait to see one anywhere. Altair shut them down before any of these were ever shipped. At least, that is what I've heard from several sources. When that advertisement was released, they hadn't even created a single production unit. All were still prototype levels. They were waiting to see what volume they needed before ordering boards. Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ From jhfinedp3k at compsys.to Wed Feb 3 18:49:05 2010 From: jhfinedp3k at compsys.to (Jerome H. Fine) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:49:05 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums)) In-Reply-To: <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <4B6A1981.6050309@compsys.to> >Patrick Finnegan wrote: >On Monday 01 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > > >>On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >> >> >>>>As for total memory available to use for temporary >>>>work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >>>>system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >>>>WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), >>>> >>>> >>>Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of >>>RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of >>>the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. >>>memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit >>>less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends >>>on the specific hardware. >>> >>> >> The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this >>problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE hardware? >> >> > >Not all PC chipsets support the address lines to do this. My friend's >Core2 Duo box (yes, a 64-bit machine) doesn't support more than 3.25GB >of RAM because of this. > I am confused over how the hardware responds to a physical address for hardware as opposed to actual memory at the same physical address? The mother board being used (ASUS P5B) actually allows 8 GB of memory in total, so PAE hardware must be present to allow 64 bit Windows to reference the extra 4 GB of memory. My less than complete understanding of how an MMU operates is limited to the PDP-11 where the top 8 KB of memory is lost to the IOPAGE registers. As far as I can understand, all PAR7 address references are redirected to the IOPAGE registers which results in the top 8 KB of memory not being able to be used. This redirection takes place BOTH with and WITHOUT an MM being present. When there is 4 MB of memory available to the system, the loss of 8 KB was not considered a major problem and we all considered ourselves fortunate if we actually had 4 MB of physical memory in the backplane. I get the impression that a PC does something very different with physical memory addresses (out of a 2 * 2 GB sticks for example) vs something like the video controller which has its own memory. However, I still get the impression that a 32 bit Windows XP could set up the necessary pointers to allow the operating system to use the unused 1 GB of physical memory for some rather useful functions such as cache for the hard disk drives. Is my impression correct? And what about Windows 7 running a 64 bit? I realize that this seems to be a discussion about Windows, but the only goal is to be able to run a 32 bit application, specifically Ersatz-11, with reasonable, or at least as close to reasonable as possible, efficiency. If a 64 bit Windows can still run a 32 bit application, are there any penalties imposed as a result. I realize that the maximum memory that could be assigned to a single 32 bit process will almost certainly be 4 GB, but that is substantially more than the maximum of 2 GB under a 32 bit version of Windows XP which is running at the moment. Please pardon my almost total lack of understanding of the Windows environment, however I shudder at having to learn all of that stuff just to be able to run Ersatz-11. Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Wed Feb 3 19:02:48 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 17:02:48 -0800 Subject: Ot: 64-bit Windows (was Re: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums))) In-Reply-To: <4B4137FD.70706@compsys.to> References: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B4137FD.70706@compsys.to> Message-ID: On Jan 3, 2010, at 4:36 PM, "Jerome H. Fine" wrote: > >Patrick Finnegan wrote: > >> On Monday 01 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: >> >>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote: >>> >>>>> As for total memory available to use for temporary >>>>> work space, when I run Ersatz-11 under WXP on a >>>>> system with 4 GB of physical memory (I agree that >>>>> WXP wastes almost 1 GB of that memory), >>>>> >>>> Not the fault of Windows. For a 32 bit PC system with 4 GB of >>>> RAM, up to 1 GB of RAM is 'lost' because up to 1 GB of >>>> the address space is used for the PCI address space (i.e. >>>> memory mapped access to peripherals[0]). It can be quite bit >>>> less (such as 500 MB), or up to the full 1 GB - that depends >>>> on the specific hardware. >>>> >>> The MMU can easily get around this. And indeed, I don't have this >>> problem with any other OS. Does Windows not understand PAE >>> hardware? >>> >> >> Not all PC chipsets support the address lines to do this. My >> friend's Core2 Duo box (yes, a 64-bit machine) doesn't support more >> than 3.25GB of RAM because of this. >> > I am confused over how the hardware responds to a physical > address for hardware as opposed to actual memory at the same > physical address? The mother board being used (ASUS P5B) > actually allows 8 GB of memory in total, so PAE hardware must > be present to allow 64 bit Windows to reference the extra 4 GB > of memory. > > My less than complete understanding of how an MMU operates > is limited to the PDP-11 where the top 8 KB of memory is lost > to the IOPAGE registers. As far as I can understand, all PAR7 > address references are redirected to the IOPAGE registers which > results in the top 8 KB of memory not being able to be used. This > redirection takes place BOTH with and WITHOUT an MM being > present. When there is 4 MB of memory available to the system, > the loss of 8 KB was not considered a major problem and we all > considered ourselves fortunate if we actually had 4 MB of physical > memory in the backplane. > > I get the impression that a PC does something very different with > physical memory addresses (out of a 2 * 2 GB sticks for example) > vs something like the video controller which has its own memory. > However, I still get the impression that a 32 bit Windows XP could > set up the necessary pointers to allow the operating system to use > the unused 1 GB of physical memory for some rather useful functions > such as cache for the hard disk drives. Is my impression correct? > > And what about Windows 7 running a 64 bit? I realize that this seems > to be a discussion about Windows, but the only goal is to be able to > run a 32 bit application, specifically Ersatz-11, with reasonable, > or at least as close to reasonable as possible, efficiency. If a 64 > bit > Windows can still run a 32 bit application, are there any penalties > imposed as a result. I realize that the maximum memory that could > be assigned to a single 32 bit process will almost certainly be 4 GB, > but that is substantially more than the maximum of 2 GB under a 32 bit > version of Windows XP which is running at the moment. I can't answer all the questions here, but I'll give it a go (pardon the terseness, I'm on my phone...) 32-bit processes under 64-bit Windows (7 or otherwise) can directly address at most 4gb of memory (the same is true of 64-bit Linux on x86). There are ways for 32-bit processes (via "address windowing extensions") to access more memory outside the 4gb range but as was mentioned earlier it's a lot like EMS under DOS. PAE is for 32-bit OSes only; it's a bit of a hardware hack to allow the OS to manage memory beyond 4gb. Individual processes are still limited to a 4gb address space (barring the AWE mentioned above). And again, whether your 32-bit (or even 64-bit machine in some cases) can actually see memory above 4gb depends a lot on the hardware/ chipsets involved. Which is quite lame. I personally would recommend a 64-bit OS for anything over 3.5gb of RAM. Also: the 2gb per-process limit on XP can be raised to 3gb by using the /3GB boot option in your boot.ini. Hope that clears some things up... Josh > > Please pardon my almost total lack of understanding of the Windows > environment, however I shudder at having to learn all of that stuff > just to be able to run Ersatz-11. > > Sincerely yours, > > Jerome Fine > From glen.slick at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 20:01:31 2010 From: glen.slick at gmail.com (Glen Slick) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:01:31 -0800 Subject: Ot: 64-bit Windows (was Re: 6809 SBC (was Editor religious wars (was Re: Museums))) In-Reply-To: References: <20100201075754.GB10566@mordor.angband.thangorodrim.de> <32CE1032-0213-4D18-B500-F9C7ED232139@neurotica.com> <201002010943.32903.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B4137FD.70706@compsys.to> Message-ID: <1e1fc3e91002031801j28a2ede2k86663d08424be6fc@mail.gmail.com> Also, if anyone is interested in the details of how the hardware works, just read the chipset docs. Intel chipset docs are easily available on their website. (The same is not true of some of the other chipset vendors). Intel? 4 Series Chipset Family http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/319970.pdf Page 56, Figure 4. System Address Ranges This figure shows that some of the host system address space below 4GB is allocated to devices. Some DRAM in that address region is remapped to host system address space above 4GB. That corresponds to the "OS Invisible Reclaim" DRAM mapped to the "Main Memory Reclaim Address Range" in that figure. If the OS does not make use of host system address space memory located above 4GB the DRAM corresponding to the "OS Invisible Reclaim" region in that figure is effectively lost. That would account for the lost 0.5GB or whatever on a 4GB DRAM system. -Glen From invite+o9t=o2s9 at facebookmail.com Wed Feb 3 22:54:11 2010 From: invite+o9t=o2s9 at facebookmail.com (Kirn Gill) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:54:11 -0800 Subject: Check out my photos on Facebook Message-ID: <4d375d7c1276399bf10a0d39833b993e@www.facebook.com> Hi General, I set up a Facebook profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Kirn To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=1311167334&k=Z3D4XXPXVZTAYDEHUGYX2USUVWFJ4YY&r Already have an account? Add this email address to your account http://www.facebook.com/n/?merge_accounts.php&e=cctalk at classiccmp.org&c=d0f9a7ae1532f1dd68a5f13e3639f925.cctalk at classiccmp.org was invited to join Facebook by Kirn Gill. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click on the link below to unsubscribe. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=0fd83c&u=666184564&mid=1d45020G27b52b74G0G8 Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. From rollerton at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 00:15:44 2010 From: rollerton at gmail.com (Robert Ollerton) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:15:44 -0600 Subject: Looking for StorageTek 2500 series 9T tape drive parts. Message-ID: <2789adda1002032215p308960fk49647cf7885e2f86@mail.gmail.com> I have 4 Storage Tek 2500 series drives on my Sigma 9 that we are working on and hope to get two of them into service. I need to find replacement belts that drive the two air pumps. They are narrow modern looking things maybe 1/4" wide and shaped like a space age vbelt, I don't have the parts books with me, but my question is more a general one; Any one know of a source for spare parts for old Storagetek drives? Thanks. Oh, and any of you Sigma folks out there, contact me off the list if you like. Bob. From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 4 00:37:03 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:37:03 -0800 Subject: Looking for StorageTek 2500 series 9T tape drive parts. In-Reply-To: <2789adda1002032215p308960fk49647cf7885e2f86@mail.gmail.com> References: <2789adda1002032215p308960fk49647cf7885e2f86@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B69FA8F.5683.2FBB278@cclist.sydex.com> On 4 Feb 2010 at 0:15, Robert Ollerton wrote: > I have 4 Storage Tek 2500 series drives on my Sigma 9 that we are > working on and hope to get two of them into service. > > I need to find replacement belts that drive the two air pumps. They > are narrow modern looking things maybe 1/4" wide and shaped like a > space age vbelt, I don't have the parts books with me, but my > question is more a general one; > > Any one know of a source for spare parts for old Storagetek drives? No, but you might give the guys over at Russel Industries/PRB line a call. They (used to) carry replacement belts for just about anything imaginable. http://www.russellind.com/client/download/prb_line.pdf --Chuck From pinball at telus.net Wed Feb 3 18:00:09 2010 From: pinball at telus.net (John Robertson) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:00:09 -0800 Subject: Data I/O System 20B MOS Memory Programmer In-Reply-To: <3BC364AE-9887-40E6-8472-E1B0EFBAD73F@comcast.net> References: <3BC364AE-9887-40E6-8472-E1B0EFBAD73F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B6A0E09.9020904@telus.net> CRC wrote: > I just was given the above named beast and a search of the usual > places produces nil. Anyone have any info or manuals on this item? > > CRC > There is a discussion group for Data I/O equipment. Worth joining or visiting to find answers to these and other questions: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Data_IO_EPROM/ John :-#)# From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Wed Feb 3 19:13:33 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (Daniel Snyder) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:13:33 -0500 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay References: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net>, Message-ID: <001e01caa537$453a3f70$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> What a surprise, a Poly collector... I have a 8813 with the 88/DS drives with all the sales literature I got from a local dealer. I've had this machine since 1981. Do't really here much discussons about it or hear much from Ralph Kenyon these days about the Poly Letter news letter he publish once upon a time.. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "dwight elvey" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:17 PM Subject: Poly8813 on ebay Hi I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) on ebay. One of the pictures shows me with a working machine but the machine on ebay is not my machine ( although it might be thought as being mine ). It is one of the two machine that mine was one of that is mentioned on one of the web pages and serial numbers. The working state of the one on the web is unknown to me. I would be willing to help, anyone that buys the machine, to bring it to life. I can provide a boot disk, disk images and even help diagnose problems. I think his asking price is a little high but he seems to be open to offers as well. Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Wed Feb 3 19:14:50 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (Daniel Snyder) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:14:50 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428><9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300> <4B68F36E.3010203@oldskool.org> Message-ID: <002201caa537$73435fa0$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> The gizmo sits in series with the video monitor cable and keyboard/mouse and allows you to watch TV on your PS/2 under DOS or Win31 Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Leonard" To: ; "Discussion at mail.mobygames.com :On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:54 PM Subject: Re: Free for pickup > On 2/2/2010 12:55 AM, Teo Zenios wrote: >> Get much interest in that lot yet? >> >> The Model 70 486 is interesting along with the PS/2 TV box. > > What *was* the PS/2 TV box? I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek > describing a particular type of monitor. > -- > Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ > Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ > Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ > A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/ > From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Wed Feb 3 19:19:43 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (Daniel Snyder) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:19:43 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com><000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428><9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300><002701caa463$8f4aec10$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> <93BCF40F2FBD4A999C1632B28574E71C@dell8300> Message-ID: <003401caa538$218a8c00$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Teo, They are yours.. just post a note to the fellow citizens of Classic computing. I'm in no rush as the weather is going to be bad for a bit longer. Maybe some Saturday at Walmart. The Model 80 is stuffed as the other were, I will have to open it up. I found another video capture card, still in the anti static bag (Tecmar) I did use the model 80 for AB PLC dev and surfing the net at one time.. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Teo Zenios" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:34 AM Subject: Re: Free for pickup > Any interesting cards in the model 80? Looks like it has a nice cdrom and > bezel installed. > When do you need the stuff gone by anyway? I was hoping to snag them at > the Wallmart we meet at when the weather is decent if that is ok? > > Of the list the Model 80, Model 70 (486), and the PS/2 TV would be cool. > > From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Wed Feb 3 19:21:47 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (Daniel Snyder) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:21:47 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <000e01caa29f$29640140$6501a8c0@HP24150918428><9170DDFC830640998DEADA523455E505@dell8300><4B68F36E.3010203@oldskool.org> <0fec01caa504$a05074c0$0132a8c0@Alexandre> Message-ID: <003a01caa538$6b75e300$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Alex, Go to my Picassa site on Google. Google "Alphaserver" under images and that should find me. Look under one of the folder (I do not recall) for photos.. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexandre Souza - Listas" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:07 PM Subject: Re: Free for pickup >>> What *was* the PS/2 TV box? I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek >>> describing a particular type of monitor. >> http://ohlandl.ipv7.net/video/PS2_TV.html > > Photos?! Wasn't able to google it :( > From ddsnyder at zoominternet.net Wed Feb 3 19:27:18 2010 From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net (Daniel Snyder) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:27:18 -0500 Subject: Free for pickup References: <990883.74434.qm@web55304.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004601caa539$311fd890$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Just a note to the group. I have noted as of today, no takers for the Centronics printers.. I do not want to trash these. So maybe if no takers, I could find someone going to the VCF Mid and East and possibly donate these to some museum. The 761 was used on a PDP 11/23 at one time, the 779 was on my Imsai and the 781 came out of a car dealership. Dan From dkelvey at hotmail.com Thu Feb 4 09:28:53 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:28:53 -0800 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: <001e01caa537$453a3f70$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> References: <4B686BC2.4040707@verizon.net>, , , <001e01caa537$453a3f70$6501a8c0@HP24150918428> Message-ID: Hi Dan Marvin and I are about the only ones on this group that I now of that have these. I also have a couple Poly88s that I actually use every now and then. They are handy for debuging S-100 boards, having the cover off ( needed anyway ) and access to the side of the board. I'd be curious what disk you have? I've written a program for a PC to look like a 8813 with the FTP program ( not to be confused with todays FTP ). I use it to save images of disk on my system. I've also been recovering a number of disk that are on loan from Marvin ( got to get these back to him ). These were archieve disk fro Polymorphic. They mostly contain source text for their manuals but also include a few other interesting things as well. It has been difficult as the disk are mostly double density and the only hard sectored double density controller I have is for 8 inch disk. I've modified that controller and written enought code to extract sector images from the 5.25 disk. Dwight > From: ddsnyder at zoominternet.net > To: cctech at classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Poly8813 on ebay > Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:13:33 -0500 > > What a surprise, a Poly collector... I have a 8813 with the 88/DS drives > with all the sales literature I got from a local dealer. > > I've had this machine since 1981. Do't really here much discussons about it > or hear much from Ralph Kenyon these days about the Poly Letter news letter > he publish once upon a time.. > > Dan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dwight elvey" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:17 PM > Subject: Poly8813 on ebay > > > > Hi > I thought I'd mention that there is a Poly 8813 ( actually a 8812 ) > on ebay. One of the pictures shows me with a working machine > but the machine on ebay is not my machine ( although it might > be thought as being mine ). It is one of the two machine that mine > was one of that is mentioned on one of the web pages and serial > numbers. > The working state of the one on the web is unknown to me. > I would be willing to help, anyone that buys the machine, to > bring it to life. I can provide a boot disk, disk images and even help > diagnose problems. > I think his asking price is a little high but he seems to be open > to offers as well. > Dwight > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ From dkelvey at hotmail.com Thu Feb 4 09:38:09 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:38:09 -0800 Subject: GPIB board from with NEC uPD7210C In-Reply-To: <4B6A0E09.9020904@telus.net> References: , <3BC364AE-9887-40E6-8472-E1B0EFBAD73F@comcast.net>, <4B6A0E09.9020904@telus.net> Message-ID: Hi I got this board and I'd like to use it. It is a ISA board with a 7210 controller chip. It also has an EPROM on it as well with a sticker and NEC 590 on it. Does anyone have any info on this board or the EPROM as to how to use it. I found some good docs on the NAT7210 chip that has a 7210 compatability mode but I was hoping to avoid writing my own code and taking advantage of the boards EPROM code. I was also hoping to avoid disassembling the EPROM. Thanks Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft?s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ From marvin at west.net Thu Feb 4 10:13:15 2010 From: marvin at west.net (Marvin Johnston) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:13:15 -0800 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay Message-ID: <4B6AF21B.2080804@west.net> > The 8812 is not the original and much rarer Polymorphic Micro-Altair, > later called Poly-88. Those came out in 1976 and might fetch $8000. > The 8813 series were advertised into early 1979 and are worth more like > $400-600 at best, in unknown condition. > > Bill The 8812 is the same as the 8813 with the exception of it only having two disk drives. Re: the Micro-Altair. The story I've heard is that the Poly88 was originally named the Micro-Altair, but the name was changed because of objections from MITS. I've talked to a number of people who used to work at Polymorphic trying to find out if the Micro-Altair actually existed as a physical product. To date, I haven't found anyone who has said the Micro-Altair actually existed. FWIW as I've mentioned from time to time, I probably have the largest collection of Poly documentation left as well as stuff I've never heard of before. When Poly shut down, they put all of their stuff that was left in storage. A friend of mine knew the owner and acquired a lot of it, and gave it to me. One of my many todo projects is to get this stuff saved as it includes source code and manuals for most of their products. There is a little over one full filing cabinet full of docs in addition to several boxes of parts. Something that I find fascinating is one of their business plans after Poly had a change in management about 1981 as it includes flyers and information about their then current product line. From mcguire at neurotica.com Thu Feb 4 11:17:09 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 12:17:09 -0500 Subject: DOS Widgets In-Reply-To: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> References: <5EDA5B14711A@dunfield.com> Message-ID: <27B8A363-ED38-4C54-95BE-8E47F9D82077@neurotica.com> On Feb 1, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Dave Dunfield wrote: > Not many DOSheads left (I still have a DOS machine on my desk which > I use daily), but perhaps someone will still benefit from this... > > FWIW - I've started to catalog and post some of the various widgets > I've created for DOS over the years. Items range from trivial > utilities > to fairly complex packages. Some of these were commercial packages > that > I once sold mail-order (and later the web), while others are just > things > I put together for my own use. > > I'm not sure if/where I'll post it permanantly, however for now I've > put a link at the bottom of "Dave's old computers" - Enjoy. I use DOS (under an emulator) with some regularity, mostly for PALASM. It's good to see some DOS preservation going on. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu Thu Feb 4 13:37:29 2010 From: dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu (David Griffith) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:37:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: OT: identifying radio coils Message-ID: I was wondering if anyone has an Alenco 108TK am/fm radio kit and knows the specs of the coils in that kit. I'm tinkering about with replicating that kit as a small PCB to be put into a wooden cabinet. -- David Griffith dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 4 13:15:06 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:15:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <9017D573-6462-4BE8-A7BD-80F48E6C3091@neurotica.com> from "Dave McGuire" at Feb 3, 10 03:19:35 pm Message-ID: > > > That is almost always the case :-). In fact just about every Intel > > chip > > I've ever used has had a major dsesign misfeature. Heck, they're > > the only > > company that managed to screw up the design of a parallel interface > > chip. > > The 8255 with its stupid reset-all-pin-states-on-mode-change > business? That's the one. A more stupid design decision is hard to imagine! Not having individual direction cotrnol bits for each I/O line is bad, but just abotu tolerable. But the fact that any write to the mode register clears all output lines to 0 (even if the mode register is not in fact changed) is ridiculous. After a hardware reset all port lines are inputs (at least they got that bit right). So a TTL input connected to such a lien will float high, and in any case it's easier to pull a TTL input high than to pull it low. You now program the mode register, and all outputs go low. You cna then set some of them high again. You have to design your peripejhral circuitry to not be bothered by the fact that the inputs to it will be 1 after a reset, and then go to 0 whwen the 8255 is programmed. With better-designed I/O chips (just about all others), you can pre-load the output port regsiters with 1s, then program the driection bits, and the signals to your peripheral logic will remain at 1 from the time of the hardware rest right through the programming of the parallel port chip until you want to set a p[articular line low. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 4 13:17:36 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 19:17:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B697D9B.10575.1139948@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 3, 10 01:43:55 pm Message-ID: > "Cost reduced?" What happens if one tries to put a DART into > synchronous mode? Always wondered, never got the opportunity to try. I always wondered (based on the register definitions) if the DART was a SIO with a defect in the synchoronous section. Has anyone ever looked at the 2 dice? -tony From pontus at Update.UU.SE Thu Feb 4 14:12:36 2010 From: pontus at Update.UU.SE (Pontus Pihlgren) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:12:36 +0100 Subject: Free SGI Onyx2 in =?iso-8859-1?Q?Link=F6pi?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ng?= Sweden Message-ID: <20100204201236.GA30431@Update.UU.SE> Hi This is a longshot, if you can make it to link?ping with a truck within two weeks, I can probably hook you up with 4 racks worth of SGI Onyx2. /Pontus. From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 4 15:20:44 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:20:44 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <9017D573-6462-4BE8-A7BD-80F48E6C3091@neurotica.com> from "Dave McGuire" at Feb 3, 10 03:19:35 pm, Message-ID: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> On 4 Feb 2010 at 19:15, Tony Duell wrote: > That's the one. A more stupid design decision is hard to imagine! Okay, in Intel's defense, are there any earlier peripheral chips for the 8-bit bus (I don't count the 8212 and the 8205)? ...and here we are, more than 35 years down the road and you can still buy the things new. Say what you want about it--it's probably one of the most durable peripheral chips out there. --Chuck From jhfinedp3k at compsys.to Thu Feb 4 19:33:15 2010 From: jhfinedp3k at compsys.to (Jerome H. Fine) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:33:15 -0500 Subject: PDF files for Matrox Qbus QRGB boards Message-ID: <4B6B755B.9020100@compsys.to> In case anyone is interested, I sent Al Kossow the (PDF) manuals for the Qbus Matrox QRGB-Alpha and QRGB-Graph boards. He did not respond to or acknowledge my e-mail. In addition, the PDF manuals are still not available at bitsavers. Al, if you are reading this, did you discard my e-mail? If you are interested, I can send the e-mail again. I have other manuals as well. If anyone needs these manuals immediately, I can e-mail them to you. They are 13 MB. If you can not accept an e-mail that size, I can break the e-mail into two parts. Evidently, Glen Herrmannsfeldt scanned these manuals. He also sent them to me. The e-mail from Glen with the manuals arrived after Lou Ernst mentioned that Glen probably had the manuals, but had not scanned them at the time (a few years) ago. After I reminded Glen, he sent to to me. THANK YOU to both Lou and Glen. Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine From snhirsch at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 06:54:00 2010 From: snhirsch at gmail.com (Steven Hirsch) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 07:54:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: References: , <4B69C9D5.2050007@degnanco.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, dwight elvey wrote: > Altair shut them down before any of these were ever shipped. At least, > that is what I've heard from several sources. When that advertisement was > released, they hadn't even created a single production unit. All were still > prototype levels. They were waiting to see what volume they needed before > ordering boards. A time-honored tradition in the electronic instrumentation field. My father was lead engineer for Panoramic Corp. (swept spectrum analyzers) in the early 60s. He had many stories about mockup units with knobs glued to the front panel that were built solely to guage interest at trade shows. This probably dates back to the horse and buggy, when you get right down to it. -- From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 01:30:27 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 02:30:27 -0500 Subject: Poly8813 on ebay In-Reply-To: References: , <4B69C9D5.2050007@degnanco.com> Message-ID: <22B94BBD-C4BA-4AB0-A5DB-CACE31ED55C9@neurotica.com> On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Steven Hirsch wrote: > A time-honored tradition in the electronic instrumentation field. > My father was lead engineer for Panoramic Corp. (swept spectrum > analyzers) in the early 60s. He had many stories about mockup > units with knobs glued to the front panel that were built solely to > guage interest at trade shows. This probably dates back to the > horse and buggy, when you get right down to it. Panoramic...Is that the company that was bought out by Singer? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Fri Feb 5 03:12:54 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:12:54 -0800 Subject: Panoramic / was Re: Poly8813 on ebay References: , <4B69C9D5.2050007@degnanco.com> Message-ID: <4B6BE115.27FAF63A@cs.ubc.ca> Steven Hirsch wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, dwight elvey wrote: > > > Altair shut them down before any of these were ever shipped. At least, > > that is what I've heard from several sources. When that advertisement was > > released, they hadn't even created a single production unit. All were still > > prototype levels. They were waiting to see what volume they needed before > > ordering boards. > > A time-honored tradition in the electronic instrumentation field. My > father was lead engineer for Panoramic Corp. (swept spectrum analyzers) > in the early 60s. He had many stories about mockup units with knobs glued > to the front panel that were built solely to guage interest at trade > shows. This probably dates back to the horse and buggy, when you get > right down to it. 'Panalysers'? One of those came through the radio museum a few years ago. Giant (~2 ft of rack) tube-based spectrum analyser, low-GHz range IIRC, would have been fun to work on, .. but too many such fun things to do. From aek at bitsavers.org Fri Feb 5 10:19:09 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:19:09 -0800 Subject: PDF files for Matrox Qbus QRGB boards In-Reply-To: <4B6B755B.9020100@compsys.to> References: <4B6B755B.9020100@compsys.to> Message-ID: <4B6C44FD.5070509@bitsavers.org> On 2/4/10 5:33 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: > I sent Al Kossow the (PDF) manuals for the > Qbus Matrox QRGB-Alpha and QRGB-Graph boards. He did not respond to > or acknowledge my e-mail. In addition, the PDF manuals are still not > available at bitsavers. Your files in my inbox at 7PM Feb 3. Unsolicited donations are put into the work queue. You said to NOT reply if I was interested, which is what I did. They are up now without OCR. From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 5 12:41:06 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:41:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 4, 10 01:20:44 pm Message-ID: > > On 4 Feb 2010 at 19:15, Tony Duell wrote: > > > That's the one. A more stupid design decision is hard to imagine! > > Okay, in Intel's defense, are there any earlier peripheral chips for > the 8-bit bus (I don't count the 8212 and the 8205)? When did the 6820 come out? Even so, the knoweldge that TTL inputs float high, and can more easily be pulled high than low was very well known at the time. Whoever designed that chip was not thinkibng aobut how it was going to be used IMHO. I am not talking aobut somebody finding an application later on for which the original design wasn't perfect, but actually I can't think of a single applicaiton where the behaviour of the 8255 is desireable. I can think of some where it doens't matter, but none where you'd avtually want a chip that behaves that way. > > ...and here we are, more than 35 years down the road and you can > still buy the things new. Say what you want about it--it's probably > one of the most durable peripheral chips out there. And I am still wondering why... -tony From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 13:40:22 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:40:22 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 4, 10 01:20:44 pm, Message-ID: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 18:41, Tony Duell wrote: > Even so, the knoweldge that TTL inputs float high, and can more easily > be pulled high than low was very well known at the time. Whoever > designed that chip was not thinkibng aobut how it was going to be used > IMHO. I am not talking aobut somebody finding an application later on > for which the original design wasn't perfect, but actually I can't > think of a single applicaiton where the behaviour of the 8255 is > desireable. I can think of some where it doens't matter, but none > where you'd avtually want a chip that behaves that way. That being said, apparently few think that it's an issue, as a web search doesn't turn up much in the way of grumbling. But how many 8255s are installed in an application where mode switching is used? Darned few, I would guess. The 8255 was obsolete years ago. It's slow and most of the desired functionality can be gotten more easily with other means, either with programmable logic or even SSI. So we're really beating a dead horse. --Chuck From emu at e-bbes.com Fri Feb 5 15:14:37 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:14:37 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk Message-ID: <4B6C8A3D.9060200@e-bbes.com> Hello all, anybody knows the exact type of the hard drives in the hp 9153 enclosure ? Got an empty one :( From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 16:01:45 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:01:45 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 4, 10 01:20:44 pm, <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Even so, the knoweldge that TTL inputs float high, and can more >> easily >> be pulled high than low was very well known at the time. Whoever >> designed that chip was not thinkibng aobut how it was going to be >> used >> IMHO. I am not talking aobut somebody finding an application later on >> for which the original design wasn't perfect, but actually I can't >> think of a single applicaiton where the behaviour of the 8255 is >> desireable. I can think of some where it doens't matter, but none >> where you'd avtually want a chip that behaves that way. > > That being said, apparently few think that it's an issue, as a web > search doesn't turn up much in the way of grumbling. But how many > 8255s are installed in an application where mode switching is used? > > Darned few, I would guess. > > The 8255 was obsolete years ago. It's slow and most of the desired > functionality can be gotten more easily with other means, either with > programmable logic or even SSI. > > So we're really beating a dead horse. 8255s are frequently used to interface to IDE drives, and mode switching is required in that application, and it does get in the way. Mostly people have dealt with it by using inverters on some of the lines. Why people don't just choose a better chip for that is beyond me. It's much easier to do with a Z80 PIO if you're using an appropriate bus. I'm sure the 6821 would be easy too. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 16:14:15 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:14:15 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 17:01, Dave McGuire wrote: > 8255s are frequently used to interface to IDE drives, and mode > switching is required in that application, and it does get in the > way. Mostly people have dealt with it by using inverters on some of > the lines. Really? I don't think I've seen a single piece of modern gear made in the last 10 years that uses an 8255 to interface to an IDE drive. They do have specialized chips to do that... If it's the hobbyist clan, well, that's a different matter. I'd think even a small CPLD would do a better job. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 16:17:56 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:17:56 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> 8255s are frequently used to interface to IDE drives, and mode >> switching is required in that application, and it does get in the >> way. Mostly people have dealt with it by using inverters on some of >> the lines. > > Really? I don't think I've seen a single piece of modern gear made > in the last 10 years that uses an 8255 to interface to an IDE drive. > They do have specialized chips to do that... > > If it's the hobbyist clan, well, that's a different matter. The SBC6120 comes to mind. Considering the number of units sold and the level of commercialization of the whole deal, I'm not sure I'd consider it "hobbyist clan". > I'd think even a small CPLD would do a better job. That's what I'd have done on that board. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 16:27:08 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:27:08 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On 2/5/10, Chuck Guzis wrote: > Really? I don't think I've seen a single piece of modern gear made > in the last 10 years that uses an 8255 to interface to an IDE drive. > They do have specialized chips to do that... > > If it's the hobbyist clan, well, that's a different matter. I'd > think even a small CPLD would do a better job. The Spare Time Gizmos SBC6120 happens to use an 8255 for its IDE interface. It has three GALs and no CPLDs. It is less than 10 years old. -ethan From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 16:59:12 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:59:12 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B6C3240.15004.167CDDD@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 17:27, Ethan Dicks wrote: > The Spare Time Gizmos SBC6120 happens to use an 8255 for its IDE > interface. It has three GALs and no CPLDs. It is less than 10 years > old. You're still talking "retro hobbyist", aren't you? Or are new PDP-8 systems being deployed in commercial applications today? --Chuck From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Fri Feb 5 17:09:04 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:09:04 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B6CA510.2060202@jetnet.ab.ca> Dave McGuire wrote: > The SBC6120 comes to mind. Considering the number of units sold and the > level of commercialization of the whole deal, I'm not sure I'd consider > it "hobbyist clan". > >> I'd think even a small CPLD would do a better job. > > That's what I'd have done on that board. With the short supply of 6120 chips, don't grumble about what you get. > -Dave Now if you had a small PDP-11 for board for sale ... I'd buy one. Ben. From ajp166 at verizon.net Fri Feb 5 17:17:02 2010 From: ajp166 at verizon.net (allison) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:17:02 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B6CA6EE.8000900@verizon.net> Ethan Dicks wrote: > On 2/5/10, Chuck Guzis wrote: > >> Really? I don't think I've seen a single piece of modern gear made >> in the last 10 years that uses an 8255 to interface to an IDE drive. >> They do have specialized chips to do that... >> >> If it's the hobbyist clan, well, that's a different matter. I'd >> think even a small CPLD would do a better job. >> > > The Spare Time Gizmos SBC6120 happens to use an 8255 for its IDE > interface. It has three GALs and no CPLDs. It is less than 10 years > old. > > -ethan > Using an 8255 makes it electrically simple and trades for programming. However.. it's slower than sludge doing it that way. I have done it that way (using BCC180 Micromint Z180 card) as it had 8255s on it and its about 8x-10x slower than doing a real direct port IO. NOTE: all the IDE interface is is a address decode and bus buffer as all the intelligence is on the drive. Most System that use IDE are 80x86 or other 16bit wide(or wider) systems. The reason to use 8255 on small micros (8051, 8085, z80, z180, 6502 6809) is that IDE data path is 16bits wide and the using two ports of the 8255 you can do the needed byte latch to transfer 16bits is two reads or writes. Other designs use TTL or maybe a GAL (GIDE) to perform that or as I did I just ignore the upper 8bits and treat the device as 256bytes/sector rather than 512. However the amount of TTL to do the latch the upper byte bidirectionally is fairly small for those that wish a purist interface. But with large hundreds of megabytes to small 10s of gigabytes throwing every other byte away is a small to no cost. Also later drives use LBA addressing which is far easier to work with then CHS. One caveat.. USE CF and that does the 8bit transfer that IDE documented but only a few old drives implemented. That works well and require only two address blocks to work and near zero logic beyond address selection and buffers where needed. Anywho the IDE interface chips from the PC market are all basically 16bit wide bus, IDE drive 0,1 address decode and some extra logic to do burst mode DMA, block DMA (Both required external DMA support) or PIO. in the x86 space. FYI PIO unlike floppies is buffered on the disk so the IO can be does as fast or slow as the programmer wishes to the limits of ATAPI spec (all do minimally 33mbytes/sec and later are faster). Allison From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 5 17:04:08 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:04:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 11:40:22 am Message-ID: > That being said, apparently few think that it's an issue, as a web > search doesn't turn up much in the way of grumbling. But how many > 8255s are installed in an application where mode switching is used? > > Darned few, I would guess. The problem is still there even if you don't want to change modes after inintialisation. After a hardware reset all pins you want to use as outputs (that is pins you have connected to inputs of your peripheral logic) are going to appear floating, so if your peripheral logic is TTL (a good bet at the time the 8255 was designed), they will appear high. As soon as you program the mode register, all those lines go low. You can then set them back to your desired states. But your logic has to be designed to cope with that. I am trying to think of where the 8255 was used. OK, on the 5150 and 5160 motherboard to handle the keyboard interface and DIP switches, where glitches don't matter. What other major uses did it have? Very frw of my classic computers use one. > > The 8255 was obsolete years ago. It's slow and most of the desired > functionality can be gotten more easily with other means, either with > programmable logic or even SSI. So? This is classiccmp > > So we're really beating a dead horse. I was simply pointing out that Intel even managed to mis-design a parallel port chip. Most of their other chips were equaliy inellegant. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 5 17:13:16 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:13:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B6C8A3D.9060200@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 5, 10 02:14:37 pm Message-ID: > > Hello all, > > anybody knows the exact type of the hard drives in the hp 9153 enclosure ? > > Got an empty one :( Was that the one that was on E-bay recently? Which 9153? There are several, and IIRC at least 2 diferent types of hard drive where used. There are some manuals on http://www.hpmuseum.net/ including boardswapper guides and CE manuals that might give you some clues. The one I have (actually an HP9154, which is the smae unit without the floppy drive) uses the HP Nighthawk drives, which have a strange interface on a 40 pin combined power and data cable. I seem to rember there was an earlier unit that used a more standard drive. -tony > From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 5 17:15:30 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 23:15:30 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 02:14:15 pm Message-ID: > > On 5 Feb 2010 at 17:01, Dave McGuire wrote: > > > 8255s are frequently used to interface to IDE drives, and mode > > switching is required in that application, and it does get in the > > way. Mostly people have dealt with it by using inverters on some of > > the lines. > > Really? I don't think I've seen a single piece of modern gear made > in the last 10 years that uses an 8255 to interface to an IDE drive. > They do have specialized chips to do that... An 8255 is a ridiculous choice to interface to an IDE drive!. I've never seen it used for that either. The IDE card in this machine uses a few TTL buffers and a couple oF PALs for address decoding, etc. > > If it's the hobbyist clan, well, that's a different matter. I'd > think even a small CPLD would do a better job. This assumes you have the facilities to program the CPLD, the development software _and somethign to run it on_. That is not always the case. -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 17:21:03 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:21:03 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C3240.15004.167CDDD@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C3240.15004.167CDDD@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <0DE03031-EC7B-4724-AB91-07AC392BF1DC@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> The Spare Time Gizmos SBC6120 happens to use an 8255 for its IDE >> interface. It has three GALs and no CPLDs. It is less than 10 years >> old. > > You're still talking "retro hobbyist", aren't you? Or are new PDP-8 > systems being deployed in commercial applications today? Lack of "commercial applications" doesn't imply "hobbyist". Every Toys-R-Us store is filled to overflowing with proof of that. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 17:22:31 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:22:31 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6CA510.2060202@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4EE679E7-4C75-45A2-8CF9-7A97951D9231@neurotica.com> <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> <4B6CA510.2060202@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <05D7503D-62FF-4A8C-AD39-CB6CCA431E97@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Ben wrote: >> The SBC6120 comes to mind. Considering the number of units sold >> and the >> level of commercialization of the whole deal, I'm not sure I'd >> consider >> it "hobbyist clan". >> >>> I'd think even a small CPLD would do a better job. >> >> That's what I'd have done on that board. > > With the short supply of 6120 chips, don't grumble about what you get. The use of the 8255 in that design has precisely zero to do with the supply of 6120 chips. And (in case Bob is listening) I didn't mean to grumble, just state that were I the designer, I'd have used a different chip...that's all. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 17:30:03 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:30:03 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <0DE03031-EC7B-4724-AB91-07AC392BF1DC@neurotica.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C3240.15004.167CDDD@cclist.sydex.com> <0DE03031-EC7B-4724-AB91-07AC392BF1DC@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <0F8BC141-65CC-4B40-95AD-FFB13122A7E7@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: >>> The Spare Time Gizmos SBC6120 happens to use an 8255 for its IDE >>> interface. It has three GALs and no CPLDs. It is less than 10 >>> years >>> old. >> >> You're still talking "retro hobbyist", aren't you? Or are new PDP-8 >> systems being deployed in commercial applications today? > > Lack of "commercial applications" doesn't imply "hobbyist". > Every Toys-R-Us store is filled to overflowing with proof of that. [replying to my own post because I think I wasn't clear] The product is produced by a professional organization that does professional-grade work...and it has an 8255 in it. The fact that the product is targeted primarily at the hobbyist market isn't relevant here. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 17:51:54 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:51:54 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 11:40:22 am, Message-ID: <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 23:04, Tony Duell wrote: > I am trying to think of where the 8255 was used. OK, on the 5150 and > 5160 motherboard to handle the keyboard interface and DIP switches, > where glitches don't matter. What other major uses did it have? Very > frw of my classic computers use one. Quite a few 8-bit x80 micros used them them for various purposes (yes, even Z80 systems); The 5150 BIOS refers to an 8255 in the printer code, even though they didn't use one. A FAX machine I looked at not long ago used one. I've got a 90's PCI-bus data aquisition card that uses 3 of them. But there really is no good reason to use an 8255, a Z80 PIO, a 6820 or even a 6522 in a new design today, other than for nostalgia's sake. --Chuck From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 17:58:16 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:58:16 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 02:14:15 pm, Message-ID: <4B6C4018.5886.19DE1DB@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 23:15, Tony Duell wrote: > This assumes you have the facilities to program the CPLD, the > development software _and somethign to run it on_. That is not always > the case. Both Xilinx and Altera offer free development software for their devices. And Windows or Linux PCs aren't exactly uncommon. Programmers can be little more than a couple of buffers connected to a PCs parallel port--or (heaven forfend!) a USB interface. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 17:59:52 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 18:59:52 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 11:40:22 am, <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <336A44A1-9637-4947-8487-3719F9E8049D@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> I am trying to think of where the 8255 was used. OK, on the 5150 and >> 5160 motherboard to handle the keyboard interface and DIP switches, >> where glitches don't matter. What other major uses did it have? Very >> frw of my classic computers use one. > > Quite a few 8-bit x80 micros used them them for various purposes > (yes, even Z80 systems); The 5150 BIOS refers to an 8255 in the > printer code, even though they didn't use one. A FAX machine I > looked at not long ago used one. I've got a 90's PCI-bus data > aquisition card that uses 3 of them. I wonder if the 5150 was originally designed with an 8255? > But there really is no good reason to use an 8255, a Z80 PIO, a 6820 > or even a 6522 in a new design today, other than for nostalgia's > sake. Well if you really want to think that way, there's really no good reason to use ANY digital component (save for perhaps the very highest-clocked microprocessors) other than an FPGA in a new design today. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 18:01:55 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:01:55 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6CA6EE.8000900@verizon.net> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, , <4B6CA6EE.8000900@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4B6C40F3.24346.1A138F5@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 18:17, allison wrote: > Anywho the IDE interface chips from the PC market are all basically > 16bit wide bus, IDE drive 0,1 address decode and some extra logic to > do burst mode DMA, block DMA (Both required external DMA support) or > PIO. in the x86 space. FYI PIO unlike floppies is buffered on the > disk so the IO can be does as fast or slow as the programmer wishes to > the limits of ATAPI spec (all do minimally 33mbytes/sec and later are > faster). Just about any IDE disk drive made in the last 20 years also has a 16- bit data path (very old XTIDE drives could do 8 bit, but they're hard to find. I don't know about microdrives). So that's a problem with or without an interface chip if what you want to do is interface to an 8-bit bus--and use all of the available space on the disk. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 18:07:25 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:07:25 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C40F3.24346.1A138F5@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com>, , <4B6CA6EE.8000900@verizon.net> <4B6C40F3.24346.1A138F5@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <91CEA80A-D353-43DE-97B7-81600CAC997F@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Anywho the IDE interface chips from the PC market are all basically >> 16bit wide bus, IDE drive 0,1 address decode and some extra logic to >> do burst mode DMA, block DMA (Both required external DMA support) or >> PIO. in the x86 space. FYI PIO unlike floppies is buffered on the >> disk so the IO can be does as fast or slow as the programmer >> wishes to >> the limits of ATAPI spec (all do minimally 33mbytes/sec and later are >> faster). > > Just about any IDE disk drive made in the last 20 years also has a 16- > bit data path (very old XTIDE drives could do 8 bit, but they're hard > to find. I don't know about microdrives). So that's a problem with > or without an interface chip if what you want to do is interface to > an 8-bit bus--and use all of the available space on the disk. Microdrives conform to the CF standard, which requires that the 8- bit mode be implemented. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Fri Feb 5 18:06:33 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:06:33 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6CB289.8020702@e-bbes.com> Tony Duell wrote: > The one I have (actually an HP9154, which is the smae unit without the > floppy drive) uses the HP Nighthawk drives, which have a strange > interface on a 40 pin combined power and data cable. I seem to rember > there was an earlier unit that used a more standard drive. But whatever was in it (I was actually wondering about the connector) is not available anymore ... From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 18:14:14 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:14:14 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C3240.15004.167CDDD@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6AC9AC.31049.130CF7E@cclist.sydex.com> <4B6C27B7.17613.13EA751@cclist.sydex.com> <4B6C3240.15004.167CDDD@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 5 Feb 2010 at 17:27, Ethan Dicks wrote: > >> The Spare Time Gizmos SBC6120 happens to use an 8255 for its IDE >> interface. ?It has three GALs and no CPLDs. ?It is less than 10 years >> old. > > You're still talking "retro hobbyist", aren't you? ?Or are new PDP-8 > systems being deployed in commercial applications today? It's surely a matter of scale, but the order gates are once again open for a minimum run of 50 SBC6120s w/FP6120s for $600. There are more iPods and PS/3s and digital watches than SBC6120s, but I'd call $30K (for just _this_ run) a commercial product, even if the audience is hobbyists. -ethan From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 5 18:16:20 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:16:20 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <336A44A1-9637-4947-8487-3719F9E8049D@neurotica.com> References: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com>, <336A44A1-9637-4947-8487-3719F9E8049D@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B6C4454.8035.1AE6B70@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 18:59, Dave McGuire wrote: > Well if you really want to think that way, there's really no good > reason to use ANY digital component (save for perhaps the very > highest-clocked microprocessors) other than an FPGA in a new design > today. I can think of one--money. The cheapest microcontroller is cheaper than the cheapest FPGA. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 5 18:22:58 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:22:58 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C4454.8035.1AE6B70@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com>, <336A44A1-9637-4947-8487-3719F9E8049D@neurotica.com> <4B6C4454.8035.1AE6B70@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Well if you really want to think that way, there's really no good >> reason to use ANY digital component (save for perhaps the very >> highest-clocked microprocessors) other than an FPGA in a new design >> today. > > I can think of one--money. The cheapest microcontroller is cheaper > than the cheapest FPGA. Smartass. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Fri Feb 5 17:40:01 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:40:01 -0800 Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy Message-ID: A number of DTR-1s have been showing up on eBay recently (cheap) so I decided to snag one. (I really wanted one when they were new but my salary as a 15 year old prevented such a thing from happening...) As an additional aside, it's one of few devices that used the HP Kittyhawk drive (a 1.3" 40mb drive). Quite a marvel of engineering in 1993... Anyway, the specimen I obtained works fine (need to rebuild the battery) but lacks the external floppy drive. So my only real option for getting software on the machine is over the serial port, which is a a bit annoying (and also precludes installing a new OS on it..) Anyone have any spares? Thanks, Josh From teoz at neo.rr.com Fri Feb 5 23:26:37 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:26:37 -0500 Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Dersch" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 6:40 PM Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy >A number of DTR-1s have been showing up on eBay recently (cheap) so I >decided to snag one. (I really wanted one when they were new but my >salary as a 15 year old prevented such a thing from happening...) > > As an additional aside, it's one of few devices that used the HP > Kittyhawk drive (a 1.3" 40mb drive). Quite a marvel of engineering in > 1993... > > Anyway, the specimen I obtained works fine (need to rebuild the battery) > but lacks the external floppy drive. So my only real option for getting > software on the machine is over the serial port, which is a a bit > annoying (and also precludes installing a new OS on it..) > > Anyone have any spares? > > Thanks, > Josh > No floppy drive here (I have a couple units with bad keyboards), but there is a site that shows the pinout for the port. From healyzh at aracnet.com Fri Feb 5 23:35:12 2010 From: healyzh at aracnet.com (Zane H. Healy) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:35:12 -0800 Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I might have spares. The problem being I'm not sure where in the garage (aka the disaster area), the two boxes of DTR-1 stuff is. I think I have 4 systems, and some other stuff. It will be quite some time before I start digging back to that point. Zane At 3:40 PM -0800 2/5/10, Josh Dersch wrote: >A number of DTR-1s have been showing up on eBay recently (cheap) so >I decided to snag one. (I really wanted one when they were new but >my salary as a 15 year old prevented such a thing from happening...) > >As an additional aside, it's one of few devices that used the HP >Kittyhawk drive (a 1.3" 40mb drive). Quite a marvel of engineering >in 1993... > >Anyway, the specimen I obtained works fine (need to rebuild the >battery) but lacks the external floppy drive. So my only real >option for getting software on the machine is over the serial port, >which is a a bit annoying (and also precludes installing a new OS on >it..) > >Anyone have any spares? > >Thanks, >Josh -- | Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator | | healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast | | MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector | +----------------------------------+----------------------------+ | Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, | | PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. | | http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ | From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sat Feb 6 00:12:51 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:12:51 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6D0863.6020305@jetnet.ab.ca> Tony Duell wrote: > This assumes you have the facilities to program the CPLD, the development > software _and somethign to run it on_. That is not always the case. I don't know, old PC's are a dime a dozen. Still TTL buffers is all you really need for I/O if you don't mind wasting the high order byte. > -tony > From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sat Feb 6 00:14:39 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:14:39 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 11:40:22 am, <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B6D08CF.1010105@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: But there really is no good reason to use an 8255, a Z80 PIO, a 6820 > or even a 6522 in a new design today, other than for nostalgia's > sake. So what do you recomend? > --Chuck > > From cclist at sydex.com Sat Feb 6 01:14:08 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:14:08 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6D08CF.1010105@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6C03A6.22917.B1C4F8@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6D08CF.1010105@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B6CA640.2198.32CEF54@cclist.sydex.com> On 5 Feb 2010 at 23:14, Ben wrote: > Chuck Guzis wrote: > But there really is no good reason to use an 8255, a Z80 PIO, a 6820 > > or even a 6522 in a new design today, other than for nostalgia's > > sake. > > So what do you recomend? What do you need to do? Programmable logic can be configured to do whatever you need. --Chuck From cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Sat Feb 6 03:59:29 2010 From: cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Christian Corti) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:59:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Tony Duell wrote: > The one I have (actually an HP9154, which is the smae unit without the > floppy drive) uses the HP Nighthawk drives, which have a strange > interface on a 40 pin combined power and data cable. I seem to rember Sounds like the "standard" 20 MB HP drive as found in Vectra PCs and measurement equipment. I once had to replace the hard disk in a HP4972 network analyser and took one from a Vectra. The controller board for the Vectra (standard 8-bit full-length ISA card) has an onboard MC6809, on-board sector buffer, a BIOS etc. It's quite an intelligent card from the programmer's point of view (I've partially disassembled the BIOS), but lack further information. Would be nice to write a Linux driver for that board ;-) Christian From emu at e-bbes.com Sat Feb 6 04:45:28 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:45:28 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6D4848.5000008@e-bbes.com> Christian Corti wrote: > Sounds like the "standard" 20 MB HP drive as found in Vectra PCs and > measurement equipment. I once had to replace the hard disk in a HP4972 > network analyser and took one from a Vectra. The controller board for > the Vectra (standard 8-bit full-length ISA card) has an onboard MC6809, > on-board sector buffer, a BIOS etc. It's quite an intelligent card from > the programmer's point of view (I've partially disassembled the BIOS), > but lack further information. Would be nice to write a Linux driver for > that board ;-) So, they are basically MFM drives with a weird connector on them ? Any real product number ? From charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com Fri Feb 5 21:12:03 2010 From: charlesleecourtney at yahoo.com (Lee Courtney) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:12:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Free_SGI_Onyx2_in_Link=F6ping_Sweden?= In-Reply-To: <20100204201236.GA30431@Update.UU.SE> References: <20100204201236.GA30431@Update.UU.SE> Message-ID: <676235.83200.qm@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >From http://www.nsc.liu.se/ ? Do you think http://www.it-ceum.com/ would be interested? Lee Courtney Menlo Park, CA 94025 ----- Original Message ---- From: Pontus Pihlgren To: cctech at classiccmp.org Sent: Thu, February 4, 2010 12:12:36 PM Subject: Free SGI Onyx2 in Link?ping Sweden Hi This is a longshot, if you can make it to link?ping with a truck within two weeks, I can probably hook you up with 4 racks worth of SGI Onyx2. /Pontus. From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 6 08:20:29 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:20:29 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Christian Corti > Verzonden: zaterdag 6 februari 2010 10:59 > Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Onderwerp: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Tony Duell wrote: > > The one I have (actually an HP9154, which is the smae unit > without the > > floppy drive) uses the HP Nighthawk drives, which have a strange > > interface on a 40 pin combined power and data cable. I seem > to rember > > Sounds like the "standard" 20 MB HP drive as found in Vectra > PCs and measurement equipment. I once had to replace the hard > disk in a HP4972 network analyser and took one from a Vectra. > The controller board for the Vectra (standard 8-bit > full-length ISA card) has an onboard MC6809, on-board sector > buffer, a BIOS etc. It's quite an intelligent card from the > programmer's point of view (I've partially disassembled the > BIOS), but lack further information. Would be nice to write a > Linux driver for that board ;-) > > Christian Witch Vectra do you mean ? The default Vectra discs I know (ES,ES12,CS VL2 before 1995) are standaard MFM or IDE. The (80286) ES(12)'s are using seagate's ST225 or ST255 (option)with a WD-controller, the VL2 (80486)is using standard IDE 40-200MB (PIO no DMA) the CS is also using a MFM drive 3.5inch. The 9153 disc uses a HP proprietary interface I think one of the manuals a the Hpmusuem discribes it. The biggest problem wiht the 9153 discdrives are the bearings, the turn motor doesn't have much torque so the disc are jammed very easily. Freeing the disc by hand sometimes frees them but not always. -Rik From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 6 08:35:10 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:35:10 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B6D4848.5000008@e-bbes.com> References: <4B6D4848.5000008@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens e.stiebler > Verzonden: zaterdag 6 februari 2010 11:45 > Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Onderwerp: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > Christian Corti wrote: > > Sounds like the "standard" 20 MB HP drive as found in > Vectra PCs and > > measurement equipment. I once had to replace the hard disk > in a HP4972 > > network analyser and took one from a Vectra. The controller > board for > > the Vectra (standard 8-bit full-length ISA card) has an onboard > > MC6809, on-board sector buffer, a BIOS etc. It's quite an > intelligent > > card from the programmer's point of view (I've partially > disassembled > > the BIOS), but lack further information. Would be nice to write a > > Linux driver for that board ;-) > > So, they are basically MFM drives with a weird connector on them ? > > Any real product number ? 09153-96111 is the HP product number for the 10MB Winchester. -Rik From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 6 08:40:47 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:40:47 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B6D4848.5000008@e-bbes.com> References: <4B6D4848.5000008@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens e.stiebler > Verzonden: zaterdag 6 februari 2010 11:45 > Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Onderwerp: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > Christian Corti wrote: > > Sounds like the "standard" 20 MB HP drive as found in > Vectra PCs and > > measurement equipment. I once had to replace the hard disk > in a HP4972 > > network analyser and took one from a Vectra. The controller > board for > > the Vectra (standard 8-bit full-length ISA card) has an onboard > > MC6809, on-board sector buffer, a BIOS etc. It's quite an > intelligent > > card from the programmer's point of view (I've partially > disassembled > > the BIOS), but lack further information. Would be nice to write a > > Linux driver for that board ;-) > > So, they are basically MFM drives with a weird connector on them ? > > Any real product number ? When you search the hpmuseum.net site you'll find the CE service manual with a blokdiagram in it. This describes a Adaptec harddisk controller and a bi-directional bus to the disc, witch indicates the use of some kind of sasi or scsi related bus. -Rik From rtellason at verizon.net Sat Feb 6 10:14:27 2010 From: rtellason at verizon.net (Roy J. Tellason, Sr.) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 11:14:27 -0500 Subject: a work in progress, and why I haven't been around here much... Message-ID: <201002061114.27549.rtellason@verizon.net> Have a look here: http://mysite.verizon.net/rtellason/nancy.html and you'll see what's been keeping me occupied for the better part of the past year or so... The page is still a work in progress, I need to add some pictures at some point. The worst is over, and it's time for me to move forward, including plowing through a really absurd number of posts in this folder. One other thing I'll mention in passing, a new friend, also widowed, has an H-8 computer system to deal with, I told her that I knew just the place to find someone who would be interested in it. I have no details on it at the moment, though I've seen it. I also told her that just powering it up was probably *not* a good plan at this point since it's been sitting for a number of years unused... Any of you guys interested in it, feel free to contact me off-list. Onward... -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin From wdonzelli at gmail.com Sat Feb 6 10:44:09 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:44:09 -0500 Subject: a work in progress, and why I haven't been around here much... In-Reply-To: <201002061114.27549.rtellason@verizon.net> References: <201002061114.27549.rtellason@verizon.net> Message-ID: > and you'll see what's been keeping me occupied for the better part of the past > year or so... I am sorry for your loss. I can completely understand you dropping from view for a while, as there are things far more important than our old computers. -- Will From thomas.gardner at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 6 11:27:43 2010 From: thomas.gardner at sbcglobal.net (Tom Gardner) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 09:27:43 -0800 Subject: PLEASE CHANGE THE SUBJECT OF A THREAD (Was RE: cctalk Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035A8496B0D44DB59D3E10B31D3CFEB9@tegp4> See what I mean (from Issue 10) > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Tony Duell) > 2. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 4. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 5. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 6. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 7. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Ethan Dicks) > 8. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 9. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Ben) > 10. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (allison) > 11. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Tony Duell) > 13. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Tony Duell) > 14. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 15. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 16. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 17. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 18. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 19. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 20. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 21. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 23. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Ethan Dicks) > 24. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Chuck Guzis) > 25. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Dave McGuire) > 29. Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 (Ben) Tom From feedle at feedle.net Sat Feb 6 11:57:07 2010 From: feedle at feedle.net (C. Sullivan) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 09:57:07 -0800 Subject: PLEASE CHANGE THE SUBJECT OF A THREAD (Was RE: cctalk Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <035A8496B0D44DB59D3E10B31D3CFEB9@tegp4> References: <035A8496B0D44DB59D3E10B31D3CFEB9@tegp4> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2010, at 9:27 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > > See what I mean (from Issue 10) There is only one thing more annoying than a mailbox full of "RE: cctalk Digest..." messages. And that's people complaining about it. From IanK at vulcan.com Sat Feb 6 12:07:50 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:07:50 -0800 Subject: a work in progress, and why I haven't been around here much... In-Reply-To: <201002061114.27549.rtellason@verizon.net> References: <201002061114.27549.rtellason@verizon.net> Message-ID: Condolences, Roy -- Ian ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Roy J. Tellason, Sr. [rtellason at verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:14 AM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: a work in progress, and why I haven't been around here much... Have a look here: http://mysite.verizon.net/rtellason/nancy.html and you'll see what's been keeping me occupied for the better part of the past year or so... The page is still a work in progress, I need to add some pictures at some point. The worst is over, and it's time for me to move forward, including plowing through a really absurd number of posts in this folder. One other thing I'll mention in passing, a new friend, also widowed, has an H-8 computer system to deal with, I told her that I knew just the place to find someone who would be interested in it. I have no details on it at the moment, though I've seen it. I also told her that just powering it up was probably *not* a good plan at this point since it's been sitting for a number of years unused... Any of you guys interested in it, feel free to contact me off-list. Onward... -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 6 05:41:22 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:41:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C3E9A.17202.1980CF0@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 03:51:54 pm Message-ID: > Quite a few 8-bit x80 micros used them them for various purposes > (yes, even Z80 systems); The 5150 BIOS refers to an 8255 in the I must have a strange colletion then. I can only think of 2 or 3 machines I own that contain 8255s. > But there really is no good reason to use an 8255, a Z80 PIO, a 6820 > or even a 6522 in a new design today, other than for nostalgia's > sake. I can think of many reasons : You have the chip in stock ('new design' doe not preculuse it being a one-off); Compatibility with existing hardware or software (then if the design doesn't work you know to look elserwhree for the fualt); It takes less time to use the chip than to design a replacement; And many more. There;s no reason why ytou have to use anything other than 7400s, of course... -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 6 05:42:50 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:42:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6C4018.5886.19DE1DB@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 03:58:16 pm Message-ID: > > On 5 Feb 2010 at 23:15, Tony Duell wrote: > > > This assumes you have the facilities to program the CPLD, the > > development software _and somethign to run it on_. That is not always > > the case. > > Both Xilinx and Altera offer free development software for their That's free as in beer, not as in speech. And my experience is that I spend far too long getting software to work on my hardware if I don't have the soruces. > devices. And Windows or Linux PCs aren't exactly uncommon. That is not uiversally true. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 6 05:59:48 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:59:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B6CB289.8020702@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 5, 10 05:06:33 pm Message-ID: > > Tony Duell wrote: > > The one I have (actually an HP9154, which is the smae unit without the > > floppy drive) uses the HP Nighthawk drives, which have a strange > > interface on a 40 pin combined power and data cable. I seem to rember > > there was an earlier unit that used a more standard drive. > > But whatever was in it (I was actually wondering about the connector) > is not available anymore ... Actually, having re-read the HP CE manuals on hpmuseum.net, I think I was mistaken. All 9153s and 9154s used the Nighthawk drive. It's the one part that's common to them (the PSU, controller board and floppy drive did change). I have a later one, a 9154B. The controller board in that has a large ASIC that cotnains the floppy and hard disk cotnrollers, etc. The -A models have larger controller board stuffed with chips, inclduing a couple of Adaptec chips for the hard disk controller. The Nighthawk is a curious drive. It uses a stepper motor for positioning, but it microsteps it (there's a dual DAC on one of the drive PCBs with an ADC for postion feedback). The interface is raw data to/from the reaad/write chain (clock separation, ID location, etc is done on the controller board, not the drive) but with an 8 bit data bus and strobes to read th ADC, write to the DAC, etc. I haev some detials, but not enough to make a replacement drive. The Nighthawk was used in some models of Vectra from what I've read. I beleive you could reformat a Vectra drive to use in a 9153/4 but not the reverse. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 6 06:02:37 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:02:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6D0863.6020305@jetnet.ab.ca> from "Ben" at Feb 5, 10 11:12:51 pm Message-ID: > > I don't know, old PC's are a dime a dozen. Still TTL buffers is all you > really > need for I/O if you don't mind wasting the high order byte. OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development software. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 6 06:06:42 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 12:06:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: from "Christian Corti" at Feb 6, 10 10:59:29 am Message-ID: > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Tony Duell wrote: > > The one I have (actually an HP9154, which is the smae unit without the > > floppy drive) uses the HP Nighthawk drives, which have a strange > > interface on a 40 pin combined power and data cable. I seem to rember > > Sounds like the "standard" 20 MB HP drive as found in Vectra PCs and It is. They came in 1)BM and 20MB versions I beleive. > measurement equipment. I once had to replace the hard disk in a HP4972 > network analyser and took one from a Vectra. The controller board for the > Vectra (standard 8-bit full-length ISA card) has an onboard MC6809, > on-board sector buffer, a BIOS etc. It's quite an intelligent card from That sounds very like a 9153/4 controllr, The board in my 9154B cotnaisn a 68B09, a Medusa HPIB chip, a large HP ASIC (disk controllers and glue logic) ROM and RAM. What is the disk controller on the Vectra board? > the programmer's point of view (I've partially disassembled the BIOS), but > lack further information. Would be nice to write a Linux driver for that > board ;-) Hp wouldn't have beeb so insane as to have haev the 6809/controller system respond to SS/80 commands from the PC, would they? It would make sort-of sense... -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Sat Feb 6 13:05:18 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:05:18 -0500 Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <414CDB22-46CD-4655-BBA9-EB3932E81DA9@neurotica.com> On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > As an additional aside, it's one of few devices that used the HP > Kittyhawk drive (a 1.3" 40mb drive). Quite a marvel of engineering > in 1993... I have several of the 20MB Kittyhawks and a single 40MB unit. I've done a bit of hacking on them with home-brew SBCs. They are a little weird in some ways, but they're really neat, I like them. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Sat Feb 6 13:22:37 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:22:37 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <73F931DC-E757-4CAF-9940-C708D37132A4@neurotica.com> On Feb 6, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Tony Duell wrote: >> devices. And Windows or Linux PCs aren't exactly uncommon. > > That is not uiversally true. Walk around the neighborhood on trash day, man. Half of my neighbors are running computers that the other half of my neighbors threw out because they're too clueless to properly maintain and/or repair them when they get all crapped up with viruses and such. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 6 12:37:32 2010 From: aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk (Andrew Burton) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 18:37:32 -0000 Subject: a work in progress, and why I haven't been around here much... References: <201002061114.27549.rtellason@verizon.net> Message-ID: <01a301caa765$3d343e90$fa0d5f0a@user8459cef6fa> A beautiful page. I hope that someday I am lucky enough to meet someone like her. Sorry for your loss. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." To: Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:14 PM Subject: a work in progress, and why I haven't been around here much... > Have a look here: > > http://mysite.verizon.net/rtellason/nancy.html > > and you'll see what's been keeping me occupied for the better part of the past > year or so... > > The page is still a work in progress, I need to add some pictures at some > point. > > The worst is over, and it's time for me to move forward, including plowing > through a really absurd number of posts in this folder. > > One other thing I'll mention in passing, a new friend, also widowed, has an > H-8 computer system to deal with, I told her that I knew just the place to > find someone who would be interested in it. I have no details on it at the > moment, though I've seen it. I also told her that just powering it up was > probably *not* a good plan at this point since it's been sitting for a number > of years unused... Any of you guys interested in it, feel free to contact > me off-list. > > Onward... > > -- > Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and > ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can > be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" > - > Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James > M Dakin From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 6 13:53:11 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 20:53:11 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: <4B6CB289.8020702@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 5, 10 05:06:33 pm Message-ID: > > Tony Duell wrote: > The Nighthawk was used in some models of Vectra from what > I've read. I beleive you could reformat a Vectra drive to use > in a 9153/4 but not the reverse. > > -tony Witch Vectra models ? I've two ES's the second version of the Vectra, they have a MFM disc one has a ST225 (20MB) the other one a ST 255 (40MB). I cann't find any refence to of using a non MFM inside a Vectra. You could use a HP 915X A/B external because the Vectra had a HP-IB bus. I can't remember ever seen a Nighthawk inside a Vectra (I worked for a firm who selled HP, for a few years at the end of the eighties) -Rik From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Sat Feb 6 14:43:17 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:43:17 -0500 Subject: Kittyhawk drives (was Re: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy) Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:40 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >> >> As an additional aside, it's one of few devices that used the HP Kittyhawk >> drive (a 1.3" 40mb drive). ?Quite a marvel of engineering in 1993... > > ?I have several of the 20MB Kittyhawks and a single 40MB unit. I have a couple of 20MB Kittyhawks. The place was out of stock on 40MB units when I found them. >?I've done a > bit of hacking on them with home-brew SBCs. ?They are a little weird in some > ways, but they're really neat, I like them. Yep. I hooked mine to an IDE-64. Quite portable. -ethan From cclist at sydex.com Sat Feb 6 15:18:22 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 13:18:22 -0800 Subject: Programmable devices, was: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: <4B6C4018.5886.19DE1DB@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 5, 10 03:58:16 pm, Message-ID: <4B6D6C1E.5901.E5AA8E@cclist.sydex.com> On 6 Feb 2010 at 11:42, Tony Duell wrote: > That's free as in beer, not as in speech. And my experience is that I > spend far too long getting software to work on my hardware if I don't > have the soruces. > > > devices. And Windows or Linux PCs aren't exactly uncommon. > > That is not uiversally true. I don't even know how to respond to this one on my 2-year old, freecycled P4 system that I'm sitting in front of. Doubtless it contains some devices that were developed using the "free beer" tools, but if you don't have the source, it must not be any good. So I won't bother. --Chuck From aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 6 16:05:46 2010 From: aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk (Andrew Burton) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 22:05:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: The Virtual Revolution (History Of The Internet) Message-ID: <727777.5434.qm@web23405.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi all, I wasn't going to send out an email about this, but I thought the 2nd episode was just as good as the first one, so here I am :) In short, the programme (airing BBC2, UK, around 8:15pm Saturdays) The Virtual Revolution looks at the history of the internet (US Military, ARPAnet, The Well etc.) and it's influence on modern life (hackers, terrorists, social networking etc.). The official site can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/ Video's of some of the interviewees (including Tim Berners-Lee and Peter Thiel) can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/interviews.shtml A whole host of computers have been seen (for a few seconds) on the programme, including an Altair 8080 and a PDP-10. Some short clips of the programme can be found on YouTube. All of episode 2 can be found on BBC IPlayer here (for the next 7 days only): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qsbvv/The_Virtual_Revolution_Enemy_of_the_State/ The whole show is 654MB (about 55 minutes long), if you wish to download it. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sat Feb 6 19:18:16 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:18:16 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6E14D8.9050602@jetnet.ab.ca> Tony Duell wrote: >> >> I don't know, old PC's are a dime a dozen. Still TTL buffers is all you >> really >> need for I/O if you don't mind wasting the high order byte. > > OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can > exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development software. > > -tony > Atmel software is still free the last time I looked, running on a modest windows PC. PC's ... see your local dumpster. http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/tools.asp?family_id=653 Ben. PS. They also sell 8051 products for the 'real' programmer. :) From halarewich at gmail.com Sat Feb 6 19:51:17 2010 From: halarewich at gmail.com (Chris Halarewich) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 17:51:17 -0800 Subject: The Virtual Revolution (History Of The Internet) In-Reply-To: <727777.5434.qm@web23405.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <727777.5434.qm@web23405.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6d6501091002061751o6b80f600g2187d591df9674e2@mail.gmail.com> to bad the download site is onlt avail to people in the uk On 2/6/10, Andrew Burton wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I wasn't going to send out an email about this, but I thought the 2nd > episode was just as good as the first one, so here I am :) > > In short, the programme (airing BBC2, UK, around 8:15pm Saturdays) The > Virtual Revolution looks at the history of the internet (US Military, > ARPAnet, The Well etc.) and it's influence on modern life (hackers, > terrorists, social networking etc.). > The official site can be found here: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/ > > Video's of some of the interviewees (including Tim Berners-Lee and Peter > Thiel) can be found here: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/interviews.shtml > > > A whole host of computers have been seen (for a few seconds) on the > programme, including an Altair 8080 and a PDP-10. > Some short clips of the programme can be found on YouTube. All of episode 2 > can be found on BBC IPlayer here (for the next 7 days only): > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qsbvv/The_Virtual_Revolution_Enemy_of_the_State/ > > The whole show is 654MB (about 55 minutes long), if you wish to download > it. > > > Regards, > Andrew B > aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk > > > From mcguire at neurotica.com Sat Feb 6 20:15:23 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:15:23 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6E14D8.9050602@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6E14D8.9050602@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Ben wrote: >>> I don't know, old PC's are a dime a dozen. Still TTL buffers is >>> all you >>> really >>> need for I/O if you don't mind wasting the high order byte. >> >> OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can >> exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD >> development software. >> >> -tony >> > > Atmel software is still free the last time I looked, running on a > modest > windows PC. PC's ... see your local dumpster. > > http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/tools.asp?family_id=653 > Ben. > PS. They also sell 8051 products for the 'real' programmer. :) The best 8051 stuff is free, and has been for a long time. FYI. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From sethm at loomcom.com Sat Feb 6 22:26:27 2010 From: sethm at loomcom.com (Seth Morabito) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 04:26:27 +0000 Subject: Moving "Sale". Lots of free stuff for pickup, SF Bay Area Message-ID: <20100207042627.GA1571@mail.loomcom.com> Folks, I'm moving in a month, and I desperately need to unload a lot of stuff. All items are located in Union City, California (Just north of Fremont, south of Hayward, in the San Francisco Bay Area). I'm very sorry, but I will not even *consider* shipping anything. I just don't have the time, I'm in full-on crunch mode at work as well as prepping for the move. All of this stuff is PICK-UP ONLY, first-come, first-serve. Most stuff is free, some things have a very small price. Prices are firm. All items are listed here: http://www.loomcom.com/movingsale/ If an item is claimed, I will remove it from the list as soon as I can get to it!! Quick-view list of what's on the page, for the impatient: * Macintosh IIsi * Apple CD 300 * PowerBook 1400c * Apple ImageWriter II * NeXTstation Turbo Color * DECwriter LA12 (Correspondant) Ribbons * DECstation 5000/240 * DECstation 5000/133 * DECstation 3100 * VAXstation 3100 m76 * SGI Indigo 2 Extreme * SGI Indy * AT&T Unix PC * TI 99/4a and box of software * TI Silent 700 Model 780 * TI Silent 700 Model 745 * Atari 800 * Panasonic KX-D4929 Printing Terminal * TRS-80 PT-210 Thermal Printing Terminal * TRS-80 Model 100 Laptop I may make another page for "Part II" if part 1 goes well. Whatever's not claimed will end up going to Weird Stuff Warehouse in Sunnyvale. -Seth From dgahling at hotmail.com Sun Feb 7 09:41:47 2010 From: dgahling at hotmail.com (Dan Gahlinger) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:41:47 -0500 Subject: Moving "Sale". Lots of free stuff for pickup, SF Bay Area In-Reply-To: <20100207042627.GA1571@mail.loomcom.com> References: <20100207042627.GA1571@mail.loomcom.com> Message-ID: Anyone on this list considering picking some of this stuff up? maybe also getting the DS5000/240 for me and shipping it up to Canada? (I'd pay of course) unfortunately there's no way from Canada for me to get all the way down there just to pick up one piece :( lots of other wonderful stuff in there too... Dan. > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 04:26:27 +0000 > From: sethm at loomcom.com > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Subject: Moving "Sale". Lots of free stuff for pickup, SF Bay Area > > Folks, > > I'm moving in a month, and I desperately need to unload a lot of stuff. > > All items are located in Union City, California (Just north of Fremont, south > of Hayward, in the San Francisco Bay Area). I'm very sorry, but I will not even > *consider* shipping anything. I just don't have the time, I'm in full-on crunch > mode at work as well as prepping for the move. All of this stuff is PICK-UP > ONLY, first-come, first-serve. > > Most stuff is free, some things have a very small price. Prices are firm. > > All items are listed here: > > http://www.loomcom.com/movingsale/ > > If an item is claimed, I will remove it from the list as soon as I can get to > it!! > > Quick-view list of what's on the page, for the impatient: > > * Macintosh IIsi > * Apple CD 300 > * PowerBook 1400c > * Apple ImageWriter II > * NeXTstation Turbo Color > * DECwriter LA12 (Correspondant) Ribbons > * DECstation 5000/240 > * DECstation 5000/133 > * DECstation 3100 > * VAXstation 3100 m76 > * SGI Indigo 2 Extreme > * SGI Indy > * AT&T Unix PC > * TI 99/4a and box of software > * TI Silent 700 Model 780 > * TI Silent 700 Model 745 > * Atari 800 > * Panasonic KX-D4929 Printing Terminal > * TRS-80 PT-210 Thermal Printing Terminal > * TRS-80 Model 100 Laptop > > I may make another page for "Part II" if part 1 goes well. > > Whatever's not claimed will end up going to Weird Stuff Warehouse in Sunnyvale. > > -Seth _________________________________________________________________ From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 7 12:23:09 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 18:23:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6E14D8.9050602@jetnet.ab.ca> from "Ben" at Feb 6, 10 06:18:16 pm Message-ID: > > Tony Duell wrote: > >> > >> I don't know, old PC's are a dime a dozen. Still TTL buffers is all you > >> really > >> need for I/O if you don't mind wasting the high order byte. > > > > OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can > > exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development software. > > > > -tony > > > > Atmel software is still free the last time I looked, running on a modest > windows PC. PC's ... see your local dumpster. As far as I know, you do not live in London (England). So I can't see how you can tell me that PCs are available in the 'local dumpster'/ FWIW, dumpster diving is illegal in the UK. THat however, is secondary to the fact that we have a WEEE direcrtive that means we have to recycle electronic equipment and not throw it in the skip/dumpster. And I have _never_ seen a PC in a skip/dumpster in London (and I am certainly not going to trespass on various company sites to see if I can steal one). Also, unless I missed something, Windows isn't free. I I doubt that if I found a junked PC that happeend to have a runnable copy of Windows on the hard drivce the ntat would count as a valid Windows license. I don't particulalry care for Windows, or any Microsoft product for that matter, but that doesn't give me the right to pirate them. -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 12:37:23 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:37:23 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >>>> I don't know, old PC's are a dime a dozen. Still TTL buffers is >>>> all you >>>> really >>>> need for I/O if you don't mind wasting the high order byte. >>> >>> OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can >>> exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD >>> development software. >> >> Atmel software is still free the last time I looked, running on a >> modest >> windows PC. PC's ... see your local dumpster. > > As far as I know, you do not live in London (England). So I can't > see how > you can tell me that PCs are available in the 'local dumpster'/ > > FWIW, dumpster diving is illegal in the UK. That's...very weird to me. > THat however, is secondary to > the fact that we have a WEEE direcrtive that means we have to recycle > electronic equipment and not throw it in the skip/dumpster. And I have > _never_ seen a PC in a skip/dumpster in London (and I am certainly not > going to trespass on various company sites to see if I can steal one). I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. > Also, unless I missed something, Windows isn't free. I I doubt that > if I > found a junked PC that happeend to have a runnable copy of Windows > on the > hard drivce the ntat would count as a valid Windows license. I don't > particulalry care for Windows, or any Microsoft product for that > matter, > but that doesn't give me the right to pirate them. So don't run Windows. FPGA/CPLD/PAL software runs on other platforms. Indeed, large-scale chip design in the real world isn't typically done under Windows. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From trixter at oldskool.org Sun Feb 7 12:42:59 2010 From: trixter at oldskool.org (Jim Leonard) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:42:59 -0600 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6F09B3.2020407@oldskool.org> On 2/7/2010 12:37 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. Where are you located? -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/ From pcw at mesanet.com Sun Feb 7 12:41:09 2010 From: pcw at mesanet.com (Peter C. Wallace) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:41:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: PCs on the curbside In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > So don't run Windows. FPGA/CPLD/PAL software runs on other platforms. > Indeed, large-scale chip design in the real world isn't typically done under > Windows. > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL Indeed, the Xilinx webpack software runs fine on Linux Peter Wallace From trixter at oldskool.org Sun Feb 7 12:54:44 2010 From: trixter at oldskool.org (Jim Leonard) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:54:44 -0600 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F09B3.2020407@oldskool.org> References: <4B6F09B3.2020407@oldskool.org> Message-ID: <4B6F0C74.70807@oldskool.org> On 2/7/2010 12:42 PM, Jim Leonard wrote: > On 2/7/2010 12:37 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: >> I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. > > Where are you located? Never mind: Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL I am located in Naperville, IL and I see a PC on the curb about once every two years. -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/ From cclist at sydex.com Sun Feb 7 12:58:18 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:58:18 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <4B6E9CCA.10447.A6C7CD@cclist.sydex.com> On 7 Feb 2010 at 13:37, Dave McGuire wrote: > > THat however, is secondary to > > the fact that we have a WEEE direcrtive that means we have to > > recycle electronic equipment and not throw it in the skip/dumpster. > > And I have _never_ seen a PC in a skip/dumpster in London (and I am > > certainly not going to trespass on various company sites to see if I > > can steal one). > > I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. I don't imagine that the UK has any sort of computer reuse/donation organizations, either. So the moment you quit using a PC, the police show up on your doorstep to make sure that you won't give/sell the system to anyone else? As far as I know, the UK only requires that a PC be licensed if it's used to view television content. Or has that changed? And how can they tell? The system that I'm typing this on was gained via the local Freecycle network. Originally it came in a 4U rackmount case, but that's been repurposed for a different ssystem. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 13:06:59 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:06:59 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F0C74.70807@oldskool.org> References: <4B6F09B3.2020407@oldskool.org> <4B6F0C74.70807@oldskool.org> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Jim Leonard wrote: >>> I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. >> >> Where are you located? > > Never mind: > > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > I am located in Naperville, IL and I see a PC on the curb about > once every two years. Granted I see them a lot less nowadays, now that everyone is broke...more people are fixing (well, paying to have someone else fix) their machines rather than just throwing them in the garbage when Windows shits the bed. But I do still see them about every other month or so, and usually grab them. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 7 13:23:58 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:23:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: from "Dave McGuire" at Feb 7, 10 01:37:23 pm Message-ID: > > As far as I know, you do not live in London (England). So I can't > > see how > > you can tell me that PCs are available in the 'local dumpster'/ > > > > FWIW, dumpster diving is illegal in the UK. > > That's...very weird to me. I beleive (from what I've read) that it's illegal to dumpster-dive if the dumpster is on private land in the States. I beleive that in the UK, stuff in a skip/dumpster is deemed to belong to whoever owns the dumpster, and that it's technically stealing to remove it (whether it is stealing to remove it if you put it there in the first place -- e.g. if you threw somethign out that you didn't mean to -- I don't know. But knowing our crazy laws I could well believe it is). I don't know if anyone has ever been convicted under this law, and I am darn sure that dumpster diving goes on with or without permision. But if there are no PCs in the skips, it doesn't matter whether it's legal to take them. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 7 13:29:22 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:29:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6E9CCA.10447.A6C7CD@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 7, 10 10:58:18 am Message-ID: > > On 7 Feb 2010 at 13:37, Dave McGuire wrote: > > > > THat however, is secondary to > > > the fact that we have a WEEE direcrtive that means we have to > > > recycle electronic equipment and not throw it in the skip/dumpster. > > > And I have _never_ seen a PC in a skip/dumpster in London (and I am > > > certainly not going to trespass on various company sites to see if I > > > can steal one). > > > > I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. > > I don't imagine that the UK has any sort of computer reuse/donation > organizations, either. So the moment you quit using a PC, the police Charity shops (the equivalent of thrift stores) don't normally accept and sell mains-powered electrical devies, because there's another silly law that sats that all electrical devices sold in that way have to be safety-tested by a suitable elecrrician. _Occasionally_ the shops break that rule (which is how I got my Amiga 500) or sell wall-wart powered devices without the PSU (I got a nice Acorn Atom that way). > show up on your doorstep to make sure that you won't give/sell the As far as I know there's nothing to stop people giving or selling PCs to friends.. But my friends never seem to have old PCs... > system to anyone else? As far as I know, the UK only requires that a > PC be licensed if it's used to view television content. Or has that > changed? And how can they tell? That has nothing to do with it. > > The system that I'm typing this on was gained via the local Freecycle > network. Originally it came in a 4U rackmount case, but that's been > repurposed for a different ssystem. We do have freecycle over here, but I've never seen any desirable computer stuff listed on it locally. -tony From arcarlini at iee.org Sun Feb 7 13:37:41 2010 From: arcarlini at iee.org (arcarlini at iee.org) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:37:41 -0000 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6E9CCA.10447.A6C7CD@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC> > I don't imagine that the UK has any sort of computer reuse/donation > organizations, either. So the moment you quit using a PC, the police > show up on your doorstep to make sure that you won't give/sell the > system to anyone else? I don't think I've ever seen a PC out with the garbage: they almost certainly wouldn't be accepted. You get to take them to the tip or give them away. You could hang around the tip and hope, but you'd have to not fall foul of some arbitrary rules (you certainly cannot take stuff away ... so you'd have to persuade someone to give you their PC right out of the car boot). > As far as I know, the UK only requires that a > PC be licensed if it's used to view television content. Or has that > changed? And how can they tell? I assume this is still tongue firmly in cheek. If not, then nothing is licenced. If you purchase anything that is on the list of "might be a TV" (such a a graphics card with TV Out) the retailer takes your name and address. If the TV Licensing folks don't find that combination on their database they send you a letter. If you don't reply they send you a letter telling you that they'll show up on the doorstep. If you happen to have purchased the item over the web and had it delivered to your work address, they'll show up at your work address. If you happen to be out (because, maybe it's lunchtime!), they'll leave you a note saying (essentially) "See, we *did* call" and you never hear from them again. Oh, and you only need a licence to view content "live" (any contents, not just BBC or even any UK channels, satellite stuff too ...) on any device (TV, PC, phone, maybe even your fillings if you happen to be an oddball synaesthete). Antonio From arcarlini at iee.org Sun Feb 7 13:41:20 2010 From: arcarlini at iee.org (arcarlini at iee.org) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:41:20 -0000 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I don't know if anyone has ever been convicted under this > law, and I am > darn sure that dumpster diving goes on with or without > permision. But if > there are no PCs in the skips, it doesn't matter whether it's > legal to > take them. Given WEEE regs, companies are required to "properly dispose of" all electrical equipment. These days we have a company come round specifically to collect WEEE stuff (some of which can be quite big at times :-)). Before that we were only allowed to put electrical stuff in a skip when we'd contaced the people who take the skip away to make sure that they were doing the right things with WEEE (or, more likely, to make sure that we had the right paperwork). So intercepting stuff if you are on the outside is AFAICT much harder than it used to be if not downright impossible. Antonio From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 13:50:54 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:50:54 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >>> As far as I know, you do not live in London (England). So I can't >>> see how >>> you can tell me that PCs are available in the 'local dumpster'/ >>> >>> FWIW, dumpster diving is illegal in the UK. >> >> That's...very weird to me. > > I beleive (from what I've read) that it's illegal to dumpster-dive > if the > dumpster is on private land in the States. I think it "sort of" is...if it is in fact illegal, it's one of those laws that's never enforced. Everyone dumpster-dives. > I don't know if anyone has ever been convicted under this law, and > I am > darn sure that dumpster diving goes on with or without permision. > But if > there are no PCs in the skips, it doesn't matter whether it's legal to > take them. Indeed. And yes, it does go on all the time, at least around here. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From rogpugh at mac.com Sun Feb 7 14:31:28 2010 From: rogpugh at mac.com (Roger Pugh) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:31:28 +0000 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 or free computers in the rubbish/trash In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6F2320.1070004@mac.com> > > I beleive that in the UK, stuff in a skip/dumpster is deemed to belong to > whoever owns the dumpster, and that it's technically stealing to remove > it (whether it is stealing to remove it if you put it there in the first > place -- e.g. if you threw somethign out that you didn't mean to -- I > don't know. But knowing our crazy laws I could well believe it is). Well dont tell West Sussex county council where i get lots of tech junk... i.e. Crawley recycling depot, its just sitting there in metal cages and noone seems bothered it you take a bit. Two weeks ago i found a nice 1970's Bang Olufsen Stereo.. Amstrads, Sun, junk generic PC's alsorts. I suspect a lot of businesses near there (London Gatwick Airport is 2 miles away) drop off there excess weee stuff there. Rog From keithvz at verizon.net Sun Feb 7 15:19:43 2010 From: keithvz at verizon.net (KeithM) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:19:43 -0500 Subject: PCs on the curbside In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6F2E6F.9020903@verizon.net> Peter C. Wallace wrote: > Indeed, the Xilinx webpack software runs fine on Linux > > Peter Wallace > Yeah, it works pretty good. I was surprised that it installs natively on many different flavors on linux. There are, of course, some gotchas, like recognizing on install into CentOS to disable the Security-Enhanced Linux protections. And the usb drivers for programming boards directly aren't supported(read: don't work) on anything but a couple different versions (like $$$ version of RHEL5,4). So you have to mess with libusb, fxload, and a few other things. Luckily, there is enough community support/forums for the common flavors to get things working. I installed it on Ubuntu 9.10 without (major) issue. Keith From vern4wright at yahoo.com Sun Feb 7 15:22:52 2010 From: vern4wright at yahoo.com (Vernon Wright) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:22:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Virtual Revolution (History Of The Internet) In-Reply-To: <6d6501091002061751o6b80f600g2187d591df9674e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <672934.36159.qm@web65508.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> But the unedited video interviews are available in the accursed quicktime format. And a little cleverness ought to allow you to save them. I just watched a few minutes of the Barlow interview. Regards, Vern Wright --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Chris Halarewich wrote: > From: Chris Halarewich > Subject: Re: The Virtual Revolution (History Of The Internet) > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > Date: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 5:51 PM > to bad the download site is onlt > avail to people in the uk > > > > On 2/6/10, Andrew Burton > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I wasn't going to send out an email about this, but I > thought the 2nd > > episode was just as good as the first one, so here I > am :) > > > > In short, the programme (airing BBC2, UK, around > 8:15pm Saturdays) The > > Virtual Revolution looks at the history of the > internet (US Military, > > ARPAnet, The Well etc.) and it's influence on modern > life (hackers, > > terrorists, social networking etc.). > > The official site can be found here: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/ > > > > Video's of some of the interviewees (including Tim > Berners-Lee and Peter > > Thiel) can be found here: > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/virtualrevolution/interviews.shtml > > > > > > A whole host of computers have been seen (for a few > seconds) on the > > programme, including an Altair 8080 and a PDP-10. > > Some short clips of the programme can be found on > YouTube. All of episode 2 > > can be found on BBC IPlayer here (for the next 7 days > only): > > > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qsbvv/The_Virtual_Revolution_Enemy_of_the_State/ > > > > The whole show is 654MB (about 55 minutes long), if > you wish to download > > it. > > > > > > Regards, > > Andrew B > > aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk > > > > > > > From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sun Feb 7 15:55:51 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:55:51 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> >>>> OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can >>>> exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development >>>> software. >>> I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. > >> Also, unless I missed something, Windows isn't free. I I doubt that if I >> found a junked PC that happeend to have a runnable copy of Windows on the >> hard drivce the ntat would count as a valid Windows license. I don't >> particulalry care for Windows, or any Microsoft product for that matter, >> but that doesn't give me the right to pirate them. > > So don't run Windows. FPGA/CPLD/PAL software runs on other platforms. > Indeed, large-scale chip design in the real world isn't typically done > under Windows. What happened to the saying "you give a inch, they take a mile"? The whole point is FPGA/CPLD/PAL design is available for the average working person. Large scale chip design is *not* to my knowledge[1]. Ben. > -Dave PS. I have a design concept with about the same number of gates as 6809 or a Z80. From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 16:05:53 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:05:53 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> On Feb 7, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Ben wrote: >>> Also, unless I missed something, Windows isn't free. I I doubt >>> that if I >>> found a junked PC that happeend to have a runnable copy of >>> Windows on the >>> hard drivce the ntat would count as a valid Windows license. I don't >>> particulalry care for Windows, or any Microsoft product for that >>> matter, >>> but that doesn't give me the right to pirate them. >> >> So don't run Windows. FPGA/CPLD/PAL software runs on other platforms. >> Indeed, large-scale chip design in the real world isn't typically >> done >> under Windows. > > What happened to the saying "you give a inch, they take a mile"? Huh? > The whole point is FPGA/CPLD/PAL design is available for the average > working person. Large scale chip design is *not* to my knowledge[1]. But FPGA/CPLD/PAL design *is*...and why wouldn't you want to use professional tools instead of toys? Real tools are available. > PS. I have a design concept with about the same number of gates as > 6809 or a Z80. Cool! Describe? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sun Feb 7 16:36:16 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:36:16 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> Dave McGuire wrote: >> The whole point is FPGA/CPLD/PAL design is available for the average >> working person. Large scale chip design is *not* to my knowledge[1]. > > But FPGA/CPLD/PAL design *is*...and why wouldn't you want to use > professional tools instead of toys? Real tools are available. > >> PS. I have a design concept with about the same number of gates as >> 6809 or a Z80. > > Cool! Describe? See: CPLD design. This current design is CPLD/2901 bitslice design. The ALU is 12 bits, double clocked to give a 24 bit CPU on a 6800/6502 style memory cycle.One CPLD is for high speed decoding and the other for the MAR and MBR data paths. A 8 bit refresh counter is for DRAM's. A 2.5 MHZ (top speed)clock gives a 800 ns memory cycle. 3 2901's make up the data path. A LSI version would have 24 bits in the ALU, but with a 3 bit carry skip adder. The logic design is slow but simple, with decoding taking the first clock cycle and the second cycle for alu operations. > -Dave Ben. From keithvz at verizon.net Sun Feb 7 16:57:09 2010 From: keithvz at verizon.net (KeithM) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:57:09 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> Ben wrote: > See: CPLD design. This current design is CPLD/2901 bitslice design. > The ALU is 12 bits, double clocked to give a 24 bit CPU on a 6800/6502 > style memory cycle.One CPLD is for high speed decoding and the other > for the MAR and MBR data paths. A 8 bit refresh counter is for DRAM's. A > 2.5 MHZ (top speed)clock gives a 800 ns memory cycle. 3 2901's make > up the data path. > > A LSI version would have 24 bits in the ALU, but with a 3 bit carry > skip adder. The logic design is slow but simple, with decoding taking > the first clock cycle and the second cycle for alu operations. >> -Dave > > Ben. Neat. Is this on the order of 2000 gates +/-? I was trying to lookup the number of gates on the Z80 and 680x, and this is the closest I could come. :) Are you using verilog, VHDL, or something else? I have a Spartan-3e starter kit that contains a CoolRunner?-II CPLD (XC2C64A-5VQ44C). I'm in the process of using the FPGA, but haven't touched the CPLD. I barely know how to spell it. :) Keith From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sun Feb 7 17:13:53 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:13:53 -0700 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca> KeithM wrote: > Ben wrote: > >> See: CPLD design. This current design is CPLD/2901 bitslice design. >> The ALU is 12 bits, double clocked to give a 24 bit CPU on a 6800/6502 >> style memory cycle.One CPLD is for high speed decoding and the other >> for the MAR and MBR data paths. A 8 bit refresh counter is for DRAM's. >> A 2.5 MHZ (top speed)clock gives a 800 ns memory cycle. 3 2901's make >> up the data path. >> >> A LSI version would have 24 bits in the ALU, but with a 3 bit carry >> skip adder. The logic design is slow but simple, with decoding taking >> the first clock cycle and the second cycle for alu operations. >>> -Dave >> >> Ben. > > Neat. Is this on the order of 2000 gates +/-? I was trying to lookup the > number of gates on the Z80 and 680x, and this is the closest I could > come. :) I was doing it the other way. I have 8 24 bit registers and both the Z80/6809 have about 6 16 bit registers, so I am in the ballpark here. > Are you using verilog, VHDL, or something else? I have a Spartan-3e > starter kit that contains a CoolRunner?-II CPLD (XC2C64A-5VQ44C). I'm in > the process of using the FPGA, but haven't touched the CPLD. I barely > know how to spell it. :) I am using 128 cell CPLD's, from Atmel with CPUL (wincpul) for logic design. This language is at the gate level, but easy to use compared to the other two design languages. > Keith > Ben. From cisin at xenosoft.com Sun Feb 7 17:20:49 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:20:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dime-a-dozen PCs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100207144427.W30568@shell.lmi.net> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Tony Duell wrote: > OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can > exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development software. Well, admittedly there is an issue of shipping. The dime is just the purchase price. If you can come up with a way to ship them, we (those in the USA) would be glad to provide a metric buttload of PCs. If you come visit, we can load you down with more stuff than you can carry. I'll even throw in some photographic equipment that you would like. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com From steve at radiorobots.com Sun Feb 7 17:33:32 2010 From: steve at radiorobots.com (steve stutman) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:33:32 -0500 Subject: Dime-a-dozen PCs In-Reply-To: <20100207144427.W30568@shell.lmi.net> References: <20100207144427.W30568@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4B6F4DCC.5030803@radiorobots.com> There is a US non-profit which runs a boarding school and skills training center in Kenya. They are looking for surplus PCs with 220 VAC OK supplies for use in basic rework and software skills programs. There may also a possibility for people to teach the basic skills required. Have known one of the principals for >20 years. This is legit; no resale or scrapping at destination. If people have surplus machines to contribute, please inform off-list. Thanks, Steve Boston Fred Cisin wrote: > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Tony Duell wrote: > >> OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can >> exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development software. >> > > Well, admittedly there is an issue of shipping. The dime is just the > purchase price. > > If you can come up with a way to ship them, we (those in the USA) would > be glad to provide a metric buttload of PCs. > > If you come visit, we can load you down with more stuff than you can > carry. I'll even throw in some photographic equipment that you would > like. > > > > -- > Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com > From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Sun Feb 7 17:04:36 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:04:36 +0000 Subject: Free computers in the rubbish/trash (was: Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B6F2320.1070004@mac.com> References: <4B6F2320.1070004@mac.com> Message-ID: <4B6F4704.5020403@philpem.me.uk> Roger Pugh wrote: > Well dont tell West Sussex county council where i get lots of tech junk... > i.e. Crawley recycling depot, its just sitting there in metal cages and > noone seems bothered it you take a bit. Some local councils have gone really anal recently. Last time I was down at the recycling/household waste depot, they had a weighbridge on the "in" road, and one on the "out" road. Your car is weighed going in and coming out. If the car weighs more coming out, you get to explain to the knuckle-dragging rent-a-droid why that happens to be the case. Good fun, especially when the "out" weighbridge is out of calibration relative to the "in" weighbridge.... "But we had it calibrated four years ago!" -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From geoffr at zipcon.net Sun Feb 7 18:00:57 2010 From: geoffr at zipcon.net (Geoffrey Reed) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:00:57 -0800 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 2/7/10 10:23 AM, "Tony Duell" wrote: > Also, unless I missed something, Windows isn't free. I I doubt that if I > found a junked PC that happeend to have a runnable copy of Windows on the > hard drivce the ntat would count as a valid Windows license. I don't > particulalry care for Windows, or any Microsoft product for that matter, > but that doesn't give me the right to pirate them. > > -tony > It depends on the system actually, and the user :) for example, OEM's (dell, HP, etc) the OS is licensed to a particular machine, that is why when you purchase a Dell or HP pc, the windows activation key/cd key is affixed to the system. According to what MS states also, once you install Win XP, Vista, Win7, 98, 95, etc you are supposed to affix the cd-key/activation key label to that machine and use it on no other machine, even if you replace the machine they want you to buy a new windows license for that new machine. From jhfinedp3k at compsys.to Sun Feb 7 18:22:23 2010 From: jhfinedp3k at compsys.to (Jerome H. Fine) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:22:23 -0500 Subject: PDF files for Matrox Qbus QRGB boards In-Reply-To: <4B6C44FD.5070509@bitsavers.org> References: <4B6B755B.9020100@compsys.to> <4B6C44FD.5070509@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4B6F593F.1080500@compsys.to> >Al Kossow wrote: > On 2/4/10 5:33 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote: > >> I sent Al Kossow the (PDF) manuals for the >> Qbus Matrox QRGB-Alpha and QRGB-Graph boards. He did not respond to >> or acknowledge my e-mail. In addition, the PDF manuals are still not >> available at bitsavers. > > Your files in my inbox at 7PM Feb 3. > Unsolicited donations are put into the work queue. > You said to NOT reply if I was interested, which is what I did. > They are up now without OCR. Thank you for the clarification. What does "without OCR" mean? Also, I have some manuals which are still hard copy with no one to scan them at the moment. The are the latest versions and perhaps you already have them scanned, but not available. TSX-PLUS and Release Notes for V05.07 of RT-11. Any suggestions? Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine From sethm at loomcom.com Sun Feb 7 18:30:54 2010 From: sethm at loomcom.com (Seth Morabito) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 00:30:54 +0000 Subject: Moving "Sale". Lots of free stuff for pickup, SF Bay Area In-Reply-To: References: <20100207042627.GA1571@mail.loomcom.com> Message-ID: <20100208003054.GA6858@mail.loomcom.com> * On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 10:41:47AM -0500, Dan Gahlinger wrote: > > Anyone on this list considering picking some of this stuff up? > > maybe also getting the DS5000/240 for me and shipping it up to Canada? (I'd pay of course) > > unfortunately there's no way from Canada for me to get all the way down there just to pick up one piece :( > > lots of other wonderful stuff in there too... Happily for me, but I'm sorry to say unhappily for you, almost everything has been claimed in an extraordinarily short amount of time, including the DECstations. It's all going to other collectors in the local area. There are a few uninteresting bits and pieces left (Panasonic and TRS-80 terminals, the Model 100 laptop, the Indy), but if nobody wants them I'll just hang onto them and try offering them again after I move. -Seth From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Sun Feb 7 18:31:40 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:31:40 +0000 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> Ben wrote: > I am using 128 cell CPLD's, from Atmel with CPUL (wincpul) for > logic design. This language is at the gate level, but easy to use > compared to the other two design languages. Interesting. I find Verilog easier to use than CUPL. Certainly for register-based logic it makes the function of the code a bit more obvious; for combinational logic it really doesn't matter (although Verilog uses C-style expressions and thus might be a little easier for your average software geek to understand... ahem :P ) VHDL on the other hand is evil, distilled into its purest form. In my experience, what can be said in half a dozen lines of Verilog takes 30 or so in VHDL. CUPL seems to sit somewhere in the middle. I was forced to learn to read VHDL at a previous job (some idiot lost the register documentation for a glue-logic PLD, I got to rewrite it from source). That experience and one or two like it have put me off VHDL for life! I do, however, still use CUPL on occasion for creating fusemaps for GALs... I think I've still got half a tube of DIL-packaged Lattice GAL16V8s in my spares bin... -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From cclist at sydex.com Sun Feb 7 18:45:06 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:45:06 -0800 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> References: , <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca>, <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 0:31, Philip Pemberton wrote: > VHDL on the other hand is evil, distilled into its purest form. In my > experience, what can be said in half a dozen lines of Verilog takes 30 > or so in VHDL. CUPL seems to sit somewhere in the middle. VHDL is the ADA of EDA languages--almost no one ever uses it because they *want* to. I like Verilog very much; it's straightforward and not too "dirty". --Chuck From tpeters at mixcom.com Sun Feb 7 18:43:27 2010 From: tpeters at mixcom.com (Tom Peters) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:43:27 -0600 Subject: Free computers in the rubbish/trash (was: Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B6F4704.5020403@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6F2320.1070004@mac.com> <4B6F2320.1070004@mac.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20100207184245.00bd5398@localhost> One must be sure to carry some bricks on the inbound trip, in such cases, to implement the "Indiana Jones" method. At 11:04 PM 2/7/2010 +0000, you wrote: >Roger Pugh wrote: >>Well dont tell West Sussex county council where i get lots of tech junk... >>i.e. Crawley recycling depot, its just sitting there in metal cages and >>noone seems bothered it you take a bit. > >Some local councils have gone really anal recently. Last time I was down >at the recycling/household waste depot, they had a weighbridge on the "in" >road, and one on the "out" road. Your car is weighed going in and coming >out. If the car weighs more coming out, you get to explain to the >knuckle-dragging rent-a-droid why that happens to be the case. > >Good fun, especially when the "out" weighbridge is out of calibration >relative to the "in" weighbridge.... "But we had it calibrated four years ago!" > >-- >Phil. >classiccmp at philpem.me.uk >http://www.philpem.me.uk/ ----- 1033. E clunibus tractum ("I pulled this out of my butt...") --... ...-- -.. . -. ----. --.- --.- -... tpeters at nospam.mixcom.com (remove "nospam") N9QQB (amateur radio) "HEY YOU" (loud shouting) WEB: http://www.mixcom.com/tpeters 43? 7' 17.2" N by 88? 6' 28.9" W, Elevation 815', Grid Square EN53wc WAN/LAN/Telcom Analyst, Tech Writer, MCP, CCNA, Registered Linux User 385531 From dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu Sun Feb 7 19:27:13 2010 From: dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu (David Griffith) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:27:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Free computers in the rubbish/trash (was: Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B6F4704.5020403@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6F2320.1070004@mac.com> <4B6F4704.5020403@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: On Sun, 7 Feb 2010, Philip Pemberton wrote: > Roger Pugh wrote: >> Well dont tell West Sussex county council where i get lots of tech junk... >> i.e. Crawley recycling depot, its just sitting there in metal cages and >> noone seems bothered it you take a bit. > > Some local councils have gone really anal recently. Last time I was down at > the recycling/household waste depot, they had a weighbridge on the "in" road, > and one on the "out" road. Your car is weighed going in and coming out. If > the car weighs more coming out, you get to explain to the knuckle-dragging > rent-a-droid why that happens to be the case. > > Good fun, especially when the "out" weighbridge is out of calibration > relative to the "in" weighbridge.... "But we had it calibrated four years > ago!" "Bethselamin is now so worried about the cumulative erosion by ten billion visiting tourists a year that any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete whilst on the planet is surgically removed from your bodyweight when you leave: so every time you go to the lavatory it is vitally important to get a receipt." -- Douglas Adams -- David Griffith dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? From pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 19:29:29 2010 From: pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com (Alexandre Souza - Listas) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 23:29:29 -0200 Subject: Moving "Sale". Lots of free stuff for pickup, SF Bay Area References: <20100207042627.GA1571@mail.loomcom.com> <20100208003054.GA6858@mail.loomcom.com> Message-ID: <16fd01caa85e$4ff06ff0$0132a8c0@Alexandre> > There are a few uninteresting bits and pieces left (Panasonic and TRS-80 > terminals, the Model 100 laptop, the Indy), but if nobody wants them I'll > just > hang onto them and try offering them again after I move. I'd love to get the model 100, but I'm too far away, since you said you'll never ship anything (and never mind about the indy...oh my... :() From afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 7 19:45:43 2010 From: afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk (Phill Harvey-Smith) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:45:43 +0000 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B6F6CC7.6040100@aurigae.demon.co.uk> On 08/02/2010 00:31, Philip Pemberton wrote: > Ben wrote: >> I am using 128 cell CPLD's, from Atmel with CPUL (wincpul) for >> logic design. This language is at the gate level, but easy to use >> compared to the other two design languages. While we're on the subject of Atmel's WinCUPL, is it just me or is it pretty buggy and crash prone...especially if you try and simulate your design. I do occasionally use it for programming the Atmel PALs. Cheers. Phill. From hachti at hachti.de Sun Feb 7 20:07:22 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:07:22 +0100 Subject: Honeywell 316 on govliquidation In-Reply-To: <37EA32D65C48498CB1F68C19285B55A7@owneraf75c46b7> References: <37EA32D65C48498CB1F68C19285B55A7@owneraf75c46b7> Message-ID: <4B6F71DA.1070001@hachti.de> Where? Cannot find it... -- http://www.hachti.de From hachti at hachti.de Sun Feb 7 20:19:34 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:19:34 +0100 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> > URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! > the plotter is in poor condition: 1. The drum is damaged. You'll probably have to fix that before it will be able to plot properly. 2. It is dirty. 3. There are no cables. Cables are harder to find than the plotter itself. 4. No pen. It will be challinging to get a pen holder for the plotter. 5. No trace of paper. Getting paper for this kind of plotter seems to be difficult to impossible (correct me if I'm wrong, still hoping..!!!). So don't worry about being broke - that fact saves you from throwing out your money for useless stuff :-) -- http://www.hachti.de From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sun Feb 7 20:44:49 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:44:49 -0700 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6F6CC7.6040100@aurigae.demon.co.uk> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> <4B6F6CC7.6040100@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B6F7AA1.4010900@jetnet.ab.ca> Phill Harvey-Smith wrote: > On 08/02/2010 00:31, Philip Pemberton wrote: >> Ben wrote: >>> I am using 128 cell CPLD's, from Atmel with CPUL (wincpul) for >>> logic design. This language is at the gate level, but easy to use >>> compared to the other two design languages. > > While we're on the subject of Atmel's WinCUPL, is it just me or is it > pretty buggy and crash prone...especially if you try and simulate your > design. I do occasionally use it for programming the Atmel PALs. Simulate... What is that! I tend to find the IDE and compiler buggy. That is why I edit the source with EDIT and just compile it. I plan not to have complex logic, so I don't simulate stuff. Most of the time the logic fits ( or works ) or back to the drawing board. > Cheers. > > Phill. Ben. From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 20:57:40 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:57:40 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: >> URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! > the plotter is in poor condition: > 1. The drum is damaged. You'll probably have to fix that before it > will be able to plot properly. > 2. It is dirty. > 3. There are no cables. Cables are harder to find than the plotter > itself. > 4. No pen. It will be challinging to get a pen holder for the plotter. > 5. No trace of paper. Getting paper for this kind of plotter seems > to be difficult to impossible (correct me if I'm wrong, still > hoping..!!!). > > So don't worry about being broke - that fact saves you from > throwing out your money for useless stuff :-) I have paper and a set of cables, and I know how to retrofit a ball-point pen assembly into this if the solenoid assembly is intact. I used to have a 565. Useless? I'll bet it still plots. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 21:04:49 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:04:49 -0500 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <43440F84-85FE-4C75-B939-B856E1490475@neurotica.com> On Feb 7, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Philip Pemberton wrote: > Interesting. I find Verilog easier to use than CUPL. Certainly for > register-based logic it makes the function of the code a bit more > obvious; for combinational logic it really doesn't matter (although > Verilog uses C-style expressions and thus might be a little easier > for your average software geek to understand... ahem :P ) > > VHDL on the other hand is evil, distilled into its purest form. In > my experience, what can be said in half a dozen lines of Verilog > takes 30 or so in VHDL. CUPL seems to sit somewhere in the middle. > > I was forced to learn to read VHDL at a previous job (some idiot > lost the register documentation for a glue-logic PLD, I got to > rewrite it from source). That experience and one or two like it > have put me off VHDL for life! I agree on both VHDL and Verilog. My HDL experience is very limited, but I've looked at both, and immediately wondered why VHDL still exists. > I do, however, still use CUPL on occasion for creating fusemaps for > GALs... I think I've still got half a tube of DIL-packaged Lattice > GAL16V8s in my spares bin... > I still use PALASM for PAL/GAL work. I find it to be very simple and straightforward. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Sun Feb 7 18:56:37 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:56:37 +0000 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca>, <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B6F6145.2000601@philpem.me.uk> Chuck Guzis wrote: > VHDL is the ADA of EDA languages--almost no one ever uses it because > they *want* to. I like Verilog very much; it's straightforward and > not too "dirty". Agreed. I started using Verilog because it uses C style expressions (and most of the operator precedence rules are the same), and the language structure follows similar conventions. The keywords, OTOH, are more like Pascal... This does (IME) occasionally "lead you down the garden path" sometimes. I've found myself thinking in terms of how I'd implement something in software, then realising that I was writing HDL code and describing hardware... Makes for some fun design quirks. (Thankfully I think I've eliminated most of the ones that crept into the DiscFerret disc analyser -- which is in the first stage of prototyping at the moment. I'm currently prototyping and stress-testing the power supply / voltage regulation circuitry) -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From tosteve at yahoo.com Sun Feb 7 21:31:36 2010 From: tosteve at yahoo.com (steven stengel) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:31:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Vintage Pertec 10 data recorder tape drive - $50 (Graigslist Oxnard, CA) Message-ID: <849809.5989.qm@web110609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Not mine: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/sys/1590090200.html From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 21:56:25 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:56:25 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <595A252D-41B9-4299-8450-E81A71E756E0@neurotica.com> On Feb 7, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Ben wrote: >>> PS. I have a design concept with about the same number of gates as >>> 6809 or a Z80. >> >> Cool! Describe? > > See: CPLD design. This current design is CPLD/2901 bitslice design. > The ALU is 12 bits, double clocked to give a 24 bit CPU on a 6800/6502 > style memory cycle.One CPLD is for high speed decoding and the other > for the MAR and MBR data paths. A 8 bit refresh counter is for > DRAM's. A 2.5 MHZ (top speed)clock gives a 800 ns memory cycle. 3 > 2901's make > up the data path. That sounds like fun. Had you ever thought about making boards for these to sell to people? I'd want a couple, I'll bet some other people would buy them too...they sound like fun to hack on. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 7 21:57:34 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:57:34 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B6F4545.3050704@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Feb 7, 2010, at 5:57 PM, KeithM wrote: > I'm in the process of using the FPGA, but haven't touched the > CPLD. I barely know how to spell it. :) FPGAs are more flexible, but I found CPLDs easier to get started with. That's likely because I had done PAL design before, and CPLDs (at least the Xilinx ones, dunno about others) implement a very similar architecture. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Sun Feb 7 22:11:48 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:11:48 -0700 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <595A252D-41B9-4299-8450-E81A71E756E0@neurotica.com> References: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> <2FC4EF7D-5959-417D-81D6-BB5B12D02653@neurotica.com> <4B6F4060.7080401@jetnet.ab.ca> <595A252D-41B9-4299-8450-E81A71E756E0@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B6F8F04.8070001@jetnet.ab.ca> Dave McGuire wrote: >> See: CPLD design. This current design is CPLD/2901 bitslice design. >> The ALU is 12 bits, double clocked to give a 24 bit CPU on a 6800/6502 >> style memory cycle.One CPLD is for high speed decoding and the other >> for the MAR and MBR data paths. A 8 bit refresh counter is for DRAM's. >> A 2.5 MHZ (top speed)clock gives a 800 ns memory cycle. 3 2901's make >> up the data path. > > That sounds like fun. > > Had you ever thought about making boards for these to sell to people? > I'd want a couple, I'll bet some other people would buy them too...they > sound like fun to hack on. I plan to make up some PCB's for my local use, when I get off my butt. Right now I am taking a short break, since I am not sure just what the rest of the design will be like. Most likely similar to the Mark 8 micro-computer with a 50 pin ribbon cable buss and PC floppy drive connectors for power. It looks like about 6 boards. A) clock/front panel B) Cpu C) 128 kb static ram D) 128 kb static ram/EEPROM E) Uart/IDE interface F) spare Ben. > -Dave > From jdr_use at bluewin.ch Mon Feb 8 00:28:11 2010 From: jdr_use at bluewin.ch (Jos Dreesen) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:28:11 +0100 Subject: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca>, <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 8 Feb 2010 at 0:31, Philip Pemberton wrote: > > >> VHDL on the other hand is evil, distilled into its purest form. In my >> experience, what can be said in half a dozen lines of Verilog takes 30 >> or so in VHDL. CUPL seems to sit somewhere in the middle. >> > > VHDL is the ADA of EDA languages--almost no one ever uses it because > they *want* to. I like Verilog very much; it's straightforward and > not too "dirty". > > --Chuck > VHDL vs Verilog is another holy war, and about as useful as a 6502 vs Z80 discussion. Thus I continue : Personally I pity those who never get into VHDL and stay with Verilog, and I will choose VHDL over Verilog any day. Oh the agony when forced to use a Verilog testbench from our US collegues..... Jos Dreesen From chd at chdickman.com Sun Feb 7 17:47:55 2010 From: chd at chdickman.com (Charles H Dickman) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:47:55 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> William Blair wrote: > Having learned assembly language programming on the beautifully simple architecture and instruction set of the 6800, the Byte magazine article linked to below that I read when it was originally published really impressed me. In the 6809 they made one of the earliest efforts I know of to really tweak an already great uP instruction set based upon an analysis of existing software: > > http://tlindner.macmess.org/?page_id=119 > I was introduced to the 6809 when I was at university and it just seemed right. I came home and bought a CoCo2 and an EDTASM+ cartridge just to play with it. I still have it. Is there a source for 6829 MMUs? I would love to build a 6809 SBC with an MMU that could run OS-9. -chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 8 01:43:01 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:43:01 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> Message-ID: <3AA2814F-0E0C-495B-8924-F2544CAE73F8@neurotica.com> On Feb 7, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Charles H Dickman wrote: > Is there a source for 6829 MMUs? I would love to build a 6809 SBC > with an MMU that could run OS-9. Unicorn doesn't even have them. :-( Were they just not widely used or something? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Mon Feb 8 01:45:05 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:45:05 -0800 Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6FC101.1020208@mail.msu.edu> Teo Zenios wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Dersch" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 6:40 PM > Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy > > >> A number of DTR-1s have been showing up on eBay recently (cheap) so I >> decided to snag one. (I really wanted one when they were new but my >> salary as a 15 year old prevented such a thing from happening...) >> >> As an additional aside, it's one of few devices that used the HP >> Kittyhawk drive (a 1.3" 40mb drive). Quite a marvel of engineering >> in 1993... >> >> Anyway, the specimen I obtained works fine (need to rebuild the >> battery) but lacks the external floppy drive. So my only real >> option for getting software on the machine is over the serial port, >> which is a a bit annoying (and also precludes installing a new OS on >> it..) >> >> Anyone have any spares? >> >> Thanks, >> Josh >> > > No floppy drive here (I have a couple units with bad keyboards), but > there is a site that shows the pinout for the port. > Yeah, I found that -- but I have no idea what kind of connector the Dauphin uses for the floppy port, it's not something I've seen before and I don't know its "name" so it's difficult to search for :). Anyone know? (I can supply pictures if needed...) Josh From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Mon Feb 8 01:45:39 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:45:39 -0800 Subject: Looking for: Dauphin DTR-1 Floppy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6FC123.20707@mail.msu.edu> Zane H. Healy wrote: > I might have spares. The problem being I'm not sure where in the > garage (aka the disaster area), the two boxes of DTR-1 stuff is. I > think I have 4 systems, and some other stuff. It will be quite some > time before I start digging back to that point. > > Zane > > Thanks -- if you do ever find yourself digging around and find them, let me know :). Josh From cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Mon Feb 8 08:17:40 2010 From: cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Christian Corti) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:17:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Rik Bos wrote: > Witch Vectra do you mean ? The "classic" Vectra of course. We had *many* of those years ago at the computer sience department, bought around 1986 so that the people could work on their "own personal computer" instead of sharing one big and slow one (there was a VAX11/780 and 11/750 at that time). I've made some pictures of a) the ISA controller card and b) the disk drive that goes with it. The controller part number is 5061-2826, the drive sled including the drives 45816A, and the HDA's number is 97500-85620. The sled contains two drives for a total capacity of 2x20 MB. I think the transfer rate is 4 Mbit/s; there's an 8 MHz quarz oscillator on it. Christian From cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Mon Feb 8 09:13:08 2010 From: cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Christian Corti) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:13:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Christian Corti wrote: > I've made some pictures of a) the ISA controller card and b) the disk drive Sorry, the link is http://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pics/vectra/ Christian From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Mon Feb 8 10:00:23 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:00:23 -0700 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> Message-ID: <4B703517.7010201@jetnet.ab.ca> Charles H Dickman wrote: > William Blair wrote: >> Having learned assembly language programming on the beautifully simple >> architecture and instruction set of the 6800, the Byte magazine >> article linked to below that I read when it was originally published >> really impressed me. In the 6809 they made one of the earliest efforts >> I know of to really tweak an already great uP instruction set based >> upon an analysis of existing software: >> >> http://tlindner.macmess.org/?page_id=119 > I was introduced to the 6809 when I was at university and it just seemed > right. I came home and bought a CoCo2 and an EDTASM+ cartridge just to > play with it. I still have it. > > Is there a source for 6829 MMUs? I would love to build a 6809 SBC with > an MMU that could run OS-9. Well you can get the data sheet here: Get it now, to the link works. Who knows in 24 hours. http://www.macmess.org/downloads/mc6829.pdf > -chuck > Ben. From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 10:50:40 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:50:40 -0800 Subject: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 7:28, Jos Dreesen wrote: > VHDL vs Verilog is another holy war, and about as useful as a 6502 vs > Z80 discussion. Thus I continue : Personally I pity those who never > get into VHDL and stay with Verilog, and I will choose VHDL over > Verilog any day. Oh the agony when forced to use a Verilog testbench > from our US collegues..... I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) Now I wonder, "who won?" :) --Chuck From jdr_use at bluewin.ch Mon Feb 8 12:27:48 2010 From: jdr_use at bluewin.ch (Jos Dreesen) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:27:48 +0100 Subject: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B7057A4.8040208@bluewin.ch> > I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) > > Now I wonder, "who won?" :) > > --Chuck > Nobody won.... For the HDL languages, both VHDL and Verilog are US creations. I have no idea why Europe prefers VHDL, and US prefers Verilog. Jos From quapla at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 8 12:34:11 2010 From: quapla at xs4all.nl (Ed Groenenberg) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:34:11 +0100 Subject: Available : VAX/VMS book Message-ID: <082cb7eeac8cdc6276942a08225b1301.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> For $10 + postage VAX/ VMS Internals & Data structures by Ruth E. Goldberg & Lawrence J. Kenah. Note : item in in the Netherlands, book weights about 4 pounds. -- Dit is een HTML vrije email / This is an HTML free email. From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 8 12:41:16 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 19:41:16 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64A33CF18402414B8BD1B887DC77D5AC@xp1800> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Christian Corti > Verzonden: maandag 8 februari 2010 16:13 > Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Onderwerp: RE: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Christian Corti wrote: > > I've made some pictures of a) the ISA controller card and > b) the disk > > drive > > Sorry, the link is > http://computermuseum.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pics/vectra/ > > Christian Ahh, Christian thanks for 'the enlightment'. The ones I saw at that time always where equiped with a ST225 or ST255. I worked from medio '86 to '89 for a HP-dealer but never seen these and we sold a lot of Vectra's in those days, so may be they weren't available in the Netherlands. -Rik From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Mon Feb 8 13:26:39 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:26:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B7057A4.8040208@bluewin.ch> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7057A4.8040208@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <190633.54177.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> AFAIK, all of our HDL stuff at work is done in VHDL. ________________________________ From: Jos Dreesen To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 12:27:48 PM Subject: Re: VHDL vs Verilog > I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) > Now I wonder, "who won?" :) > > --Chuck > Nobody won.... For the HDL languages, both VHDL and Verilog are US creations. I have no idea why Europe prefers VHDL, and US prefers Verilog. Jos From hachti at hachti.de Mon Feb 8 13:44:32 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:44:32 +0100 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca>, <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B7069A0.8070605@hachti.de> Oh! > VHDL is the ADA of EDA languages--almost no one ever uses it because > they *want* to. I adore it! I find Verilog quite crappy. And it doesn't tell me when I misspell a signal. Ok, perhaps a little compiler warning - but that's all. With VHDL I have a quite better chance to get a running design if it passes the compiler...! > I like Verilog very much; it's straightforward and > not too "dirty". IMHO it *IS* dirty. VERY dirty. Philipp .-) -- http://www.hachti.de From hachti at hachti.de Mon Feb 8 13:50:15 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:50:15 +0100 Subject: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> References: , <4B6F4931.3000606@jetnet.ab.ca>, <4B6F5B6C.1020403@philpem.me.uk> <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com> <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <4B706AF7.3030101@hachti.de> > Personally I pity those who never get into VHDL and stay with Verilog, > and I will choose VHDL over Verilog any day. Agree :-) > Oh the agony when forced to use a Verilog testbench from our US > collegues..... Oh, let's do it in SystemC - that cures every pain! Philipp :-) From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 8 12:38:05 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:38:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: <4B6F36E7.60302@jetnet.ab.ca> from "Ben" at Feb 7, 10 02:55:51 pm Message-ID: > > > >>>> OK, I actuially have a US dime somwhere. Please tell me where I can > >>>> exchange it for 12 PCs capable of running FPGA or CPLD development > >>>> software. > >>> > I would. :) But I see PeeCees on the curb quite often. OK, I'll pay shippiong on the Dime, you pay shipping on the 12 PCs ;-) -tony From quapla at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 8 14:14:41 2010 From: quapla at xs4all.nl (Ed Groenenberg) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 21:14:41 +0100 Subject: Available : VAX/VMS book In-Reply-To: <082cb7eeac8cdc6276942a08225b1301.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> References: <082cb7eeac8cdc6276942a08225b1301.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Book has been spoken for. > For $10 + postage > > VAX/ VMS Internals & Data structures > by Ruth E. Goldberg & Lawrence J. Kenah. > > Note : item in in the Netherlands, book weights about 4 pounds. > -- > Dit is een HTML vrije email / This is an HTML free email. > > -- Dit is een HTML vrije email / This is an HTML free email. From andyh at andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk Mon Feb 8 12:42:13 2010 From: andyh at andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk (Andy Holt) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:42:13 -0000 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: >>>> I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) Now I wonder, "who won?" :) <<<< The easy answer is "C" :-) You can look at it at least two ways: * C has the structure of Algol with most of the dirty tricks and efficiency of FORTRAN. * C derives from multiple paths - One of these ia PL/I (which derives from Fortran, Algol, and COBOL) Another is from B which comes from BCPL which comes from CPL which was essentially an extended Algol However it seems that the saying: "I don't know what language engineers will use in the future, but I know they'll call it Fortran." has mostly turned-out mistaken. Andy From hachti at hachti.de Mon Feb 8 14:25:08 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:25:08 +0100 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B707324.5050906@hachti.de> > I have paper and a set of cables, That's good! Especially the paper! > and I know how to retrofit a > ball-point pen assembly into this if the solenoid assembly is intact. So please compare the second part of your statement (the words after "if") with the photograph on eBay: The solenoid assembly is missing completely. > Useless? I'll bet it still plots. If it plots, it's nice. But this unit also has some bumps on the drum. And no solenoid assembly. If there are bumps on the drum you'll probably run in trouble with the (nonexistant) solenoid. My experience. Regards, Philipp :-) -- http://www.hachti.de From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 8 14:43:28 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:43:28 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B707324.5050906@hachti.de> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <4B707324.5050906@hachti.de> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: >> I have paper and a set of cables, > That's good! Especially the paper! > >> and I know how to retrofit a ball-point pen assembly into this if >> the solenoid assembly is intact. > So please compare the second part of your statement (the words > after "if") with the photograph on eBay: The solenoid assembly is > missing completely. Oops. I didn't actually look at the auction. The solenoid assembly would be impossible to find and very difficult to fabricate. >> Useless? I'll bet it still plots. > If it plots, it's nice. Absolutely. :-) > But this unit also has some bumps on the drum. And no solenoid > assembly. If there are bumps on the drum you'll probably run in > trouble with the (nonexistant) solenoid. My experience. I wonder how difficult it'd be to resurface the drum? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 15:03:16 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:03:16 -0800 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B7069A0.8070605@hachti.de> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B7069A0.8070605@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B700B94.19685.EDB1AB@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 20:44, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: > I adore it! Your first programmig language was probably Algol. :) (or Pascal or Modula-2, depending upon your vintage). --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 8 15:08:47 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:08:47 -0500 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B700B94.19685.EDB1AB@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B7069A0.8070605@hachti.de> <4B700B94.19685.EDB1AB@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4C304E03-9819-4EAB-B7CA-AF5566DAD182@neurotica.com> On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> I adore it! > > Your first programmig language was probably Algol. :) (or Pascal or > Modula-2, depending upon your vintage). I've written ALGOL code. It is FAR more elegant than VHDL. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 15:10:58 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:10:58 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: , <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 18:42, Andy Holt wrote: > I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) > > Now I wonder, "who won?" :) > > The easy answer is "C" :-) The curious thing is that the "structured" languages of the 70s (Pascal and Modula-2) seem to have regressed to minority languages. If anything, the language battles taught me that it's possible to write unintelligible code in *any* language. But I'd say that FORTRAN probably won the FORTRAN-Algol war in at least one respect. Most of the nuclear arms race software was done in it (or in dialects of it, such as LRLTRAN). I do not know what the Soviets used, but it probably wasn't FORTRAN. Let's see--the last standard revision to FORTRAN was Fortran 2003; that to Algol was, what, Algol-68? --Chuck From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Mon Feb 8 15:23:11 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:23:11 -0700 Subject: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B6FAEFB.4060907@bluewin.ch> <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B7080BF.5030200@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 8 Feb 2010 at 7:28, Jos Dreesen wrote: > >> VHDL vs Verilog is another holy war, and about as useful as a 6502 vs >> Z80 discussion. Thus I continue : Personally I pity those who never >> get into VHDL and stay with Verilog, and I will choose VHDL over >> Verilog any day. Oh the agony when forced to use a Verilog testbench >> from our US collegues..... > > I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) > > Now I wonder, "who won?" :) > > --Chuck > I say fortran ... They have compilers for it! :) I think they have the same problem with the very high level languages: NO IN/OUT. Ben. From n0body.h0me at inbox.com Mon Feb 8 15:31:51 2010 From: n0body.h0me at inbox.com (N0body H0me) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:31:51 -0800 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6DA351CFC7C.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: chd at chdickman.com > Sent: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:47:55 -0500 > To: > Subject: Re: 6809 SBC > > William Blair wrote: >> Having learned assembly language programming on the beautifully simple >> architecture and instruction set of the 6800, the Byte magazine article >> linked to below that I read when it was originally published really >> impressed me. In the 6809 they made one of the earliest efforts I know >> of to really tweak an already great uP instruction set based upon an >> analysis of existing software: >> >> http://tlindner.macmess.org/?page_id=119 >> > I was introduced to the 6809 when I was at university and it just seemed > right. I came home and bought a CoCo2 and an EDTASM+ cartridge just to > play with it. I still have it. > > Is there a source for 6829 MMUs? I would love to build a 6809 SBC with > an MMU that could run OS-9. > > -chuck From what little I've managed to gather, the 6829 had some limitations that made it either difficult to use, or otherwise impractical for many (if not most) applications. I've read someplace, for instance, that you were restricted to four tasks. I suspect for that reason, they're rarely seen. They were rare even in their own time. A better approach, may be to create some hardware to emulate either a Gimix or SwTPc style DAT (dynamic address translator). The key element here, is that both of these are supported by some version of OS/9. -Jeff From spectre at floodgap.com Mon Feb 8 15:38:07 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:38:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B700B94.19685.EDB1AB@cclist.sydex.com> from Chuck Guzis at "Feb 8, 10 01:03:16 pm" Message-ID: <201002082138.o18Lc7i3012910@floodgap.com> > > I adore it! > > Your first programmig language was probably Algol. :) (or Pascal or > Modula-2, depending upon your vintage). Pascal. But I did do some Mac programming in Modula-2 with MacMETH before I graduated to CodeWarrior and FutureBASIC. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Magic armour is not all it's cracked up to be. -- Terry Pratchett ---------- From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 15:41:58 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:41:58 -0500 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <6DA351CFC7C.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> <6DA351CFC7C.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:31 PM, N0body H0me wrote: > From what little I've managed to gather, the 6829 had some limitations that made it either difficult to use, or otherwise impractical for > many (if not most) applications. ?I've read someplace, for instance, that you were restricted to four tasks. ?I suspect for that reason, > they're rarely seen. ?They were rare even in their own time. I'd never heard of it before today (I was into the 6502 then as now). Glancing at the datasheet, yes, there are registers to handle 4 tasks, but you can apparently stack up to 8 6829s in one system for 32 tasks. With 20 bits of memory addressing, it seems a reasonable balance (32 tasks in 1MB), but finding room on a board to stuff eight 40-pin DIPs between the CPU and memory seems the harder job. -ethan From emu at e-bbes.com Mon Feb 8 15:59:28 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:59:28 -0700 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B6F512B.4030405@nktelco.net> <6DA351CFC7C.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> Message-ID: <4B708940.5090807@e-bbes.com> Ethan Dicks wrote: > I'd never heard of it before today (I was into the 6502 then as now). > Glancing at the datasheet, yes, there are registers to handle 4 tasks, > but you can apparently stack up to 8 6829s in one system for 32 tasks. > With 20 bits of memory addressing, it seems a reasonable balance (32 > tasks in 1MB), but finding room on a board to stuff eight 40-pin DIPs > between the CPU and memory seems the harder job. Just stack them ;-) most signals are connected parallel ... From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Mon Feb 8 16:05:16 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:05:16 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B708A9C.9080005@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: > Let's see--the last standard revision to FORTRAN was Fortran 2003; > that to Algol was, what, Algol-68? Umm I still like Fortran IV. I know you can get II or IV for the PDP8. Back on topic. The main advantage is Fortran's memory addressing does not require local variables like Algol type languages.C is in the middle, stack but not multi level indexing for simple variables. Only with mini-computer architecture - PDP 11 for example did other languages develop, other than LISP that never seems to have a practical form but always R&D type stuff. > --Chuck > Ben. From arcbe2001 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 8 16:25:08 2010 From: arcbe2001 at yahoo.com (Russ Bartlett) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:25:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <466136.66822.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Part of Primos O/S was written in FORTRAN as well their Prime Information ? (Pick like DBMS on Prime) Databasic.? Also? earlier DEC Dibol language.? On the other hand Algol was extensively used on the Burroughs as was central to its architecture (no assembler).? Burroughs had a highly advanced stack type architecture. Having used both - Algol!?? Algol people viewed Fortran people pretty much the same way COBOL guys viewed RPG people.? --- On Mon, 2/8/10, Andy Holt wrote: From: Andy Holt Subject: Algol vs FORTRAN was RE: VHDL vs Verilog To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" Date: Monday, February 8, 2010, 1:42 PM >>>> I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s.? :) ? Now I wonder, "who won?"? :) <<<< The easy answer is "C" :-) You can look at it at least two ways: * C has the structure of Algol with most of the dirty tricks and efficiency of FORTRAN. * C derives from multiple paths - ???One of these ia PL/I (which derives from Fortran, Algol, and COBOL) ???Another is from B which comes from BCPL which comes from CPL which was essentially an extended Algol However it seems that the saying: "I don't know what language engineers will use in the future, but I know they'll call it Fortran." has mostly turned-out mistaken. Andy From aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 8 14:05:50 2010 From: aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk (Andrew Burton) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:05:50 -0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC> Message-ID: <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa> Is that one license per item (e.g. we have two TV's and a Sega Game Gear with (analogue) TV Tuner), or one license per house? Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:37 PM Subject: RE: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 Oh, and you only need a licence to view content "live" (any contents, not just BBC or even any UK channels, satellite stuff too ...) on any device (TV, PC, phone, maybe even your fillings if you happen to be an oddball synaesthete). Antonio From arcarlini at iee.org Mon Feb 8 17:04:51 2010 From: arcarlini at iee.org (arcarlini at iee.org) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:04:51 -0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa> Message-ID: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org wrote: > Is that one license per item (e.g. we have two TV's and a > Sega Game Gear with (analogue) TV Tuner), or one license per house? Ring them and ask :-) Assuming single occupancy, then one per house. Tenants, students, hotels etc, and it becomes more complex. GameGear will presumably drop off the list of notifiable devices sometime after 2012 :-) BTW: can you successfully feed it from a set top box? Antonio From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 17:15:52 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:15:52 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <466136.66822.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: , <466136.66822.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B702AA8.25264.16716E1@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 14:25, Russ Bartlett wrote: > Having used both - Algol!?? Algol people viewed Fortran people pretty > much the same way COBOL guys viewed RPG people.? The curious thing is that the "portmanteu" languages, such as PL/I (FORTRAN, COBOL, Algol) or Ada inevitably seem to be less popular than the languages they were intended to supercede. --Chuck From afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 8 17:15:47 2010 From: afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk (Phill Harvey-Smith) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:15:47 +0000 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B709B23.5090003@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 8 Feb 2010 at 18:42, Andy Holt wrote: > >> I remember the Algol-FORTRAN cross-pond war of the 60s and 70s. :) >> >> Now I wonder, "who won?" :) >> >> The easy answer is "C" :-) > > The curious thing is that the "structured" languages of the 70s > (Pascal and Modula-2) seem to have regressed to minority languages. Humm, tell that to the Delphi programmers.....as Delphi is basically Pascal with some extra beslls. Ok I agree probably not as widely used as C, but still pretty popular as far as I can tell. And yeah I'm biased as I do do a lot of my code in Delphi/Pascal though I also do a fair amount of C too, each has it's strengths and weeknesses but something I learnt a long time ago is there's no one tool for every situation. Besides if we are talking about lines of code written I'd have to say that probably COBOL would beat even C...... Cheers, Phill. -- Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric ! "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush. From afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 8 17:21:29 2010 From: afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk (Phill Harvey-Smith) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:21:29 +0000 Subject: 6829 was 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <6DA351CFC7C.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> References: <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <6DA351CFC7C.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> Message-ID: <4B709C79.80002@aurigae.demon.co.uk> N0body H0me wrote: > From what little I've managed to gather, the 6829 had some limitations that made it either difficult to use, or otherwise impractical for > many (if not most) applications. I've read someplace, for instance, that you were restricted to four tasks. I suspect for that reason, > they're rarely seen. They were rare even in their own time. > > A better approach, may be to create some hardware to emulate either > a Gimix or SwTPc style DAT (dynamic address translator). The key > element here, is that both of these are supported by some version > of OS/9. The Dragon Beta/128 prototype also has a DAT implemented with a couple of small SRAMS and a bunch of LS/PAL logic, used the output of one of it's PIAs as a task select, and supported 16 tasks, and again was supported by OS-9. For those who don't know the Dragon Beta/128 was a prototype machine that Dragon data where working on when they went bust, it was pretty impressive specs for a machine of it's sort, dual 68B09s, up to 768K of RAM etc. Details and pics here : http://www.dragondata.co.uk/ Cheers, Phill. -- Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric ! "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush. From afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 8 17:30:40 2010 From: afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk (Phill Harvey-Smith) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:30:40 +0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa> References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC> <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa> Message-ID: <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> > From: > To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" > > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:37 PM > Subject: RE: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3 > > Oh, and you only need a licence to view content "live" (any contents, > not just BBC or even any UK channels, satellite stuff too ...) on > any device (TV, PC, phone, maybe even your fillings if you happen > to be an oddball synaesthete). Actually no, I believe it's a licence to recieve, not to view, which is why when you could still get a black and white licence at a cheaper price than colour, you still needed a colour license even if you had a black and white TV, if you also had a video recorder. The reason being that the video recorder could recieve and record a colour signal, even though you could only view it in black and white. Though that is a moot point now as I believe it's been about 5 years since the black and white license was phased out. Cheers. Phill. -- Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric ! "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush. From n0body.h0me at inbox.com Mon Feb 8 17:32:17 2010 From: n0body.h0me at inbox.com (N0body H0me) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:32:17 -0800 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: <4B708940.5090807@e-bbes.com> References: <4b6f512b.4030405@nktelco.net> <392936.72562.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <6da351cfc7c.00000473n0body.h0me@inbox.com> Message-ID: <6EB080FA052.00000571n0body.h0me@inbox.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: emu at e-bbes.com > Sent: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:59:28 -0700 > To: > Subject: Re: 6809 SBC > > Ethan Dicks wrote: >> I'd never heard of it before today (I was into the 6502 then as now). >> Glancing at the datasheet, yes, there are registers to handle 4 tasks, >> but you can apparently stack up to 8 6829s in one system for 32 tasks. >> With 20 bits of memory addressing, it seems a reasonable balance (32 >> tasks in 1MB), but finding room on a board to stuff eight 40-pin DIPs >> between the CPU and memory seems the harder job. > > Just stack them ;-) > most signals are connected parallel ... I'd like to see that! :^) Seriously, though, I don't think Moto had general-purpose operating system memory management in mind when they designed that part. The feeling I get is that it was seriously slanted towards embedded applications, where the size and number of tasks would be more fixed. While it's true that OS/9 can be (and has been) embedded, I suspect that the interest here would be to use it as a 'general purpose' OS for different applications. -Jeff ____________________________________________________________ FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family! Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more! From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 17:48:41 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:48:41 -0800 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC>, <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa>, <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B703259.3622.1852304@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 23:30, Phill Harvey-Smith wrote: > Actually no, I believe it's a licence to recieve, not to view, which > is why when you could still get a black and white licence at a cheaper > price than colour, you still needed a colour license even if you had a > black and white TV, if you also had a video recorder. The reason being > that the video recorder could recieve and record a colour signal, even > though you could only view it in black and white. > > Though that is a moot point now as I believe it's been about 5 years > since the black and white license was phased out. Really? According to this: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ The B&W animal is still available. You may have to special-order it, however. --Chuck From n0body.h0me at inbox.com Mon Feb 8 17:50:33 2010 From: n0body.h0me at inbox.com (N0body H0me) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:50:33 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B708A9C.9080005@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <6ED9562426E.0000058Dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca > Sent: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:05:16 -0700 > To: > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > Chuck Guzis wrote: > >> Let's see--the last standard revision to FORTRAN was Fortran 2003; >> that to Algol was, what, Algol-68? > > Umm I still like Fortran IV. I know you can get II or IV for the PDP8. Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad I could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. Now I'm all nostalgic. Time to dredge up the the ol' 11/73 from storage . . . . -Jeff From mcguire at neurotica.com Mon Feb 8 17:58:57 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:58:57 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <6ED9562426E.0000058Dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6ED9562426E.0000058Dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:50 PM, N0body H0me wrote: >>> Let's see--the last standard revision to FORTRAN was Fortran 2003; >>> that to Algol was, what, Algol-68? >> >> Umm I still like Fortran IV. I know you can get II or IV for the >> PDP8. > > Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as > as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as > a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, > exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad > I could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would > have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to real datatypes supported by the hardware? (in other words, which ones will actually be FAST?) > Now I'm all nostalgic. Time to dredge up the the ol' 11/73 from > storage . . . . That sounds like the Right Thing To Do(tm). -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 18:07:54 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:07:54 -0800 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC>, <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa>, <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B7036DA.21406.196BABD@cclist.sydex.com> What I find really strange is this: "A blind concession TV Licence costs ?71.25 for colour and ?24.00 for a black and white TV Licence." --Chuck From cclist at sydex.com Mon Feb 8 18:27:50 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:27:50 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, <6ED9562426E.0000058Dn0body.h0me@inbox.com>, Message-ID: <4B703B86.12802.1A8F87B@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 18:58, somebody wrote: > > Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as as > > science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as a > > *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, > > exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad I > > could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would > > have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. Consider the vintage of FORTRAN--mainframes did not universally enjoy computation in binary, much less ones' versus twos' complement. Character sets were of differing content, collating sequence and character length. Recursion as a permissable construct did not enter the language until fairly late (some systems lacked native stack facilities; the CDC 6000 series, like the PDP-8, simply stored a jump to the return address at the entry point of a subroutine). I/O implementation could be wildly different. ANSI X3 committee meetings were more like political conventions in some respects. I recall that when vector language features were being proposed for Fortran 8X (to become Fortran 90), the DEC and IBM contingent threatened to walk out of the proceedings because the committee decided not to simply assume IBM VECTRAN as its basis. It's really amazing that FORTRAN/Fortran is still around. --Chuck From afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 8 18:32:54 2010 From: afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk (Phill Harvey-Smith) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:32:54 +0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B703259.3622.1852304@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC>, <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa>, <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> <4B703259.3622.1852304@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B70AD36.40700@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 8 Feb 2010 at 23:30, Phill Harvey-Smith wrote: >> Though that is a moot point now as I believe it's been about 5 years >> since the black and white license was phased out. > > Really? > > According to this: > > http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ > > The B&W animal is still available. You may have to special-order it, > however. Well I seem to remember reading a story somewhere that they where phasing them out obviously they didn't in the end, but cirtainly they're no longer as available. Also they seem to have over doubled in price since last time I had a B&W it was only ?21ish in 1992 :) Cheers. Phill. -- Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric ! "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush. From n0body.h0me at inbox.com Mon Feb 8 18:32:10 2010 From: n0body.h0me at inbox.com (N0body H0me) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:32:10 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: mcguire at neurotica.com > Sent: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:58:57 -0500 > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > On Feb 8, 2010, at 6:50 PM, N0body H0me wrote: >>>> Let's see--the last standard revision to FORTRAN was Fortran 2003; >>>> that to Algol was, what, Algol-68? >>> >>> Umm I still like Fortran IV. I know you can get II or IV for the >>> PDP8. >> >> Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as >> as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as >> a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, >> exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad >> I could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would >> have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. > > Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to > real datatypes supported by the hardware? (in other words, which > ones will actually be FAST?) That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than they would be if they were coded using more traditional methods. Our school didn't have a float point unit on our PDP-11; I was *certain* that DEC's FORTRAN compiler could generate much faster code than anything I could bodge together using BASIC (of any stripe), and I could code it in less time. My principal fascination with FORTRAN from the beginning, was that it had this 'purpose built' feature to easily handle complex math (and it did it quite well, IIRC). I have great respect for individuals who insist on purpose-built tools. -Jeff > >> Now I'm all nostalgic. Time to dredge up the the ol' 11/73 from >> storage . . . . > > That sounds like the Right Thing To Do(tm). > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL From afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk Mon Feb 8 18:35:10 2010 From: afra at aurigae.demon.co.uk (Phill Harvey-Smith) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:35:10 +0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B7036DA.21406.196BABD@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC>, <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa>, <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> <4B7036DA.21406.196BABD@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B70ADBE.3080905@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Chuck Guzis wrote: > What I find really strange is this: > > "A blind concession TV Licence costs ?71.25 for colour and ?24.00 for > a black and white TV Licence." Well presumably if you say live in a house with a sighted person they are still capable of watching in colour or black and white, but if you are the person paying the license but blind. Just a guess that is :) Phill. -- Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric ! "You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush. From cisin at xenosoft.com Mon Feb 8 19:03:21 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:03:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <20100208170155.U71439@shell.lmi.net> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Chuck Guzis wrote: > If anything, the language battles taught me that it's possible to > write unintelligible code in *any* language. "A REAL programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any language." From n0body.h0me at inbox.com Mon Feb 8 19:19:04 2010 From: n0body.h0me at inbox.com (N0body H0me) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:19:04 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B703B86.12802.1A8F87B@cclist.sydex.com> References: <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <6F9F2A919A0.00000635n0body.h0me@inbox.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: cclist at sydex.com > Sent: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:27:50 -0800 > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > On 8 Feb 2010 at 18:58, somebody wrote: > >>> Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as as >>> science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as a >>> *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, >>> exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad I >>> could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would >>> have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. > > Consider the vintage of FORTRAN--mainframes did not universally enjoy > computation in binary, much less ones' versus twos' complement. > Character sets were of differing content, collating sequence and > character length. Recursion as a permissable construct did not enter > the language until fairly late (some systems lacked native stack > facilities; the CDC 6000 series, like the PDP-8, simply stored a jump > to the return address at the entry point of a subroutine). I/O > implementation could be wildly different. Point taken: There is only so much you can do to facilitate portability when such fundamental differences exist. This diversity doesn't exist today, and I think we are the worse for it. I suspect each of those approaches gave their machines some advantage or suitability for different tasks. Today, we just throw more MIPS at our one-cpu-fits-all approach. > ANSI X3 committee meetings were more like political conventions in > some respects. I recall that when vector language features were being > proposed for Fortran 8X (to become Fortran 90), the DEC and IBM > contingent threatened to walk out of the proceedings because the > committee decided not to simply assume IBM VECTRAN as its basis. Sigh. That's what happens when the focus shifts away from the science of computing and on to marketing. I'll never deny marketing's role in making computing accessible to everyone; but I'm holding it accountable for seriously messing up good ideas and consigning them to oblivion because they don't think it will sell. > It's really amazing that FORTRAN/Fortran is still around. I think maybe that speaks more of the solidity of the earlier implementations of that language, rather than 'advances' made since the PC era. -Jeff ____________________________________________________________ Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click. Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out! From arcbe2001 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 8 19:39:34 2010 From: arcbe2001 at yahoo.com (Russ Bartlett) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:39:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B702AA8.25264.16716E1@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <34486.5163.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> A lot of the earlier application software was written in FORTRAN.? I first used it on an IBM 1620, and 1130.?? FORTRAN had the weight of IBM behind it.? I'd say Algol was far more influential on the design of other languages and for that reason I think it was a better language.? Algol's I/O sucked though. ?? As I recall the Elliot 803 had an Algol compiler.??? IBM had a lot sway on the market; FORTRAN, PL/I and RPG.?? --- On Mon, 2/8/10, Chuck Guzis wrote: From: Chuck Guzis Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Date: Monday, February 8, 2010, 6:15 PM On 8 Feb 2010 at 14:25, Russ Bartlett wrote: > Having used both - Algol!?? Algol people viewed Fortran people pretty > much the same way COBOL guys viewed RPG people.? The curious thing is that the "portmanteu" languages, such as PL/I (FORTRAN, COBOL, Algol) or Ada inevitably seem to be less popular than the languages they were intended to supercede. --Chuck From IanK at vulcan.com Mon Feb 8 22:23:45 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:23:45 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B703B86.12802.1A8F87B@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, <6ED9562426E.0000058Dn0body.h0me@inbox.com>, , <4B703B86.12802.1A8F87B@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: FORTRAN is an example of a targeted solution to a problem space and, as such, is still quite useful. I consider C to be my 'mother tongue' (despite having learned FORTRAN years earlier), but if I were doing straight numeric work I'd much rather do it in something like FORTRAN because I don't have to spend my time building program 'infrastructure' instead of writing math algorithms. -- Ian ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis [cclist at sydex.com] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:27 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog On 8 Feb 2010 at 18:58, somebody wrote: > > Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as as > > science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as a > > *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, > > exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad I > > could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would > > have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. Consider the vintage of FORTRAN--mainframes did not universally enjoy computation in binary, much less ones' versus twos' complement. Character sets were of differing content, collating sequence and character length. Recursion as a permissable construct did not enter the language until fairly late (some systems lacked native stack facilities; the CDC 6000 series, like the PDP-8, simply stored a jump to the return address at the entry point of a subroutine). I/O implementation could be wildly different. ANSI X3 committee meetings were more like political conventions in some respects. I recall that when vector language features were being proposed for Fortran 8X (to become Fortran 90), the DEC and IBM contingent threatened to walk out of the proceedings because the committee decided not to simply assume IBM VECTRAN as its basis. It's really amazing that FORTRAN/Fortran is still around. --Chuck From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Mon Feb 8 23:27:08 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:27:08 -0700 Subject: 6809 SBC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B70F22C.9040007@jetnet.ab.ca> Mark Tapley wrote: > might be a useful alternative to eBay. Refurbished CoCo3's are among the > other goodies on the site. For the "power user", you can get 512k memory > expansions, a serial link to your PC to use as disk storage > ("Drivewire"), NitOS-9 in ROM, 6309 CPU upgrade, IDE or SCSI adaptors, > etc. etc. What about application software? From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 00:00:57 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:00:57 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B703B86.12802.1A8F87B@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B708999.759.2D9F245@cclist.sydex.com> On 8 Feb 2010 at 20:23, Ian King wrote: > FORTRAN is an example of a targeted solution to a problem space and, > as such, is still quite useful. I consider C to be my 'mother tongue' > (despite having learned FORTRAN years earlier), but if I were doing > straight numeric work I'd much rather do it in something like FORTRAN > because I don't have to spend my time building program > 'infrastructure' instead of writing math algorithms. Few remember that many early microprocessor cross-assemblers were written in FORTRAN to execute on whatever mini- or mainframe you had available, be it a Data General Nova or CDC 7600. Inevitably, these programs would start with a READ of a statement using A1 format into an array to obtain the character set of the host. Character manipulation was then handled by referencing this array. At the time, FORTRAN was probably the most portable language that there was, as long as one wasn't tempted to give in to using a vendor's unique language extensions. Was COBOL 75 the first ANSI language standard that prohibited such extensions? Not that anyone paid much attention other than implementing a "strict ANSI checking" compiler switch. --Chuck From pete at dunnington.plus.com Tue Feb 9 01:31:22 2010 From: pete at dunnington.plus.com (Pete Turnbull) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:31:22 +0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B70ADBE.3080905@aurigae.demon.co.uk> References: <4EAC59415E584083A435637C481C7648@ANTONIOPC>, <00b301caa90f$3074b940$9bfdf93e@user8459cef6fa>, <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> <4B7036DA.21406.196BABD@cclist.sydex.com> <4B70ADBE.3080905@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <4B710F4A.3020500@dunnington.plus.com> On 09/02/2010 00:35, Phill Harvey-Smith wrote: > Chuck Guzis wrote: >> What I find really strange is this: >> >> "A blind concession TV Licence costs ?71.25 for colour and ?24.00 for >> a black and white TV Licence." > > Well presumably if you say live in a house with a sighted person they > are still capable of watching in colour or black and white, but if you > are the person paying the license but blind. True, but the real reason for the concession is that in this case "blind" includes many that the rest of us might describe as "partially sighted". So those who can't take full advantage of the full colour moving picture experience pay less. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York From andyh at andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk Tue Feb 9 00:43:07 2010 From: andyh at andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk (Andy Holt) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:43:07 -0000 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <20100208170155.U71439@shell.lmi.net> References: , <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> <20100208170155.U71439@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4C0F05A8DE57495E8C984F868CF52F48@xp32vm> >>>> "A REAL programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any language." <<<< But has to really work at it to do so in a functional language :-) [perhaps why I stick to imperative languages] From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 02:02:01 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:02:01 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> Message-ID: <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:32 PM, N0body H0me wrote: >>> Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as >>> as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as >>> a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, custom, >>> exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was sure glad >>> I could do complex math without all of the extra baggage that would >>> have been necessary if I had to use, say, BASIC-Plus. >> >> Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to >> real datatypes supported by the hardware? (in other words, which >> ones will actually be FAST?) > > That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are > slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than > they would be if they were coded using more traditional methods. "More traditional methods"? Just "the way processors execute code" would be a good start. Processors aren't object-oriented in nature. This is one of the reasons why we have computers with multi- GHz processors that barely get out of their own way. The constructs commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere close to mapping to hardware efficiently. > Our school didn't have a float point unit on our PDP-11; I was > *certain* that DEC's FORTRAN compiler could generate much faster > code than anything I could bodge together using BASIC (of any stripe), > and I could code it in less time. Indeed. What model of -11 was it? My first PDP-11, an 11/34a around 1985 or so, came with an FP-11A. I spent many a late night hacking on fun stuff like fractal algorithms and such, much to my grandmother's annoyance. It'd be 2AM on a school night, she'd trudge by my bedroom door in her slippers and bathrobe, and I'd look up from my terminal and see her glaring at me, her annoyed face illuminated only by the "ready" lights of the RL02s and RK07, and the KY11-LB displays on the 11/34a. The FP-11A was one of my favorite parts of that system. > My principal fascination with FORTRAN from the beginning, was > that it had this 'purpose built' feature to easily handle complex > math (and it did it quite well, IIRC). I have great respect for > individuals who insist on purpose-built tools. It was built to solve problems that often involved complex numbers. I respect it for the same reason. I'm also impressed with it because it's *fast* for Big Math. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From hachti at hachti.de Tue Feb 9 03:03:45 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:03:45 +0100 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <4B707324.5050906@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B7124F1.8040604@hachti.de> > Oops. I didn't actually look at the auction. The solenoid assembly > would be impossible to find and very difficult to fabricate. I should put one of those on eBay... The one who pays $200 for the plotter will probably pay some $100 more for the pen holder! > I wonder how difficult it'd be to resurface the drum? Hm, if you don't insist on a perfect aluminium surface....like me.... I used the stuff you use for your car to fill some holes on a 563 drum. Looks ugly, feels smooth - and works again. Regards, Philipp -- http://www.hachti.de From hachti at hachti.de Tue Feb 9 03:43:09 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:43:09 +0100 Subject: cpld design In-Reply-To: <4B700B94.19685.EDB1AB@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B6EEE12.1055.1E449E7@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B7069A0.8070605@hachti.de> <4B700B94.19685.EDB1AB@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B712E2D.6030109@hachti.de> Hm....! >> I adore it! > > Your first programmig language was probably Algol. :) (or Pascal or > Modula-2, depending upon your vintage). My vintage is 1978.... So... Ok, you're probably right with Pascal for me. But to be 100% correct: Omicron Basic on Atari ST, then GfA-Basic. Then Microsoft QBasic on my 286 notebook. Turbo Pascal (and traces of Delphi) followed. Learned OOP and Java at University (using commandline javac and editing with Emacs). First C in autumn of 2000 as I remember. :-) VHDL in conjunction with the XEmacs VHDL mode is unbeatable! Regards, Philipp -- http://www.hachti.de From hachti at hachti.de Tue Feb 9 03:52:23 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:52:23 +0100 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4C0F05A8DE57495E8C984F868CF52F48@xp32vm> References: , <4B6FD060.26695.66EBA@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B700D62.20109.F4BCA6@cclist.sydex.com> <20100208170155.U71439@shell.lmi.net> <4C0F05A8DE57495E8C984F868CF52F48@xp32vm> Message-ID: <4B713057.4040301@hachti.de> > But has to really work at it to do so in a functional language :-) > [perhaps why I stick to imperative languages] PostScript I like do Postscript let's so [sorry, grammar was lost somewhere on the way to stack programming] -- http://www.hachti.de From robert at irrelevant.com Tue Feb 9 03:59:46 2010 From: robert at irrelevant.com (Rob) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:59:46 +0000 Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? Message-ID: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> Hi All. I've been quiet for far too long on this list. Had set myself to no-mail because of lack of time.... back now. Recently, I've been setting up www.viewdata.org.uk to try and remember and resurrect as much of the old BT Prestel and other period viewdata systems as I can. (For those who don't know, viewdata was a 1970s British Post Office (Later British Telecom) invention that allowed subscribers to access news, information, email, downloadable software, chatlines, etc etc. All in a 40x25 display with colour and block graphics. It was big in the 1980s, and gone by 1994... Minitel in france was a derivation, and apart from some specialist closed-access applications, about the only example that survives.) anyway... I've found somebody that has an archive of their pages from Prestel, and we'd both liketo get them up on the site. The snag, for me, is that a lot of it is on 8" discs, from a Technologics(?) system. The photographs of the discs I have seen show them labelled as 48tpi, soft sectored. The positive point is that he still has the original computer, but "it's not been switched on for 20 years" so I'm hesitant on telling him to try it...! So. Is there anybody in the UK (Birmingham or Manchester areas) that has facilities to read 8" discs and drop the contents (straight sector by sector image would be fine if it's not in a common format) onto some more modern media? Or someone who knows about old Technologics machines (I'd not heard of it before.) and can check this one out.. Failing all that.. anybody got a spare drive that I might be able to link up to a machine I do have? (PCs and Acorn machines). Thanks in advance! Rob. From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 03:10:08 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:10:08 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:32 PM, N0body H0me wrote: >> >> That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are slower >> and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than they >> would be if they were coded using more traditional methods. > > "More traditional methods"? Just "the way processors execute code" > would be a good start. Processors aren't object-oriented in nature. > This is one of the reasons why we have computers with multi-GHz > processors that barely get out of their own way. The constructs > commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere close to mapping > to hardware efficiently. What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? (And in what language(s)?) - Josh > > -Dave > From nico at farumdata.dk Tue Feb 9 05:19:27 2010 From: nico at farumdata.dk (Nico de Jong) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:19:27 +0100 Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? References: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <514D6622B4C04CEC9DF90DF629F07904@udvikling> From: "Rob" Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? > Hi All. > > > Recently, I've been setting up www.viewdata.org.uk to try and remember > and resurrect as much of the old BT Prestel and other period viewdata > systems as I can. > anyway... I've found somebody that has an archive of their pages from > Prestel, and we'd both liketo get them up on the site. The snag, for > me, is that a lot of it is on 8" discs, from a Technologics(?) system. > The photographs of the discs I have seen show them labelled as 48tpi, > soft sectored. > > So. Is there anybody in the UK (Birmingham or Manchester areas) Would Denmark be ok, "worst case" ? > that > has facilities to read 8" discs and drop the contents (straight sector > by sector image would be fine if it's not in a common format) onto > some more modern media? > > Failing all that.. anybody got a spare drive that I might be able to > link up to a machine I do have? (PCs and Acorn machines). > I have some drives, but hooking it up to a modern PC is not easily done. Ideally, you would find e.g. a '486 and a MicroSolutions IV card. For the 8" drive (at least the ones I have), you need a +24VDC for the motor, and the power connectors can be a problem. I have 3 or 4 drives, and all connectors are different... If you dare sending the disks by registered mail or courier, I'd be happy to give it a try. Nico From andy at flirble.org Tue Feb 9 05:46:05 2010 From: andy at flirble.org (Andrew Back) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:46:05 +0000 Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? In-Reply-To: <514D6622B4C04CEC9DF90DF629F07904@udvikling> References: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> <514D6622B4C04CEC9DF90DF629F07904@udvikling> Message-ID: <20100209114605.GB25652@plum.flirble.org> The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley have machines with 8" drives. IIRC a Research Machines 380Z, for one, and I'm sure there will be others. They might be interested in a copy of the software for their archives too. Cheers, Andrew On (12:19 09/02/10), Nico de Jong wrote: > From: "Rob" > Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? > > > >Hi All. > > > > > >Recently, I've been setting up www.viewdata.org.uk to try and remember > >and resurrect as much of the old BT Prestel and other period viewdata > >systems as I can. > > >anyway... I've found somebody that has an archive of their pages from > >Prestel, and we'd both liketo get them up on the site. The snag, for > >me, is that a lot of it is on 8" discs, from a Technologics(?) system. > >The photographs of the discs I have seen show them labelled as 48tpi, > >soft sectored. > > > >So. Is there anybody in the UK (Birmingham or Manchester areas) > > Would Denmark be ok, "worst case" ? > > >that > >has facilities to read 8" discs and drop the contents (straight sector > >by sector image would be fine if it's not in a common format) onto > >some more modern media? > > > >Failing all that.. anybody got a spare drive that I might be able to > >link up to a machine I do have? (PCs and Acorn machines). > > > > I have some drives, but hooking it up to a modern PC is not easily done. > Ideally, you would find e.g. a '486 and a MicroSolutions IV card. > For the 8" drive (at least the ones I have), you need a +24VDC for the > motor, and the power connectors can be a problem. I have 3 or 4 drives, > and all connectors are different... > > If you dare sending the disks by registered mail or courier, I'd be > happy to give it a try. > > Nico -- Andrew Back a at smokebelch.org From robert at irrelevant.com Tue Feb 9 07:48:01 2010 From: robert at irrelevant.com (Rob) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:48:01 +0000 Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? In-Reply-To: <20100209114605.GB25652@plum.flirble.org> References: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> <514D6622B4C04CEC9DF90DF629F07904@udvikling> <20100209114605.GB25652@plum.flirble.org> Message-ID: <2f806cd71002090548t6406ba46t2fa884fed09ace9b@mail.gmail.com> On 09/02/2010, Andrew Back wrote: > The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley have machines with 8" drives. > IIRC a Research Machines 380Z, for one, and I'm sure there will be others. > They might be interested in a copy of the software for their archives too. Hmm. They are certainly a possibility; I was hoping for somebody or someone closer to me, or the discs, though.. I do know they are interested in having some sort of system up and running to demo viewdata, although I don't know if the original machine I know about had any form of host on it, or if it was just an off-line editing system. It's more the data I'm interested in, but of course the software is an interest in itself. Irritating in a way - I just remembered where I'd seen an abandoned machine with 8" drives that was a memory niggling me: in the workshop of a former employer that has subsequently gone bust, and it would have been getting on for 20 years ago anyway! Thanks.. Rob From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 9 08:14:28 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:14:28 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 8, 2010, at 7:32 PM, N0body H0me wrote: > >>> Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as > >>> as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as > >>> a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, > >>> custom, exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was > >>> sure glad I could do complex math without all of the extra > >>> baggage that would have been necessary if I had to use, say, > >>> BASIC-Plus. > >> > >> Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to > >> real datatypes supported by the hardware? (in other words, which > >> ones will actually be FAST?) > > > > That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are > > slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than > > they would be if they were coded using more traditional methods. > > "More traditional methods"? Just "the way processors execute > code" would be a good start. Processors aren't object-oriented in > nature. This is one of the reasons why we have computers with multi- > GHz processors that barely get out of their own way. The constructs > commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere close to mapping > to hardware efficiently. But, isn't the point of programming languages to make it easier for the programmer to create programs? Computers are fast; people are slow. Have you ever tried writing code against GTK (not-quite-OOP jammed into C) vs Qt (real OOP using C++)? GTK is such a pile of sh*t to try to write code for, in my opinion. Now, I'm not saying that I appreciate OOP in every case, but it seems to be darn useful when writing GUI-based applications. Oh, and don't forget that most of the code on running your favorite Mac was written in Objective C... Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 9 08:28:03 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:28:03 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> Message-ID: <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Sunday 07 February 2010, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: > > URRRRRRRRR!!! Wantwantwant! Being broke SUCKS! > > the plotter is in poor condition: > 1. The drum is damaged. You'll probably have to fix that before it > will be able to plot properly. There's a small dent, less than 1mm deep. The shadows in the photo make it look bigger than it actually is. Some Bondo car-body filler would probably take care of that in short order. > 2. It is dirty. Oh noes! It's old, what do you expect? I've found that spending time on cleaning things I put on ebay (beyond wipe the dust off with a rag) rarely helps the sale price. > 3. There are no cables. Cables are harder to find than the plotter > itself. If you don't have the cables, just replace the connector with something else. If you don't want to do that, then just appreciate the fact that you have a computer artifact from over 30 years ago. I find it amusing when people on here say "oh, that's not rare, it so trivial to find them." In 99% of cases, it's not. Just because you might have a stash of something doesn't mean that there's any more available from anywhere else. It takes real work, luck, and/or a lot of cash to find a lot of computer stuff that's more than 20 years old. > 4. No pen. It will be challinging to get a pen holder for > the plotter. Shrug. I can't help there. I got the plotter in mostly the same condition as what I'm selling it in (they're cleaner now than before). You can blame probably 30 years of being stored on missing parts and dirt. > 5. No trace of paper. Getting paper for this kind of > plotter seems to be difficult to impossible (correct me if I'm > wrong, still hoping..!!!). There's a few feet of paper on it still, but it's not much. I'm sure that if you were sufficiently motivated, you could punch holes into some roll of paper that's commonly available, if you can't still buy the same paper that this uses. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Tue Feb 9 09:03:47 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:03:47 +0000 Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? In-Reply-To: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B717953.9090908@philpem.me.uk> Rob wrote: > anyway... I've found somebody that has an archive of their pages from > Prestel, and we'd both liketo get them up on the site. The snag, for > me, is that a lot of it is on 8" discs, from a Technologics(?) system. > The photographs of the discs I have seen show them labelled as 48tpi, > soft sectored. Find someone who can lend me a 48tpi 8in drive and I'll image them with the DiscFerret analyser prototype (currently sitting on my desk next to me). Think "Catweasel with attitude". That'll get you a raw, timing-value image of the disc, which can then be processed with a suitable decoder (suspect it's probably FM encoding, IBM/ECMA-format or some variant thereof) to recover the data. If nothing else it gives me more test data to feed to the analyser (never a bad thing) and another format to reverse-engineer. -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From hachti at hachti.de Tue Feb 9 10:30:05 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:30:05 +0100 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Hi, > There's a small dent, less than 1mm deep. The shadows in the photo make > it look bigger than it actually is. Some Bondo car-body filler would > probably take care of that in short order. Yes, but that has to be done. I had a 563 not lifting the pen correctly over such a little dent... It's easily done. Cheap. And takes less than one hour of work. Other thing is to replace the rubber belts inside (for the paper roll drive). But that's not too important. >> 2. It is dirty. > > Oh noes! It's old, what do you expect? I've found that spending time > on cleaning things I put on ebay (beyond wipe the dust off with a rag) > rarely helps the sale price. Not?!? I suspect that selling something nice and clean and - most important - without the remark "untested and sold as is" will bring way more. It's easy to test the plotter. On eBay "untested" usually is an euphemism for "I tried to get it working but it didn't work. But I won't tell you that. Just know that I guarantee for nothing". > I find it amusing when people on here say "oh, that's not rare, it so > trivial to find them." In 99% of cases, it's not. Just because you > might have a stash of something doesn't mean that there's any more > available from anywhere else. I find those plotters on a regularly basis. Not one time several units. But one here, one there etc. The first came from scrap, the second for EUR 1 from eBay (complete with cables), the third one came with the 11/40 (that cost me some money - about a quarter of the transport costs). The fourth (long one) was luckily found elsewhere. And between all finds lay several months. And they were not related by any means. So I can say that those units are still dropping in from time to time. What I don't have are the ink pens. I'm still looking for them. BTW it's the same with Teletype ASR33 and 35. In fact it's not always easy to get rid of those if they're not in pristine condition. > It takes real work, luck, and/or a lot of > cash to find a lot of computer stuff that's more than 20 years old. Some work, yes. Or probably cash. But not both :-) >> 4. No pen. It will be challinging to get a pen holder for >> the plotter. > > Shrug. I can't help there. I got the plotter in mostly the same > condition as what I'm selling it in (they're cleaner now than before). > You can blame probably 30 years of being stored on missing parts and > dirt. As I posted below: I could provide one. Will probably put it on eBay and post the link. Regards, Philipp -- http://www.hachti.de From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 11:54:55 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:54:55 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: >>>>> Here, here. The thing that impressed me about FORTRAN (well, as >>>>> as science major, anyway) was that it could do complex numbers as >>>>> a *NATIVE* datatype!! Now, I know for you OOP and C++ guys, >>>>> custom, exotic datatypes are a dime a dozen. But in 1980, I was >>>>> sure glad I could do complex math without all of the extra >>>>> baggage that would have been necessary if I had to use, say, >>>>> BASIC-Plus. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but how often do those C++ custom exotic datatypes map to >>>> real datatypes supported by the hardware? (in other words, which >>>> ones will actually be FAST?) >>> >>> That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are >>> slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than >>> they would be if they were coded using more traditional methods. >> >> "More traditional methods"? Just "the way processors execute >> code" would be a good start. Processors aren't object-oriented in >> nature. This is one of the reasons why we have computers with multi- >> GHz processors that barely get out of their own way. The constructs >> commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere close to mapping >> to hardware efficiently. > > But, isn't the point of programming languages to make it easier for > the > programmer to create programs? Computers are fast; people are slow. Yes of course, but it has gone WAY TOO FAR in the other direction. There's been this crazy idea that saving EVEN FIVE MINUTES of programmer time is worth ANY amount of processor time or ANY amount of memory that you'd have to spend. The mentality is similar to that surrounding today's school buses (in the US anyway, don't know how they look elsewhere)...Increase visibility at ANY cost, blindly pushing forward, completely ignoring any other ramifications. Now we have school buses with WAY too many blinking and flashing lights all over them that end up causing distraction on the road, sometimes to the point of causing the accidents that they're trying to prevent. And it just gets worse every year. I'm all for saving programmer time...I'm a programmer, and I'm lazy too. But when a computer takes forever to grind through the simplest of operations to enable me to "write the program" by clicking and drooling for five minutes instead of actually doing a little work, it has gone too far. > Have you ever tried writing code against GTK (not-quite-OOP jammed > into > C) vs Qt (real OOP using C++)? GTK is such a pile of sh*t to try to > write code for, in my opinion. Yes I have, both. And yes, it's terrible. GTK is a steaming pile of llama poop for a number of reasons. And they're both slower than pissing tar. > Now, I'm not saying that I appreciate OOP in every case, but it > seems to > be darn useful when writing GUI-based applications. Useful in saving programmer time, yes. But look at the result! A modern multi-GHz Linux box running GTK is far less "responsive"- feeling than my old SPARCstation-IPX running fvwm when just tooling around the GUI. A little more time spent by the programmers, ignoring the "easy way out" or heavy OO programming and it'd be FAR faster. So, spend a little time now, ONCE, and make a million Linux boxes twice as fast? That sounds like a good deal to me. Yes I know GTK isn't written in an OO language, but I'm talking about OO *techniques*...just like some programmers (I may be guilty of this) can "write C in any language", some programmers seem to be able to write C++ any any language. > Oh, and don't > forget that most of the code on running your favorite Mac was > written in > Objective C... ...which is something that I'm terribly annoyed with. It's fast, but it should be a LOT faster, for the powerful processors it has. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 12:00:17 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:00:17 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:10 AM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>> That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are >>> slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP >>> than they would be if they were coded using more traditional >>> methods. >> >> "More traditional methods"? Just "the way processors execute >> code" would be a good start. Processors aren't object-oriented in >> nature. This is one of the reasons why we have computers with >> multi-GHz processors that barely get out of their own way. The >> constructs commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere >> close to mapping to hardware efficiently. > > What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly > inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? > (And in what language(s)?) OBJECTS! Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to that paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that corresponds to how badly they match the paradigm. And objects don't map to it at all. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From spectre at floodgap.com Tue Feb 9 12:06:54 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:06:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> from Dave McGuire at "Feb 9, 10 01:00:17 pm" Message-ID: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> > > What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly > > inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? > > (And in what language(s)?) > > OBJECTS! > > Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not > objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to > that paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that > corresponds to how badly they match the paradigm. And objects don't > map to it at all. Rekursiv! I liked a lot of the ideas in the 432. Too bad it was a pig. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- TRUE HEADLINE: Teacher Strikes Idle Kids ----------------------------------- From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 12:13:20 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:13:20 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: >>> I find it amusing when people on here say "oh, that's not rare, >>> it so >>> trivial to find them." In 99% of cases, it's not. Just because >>> you might have a stash of something doesn't mean that there's any >>> more available from anywhere else. >> > I find those plotters on a regularly basis. Not one time several > units. But one here, one there etc. The first came from scrap, the > second for EUR 1 from eBay (complete with cables), the third one > came with the 11/40 (that cost me some money - about a quarter of > the transport costs). The fourth (long one) was luckily found > elsewhere. And between all finds lay several months. And they were > not related by any means. So I can say that those units are still > dropping in from time to time. I have been looking for a 565, no joke, for fifteen years. I had one on my very first PDP-8/e when I was about 15, I loved the thing, then I stupidly sold it. I regretted it badly about a year later and have been looking for one ever since. If they're so common over there, would you consider shipping me one? (when I can afford it, which should be soon) > What I don't have are the ink pens. I'm still looking for them. If you have the solenoid assembly, it's not difficult to take a standard ball-point pen ink tube, trim it down and fit it in there. I last did it 25 years ago, and I don't recall the details, but I don't remember it giving me much trouble. > BTW it's the same with Teletype ASR33 and 35. In fact it's not > always easy to get rid of those if they're not in pristine condition. ...it took me nearly a decade to find one of those. I'm not particularly bad at finding stuff, but I live in a part of the (my) country where there is NO classic hardware. "Old computer" here means "2GHz Pentium-4". Yes, sometimes I really want to move, and I probably will, because this area doesn't support the lifestyle that I want to live...which includes getting cool computer hardware on a regular basis. My ASR-33 came from Boston; I picked it up when I was up there with a truck moving a mainframe for my employer. I'd have driven up there just for that if I had to. I know YOU find a lot of this stuff...I assure you that's not the norm. I sure wish it were! -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 12:16:40 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:16:40 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: >>> What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly >>> inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? >>> (And in what language(s)?) >> >> OBJECTS! >> >> Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not >> objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to >> that paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that >> corresponds to how badly they match the paradigm. And objects don't >> map to it at all. > > Rekursiv! > > I liked a lot of the ideas in the 432. Too bad it was a pig. Me too. I wonder if enough architectural information is out there to resurrect the design. Intel will surely never do it. (not that they necessarily should) -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From teoz at neo.rr.com Tue Feb 9 12:25:28 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:25:28 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de><201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org><4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:13 PM Subject: Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter > ...it took me nearly a decade to find one of those. I'm not > particularly bad at finding stuff, but I live in a part of the (my) > country where there is NO classic hardware. "Old computer" here means > "2GHz Pentium-4". Yes, sometimes I really want to move, and I probably > will, because this area doesn't support the lifestyle that I want to > live...which includes getting cool computer hardware on a regular basis. > > My ASR-33 came from Boston; I picked it up when I was up there with a > truck moving a mainframe for my employer. I'd have driven up there just > for that if I had to. I know YOU find a lot of this stuff...I assure you > that's not the norm. I sure wish it were! > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL Hmm, every time I see a deal on Amiga equipment it seems to be in FL (all the good stuff you want is always somewhere else I guess). From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 12:34:18 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:34:18 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de><201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org><4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: <9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Teo Zenios wrote: >> ...it took me nearly a decade to find one of those. I'm not >> particularly bad at finding stuff, but I live in a part of the >> (my) country where there is NO classic hardware. "Old computer" >> here means "2GHz Pentium-4". Yes, sometimes I really want to >> move, and I probably will, because this area doesn't support the >> lifestyle that I want to live...which includes getting cool >> computer hardware on a regular basis. >> >> My ASR-33 came from Boston; I picked it up when I was up there >> with a truck moving a mainframe for my employer. I'd have driven >> up there just for that if I had to. I know YOU find a lot of >> this stuff...I assure you that's not the norm. I sure wish it were! > > Hmm, every time I see a deal on Amiga equipment it seems to be in > FL (all the good stuff you want is always somewhere else I guess). Where?!! But, admittedly I'm talking about stuff a good bit older than that, like PDP-11s, Calcomp 565s, and ASR-33s. I'd love to have an Amiga again. My boss is an Amiga nut; he promised to give me a nice complete A1000 setup when he has some time to put it all together and make it perfect. I'm looking forward to adopting it. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 12:37:50 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:37:50 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> Message-ID: <4B71AB7E.7060900@jetnet.ab.ca> Dave McGuire wrote: > Me too. I wonder if enough architectural information is out there to > resurrect the design. Intel will surely never do it. (not that they > necessarily should) I think the problem is the machine has *too small* a memory. The other problem is several languages: FORTH LISP come to mind as they don't cache or pipe-line well. > -Dave Ben. PS. The only small portable compiler I can find is Small C - version 1.0. From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 12:44:51 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:44:51 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:10 AM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>>> That's certainly an issue. I wonder how many applications are >>>> slower and more overweight due to their being crafted with OOP than >>>> they would be if they were coded using more traditional methods. >>> >>> "More traditional methods"? Just "the way processors execute >>> code" would be a good start. Processors aren't object-oriented in >>> nature. This is one of the reasons why we have computers with >>> multi-GHz processors that barely get out of their own way. The >>> constructs commonly used in OO programming don't come anywhere close >>> to mapping to hardware efficiently. >> >> What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly >> inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? (And >> in what language(s)?) > > OBJECTS! > > Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not > objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to that > paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that corresponds to > how badly they match the paradigm. And objects don't map to it at all. > That's not answering my question. What part of implementing OBJECTS! are modern compilers for OO-language-du-jour incapable of translating efficiently to native machine code? And why? And what exactly is the performance hit in the cases you're thinking of? How, precisely, do objects NOT map to registers or memory locations in modern OO languages? Where does the inefficiency come in? How much faster than a Sparc IPX running FVWM would my machine be if my existing software had been written in C instead of horribly-inefficient-language? Details, please. Josh > -Dave > From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 12:48:36 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:48:36 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71AB7E.7060900@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> <4B71AB7E.7060900@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com> Ben wrote: > PS. The only small portable compiler I can find > is Small C - version 1.0. For the iapx432 ? From teoz at neo.rr.com Tue Feb 9 12:49:18 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:49:18 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de><201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org><4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter > Where?!! > > But, admittedly I'm talking about stuff a good bit older than that, > like PDP-11s, Calcomp 565s, and ASR-33s. > > I'd love to have an Amiga again. My boss is an Amiga nut; he promised > to give me a nice complete A1000 setup when he has some time to put it > all together and make it perfect. I'm looking forward to adopting it. > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL A year or so ago there was all kinds of cheap/free stuff from people losing their homes and not having anywhere to take their collections (in FL but happens all over now). Sad to see actually. Yea, anything pre 1980's seems to be rare anywhere these days. Even newer stuff is rare in some areas. I tripped over a DEC MicroVAX last week at a recycler, which is rare in my area. If you want older stuff you need to be in larger cities where the stuff was purchased new and used. I bet anything ever made can be found in the NYC area, of course there are millions of other would be collectors looking there too. From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 12:56:09 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:56:09 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>> What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly >>> inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? >>> (And in what language(s)?) >> >> OBJECTS! >> >> Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not >> objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to >> that paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that >> corresponds to how badly they match the paradigm. And objects >> don't map to it at all. >> > That's not answering my question. What part of implementing > OBJECTS! are modern compilers for OO-language-du-jour incapable of > translating efficiently to native machine code? And why? And what > exactly is the performance hit in the cases you're thinking of? > > How, precisely, do objects NOT map to registers or memory locations > in modern OO languages? Where does the inefficiency come in? Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that has subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't any. Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to registers, stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of overhead. Try to envision what happens in the instruction stream during things like virtual function lookups in C++, for example. It's similar to using floating-point math on a processor with no floating-point support. It all has to be implemented in software, and it's slow. Going a bit farther back, processors lacking hardware multiply and divide...we ended up using subroutines and macros, and it was a lot slower. > How much faster than a Sparc IPX running FVWM would my machine be > if my existing software had been written in C instead of horribly- > inefficient-language? Details, please. Why are you asking this question? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 12:59:20 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:59:20 -0700 Subject: iapx432, was : Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> Message-ID: <4B71B088.7000604@e-bbes.com> Dave McGuire wrote: > [ iapx432] > Me too. I wonder if enough architectural information is out there to > resurrect the design. Intel will surely never do it. (not that they > necessarily should) Eric has a pretty page about it : http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/intel/iapx432/#documentation looks good enough to start ... ;-) From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 12:59:54 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:59:54 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de><201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org><4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com> <8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> Message-ID: <66EC60BC-29EA-447D-B854-5B129E32651D@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Teo Zenios wrote: >> Where?!! >> >> But, admittedly I'm talking about stuff a good bit older than >> that, like PDP-11s, Calcomp 565s, and ASR-33s. >> >> I'd love to have an Amiga again. My boss is an Amiga nut; he >> promised to give me a nice complete A1000 setup when he has some >> time to put it all together and make it perfect. I'm looking >> forward to adopting it. > > A year or so ago there was all kinds of cheap/free stuff from > people losing their homes and not having anywhere to take their > collections (in FL but happens all over now). Sad to see actually. Horribly sad to see. I'm in the thick of it, my house is currently the only one on my street that isn't bank-owned, and never heard about ANY collectibles needing homes. Where did you see this stuff? > Yea, anything pre 1980's seems to be rare anywhere these days. Not in .EU, apparently. > Even newer stuff is rare in some areas. I tripped over a DEC > MicroVAX last week at a recycler, which is rare in my area. If you > want older stuff you need to be in larger cities where the stuff > was purchased new and used. I bet anything ever made can be found > in the NYC area, of course there are millions of other would be > collectors looking there too. I hope you rescued that MicroVAX. There are some biggish cities around here, though nothing like NYC of course. Tampa is nontrivial. Zero classic hardware there though. Lots of cool stuff (lots of modern IBM mainframes in Tampa) but nothing old. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 13:04:24 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:04:24 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: <4B6D4848.5000008@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B71B1B8.6070207@e-bbes.com> Rik Bos wrote: > 09153-96111 is the HP product number for the 10MB Winchester. Doesn't lead to any real manuals. Anybody tried to hook up a OTS MFM drive into a hp 9153 ? Cheers From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 13:09:00 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:09:00 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> <4B71AB7E.7060900@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> e.stiebler wrote: > Ben wrote: >> PS. The only small portable compiler I can find >> is Small C - version 1.0. > > For the iapx432 ? > no... for a small machine Z80/6809 ect. Hmm time to change the subject line. How did that work back then to get software created for a new machine? 8080's had PLM compiled on a VAX or something along the same lines. Ben. From dave.thearchivist at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 13:13:30 2010 From: dave.thearchivist at gmail.com (Dave Caroline) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:13:30 +0000 Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? In-Reply-To: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Spose I had better put my hand up, Burton upon Trent, East Midlands, I have an 8" drive in a piece of television gear, I could temporarily remove it and liaise with Philip Pemberton. One thing I cannot remember at the moment is if the drive needed hard sector or not. Dave Caroline From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 13:19:24 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:19:24 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu>, <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B7144BC.10154.88B512@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 13:00, Dave McGuire wrote: > Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not > objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to > that paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that > corresponds to how badly they match the paradigm. And objects don't > map to it at all. How about GOTO-less CPUs? Do any exist that completely lack a jump instruction of any sort (I'm not counting those where PC is mapped as a general register)? --Chuck From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 13:19:14 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:19:14 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>>> What "commonly used" constructs are these that are so horribly >>>> inefficient that they would make a multi-GHz processor stumble? >>>> (And in what language(s)?) >>> >>> OBJECTS! >>> >>> Our processors have registers, ALUs, and memory locations...not >>> objects. (iAPX432 notwithstanding) Constructs that don't map to >>> that paradigm are going to be inefficient, to a degree that >>> corresponds to how badly they match the paradigm. And objects don't >>> map to it at all. >>> >> That's not answering my question. What part of implementing OBJECTS! >> are modern compilers for OO-language-du-jour incapable of translating >> efficiently to native machine code? And why? And what exactly is >> the performance hit in the cases you're thinking of? >> >> How, precisely, do objects NOT map to registers or memory locations >> in modern OO languages? Where does the inefficiency come in? > > Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that has > subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't any. > Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to registers, > stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of overhead. Try to > envision what happens in the instruction stream during things like > virtual function lookups in C++, for example. Ok, I'm envisioning it. A few instructions to do a vtable lookup and a jump to the correct virtual function. Wow. So those extra instructions are what's making every machine in the world (apparently) very very slow? In C#, virtual lookups are cached at runtime so the cost of the first virtual call to a function goes through the vtable routine; future calls are very fast. Objects in their raw form are not "incredibly high-level." In C++, an object is referenced via a pointer; data fields are accessed via offsets just like in C. There is a small overhead for virtual function dispatch. I fail to see how this overhead is somehow responsible for performance problems in computers today. What other overheads/inefficiencies are you thinking of? > > It's similar to using floating-point math on a processor with no > floating-point support. It all has to be implemented in software, and > it's slow. Going a bit farther back, processors lacking hardware > multiply and divide...we ended up using subroutines and macros, and it > was a lot slower. > >> How much faster than a Sparc IPX running FVWM would my machine be >> if my existing software had been written in C instead of >> horribly-inefficient-language? Details, please. > > Why are you asking this question? You keep talking about how OO programming is the reason that software today is so inefficient but you offer no data to back it up other than "it doesn't map to the hardware." And you brought it up in another response: > A modern multi-GHz Linux box running GTK is far less > "responsive"-feeling than my old SPARCstation-IPX running fvwm when > just tooling around the GUI. A little more time spent by the > programmers, ignoring the "easy way out" or heavy OO programming and > it'd be FAR faster. So it finally comes out: it's the *bad progammers* at fault here. I knew it all along! Don't confuse poor programmers with programming languages. There are always efficiency tradeoffs in programming languages and a good programmer knows how to make the right choices. Josh > > -Dave > From hachti at hachti.de Tue Feb 9 13:15:50 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:15:50 +0100 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B71B466.1060305@hachti.de> Hi Dave, > I have been looking for a 565, no joke, for fifteen years. Wow! I've never even seen a vintage computer before autumn of 2004 when I bought my H316 out of the blue. Ok, perhaps somewhere in a museum but those dead boxes were boring to me. Since then I collect old computers. And collecting means collecting. Like you collect apples under a tree. > I had one > on my very first PDP-8/e when I was about 15, I loved the thing, then I > stupidly sold it. But now you have some new ones? > I regretted it badly about a year later and have been > looking for one ever since. I once had a Tandy 200 computer. I still remember me throwing it away in the mid nineties. With original cover, documentation, everything. In pristine working condition. It was junk. Ok, it's no pdp8/something or other really cool minicomputer. But I still sometimes feel sad about that. > If they're so common over there, would you > consider shipping me one? (when I can afford it, which should be soon) Hm. Shipping will cost a fortune. I once shipped a Honeywell H316R (no other unit known to survive) from US. That cost me $$$ plus more $$$ and some $$$ more... The machine itself was bought for an epsilon. But in the end I've never paid more for a vintage computer than the 316R...! I currently have a 563 and three 565 plotters. I'd like to keep the 563 and two 565 units because they have different resolutions. And I have at least three computers fitted with interfaces to drive them. The third 565 ist just being swapped away as part of a bigger deal. Sorry. But I'll remember you when the next plotter drops in. >> What I don't have are the ink pens. I'm still looking for them. > > If you have the solenoid assembly, it's not difficult to take a > standard ball-point pen ink tube, trim it down and fit it in there. I > last did it 25 years ago, and I don't recall the details, but I don't > remember it giving me much trouble. Oh, ball pens are no problem. I have those normal ball pen holders where you can put a normal ball pen in. Even in two distinct sizes. And I have a holder for fisher space pens. VERY much better. That's basically the same but has a different end piece and inlay. I have some spare inlays. But not the ends. And there was an INK pen assembly. I have most of the parts - multiple times. But I again miss the end piece. So I cannot use an ink pen. I know only one person having the complete ink stuff: http://pdp8.de/pages/calcomp_ip.htm You can see the end piece in the middle of the upper row in the picture. >> BTW it's the same with Teletype ASR33 and 35. In fact it's not always >> easy to get rid of those if they're not in pristine condition. > > ...it took me nearly a decade to find one of those. Hm? > I'm not > particularly bad at finding stuff, but I live in a part of the (my) > country where there is NO classic hardware. > "Old computer" here means > "2GHz Pentium-4". Yes, sometimes I really want to move, and I probably > will, because this area doesn't support the lifestyle that I want to > live...which includes getting cool computer hardware on a regular basis. Where do you live? I never understood why it is as difficult to get old hardware in US. Ok, in Germany they sometimes pay $$$ (better: ???), too. Most of the stuff we're talking about has been manufactured in US. And was used far more widely there than anywhere else. Perhaps there are different management approaches. Here "that once was very expensive" can be a reason to keep stuff for decades. At least in universities and other more or less public institutions. Here it is sometimes difficult to save stuff from scrap. Just because of the physical volume. I'm currently literally drowning in DEC docs I saved from the dumpster in the last few days. Yes, cool to have them. But...Ohhh! And I don't know yet if the pdp10 software documentation will be endangered as well. Saving that would generate real problems at my side: currently counted 20 boxes. But be sure: I'll ensure that it won't get thrown away. > My ASR-33 came from Boston; I picked it up when I was up there with a > truck moving a mainframe for my employer. I'd have driven up there just > for that if I had to. Me too! At least for the first one. > I know YOU find a lot of this stuff...I assure > you that's not the norm. I sure wish it were! Ok, I probably have to admit that I've been quite (very?) lucky sometimes. But in general its still far easier to get the good stuff here in Germany. So move to Germany! We also have some mountains one can climb and some lakes :-) Regards, Philipp -- http://www.hachti.de From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 13:21:39 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:21:39 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> <4B71AB7E.7060900@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com> <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <6160DE92-A4AE-451D-81F9-24F6DEE27D7D@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Ben wrote: >>> PS. The only small portable compiler I can find >>> is Small C - version 1.0. >> >> For the iapx432 ? >> > no... for a small machine Z80/6809 ect. Hmm time to change the > subject line. > How did that work back then to get software created for a new machine? > 8080's had PLM compiled on a VAX or something along the same lines. Cross-assemblers too. There was a very nice suite of cross- assemblers that ran on PDP-11s under RT-11 and targeted many different microprocessors. That cross-assembler suite was later ported to UNIX and now lives on in many embedded toolchains, not the least of which is SDCC. Speaking of SDCC...if you're looking for a good Z80 C compiler, it does target that architecture, among others. It's mature, quite popular and has a quick development pace. Its primary target is the mcs51 architecture, but it supports several others. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 13:22:07 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:22:07 -0500 Subject: iapx432, was : Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71B088.7000604@e-bbes.com> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> <4B71B088.7000604@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:59 PM, e.stiebler wrote: >> [ iapx432] >> Me too. I wonder if enough architectural information is out there >> to resurrect the design. Intel will surely never do it. (not >> that they necessarily should) > > Eric has a pretty page about it : > http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/intel/iapx432/ > #documentation > > looks good enough to start ... > ;-) Hooboy. Not this week! -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From spectre at floodgap.com Tue Feb 9 13:23:09 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:23:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> from Ben at "Feb 9, 10 12:09:00 pm" Message-ID: <201002091923.o19JN9lY024782@floodgap.com> > no... for a small machine Z80/6809 ect. Hmm time to change the subject line. > How did that work back then to get software created for a new machine? > 8080's had PLM compiled on a VAX or something along the same lines. Hand-coded it, I would imagine. I've handcoded runtimes before for compilers yet to be ported, created a cross-compiler, and had the compiler compile itself for the target. Not exactly trivial, of course. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- If your troubles are deep seated and of long-standing, try kneeling. ------- From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 13:25:33 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:25:33 -0700 Subject: Small C, was ... Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog Message-ID: <4B71B6AD.3090300@e-bbes.com> Ben wrote: > e.stiebler wrote: >> Ben wrote: >>> PS. The only small portable compiler I can find >>> is Small C - version 1.0. >> >> For the iapx432 ? >> > no... for a small machine Z80/6809 ect. Hmm time to change the subject > line. OK, I just did ;-) > How did that work back then to get software created for a new machine? > 8080's had PLM compiled on a VAX or something along the same lines. > Ben. Are you looking for a native or cross compiler ? native : z80 : use cp/m, 6809 cubix ? cross : to many to count ;-) But I remember our first z80 software was developed on a VAX ... From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 13:28:17 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:28:17 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B7144BC.10154.88B512@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu>, <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B7144BC.10154.88B512@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B71B751.60000@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: > How about GOTO-less CPUs? Do any exist that completely lack a jump > instruction of any sort (I'm not counting those where PC is mapped as > a general register)? You must have a jump instruction for a loop. Weird programing and computing... different topic. > --Chuck > From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 9 13:29:06 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:29:06 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> <3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <201002091429.06650.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: > > Have you ever tried writing code against GTK (not-quite-OOP jammed > > into > > C) vs Qt (real OOP using C++)? GTK is such a pile of sh*t to try > > to write code for, in my opinion. > > Yes I have, both. And yes, it's terrible. GTK is a steaming pile > of llama poop for a number of reasons. And they're both slower than > pissing tar. Having written stuff for Qt, I have to disagree. KDE is different, and is very heavy-weight, but I found Qt to be fairly light-weight and quick when I used it by itself. Unless it has changed radically in the last few years, I doubt it's bad compared to when I last used it a few years ago. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 13:35:05 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:35:05 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com>, <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com>, <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B714869.30713.970FE0@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 12:09, Ben wrote: > no... for a small machine Z80/6809 ect. Hmm time to change the subject > line. How did that work back then to get software created for a new > machine? 8080's had PLM compiled on a VAX or something along the same > lines. Ben. Cross-compilation/assembly. My first assemblers for the 8008 and 8080 ran on a mainframe and were coded in--wait for it--FORTRAN. Before that, well, have you ever coded in machine code? IBM even used to have coding forms for a few machines that were used to facilitate that. --Chuck From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 13:50:11 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:50:11 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B714869.30713.970FE0@cclist.sydex.com> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com> <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com> <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B714869.30713.970FE0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 9 Feb 2010 at 12:09, Ben wrote: > >> no... for a small machine Z80/6809 ect. Hmm time to change the subject >> line. How did that work back then to get software created for a new >> machine? 8080's had PLM compiled on a VAX or something along the same >> lines. Ben. > > Cross-compilation/assembly. ?My first assemblers for the 8008 and > 8080 ran on a mainframe and were coded in--wait for it--FORTRAN. The first 68000 assembler I ever used was written in Whitesmiths C and ran on VMS 3.4. It was long in use when I ran into it in 1984 - I think it was written around 1982 or so. We did run PALASM (written in FORTRAN) on that same VAX. > Before that, well, have you ever coded in machine code? Yep. Did that on the 6502 before I got a line-at-a-time assembler/monitor ROM. Also did that on the Elf - toggled in the bits, too. By the time I was working on the aforementioned VAX, it was no big deal for me to whip out 10-20 instruction programs in ODT on our 11/03 and 11/04 testbeds. I also worked with a guy at UW that could enter 1802 programs right into the EPROM programmer as sequences of bytes in hex. PITA for larger programs, especially branch calculations, but when you don't have abstract development tools, it's one way to bootstrap yourself up. >?IBM even used to have coding forms for a few machines that were used to > facilitate that. I've got a pad of those, I think, for an early-1960s IBM machine (IBM 1401?). They came in a computer correspondence course lesson pack. The instructions were represented as EBCDIC characters (letters, numbers, punctuation), and you drew up the program as streams of BCD entities that would get manually punched onto cards later. -ethan From aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Feb 9 12:48:25 2010 From: aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk (Andrew Burton) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:48:25 -0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) References: Message-ID: <00a701caa9c1$1e45e5c0$9c6b5d0a@user8459cef6fa> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 11:04 PM Subject: RE: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) > cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org wrote: > > Is that one license per item (e.g. we have two TV's and a > > Sega Game Gear with (analogue) TV Tuner), or one license per house? > > Ring them and ask :-) > > Assuming single occupancy, then one per house. > > Tenants, students, hotels etc, and it becomes more complex. > > GameGear will presumably drop off the list of notifiable devices > sometime after 2012 :-) > > BTW: can you successfully feed it from a set top box? > > Antonio > I haven't actually tried... but since it has a small extendable aerial (like you'd find on a radio/ghettoblaster) I can't see it being easy connecting it to a set top box (but probably not impossible). It's not something I can test, as we don't have a set top box (no satellite TV here). My parents have freeview which is built-in to a DVD recorder they got just over a year ago. I just have terrestrial TV in my bedroom, but I don't watch that much TV anyway. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 14:00:17 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:00:17 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B714869.30713.970FE0@cclist.sydex.com> References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com>, <4B71AE04.5070701@e-bbes.com>, <4B71B2CC.6000006@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B714869.30713.970FE0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B71BED1.4020108@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: Cross-compilation/assembly. My first assemblers for the 8008 and > 8080 ran on a mainframe and were coded in--wait for it--FORTRAN. I had access to a IBM-1130. Fortran was favored over ASM. > Before that, well, have you ever coded in machine code? IBM even > used to have coding forms for a few machines that were used to > facilitate that. I am building a 12/24 bit cpu. I may have to hack together a Cross-Compiler for my machine in Fortran IV for the the PDP-8 (SBC6120) I have here. Back to downloading more PDF manuals from bitsavers and figuring how to configure my software. > --Chuck Good time to buy more vintage hardware stuff. :) Ben. From teoz at neo.rr.com Tue Feb 9 14:02:58 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:02:58 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de><201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org><4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de><9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com><8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> <66EC60BC-29EA-447D-B854-5B129E32651D@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <7D2379F833884F63BA0DB2DA4B2E78FB@dell8300> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave McGuire" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter >> A year or so ago there was all kinds of cheap/free stuff from people >> losing their homes and not having anywhere to take their collections (in >> FL but happens all over now). Sad to see actually. > > Horribly sad to see. I'm in the thick of it, my house is currently the > only one on my street that isn't bank-owned, and never heard about ANY > collectibles needing homes. Where did you see this stuff? Different forums I read before heading to bed. The problem with those deals is finding somebody local to pick items up since the owners are in a big hurry to get out and can't be shipping things all over (or they would have gone to ebay to begin with). A few years back I got a free loaded A3000 (just paid a local friend to ship it) when a guy had to relocate for work ASAP and since few people lived in that area of AZ ended up junking a garage full of vintage gear. My friend made out with a few old Apple items like the original portable. I would have been in heaven if I was close enough to drive a truck there. We had something like a weeks notice from the time he posted the stuff on a forum to grab what we could before it all hit the dumpster. I don't have the emails handy for the item list, but quite a few things worth some money ended up in a landfill. Another goldmine is the kid who gets tons of vintage gear from who knows where and their parents make them get rid of it all after the house gets overrun. I see that happen way too often in the mac croud. > >> Yea, anything pre 1980's seems to be rare anywhere these days. > > Not in .EU, apparently. I don't know about that, they seem to have major laws about selling untested old electronics there, and seem to have a passion for crunching any circuit board with lead solder on sight. All their vintage gear is going to the trash heap with 10 foot (sorry 3 meter) fences with guards to keep people from rummaging. >> Even newer stuff is rare in some areas. I tripped over a DEC >> MicroVAX last week at a recycler, which is rare in my area. If you want >> older stuff you need to be in larger cities where the stuff was >> purchased new and used. I bet anything ever made can be found in the NYC >> area, of course there are millions of other would be collectors looking >> there too. > > I hope you rescued that MicroVAX. Yea I got it, 3100-85. Will play around with it a bit and probably pass it on to a DEC collector from this list. Anybody have a spare DEC serial cable with those MJJ plugs? > There are some biggish cities around here, though nothing like NYC of > course. Tampa is nontrivial. Zero classic hardware there though. Lots > of cool stuff (lots of modern IBM mainframes in Tampa) but nothing old. > The recycler here sometimes get a semi load from places like Cleveland (maybe Pittsburgh) to take apart. I think that is where the microvax came from, same with a bunch of PS/2 machines last year. They are currently crunching a bunch of rackmount computers and misc consumer grade computers. I go every friday and dig around. I suggest you find a small time recycler in the area and see what shows up. > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 14:03:42 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:03:42 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <201002091806.o19I6t7G017570@floodgap.com>, <4B714869.30713.970FE0@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B714F1E.25062.B143D2@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 14:50, Ethan Dicks wrote: > I've got a pad of those, I think, for an early-1960s IBM machine (IBM > 1401?). They came in a computer correspondence course lesson pack. > The instructions were represented as EBCDIC characters (letters, > numbers, punctuation), and you drew up the program as streams of BCD > entities that would get manually punched onto cards later. Probably 1401 autocoder. Not EBCDIC--that didn't come along until S/360. Most likely just plain old "BCD" punch card code. I used to have a pad labeled "IBM 1620 Absolute Coding System" (they were the reverse sides of the SPS coding form pages. One column (5 positions) to record the address of the instruction, another for the opcode (2 positions), and one each (5 positions) for the P- and Q- address. You coded it up and then punched it, remembering that a record mark was an 0-8-2 multipunch and a numeric blank was an 8-4. Add an 11-punch (minus sign) for any flagged digits. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 14:05:13 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:05:13 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <201002091429.06650.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> <3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <201002091429.06650.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <1BB44533-D0B5-43D2-94DE-344FDE1D5154@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: >>> Have you ever tried writing code against GTK (not-quite-OOP jammed >>> into >>> C) vs Qt (real OOP using C++)? GTK is such a pile of sh*t to try >>> to write code for, in my opinion. >> >> Yes I have, both. And yes, it's terrible. GTK is a steaming pile >> of llama poop for a number of reasons. And they're both slower than >> pissing tar. > > Having written stuff for Qt, I have to disagree. KDE is different, > and > is very heavy-weight, but I found Qt to be fairly light-weight and > quick > when I used it by itself. Unless it has changed radically in the last > few years, I doubt it's bad compared to when I last used it a few > years > ago. I've written stuff for Qt too. I liked it, but I found it to be slow. Admittedly this was in the Qt2 days, 2002 or so? But yes, I agree, KDE is a bloated pig. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 14:28:30 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:28:30 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >> Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that >> has subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't >> any. Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to >> registers, stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of >> overhead. Try to envision what happens in the instruction stream >> during things like virtual function lookups in C++, for example. > > Ok, I'm envisioning it. A few instructions to do a vtable lookup > and a jump to the correct virtual function. Wow. So those extra > instructions are what's making every machine in the world > (apparently) very very slow? Yes, to a large degree! You're talking about it as if it happens ONCE, and you know it doesn't. Would you care to estimate how many of those vtable lookup happen when someone simply clicks a mouse in a modern OS? I don't know for certain, but I'm willing to bet that it's thousands. > In C#, virtual lookups are cached at runtime so the cost of the > first virtual call to a function goes through the vtable routine; > future calls are very fast. That's nice. Now if only C# weren't a proprietary product from one company which happens to be obsessed with creating vendor lock-in situations. ;) (though actually, hmm, that IS rather nice...) > Objects in their raw form are not "incredibly high-level." In C++, > an object is referenced via a pointer; data fields are accessed via > offsets just like in C. There is a small overhead for virtual > function dispatch. I fail to see how this overhead is somehow > responsible for performance problems in computers today. There's a bit of congruity between C's structs and C++/C#/Java/etc objects, but.. > What other overheads/inefficiencies are you thinking of? ...what happens when someone uses an Integer instead of an int? A whole object gets created when all one likely needed was a memory location. What happens when one adds that Integer to another Integer? Add in the address offset calculations to find out where the actual int is stored within the Integer object, what would those be on most architectures...two or three instructions? So our nice single-instruction add turns into at least five instructions. So you're arguing that increasing the number of instructions required to execute a simple operation by a factor of five doesn't involve overhead? Ok, howabout when it happens all the time, which additions tend to in most programs? In C (for example), there's no motivation at all to wrap a struct around an int just for the sake of doing so, so it doesn't happen. And howabout template programming. I've never seen executables so big as the ones in which templates were overused. (yes, here I have to give a nod to your point about bad programmers below!) All in the name of "saving programmer time", as if that's such a big deal, consequences be damned. Note well, however, that I'm talking about more than just the number of instructions required to accomplish a given task. Sure, that in itself has bad side effects when you think about what it does to the instruction cache hit rates...the principal of locality of reference is blown out the window. But what about memory utilization? How big, in bytes, is an Integer compared to an int? Ok, the difference may be only a few bytes, but what about the program (which would be "most of them") with tens of thousands of them? (I'm typing this on a Mac, into Mail.app, which is currently eating 1.73GB of memory) > You keep talking about how OO programming is the reason that > software today is so inefficient but you offer no data to back it > up other than "it doesn't map to the hardware." I'm sorry, but knowing how processors work, it's pretty obvious to me. The data that backs it up is lots of programs (some of which are operating systems) that I use every day, written in OO languages, including (perhaps especially!) OS X, are far slower than they should be given the hardware they're running on. YOU know how processors work too, I know you do, so I know you see my point. >> A modern multi-GHz Linux box running GTK is far less "responsive"- >> feeling than my old SPARCstation-IPX running fvwm when just >> tooling around the GUI. A little more time spent by the >> programmers, ignoring the "easy way out" or heavy OO programming >> and it'd be FAR faster. > > So it finally comes out: it's the *bad progammers* at fault here. > I knew it all along! Don't confuse poor programmers with > programming languages. There are always efficiency tradeoffs in > programming languages and a good programmer knows how to make the > right choices. Yes, I have to acknowledge this; you'll get no argument from me there. But bad programmers are the rule, not the exception. Code written by bad programmers constitutes 90% of the code written today. It's possible to write fast, compact C++ or Java code; we've both seen it. But it's not the norm. KDE, OS X (and several of its apps, Mail.app comes to mind) *are* the norm, and they're both horribly slow for the hardware they're typically run on. In an ideal world, one in which all programmers were competent, OO languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess what I really mean is, "Bad programmers are even more detrimental to computing when armed with OO languages". -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 9 13:48:59 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:48:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> from "Phill Harvey-Smith" at Feb 8, 10 11:30:40 pm Message-ID: > Actually no, I believe it's a licence to recieve, not to view, which is > why when you could still get a black and white licence at a cheaper > price than colour, you still needed a colour license even if you had a > black and white TV, if you also had a video recorder. The reason being > that the video recorder could recieve and record a colour signal, even > though you could only view it in black and white. I wonder if that's acutally true. The TV licensing people couldn't tell me what license would be required for a monochrome-only video recorder (such things exist, I have one. It's a Sony reel-to-reel machine...). Or for a video recorder that had been modified to record only in monochrome (for example a Philips N1500 with the colour-killer switch hard wired in the appropriate state). Mind you, they also didn't know what, if any, licesnse is required for a TV sound-only receiver. Or for a teletext-only receiver (such as the units used with the BBC micro). For such devices, does 'colour' mean it uses a colour monitor, or that it decodes the attribute bytes, or what? The did tell me that if I modified a TV receiver so that it no longer received TV, then it diddn't need a license. If I took a TV set, desoldered the tuner module, and used the rest of it as a monitor, then I didn't need a license. Even if I kepty the tuner module in my spares box. The fact I had parts that could be assembled into a TV set did not mean I had a TV set. Many years ago I assembled the Maplin NICAM TV tuner kits. I bought said kits in one of their shops (back when Maplin shops stocked interesting items), and they didn't take my name or address. I was told that although a lincense was needed to use the assembled kit, there was no license check in buying a box of parts. The parts were not a TV receiver, they could be used for all sorts of other things. FWIW, all the above devies are used in a house that has a valid TV license, so it didn;t really matter. Byt as=king annoying questions is a hobby of mine... -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 9 13:54:52 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:54:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: <4B7036DA.21406.196BABD@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 8, 10 04:07:54 pm Message-ID: > > What I find really strange is this: > > "A blind concession TV Licence costs =A371.25 for colour and =A324.00 for > a black and white TV Licence." Why? Blind does not necessarily mean 'can't see anything at all'. At one time we had to have radio (receiving) licences over here. Again one per house, although I think a car radio needed a separate licence (!). Registerd blind people got a free radio licence. When the radio licence was abolished, they got a discount on a TV licence of the same amount as the final cost of the radio license (I think it was either \pounds 1.25 or \pounds 1.50 in decimal currency, but I might be wrong). This discount stayed the same for many years, even though the TV licence went up several times. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 9 13:59:35 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:59:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <20100208170155.U71439@shell.lmi.net> from "Fred Cisin" at Feb 8, 10 05:03:21 pm Message-ID: > "A REAL programmer can write a FORTRAN program in any language." A Real Programmer can write assembler in any language :-). I am not a Real Programmer, but I once translated a short 6502 assembly language routine into Pascal, with procedures called 'ADC' and the like. The reason was I was trying to figurte out the checksum routine in a Commodore printer ROM -- I wanted to modify the ROM so the printer would take ASCII rather htan PETSCII. Yes, I did do it. -tony > From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 9 14:09:06 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:09:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Anyone with 8" drives , UK ? In-Reply-To: <2f806cd71002090159y18db212cr9ba94b907df8a8d1@mail.gmail.com> from "Rob" at Feb 9, 10 09:59:46 am Message-ID: > anyway... I've found somebody that has an archive of their pages from > Prestel, and we'd both liketo get them up on the site. The snag, for > me, is that a lot of it is on 8" discs, from a Technologics(?) system. > The photographs of the discs I have seen show them labelled as 48tpi, > soft sectored. That is a very standard type of 8" disk. The problem comes, of course, that the secotr format is not defined by that label. It's most likely to be single-density (FM), 26 secoptrs per track, 128 bytes per sector, but there were assorted double-density formats, and I wouldn't be suprised if sombody used GCR on 8" disks at some point > > The positive point is that he still has the original computer, but > "it's not been switched on for 20 years" so I'm hesitant on telling > him to try it...! I woender if it would be simplese to get that machine running again. Although you certainly want to take it slowly, check the PSU on a dummy load before conencting the logic boards, check for insulation breakdown, and so on, I susepct that machine would be easily restorable. An 8" drive can be conencted to most PC floppy controllers quite easily. The problem is that many PC controllers only support double tensity operation, which is probably not what you want here. If you want to try it, can't you use one of the drives from the origianl machine? -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 14:53:22 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:53:22 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <7D2379F833884F63BA0DB2DA4B2E78FB@dell8300> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de><201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org><4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de><9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com><8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> <66EC60BC-29EA-447D-B854-5B129E32651D@neurotica.com> <7D2379F833884F63BA0DB2DA4B2E78FB@dell8300> Message-ID: <3588469B-DFB4-4250-A741-7E5D42DFC94F@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Teo Zenios wrote: >> Horribly sad to see. I'm in the thick of it, my house is >> currently the only one on my street that isn't bank-owned, and >> never heard about ANY collectibles needing homes. Where did you >> see this stuff? > > Different forums I read before heading to bed. Care to share? ;) > The problem with those deals is finding somebody local to pick > items up since the owners are in a big hurry to get out and can't > be shipping things all over (or they would have gone to ebay to > begin with). A few years back I got a free loaded A3000 (just paid > a local friend to ship it) when a guy had to relocate for work ASAP > and since few people lived in that area of AZ ended up junking a > garage full of vintage gear. My friend made out with a few old > Apple items like the original portable. I would have been in heaven > if I was close enough to drive a truck there. We had something like > a weeks notice from the time he posted the stuff on a forum to grab > what we could before it all hit the dumpster. I don't have the > emails handy for the item list, but quite a few things worth some > money ended up in a landfill. :-( > Another goldmine is the kid who gets tons of vintage gear from who > knows where and their parents make them get rid of it all after the > house gets overrun. I see that happen way too often in the mac croud. That's horribly disheartening. I'm glad my parents recognized the fact that it'd be better for the house to be full of equipment that they didn't recognize than have me out selling/doing drugs like everyone else in my school. >>> >> Even newer stuff is rare in some areas. I tripped over a DEC >>> MicroVAX last week at a recycler, which is rare in my area. If >>> you want older stuff you need to be in larger cities where the >>> stuff was purchased new and used. I bet anything ever made can >>> be found in the NYC area, of course there are millions of other >>> would be collectors looking there too. >> >> I hope you rescued that MicroVAX. > > Yea I got it, 3100-85. Will play around with it a bit and probably > pass it on to a DEC collector from this list. Anybody have a spare > DEC serial cable with those MJJ plugs? Excellent! Send me your shipping address. >> There are some biggish cities around here, though nothing like >> NYC of course. Tampa is nontrivial. Zero classic hardware >> there though. Lots of cool stuff (lots of modern IBM mainframes >> in Tampa) but nothing old. > > The recycler here sometimes get a semi load from places like > Cleveland (maybe Pittsburgh) to take apart. I think that is where > the microvax came from, same with a bunch of PS/2 machines last > year. They are currently crunching a bunch of rackmount computers > and misc consumer grade computers. I go every friday and dig > around. I suggest you find a small time recycler in the area and > see what shows up. I've tried. I had a list of such places that I visited weekly when I lived in Maryland; it was glorious. There's nothing like that down here. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 14:57:15 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:57:15 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <3588469B-DFB4-4250-A741-7E5D42DFC94F@neurotica.com> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com> <8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> <66EC60BC-29EA-447D-B854-5B129E32651D@neurotica.com> <7D2379F833884F63BA0DB2DA4B2E78FB@dell8300> <3588469B-DFB4-4250-A741-7E5D42DFC94F@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: >> Another goldmine is the kid who gets tons of vintage gear from who knows >> where and their parents make them get rid of it all after the house gets >> overrun. I see that happen way too often in the mac croud. > > ?That's horribly disheartening. ?I'm glad my parents recognized the fact > that it'd be better for the house to be full of equipment that they didn't > recognize than have me out selling/doing drugs like everyone else in my > school. My parents, too. In high school (1982), I had a PDP-8/L and a PDP-8/i in my room. Still have them. The fun part was wheeling the empty H960 rack down the street when I moved into my first college apartment. From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 9 14:46:12 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:46:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B71B1B8.6070207@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 9, 10 12:04:24 pm Message-ID: > > Rik Bos wrote: > > 09153-96111 is the HP product number for the 10MB Winchester. > > Doesn't lead to any real manuals. I don;t think there ever were any technical manual for this drive :-(. Or at leasrt I've never seen one. There were never official schematics to my knowledge either .I have unofficial schematics, but they won't help you that much. > > Anybody tried to hook up a OTS MFM drive into a hp 9153 ? It would be a lot less work to track down an HP9133 of some flavour. It would probaably be less work to recreate an HP9133... THe Nighthawk drive interface is strange. Very strange. it has the raw data signals of an ST412 drive (but on single-ended TTL lines, not differential pairs). It also hasa the strangest positioner interface you're likely to see. The positioner is a 2-winding stepper motor. You get (at the drive interface) to contrtoll the currents through the windings (there's a dual DAC in the drive).You also get soem kind of position feedback signal from the drive (there's an ADC in there too). There is no intellegence in the drive to control te DACs based on the output from the ADC, that is done in the controller (I assume in part by the 6809 firmware). Given there's an undocumented ASIC in the drive too, which has a register accessible over the interface, and for whaich I have no data, tryign to recreate the drive is going to be a big job. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Tue Feb 9 14:55:50 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:55:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B7144BC.10154.88B512@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 9, 10 11:19:24 am Message-ID: > How about GOTO-less CPUs? Do any exist that completely lack a jump > instruction of any sort (I'm not counting those where PC is mapped as > a general register)? I assume you also don't count any processor where every instruction includes the address of the next instruction. There is no explicit jump instruction on such a mahcine, becuase every instruction includes a jump. What about a Turing machine. I would claim that has no jump instruciton. And of coruse (apart from the infinite memory), it's fairly easy to build one in hardware. -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 14:59:29 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:59:29 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <9DCDD26A-78BF-4622-8928-78940F4DC5BB@neurotica.com> <8A0B397AE5A54670B091A3096850A2E8@dell8300> <66EC60BC-29EA-447D-B854-5B129E32651D@neurotica.com> <7D2379F833884F63BA0DB2DA4B2E78FB@dell8300> <3588469B-DFB4-4250-A741-7E5D42DFC94F@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>> Another goldmine is the kid who gets tons of vintage gear from >>> who knows >>> where and their parents make them get rid of it all after the >>> house gets >>> overrun. I see that happen way too often in the mac croud. >> >> That's horribly disheartening. I'm glad my parents recognized >> the fact >> that it'd be better for the house to be full of equipment that >> they didn't >> recognize than have me out selling/doing drugs like everyone else >> in my >> school. > > My parents, too. In high school (1982), I had a PDP-8/L and a PDP-8/i > in my room. Still have them. Very cool. > The fun part was wheeling the empty > H960 rack down the street when I moved into my first college > apartment. That must've made a helluva racket! (ahem!) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 15:06:29 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:06:29 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B71CE55.3000909@jetnet.ab.ca> Tony Duell wrote: >> How about GOTO-less CPUs? Do any exist that completely lack a jump >> instruction of any sort (I'm not counting those where PC is mapped as >> a general register)? > > I assume you also don't count any processor where every instruction > includes the address of the next instruction. There is no explicit jump > instruction on such a mahcine, becuase every instruction includes a jump. That is the same as a STATE machine, we just call the states; ADDRESS n. > What about a Turing machine. I would claim that has no jump instruciton. > And of coruse (apart from the infinite memory), it's fairly easy to build > one in hardware. I heard you can get a C? compiler for one too! > -tony Ben. Who wants a better 12 bit machine than the humble 8. From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 15:14:58 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:14:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how many CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) ________________________________ From: Dave McGuire To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 2:28:30 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >> Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that has subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't any. Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to registers, stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of overhead. Try to envision what happens in the instruction stream during things like virtual function lookups in C++, for example. > > Ok, I'm envisioning it. A few instructions to do a vtable lookup and a jump to the correct virtual function. Wow. So those extra instructions are what's making every machine in the world (apparently) very very slow? Yes, to a large degree! You're talking about it as if it happens ONCE, and you know it doesn't. Would you care to estimate how many of those vtable lookup happen when someone simply clicks a mouse in a modern OS? I don't know for certain, but I'm willing to bet that it's thousands. > In C#, virtual lookups are cached at runtime so the cost of the first virtual call to a function goes through the vtable routine; future calls are very fast. That's nice. Now if only C# weren't a proprietary product from one company which happens to be obsessed with creating vendor lock-in situations. ;) (though actually, hmm, that IS rather nice...) > Objects in their raw form are not "incredibly high-level." In C++, an object is referenced via a pointer; data fields are accessed via offsets just like in C. There is a small overhead for virtual function dispatch. I fail to see how this overhead is somehow responsible for performance problems in computers today. There's a bit of congruity between C's structs and C++/C#/Java/etc objects, but.. > What other overheads/inefficiencies are you thinking of? ...what happens when someone uses an Integer instead of an int? A whole object gets created when all one likely needed was a memory location. What happens when one adds that Integer to another Integer? Add in the address offset calculations to find out where the actual int is stored within the Integer object, what would those be on most architectures...two or three instructions? So our nice single-instruction add turns into at least five instructions. So you're arguing that increasing the number of instructions required to execute a simple operation by a factor of five doesn't involve overhead? Ok, howabout when it happens all the time, which additions tend to in most programs? In C (for example), there's no motivation at all to wrap a struct around an int just for the sake of doing so, so it doesn't happen. And howabout template programming. I've never seen executables so big as the ones in which templates were overused. (yes, here I have to give a nod to your point about bad programmers below!) All in the name of "saving programmer time", as if that's such a big deal, consequences be damned. Note well, however, that I'm talking about more than just the number of instructions required to accomplish a given task. Sure, that in itself has bad side effects when you think about what it does to the instruction cache hit rates...the principal of locality of reference is blown out the window. But what about memory utilization? How big, in bytes, is an Integer compared to an int? Ok, the difference may be only a few bytes, but what about the program (which would be "most of them") with tens of thousands of them? (I'm typing this on a Mac, into Mail.app, which is currently eating 1.73GB of memory) > You keep talking about how OO programming is the reason that software today is so inefficient but you offer no data to back it up other than "it doesn't map to the hardware." I'm sorry, but knowing how processors work, it's pretty obvious to me. The data that backs it up is lots of programs (some of which are operating systems) that I use every day, written in OO languages, including (perhaps especially!) OS X, are far slower than they should be given the hardware they're running on. YOU know how processors work too, I know you do, so I know you see my point. >> A modern multi-GHz Linux box running GTK is far less "responsive"-feeling than my old SPARCstation-IPX running fvwm when just tooling around the GUI. A little more time spent by the programmers, ignoring the "easy way out" or heavy OO programming and it'd be FAR faster. > > So it finally comes out: it's the *bad progammers* at fault here. I knew it all along! Don't confuse poor programmers with programming languages. There are always efficiency tradeoffs in programming languages and a good programmer knows how to make the right choices. Yes, I have to acknowledge this; you'll get no argument from me there. But bad programmers are the rule, not the exception. Code written by bad programmers constitutes 90% of the code written today. It's possible to write fast, compact C++ or Java code; we've both seen it. But it's not the norm. KDE, OS X (and several of its apps, Mail.app comes to mind) *are* the norm, and they're both horribly slow for the hardware they're typically run on. In an ideal world, one in which all programmers were competent, OO languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess what I really mean is, "Bad programmers are even more detrimental to computing when armed with OO languages". -Dave --Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 15:17:08 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:17:08 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how many CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) Probably a lot. In the earliest days, assemblers were considered a poor use of time on the machine. Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 digits only takes you so far... ;-) -ethan From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 15:17:23 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:17:23 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7E77DEE8-DFF6-4D5E-824E-888C845CCDBC@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:14 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how > many CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) Well, there were what, six programming constructs at the time? ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From wdonzelli at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 15:20:53 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:20:53 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: > Not?!? I suspect that selling something nice and clean and - most important > - without the remark "untested and sold as is" will bring way more. It's > easy to test the plotter. On eBay "untested" usually is an euphemism for "I > tried to get it working but it didn't work. But I won't tell you that. Just > know that I guarantee for nothing". Patrick is right - serious cleaning is mostly not worth the effort. The most cleaning I ever do mostly involves wet paper towels and a dry paint brushes. Serious bidders will see thru the dirt that remains. > BTW it's the same with Teletype ASR33 and 35. In fact it's not always easy > to get rid of those if they're not in pristine condition. Oh, and I found my new in box ASR-33 today. Any takers? -- Will From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 15:21:42 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:21:42 -0800 Subject: GOTO-less machines, was: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4B7144BC.10154.88B512@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 9, 10 11:19:24 am, Message-ID: <4B716166.29615.F8ABAB@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 20:55, Tony Duell wrote: > What about a Turing machine. I would claim that has no jump > instruciton. And of coruse (apart from the infinite memory), it's > fairly easy to build one in hardware. Or Dataflow machines, for that matter. Would you count SKIP instructions as GOTO? There has been more than one machine with instruction execution depending on the setting of a condition code, so that whole sequences could be skipped without a GOTO per se. There's no real reason that a machine even needs to have every location uniquely tagged by an address for that matter. Turing machines are again a good example. I could conceive of a machine with a WHILE-DO instruction pair, the pairs obeying nesting rules. Early paper-tape driven machines simply looped the tape to perform an iterative instruction sequence. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 15:23:36 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:23:36 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:20 PM, William Donzelli wrote: > Oh, and I found my new in box ASR-33 today. Any takers? Holy cow!! -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 15:24:52 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:52 -0500 Subject: GOTO-less machines, was: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B716166.29615.F8ABAB@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B7144BC.10154.88B512@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 9, 10 11:19:24 am, <4B716166.29615.F8ABAB@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <14D45465-FE99-42E9-889E-35783D21FFFC@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > Would you count SKIP instructions as GOTO? I would. It just has a fixed (relative) target address. > There has been more than one machine with > instruction execution depending on the setting of a condition code, > so that whole sequences could be skipped without a GOTO per se. Indeed, look at ARM. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 14:49:41 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 12:49:41 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> On Feb 9, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>> Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that has >>> subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't any. >>> Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to >>> registers, stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of >>> overhead. Try to envision what happens in the instruction stream >>> during things like virtual function lookups in C++, for example. >> >> Ok, I'm envisioning it. A few instructions to do a vtable lookup >> and a jump to the correct virtual function. Wow. So those extra >> instructions are what's making every machine in the world >> (apparently) very very slow? > > Yes, to a large degree! You're talking about it as if it happens > ONCE, and you know it doesn't. Would you care to estimate how many > of those vtable lookup happen when someone simply clicks a mouse in > a modern OS? I don't know for certain, but I'm willing to bet that > it's thousands. I'm not going to speculate on things I have no knowledge of. Even if it were thousands, that would mean an overhead of tens of thousands of instructions. On a modern CPU, in a user-interaction scenario, that doesn't even begin to be noticable to the user. If it's millions of calls in a tight loop doing some heavy calculation then it will have an impact; but anyone calling a virtual function in such a scenario is doing it wrong. > >> In C#, virtual lookups are cached at runtime so the cost of the >> first virtual call to a function goes through the vtable routine; >> future calls are very fast. > > That's nice. Now if only C# weren't a proprietary product from one > company which happens to be obsessed with creating vendor lock-in > situations. ;) > > (though actually, hmm, that IS rather nice...) > >> Objects in their raw form are not "incredibly high-level." In C++, >> an object is referenced via a pointer; data fields are accessed via >> offsets just like in C. There is a small overhead for virtual >> function dispatch. I fail to see how this overhead is somehow >> responsible for performance problems in computers today. > > There's a bit of congruity between C's structs and C++/C#/Java/etc > objects, but.. > >> What other overheads/inefficiencies are you thinking of? > > ...what happens when someone uses an Integer instead of an int? A > whole object gets created when all one likely needed was a memory > location. Depends greatly on the language. Don't confuse one implementation with ALL OO programming languages. In C++ an integer maps to a register. Same in C#. Same in objc. Java does this differently. > What happens when one adds that Integer to another Integer? Add in > the address offset calculations to find out where the actual int is > stored within the Integer object, what would those be on most > architectures...two or three instructions? So our nice single- > instruction add turns into at least five instructions. > > So you're arguing that increasing the number of instructions > required to execute a simple operation by a factor of five doesn't > involve overhead? Ok, howabout when it happens all the time, which > additions tend to in most programs? See above. > > In C (for example), there's no motivation at all to wrap a struct > around an int just for the sake of doing so, so it doesn't happen. > > And howabout template programming. I've never seen executables so > big as the ones in which templates were overused. Template programming is another paradigm altogether, it's basically C+ + specific and it has very little to do with OO. (It's also an abomination along with most of C++.) > (yes, here I have to give a nod to your point about bad programmers > below!) All in the name of "saving programmer time", as if that's > such a big deal, consequences be damned. > > Note well, however, that I'm talking about more than just the > number of instructions required to accomplish a given task. Sure, > that in itself has bad side effects when you think about what it > does to the instruction cache hit rates...the principal of locality > of reference is blown out the window. But what about memory > utilization? How big, in bytes, is an Integer compared to an int? > Ok, the difference may be only a few bytes, but what about the > program (which would be "most of them") with tens of thousands of > them? (I'm typing this on a Mac, into Mail.app, which is currently > eating 1.73GB of memory) I beleive tha in Objective C, ints are still registers, no magical Integer objects here. Sounds like Mail.app is poorly written. I'm running Outlook here (written in a mix of c and c++) and it's using 100mb (with an inbox size of 10gb...). > >> You keep talking about how OO programming is the reason that >> software today is so inefficient but you offer no data to back it >> up other than "it doesn't map to the hardware." > > I'm sorry, but knowing how processors work, it's pretty obvious to > me. The data that backs it up is lots of programs (some of which > are operating systems) that I use every day, written in OO > languages, including (perhaps especially!) OS X, are far slower than > they should be given the hardware they're running on. YOU know how > processors work too, I know you do, so I know you see my point. This is only a valid argument if you have an OS X written in plain C and an OS X written in OO that you can do a real comparison between. Anything else is speculation. OO does have its overheads, I disagree that they are anywhere nearly as bad as you claim them to be. Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it "should be" based on anecdotal evidence is not proof. > >>> A modern multi-GHz Linux box running GTK is far less "responsive"- >>> feeling than my old SPARCstation-IPX running fvwm when just >>> tooling around the GUI. A little more time spent by the >>> programmers, ignoring the "easy way out" or heavy OO programming >>> and it'd be FAR faster. >> >> So it finally comes out: it's the *bad progammers* at fault here. >> I knew it all along! Don't confuse poor programmers with >> programming languages. There are always efficiency tradeoffs in >> programming languages and a good programmer knows how to make the >> right choices. > > Yes, I have to acknowledge this; you'll get no argument from me > there. But bad programmers are the rule, not the exception. Code > written by bad programmers constitutes 90% of the code written > today. It's possible to write fast, compact C++ or Java code; we've > both seen it. But it's not the norm. KDE, OS X (and several of its > apps, Mail.app comes to mind) *are* the norm, and they're both > horribly slow for the hardware they're typically run on. > > In an ideal world, one in which all programmers were competent, OO > languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess what I really mean > is, "Bad programmers are even more detrimental to computing when > armed with OO languages". You really think these same programmers would somehow write better code if only they would stop using OO? Josh > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > From spectre at floodgap.com Tue Feb 9 15:31:53 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:31:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: from Ethan Dicks at "Feb 9, 10 03:57:15 pm" Message-ID: <201002092131.o19LVrtx020610@floodgap.com> > > _That's horribly disheartening. _I'm glad my parents recognized the fact > > that it'd be better for the house to be full of equipment that they didn't > > recognize than have me out selling/doing drugs like everyone else in my > > school. > > My parents, too. In high school (1982), I had a PDP-8/L and a PDP-8/i > in my room. Still have them. The fun part was wheeling the empty > H960 rack down the street when I moved into my first college > apartment. My childhood seems so deprived by comparison. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- It's not Camelot, but it's not Cleveland either. -- Boston mayor Kevin White From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 15:56:16 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:56:16 -0700 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B71DA00.8070301@jetnet.ab.ca> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:20 PM, William Donzelli wrote: >> Oh, and I found my new in box ASR-33 today. Any takers? > > Holy cow!! Holy Cow , Batman. From spc at conman.org Tue Feb 9 15:57:47 2010 From: spc at conman.org (Sean Conner) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:57:47 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <20100209215747.GA8039@brevard.conman.org> It was thus said that the Great Josh Dersch once stated: > Dave McGuire wrote: > >On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > > > > Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that has > >subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't any. > >Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to registers, > >stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of overhead. Try to > >envision what happens in the instruction stream during things like > >virtual function lookups in C++, for example. > > Ok, I'm envisioning it. A few instructions to do a vtable lookup and a > jump to the correct virtual function. Wow. So those extra instructions > are what's making every machine in the world (apparently) very very slow? It's worse than that. Shared libraries also take their toll, at least, for those systems that use the ELF format. The following article is rather instructive for those not familiar with the dynamics of dynamic linking: http://www.iecc.com/linker/linker10.html So it's a tradeoff---dynamic libraries allow a smaller executable (the executable for Firefox 3.5.7 on my system is only 57k, which surprised the hell out of me, but then again, it loads about 42M of libraries) and less memory usage overall (about 4M of shared libraries are used by other processes) *and* allow a library to be fixed without relinking the entire program, but at a cost of slower runtime (because shared libraries and vtables use pretty much the same logic). About the worst case I can see is a virtual call method into a shared library, in the middle of a crital loop. To mangle a quote: a few cycles here, a few cycles there, and pretty soon you're talking real time. And while I could load up RedHat 5.2 (last decent version of RedHat in my opinion) on a modern machine (and yes, it would fly on today's hardware), I would end up having to recompile X to use my video card, and I would have to suffer Netscape 4, unless, of course, I wanted to try to compile Firefox. I would also lose out on the C99 features of GCC (which I do use---C99 is a nice progression), which means I would have to recompile GCC, etc. etc. The other side of the coin is that the 2.6Gh machine sitting below my desk can do things that my old system (a 150MHz 486 with 32M RAM) would die trying to do. I can actually manipulate digital photos for one thing. Another thing, I can solve jumbles *really fast*, burning through half a million words in 0.18 seconds (heck, I have a version that does that in 0.006 seconds, but in order to to that, I use 15M of memory when running). I could probably edit video on this box if I had the software to do so. Couldn't even *conceive* of that on my Coco (which I love dearly). Now, do I wish Firefox was faster? Heck, I'd take stability (it crashes on a whim, but I have to use Firefox 3.5 for some of the stuff I do for work) over speed, but ... yeah, speed would be nice. Ah, anyway, enough rambling ... -spc (http://prog21.dadgum.com/ makes for some interesting reading [1]) [1] http://prog21.dadgum.com/50.html http://prog21.dadgum.com/45.html http://prog21.dadgum.com/47.html http://prog21.dadgum.com/29.html But really, all the entries are good ... From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 15:58:29 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:58:29 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>>> Ok. Show me a processor that has an "object" data type, that >>>> has subtypes like "member" and "method" and such. There aren't >>>> any. Translating from such incredibly high-level constructs to >>>> registers, stacks, and memory locations is not without a lot of >>>> overhead. Try to envision what happens in the instruction >>>> stream during things like virtual function lookups in C++, for >>>> example. >>> >>> Ok, I'm envisioning it. A few instructions to do a vtable lookup >>> and a jump to the correct virtual function. Wow. So those extra >>> instructions are what's making every machine in the world >>> (apparently) very very slow? >> >> Yes, to a large degree! You're talking about it as if it happens >> ONCE, and you know it doesn't. Would you care to estimate how >> many of those vtable lookup happen when someone simply clicks a >> mouse in a modern OS? I don't know for certain, but I'm willing >> to bet that it's thousands. > > I'm not going to speculate on things I have no knowledge of. Even > if it were thousands, that would mean an overhead of tens of > thousands of instructions. On a modern CPU, in a user-interaction > scenario, that doesn't even begin to be noticable to the user. You're speaking from the standpoint of running one program, once, alone on one computer. That's not how (most) computers are used. How many processes are running, right now, on your Windows box? 146 right now on my Mac, *nearly seven hundred* on the central computer here (a big Sun). Those "this code is only 20% slower" inefficiencies that allowed us to get back on the golf course fifteen minutes sooner do add up. > If it's millions of calls in a tight loop doing some heavy > calculation then it will have an impact; but anyone calling a > virtual function in such a scenario is doing it wrong. ...which happens ALL THE TIME. I've seen (and fixed) code like that in every programming job I've ever had. Loop strength reduction is something that nearly all optimizing compilers do, but the fact that compilers have optimizers doesn't give us free license to write sloppy code. There will always be situations in which the compiler can't reduce the strength of a loop, and they will always get right by you when you're writing that code if you don't pay attention. >> ...what happens when someone uses an Integer instead of an int? >> A whole object gets created when all one likely needed was a >> memory location. > > Depends greatly on the language. Don't confuse one implementation > with ALL OO programming languages. In C++ an integer maps to a > register. Same in C#. Same in objc. Java does this differently. I'm going to go dig into a C++ implementation and look at the in- memory composition of an integer object. I sure hope you're right. >> And howabout template programming. I've never seen executables >> so big as the ones in which templates were overused. > > Template programming is another paradigm altogether, it's basically > C++ specific and it has very little to do with OO. (It's also an > abomination along with most of C++.) C# has a form of templates, if memory serves. I believe they're called "generics". Name one non-OO language that has such a construct. I don't know of any. >> Note well, however, that I'm talking about more than just the >> number of instructions required to accomplish a given task. Sure, >> that in itself has bad side effects when you think about what it >> does to the instruction cache hit rates...the principal of >> locality of reference is blown out the window. But what about >> memory utilization? How big, in bytes, is an Integer compared to >> an int? Ok, the difference may be only a few bytes, but what >> about the program (which would be "most of them") with tens of >> thousands of them? (I'm typing this on a Mac, into Mail.app, >> which is currently eating 1.73GB of memory) > > I beleive tha in Objective C, ints are still registers, no magical > Integer objects here. Sounds like Mail.app is poorly written. I'm > running Outlook here (written in a mix of c and c++) and it's using > 100mb (with an inbox size of 10gb...). Again I'm going to try to find the in-memory representation of those integer objects. Regardless, however, this was just an example...I'm sure you see my point. You're suggesting that OO programming involves no runtime overhead over procedural/imperative languages when run on processors whose architecture is arguably procedural/imperative. >>> You keep talking about how OO programming is the reason that >>> software today is so inefficient but you offer no data to back it >>> up other than "it doesn't map to the hardware." >> >> I'm sorry, but knowing how processors work, it's pretty obvious >> to me. The data that backs it up is lots of programs (some of >> which are operating systems) that I use every day, written in OO >> languages, including (perhaps especially!) OS X, are far slower >> than they should be given the hardware they're running on. YOU >> know how processors work too, I know you do, so I know you see my >> point. > > This is only a valid argument if you have an OS X written in plain > C and an OS X written in OO that you can do a real comparison > between. Anything else is speculation. OO does have its > overheads, I disagree that they are anywhere nearly as bad as you > claim them to be. Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it > "should be" based on anecdotal evidence is not proof. It may be, at least in part, speculation...but with lots of experience to back it up. Quite simply, almost everything I've seen written in C++ and Java (even with native compilation) is slow, and most everything I've seen written in C, assembler, and Forth is fast. One such example in which the functionality is similar is groff vs. nroff. Big speed difference between the two on similar hardware performing similar functions. Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it "should be" is something that I think I can get a pretty good feel for, having used dozens of operating systems on dozens of types of computers over dozens of years. You're suggesting that my argument is completely illegitimate because I'm not willing to spend the next two weeks cooking up some sort of a benchmark suite to prove to you, by the numbers, something that I've never heard anyone else disagree with, ever? >> In an ideal world, one in which all programmers were competent, >> OO languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess what I really >> mean is, "Bad programmers are even more detrimental to computing >> when armed with OO languages". > > You really think these same programmers would somehow write better > code if only they would stop using OO? Yes, absolutely. Most OO languages give bad programmers more code- inflating features to misunderstand and abuse. If they don't know how to write good code in C, which is a tiny, very fast, very low- overhead, very simple language with very few features, how can they be expected to write good code in C++, C# or Java, which are anything but? Handing an idiot a loaded rifle is dangerous. Handing an idiot a loaded rifle with a loaded grenade launcher is MORE dangerous. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 16:00:30 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:00:30 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, , <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B716A7E.771.11C31C8@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 13:14, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how > many CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) A lot--you also learned to spend your time where it mattered. As a simple exercise, try writing a CDC 6600 loop to move a non-zero number of word pairs (non-overlapped), such that you get one instruction issue per cycle--and two words per loop traversal--and keep the whole thing in the instruction "stack". Similarly, a lot of time was spent figuring out bit-twiddling shortcuts. Some were remarkably clever. Heck, the code to save and restore all registers was pure cleverness. It was a different world. --Chuck From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 16:00:30 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:00:30 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <201002092131.o19LVrtx020610@floodgap.com> References: <201002092131.o19LVrtx020610@floodgap.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: >> My parents, too. ?In high school (1982), I had a PDP-8/L and a PDP-8/i >> in my room. ?Still have them. ?The fun part was wheeling the empty >> H960 rack down the street when I moved into my first college >> apartment. > > My childhood seems so deprived by comparison. Combination of opportunity and luck - I've posted many times on that -8/L. Because I had that, I knew what an -8/i was when I saw it (because I had the 1968 Small Computer Handbook). I was called in to "fix the mainframe" and found that mostly, it was just 60% of the bulbs being burned out. At $2.50 per bulb from 1-800-DIGITAL, the previous owner decided to let me haul it away rather than pay that much in materials. I learned more than one lesson that day - one of the most enduring is that there's plenty of room in a VW Microbus for two DEC racks and the stuff that goes in them. ;-) -ethan P.S. - I still have the Microbus, too. From spc at conman.org Tue Feb 9 16:18:31 2010 From: spc at conman.org (Sean Conner) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:18:31 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> References: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <20100209221831.GB8039@brevard.conman.org> It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once stated: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > >Template programming is another paradigm altogether, it's basically > >C++ specific and it has very little to do with OO. (It's also an > >abomination along with most of C++.) > > C# has a form of templates, if memory serves. I believe they're > called "generics". Name one non-OO language that has such a > construct. I don't know of any. Heh ... I've done templates in C. Portably too! Of course, it would win the "Biggest Abuser of the C Preprocessor" Award, but I did it (back in college---it seemed like a good idea at the time). > >I beleive tha in Objective C, ints are still registers, no magical > >Integer objects here. Sounds like Mail.app is poorly written. I'm > >running Outlook here (written in a mix of c and c++) and it's using > >100mb (with an inbox size of 10gb...). > > Again I'm going to try to find the in-memory representation of > those integer objects. Regardless, however, this was just an > example...I'm sure you see my point. You're suggesting that OO > programming involves no runtime overhead over procedural/imperative > languages when run on processors whose architecture is arguably > procedural/imperative. It really depends upon the implementation of objects. I've done enough "manual object oriented programming in C" to guess what C++ does under the hood. For the "objects" that had fixed methods (not real sure of the terminology here, as I don't program in C++) the overhead is just one additional parameter (the object itself, or "this"). If the compiler can figure out the method to call at compile time, there's very little overhead. > >You really think these same programmers would somehow write better > >code if only they would stop using OO? > > Yes, absolutely. Most OO languages give bad programmers more code- > inflating features to misunderstand and abuse. If they don't know > how to write good code in C, which is a tiny, very fast, very low- > overhead, very simple language with very few features, how can they > be expected to write good code in C++, C# or Java, which are anything > but? I counter that argument with PHP pre 5x. Not OO at all, and the code quality, is ... um ... let's just say that osCommerce (a shopping cart written in PHP) has been stuck at version 2.2 for several years because it's too hideous to maintain ... -spc (Might even suggest Perl, but then the counter to that is Forth ... ) From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 16:22:07 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:22:07 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Josh >>>> >>> Yes, to a large degree! You're talking about it as if it happens >>> ONCE, and you know it doesn't. Would you care to estimate how >>> many of those vtable lookup happen when someone simply clicks a >>> mouse in a modern OS? I don't know for certain, but I'm willing >>> to bet that it's thousands. >> >> I'm not going to speculate on things I have no knowledge of. Even >> if it were thousands, that would mean an overhead of tens of >> thousands of instructions. On a modern CPU, in a user-interaction >> scenario, that doesn't even begin to be noticable to the user. > > You're speaking from the standpoint of running one program, once, > alone on one computer. That's not how (most) computers are used. > How many processes are running, right now, on your Windows box? 146 > right now on my Mac, *nearly seven hundred* on the central computer > here (a big Sun). Those "this code is only 20% slower" > inefficiencies that allowed us to get back on the golf course > fifteen minutes sooner do add up. So you're clicking every button in every process running on your machine constantly? My point is that for *many* operations (like user- interactions which typically are gated on the response time of humans) virtual call overhead is acceptable. > >> If it's millions of calls in a tight loop doing some heavy >> calculation then it will have an impact; but anyone calling a >> virtual function in such a scenario is doing it wrong. > > ...which happens ALL THE TIME. I've seen (and fixed) code like > that in every programming job I've ever had. Loop strength > reduction is something that nearly all optimizing compilers do, but > the fact that compilers have optimizers doesn't give us free license > to write sloppy code. There will always be situations in which the > compiler can't reduce the strength of a loop, and they will always > get right by you when you're writing that code if you don't pay > attention. So again, the problem is the programmers, not the programming paradigm. > >>> ...what happens when someone uses an Integer instead of an int? A >>> whole object gets created when all one likely needed was a memory >>> location. >> >> Depends greatly on the language. Don't confuse one implementation >> with ALL OO programming languages. In C++ an integer maps to a >> register. Same in C#. Same in objc. Java does this differently. > > I'm going to go dig into a C++ implementation and look at the in- > memory composition of an integer object. I sure hope you're right. C++ definitely has no concept of an integer object. (it offers no built/in object types, not even a base Object class.) > >>> And howabout template programming. I've never seen executables so >>> big as the ones in which templates were overused. >> >> Template programming is another paradigm altogether, it's basically >> C++ specific and it has very little to do with OO. (It's also an >> abomination along with most of C++.) > > C# has a form of templates, if memory serves. I believe they're > called "generics". Name one non-OO language that has such a > construct. I don't know of any. C# generics and C++ template metaprogramming are nowhere near the same thing. They both let you easily define reusable container objects (and for that use, they are efficient.). C++ templates actually provide a Turing-complete language (an ugly one) that runs at compile time. You can do clever things with it, you can also do horrible things with it. C++ metaprogramming is very much a paradigm unto itself. > >>> Note well, however, that I'm talking about more than just the >>> number of instructions required to accomplish a given task. Sure, >>> that in itself ehas bad side effects when you think about what it >>> does to the instruction cache hit rates...the principal of >>> locality of reference is blown out the window. But what about >>> memory utilization? How big, in bytes, is an Integer compared to >>> an int? Ok, the difference may be only a few bytes, but what >>> about the program (which would be "most of them") with tens of >>> thousands of them? (I'm typing this on a Mac, into Mail.app, >>> which is currently eating 1.73GB of memory) >> >> I beleive tha in Objective C, ints are still registers, no magical >> Integer objects here. Sounds like Mail.app is poorly written. I'm >> running Outlook here (written in a mix of c and c++) and it's using >> 100mb (with an inbox size of 10gb...). > > Again I'm going to try to find the in-memory representation of > those integer objects. Regardless, however, this was just an > example...I'm sure you see my point. You're suggesting that OO > programming involves no runtime overhead over procedural/imperative > languages when run on processors whose architecture is arguably > procedural/imperative. Never said that. My argument has and will continue to be that the performance impact is not nearly as bad as you are implying. > >>>> You keep talking about howi OO programming is the reason that >>>> software today is so inefficient but you offer no data to back it >>>> up other than "it doesn't map to the hardware." >>> >>> I'm sorry, but knowing how processors work, it's pretty obvious to >>> me. The data that backs it up is lots of programs (some of which >>> are operating systems) that I use every day, written in OO >>> languages, including (perhaps especially!) OS X, are far slower >>> than they should be given the hardware they're running on. YOU >>> know how processors work too, I know you do, so I know you see my >>> point. >> >> This is only a valid argument if you have an OS X written in plain >> C and an OS X written in OO that you can do a real comparison >> between. Anything else is speculation. OO does have its >> overheads, I disagree that they are anywhere nearly as bad as you >> claim them to be. Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it >> "should be" based on anecdotal evidence is not proof. > > It may be, at least in part, speculation...but with lots of > experience to back it up. Quite simply, almost everything I've seen > written in C++ and Java (even with native compilation) is slow, and > most everything I've seen written in C, assembler, and Forth is fast. I could argue that I've also seen the exact opposite, but I'm not sure what that would prove. > One such example in which the functionality is similar is groff vs. > nroff. Big speed difference between the two on similar hardware > performing similar functions. > > Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it "should be" is > something that I think I can get a pretty good feel for, having used > dozens of operating systems on dozens of types of computers over > dozens of years. You're suggesting that my argument is completely > illegitimate because I'm not willing to spend the next two weeks > cooking up some sort of a benchmark suite to prove to you, by the > numbers, something that I've never heard anyone else disagree with, > ever? I'm suggesting that you are exaggerating the performance impact and that you keep basing these projections on feelings. > >>> In an ideal world, one in which all programmers were competent, OO >>> languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess what I really >>> mean is, "Bad programmers are even more detrimental to computing >>> when armed with OO languages". >> >> You really think these same programmers would somehow write better >> code if only they would stop using OO? > > Yes, absolutely. Most OO languages give bad programmers more code- > inflating features to misunderstand and abuse. If they don't know > how to write good code in C, which is a tiny, very fast, very low- > overhead, very simple language with very few features, how can they > be expected to write good code in C++, C# or Java, which are > anything but? I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. > > Handing an idiot a loaded rifle is dangerous. Handing an idiot a > loaded rifle with a loaded grenade launcher is MORE dangerous Yes. Programming languages are just like firearms. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to contact me offlist, I'm already feeling guilty for dragging this thread wayyyy off topic. Josh > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 16:46:33 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:46:33 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >> You're speaking from the standpoint of running one program, once, >> alone on one computer. That's not how (most) computers are used. >> How many processes are running, right now, on your Windows box? >> 146 right now on my Mac, *nearly seven hundred* on the central >> computer here (a big Sun). Those "this code is only 20% slower" >> inefficiencies that allowed us to get back on the golf course >> fifteen minutes sooner do add up. > > So you're clicking every button in every process running on your > machine constantly? Of course not. But don't assume I'm the only person using this machine. It's sitting there receiving and doing spam filtering on about 90K emails per day, serving web pages for a small stack of web sites, being a database server with about 20GB of data behind it...The machine isn't sitting there idle waiting for me to click on something. That machine doesn't even have a graphical console. There's more to what computers do than run whatever app one particular user is clicking at at any given time. > My point is that for *many* operations (like user-interactions > which typically are gated on the response time of humans) virtual > call overhead is acceptable. If that's the only thing, or one of a very small number of things, running on the (very very fast) machine, sure. >>> Depends greatly on the language. Don't confuse one >>> implementation with ALL OO programming languages. In C++ an >>> integer maps to a register. Same in C#. Same in objc. Java >>> does this differently. >> >> I'm going to go dig into a C++ implementation and look at the in- >> memory composition of an integer object. I sure hope you're right. > > C++ definitely has no concept of an integer object. (it offers no > built/in object types, not even a base Object class.) Again, it was an example, taken from Java, because I know Java much better than I know C++. >> C# has a form of templates, if memory serves. I believe they're >> called "generics". Name one non-OO language that has such a >> construct. I don't know of any. > > C# generics and C++ template metaprogramming are nowhere near the > same thing. They both let you easily define reusable container > objects (and for that use, they are efficient.). C++ templates > actually provide a Turing-complete language (an ugly one) that runs > at compile time. You can do clever things with it, you can also do > horrible things with it. > > C++ metaprogramming is very much a paradigm unto itself. Everything I've read about generics describes them as a form of templates. Everything. You're asserting that they're completely different? If so, I will stand corrected, and chalk it up to a lot of bad info on peoples' web sites. I myself don't have a Windows computer so I don't use C#, so I can't speak from direct experience there. >> It may be, at least in part, speculation...but with lots of >> experience to back it up. Quite simply, almost everything I've >> seen written in C++ and Java (even with native compilation) is >> slow, and most everything I've seen written in C, assembler, and >> Forth is fast. > > I could argue that I've also seen the exact opposite, but I'm not > sure what that would prove. You have? Seriously? >> One such example in which the functionality is similar is groff >> vs. nroff. Big speed difference between the two on similar >> hardware performing similar functions. >> >> Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it "should be" is >> something that I think I can get a pretty good feel for, having >> used dozens of operating systems on dozens of types of computers >> over dozens of years. You're suggesting that my argument is >> completely illegitimate because I'm not willing to spend the next >> two weeks cooking up some sort of a benchmark suite to prove to >> you, by the numbers, something that I've never heard anyone else >> disagree with, ever? > > I'm suggesting that you are exaggerating the performance impact and > that you keep basing these projections on feelings. Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion-plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of both to essentially the same degree. Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc. The apps are a bit prettier now, certainly moreso than with fvwm, but I'd happily live without that. >>>> In an ideal world, one in which all programmers were competent, >>>> OO languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess what I >>>> really mean is, "Bad programmers are even more detrimental to >>>> computing when armed with OO languages". >>> >>> You really think these same programmers would somehow write >>> better code if only they would stop using OO? >> >> Yes, absolutely. Most OO languages give bad programmers more >> code-inflating features to misunderstand and abuse. If they don't >> know how to write good code in C, which is a tiny, very fast, very >> low-overhead, very simple language with very few features, how can >> they be expected to write good code in C++, C# or Java, which are >> anything but? > > I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'm fine with that. >> Handing an idiot a loaded rifle is dangerous. Handing an idiot a >> loaded rifle with a loaded grenade launcher is MORE dangerous > > Yes. Programming languages are just like firearms. Wow. So I'm not allowed to use analogies here? -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 16:51:03 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:51:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <20100209221831.GB8039@brevard.conman.org> References: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <20100209221831.GB8039@brevard.conman.org> Message-ID: <323786.88210.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I'm not so sure that the overhead for C++ objects is quite a bad as everyone's making them out to be. Most of it boils down to simple pointer math and in other cases the compiler itself can abstract away some of the offset calculations. If variables live on the stack anyway, you'd have to do these offset calculations to get the data as well. ________________________________ From: Sean Conner To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:18:31 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog It was thus said that the Great Dave McGuire once stated: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > >Template programming is another paradigm altogether, it's basically > >C++ specific and it has very little to do with OO. (It's also an > >abomination along with most of C++.) > > C# has a form of templates, if memory serves. I believe they're > called "generics". Name one non-OO language that has such a > construct. I don't know of any. Heh ... I've done templates in C. Portably too! Of course, it would win the "Biggest Abuser of the C Preprocessor" Award, but I did it (back in college---it seemed like a good idea at the time). > >I beleive tha in Objective C, ints are still registers, no magical > >Integer objects here. Sounds like Mail.app is poorly written. I'm > >running Outlook here (written in a mix of c and c++) and it's using > >100mb (with an inbox size of 10gb...). > > Again I'm going to try to find the in-memory representation of > those integer objects. Regardless, however, this was just an > example...I'm sure you see my point. You're suggesting that OO > programming involves no runtime overhead over procedural/imperative > languages when run on processors whose architecture is arguably > procedural/imperative. It really depends upon the implementation of objects. I've done enough "manual object oriented programming in C" to guess what C++ does under the hood. For the "objects" that had fixed methods (not real sure of the terminology here, as I don't program in C++) the overhead is just one additional parameter (the object itself, or "this"). If the compiler can figure out the method to call at compile time, there's very little overhead. > >You really think these same programmers would somehow write better > >code if only they would stop using OO? > > Yes, absolutely. Most OO languages give bad programmers more code- > inflating features to misunderstand and abuse. If they don't know > how to write good code in C, which is a tiny, very fast, very low- > overhead, very simple language with very few features, how can they > be expected to write good code in C++, C# or Java, which are anything > but? I counter that argument with PHP pre 5x. Not OO at all, and the code quality, is ... um ... let's just say that osCommerce (a shopping cart written in PHP) has been stuck at version 2.2 for several years because it's too hideous to maintain ... -spc (Might even suggest Perl, but then the counter to that is Forth ... ) From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 16:55:12 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:55:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <624077.60218.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I would imagine you are right. Back in an era where computing power was at a premium, any wasted cycles were costly. Not so these days. I would argue that in several respects (i.e. GUI design) OOP makes a lot of sense and writing a GUI environment in a non-OOP language, while certainly possible, is probably a lot harder to design and make extensible. Again, not impossible, but could be painful. That said I see a lot of C++ code at my work that adds unnecessary complexity. ________________________________ From: Ethan Dicks To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 3:17:08 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how many CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) Probably a lot. In the earliest days, assemblers were considered a poor use of time on the machine. Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 digits only takes you so far... ;-) -ethan From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 17:00:20 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:00:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> The same things? Doubtful. How fancy a GUI does your SPARCstation run compared to your more modern PPC? ________________________________ From: Dave McGuire To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:46:33 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion-plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of both to essentially the same degree. From lance.w.lyon at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 17:03:23 2010 From: lance.w.lyon at gmail.com (Lance Lyon) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:03:23 +1100 Subject: 80486 (was Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog) In-Reply-To: <20100209215747.GA8039@brevard.conman.org> References: <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <20100209215747.GA8039@brevard.conman.org> Message-ID: <4b71e9be.1602be0a.56fc.1249@mx.google.com> -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Sean Conner Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2010 8:58 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > The other side of the coin is that the 2.6Gh machine sitting below my desk > can do things that my old system (a 150MHz 486 with 32M RAM) would die > trying to do Don't think 486's ever reached this speed. I know AMD released a 133MHz version (the AM 5x86) and that 150MHz & 160MHz were planned but not (I believe) ever released. Cheers, Lance Lyon http://www.commodore128.org From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 17:06:30 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:06:30 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> Yes, the same things. Here, quoted from the message that you trimmed: "Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc." I'll add "viewing PDF files and generating documentation" since they came to mind since I sent that. About the only thing I do on my system now that I didn't back then was run CPU emulators and edit pictures. Yes, the GUI is prettier, and it supports drag-and-drop (which I almost never use), but other than that, there's not much difference. The OS *supports* the apps. I spend most of my time in the apps. -Dave On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:00 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > The same things? Doubtful. How fancy a GUI does your SPARCstation > run compared to your more modern PPC? > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Dave McGuire > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:46:33 PM > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > > Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and > knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based > OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion- > plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many > others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do > the same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. > > Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, > bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming > and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is > that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME > STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do > every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of > both to essentially the same degree. -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 17:07:04 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:07:04 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, , <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 14:55, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you > really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 > digits only takes you so far... ;-) 100 years, which is longer than we've had electronic digital computers--or longer, depending on the mechanism used to store the field (i.e.,. BCD vs. binary vs. ASCII). An awful lot of legacy code was changed by Y2K programmers to express the year as a 4 digit field, instead of simply employing "wraparound" logic. But heck, at $45/hour for a COBOL programmer back then, why not make the job more complicated? --Chuck From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 17:10:26 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:10:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <739792.43520.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> You don't have any problems viewing HD movies on your 40MHz SPARC? How about encoding video, how long does that take? ________________________________ From: Dave McGuire To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 5:06:30 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog Yes, the same things. Here, quoted from the message that you trimmed: "Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc." I'll add "viewing PDF files and generating documentation" since they came to mind since I sent that. About the only thing I do on my system now that I didn't back then was run CPU emulators and edit pictures. Yes, the GUI is prettier, and it supports drag-and-drop (which I almost never use), but other than that, there's not much difference. The OS *supports* the apps. I spend most of my time in the apps. -Dave On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:00 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > The same things? Doubtful. How fancy a GUI does your SPARCstation run compared to your more modern PPC? > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Dave McGuire > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:46:33 PM > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > > Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion-plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. > > Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of both to essentially the same degree. --Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Tue Feb 9 17:12:37 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:12:37 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, , <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B71EBE5.40703@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 9 Feb 2010 at 14:55, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > >> Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you >> really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 >> digits only takes you so far... ;-) > > 100 years, which is longer than we've had electronic digital > computers--or longer, depending on the mechanism used to store the > field (i.e.,. BCD vs. binary vs. ASCII). An awful lot of legacy code > was changed by Y2K programmers to express the year as a 4 digit > field, instead of simply employing "wraparound" logic. But heck, at > $45/hour for a COBOL programmer back then, why not make the job more > complicated? I think it was the $45 / word of memory that did it. How many people coding in the late 1950's expected the same aps would sill run 40+ years later? > --Chuck From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 17:12:59 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:12:59 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >>> You're speaking from the standpoint of running one program, once, >>> alone on one computer. That's not how (most) computers are used. >>> How many processes are running, right now, on your Windows box? >>> 146 right now on my Mac, *nearly seven hundred* on the central >>> computer here (a big Sun). Those "this code is only 20% slower" >>> inefficiencies that allowed us to get back on the golf course >>> fifteen minutes sooner do add up. >> >> So you're clicking every button in every process running on your >> machine constantly? > > Of course not. But don't assume I'm the only person using this > machine. It's sitting there receiving and doing spam filtering on > about 90K emails per day, serving web pages for a small stack of web > sites, being a database server with about 20GB of data behind > it...The machine isn't sitting there idle waiting for me to click on > something. That machine doesn't even have a graphical console. > > There's more to what computers do than run whatever app one > particular user is clicking at at any given time. > >> My point is that for *many* operations (like user-interactions >> which typically are gated on the response time of humans) virtual >> call overhead is acceptable. > > If that's the only thing, or one of a very small number of things, > running on the (very very fast) machine, sure. > >>>> Depends greatly on the language. Don't confuse one >>>> implementation with ALL OO programming languages. In C++ an >>>> integer maps to a register. Same in C#. Same in objc. Java >>>> does this differently. >>> >>> I'm going to go dig into a C++ implementation and look at the in- >>> memory composition of an integer object. I sure hope you're right. >> >> C++ definitely has no concept of an integer object. (it offers no >> built/in object types, not even a base Object class.) > > Again, it was an example, taken from Java, because I know Java much > better than I know C++. > >>> C# has a form of templates, if memory serves. I believe they're >>> called "generics". Name one non-OO language that has such a >>> construct. I don't know of any. >> >> C# generics and C++ template metaprogramming are nowhere near the >> same thing. They both let you easily define reusable container >> objects (and for that use, they are efficient.). C++ templates >> actually provide a Turing-complete language (an ugly one) that runs >> at compile time. You can do clever things with it, you can also do >> horrible things with it. >> >> C++ metaprogramming is very much a paradigm unto itself. > > Everything I've read about generics describes them as a form of > templates. Everything. You're asserting that they're completely > different? If so, I will stand corrected, and chalk it up to a lot > of bad info on peoples' web sites. I myself don't have a Windows > computer so I don't use C#, so I can't speak from direct experience > there. You can indeed use C#, via the Mono project. Generics are a very basic form of C++ templates that are good for creating generic containers, and that's about it. C++ templates are considerably more involved, and metaprogramming tricks are used to do all manner of insane things at compile time. At a very basic level, the two are the same. It's like saying a Yugo and a Maserati are equivalent because they are both cars. (yes, you can use analogies here :) > >>> It may be, at least in part, speculation...but with lots of >>> experience to back it up. Quite simply, almost everything I've >>> seen written in C++ and Java (even with native compilation) is >>> slow, and most everything I've seen written in C, assembler, and >>> Forth is fast. >> >> I could argue that I've also seen the exact opposite, but I'm not >> sure what that would prove. > > You have? Seriously? Yep. Again, it's a case of bad programmers doing stupid things. > >>> One such example in which the functionality is similar is groff >>> vs. nroff. Big speed difference between the two on similar >>> hardware performing similar functions. >>> >>> Speculating that OS foo is far slower than it "should be" is >>> something that I think I can get a pretty good feel for, having >>> used dozens of operating systems on dozens of types of computers >>> over dozens of years. You're suggesting that my argument is >>> completely illegitimate because I'm not willing to spend the next >>> two weeks cooking up some sort of a benchmark suite to prove to >>> you, by the numbers, something that I've never heard anyone else >>> disagree with, ever? >> >> I'm suggesting that you are exaggerating the performance impact and >> that you keep basing these projections on feelings. > > Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and > knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based > OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion- > plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many > others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the > same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. > > Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, > bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming > and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is > that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME > STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do > every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of both > to essentially the same degree. > > Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, > compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc. The apps are a bit > prettier now, certainly moreso than with fvwm, but I'd happily live > without that. See, here's where I see a disconnect; you are doing the same *class* of thing, but you're not really doing the same thing. Programs have gotten more complex because people want more from their software. Regardless of whether Firefox 3.5 was written in assembly or C++ you'd never hope to run it on your IPX. I just think you are blaming the wrong thing (or just blaming one thing) for the performance degradations you are perceiving. OO overhead adds some not imperceivable overhead; so do each of extensibility, abstraction, support for "modern standards" (CSS, JavaScript, XML) ui theming, support for "advanced" desktop metaphors, etc... Code reuse and abstractions also bring overhead; these exist even in C, but the overhead is worth it in terms of maintenance and usability (from a programming and a user perspective.) And honestly, my current desktop machine runs circles around the machine I was using in college, doing more or less the same things you do; I rarely hit performance issues. The same was true of my previous desktop, which I got six years of use from. > >>>>> In an ideal world, one in newhich all programmers were >>>>> competent, OO languages wouldn't be such a problem. So I guess >>>>> what I really mean is, "Bad programmers are even more >>>>> detrimental to computing when armed with OO languages". >>>> >>>> You really think these same programmers would somehow write >>>> better code if only they would stop using OO? >>> >>> Yes, absolutely. Most OO languages give bad programmers more code- >>> inflating features to misunderstand and abuse. If they don't know >>> how to write good code in C, which is a tiny, very fast, very low- >>> overhead, very simple language with very few features, how can >>> they be expected to write good code in C++, C# or Java, which are >>> anything but? >> >> I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. > > I'm fine with that. > >>> Handing an idiot a loaded rifle is dangerous. Handing an idiot a >>> loaded rifle with a loaded grenade launcher is MORE dangerous >> >> Yes. Programming languages are just like firearms. > > Wow. So I'm not allowed to use analogies here? Sorry, typing this from my phone and forgot to finish that sentence :). And I said I wasn't going to continue dragging this offtopic... Josh > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > > From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 17:14:06 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:14:06 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <739792.43520.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> <739792.43520.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5F05226B-11A9-4FCA-8570-58A52922B74A@neurotica.com> Of course there are things that my old SPARCstation wouldn't be able to do, and those are two good examples. They also happen to be things that weren't on my list, and things that I've NEVER done, on any computer, and don't see any desire to. I view HD movies on my A/ V system in my living room, and I've never had a need to encode my own video. Please read my list. -Dave On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:10 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > You don't have any problems viewing HD movies on your 40MHz SPARC? > How about encoding video, how long does that take? > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Dave McGuire > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 5:06:30 PM > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > > Yes, the same things. Here, quoted from the message that you > trimmed: > > "Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, > compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc." > > I'll add "viewing PDF files and generating documentation" since > they came to mind since I sent that. About the only thing I do on > my system now that I didn't back then was run CPU emulators and > edit pictures. > > Yes, the GUI is prettier, and it supports drag-and-drop (which I > almost never use), but other than that, there's not much > difference. The OS *supports* the apps. I spend most of my time > in the apps. > > -Dave > > On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:00 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: >> The same things? Doubtful. How fancy a GUI does your SPARCstation >> run compared to your more modern PPC? >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Dave McGuire >> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts >> >> Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:46:33 PM >> Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog >> >> >> Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and >> knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI- >> based OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a >> billion-plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and >> many others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that >> do the same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. >> >> Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, >> bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming >> and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is >> that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME >> STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do >> every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of >> both to essentially the same degree. > > > --Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 17:14:48 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:14:48 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71EBE5.40703@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, , <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> <4B71EBE5.40703@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <328D96CA-D823-45D1-A9B7-861E383A46A2@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Ben wrote: >>> Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you >>> really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 >>> digits only takes you so far... ;-) >> >> 100 years, which is longer than we've had electronic digital >> computers--or longer, depending on the mechanism used to store the >> field (i.e.,. BCD vs. binary vs. ASCII). An awful lot of legacy code >> was changed by Y2K programmers to express the year as a 4 digit >> field, instead of simply employing "wraparound" logic. But heck, at >> $45/hour for a COBOL programmer back then, why not make the job more >> complicated? > > I think it was the $45 / word of memory that did it. > How many people coding in the late 1950's expected the same aps > would sill run 40+ years later? Shortsightedness is a hallmark of our industry. It always has been, and probably always will be. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 17:14:47 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:14:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71EBE5.40703@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, , <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> <4B71EBE5.40703@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <734873.7952.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> let alone having systems that are compatible? :) ________________________________ From: Ben To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 5:12:37 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 9 Feb 2010 at 14:55, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > >> Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you >> really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 >> digits only takes you so far... ;-) > > 100 years, which is longer than we've had electronic digital > computers--or longer, depending on the mechanism used to store the > field (i.e.,. BCD vs. binary vs. ASCII). An awful lot of legacy code > was changed by Y2K programmers to express the year as a 4 digit > field, instead of simply employing "wraparound" logic. But heck, at > $45/hour for a COBOL programmer back then, why not make the job more > complicated? I think it was the $45 / word of memory that did it. How many people coding in the late 1950's expected the same aps would sill run 40+ years later? > --Chuck From spc at conman.org Tue Feb 9 17:26:30 2010 From: spc at conman.org (Sean Conner) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:26:30 -0500 Subject: 80486 (was Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog) In-Reply-To: <4b71e9be.1602be0a.56fc.1249@mx.google.com> References: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <20100209215747.GA8039@brevard.conman.org> <4b71e9be.1602be0a.56fc.1249@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <20100209232630.GA5944@brevard.conman.org> It was thus said that the Great Lance Lyon once stated: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] > On Behalf Of Sean Conner > Sent: Wednesday, 10 February 2010 8:58 AM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > > > The other side of the coin is that the 2.6Gh machine sitting below my > desk > > can do things that my old system (a 150MHz 486 with 32M RAM) would die > > trying to do > > Don't think 486's ever reached this speed. I know AMD released a 133MHz > version (the AM 5x86) and that 150MHz & 160MHz were planned but not (I > believe) ever released. You're right---I had an AMD 5x86 chip in that box. -spc (and I knew it was around 150MHz ... ) From arcbe2001 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 9 17:44:04 2010 From: arcbe2001 at yahoo.com (Russ Bartlett) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:44:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The comments are wide of the mark.? I started programming in the 1960's.? On an IBM 360/25 for example,? we had 48 KB memory in which to partition F1, F2, and BG.? Larger systems we would run Power II or HASP, GRASP etc.? the spooler would use up memory.? Now considering that back then one byte of memory cost a buck it doesn't take a rocket scientist to? figure out that every little bit counted.? We had 11MB disks given that time cost money (mount/unmount disks), multi volume files etc,? and that hardware was extremely expensive it made a lot of sense to consider every aspect of the equation: 1) Run time - I rewrote a number of COBOL programs in 360 BAL (Assembler) that were resource hogs and took a lot of processor time.? I could reduce the run time of some by a factor of 5 or more.? COBOL compilers were inefficient and for example multiply, divide and moves (different data formats) would generate a lot of? machine code instructions.? A good programmer would know what was good and bad practice.? Example group moves to the same format, multiple adds instead of multiply.? Assemblers were NOT considered poor use of machine time? - totally the reverse.? Assembler programmers had to know what they were doing though and for that I was paid more.? It took far less time to assemble a program in BAL that compile a COBOL program.? The down side was it took a lot longer to write. 2)? Programs had to be written so that the most frequent parts were in memory due to the need for the system to page.? BAL I wrote in Csec's (4kb) so that for example one would perform a credit check, another perform page headings etc.? Maybe it sounds familiar - reusable code/API's!? So maybe we weren't so stupid after all. 3) Anyone appreciating earlier data processing challenges would also be aware that storage came at a price.? Also there was a limitation as to what would fit onto a 80 column card (punched card).? Disc storage wasn't cheap and all this needed to be weighed against the belief that a system written in 1965 would not be used by Y2K.? Maybe someone would like to explain to my why my Quick Books purchase in 1996 (C#) wasn't Y2K compliant.? I found a lot of the computer article written prior to the Y2K switch laughable being written by people by people that really hadn't a clue as to why the systems had been written that way in? the first place. --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Ethan Dicks wrote: From: Ethan Dicks Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 4:17 PM On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how many CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) Probably a lot.? In the earliest days, assemblers were considered a poor use of time on the machine. Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you really need to represent a year on the modern calendar.? Hint: 2 digits only takes you so far... ;-) -ethan From RichA at vulcan.com Tue Feb 9 17:50:09 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:50:09 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, , <775223.59947.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: From: Chuck Guzis Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:07 PM > On 9 Feb 2010 at 14:55, geoffrey oltmans wrote: >> Of course, these are the people who argued as to how many digits you >> really need to represent a year on the modern calendar. Hint: 2 >> digits only takes you so far... ;-) > 100 years, which is longer than we've had electronic digital > computers--or longer, depending on the mechanism used to store the > field (i.e.,. BCD vs. binary vs. ASCII). An awful lot of legacy code > was changed by Y2K programmers to express the year as a 4 digit > field, instead of simply employing "wraparound" logic. But heck, at > $45/hour for a COBOL programmer back then, why not make the job more > complicated? In those industries in which there is a lot of legacy COBOL code (which is to say, those industries most affected by the so-called "Y2K bug"), wraparound on dates is not a particularly good idea. I note the little old lady in the UK who got a letter from her insurance company expressing congratulations over the arrival of her new baby girl: A wrap-around year calculation had turned the 101 year old woman into an infant. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I earned my living doing COBOL and PL/I programming for a major university's financial systems, I frequently argued with my colleagues about the continued idiocy (no, I was not politic about it) of using 2-digit years with the turn of the century only 20 years away. When challenged on it, I could point to my office mate, one of whose on-going tasks was documenting the major part of the university's general accounting application which was written in uncommented 1401 Autocoder, and which ran under emulation on the Amdahl 470 V8, that dated back to 1959. The assistant manager of the FS group was one of the two people (the other one still in the Comptroller's office) who wrote the code, 20 years earlier. *He* backed me up. Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org http://www.PDPplanet.org/ http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/ From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 17:55:21 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:55:21 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: , <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B718569.31131.18558AB@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 15:44, Russ Bartlett wrote: > It took far less time to assemble a program in BAL that compile a > COBOL program.? The down side was it took a lot longer to write. I imagine that you didn't use many I/O library macros then. On a Mod 40 running DOS using the F-level assembler, it took forever for the assembler to crunch through those things. They were pretty hairy. --Chuck From RichA at vulcan.com Tue Feb 9 18:03:19 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:03:19 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: From: Russ Bartlett Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 3:44 PM > --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:14 PM, geoffrey oltmans >> wrote: >>> I wonder how much programmers in the 50's and 60's argued about how many >>> CPU cycles this programming construct took vs. that. ;) >> Probably a lot. In the earliest days, assemblers were considered a poor use >> of time on the machine. > The comments are wide of the mark. I started programming in the 1960's. > On an IBM 360/25 for example, we had 48 KB memory in which to partition F1, > F2, and BG. Larger systems we would run Power II or HASP, GRASP etc. the > spooler would use up memory. Now considering that back then one byte of > memory cost a buck it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that > every little bit counted. We had 11MB disks given that time cost money > (mount/unmount disks), multi volume files etc, and that hardware was > extremely expensive it made a lot of sense to consider every aspect of the > equation: [ snip ] > Assemblers were NOT considered poor use of machine time - totally the > reverse. Assembler programmers had to know what they were doing though and > for that I was paid more. It took far less time to assemble a program in > BAL that compile a COBOL program. The down side was it took a lot longer > to write. I'm pretty sure that Ethan was talking about the attitudes in the mid-1950s, when assembler languages were born. He is correct that at the time, the use of assembler languages was controversial, because so much precious computer time was wasted doing something that any good programmer ought to be able to do at his desk. *Every* generation of programmers has *always* looked down on their successors as using tools that waste too much computer time to do too little. Of course, *my* generation (started programming in 1969 on a 1401) is right. ;-) Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org http://www.PDPplanet.org/ http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/ From robert at irrelevant.com Tue Feb 9 18:46:03 2010 From: robert at irrelevant.com (Rob) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:46:03 +0000 Subject: TV Licensing (Re: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 3) In-Reply-To: References: <4B709EA0.3040001@aurigae.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <2f806cd71002091646o4ae5d146pa327c00c540dbed1@mail.gmail.com> On 9 February 2010 19:48, Tony Duell wrote: > > Mind you, they also didn't know what, if any, licesnse is required for a > TV sound-only receiver. That one I can answer - no licence required: "If you only use your digital box to produce sounds (i.e. you don't use it to display programmes), then you don't need a TV Licence." http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/ > Or for a teletext-only receiver (such as the > units used with the BBC micro). For such devices, does 'colour' mean it > uses a colour monitor, or that it decodes the attribute bytes, or what? It definitely used to be the monitor you used to display it. Given, w.r.t. digital boxes they say: "A black and white TV Licence does not cover the use of colour TV receiving equipment, such as a digital box. The only exception is if it's only used with a black and white TV set and the equipment can?t record TV." http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3/ I suggest that the situation is the same. > The did tell me that if I modified a TV receiver so that it no longer > received TV, then it diddn't need a license. If I took a TV set, > desoldered the tuner module, and used the rest of it as a monitor, then I > didn't need a license. Even if I kepty the tuner module in my spares box. > The fact I had parts that could be assembled into a TV set did not mean I > had a TV set. You don't even need to go that far - just don't use it: "You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV." [rather than as-live] http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/ > > Many years ago I assembled the Maplin NICAM TV tuner kits. I bought said > kits in one of their shops (back when Maplin shops stocked interesting > items), and they didn't take my name or address. I was told that although > a lincense was needed to use the assembled kit, there was no license > check in buying a box of parts. The parts were not a TV receiver, they > could be used for all sorts of other things. > > FWIW, all the above devies are used in a house that has a valid TV > license, so it didn;t really matter. Byt as=king annoying questions is a > hobby of mine... Hotels and the like are only covered for 15 devices - then you need to buy another licence for each five devices... so, in certain circumstances it can be advantageous to know what needs a licence and what doesn't. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/tv-licence-types-and-costs-top2/ Rob From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 18:56:37 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (Geoff Oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 18:56:37 -0600 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <5F05226B-11A9-4FCA-8570-58A52922B74A@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> <739792.43520.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <5F05226B-11A9-4FCA-8570-58A52922B74A@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <796519A7-CA0B-4F3F-9284-A57844661643@bellsouth.net> You seemed to be arguing that there was absolutely no benefit to the added complexity (bloat you said) of modern systems. Just because there's some application that you don't want doesn't mean that it's necessarily wasteful though. On Feb 9, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > > Of course there are things that my old SPARCstation wouldn't be able to do, and those are two good examples. They also happen to be things that weren't on my list, and things that I've NEVER done, on any computer, and don't see any desire to. I view HD movies on my A/V system in my living room, and I've never had a need to encode my own video. > > Please read my list. > > -Dave > > On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:10 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: >> You don't have any problems viewing HD movies on your 40MHz SPARC? How about encoding video, how long does that take? >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Dave McGuire >> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts >> Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 5:06:30 PM >> Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog >> >> >> Yes, the same things. Here, quoted from the message that you trimmed: >> >> "Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc." >> >> I'll add "viewing PDF files and generating documentation" since they came to mind since I sent that. About the only thing I do on my system now that I didn't back then was run CPU emulators and edit pictures. >> >> Yes, the GUI is prettier, and it supports drag-and-drop (which I almost never use), but other than that, there's not much difference. The OS *supports* the apps. I spend most of my time in the apps. >> >> -Dave >> >> On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:00 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: >>> The same things? Doubtful. How fancy a GUI does your SPARCstation run compared to your more modern PPC? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Dave McGuire >>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts >>> Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:46:33 PM >>> Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog >>> >>> >>> Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion-plus clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many others on this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the same thing with a tiny fraction of those resources. >>> >>> Windows, OS X, and Linux (but only with Gnome or KDE) are fat, bloated, slow, lumbering pigs, and it's due to sloppy programming and misapplication of tools. That is my assertion. My proof is that I use my dual 1.8GHz PPC with 4GB of RAM for the EXACT SAME STUFF every day that I used my 40MHz SPARC with 32MB of RAM to do every day, and I bump up against the performance limitations of both to essentially the same degree. >> >> >> --Dave McGuire >> Port Charlotte, FL > > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 18:59:25 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:59:25 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: >> --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>> Probably a lot. ?In the earliest days, assemblers were considered a poor use >>> of time on the machine. > >> Assemblers were NOT considered poor use of machine time - totally the >> reverse. ?Assembler programmers had to know what they were doing though and >> for that I was paid more. ?It took far less time to assemble a program in >> BAL that compile a COBOL program. ?The down side was it took a lot longer >> to write. > > I'm pretty sure that Ethan was talking about the attitudes in the mid-1950s, > when assembler languages were born. Yep. Assemblers vs Machine Code, not Assemblers vs High Level Language Compilers. I did say "the earliest days". Sorry for not assigning a year to that. >?He is correct that at the time, the use > of assembler languages was controversial, because so much precious computer > time was wasted doing something that any good programmer ought to be able to > do at his desk. That is the attitude I was recalling. > *Every* generation of programmers has *always* looked down on their successors > as using tools that waste too much computer time to do too little. ?Of course, > *my* generation (started programming in 1969 on a 1401) is right. ;-) I certainly agree with you in principle, but I still wonder why even non-GUI application bloat has to be as bad as it is. We used to put 25-40 users on an 8MB VAX before it would start to swap. Now, still using a character based interface (which happens to be ssh vs direct serial connect, but that doesn't affect CLI application size), a program to tell me what processes are active on the system is 8MB by itself, vs a few dozen K bytes (I should go back and dig out one of those programs from the old days and port it to a modern machine to compare library bloat vs application bloat. Fortunately, I have my backups from 25 years ago). This is C code then and C code now, 80x25 then and 80x25 now. UNIX then and UNIX or Linux now. 32-bit processors then, 32-bit processors now. Not quite apples to oranges like most comparisons reaching back that far across the generations of equipment and mentalities. 25+ years later, how far have uber-fast machines with uber-large and uber-cheap storage really gotten us? Not as far as the raw numbers might lead one to think. I can buy a machine that about fits in my pocket that has 500 times the memory, 500 times the storage, and has a clock that's nearly 500 times faster for 1/500th the cost* - a 250,000X price-performance advantage. I think quite a bit of that 500x multiplier is getting pissed away before I type a single character. Yes it can do more; yes it feels faster. That much faster? Not in my opinion. -ethan * Numbers based on 1984 stats for a VAX-11/750 w/RA81 - approx $150K, integer speed approx the same as 8MHz 68000, 8MB RAM, 450 MB of disk, compared with a modern portable 3.6GHz machine w/4GB of RAM and 250GB of disk for under $400. Some settling may have occurred in shipping. Post No Bills, etc. -ethan From g at kurico.com Tue Feb 9 19:00:56 2010 From: g at kurico.com (George Currie) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:00:56 -0600 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <323786.88210.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <20100209221831.GB8039@brevard.conman.org> <323786.88210.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B720548.3090808@kurico.com> geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I'm not so sure that the overhead for C++ objects is quite a bad as everyone's making them out to be. Most of it boils down to simple pointer math and in other cases the compiler itself can abstract away some of the offset calculations. If variables live on the stack anyway, you'd have to do these offset calculations to get the data as well. > I think the bigger point is that there are _many_ places in modern apps where TONS of time is being wasted such that the overhead of vtables (or more importantly, the lost functionality by doing away with them) is relatively minor (depends in large part on the app of course). Heck, in a modern OS, every time I type a character, like in this email, there are about a bazillion things that happen (proper font/face chosen, rendered, line formatting checked, spell checking, text identification and highlighting (e.g. urls), etc, etc, etc) compared to a character mode editor on a CLI. All that is obviously going to drain huge cycles. Now you could certainly make that entire chain more efficient by minimizing the effects of the vtable, but it's the features itself that factor into the overall feeling that the modern OS is less responsive (or at the least no more responsive) than those of days gone by. I happen to work at a job where we _do_ count clock cycles and we'll spend much time shaving microseconds from our code. We even study and understand the effects of processor groupings in modern multiprocessor/core computers. That said, we still code in C++ but we understand when it's worthwhile to shave, when it's not worthwhile getting that detailed and when it's worthwhile to change the algorithm vs trying to shave a few nanoseconds by avoiding vtables or aligning your memory accesses. I grew up doing assembler and C. That said, the biggest issue with software today (imho) isn't really speed (the folks at places like Intel and nVidia will help us there) it's really stability and functionality. The goal of a lot of the bloat is to attempt to help in those areas (with varying levels of success of course). From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 19:10:10 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:10:10 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B717A18.15502.1592433@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B7196F2.31537.1C9D850@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 15:50, Rich Alderson wrote: > In those industries in which there is a lot of legacy COBOL code > (which is to say, those industries most affected by the so-called "Y2K > bug"), wraparound on dates is not a particularly good idea. I note > the little old lady in the UK who got a letter from her insurance > company expressing congratulations over the arrival of her new baby > girl: A wrap-around year calculation had turned the 101 year old > woman into an infant. That wasn't my point. What I was getting at was that an awful lot of code was rewritten unnecessarily simply to accommodate the "bump" created by Y2K. Not making provision for someone being older than 99 is just plain stupid. When I think of a military customer from the 1970's, with tons of 7080 COBOL with undocumented binary patches (probably to 'ENTER AUTOCODER" routines) all running under emulation, the amount of work needed to unravel that mess for Y2K would have been incredible. --Chuck From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 19:13:50 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:13:50 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> Ethan Dicks wrote: > [ actually a lot of good stuff] ;-) > 25+ years later, how far have uber-fast machines with uber-large and > uber-cheap storage really gotten us? Not as far as the raw numbers > might lead one to think. I can buy a machine that about fits in my > pocket that has 500 times the memory, 500 times the storage, and has a > clock that's nearly 500 times faster for 1/500th the cost* - a > 250,000X price-performance advantage. I think quite a bit of that > 500x multiplier is getting pissed away before I type a single > character. Yes it can do more; yes it feels faster. That much > faster? Not in my opinion. That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. Progress I guess ;-) From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 19:18:22 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:18:22 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Russ Bartlett wrote: > The comments are wide of the mark.? I started programming in the 1960's. As has already been mentioned, I was referring to a generation or two _before_ you. *They* would have complained of your use of compilers and assembers. By your era, that argument was long stale. > 3) Anyone appreciating earlier data processing challenges would also be aware that storage came at a price.? Also there was a limitation as to what would fit onto a 80 column card (punched card).? Disc storage wasn't cheap... 11 years ago, I pointed this very fact out to "journalists" who were convinced that Y2K was all a scam to pad IT budgets because "nobody would have gone to that much trouble to save 4 bits (00-99 fits in 7 bits, 2000 fits in 11 bits) even in the 1950s. I pointed out that a) it was two characters, not 4 bits (BCD or EBCDIC or later ASCII), and b) a metropolitan utility company that just kept *only* two dates per customer would have millions of extra copies of "19" to keep track of, load, process, store, print, save, etc., and c) that one of the most easily exhausted resources was 80 columns on a punch card. If you encode the due-date of a utility bill onto the card for later processing, that's two columns less you have for account number or other pertinent information (I don't recall what punch-card bills specifically had on them - I only saw my parents pay them). Even the extra reels of tape from millions of copies of "19" will add up after a while. > and all this needed to be weighed against the belief that a system written in 1965 would not be used by Y2K. That's certainly true enough - who would have forecast that so much code was still running in one form or another after so many decades? > Maybe someone would like to explain to my why my Quick Books purchase in 1996 (C#) wasn't Y2K compliant.? I found a lot of the computer article written prior to the Y2K switch laughable being written by people by people that really hadn't a clue as to why the systems had been written that way in? the first place. It seems to me that any code written after 1980 _should_ have been written with 4-digit dates, but not enough of it was. We Americans were all too much in the habit of writing our dates as MM/DD/YY to get "far off" things to change. I personally made the switch in my own writing by the late 1980s, but I blame VMS and traveling in Europe for that (when is 01/02/03, as if 02/04/88 isn't bad enough? It all depends on where you are and where your audience is from.) -ethan From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 19:18:32 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (Geoff Oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:18:32 -0600 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B720548.3090808@kurico.com> References: <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <20100209221831.GB8039@brevard.conman.org> <323786.88210.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4B720548.3090808@kurico.com> Message-ID: I agree with this. I think C++ is a powerful tool, but as the joke goes, "When you shoot yourself in the foot with C, you blow a hole in your foot. When you shoot your foot in C++, your foot is obliterated." I'm sure the presentation of the original is funnier. ;) On Feb 9, 2010, at 7:00 PM, George Currie wrote: > geoffrey oltmans wrote: >> I'm not so sure that the overhead for C++ objects is quite a bad as everyone's making them out to be. Most of it boils down to simple pointer math and in other cases the compiler itself can abstract away some of the offset calculations. If variables live on the stack anyway, you'd have to do these offset calculations to get the data as well. >> > > I think the bigger point is that there are _many_ places in modern apps where TONS of time is being wasted such that the overhead of vtables (or more importantly, the lost functionality by doing away with them) is relatively minor (depends in large part on the app of course). Heck, in a modern OS, every time I type a character, like in this email, there are about a bazillion things that happen (proper font/face chosen, rendered, line formatting checked, spell checking, text identification and highlighting (e.g. urls), etc, etc, etc) compared to a character mode editor on a CLI. All that is obviously going to drain huge cycles. Now you could certainly make that entire chain more efficient by minimizing the effects of the vtable, but it's the features itself that factor into the overall feeling that the modern OS is less responsive (or at the least no more responsive) than those of days gone by. > > I happen to work at a job where we _do_ count clock cycles and we'll spend much time shaving microseconds from our code. We even study and understand the effects of processor groupings in modern multiprocessor/core computers. That said, we still code in C++ but we understand when it's worthwhile to shave, when it's not worthwhile getting that detailed and when it's worthwhile to change the algorithm vs trying to shave a few nanoseconds by avoiding vtables or aligning your memory accesses. > > I grew up doing assembler and C. That said, the biggest issue with software today (imho) isn't really speed (the folks at places like Intel and nVidia will help us there) it's really stability and functionality. The goal of a lot of the bloat is to attempt to help in those areas (with varying levels of success of course). From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 19:19:03 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:19:03 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <796519A7-CA0B-4F3F-9284-A57844661643@bellsouth.net> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> <739792.43520.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <5F05226B-11A9-4FCA-8570-58A52922B74A@neurotica.com> <796519A7-CA0B-4F3F-9284-A57844661643@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4B720987.3030001@e-bbes.com> Geoff Oltmans wrote: > You seemed to be arguing that there was absolutely no benefit to the added complexity (bloat you said) > of modern systems. Just because there's some application that you don't want doesn't mean that it's > necessarily wasteful though. Sorry, but because some kids like to watch movies, everybody else has to have a slow system ? Some of us, actually have to work on them. My solution to this is simple. I use the console screen as long as possible (linux/bsd/etc.) Then, when I really need to draw schematics or something which really needs a gui, I start it. From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 19:22:27 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:22:27 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:13 PM, e.stiebler wrote: > Ethan Dicks wrote: >> >> [ actually a lot of good stuff] ;-) Thank you. >> 25+ years later, how far have uber-fast machines with uber-large and >> uber-cheap storage really gotten us? > > That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" Real > Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. That brings to mind the assertions from Apple and Microsoft in the mid-1980s - that you "needed" 2MB of memory to multitask. Over a dozen simultaneously-updating "dotty windows" on a 256K A1000 was simple proof that there was another way. > Progress I guess ;-) Of a sort, I guess ;-) -ethan From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 19:24:29 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:24:29 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 18:13, e.stiebler wrote: > That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" > Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. Been on the AVR forums much lately? It's getting more difficult to find someone who writes in assembler. I suspect it's almost impossible on the ARM uC area. HLLs march on... --Chuck From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 19:27:07 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:27:07 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B720B6B.2040904@e-bbes.com> Tony Duell wrote: > THe Nighthawk drive interface is strange. Very strange. it has the raw > data signals of an ST412 drive (but on single-ended TTL lines, not > differential pairs). It also hasa the strangest positioner interface > you're likely to see. The positioner is a 2-winding stepper motor. You > get (at the drive interface) to contrtoll the currents through the > windings (there's a dual DAC in the drive).You also get soem kind of > position feedback signal from the drive (there's an ADC in there too). > There is no intellegence in the drive to control te DACs based on the > output from the ADC, that is done in the controller (I assume in part by > the 6809 firmware). > > Given there's an undocumented ASIC in the drive too, which has a register > accessible over the interface, and for whaich I have no data, tryign to > recreate the drive is going to be a big job. So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? And simply forget about the box I have here ? ;-) Cheers From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 19:28:57 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:28:57 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B720BD9.3070503@e-bbes.com> Ethan Dicks wrote: > That brings to mind the assertions from Apple and Microsoft in the > mid-1980s - that you "needed" 2MB of memory to multitask. Over a > dozen simultaneously-updating "dotty windows" on a 256K A1000 was > simple proof that there was another way. But they were cheating on the A1000. There was a processor in it ;-) Cheers From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 19:34:21 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:34:21 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 9 Feb 2010 at 18:13, e.stiebler wrote: > >> That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" >> Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. > > Been on the AVR forums much lately? ?It's getting more difficult to > find someone who writes in assembler. ?I suspect it's almost > impossible on the ARM uC area. I myself have only ever programmed AVRs in C (including older parts that had a mere 2K of code space), but I've done some PIC and MCS51 assembler in the past 5 years. Not much point to it usually, though. That much optimization is rarely needed in a part that has limited I/O and very limited memory. Occasionally, though, tasks like video timing or less-sloppy clock precision can benefit from some well-formed assembler. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that ARM microcontrollers were "impossible" to program in assembler. Workstations turned that corner when they went from CISC to RISC - I know very, very few RISC assembler programmers, but dozens who have done CISC assembly. -ethan From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 19:38:53 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:38:53 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B720E2D.90209@e-bbes.com> Chuck Guzis wrote: > Been on the AVR forums much lately? It's getting more difficult to > find someone who writes in assembler. I suspect it's almost > impossible on the ARM uC area. Sorry, never liked them. They are cheap, and everybody (?) is crazy about them. But to many different versions out (thumb/native/cortex/whatever). Not really easy to deal with them on a lower level. From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 19:39:34 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:39:34 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <796519A7-CA0B-4F3F-9284-A57844661643@bellsouth.net> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <510221.54429.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <361AE27C-6F99-4CDD-AEF2-C39E9559059D@neurotica.com> <739792.43520.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <5F05226B-11A9-4FCA-8570-58A52922B74A@neurotica.com> <796519A7-CA0B-4F3F-9284- A57844661643@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <9F038FC4-01C9-4FE0-BAF7-CA384D4A44A7@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Geoff Oltmans wrote: > You seemed to be arguing that there was absolutely no benefit to > the added complexity (bloat you said) of modern systems. Just > because there's some application that you don't want doesn't mean > that it's necessarily wasteful though. And you seem to be arguing that this system wouldn't be able to encode video or watch HD movies without that complexity. ;) I disagree. I don't mind *spending* cycles. That's what they're for. I just don't like wasting them. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 19:41:18 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:41:18 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <9A2F043C-E070-407C-9007-0D3DD70166AF@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:13 PM, e.stiebler wrote: >> [ actually a lot of good stuff] ;-) >> 25+ years later, how far have uber-fast machines with uber-large and >> uber-cheap storage really gotten us? Not as far as the raw numbers >> might lead one to think. I can buy a machine that about fits in my >> pocket that has 500 times the memory, 500 times the storage, and >> has a >> clock that's nearly 500 times faster for 1/500th the cost* - a >> 250,000X price-performance advantage. I think quite a bit of that >> 500x multiplier is getting pissed away before I type a single >> character. Yes it can do more; yes it feels faster. That much >> faster? Not in my opinion. > > That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any > "reasonable" Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 > kbytes of memory. > > Progress I guess ;-) That's one of the big reasons why I moved into the embedded world too. Efficient programming is still valued in that world. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 19:43:51 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:43:51 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B720BD9.3070503@e-bbes.com> References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B720BD9.3070503@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:28 PM, e.stiebler wrote: > Ethan Dicks wrote: >> >> That brings to mind the assertions from Apple and Microsoft in the >> mid-1980s - that you "needed" 2MB of memory to multitask. ?Over a >> dozen simultaneously-updating "dotty windows" on a 256K A1000 was >> simple proof that there was another way. > > But they were cheating on the A1000. > There was a processor in it ;-) Sort of... the dedicated graphics hardware provided visually impressive fill rates (try opening up the AmigaDOS "clock" tool and resizing it to fill the screen - it paints thousands of pixels on two bitplanes fast enough that you can barely see the polygons fill), but the real-time executive kernel (EXEC) was what serviced all those windows without a drop of application code to task-switch, unlike DOS or the classic MacOS. The machine was built from the ground up to support multitasking, unlike the other "popular" home platforms of the day. The custom chips just offloaded mundane data moving tasks (blitting, floppy data massaging, etc) leaving more time for the CPU to service all the processes on the machine. I did some work hacking "co-operative multitasking" application code to work on the Amiga (swaths of code deleted!). Boy was that stuff a mess. It really made me appreciate coming to the Amiga from UNIX, instead of coming "up" from other environments. Of course, earlier generations would decry task switching overhead as "wasteful" - just put all the jobs in a queue, run each job to completion really, really fast, then stack the output in the pigeonholes ;-) (I came in at the tail-end of the Batch vs Interactive Wars - I had *one* class in college that we submitted batch jobs to, but thankfully for my sanity at the time, it was terminal submissions, not punch-card submissions. I did all my work on 3270 terminals, and except for the 15,000-job-long run queues, it wasn't so bad). -ethan From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 19:48:17 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:48:17 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" >> Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. > > Been on the AVR forums much lately? It's getting more difficult to > find someone who writes in assembler. I suspect it's almost > impossible on the ARM uC area. > > HLLs march on... In SOME places, yes. AVRs are an interesting anomaly: They're extremely powerful processors with very low barriers to entry. Lots of beginners start out with AVRs. (I'm NOT suggesting that AVRs are only for beginners!) Lots of beginners also seem to think that nobody programs in assembler anymore. Granted, far fewer do now than, say, thirty years ago, but lots do. One cannot replace all programming with HLLs, no more than one can replace all programming with C# or Java. ARMs are damn near impossible to program in assembler. That's why everyone uses C in that world. Lots of [modern incarnation] Z80, Z8, 8051, and low-end PIC development is done, both professionally and otherwise, in assembler today. Since those architectures aren't changing, and it's mainly done that way because of the architectures, I doubt it'll ever change. It certainly hasn't yet. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 19:52:25 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:52:25 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <88323961-7176-4D19-9BCA-09F747FAE4B2@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > I myself have only ever programmed AVRs in C (including older parts > that had a mere 2K of code space), but I've done some PIC and MCS51 > assembler in the past 5 years. Not much point to it usually, though. > That much optimization is rarely needed in a part that has limited I/O > and very limited memory. That's funny, I find that sort of optimization is required *because* the parts have limited memory. ;) (not arguing about I/O though) On 8051 designs, I always code very low-level routines that will be called a lot in assembler. Stuff like the low-level UART drivers for maintaining serial output buffers and such. The rest I generally do in C. I rarely write pure-C 8051 programs. > It wouldn't surprise me to learn that ARM microcontrollers were > "impossible" to program in assembler. Workstations turned that corner > when they went from CISC to RISC - I know very, very few RISC > assembler programmers, but dozens who have done CISC assembly. Absolutely. ARM is just plain difficult. Very interesting, but difficult. I won't go there in any serious way...all C on ARM for me. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Tue Feb 9 19:54:19 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:54:19 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> Dave McGuire wrote: > ARMs are damn near impossible to program in assembler. That's why > everyone uses C in that world. Lots of [modern incarnation] Z80, Z8, > 8051, and low-end PIC development is done, both professionally and > otherwise, in assembler today. Since those architectures aren't > changing, and it's mainly done that way because of the architectures, I > doubt it'll ever change. It certainly hasn't yet. What we need is a J11/T11 chip again, so we can program MACRO11 again ;-) (I know of the rumor, that the msp430 is loved by old pdp11 guys) From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 19:57:27 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:57:27 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <6519CFAA-6191-4973-B444-8F506C810CB0@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:54 PM, e.stiebler wrote: >> ARMs are damn near impossible to program in assembler. That's >> why everyone uses C in that world. Lots of [modern incarnation] >> Z80, Z8, 8051, and low-end PIC development is done, both >> professionally and otherwise, in assembler today. Since those >> architectures aren't changing, and it's mainly done that way >> because of the architectures, I doubt it'll ever change. It >> certainly hasn't yet. > > What we need is a J11/T11 chip again, so we can program MACRO11 > again ;-) What we need is someone to code one up in VHDL or Verilog with a reasonable (read: easy to use for non-FPGA-gods) interface to the outside world. > (I know of the rumor, that the msp430 is loved by old pdp11 guys) With good reason...look at the architecture! I almost got misty- eyed when I looked at the instruction set. I hope to do more with msp430s soon. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 20:06:22 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:06:22 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <88323961-7176-4D19-9BCA-09F747FAE4B2@neurotica.com> References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <88323961-7176-4D19-9BCA-09F747FAE4B2@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> >> I myself have only ever programmed AVRs in C (including older parts >> that had a mere 2K of code space), but I've done some PIC and MCS51 >> assembler in the past 5 years. ?Not much point to it usually, though. >> That much optimization is rarely needed in a part that has limited I/O >> and very limited memory. > > ?That's funny, I find that sort of optimization is required *because* the > parts have limited memory. ;) ?(not arguing about I/O though) I was unclear - I meant time/cycle optimization, not space optimization. For bang-for-the-buck, AVRs are pretty good. The most expensive one I ever bought was just over $3. > ?On 8051 designs, I always code very low-level routines that will be called > a lot in assembler. ?Stuff like the low-level UART drivers for maintaining > serial output buffers and such. ?The rest I generally do in C. ?I rarely > write pure-C 8051 programs. Sure... serial comms are one of those time-sensitive things like video. When I used to write protocol engine code, our Z8530 routines were in assembler and 95% of the rest of the code was C (even the DMA engine code). -ethan From wdonzelli at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 20:14:15 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:14:15 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > 11 years ago, I pointed this very fact out to "journalists" who were > convinced that Y2K was all a scam to pad IT budgets because "nobody > would have gone to that much trouble to save 4 bits (00-99 fits in 7 > bits, 2000 fits in 11 bits) even in the 1950s. While it was not a scam, it certainly was used to pad IT budgets. We lost a great many old machines because of it. > I pointed out that ... > that one of the most easily exhausted resources was 80 columns on a > punch card. ?If you encode the due-date of a utility bill onto the > card for later processing, that's two columns less you have for > account number or other pertinent information (I don't recall what > punch-card bills specifically had on them Just to nitpick - this would have been tiny. The unit record equipment could have been wired up to prepunch the 19 if need be (it wasn't), so the operators would still only have to key in the last two digits. And tape was really, really cheap. The problem was that disks turned from being used as temporary storage to full, online storage - then those two character started costing big bucks. -- Will From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 20:55:55 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (Geoff Oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:55:55 -0600 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4CB26083-4581-4061-92D6-8E5603425BCE@bellsouth.net> While I've never programmed ARM in assembly, I've done quite a lot of assembly-level debug of ARM software. I think it is easier to understand than PPC assembly. On Feb 9, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >>> That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" >>> Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. >> >> Been on the AVR forums much lately? It's getting more difficult to >> find someone who writes in assembler. I suspect it's almost >> impossible on the ARM uC area. >> >> HLLs march on... > > In SOME places, yes. AVRs are an interesting anomaly: They're extremely powerful processors with very low barriers to entry. Lots of beginners start out with AVRs. (I'm NOT suggesting that AVRs are only for beginners!) Lots of beginners also seem to think that nobody programs in assembler anymore. > > Granted, far fewer do now than, say, thirty years ago, but lots do. One cannot replace all programming with HLLs, no more than one can replace all programming with C# or Java. > > ARMs are damn near impossible to program in assembler. That's why everyone uses C in that world. Lots of [modern incarnation] Z80, Z8, 8051, and low-end PIC development is done, both professionally and otherwise, in assembler today. Since those architectures aren't changing, and it's mainly done that way because of the architectures, I doubt it'll ever change. It certainly hasn't yet. > > -Dave > > -- > Dave McGuire > Port Charlotte, FL > From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 21:14:32 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:14:32 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4CB26083-4581-4061-92D6-8E5603425BCE@bellsouth.net> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4CB26083-4581-4061-92D6-8E5603425BCE@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Geoff Oltmans wrote: > While I've never programmed ARM in assembly, I've done quite a lot > of assembly-level debug of ARM software. I think it is easier to > understand than PPC assembly. PPC is another one I won't go near. ;) Give me 8051 and msp430 any day! -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From pat at computer-refuge.org Tue Feb 9 21:26:56 2010 From: pat at computer-refuge.org (Patrick Finnegan) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:26:56 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <201002092226.56818.pat@computer-refuge.org> On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and > knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based > OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion-plus > clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many others on > this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the same thing > with a tiny fraction of those resources. Minor nit to pick... most of the "billion-plus" cycles per second spent on booting are spent waiting on I/O. If you look at the amount of time it takes to boot the same OS in a virtualized environment (and thus has some reasonable caching going on by the host OS, and emulated hardware devices), it'll shrink a lot. And I'm mostly speaking from the experience of running Linux under Xen, but even Windows Server 2008 under VirtualBox seemed to yield similar results, when I set that up for a friend. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org From spectre at floodgap.com Tue Feb 9 21:52:02 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:52:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: from Dave McGuire at "Feb 9, 10 10:14:32 pm" Message-ID: <201002100352.o1A3q2j6023588@floodgap.com> > > While I've never programmed ARM in assembly, I've done quite a lot > > of assembly-level debug of ARM software. I think it is easier to > > understand than PPC assembly. > > PPC is another one I won't go near. ;) PPC assembly is pretty hairy. I understand it enough to crack open a debugger, but I've never written in it as the primary language. Come to think of it, the only assembly I've done from the ground up has been 6502, even though I know a few other instruction sets (some better than others). -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- #include ------------------------------------------------ From IanK at vulcan.com Tue Feb 9 22:07:04 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:07:04 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: A big advantage of RISC is that the compiler can optimize code in some very serious, low-level ways that just aren't possible with a CISC ISA. The granularity is simply smaller, allowing a good compiler to hoist loads, anticipate latencies and in many respects take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the individual processor. -- Ian ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Dave McGuire [mcguire at neurotica.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:48 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] On Feb 9, 2010, at 8:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" >> Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. > > Been on the AVR forums much lately? It's getting more difficult to > find someone who writes in assembler. I suspect it's almost > impossible on the ARM uC area. > > HLLs march on... In SOME places, yes. AVRs are an interesting anomaly: They're extremely powerful processors with very low barriers to entry. Lots of beginners start out with AVRs. (I'm NOT suggesting that AVRs are only for beginners!) Lots of beginners also seem to think that nobody programs in assembler anymore. Granted, far fewer do now than, say, thirty years ago, but lots do. One cannot replace all programming with HLLs, no more than one can replace all programming with C# or Java. ARMs are damn near impossible to program in assembler. That's why everyone uses C in that world. Lots of [modern incarnation] Z80, Z8, 8051, and low-end PIC development is done, both professionally and otherwise, in assembler today. Since those architectures aren't changing, and it's mainly done that way because of the architectures, I doubt it'll ever change. It certainly hasn't yet. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From IanK at vulcan.com Tue Feb 9 22:10:29 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:10:29 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> , <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the idea of a Personal Computer, we might have had J11-based desktops. After all, a J11 with MMU could address 4MB, instead of the anemic 1MB of the 8086/88. -- Ian ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of e.stiebler [emu at e-bbes.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 5:54 PM To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] Dave McGuire wrote: > ARMs are damn near impossible to program in assembler. That's why > everyone uses C in that world. Lots of [modern incarnation] Z80, Z8, > 8051, and low-end PIC development is done, both professionally and > otherwise, in assembler today. Since those architectures aren't > changing, and it's mainly done that way because of the architectures, I > doubt it'll ever change. It certainly hasn't yet. What we need is a J11/T11 chip again, so we can program MACRO11 again ;-) (I know of the rumor, that the msp430 is loved by old pdp11 guys) From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Tue Feb 9 22:26:54 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (Geoff Oltmans) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 22:26:54 -0600 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <201002100352.o1A3q2j6023588@floodgap.com> References: <201002100352.o1A3q2j6023588@floodgap.com> Message-ID: My favorite has to be loading a 32-bit value... lis and then ori? lame! On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote: >>> While I've never programmed ARM in assembly, I've done quite a lot >>> of assembly-level debug of ARM software. I think it is easier to >>> understand than PPC assembly. >> >> PPC is another one I won't go near. ;) > > PPC assembly is pretty hairy. I understand it enough to crack open a > debugger, but I've never written in it as the primary language. > > Come to think of it, the only assembly I've done from the ground up has > been 6502, even though I know a few other instruction sets (some better than > others). > > -- > ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- > Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com > -- #include ------------------------------------------------ From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 22:47:54 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:47:54 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <201002092226.56818.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <201002092226.56818.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <19A9054C-5595-4B04-9188-CC0B2F9AFAEE@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote: >> Feelings? No, experience. Big difference. Experience with and >> knowledge of the past. There is NO RATIONAL REASON why a GUI-based >> OS should need more than a billion bytes of memory and a billion-plus >> clock cycles per second just to boot. You and I (and many others on >> this list) have plenty of examples of machines that do the same thing >> with a tiny fraction of those resources. > > Minor nit to pick... most of the "billion-plus" cycles per second > spent > on booting are spent waiting on I/O. If you look at the amount of > time > it takes to boot the same OS in a virtualized environment (and thus > has > some reasonable caching going on by the host OS, and emulated hardware > devices), it'll shrink a lot. > > And I'm mostly speaking from the experience of running Linux under > Xen, > but even Windows Server 2008 under VirtualBox seemed to yield similar > results, when I set that up for a friend. Yes, I've seen this too. I'm just now wrapping up a fairly fun consulting project in which I'm virtualizing a few Linux and SCO OpenServer machines onto a smaller number of boxes using VMware. Boot times are a bit quicker. My "just to boot" comment above, though, wasn't meant to reference boot times at all, though. I meant "just to come into being". -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Tue Feb 9 22:55:59 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 23:55:59 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <88323961-7176-4D19-9BCA-09F747FAE4B2@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>> I myself have only ever programmed AVRs in C (including older parts >>> that had a mere 2K of code space), but I've done some PIC and MCS51 >>> assembler in the past 5 years. Not much point to it usually, >>> though. >>> That much optimization is rarely needed in a part that has >>> limited I/O >>> and very limited memory. >> >> That's funny, I find that sort of optimization is required >> *because* the >> parts have limited memory. ;) (not arguing about I/O though) > > I was unclear - I meant time/cycle optimization, not space > optimization. Ahh, gotcha. > For bang-for-the-buck, AVRs are pretty good. The most expensive one I > ever bought was just over $3. That's excellent. There's no denying that they are Good Stuff (tm). And their development suite support is good too, not just loads of overpriced Windows-only binary-only commercial garbage. >> On 8051 designs, I always code very low-level routines that will >> be called >> a lot in assembler. Stuff like the low-level UART drivers for >> maintaining >> serial output buffers and such. The rest I generally do in C. I >> rarely >> write pure-C 8051 programs. > > Sure... serial comms are one of those time-sensitive things like > video. When I used to write protocol engine code, our Z8530 routines > were in assembler and 95% of the rest of the code was C (even the DMA > engine code). We work along similar philosophies. :) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Tue Feb 9 21:35:45 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:35:45 -0800 Subject: ASR-33 (was Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B722991.2050603@mail.msu.edu> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:20 PM, William Donzelli wrote: >> Oh, and I found my new in box ASR-33 today. Any takers? > > Holy cow!! > That reminds me -- saw a complete ASR-33 w/pedestal mount in an antique store in Seattle over the weekend. Looked to be in decent condition (obviously no idea if it's in working order). I believe they wanted just around $300, which seemed a bit spendy for my tastes, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone in the area was interested. Address: Pacific Galleries 241 South Lander Street, Seattle, WA 98134 - Josh From cclist at sydex.com Tue Feb 9 23:59:02 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:59:02 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> References: , , <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B71DAA6.5998.2D24F12@cclist.sydex.com> On 9 Feb 2010 at 18:54, e.stiebler wrote: > What we need is a J11/T11 chip again, so we can program MACRO11 again > ;-) (I know of the rumor, that the msp430 is loved by old pdp11 guys) While I've played around with the MSP430 a bit, I can appreciate the value of a Harvard architecture on a microcontroller when all one has is a 16-bit addressing space. Some AVRs are very nice in this respect--you can connect an external SRAM that expands system RAM to 65K and still have your instruction space. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 00:11:58 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:11:58 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B71DAA6.5998.2D24F12@cclist.sydex.com> References: , , <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B71DAA6.5998.2D24F12@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2010, at 12:59 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> What we need is a J11/T11 chip again, so we can program MACRO11 again >> ;-) (I know of the rumor, that the msp430 is loved by old pdp11 guys) > > While I've played around with the MSP430 a bit, I can appreciate the > value of a Harvard architecture on a microcontroller when all one has > is a 16-bit addressing space. > > Some AVRs are very nice in this respect--you can connect an external > SRAM that expands system RAM to 65K and still have your instruction > space. Very nice indeed. mcs51 also enjoys that attribute. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Wed Feb 10 00:25:29 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:25:29 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B725158.BC2BE1D6@cs.ubc.ca> William Donzelli wrote: > > > 11 years ago, I pointed this very fact out to "journalists" who were > > convinced that Y2K was all a scam to pad IT budgets because "nobody > > would have gone to that much trouble to save 4 bits (00-99 fits in 7 > > bits, 2000 fits in 11 bits) even in the 1950s. > > While it was not a scam, it certainly was used to pad IT budgets. I would argue the public aspect of the issue was a scam. The people who needed to know, knew already. The public hype around the issue was overblown and unnecessary. Remember the various experts and consultants railing about how microwave ovens and cars and anything with a microprocessor in it (things that didn't even know about the date) were going to fail? I still have the bulletin from the government mailed out to every household in Canada to prepare everyone for Y2K: a fine example of public folly. From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 00:36:01 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:36:01 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B71B466.1060305@hachti.de> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <4B71B466.1060305@hachti.de> Message-ID: On Feb 9, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: >> I have been looking for a 565, no joke, for fifteen years. > > Wow! I've never even seen a vintage computer before autumn of 2004 > when I bought my H316 out of the blue. PDPs weren't so "vintage" when I got into them. I used a PDP-11/23 at work to maintain wire lists in 1985-1987. I got my first PDP-11 at home, an 11/34a, in (I think) 1986 when I was 17. I got a PDP-8/e about two years before that, but it was nonfunctional for a long time. > Ok, perhaps somewhere in a museum but those dead boxes were boring > to me. > Since then I collect old computers. And collecting means > collecting. Like you collect apples under a tree. Lucky man! >> I had one on my very first PDP-8/e when I was about 15, I loved >> the thing, then I stupidly sold it. > > But now you have some new ones? Yes I do; I count myself as fortunate. I love my machines and I'm very glad to have them. I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of racks: http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, but you get the idea. And there's now a PDP-11/50 where the leftmost RK07 is in that picture. When I get it a bit better organized I'll take better pictures. I also have a large stash of other machines in my garage...a great many Qbus PDP-11s, a PDP-10, a few Cray vector supers.. >> I regretted it badly about a year later and have been looking for >> one ever since. > > I once had a Tandy 200 computer. I still remember me throwing it > away in the mid nineties. With original cover, documentation, > everything. In pristine working condition. It was junk. Ok, it's no > pdp8/something or other really cool minicomputer. But I still > sometimes feel sad about that. As well you should. ;) Why would anyone throw a perfectly functional computer, any computer, in the trash? But I understand; I made some bad decisions years ago also. I didn't think far enough ahead. When I got into PDP hardware, there was no "classic computing hobby"; they were machines I used (and liked!) at work and I managed to get lucky and get one at home. Then another, then another...But I never dreamed they'd be considered a "collection". I sold and gave away many things that I later regretted. Since then I've been very lucky to get most of those things back. Thanks to some people on this list, I now have a GIGI (actually two!) and a VAX-11/750, for example...two things I owned back before they were antiques and stupidly sold, and missed ever since. >> If they're so common over there, would you consider shipping me >> one? (when I can afford it, which should be soon) > > Hm. Shipping will cost a fortune. True. I'll pay it (when I'm able), though, to get a 565. > I once shipped a Honeywell H316R (no other unit known to survive) > from US. That cost me $$$ plus more $$$ and some $$$ more... The > machine itself was bought for an epsilon. But in the end I've never > paid more for a vintage computer than the 316R...! > I currently have a 563 and three 565 plotters. I'd like to keep the > 563 and two 565 units because they have different resolutions. And > I have at least three computers fitted with interfaces to drive > them. The third 565 ist just being swapped away as part of a bigger > deal. Sorry. But I'll remember you when the next plotter drops in. Please do! I appreciate it greatly. > Oh, ball pens are no problem. I have those normal ball pen holders > where you can put a normal ball pen in. Even in two distinct sizes. > And I have a holder for fisher space pens. VERY much better. That's > basically the same but has a different end piece and inlay. I have > some spare inlays. But not the ends. > And there was an INK pen assembly. I have most of the parts - > multiple times. But I again miss the end piece. So I cannot use an > ink pen. I know only one person having the complete ink stuff: > http://pdp8.de/pages/calcomp_ip.htm > You can see the end piece in the middle of the upper row in the > picture. Wow, that's a nice set of pens! And what a beautiful wooden box they're in! That reminds me very much of some of my antique Leeds & Northrup instrument collection. >>> BTW it's the same with Teletype ASR33 and 35. In fact it's not >>> always easy to get rid of those if they're not in pristine >>> condition. >> ...it took me nearly a decade to find one of those. > Hm? Yes, you read that right. Many people here think ASR33s are everywhere, easy to find, and worth nothing. Well, maybe if you're in Silicon Valley or Boston, but nowhere else. I've known several people who have them, but nobody who has ever been willing to part with one. I even had two deals lined up in which I was going to drive to NJ and then to South Carolina to pick one up, but in both cases, someone else offered more money (about $200 and $250) and they were sold without my even being able to make a counter-offer. It wasn't until just this past year when my old friend Andrew up at M.I.T. gave me TWO ASR-33s, one working and one "almost" working. I gave one to Sridhar, and the other one adorns my living room. (right next to the Friden Flexowriter, wheee!) >> I'm not particularly bad at finding stuff, but I live in a part of >> the (my) country where there is NO classic hardware. >> "Old computer" here means >> "2GHz Pentium-4". Yes, sometimes I really want to move, and I >> probably will, because this area doesn't support the lifestyle >> that I want to live...which includes getting cool computer >> hardware on a regular basis. > > Where do you live? I live in southwest Florida, about 2/3 of the way down on the west coast of the state, right near the Gulf of Mexico. > I never understood why it is as difficult to get old hardware in > US. Ok, in Germany they sometimes pay $$$ (better: ???), too. Most > of the stuff we're talking about has been manufactured in US. And > was used far more widely there than anywhere else. I've wondered that too. > Perhaps there are different management approaches. Here "that once > was very expensive" can be a reason to keep stuff for decades. Here, when something is six months old, it's "garbage" and is sent to a recycler. In other cases, often there are kickbacks involved; recyclers bribe managers to decommission equipment very early in its life cycle, which the recyclers then sell and make a lot of money...some of which then comes back to the managers. It's disgusting. > At least in universities and other more or less public institutions. > Here it is sometimes difficult to save stuff from scrap. Just > because of the physical volume. I'm currently literally drowning in > DEC docs I saved from the dumpster in the last few days. Yes, cool > to have them. But...Ohhh! > And I don't know yet if the pdp10 software documentation will be > endangered as well. Saving that would generate real problems at my > side: currently counted 20 boxes. But be sure: I'll ensure that it > won't get thrown away. I'm glad to hear it! >> I know YOU find a lot of this stuff...I assure you that's not the >> norm. I sure wish it were! > > Ok, I probably have to admit that I've been quite (very?) lucky > sometimes. But in general its still far easier to get the good > stuff here in Germany. So move to Germany! We also have some > mountains one can climb and some lakes :-) I would love to! Perhaps someday I will! -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cghillen at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 9 14:46:44 2010 From: cghillen at sbcglobal.net (Calvin Hillen) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:46:44 -0600 Subject: TIL311 or INL0397-1 Message-ID: <543621.26308.qm@smtp103.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am in need of Texas Instruments TIL311 or INNOCOR INL0397-1. I have used both over the last 30 years and can no longer find them. If you know of a source I would appreciate the information. Newark Electronics has been my source over the years. They cannot find a substitute. Also INNOCOR was bought by JDSU in 2007 (the year I placed my last order with Newark). The Display Manufacturing was discontinued prior to the purchase by JDSU. Thanks, Cal From csquared3 at tx.rr.com Tue Feb 9 21:38:20 2010 From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com (CSquared) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:38:20 -0600 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B722A2C.6060203@tx.rr.com> Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> On 9 Feb 2010 at 18:13, e.stiebler wrote: >> >>> That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" >>> Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. >> Been on the AVR forums much lately? It's getting more difficult to >> find someone who writes in assembler. I suspect it's almost >> impossible on the ARM uC area. > > I myself have only ever programmed AVRs in C (including older parts > that had a mere 2K of code space), but I've done some PIC and MCS51 > assembler in the past 5 years. Not much point to it usually, though. > That much optimization is rarely needed in a part that has limited I/O > and very limited memory. Occasionally, though, tasks like video > timing or less-sloppy clock precision can benefit from some > well-formed assembler. > > It wouldn't surprise me to learn that ARM microcontrollers were > "impossible" to program in assembler. Workstations turned that corner > when they went from CISC to RISC - I know very, very few RISC > assembler programmers, but dozens who have done CISC assembly. > > -ethan > You may well be nearly right about the "impossible" part, though I notice you put it in quotes which I interpret to mean you think it may only be extremely difficult. I never got really serious about it, but I did look at just a few of the "start up" instructions in an ARM-7 TDMI chip (Philips/NXP 2148 actually) once when I was trying to puzzle something out about what happened just after a reset - like which I/O pins were checked in what order to see what to do next. The instructions did seem rather arcane, but I was able to puzzle out enough for my purposes and felt that I could have understood it fully if I had the time and a real need to do so. Might not be a lot of fun though. I still have an eval board for that chip, so maybe some day I'll dig a little deeper and see how bad it really is. In some of my reading I have gotten the idea that over the years the difference in CISC and RISC has been substantially reduced too. Just as one example, I understand that early on the RISC guys insisted that every instruction be the same length but evidently that went out the window over time when they realized the non-economy of insisting on that philosophy. From what I read, over time the line between CISC and RISC has became even more blurred. If this is true then assembly language programming for the latest ARM might be much easier than RISC assembly was early on, and might not be so bad after all. Later, Charlie C. From csquared3 at tx.rr.com Tue Feb 9 22:08:30 2010 From: csquared3 at tx.rr.com (CSquared) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:08:30 -0600 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B72313E.3040204@tx.rr.com> Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: >>> --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>>> Probably a lot. In the earliest days, assemblers were considered a poor use >>>> of time on the machine. >>> Assemblers were NOT considered poor use of machine time - totally the >>> reverse. Assembler programmers had to know what they were doing though and >>> for that I was paid more. It took far less time to assemble a program in >>> BAL that compile a COBOL program. The down side was it took a lot longer >>> to write. >> I'm pretty sure that Ethan was talking about the attitudes in the mid-1950s, >> when assembler languages were born. > > Yep. Assemblers vs Machine Code, not Assemblers vs High Level > Language Compilers. > > I did say "the earliest days". Sorry for not assigning a year to that. > >> He is correct that at the time, the use >> of assembler languages was controversial, because so much precious computer >> time was wasted doing something that any good programmer ought to be able to >> do at his desk. > > That is the attitude I was recalling. > >> *Every* generation of programmers has *always* looked down on their successors >> as using tools that waste too much computer time to do too little. Of course, >> *my* generation (started programming in 1969 on a 1401) is right. ;-) > > I certainly agree with you in principle, but I still wonder why even > non-GUI application bloat has to be as bad as it is. We used to put > 25-40 users on an 8MB VAX before it would start to swap. Now, still > using a character based interface (which happens to be ssh vs direct > serial connect, but that doesn't affect CLI application size), a > program to tell me what processes are active on the system is 8MB by > itself, vs a few dozen K bytes (I should go back and dig out one of > those programs from the old days and port it to a modern machine to > compare library bloat vs application bloat. Fortunately, I have my > backups from 25 years ago). ICBW, but I think a lot of the bloat is caused by the layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of application interface code. My theory is that all those layers arose because of inadequate or incompetent design in the first place. Then too, I think we have a lot of "features" that are rarely used and that we would be better off without, to say nothing of all the changes for no apparent reason other than to just be different. I also suspect that some of those spurious features are the root cause of a lot of the security holes. Too, your "non-GUI" application is probably actually running inside a system GUI which only emulates the non-GUI user interface you think you're using. :-) > > This is C code then and C code now, 80x25 then and 80x25 now. UNIX > then and UNIX or Linux now. 32-bit processors then, 32-bit processors > now. Not quite apples to oranges like most comparisons reaching back > that far across the generations of equipment and mentalities. > > 25+ years later, how far have uber-fast machines with uber-large and > uber-cheap storage really gotten us? Not as far as the raw numbers > might lead one to think. I can buy a machine that about fits in my > pocket that has 500 times the memory, 500 times the storage, and has a > clock that's nearly 500 times faster for 1/500th the cost* - a > 250,000X price-performance advantage. I think quite a bit of that > 500x multiplier is getting pissed away before I type a single > character. Yes it can do more; yes it feels faster. That much > faster? Not in my opinion. > > > -ethan > > * Numbers based on 1984 stats for a VAX-11/750 w/RA81 - approx $150K, > integer speed approx the same as 8MHz 68000, 8MB RAM, 450 MB of disk, > compared with a modern portable 3.6GHz machine w/4GB of RAM and 250GB > of disk for under $400. Some settling may have occurred in shipping. > Post No Bills, etc. > > > > > > -ethan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2678 - Release Date: 02/09/10 13:35:00 > From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 02:20:39 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:20:39 -0500 Subject: TIL311 or INL0397-1 In-Reply-To: <543621.26308.qm@smtp103.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <543621.26308.qm@smtp103.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F46A0C4-B14A-41C6-88FA-2E5258381290@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Calvin Hillen wrote: > I am in need of Texas Instruments TIL311 or INNOCOR INL0397-1. I > have used > both over the last 30 years and can no longer find them. If you > know of a > source I would appreciate the information. Newark Electronics has > been my > source over the years. They cannot find a substitute. Also > INNOCOR was > bought by JDSU in 2007 (the year I placed my last order with > Newark). The > Display Manufacturing was discontinued prior to the purchase by JDSU. Unicorn Electronics has TIL311s in stock. See: http://www.unicornelectronics.com/ -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Wed Feb 10 04:04:14 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:04:14 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> , <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Ian King wrote: > Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the idea of a Personal Computer, >we might have had J11-based desktops. After all, a J11 with MMU could address 4MB, > instead of the anemic 1MB of the 8086/88. -- Ian We had. Pro380 ;-) From emu at e-bbes.com Wed Feb 10 04:15:59 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:15:59 -0700 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <4B71B466.1060305@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B72875F.9030304@e-bbes.com> Dave McGuire wrote: > Since then I've been very lucky to get most of those things back. > Thanks to some people on this list, I now have a GIGI (actually two!) > and a VAX-11/750, for example...two things I owned back before they were > antiques and stupidly sold, and missed ever since. I had once three GIGIs, and a VAX11/750. Gave them to Clint Wolf here in Denver, and never heard back from him. Miss the VAX-11/750, was a stupid move to give it away, but I was moving, and thought ... Actually, no idea what I thought ;-) From alec at sensi.org Wed Feb 10 04:56:53 2010 From: alec at sensi.org (Alexander Voropay) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:56:53 +0300 Subject: Labtam 32032 Message-ID: <347d9b1b1002100256u51d86602yda6abee7e5406260@mail.gmail.com> Hi! Does anyone have information about Labtam 32032 system ? We've found one in the military depot: http://www.phantom.sannata.ru/forum/index.php?t=6175 (cyrillic, use Google Translator) Seems, this machines was rather popular in the USSR (behind the iron curtain) - it was possible to avoid COCOM since Labtam was an Australian company. It used NSC 32K processol and Unix V2.0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Semiconductor_32016 -- -=AV=- From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Wed Feb 10 07:49:35 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:49:35 +0000 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> Message-ID: <4B72B96F.6000407@philpem.me.uk> Patrick Finnegan wrote: > But, isn't the point of programming languages to make it easier for the > programmer to create programs? Computers are fast; people are slow. I'd agree with that. > Have you ever tried writing code against GTK (not-quite-OOP jammed into > C) vs Qt (real OOP using C++)? GTK is such a pile of sh*t to try to > write code for, in my opinion. Try the Windows API some time. That's even more fun. I've been using wxWidgets for a while -- mainly because it abstracts all this bullcrap into a common interface. You can change platforms and the code remains the same -- normal apps will work fine on GTK+{$UNIX_FLAVOUR}, Windows 32/64-bit using the native API, and Mac OS X. Even applications that make use of hardware can be made portable across all three platforms -- LibUSB runs native on OSX and Linux, and there's a port for Windows too. Creating, say, a window is a piece of cake -- extend the wxFrame class, add your components to the constructor (stuff like "myTextBox = new wxTextBox(this)"), and add event handler functions to deal with what the user does. The one thing I haven't found yet is an equivalent for Delphi's "Application.ProcessMessages()" function -- which basically forces the VCL to run the event handler / window refresh loop again. Very handy in long do-while or for-next loops. It's probably there, though -- just that I haven't RTFM'd enough to find it in the wxWidgets manual. -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Wed Feb 10 09:42:56 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:42:56 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B72D400.2000004@jetnet.ab.ca> e.stiebler wrote: > Ethan Dicks wrote: >> [ actually a lot of good stuff] ;-) >> 25+ years later, how far have uber-fast machines with uber-large and >> uber-cheap storage really gotten us? Not as far as the raw numbers >> might lead one to think. I can buy a machine that about fits in my >> pocket that has 500 times the memory, 500 times the storage, and has a >> clock that's nearly 500 times faster for 1/500th the cost* - a >> 250,000X price-performance advantage. I think quite a bit of that >> 500x multiplier is getting pissed away before I type a single >> character. Yes it can do more; yes it feels faster. That much >> faster? Not in my opinion. > > That's why I love to embedded stuff. And even here, any "reasonable" > Real Time OS of today, can't really boot with 48 kbytes of memory. OS/9 for the 6809 does alot, but not real time.I suspect a real time OS would be in the same ball park. Graphics is the killer for any small system and that is where I would check first. > Progress I guess ;-) Yes. today in one chip you can do what 5 chips of yesterday can do with all pins left for I/O stuff. From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 10:24:23 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:24:23 -0500 Subject: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter In-Reply-To: <4B72875F.9030304@e-bbes.com> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <4B71B466.1060305@hachti.de> <4B72875F.9030304@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <7E19E01D-6432-4139-B199-984591E58E00@neurotica.com> On Feb 10, 2010, at 5:15 AM, e.stiebler wrote: >> Since then I've been very lucky to get most of those things back. >> Thanks to some people on this list, I now have a GIGI (actually >> two!) and a VAX-11/750, for example...two things I owned back >> before they were antiques and stupidly sold, and missed ever since. > > I had once three GIGIs, and a VAX11/750. Gave them to Clint Wolf > here in Denver, and never heard back from him. Miss the VAX-11/750, > was a stupid move to give it away, but I was moving, and thought ... > > Actually, no idea what I thought ;-) Such decisions are usually regretted later. Nowadays I make sure I state that I might want the item back at some point in the future. :) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From ray at arachelian.com Wed Feb 10 10:54:53 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:54:53 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> <3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> Dave McGuire wrote: > > Useful in saving programmer time, yes. But look at the result! A > modern multi-GHz Linux box running GTK is far less > "responsive"-feeling than my old SPARCstation-IPX running fvwm when > just tooling around the GUI. A little more time spent by the > programmers, ignoring the "easy way out" or heavy OO programming and > it'd be FAR faster. There's always lighter things like LXDE or XFCE. > > So, spend a little time now, ONCE, and make a million Linux boxes > twice as fast? That sounds like a good deal to me. Indeed 5 minutes saved of programmer time = thousands of hours (or for popular apps millions) wasted by end users. > > Yes I know GTK isn't written in an OO language, but I'm talking > about OO *techniques*...just like some programmers (I may be guilty of > this) can "write C in any language", some programmers seem to be able > to write C++ any any language. It's not the OOP stuff, it's the architecture astronaut ideal of layering meaningless abstractions on top of meaningless abstractions. It's turtles all the way down. :-) It was always PREMATURE optimization that was evil, not optimization. Yet, they plow on like all optimization is evil. Some of the stuff amazes me. We now have an app at $WORK that's an in memory XML db - the data in memory is just a plain XML file as far as we can tell - not tokenized and structured. Our db is ~100GB in size and growing. Worse yet, this db "engine" is not multithreaded. Also, it takes about an hour to save or load the db from/to disk. Of course this is on a clustered system for high availability. But it takes more than an hour to do a failover. The previous version required you to load X copies of the db in memory if you wanted to do X things with it at once! So a 384GB - yes GB machine with 32 AMD 2GHz cores just isn't enough for this thing. They've fixed this a bit, but nowhere near what it should be. Like all poorly written apps, this one crashes occasionally. Care to guess what happens to the poor file system when it tries to write a 300GB core file to disk that's far smaller? :-( This is just pure insanity. Just 25 years ago, I remember fighting to save every byte of a 5K program, and now we have this insanity. GTK has NOTHING on this evil thing. Be happy if GTK's your only gripe. :-) From trag at io.com Wed Feb 10 11:19:40 2010 From: trag at io.com (Jeff Walther) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:19:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5ff7577fe027a50bd19e8f2ce8de3748.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com> > Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:28:17 -0700 > From: Ben > Chuck Guzis wrote: > >> How about GOTO-less CPUs? Do any exist that completely lack a jump >> instruction of any sort (I'm not counting those where PC is mapped as >> a general register)? > > You must have a jump instruction for a loop. > Weird programing and computing... different topic. I'm not sure you would count it as a CPU, but the TI-55 programmable calculator lacked any type of jump or branch instruction, IIRC. All programs were purely linear. So, in addition to having considerably less memory, it was also limited in this way, as compared to a TI-58 or TI-59. Jeff Walther From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 10 13:37:21 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:37:21 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk Message-ID: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> -----Original Message----- From: e.stiebler Sent: 10 februari 2010 ?. 02:27 To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk Tony Duell wrote: > THe Nighthawk drive interface is strange. Very strange. it has the raw > data signals of an ST412 drive (but on single-ended TTL lines, not > differential pairs). It also hasa the strangest positioner interface > you're likely to see. The positioner is a 2-winding stepper motor. You > get (at the drive interface) to contrtoll the currents through the > windings (there's a dual DAC in the drive).You also get soem kind of > position feedback signal from the drive (there's an ADC in there too). > There is no intellegence in the drive to control te DACs based on the > output from the ADC, that is done in the controller (I assume in part by > the 6809 firmware). > > Given there's an undocumented ASIC in the drive too, which has a register > accessible over the interface, and for whaich I have no data, tryign to > recreate the drive is going to be a big job. So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? And simply forget about the box I have here ? ;-) Cheers You could use HPDIR with a sbc with hp-ib and a flash drive. I'm building one with a Kontron SBC. -Rik From IanK at vulcan.com Wed Feb 10 13:39:35 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:39:35 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> , <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of e.stiebler > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:04 AM > To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol > vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] > > Ian King wrote: > > Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the idea of > a Personal Computer, > >we might have had J11-based desktops. After all, a J11 with MMU > could > address 4MB, > > instead of the anemic 1MB of the 8086/88. -- Ian > > We had. Pro380 ;-) No, I mean ones that people actually bought. From sellam at vintagetech.com Wed Feb 10 13:39:11 2010 From: sellam at vintagetech.com (Sellam Ismail) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:39:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Seeking ARM MEMC2 Technical Reference Manual ($$$) Message-ID: I'm looking for "MEMC2 Technical Reference Manual" put out by Advanced RISC Machines in 1990. Anyone have it or can make a PDF copy? Willing to pay a bounty for this if you have it. Please contact me directly. Thanks! -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ] From emu at e-bbes.com Wed Feb 10 13:57:49 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:57:49 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> References: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4B730FBD.7010701@e-bbes.com> Rik Bos wrote: > > You could use HPDIR with a sbc with hp-ib and a flash drive. > I'm building one with a Kontron SBC. No, that doesn't hurt enough ;-) Like to use a little microcontroller and do it right (tm) It shouldn't be bigger than a pack of cigarettes. cheers From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Wed Feb 10 14:00:32 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:00:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , , <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> , <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <893725.71632.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I wonder how successful the likes of the Dec PRO series would have been had they not been astronomically expensive, even compared to the already expensive IBM PC/XT. I had a Pro/350 that my uncle bought brand new, and at the time I think he spent close to $10k on it around 1983ish and it still had a monochrome display. ________________________________ From: Ian King To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 1:39:35 PM Subject: RE: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of e.stiebler > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:04 AM > To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol > vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] > > Ian King wrote: > > Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the idea of > a Personal Computer, > >we might have had J11-based desktops. After all, a J11 with MMU > could > address 4MB, > > instead of the anemic 1MB of the 8086/88. -- Ian > > We had. Pro380 ;-) No, I mean ones that people actually bought. From hachti at hachti.de Wed Feb 10 14:11:25 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:11:25 +0100 Subject: ASR-33 (was Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B722991.2050603@mail.msu.edu> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <4B722991.2050603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <4B7312ED.8010309@hachti.de> > That reminds me -- saw a complete ASR-33 w/pedestal mount in an antique > store in Seattle over the weekend. I know one in south western Germany, free for pickup. If anybody is interested, I could provide the contact. But I probably won't be able to go there because it's ~850km from here... -- http://www.hachti.de From roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk Wed Feb 10 14:15:34 2010 From: roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk (Roger Holmes) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:15:34 +0000 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4D22312E-3223-484F-A18B-59E5FFF29AE7@microspot.co.uk> >> >>> *Every* generation of programmers has *always* looked down on their successors >>> as using tools that waste too much computer time to do too little. Of course, >>> *my* generation (started programming in 1969 on a 1401) is right. ;-) >> >> I certainly agree with you in principle, but I still wonder why even >> non-GUI application bloat has to be as bad as it is. We used to put >> 25-40 users on an 8MB VAX before it would start to swap. Now, still >> using a character based interface (which happens to be ssh vs direct >> serial connect, but that doesn't affect CLI application size), a >> program to tell me what processes are active on the system is 8MB by >> itself, vs a few dozen K bytes (I should go back and dig out one of >> those programs from the old days and port it to a modern machine to >> compare library bloat vs application bloat. Fortunately, I have my >> backups from 25 years ago). > ICBW, but I think a lot of the bloat is caused by the layer upon layer > upon layer upon layer of application interface code. My theory is that > all those layers arose because of inadequate or incompetent design in > the first place. Then too, I think we have a lot of "features" that are > rarely used and that we would be better off without, to say nothing of > all the changes for no apparent reason other than to just be different. > I also suspect that some of those spurious features are the root cause > of a lot of the security holes. Too, your "non-GUI" application is > probably actually running inside a system GUI which only emulates the > non-GUI user interface you think you're using. :-) I too started programming in 1969 but on a 7094, though as a schoolboy sending off cards one week to get results the next week. Yes of course we're right :-) I agree there are far too many levels of interface code, many with bugs in them which sometime get corrected in a different level. Take text on the Mac, there was a simple technology for drawing text in QuickDraw on Lisa, it did proportional fonts, different size text, handle descent, ascent and leading. On Mac they added a Text Editing manager. Then they had to allow for internationalized for non left to right languages, then they added kerning etc then they tried to replace the Text Editing manager with the Multi-Lingual Text Editing manager, then along came Unicode and we got ATSUI (The Apple Type Services for Unicode Imaging) and so it went on, all the old levels are still available, though deprecated and unavailable to 64 bit Apps. Trying to get a Carbon application to get Unicode text to appear at the right size on a non 72dpi screen AND print properly is somewhat of a nightmare. I would like to discuss Moore's law and how it seems to have broken down in recent years. Processor speeds are still increasing but not at the expected rate, but I wonder if the real problem is RAM speed, which does not seemed to have kept up, and no longer seems to be quoted when you buy a computer, or at least a Mac. Of course on chip and level 2 cache has made tight loops of small pieces of data acceptably fast but real world programs don't do that. Think about rotating a 12 mega pixel image for instance, yes the code is a tight loop but the data isn't. Think about rendering a 3D scene with many textured objects with accurate shadows and per pixel shading and anti-aliasing ready for printing on a A0 (about 34 inch by 44 inch) printer and complex enough not to fit the capabilities of the graphics processor so it has to be done in the main processor cores. The data being processed is far too big to fit in the caches and the output pixel maps are too, though I admit it only processes one pixel at a time. Oh and while you are at it, think about error diffusing the output. I know on the PowerPC the rotation or a one bit per pixel actually ran quicker if I turned the cache off because for every bit I fetched it loaded the cache with four words of data. Does something similar happen on Intel? By the way I spent three hours this morning showing a BBC regional news crew my 1962 mainframe, apparently it will be condensed down to three minutes. I don't have a transmission date, it didn't go out today and probably will only shown in the south east area of England but should be on the BBC web site. Oh and a couple of weeks ago I posted an old video of it on U-Tube if anyone is interested the URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsBPuUJPvKg or just Google ICT 1301 and select video. I hope to post a better one later in the year. Roger Holmes From rtellason at verizon.net Wed Feb 10 14:50:08 2010 From: rtellason at verizon.net (Roy J. Tellason, Sr.) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:50:08 -0500 Subject: offer: IBM Binder Message-ID: <201002101550.08619.rtellason@verizon.net> It's a loose-leaf binder, labeled on the spine "IBM 7137 Disk Array Subsystem Customer and Service Information"... Anybody want to take this off my hands? Postage and a little extra would be much appreciated. :-) I have no use for it, so if I don't find someone who does it pretty soon gets the binder recycled and the paper gone. -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin From aek at bitsavers.org Wed Feb 10 14:51:59 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:51:59 -0800 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> References: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <4B731C6F.2080306@bitsavers.org> On 2/10/10 11:37 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller > with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? > And simply forget about the box I have here ? > And thus the wheel is recreated again. How many times is this going to have to be done before someone open-sources this code? From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 10 13:52:36 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:52:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: GOTO-less machines, was: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <14D45465-FE99-42E9-889E-35783D21FFFC@neurotica.com> from "Dave McGuire" at Feb 9, 10 04:24:52 pm Message-ID: > > On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > Would you count SKIP instructions as GOTO? > > I would. It just has a fixed (relative) target address. In which case a machine which just steps through memory one location at a time also has an implied goto in each instruction. With a relative address of the next instruction, of course. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 10 13:50:27 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:50:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B71CE55.3000909@jetnet.ab.ca> from "Ben" at Feb 9, 10 02:06:29 pm Message-ID: > > I assume you also don't count any processor where every instruction > > includes the address of the next instruction. There is no explicit jump > > instruction on such a mahcine, becuase every instruction includes a jump. > > That is the same as a STATE machine, we just call the states; ADDRESS n. Any physically-possible digital computer is a finite state machine, surely? -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 10 14:24:18 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:24:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B720B6B.2040904@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 9, 10 06:27:07 pm Message-ID: > So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller > with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? It mioght well be less work. And, BTW, if you get a SS/80, CS/80 or Amigo flahs-memory storage device working, I want one :-). Actually, I want several... > And simply forget about the box I have here ? > ;-) I would look out for the drive, they must turn up sometimes. I have exactly one, alas, in a 9154B. But I can't believe that's the only one still around. As I said, I'd also look out for an HP9133 of some flavour. They use stndard ST412-interface hard drives. Or something like a 7959B, which IIRC uses an ESDI drive internally. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Wed Feb 10 14:57:15 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:57:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <5ff7577fe027a50bd19e8f2ce8de3748.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com> from "Jeff Walther" at Feb 10, 10 11:19:40 am Message-ID: > > You must have a jump instruction for a loop. > > Weird programing and computing... different topic. > > I'm not sure you would count it as a CPU, but the TI-55 programmable > calculator lacked any type of jump or branch instruction, IIRC. All A number of early--ish programmable calcualtors had programming languages which simplye recorced keystrokes with no jumps or loops or conitionals of any kind. Sometimes there was an implicit 'goto 0' if you tried to execute past the end of memory. And often execution would stop[ if there was an error. Which let to one way to hack a simple loop on such machines. -tony From emu at e-bbes.com Wed Feb 10 15:03:49 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:03:49 -0700 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B731C6F.2080306@bitsavers.org> References: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> <4B731C6F.2080306@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4B731F35.8090409@e-bbes.com> Al Kossow wrote: > On 2/10/10 11:37 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > >> So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller >> with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? >> And simply forget about the box I have here ? > And thus the wheel is recreated again. > How many times is this going to have to be done before someone open-sources > this code? Don't know, but is there really that much commercial interest in it ? Browsing for a hard drive/floppy for a 9000/300 I saw some offers around $2000, and nothing less than $500 used/not-working on ebay. So, somebody still makes money on it, keeping weird hobbyists of the market. But an interesting project it still is ;-) Cheers From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:36:47 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:36:47 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Ian King wrote: >> Ian King wrote: >> > Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the idea of >> a Personal Computer, we might have had J11-based desktops... >> >> We had. Pro380 ;-) > > No, I mean ones that people actually bought. Remember David Sarnoff's comment, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"? Perhaps he was just prescient about the Pro380. ;-) -ethan (Who has one. Are the other four owners already on this list?) From emu at e-bbes.com Wed Feb 10 15:39:49 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:39:49 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B7327A5.3030908@e-bbes.com> Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Ian King wrote: >>> Ian King wrote: >>>> Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the idea of >>> a Personal Computer, we might have had J11-based desktops... >>> >>> We had. Pro380 ;-) >> No, I mean ones that people actually bought. > > Remember David Sarnoff's comment, "I think there is a world market for > maybe five computers"? Perhaps he was just prescient about the > Pro380. ;-) > > -ethan > (Who has one. Are the other four owners already on this list?) Thank you Ethan, very much ! I have more than half of the computer market in my garage ;-) (two pro380, three pro350 ;-)) From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 15:40:03 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:40:03 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <8E895D71-2A2E-406E-824D-2AE6A16967EC@neurotica.com> On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>>> Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the >>>> idea of >>> a Personal Computer, we might have had J11-based desktops... >>> >>> We had. Pro380 ;-) >> >> No, I mean ones that people actually bought. > > Remember David Sarnoff's comment, "I think there is a world market for > maybe five computers"? Perhaps he was just prescient about the > Pro380. ;-) I thought that was Ken Olsen. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 15:40:41 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:40:41 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>> Ian King wrote: >>>> Think about it, if Ken Olsen hadn't been so dismissive of the >>>> idea of >>> a Personal Computer, we might have had J11-based desktops... >>> >>> We had. Pro380 ;-) >> >> No, I mean ones that people actually bought. > > Remember David Sarnoff's comment, "I think there is a world market for > maybe five computers"? Perhaps he was just prescient about the > Pro380. ;-) ...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? I'm pretty sure that was his quote. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 10 15:45:29 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:45:29 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> References: , , <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:40, Dave McGuire wrote: > ...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? I'm pretty sure that was his quote. It's often attributed to Watson, but the attributions are all from the 1980s. There's no solid evidence that he ever said it. --Chuck From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:50:53 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:50:53 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4D22312E-3223-484F-A18B-59E5FFF29AE7@microspot.co.uk> References: <4D22312E-3223-484F-A18B-59E5FFF29AE7@microspot.co.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Roger Holmes wrote: > I would like to discuss Moore's law and how it seems to have broken down in recent years. Processor speeds are still increasing but not at the expected rate, but I wonder if the real problem is RAM speed, which does not seemed to have kept up, and no longer seems to be quoted when you buy a computer Even allowing for "main memory" moving to on-chip cache, of all of those "500X over 25 years" multipliers I was mentioning yesterday, RAM speed was not one of them. 250ns DRAMs were available commercially in quantity 25 years ago, as were, IIRC, 200ns. Faster, smaller, more exotic RAMs were also available, but didn't tend to get used for main memory. Someone who knows Crays better than I can confirm, but ISTR the Cray-1 used 150ns chips with something like a 32-way interleave. Screamingly fast until you hit a branch. Today, 7ns memory is common as muck, but 500 picosecond memory is not (which would be about right for 500X the speed of memory from 25 years ago). Of all the things that have gotten faster by leaps and bounds, I/O and memory buses have made a fraction of the gains of raw clock speed and storage densities. We are still much better off (compare Unibus to e-cheapo desktop PCI), but not quite on the same scales. Here's a prediction from 2000 about machines today... http://www.ausairpower.net/OSR-0700.html -ethan From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:53:06 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:53:06 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <893725.71632.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> <893725.71632.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how successful the likes of the Dec PRO series would have been had they not been astronomically expensive, even compared to the already expensive IBM PC/XT. I had a Pro/350 that my uncle bought brand new, and at the time I think he spent close to $10k on it around 1983ish and it still had a monochrome display. For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) w/dot matrix printer and hard disk (larger than the Pro, admittedly) was $5K at launch in 1985, IIRC. -ethan From RichA at vulcan.com Wed Feb 10 15:54:50 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:54:50 -0800 Subject: "only 5 computers" [was RE: The value of assembler language programmers] In-Reply-To: <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> References: , , <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: From: Chuck Guzis Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:45 PM On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:40, Dave McGuire wrote: >> ...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? I'm pretty sure that was his quote. > It's often attributed to Watson, but the attributions are all from > the 1980s. There's no solid evidence that he ever said it. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/our-daily-bleg-did-ibm-really-see-a-world-market-for-about-five-computers/ The truth, as is so often the case, is more complex than that. According to the source cited above, what Watson reported to the 1953 stockholder's meeting was that their expectation with regard to sales of the 701, when they visited 20 potential customers, was for 5 orders. Instead, they got 18. Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org http://www.PDPplanet.org/ http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/ From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:56:02 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:56:02 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> References: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:40, Dave McGuire wrote: > >> ? ?...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? ?I'm pretty sure that was his quote. > > It's often attributed to Watson, but the attributions are all from > the 1980s. ?There's no solid evidence that he ever said it. I'm pretty sure it was David Sarnoff of RCA, but I don't have any scholarly references to back that up. -ethan From dm561 at torfree.net Wed Feb 10 15:57:37 2010 From: dm561 at torfree.net (M H Stein) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:57:37 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) Message-ID: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> *************Original Message: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:36:01 -0500 From: Dave McGuire Subject: Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of racks: http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, but you get the idea. -Dave Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ************Reply: Is that a prayer rug on the floor? Or just there to mop up spilled bits? m ******************************************************************************* From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:59:07 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:59:07 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <8E895D71-2A2E-406E-824D-2AE6A16967EC@neurotica.com> References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> <8E895D71-2A2E-406E-824D-2AE6A16967EC@neurotica.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> Remember David Sarnoff's comment, "I think there is a world market for >> maybe five computers"? ?Perhaps he was just prescient about the >> Pro380. ?;-) > > ?I thought that was Ken Olsen. Ken Olsen famously asked who would want a computer at home. If I recall the story correctly, it was in the context of Dave Ahl trying to pitch a hobbyist-grade PDP-8/a as a product offering in the Altair/MITS (pre-Apple/CBM/Tandy) days. -ethan From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:59:48 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:59:48 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: > From: Dave McGuire > ? I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. > An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of > racks: > > ? http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg Nice DEC wall! -ethan From cisin at xenosoft.com Wed Feb 10 16:02:39 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:02:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:40, Dave McGuire wrote: > >> ? ?...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? ?I'm pretty sure that was his quote. > > It's often attributed to Watson, but the attributions are all from > > the 1980s. ?There's no solid evidence that he ever said it. > I'm pretty sure it was David Sarnoff of RCA, but I don't have any > scholarly references to back that up. Well, the quote was about FIVE computers. Could we attribute it to Watson, Olsen, and Sarnoff? Who were the other two? From RichA at vulcan.com Wed Feb 10 16:01:01 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:01:01 -0800 Subject: Watson vs. Sarnoff [RE: The value of assembler language programmers] In-Reply-To: References: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: From: Ethan Dicks Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1:56 PM > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:40, Dave McGuire wrote: >>> ...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? I'm pretty sure that was his quote. >> It's often attributed to Watson, but the attributions are all from >> the 1980s. There's no solid evidence that he ever said it. > I'm pretty sure it was David Sarnoff of RCA, but I don't have any > scholarly references to back that up. Actually, before I checked a few minutes ago, I thought you were *both* wrong, and that it was a UNIVAC market survey that gave that result. That's what I was told about 40 years ago, anyway... Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org http://www.PDPplanet.org/ http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/ From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 10 16:05:42 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:05:42 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B731F35.8090409@e-bbes.com> References: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl><4B731C6F.2080306@bitsavers.org> <4B731F35.8090409@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens e.stiebler > Verzonden: woensdag 10 februari 2010 22:04 > Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Onderwerp: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > Al Kossow wrote: > > On 2/10/10 11:37 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > > > >> So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a > microcontroller > >> with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? > >> And simply forget about the box I have here ? > > > And thus the wheel is recreated again. > > How many times is this going to have to be done before someone > > open-sources this code? > > Don't know, but is there really that much commercial interest in it ? > Browsing for a hard drive/floppy for a 9000/300 I saw some > offers around $2000, and nothing less than $500 > used/not-working on ebay. > > So, somebody still makes money on it, keeping weird hobbyists > of the market. > > But an interesting project it still is ;-) > > Cheers I do have a defective nighthawk if you want to try your luck on it.. (off-list) And two 9153's in service witch I keep. -Rik From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 16:06:36 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:06:36 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, M H Stein wrote: > I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. > An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of > racks: > > http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg > > There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, > but you get the idea. > > > ************Reply: > > Is that a prayer rug on the floor? Or just there to mop up spilled > bits? It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either application. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 10 16:06:59 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:06:59 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B72BD83.26743.10F8537@cclist.sydex.com> On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:56, Ethan Dicks wrote: > I'm pretty sure it was David Sarnoff of RCA, but I don't have any > scholarly references to back that up. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson under "Famous Misquote". I don't think that General Sarnoff would have recognized a computer if it fell on him. His specialty was stealing IP. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 16:07:18 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:07:18 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. >> An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of >> racks: >> >> http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg > > Nice DEC wall! Thanks! It's a little different now, as that picture was taken some time ago. I'll take some new pictures soon. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 10 16:11:23 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:11:23 -0800 Subject: "only 5 computers" [was RE: The value of assembler language programmers] In-Reply-To: References: , <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B72BE8B.9983.1138B00@cclist.sydex.com> On 10 Feb 2010 at 13:54, Rich Alderson wrote: > The truth, as is so often the case, is more complex than that. > According to the source cited above, what Watson reported to the 1953 > stockholder's meeting was that their expectation with regard to sales > of the 701, when they visited 20 potential customers, was for 5 > orders. Instead, they got 18. And taken in its context (even allowing for the differing quote in his autobiography), is a very different kettle of fish. Expectations for 5 orders for a new "paper tiger" machine on a single sales junket was quite optimistic for the time. "The IBM Archives Frequently Asked Questions asks if he said in the 1950s that he foresaw a market potential for only five electronic computers. The document says no, but quotes his son and then IBM President Thomas J. Watson, Jr., at the annual IBM stockholders meeting, April 28, 1953, as speaking about the IBM 701 Electronic Data Processing Machine, which it identifies as "the company's first production computer designed for scientific calculations". He said that "IBM had developed a paper plan for such a machine and took this paper plan across the country to some 20 concerns that we thought could use such a machine. I would like to tell you that the machine rents for between $12,000 and $18,000 a month, so it was not the type of thing that could be sold from place to place. But, as a result of our trip, on which we expected to get orders for five machines, we came home with orders for 18." Watson, Jr., later gave a slightly different version of the story in his autobiography, where he said the initial market sampling indicated 11 firm takers and 10 more prospective orders." --Chuck From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Wed Feb 10 16:16:07 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:16:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> <893725.71632.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <309509.1433.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Yep... I'd say doomed from that perspective. Still, I remember the Pro/350 fondly. Nice machine. There's a pretty cool promotional/documentary type video of Digital and the Pro series. Pretty funny in retrospect. ________________________________ From: Ethan Dicks To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 3:53:06 PM Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM, geoffrey oltmans wrote: > I wonder how successful the likes of the Dec PRO series would have been had they not been astronomically expensive, even compared to the already expensive IBM PC/XT. I had a Pro/350 that my uncle bought brand new, and at the time I think he spent close to $10k on it around 1983ish and it still had a monochrome display. For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) w/dot matrix printer and hard disk (larger than the Pro, admittedly) was $5K at launch in 1985, IIRC. -ethan From geneb at deltasoft.com Wed Feb 10 16:24:15 2010 From: geneb at deltasoft.com (Gene Buckle) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:24:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, M H Stein wrote: >> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. >> An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of >> racks: >> >> http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg >> *wistful sigh* g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.simpits.org/geneb - The Me-109F/X Project ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Wed Feb 10 16:26:57 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:26:57 -0700 Subject: Dave's walls In-Reply-To: References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: <4B7332B1.6050308@jetnet.ab.ca> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, M H Stein wrote: >> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. >> An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of >> racks: >> >> http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg >> >> There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, >> but you get the idea. >> >> >> ************Reply: >> >> Is that a prayer rug on the floor? Or just there to mop up spilled bits? > > It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either > application. ;) > > -Dave DEC -- HOME COMPUTER WALLS FLOORS AND ROOF MADE FROM PDP COMPONENTS AND RACKS: RUG OPTIONAL From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Wed Feb 10 16:28:25 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:28:25 -0800 Subject: 5 computers quote / was Re: The value of assembler.. References: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca> Fred Cisin wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > > On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:40, Dave McGuire wrote: > > >> ? ?...or was it TJ Watson of IBM? ?I'm pretty sure that was his quote. > > > It's often attributed to Watson, but the attributions are all from > > > the 1980s. ?There's no solid evidence that he ever said it. > > I'm pretty sure it was David Sarnoff of RCA, but I don't have any > > scholarly references to back that up. > > Well, the quote was about FIVE computers. > Could we attribute it to Watson, Olsen, and Sarnoff? > Who were the other two? I too have mostly heard it attributed to Watson, years ago I had the impression it was Howard Aiken, though that may be just my mistake - don't have a reference. From drb at msu.edu Wed Feb 10 17:01:23 2010 From: drb at msu.edu (Dennis Boone) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:01:23 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:07:18 EST.) References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: <201002102301.o1AN1NCh008159@yagi.h-net.msu.edu> > I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. An > entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of > racks: > http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg Having contended with routine 600V FPL switching spikes (they even admitted to it) and minicomputers at a customer site once upon a time, I'm curious -- what do you do for power conditioning? Any issues? De From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 17:09:37 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:09:37 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <201002102301.o1AN1NCh008159@yagi.h-net.msu.edu> References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> <201002102301.o1AN1NCh008159@yagi.h-net.msu.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Dennis Boone wrote: >> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. An >> entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of >> racks: > >> http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg > > Having contended with routine 600V FPL switching spikes (they even > admitted to it) and minicomputers at a customer site once upon a time, > I'm curious -- what do you do for power conditioning? Any issues? All of my modern hardware runs from very well-protected UPSen and a big whole-house MOV. My classic stuff stays unplugged unless I'm actively using it. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu Wed Feb 10 17:10:17 2010 From: dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu (David Griffith) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:10:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:57 PM, M H Stein wrote: >> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. >> An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of >> racks: >> >> http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg >> >> There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, >> but you get the idea. >> >> >> ************Reply: >> >> Is that a prayer rug on the floor? Or just there to mop up spilled bits? > > It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either > application. ;) For worshipping Bastet? -- David Griffith dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 17:16:02 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:16:02 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> Message-ID: <82F55E20-F398-4FC8-A93E-81C2CA8F1796@neurotica.com> On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:10 PM, David Griffith wrote: >>> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. >>> An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of >>> racks: >>> >>> http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg >>> >>> There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, >>> but you get the idea. >>> ************Reply: >>> Is that a prayer rug on the floor? Or just there to mop up >>> spilled bits? >> >> It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either >> application. ;) > > For worshipping Bastet? *meow* But don't laugh, one of my internal hostnames (a big Sun) is bastet. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 17:26:20 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:26:20 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com> On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > You can indeed use C#, via the Mono project. Generics are a very > basic form of C++ templates that are good for creating generic > containers, and that's about it. C++ templates are considerably > more involved, and metaprogramming tricks are used to do all manner > of insane things at compile time. At a very basic level, the two > are the same. It's like saying a Yugo and a Maserati are > equivalent because they are both cars. (yes, you can use analogies > here :) Ok, I understand that a bit better now. I will go read up on generics a bit. Thanks for the clarification. >>>> It may be, at least in part, speculation...but with lots of >>>> experience to back it up. Quite simply, almost everything I've >>>> seen written in C++ and Java (even with native compilation) is >>>> slow, and most everything I've seen written in C, assembler, and >>>> Forth is fast. >>> >>> I could argue that I've also seen the exact opposite, but I'm >>> not sure what that would prove. >> >> You have? Seriously? > > Yep. Again, it's a case of bad programmers doing stupid things. Well ok, but is that the rule or the exception? ;) >> Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, >> compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc. The apps are a bit >> prettier now, certainly moreso than with fvwm, but I'd happily >> live without that. > > See, here's where I see a disconnect; you are doing the same > *class* of thing, but you're not really doing the same thing. > Programs have gotten more complex because people want more from > their software. Sure, I see where you're coming from, and I agree. But I'm actually doing the same thing. With the exception of Firefox and Mail.app, the stuff I run is all pretty lightweight. I wish Mail.app were a bit lighter, in particular, because I, even being a VERY heavy email user, barely scratch the surface of [most of] its [pointless] features. > Regardless of whether Firefox 3.5 was written in assembly or C++ > you'd never hope to run it on your IPX. I just think you are > blaming the wrong thing (or just blaming one thing) for the > performance degradations you are perceiving. OO overhead adds some > not imperceivable overhead; so do each of extensibility, > abstraction, support for "modern standards" (CSS, JavaScript, XML) > ui theming, support for "advanced" desktop metaphors, etc... Code > reuse and abstractions also bring overhead; these exist even in C, > but the overhead is worth it in terms of maintenance and usability > (from a programming and a user perspective.) I do see where you're coming from. Perhaps I give OO too much blame, but I stand by my accusations...it does deserve a lot of it, in my opinion. It wasn't until very recent releases of common C compilers, for example, that a simple "hello world" program in C++ generated a 600KB (yes, six hundred kilobyte) binary. I've demonstrated that (along with its 4KB C equivalent) many times. I was, admittedly, pleased to see that this particular brand of idiocy has been addressed. I have no idea what was in that damn binary. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mwichary at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 17:31:15 2010 From: mwichary at gmail.com (Marcin Wichary) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:31:15 -0800 Subject: 5 computers quote / was Re: The value of assembler.. In-Reply-To: <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca> References: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <1debc0351002101531w56dcd902s704a2bd6521e9ac8@mail.gmail.com> > > I too have mostly heard it attributed to Watson, years ago I had the > impression > it was Howard Aiken, though that may be just my mistake - don't have a > reference. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote Marcin From aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 10 17:30:18 2010 From: aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk (Andrew Burton) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:30:18 -0000 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> Message-ID: <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Arachelian" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog > > Some of the stuff amazes me. We now have an app at $WORK that's an in > memory XML db - the data in memory is just a plain XML file as far as we > can tell - not tokenized and structured. Our db is ~100GB in size and > growing. Worse yet, this db "engine" is not multithreaded. Also, it > takes about an hour to save or load the db from/to disk. Of course this > is on a clustered system for high availability. But it takes more than > an hour to do a failover. > > The previous version required you to load X copies of the db in memory > if you wanted to do X things with it at once! So a 384GB - yes GB > machine with 32 AMD 2GHz cores just isn't enough for this thing. > They've fixed this a bit, but nowhere near what it should be. > > Like all poorly written apps, this one crashes occasionally. Care to > guess what happens to the poor file system when it tries to write a > 300GB core file to disk that's far smaller? :-( > That is shocking. I may not be writing professional programs (thank god, no time limits or other pressures), but when I do write software (usually for the Amiga) I always include error checks. When attempting to save a file to disk, I always check to make sure that there is enough space on the target device for the file. I had Windows Media Player crash on me the other week and jammed CPU usage at 100% :( Not great on my laptop, as the only way to shut it down is to pull the plug out of the mains and then pull out the battery (timed carefully - thank god for the HD access light!). It was just as it was about to reload in the music file (something else I hate - why re-load in the music file you were just playing, especially when it's not a large file (<5MB)?!!) after reaching the end when the problem occured. I had selected the file to play in a slightly different way to normal, so thankfully I can avoid that problem again quite easily :) I'm certainly no expert at programming (good at BASIC and beginner at 68K ASM), but if you don't sort out the easy bugs (or put in safety nets) how on earth can you expect to catch the hard-to-find ones?! Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk From cisin at xenosoft.com Wed Feb 10 17:40:58 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:40:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <20100210152854.A63617@shell.lmi.net> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Dave McGuire wrote: > I do see where you're coming from. Perhaps I give OO too much > blame, but I stand by my accusations...it does deserve a lot of it, > in my opinion. It wasn't until very recent releases of common C > compilers, for example, that a simple "hello world" program in C++ > generated a 600KB (yes, six hundred kilobyte) binary. I've > demonstrated that (along with its 4KB C equivalent) many times. I > was, admittedly, pleased to see that this particular brand of idiocy > has been addressed. I have no idea what was in that damn binary. But, don't you WANT to have a "division by zero" exception handler built into your "Hello world" program? When I taught C, I made the students use multiple compilers, including command line (DeSmet/PCC, GCC) and IDE (TurboC, Microsoft C++), and compare the results. The other teacher, teaching another section, used Microsoft C++, and spent the entire semester on how to use the compiler, and never really got around to any C. At the end of the semester, my students could write simple C programs, and could figure out how to use other compilers. His students could use the Microsoft compiler (without understanding what they were doing), but couldn't create any programs on their own! (He gave all A's!) -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 10 17:45:58 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:45:58 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: , <8E895D71-2A2E-406E-824D-2AE6A16967EC@neurotica.com>, Message-ID: <4B72D4B6.19647.16A22D9@cclist.sydex.com> On 10 Feb 2010 at 16:59, Ethan Dicks wrote: > Ken Olsen famously asked who would want a computer at home. If I > recall the story correctly, it was in the context of Dave Ahl trying > to pitch a hobbyist-grade PDP-8/a as a product offering in the > Altair/MITS (pre-Apple/CBM/Tandy) days. He wasn't alone. I remember asking an EE prof who was teaching logic circuits what he thought about the possibilities of a computer on a chip (ICs were fairly new stuff then). He looked at me like I'd suggested that everyone should have their own personal cyclotron. "What good would that be?" and he dismissed it with a wave of his hand. Personally, I still want a computer that will paint my house and repair the fence in the backyard. --Chuck From spectre at floodgap.com Wed Feb 10 18:02:27 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:02:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: from Ethan Dicks at "Feb 10, 10 04:36:47 pm" Message-ID: <201002110002.o1B02Reb011584@floodgap.com> > Remember David Sarnoff's comment, "I think there is a world market for > maybe five computers"? Perhaps he was just prescient about the > Pro380. ;-) Those would be fun to get. And probably more manageable than a real PDP-11. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- You only live twice. ------------------------------------------------------- From cisin at xenosoft.com Wed Feb 10 18:08:30 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:08:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B72D4B6.19647.16A22D9@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <8E895D71-2A2E-406E-824D-2AE6A16967EC@neurotica.com>, <4B72D4B6.19647.16A22D9@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <20100210160048.I63617@shell.lmi.net> At UC Berkeley, ~15 years ago, Clancy and Harvey took over the lower division undergraduate CS instruction. They used Scheme (a Lisp derivative), because "recursion is the only possible way to solve a problem with more than one independent variable" (I didn't know that nested loops were "impossible"), and they declared, "Nobody uses assembly language any more, nor ever will again!" UC Berkeley was ONCE a good place to learn CS. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred (a nobody) From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Wed Feb 10 18:16:51 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:16:51 +0000 Subject: Hostnames and machine names (was Re: Dave's walls) In-Reply-To: <82F55E20-F398-4FC8-A93E-81C2CA8F1796@neurotica.com> References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> <82F55E20-F398-4FC8-A93E-81C2CA8F1796@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B734C73.8010407@philpem.me.uk> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 6:10 PM, David Griffith wrote: >> >> For worshipping Bastet? > > *meow* > > But don't laugh, one of my internal hostnames (a big Sun) is bastet. ;) Nice.. I have yet to find a religion that worships a chinchilla god, though. Little known fact about me: I have four pet chinchillas (two male kits, one male adult, one female adult), and have bred them in the past -- I'm probably more a dog/cat lover than a chinchilla lover, but that doesn't stop them being damn fun to play with... though they're less fun when they escape and have to be recaptured! Photos are on flickr if anyone's interested (www.flickr.com/philpem). Hostnames on my LAN are pretty standard.. - wolf: Firewall - cheetah: Desktop PC (this hostname follows my current fastest PC) - cougar: Eee PC netbook - stargate: ADSL modem / Ethernet bridge - pandora: Brother's Windows 7 PC. (*spit*). The name is (according to him) from the planet in the movie "Avatar". Although I'd like to think it's more because installing Win7 on the thing was like opening Pandora's Box. "You have no idea of the terror you hath wrought..." and all that. - wreckgar: Old K6-III box with a broken CMOS chip (won't store settings even with a fresh battery). Guess where the name comes from. After that things get a lot more plain... - wireless: WLAN access point. - laserprint: Whadd'ya know, a laser printer. (Kyocera FS-C5200dn) - mum-laptop: Take a wild guess. - dad-laptop: Take an even wilder guess. My webhosting server is called Daedalus, after the warship in Stargate SG-1. Previously I've been root on amun, serenity and executor, but those were all servers owned by a friend. I named "serenity" (after the ship in the TV series Firefly and in hope that it would have less hardware issues than amun and executor); the other two were named by the aforementioned friend. I do know someone who named his servers after curse words. Two DNS servers: "f*ck" and "sh*t", an email server called "bullsh*t" and a web server called "jacksh*t". He was a strange guy... And then there was the guy who called a server "qwertyuiop". His reason: "well it's easy to remember, and even easier to type!" Didn't quite work out when his DNS server fell over and he had to remember the IP address :) -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From hachti at hachti.de Wed Feb 10 18:39:33 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:39:33 +0100 Subject: Docs found: Honeywell Series 600/6000, DTSS Message-ID: <4B7351C5.1040506@hachti.de> Hi Folks, I'm currently saving some documention. If it's ok I'll post what I found so far. Bit by bit. I'd like to hear comments on the stuff and estimates how and if it would be important to save the stuff. Now and today I have some Honeywell stuff from 1972/73: Honeywell Series 600/6000: ************************** Time Sharing Applications Library Guide Volume I - Mathematics DA43, Rev. 0 Volume II - Time Sharing DA44, Rev. 0 Volume II - Time Sharing, Addendum A DA44A, Rev. 0 Volume III - Industry DA45, Rev. 2 Volume III - Industry, Addendum A DA45A, Rev. 2 Volume III - Industry, Addendum B DA45B, Rev. 2 Volume IV - Industry DA46, Rev. 1 FORTRAN Manual BJ67, Rev. 1 JOVIAL Language Manual BS06 AGOL Manual BS11, Rev. 0 Biomedical (BMD) Statistical Programs BP82, Rev.0 (supercedes CPB-1183A) DTSS - Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire): ********************************************************************************* (good photocopies) DTSS Software Product Information (Draft copy) (C) 1973 DTSS, Inc. DTSS APL, Preliminary Version By Steve Poulsen, Dartmouth College (C) 1973 Trustees of Dartmouth College DTSS - The Dartmouth Time-Sharing System 7/26/72 DTSS User's Guide September 1972 (C) 1972 Trustees of Dartmouth College Catalog of Program Library in the Dartmouth Time-Sharing System - User's guide to the programming library (C) 1972 Trustees of Dartmouth College Best wishes, Philipp :-) -- http://www.hachti.de From healyzh at aracnet.com Wed Feb 10 18:48:16 2010 From: healyzh at aracnet.com (Zane H. Healy) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:48:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Docs found: Honeywell Series 600/6000, DTSS In-Reply-To: <4B7351C5.1040506@hachti.de> References: <4B7351C5.1040506@hachti.de> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: > Hi Folks, > I'm currently saving some documention. If it's ok I'll post what I found so > far. Bit by bit. > I'd like to hear comments on the stuff and estimates how and if it would be > important to save the stuff. > > Now and today I have some Honeywell stuff from 1972/73: > > DTSS - Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New > Hampshire): Um... DROOL!!!! I for one wouldn't mind seeing scans of this stuff. I'm preetty sure the Honeywell stuff isn't on Bitsavers, I'm not sure about the DTSS doc's. Zane From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Wed Feb 10 19:02:59 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:02:59 -0800 Subject: 5 computers quote / was Re: The value of assembler.. References: <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com> <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com> <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca> <1debc0351002101531w56dcd902s704a2bd6521e9ac8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B735744.25F0010E@cs.ubc.ca> Marcin Wichary wrote: > > > I too have mostly heard it attributed to Watson, years ago I had the > > impression > > it was Howard Aiken, though that may be just my mistake - don't have a > > reference. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Famous_misquote > > Marcin No, I meant I have no reference to attribute it to Aiken, just a limpid memory that I read it somewhere. From dkelvey at hotmail.com Wed Feb 10 19:29:27 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:29:27 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: <4B735744.25F0010E@cs.ubc.ca> References: , , <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com>, <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com>, , <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca>, <1debc0351002101531w56dcd902s704a2bd6521e9ac8@mail.gmail.com>, <4B735744.25F0010E@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: Hi I'm trying to find information on the logic pods used with the logic analyzer I just got. It is a Nicolet 700 series that uses the Paratronics Pods. It uses Model 51A and Model 80 probes. Does anyone have these that I can look at or have manuals/schematics for these? Thanks Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/ From hachti at hachti.de Wed Feb 10 19:37:50 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:37:50 +0100 Subject: Docs found: Honeywell 800, Facit PE1000, Rank Xerox Message-ID: <4B735F6E.2010802@hachti.de> (see first posting) Honeywell 800: ************** Honeywell 800 transistorized Data Processing System Programmers' Reference Manual DSI-31A, 1962 FACIT PE1000 Paper Tape Reader: ******************************* Spare Parts UP 631001, 1.10.63 Manual UP 630201, 1.4.63 Technical Description (brochure) Rank Xerox: *********** Rank Xerox EXTENDED ALGOL-60 19 05 72 C, May 1972 Sigma 5/9 Computers Control Program-Five (CP-V) Sigma 6/7/9 Computers Time-Sharing Manual 90 09 07 E, June 1973 Xerox Operating System (XOS) Sigma 6/7/9 Computers Batch Processing Reference Manual 90 17 65 A, December 1971 Xerox Universal Time-Sharing System (UTS) Sigma 6/7/9 Computers Time-Sharing User's Guide 90 16 92 A, April 1971 -- http://www.hachti.de From aek at bitsavers.org Wed Feb 10 19:42:55 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:42:55 -0800 Subject: Docs found: Honeywell Series 600/6000, DTSS In-Reply-To: References: <4B7351C5.1040506@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B73609F.3000101@bitsavers.org> On 2/10/10 4:48 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote: > > > I'm > preetty sure the Honeywell stuff isn't on Bitsavers, I'm not sure about the > DTSS doc's. > None of this is. It would be good to preserve it. I do have some docs from the DTSS company, but haven't had time to scan it yet. There was also a hardcover book written about that system. From aek at bitsavers.org Wed Feb 10 19:44:08 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:44:08 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: References: , , <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com>, <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com>, , <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca>, <1debc0351002101531w56dcd902s704a2bd6521e9ac8@mail.gmail.com>, <4B735744.25F0010E@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <4B7360E8.3030109@bitsavers.org> On 2/10/10 5:29 PM, dwight elvey wrote: > > Hi > I'm trying to find information on the logic pods used > with the logic analyzer I just got. > It is a Nicolet 700 series that uses the Paratronics Pods. > It uses Model 51A and Model 80 probes. > Does anyone have these that I can look at or have > manuals/schematics for these? > Dig around Weird Stuff. I thought I saw some there within the last year. Is this the one that ran CP/M ? From aek at bitsavers.org Wed Feb 10 19:46:05 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:46:05 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: References: , , <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com>, <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com>, , <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca>, <1debc0351002101531w56dcd902s704a2bd6521e9ac8@mail.gmail.com>, <4B735744.25F0010E@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org> On 2/10/10 5:29 PM, dwight elvey wrote: > > Hi > I'm trying to find information on the logic pods used > with the logic analyzer I just got. > It is a Nicolet 700 series that uses the Paratronics Pods. Just checked my scanning backlog, and I have manuals for the NPC-700 and NPC-764 They were nice analyzers. Used one for the first project I worked on at Apple. From dkelvey at hotmail.com Wed Feb 10 19:51:12 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:51:12 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org> References: , , , , <5ACD8FBE-69B0-49A5-8D52-9979F11EEE16@neurotica.com>, , <4B72B879.17405.FBD4C0@cclist.sydex.com>, , , , <20100210140137.D61278@shell.lmi.net> <4B733309.140802DA@cs.ubc.ca>, , <1debc0351002101531w56dcd902s704a2bd6521e9ac8@mail.gmail.com>, , <4B735744.25F0010E@cs.ubc.ca>, , <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: Hi Al Weirdstuff is where I got the main unit ( actually a 748, diskless version ). I got it at auction but didn't get any probes. Did you see probes and if so, where would I look for such things? I'd be interested in a copy of the manuals, especially if they have schematic but even operation would be nice to have. Yes, this is the box that had a CP/M based OS ( when used with the disk models, like the 764 ). Dwight > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:46:05 -0800 > From: aek at bitsavers.org > To: > Subject: Re: logic analyzers > > On 2/10/10 5:29 PM, dwight elvey wrote: > > > > Hi > > I'm trying to find information on the logic pods used > > with the logic analyzer I just got. > > It is a Nicolet 700 series that uses the Paratronics Pods. > > Just checked my scanning backlog, and I have manuals for the NPC-700 > and NPC-764 > > They were nice analyzers. Used one for the first project I worked on > at Apple. > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ From hachti at hachti.de Wed Feb 10 19:57:06 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:57:06 +0100 Subject: Docs found: Honeywell Series 600/6000, DTSS In-Reply-To: <4B73609F.3000101@bitsavers.org> References: <4B7351C5.1040506@hachti.de> <4B73609F.3000101@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4B7363F2.40902@hachti.de> Hi Al, I'll post my list bit by bit - as I get through the stuff. Will send you the whole list when I have possibility to scan. Would be great if you then could check what you consider important to scan. I just acquired a Ricoh Aficio 2232c on eBay for scanning purposes. But still no clue how to get it home... Best wishes, Philipp -- http://www.hachti.de From cclist at sydex.com Wed Feb 10 20:23:39 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:23:39 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: References: , <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org>, Message-ID: <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> On 10 Feb 2010 at 17:51, dwight elvey wrote: > Weirdstuff is where I got the main unit ( actually a 748, diskless > version ). I got it at auction but didn't get any probes. Did you see > probes and if so, where would I look for such things? I'd be interested > in a copy of the manuals, especially if they have schematic but even > operation would be nice to have. Yes, this is the box that had a CP/M > based OS ( when used with the disk models, like the 764 ). Not to rain on your parade, but I've long been fascinated by the numerous offerings for logic analyzers on eBay--all without pods--and all advertised as "working". I've wondered if there's an underground smuggling ring for those things were they all end up in Paraguay. Or maybe the bottom of the Sargasso Sea is carpeted with discarded logic analyzer pods... --Chuck From dkelvey at hotmail.com Wed Feb 10 22:02:54 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:02:54 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> References: , , <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org>, , , <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: Hi Chuck I think they are just the right size to fall into some black hole someplace and poof, they're gone. I didn't pay anything like ebay prices at least. Dwight > From: cclist at sydex.com > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:23:39 -0800 > Subject: RE: logic analyzers > > On 10 Feb 2010 at 17:51, dwight elvey wrote: > > > Weirdstuff is where I got the main unit ( actually a 748, diskless > > version ). I got it at auction but didn't get any probes. Did you see > > probes and if so, where would I look for such things? I'd be interested > > in a copy of the manuals, especially if they have schematic but even > > operation would be nice to have. Yes, this is the box that had a CP/M > > based OS ( when used with the disk models, like the 764 ). > > Not to rain on your parade, but I've long been fascinated by the > numerous offerings for logic analyzers on eBay--all without pods--and > all advertised as "working". > > I've wondered if there's an underground smuggling ring for those > things were they all end up in Paraguay. Or maybe the bottom of the > Sargasso Sea is carpeted with discarded logic analyzer pods... > > --Chuck > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ From pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 21:49:34 2010 From: pu1bzz.listas at gmail.com (Alexandre Souza - Listas) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:49:34 -0200 Subject: logic analyzers References: , <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org>, <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <06e701caaad0$9498c5c0$0101a8c0@Alexandre> If you find a set of 4 P6490 from tektronix, please remember you nice friend here :oP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Guzis" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:23 AM Subject: RE: logic analyzers > On 10 Feb 2010 at 17:51, dwight elvey wrote: > >> Weirdstuff is where I got the main unit ( actually a 748, diskless >> version ). I got it at auction but didn't get any probes. Did you see >> probes and if so, where would I look for such things? I'd be interested >> in a copy of the manuals, especially if they have schematic but even >> operation would be nice to have. Yes, this is the box that had a CP/M >> based OS ( when used with the disk models, like the 764 ). > > Not to rain on your parade, but I've long been fascinated by the > numerous offerings for logic analyzers on eBay--all without pods--and > all advertised as "working". > > I've wondered if there's an underground smuggling ring for those > things were they all end up in Paraguay. Or maybe the bottom of the > Sargasso Sea is carpeted with discarded logic analyzer pods... > > --Chuck > > > > From mcguire at neurotica.com Wed Feb 10 22:54:04 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:54:04 -0500 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org>, <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Weirdstuff is where I got the main unit ( actually a 748, diskless >> version ). I got it at auction but didn't get any probes. Did you see >> probes and if so, where would I look for such things? I'd be >> interested >> in a copy of the manuals, especially if they have schematic but even >> operation would be nice to have. Yes, this is the box that had a CP/M >> based OS ( when used with the disk models, like the 764 ). > > Not to rain on your parade, but I've long been fascinated by the > numerous offerings for logic analyzers on eBay--all without pods--and > all advertised as "working". > > I've wondered if there's an underground smuggling ring for those > things were they all end up in Paraguay. Or maybe the bottom of the > Sargasso Sea is carpeted with discarded logic analyzer pods... Many scrappers have separate contracts for disposal of "wire". Anything that even remotely resembles "wire" gets unceremoniously thrown into a big bin and sold to the wire recyclers. Most logic analyzer pods go there from the scrapper world. I've plucked quite a few pods from quite a few gaylords over the years. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Wed Feb 10 23:21:40 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:21:40 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 6:12 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >> You can indeed use C#, via the Mono project. Generics are a very >> basic form of C++ templates that are good for creating generic >> containers, and that's about it. C++ templates are considerably more >> involved, and metaprogramming tricks are used to do all manner of >> insane things at compile time. At a very basic level, the two are >> the same. It's like saying a Yugo and a Maserati are equivalent >> because they are both cars. (yes, you can use analogies here :) > > Ok, I understand that a bit better now. I will go read up on > generics a bit. Thanks for the clarification. If you have a strong stomach, you should read up on C++ Template Metaprogramming as well. "Clever" people can do arguably useful things with it; but I find it unreadable and very difficult to debug (I'm not that clever, I guess). It's kind of like a limited version of Lisp macros, only done in a bizarre moon language based on odd C++ template expansion & overload resolution rules, and with no debugging support... > >>> You have? Seriously? >> >> Yep. Again, it's a case of bad programmers doing stupid things. > > Well ok, but is that the rule or the exception? ;) Hard to say. I'd estimate that most of the C++ code I've had to deal with has had performance on par with what I'd expect from a C implementation (it's just 20% uglier to look at) but I've also had to deal with a good amount of ugly C and ugly C++ written by people who were unclear on the concept of using the right algorithm for the problem. And as an aside, the C/C++ code I've had to deal with has been, in my experience, far more bug-prone and unstable than the C# code I've dealt with :). > >>> Playing music, playing video files, telnetting, sshing, editing, >>> compiling, browsing the web, etc etc etc. The apps are a bit >>> prettier now, certainly moreso than with fvwm, but I'd happily live >>> without that. >> >> See, here's where I see a disconnect; you are doing the same *class* >> of thing, but you're not really doing the same thing. Programs have >> gotten more complex because people want more from their software. > > Sure, I see where you're coming from, and I agree. But I'm actually > doing the same thing. With the exception of Firefox and Mail.app, the > stuff I run is all pretty lightweight. I wish Mail.app were a bit > lighter, in particular, because I, even being a VERY heavy email user, > barely scratch the surface of [most of] its [pointless] features. Well, there's a plethora of e-mail clients out there; I use Thunderbird at home and while it's not the most elegant thing it does a decent job for my needs. I've never used Mail.app (except perhaps in its earlier incarnation as a NeXTstep app :)) so I can't speak to whether it does magic things that are worth the memory overhead you're seeing. > >> Regardless of whether Firefox 3.5 was written in assembly or C++ >> you'd never hope to run it on your IPX. I just think you are blaming >> the wrong thing (or just blaming one thing) for the performance >> degradations you are perceiving. OO overhead adds some not >> imperceivable overhead; so do each of extensibility, abstraction, >> support for "modern standards" (CSS, JavaScript, XML) ui theming, >> support for "advanced" desktop metaphors, etc... Code reuse and >> abstractions also bring overhead; these exist even in C, but the >> overhead is worth it in terms of maintenance and usability (from a >> programming and a user perspective.) > > I do see where you're coming from. Perhaps I give OO too much > blame, but I stand by my accusations...it does deserve a lot of it, in > my opinion. It wasn't until very recent releases of common C > compilers, for example, that a simple "hello world" program in C++ > generated a 600KB (yes, six hundred kilobyte) binary. I've > demonstrated that (along with its 4KB C equivalent) many times. I > was, admittedly, pleased to see that this particular brand of idiocy > has been addressed. I have no idea what was in that damn binary. I think that C++ did wonders to malign the image of OO. C++ is just barely OO anyway -- it barely has compile-time encapsulation and has no real run-time encapsulation, memory management is still almost entirely manual (which people may argue is a good thing, but in the face of C++ exceptions and other C++ features, it's a HUGE issue since it makes memory management all that more difficult to do correctly), and compilers have taken a long time to catch up to the point where they generate decent code. I think most early (and some more recent) C++ compilers & linkers did a really terrible job with unused code removal; i.e. if you did a "#include" to do 'cout << "Hello, World!";' it'd drag in all sorts of associated I/O and support code that, despite never actually getting called by anything in your program, would end up in the resultant binary. I can't speak for all compilers, but the recent VS compilers/linkers do a pretty decent job of removing unused code, as well as folding together identical code blocks (the latter is *vital* if you get up to metaprogramming shenanigans). All of this comes with a fairly high compilation-time cost. (And it makes debugging optimized builds really fun -- those 50 templated functions you built get rolled into one function associated with one symbol name...) - Josh > > -Dave > From spectre at floodgap.com Wed Feb 10 23:56:46 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:56:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> from Josh Dersch at "Feb 10, 10 09:21:40 pm" Message-ID: <201002110556.o1B5ukFD028038@floodgap.com> > If you have a strong stomach, you should read up on C++ Template > Metaprogramming as well. "Clever" people can do arguably useful things > with it; but I find it unreadable and very difficult to debug (I'm not > that clever, I guess). It's kind of like a limited version of Lisp > macros, only done in a bizarre moon language based on odd C++ template > expansion & overload resolution rules, and with no debugging support... Mozilla uses templates for low-level stuff in NSPR, which means I have to occasionally touch them during my Classilla work. They are ... oblique. The less I have to deal with them, the better. I don't fully understand them either. > And as an aside, the C/C++ code I've had to deal with has been, in my > experience, far more bug-prone and unstable than the C# code I've dealt > with :). But wouldn't that be a constant of any kind of managed code system? -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- God is Real, unless declared Integer. -- Stan Sieler ----------------------- From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 11 00:00:06 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:00:06 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: References: , <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B732C66.20658.2C0ABD0@cclist.sydex.com> On 10 Feb 2010 at 23:54, Dave McGuire wrote: > Many scrappers have separate contracts for disposal of "wire". > Anything that even remotely resembles "wire" gets unceremoniously > thrown into a big bin and sold to the wire recyclers. Most logic > analyzer pods go there from the scrapper world. I've plucked quite a > few pods from quite a few gaylords over the years. If that's the case, I shudder to think how many 'scope probes have wound up in the "wire" box. But I can remember running across a pod-less HP logic analyzer back when Haltek was in business. It was going for next to nothing, to be fair. --Chuck From mcguire at neurotica.com Thu Feb 11 01:14:18 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:14:18 -0500 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: <4B732C66.20658.2C0ABD0@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B732C66.20658.2C0ABD0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: On Feb 11, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> Many scrappers have separate contracts for disposal of "wire". >> Anything that even remotely resembles "wire" gets unceremoniously >> thrown into a big bin and sold to the wire recyclers. Most logic >> analyzer pods go there from the scrapper world. I've plucked quite a >> few pods from quite a few gaylords over the years. > > If that's the case, I shudder to think how many 'scope probes have > wound up in the "wire" box. Lots and lots. I made quite a bit of money digging them out, cleaning them up, testing them, and selling them in the late 1990s. I'd get them for a buck a piece. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From IanK at vulcan.com Thu Feb 11 01:16:35 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:16:35 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com>, <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: One thing I've said for years: C++ is a language that *enables* OOP, but does not enforce it. (IMHO Philippe Kahn "did wonders to malign the image of OO" as he promoted Borland's related products.) I remember doing some work in Smalltalk and thinking, this is really OOP. That doesn't mean it was the way to do everything I wanted to do. OOP is a way of looking at problems. Functional programming is a way of looking at problems. Declarative, imperative, etc., etc. E.g., FORTRAN is an implementation of a specific instance of a way to look at a specific set of problems. All that we do in programming languages is to find meaningful ways to map our 'questions, queries, posers' onto the machines we've built, which underneath it all aren't (for the largest part) really all that different than when we started building computers. No programming language I've seen is attempting to or suitable for finding the nine billion names of God*. Nor have I seen a job posting for a programmer for such a position. This is probably why I rarely get involved in debates about programming languages - unless the subject is COBOL, which I think is an abomination, or Java, which is something you drink, not code in. -- Ian *Clarke, Arthur C: The Nine Billion Names of God (orig. 1953 in 'Star Science Fiction Stories, repub. 1958 in 'The Other Side of the Sky') ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Josh Dersch [derschjo at mail.msu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:21 PM To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog I think that C++ did wonders to malign the image of OO. C++ is just barely OO anyway -- it barely has compile-time encapsulation and has no real run-time encapsulation, memory management is still almost entirely manual (which people may argue is a good thing, but in the face of C++ exceptions and other C++ features, it's a HUGE issue since it makes memory management all that more difficult to do correctly), and compilers have taken a long time to catch up to the point where they generate decent code. -- Josh From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Thu Feb 11 01:17:26 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:17:26 -0800 Subject: A few more free things (Seattle) Message-ID: <4B73AF06.5070404@mail.msu.edu> In my unending quest to de-clutter my house, I offer up the following (local pickup only, please, in the Seattle area); unclaimed stuff goes to RE-PC next week: - IBM PS/2 Model 70/386 - 4MB ram, one 1.44mb floppy drive, no hard drive (but sled is present). Powers up and works fine as far as I can tell. - 2x IBM PC Convertible, one printer + serial port expansion. One with backlight, one with transflective LCD screen. Two carrying cases with two different designs. One AC adapter. IBM's first "laptop." Ugliest thing in the world, and has the most impractical expansion system I've ever seen. Kinda neat, but I haven't used them in years and I don't foresee getting any use out of them, so... - Sun Ultra Enterprise 2 - 512MB ram, 2xUltraSparc IIi processor (333Mhz, IIRC) no hard drives, but I have sleds. - DEC VR262 monitor. 19" monochrome. Just traded away my VCB01 so I've no use whatsoever for this. It works, but probably needs a new capacitor or two to make it really hum. - Compaq 15/30GB DLT drive. No idea if it works; bought it years ago from Boeing surplus but never actually put it to use as I had intended... Thanks as always... Josh From derschjo at mail.msu.edu Thu Feb 11 01:24:50 2010 From: derschjo at mail.msu.edu (Josh Dersch) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:24:50 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com>, <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <4B73B0C2.9080600@mail.msu.edu> Ian King wrote: > > This is probably why I rarely get involved in debates about programming languages - unless the subject is COBOL, which I think is an abomination, or Java, which is something you drink, not code in. -- Ian > This is probably good advice. I should follow it more often. :) - Josh From IanK at vulcan.com Thu Feb 11 01:34:29 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:34:29 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B73B0C2.9080600@mail.msu.edu> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com>, <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> , <4B73B0C2.9080600@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: What, and miss out on all the fun of a geek 'food fight'? :-) ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Josh Dersch [derschjo at mail.msu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:24 PM To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog Ian King wrote: > > This is probably why I rarely get involved in debates about programming languages - unless the subject is COBOL, which I think is an abomination, or Java, which is something you drink, not code in. -- Ian > This is probably good advice. I should follow it more often. :) - Josh From jws at jwsss.com Wed Feb 10 23:53:09 2010 From: jws at jwsss.com (jim s) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:53:09 -0800 Subject: logic analyzers In-Reply-To: <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B73615D.70904@bitsavers.org>, <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B739B45.9080501@jwsss.com> A friend of mine and I worked for Arium, which are well represented on ePay. If anyone is interested we have a pile of probably 20 analyzers, which are probably not going to get used. I am in posession of a 16500C and quite pleased with it, though the ML4400 can run faster with more channels. We do have the pods, and manuals. Would consider requests for any or all of the pile. I talked to my buddy, and pretty much are willing to let it go. The pods would mostly be for the ML4400, though I think I have a working 4100 with one pod set. Arium had started making a trace product which went under a Pentium and the ML4400 with a third party (paratronics or such) made capture board to capture the 133mhz bus. At the time it was clunky, but INtel couldn't keep up with the bus w/o a "deathstar" HP 16xx or 16xxx setup to capture all the pins which cost way up near $100k. So they kept making the 4400's plus the trace unit, called a TRC54 for quite a time longer after they made any standalone analyzers. And almost none with the pods for the TRC54 / ML4400 combo. So what you see are the ML4400 units with two capture cards and 200 channels of trace. Note also with the ML4400, for what it's worth the actual loop from the pod to the clip is also active with a mini coax and balanced resistor network on both ends, so you have to have the ML4400, pod, and the lead set (or make up the leads, I can get you the formula). The roll of mini coax was snarfed by another employee for scrap, so you are on your own finding that. It was quite expensive and hard to get, and actually looks like the small 30 guage stranded lead wire, but actually is coax. Other useless data is that the drives are 720k drives if anyone wants one that won't read 1.44 (there are a very few that had the 1.44mb units, but for the most part are 720k standard). Jim On 2/10/2010 6:23 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 10 Feb 2010 at 17:51, dwight elvey wrote: > > >> Weirdstuff is where I got the main unit ( actually a 748, diskless >> version ). I got it at auction but didn't get any probes. Did you see >> probes and if so, where would I look for such things? I'd be interested >> in a copy of the manuals, especially if they have schematic but even >> operation would be nice to have. Yes, this is the box that had a CP/M >> based OS ( when used with the disk models, like the 764 ). >> > Not to rain on your parade, but I've long been fascinated by the > numerous offerings for logic analyzers on eBay--all without pods--and > all advertised as "working". > > I've wondered if there's an underground smuggling ring for those > things were they all end up in Paraguay. Or maybe the bottom of the > Sargasso Sea is carpeted with discarded logic analyzer pods... > > --Chuck > > > > > > From chd at chdickman.com Wed Feb 10 17:15:25 2010 From: chd at chdickman.com (Charles H Dickman) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:15:25 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <493390.80299.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B733E0D.7040404@nktelco.net> Ethan Dicks wrote: > This is C code then and C code now, 80x25 then and 80x25 now. UNIX > then and UNIX or Linux now. 32-bit processors then, 32-bit processors > now. Not quite apples to oranges like most comparisons reaching back > that far across the generations of equipment and mentalities. > Parkinson's Law at work. It is interesting to compare UNIX device drivers for V6 or V7 or even 4.2BSD with NetBSD for VAX for the same devices. The difference is striking. The V6 code does only what is absolutely necessary and nothing more. > -ethan > > -chuck From chd at chdickman.com Wed Feb 10 17:39:43 2010 From: chd at chdickman.com (Charles H Dickman) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:39:43 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4B72084E.4040501@e-bbes.com> <4B719A4D.16251.1D6F147@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7211CB.6040107@e-bbes.com> <4B72849E.2080608@e-bbes.com> <893725.71632.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B7343BF.6020109@nktelco.net> Ethan Dicks wrote: > For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) w/dot > matrix printer and hard disk (larger than the Pro, admittedly) was $5K > at launch in 1985, IIRC. > > And a PC/AT compatible could be had for less than $3k at MicroCenter in that time frame. I remember taking my parents to Columbus and convincing them I needed it for school. I still have the chassis and the monitor, but the motherboard gave up the ghost when I started doing ISA hardware hacking. > -ethan > > -chuck From dkelvey at hotmail.com Thu Feb 11 10:03:54 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:03:54 -0800 Subject: shipping help In-Reply-To: <4B732C66.20658.2C0ABD0@cclist.sydex.com> References: , , <4B72F9AB.8852.1FA803E@cclist.sydex.com>, , , <4B732C66.20658.2C0ABD0@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: Hi I'm looking for some help to ship an item from Pasadena, Ca. It is a little heavy, about 45 lb. I hope to bid on it but it is a pick-up only. I could use some help from someone in the Pasadena area. ( Its not a logic analyzer ). Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ From legalize at xmission.com Thu Feb 11 10:40:55 2010 From: legalize at xmission.com (Richard) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:55 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:39:43 -0500. <4B7343BF.6020109@nktelco.net> Message-ID: > Ethan Dicks wrote: > > For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) w/dot > > matrix printer and hard disk (larger than the Pro, admittedly) was $5K > > at launch in 1985, IIRC. $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] I know we all realize that inflation is eating away at the value of currency, but it really has picked up quite a bit in the last decade such that even 1985 currency is quite different from today. That just floors me because in 1986 I took out a $4,000 loan to get an Amiga 1000 with dual flopppy drives and a monitor. (I also got the extra CHIP ram expansion thingy on the front.) [*] http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download Legalize Adulthood! From legalize at xmission.com Thu Feb 11 10:46:45 2010 From: legalize at xmission.com (Richard) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:46:45 -0700 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:30:18 +0000. <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> Message-ID: Its simple economics, really. There is a huge demand for the creation and modification of software. There is a short supply of top-calibre coders that create and modify software. Ergo, most of the creation and modification of software is by a lesser calibre of programmer. Instead of just bemoaning the situation, I personally spend quite a bit of time trying to educate my fellow programmers on better and best practices. Almost all of it is done for free. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download Legalize Adulthood! From legalize at xmission.com Thu Feb 11 10:56:03 2010 From: legalize at xmission.com (Richard) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:56:03 -0700 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:21:40 -0800. <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: In article <4B7393E4.4000603 at mail.msu.edu>, Josh Dersch writes: > If you have a strong stomach, you should read up on C++ Template > Metaprogramming as well. "Clever" people can do arguably useful things > with it; but I find it unreadable and very difficult to debug (I'm not > that clever, I guess). [...] It should be mentioned that you neither need to understand the template metaprogramming coding or debugging techniques as a user of the libraries that employ these mechanisms. For instance, the Spirit library in Boost lets you write recursive descent parsers in C++ by writing the BNF grammar almost directly *as* C++ source code. See Yeah, they employ all kinds of template magic to make this possible, but as a user of Spirit I really don't need to understand it. Stepping through the guts of Spirit while I debug my parser isn't any more or less insane than stepping through the guts of a YACC generated parser. The Spirit parsers are faster, provide more design options and are implemented wholly in C++ (no lex or yacc needed). There's no free lunch however -- the compile times can be hefty and are roughly proportional to the complexity of the language being parsed. > And as an aside, the C/C++ code I've had to deal with has been, in my > experience, far more bug-prone and unstable than the C# code I've dealt > with :). C# is a .22 calibre pistol. C++ is a tactical nuclear weapon. You don't give tactical nukes to a cadet. :-) -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download Legalize Adulthood! From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 11:04:00 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:04:00 -0500 Subject: Old machines in today's dollars (was Re: The value of assembler language programmers) Message-ID: On 2/11/10, Richard wrote: > >> Ethan Dicks wrote: >> > For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) >> > ... was $5K at launch in 1985, IIRC. > > $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] Interesting to note. It was expensive then, and by extension, absurdly expensive now. I routinely install enterprise-grade web servers that are well under $10K (dual-socket, quad core, 48GB of memory, 1TB internal RAID, quad gigabit NICs, etc). > I know we all realize that inflation is eating away at the value of > currency, but it really has picked up quite a bit in the last decade > such that even 1985 currency is quite different from today. Fortunately for me, I'm making more than twice as many absolute dollars as I was in 1985 (when I happened to be in college but also had a part-time, but "real", job as an electronics tech, software developer, and VMS System Manager), so economically, at least, I've made some progress over the past 25 years. ;-) > That just floors me because in 1986 I took out a $4,000 loan to get an > Amiga 1000 with dual flopppy drives and a monitor. (I also got the extra > CHIP ram expansion thingy on the front.) I also bought an A1000 in 1986. Mine didn't require a loan, but that's because I got a bare-bones 256K A1000 with no monitor, single floppy, just mouse and keyboard, for about $800. I later purchased a Skyles Electric Works CHIP RAM expansion board for under $50, IIRC (that's still on the machine!) I repurposed a Commodore 1702 monitor from my C-64, and eventually slapped in a $50 after-market RGBI interface that I hacked to do analog RGB - still a bit fuzzy owing to the limited video bandwidth of the original product, but *much* cheaper than the going rate for a "proper" analog RBG monitor. Unfortunately for me, that monitor was stolen in a burglary in 1990, along with an A500, and a "Wedge" ISA disk interface (fortunately for me, they dumped the A1000 on the floor but didn't take it with them). I did happen to get that A1000 while I worked at the aforementioned job, and am proud that the warranty was voided before the computer even made it home. We were doing MC68000 embedded product development there, so there was no way I could help cracking the Amiga case and showing off the innards to our engineers, which started a session comparing the guts of the Amiga to our own 68K designs. I still have one of those boxes that was under development at the time - about the size of an A2000, able to be stuffed with 2MB of 41256s, and with enough proprietary slots to support 32 serial ports. It even had an early-model 3.5" disk drive. No custom chips, though, so very different from the Amiga once you got outside of the CPU/memory area. -ethan From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Thu Feb 11 11:16:00 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (geoffrey oltmans) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:16:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <999366.58031.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This is a good point. I was comparing dollars in early 80's dollar amounts for the difference between the IBM and DEC offerings. There's significant different in the number, but as you indicate the difference is quite a bit more shocking when you put it into today's denominated dollars. Computers today are waaay cheaper than they used to be. ________________________________ From: Richard To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 10:40:55 AM Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] > Ethan Dicks wrote: > > For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) w/dot > > matrix printer and hard disk (larger than the Pro, admittedly) was $5K > > at launch in 1985, IIRC. $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] I know we all realize that inflation is eating away at the value of currency, but it really has picked up quite a bit in the last decade such that even 1985 currency is quite different from today. That just floors me because in 1986 I took out a $4,000 loan to get an Amiga 1000 with dual flopppy drives and a monitor. (I also got the extra CHIP ram expansion thingy on the front.) [*] http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download Legalize Adulthood! From robert at irrelevant.com Thu Feb 11 11:54:49 2010 From: robert at irrelevant.com (Rob) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:54:49 +0000 Subject: Old machines in today's dollars (was Re: The value of assembler language programmers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2f806cd71002110954i655c4236x31b66597db5dd616@mail.gmail.com> On 11/02/2010, Ethan Dicks wrote: > On 2/11/10, Richard wrote: >> >>> Ethan Dicks wrote: >>> > For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) >>> > ... was $5K at launch in 1985, IIRC. >> >> $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] > > Interesting to note. It was expensive then, and by extension, > absurdly expensive now. I routinely install enterprise-grade web > servers that are well under $10K (dual-socket, quad core, 48GB of > memory, 1TB internal RAID, quad gigabit NICs, etc). A positive bargain .. Just to rent space in the (UK's) 1982 equivalent of the Internet, BT's Prestel, was ?5,500 pa for 100 frames. Approximately ?22,000 ($34,344) in today's money.. That got you about 75K of usable publishing space, and they never got above 100K of subscribers who could potentially see what you published.. (Scan of the price list hosted at www.viewdata.org.uk) No wonder it vanished virtually without trace as soon as the Internet started being noticed.... Rob From ray at arachelian.com Thu Feb 11 12:24:58 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:24:58 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B72B96F.6000407@philpem.me.uk> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B72B96F.6000407@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B744B7A.5000706@arachelian.com> Philip Pemberton wrote: > Creating, say, a window is a piece of cake -- extend the wxFrame > class, add your components to the constructor (stuff like "myTextBox = > new wxTextBox(this)"), and add event handler functions to deal with > what the user does. The thing that's currently pissing me off about wx is that the newer ones lack the rawbits interface - at least on OS X 10.6 - and some on Linux as well. Well, that and the fact that you can't blit an image to a DC, you have to first convert it to a bitmap. wxBitmap can be manipulated with rawbitmap.h - only it's not available where I need it. wxImage can be manipulated with the SETRGB macro , but you need to convert it to a bitmap before you can Blit it, and doing so is insanely, unbearably slow on OS X. Oh sure, there are other methods of playing with wxImages, but they're even slower (using pens, drawing lines, etc.) Worse yet, on OS X 10.6 with wxCocoa, if I use wxImage with SETRGB and then convert the image to a bitmap and blit the bitmap, I'm get weird banding artifacts when using the gray 50% desktop pattern (you know, alternating lines of 0x55 and 0xaa patterns black & white), but not on the older OS X 10.5's. It's making it very hard to get a 64 bit version of LisaEm. That and playing sounds is fugly - you have to pass it a .wav file, so I had to resort to creating a temporary .wav file on the fly and telling it to play that. Oh sure, on SOME platforms passing raw data works, but not everywhere. Rest of the stuff is wonderful. :-) From ray at arachelian.com Thu Feb 11 12:41:16 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:41:16 -0500 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> Message-ID: <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> Andrew Burton wrote: > That is shocking. I may not be writing professional programs (thank god, no > time limits or other pressures), but when I do write software (usually for > the Amiga) I always include error checks. When attempting to save a file to > disk, I always check to make sure that there is enough space on the target > device for the file. > Oh I'm sure they've got error checks, but those don't help when their design was written by monkeys. Ok, I can understand you'd want an in memory db, but why not tokenize the XML, why not store the XML as a tree. Why not make it so it has proper multithreading, and why not set it up so you don't actually read and write the data from disk into memory and instead use mmap to let the OS do that work for you? > I had Windows Media Player crash on me the other week and jammed CPU usage > at 100% :( Not great on my laptop, as the only way to shut it down is to > pull the plug out of the mains and then pull out the battery (timed > carefully - thank god for the HD access light!). Ouch. Well, that's not exactly well written software either. I get by with Miro or VLC for video and Songbird, which I also use as a browser since it's built ontop of the same engine as Firefox and can use most of Firefox's plugins. Much nicer than itunes or anything else I've used recently, though it takes some work to get it to be as nice as firefox. Running this on OS X or Linux is a godsend over that other thing from Redmond that they claim is an operating system. I've not been able to make any app crash the OS so far in that manner, but that's just me. :-) > It was just as it was about > to reload in the music file (something else I hate - why re-load in the > music file you were just playing, especially when it's not a large file > (<5MB)?!!) after reaching the end when the problem occured. > Well, I do like the ability for the apps I use to restore themselves to the same state they were in before I quit them - saving context is a good thing. Obviously if you had just crashed you should detect that the app wasn't closed cleanly and give the user some options. If you've seen the Session Manager plugin to Firefox, IMHO, the way to do right by the user. > I'm certainly no expert at programming (good at BASIC and beginner at 68K > ASM), but if you don't sort out the easy bugs (or put in safety nets) how on > earth can you expect to catch the hard-to-find ones?! > Most of this stuff is driven by marketing, and having it just barely good enough to get it out the door, damn the users, meet the deadline no matter what. And it shows. The new hw is wonderful, very fast, loads of storage, loads of memory. Sadly code monkeys barely out of high school abuse it by writing buggy bloatware. From ray at arachelian.com Thu Feb 11 12:52:32 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:52:32 -0500 Subject: Hostnames and machine names (was Re: Dave's walls) In-Reply-To: <4B734C73.8010407@philpem.me.uk> References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> <82F55E20-F398-4FC8-A93E-81C2CA8F1796@neurotica.com> <4B734C73.8010407@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B7451F0.3060203@arachelian.com> Philip Pemberton wrote: > Nice.. I have yet to find a religion that worships a chinchilla god, > though. Too bad you don't have pet squids, otherwise that would have been easy... Ia Ia Cthulhu. ;) > opening Pandora's Box. "You have no idea of the terror you hath > wrought..." and all that. Even better fitting since the name means adored by everyone - well, not everyone, but the public doesn't know any better, and woe to them when the plagues are unleashed. > > I do know someone who named his servers after curse words. Two DNS > servers: "f*ck" and "sh*t", an email server called "bullsh*t" and a > web server called "jacksh*t". He was a strange guy... I once named an openbsd firewall I created for the office sh!+stains - because of the really crappy machine they gave me to install it on. Worked just fine. :-) Typically I name things after cryptographic or cold war codename related names. sturgeon, tunny, venona, umbra, engima, sunstreak, silkworth, waihopai, pinegap, etc. One place I worked at named things out of Dr. Seuss. "Ooops! Sneetch died." (there were two of them, yes, one had a star, yes, it was a cluster.) Another after Tolkien characters. Currently the trend is to name things by where and what they are. i.e. ny-ux-mq01. Another scheme was based on the nearest airport, the client's name, and the OS.. so jfkxxxsapp01 would be a box at a data center near JFK airport, for client xxx, s=solaris, and it was an app server. :) From thomas.gardner at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 11 12:53:19 2010 From: thomas.gardner at sbcglobal.net (Tom Gardner) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:53:19 -0800 Subject: Inflation. [Was: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: ...]] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > This is a good point. I was comparing dollars in early 80's dollar amounts > for the difference between the IBM and DEC offerings. There's significant > different in the number, . > ________________________________ > From: Richard > > $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] > > I know we all realize that inflation is eating away at the value of > currency, but it really has picked up quite a bit in the last decade > such that even 1985 currency is quite different from today. Last time I checked we are deflating, not inflating! $5,000.00 in 2008 has the same buying power as $$4,982.21 in 2009 BTW, $5,000.00 in 1985 has the same buying power as $9,969.19 in 2009 per http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl if u trust yr government statistics :-) Tom From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Thu Feb 11 12:54:26 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:54:26 -0700 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> Message-ID: <4B745262.6040708@jetnet.ab.ca> Ray Arachelian wrote: > The new hw is wonderful, very fast, loads of storage, loads of memory. > Sadly code monkeys barely out of high school abuse it by writing buggy > bloatware. Well I am doing the same thing with hardware, for the CPLD computer design I playing with. Keep on adding features until the compiler crashes and the keep all the features before that one. :) How ever since is for my personal use, I don't need all the features, but it sure is hard to tell if a complex design will route. Ben. From ray at arachelian.com Thu Feb 11 13:00:41 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:00:41 -0500 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com>, <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <4B7453D9.7060603@arachelian.com> Ian King wrote: > This is probably why I rarely get involved in debates about programming languages - unless the subject is COBOL, which I think is an abomination, One of my IM statuses is this "Learning COBOL is like seeing a plush Cthulhu and petting it before you sign up for the class, but when you get there, you actually meet the real thing, in the flesh, awakened and hungry." Nope, I didn't listen, I thought "Nah, couldn't be THAT bad." Boy was I wrong. :-) > or Java, which is something you drink, not code in. -- Ian > Or a place to visit. I've recently taken a liking to Lua. Pretty decent for what it is. Nice and small too. Though I've not done anything with Smalltalk, I do like it, though coming from C, I do find the syntax a bit weird. From ray at arachelian.com Thu Feb 11 13:09:16 2010 From: ray at arachelian.com (Ray Arachelian) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:09:16 -0500 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: <4B745262.6040708@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> <4B745262.6040708@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B7455DC.6060006@arachelian.com> Ben wrote: > Ray Arachelian wrote: > >> The new hw is wonderful, very fast, loads of storage, loads of memory. >> Sadly code monkeys barely out of high school abuse it by writing buggy >> bloatware. > > Well I am doing the same thing with hardware, for the CPLD computer > design I playing with. Keep on adding features until the compiler > crashes and the keep all the features before that one. :) > How ever since is for my personal use, I don't need all the features, > but it sure is hard to tell if a complex design will route. Presumably you've not written an in memory db that's single threaded that requires 100GB of RAM, and claims to be a commercially available application, sold for who knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nothing wrong with adding features as long as you use the right data structures and algorithms to implement them. Yeah, ok, for sorting an array of 10-20 values, bubble sort is ok, but when that grows to several hundred items, that no longer works. As an example. :-) From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Thu Feb 11 13:20:23 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:20:23 -0700 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: <4B7455DC.6060006@arachelian.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> <4B745262.6040708@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B7455DC.6060006@arachelian.com> Message-ID: <4B745877.7060501@jetnet.ab.ca> Ray Arachelian wrote: > Yeah, ok, for sorting an array of 10-20 values, bubble sort is ok, but > when that grows to several hundred items, that no longer works. As an > example. :-) > Management: "We need it yesterday!" From emu at e-bbes.com Thu Feb 11 13:25:23 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:25:23 -0700 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: <4B745877.7060501@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com> <016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> <4B745262.6040708@jetnet.ab.ca> <4B7455DC.6060006@arachelian.com> <4B745877.7060501@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: <4B7459A3.9060701@e-bbes.com> Ben wrote: > Ray Arachelian wrote: > >> Yeah, ok, for sorting an array of 10-20 values, bubble sort is ok, but >> when that grows to several hundred items, that no longer works. As an >> example. :-) >> > Management: "We need it yesterday!" Programmer : We didn't test it yet ! Managment : We just send patches next Tuesday ! From IanK at vulcan.com Thu Feb 11 14:14:53 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:14:53 -0800 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: <4B745877.7060501@jetnet.ab.ca> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD <4B7455DC.6060006@arachelian.com> <4B745877.7060501@jetnet.ab.ca> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ben > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:20 AM > To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) > > Ray Arachelian wrote: > > > Yeah, ok, for sorting an array of 10-20 values, bubble sort is ok, > but > > when that grows to several hundred items, that no longer works. As > an > > example. :-) > > > Management: "We need it yesterday!" > Marketing: "And it needs to come in blue." From RichA at vulcan.com Thu Feb 11 14:58:13 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:58:13 -0800 Subject: Docs found: Honeywell 800, Facit PE1000, Rank Xerox In-Reply-To: <4B735F6E.2010802@hachti.de> References: <4B735F6E.2010802@hachti.de> Message-ID: Oh, yes, please save the Sigma manuals!!!! --rma -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Hachtmann Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:38 PM To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Docs found: Honeywell 800, Facit PE1000, Rank Xerox (see first posting) Honeywell 800: ************** Honeywell 800 transistorized Data Processing System Programmers' Reference Manual DSI-31A, 1962 FACIT PE1000 Paper Tape Reader: ******************************* Spare Parts UP 631001, 1.10.63 Manual UP 630201, 1.4.63 Technical Description (brochure) Rank Xerox: *********** Rank Xerox EXTENDED ALGOL-60 19 05 72 C, May 1972 Sigma 5/9 Computers Control Program-Five (CP-V) Sigma 6/7/9 Computers Time-Sharing Manual 90 09 07 E, June 1973 Xerox Operating System (XOS) Sigma 6/7/9 Computers Batch Processing Reference Manual 90 17 65 A, December 1971 Xerox Universal Time-Sharing System (UTS) Sigma 6/7/9 Computers Time-Sharing User's Guide 90 16 92 A, April 1971 -- http://www.hachti.de From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 11 14:08:43 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:08:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs In-Reply-To: from "Ethan Dicks" at Feb 10, 10 04:36:47 pm Message-ID: > maybe five computers"? Perhaps he was just prescient about the > Pro380. ;-) > > -ethan > (Who has one. Are the other four owners already on this list?) Well, I have Pro380 (and a pair of Pro350s) -tony From RichA at vulcan.com Thu Feb 11 15:13:07 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:13:07 -0800 Subject: Object-Oriented Programming models [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4B7453D9.7060603@arachelian.com> References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6ed9562426e.0000058dn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <4b700d62.20109.f4bca6@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <4B712670.3050201@mail.msu.edu> <16E38B1D-0E55-4287-9DEE-CFE9AD76D686@neurotica.com> <4B71AD23.8040304@mail.msu.edu> <4B71B532.1070007@mail.msu.edu> <011719EC-CAE5-4482-A704-F2359BB17E52@mail.msu.edu> <6D2F1464-34E0-4601-AE47-7AD28DE28542@neurotica.com> <8FEBF117-CA86-46DB-A611-DBFCBE392015@mail.msu.edu> <294DDFB2-7746-4C58-BC7C-FBA00EEB2243@neurotica.com> <3C115E9B-AC23-401F-91BD-1B25187FDF5E@neurotica.com>, <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> <4B7453D9.7060603@arachelian.com> Message-ID: From: Ray Arachelian Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:01 AM > Ian King wrote: >> This is probably why I rarely get involved in debates about programming >> languages - unless the subject is COBOL, which I think is an abomination, > One of my IM statuses is this "Learning COBOL is like seeing a plush > Cthulhu and petting it before you sign up for the class, but when you > get there, you actually meet the real thing, in the flesh, awakened and > hungry." > Nope, I didn't listen, I thought "Nah, couldn't be THAT bad." Boy was I > wrong. :-) Oh, come on. For the problem domain for which it was designed, COBOL is very good. PL/I improves on it if you're a FORTRAsh programmer, but not much. >> or Java, which is something you drink, not code in. -- Ian > Or a place to visit. > I've recently taken a liking to Lua. Pretty decent for what it is. > Nice and small too. Though I've not done anything with Smalltalk, I do > like it, though coming from C, I do find the syntax a bit weird. Personally, I wish that ANSI X3J13 had chosen Symbolics' New Flavors over XEROX PARC's LOOPS as its OO model, but both work fine, and are real object models. (My first exposure to OOP actually *was* Smalltalk, so all those C based systems feel odd to me.) I already knew Lisp before I saw any OOP. Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer Vulcan, Inc. 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 mailto:RichA at vulcan.com mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org http://www.PDPplanet.org/ http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/ From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 11 14:47:57 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:47:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: from "Rik Bos" at Feb 10, 10 11:05:42 pm Message-ID: > I do have a defective nighthawk if you want to try your luck on it.. > (off-list) What's the problem with it? No, I am not going to try to outbid the OP, but I am just curious. After all, I'll probably end up helping to fix it :-) Mosre seriosuly, I would stronlg suggest the OP obtains this drive. It'll give yo a good ideas as to what's going on. And apart from that 40 pin custom chip I mentioned, the eletdonic side is not hard to fix. Of course if it's got problems inside the HDA, it's going to ne a lot harder.. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 11 14:50:12 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:50:12 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: from "Dave McGuire" at Feb 10, 10 05:06:36 pm Message-ID: > It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either > application. ;) What is it about classic computer people and cats? Cats have this habit of curling up asleep on top of service manuals, and demanding food with menaces when you're in the middle of solving a complex problem. On the other hand, I wouldn't swap my cat for anything ;-) -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 11 14:54:49 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:54:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs In-Reply-To: <4B72D4B6.19647.16A22D9@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 10, 10 03:45:58 pm Message-ID: > Personally, I still want a computer that will paint my house and > repair the fence in the backyard. IIRC, the original definiton of 'computer' was a person who operates a computing machine. In which case finding one that can paint your house shouldn't be too hard. -tony From mcguire at neurotica.com Thu Feb 11 15:27:43 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:27:43 -0500 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <794D245B-1E51-49B8-A077-516568C9E5E3@neurotica.com> On Feb 11, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >> It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either >> application. ;) > > What is it about classic computer people and cats? Cats have this > habit > of curling up asleep on top of service manuals, and demanding food > with > menaces when you're in the middle of solving a complex problem. On the > other hand, I wouldn't swap my cat for anything ;-) Right there with you. We have three, and a fourth (mostly) lives on the lanai. Cats rule, dogs drool. ;) -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 11 15:29:12 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:29:12 +0100 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: from "DaveMcGuire" at Feb 10, 10 05:06:36 pm Message-ID: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Tony Duell > Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 21:50 > Aan: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Onderwerp: Re: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) > > > It's a cat rug, but it can easily be pressed into use for either > > application. ;) > > What is it about classic computer people and cats? Cats have > this habit of curling up asleep on top of service manuals, > and demanding food with menaces when you're in the middle of > solving a complex problem. On the other hand, I wouldn't swap > my cat for anything ;-) > > -tony Ours is keeping the house free of mice (the ones that eat things). After he bites the head of, he'll bring the remainings to us to show how good he is in hunting mice. It is a don't touch cat for strangers, we have a sign 'cat bites'. I love him ;-) He's red and is having the same bad attitude as Garfield, that's why we named him Spinner. -Rik From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 11 15:31:03 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:31:03 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: from "Rik Bos" at Feb10, 10 11:05:42 pm Message-ID: <39780ABF985A4BA386299A2072E64709@xp1800> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Tony Duell > Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 21:48 > Aan: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Onderwerp: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > > I do have a defective nighthawk if you want to try your luck on it.. > > (off-list) > > What's the problem with it? No, I am not going to try to > outbid the OP, but I am just curious. After all, I'll > probably end up helping to fix it :-) > > Mosre seriosuly, I would stronlg suggest the OP obtains this > drive. It'll give yo a good ideas as to what's going on. And > apart from that 40 pin custom chip I mentioned, the eletdonic > side is not hard to fix. > > Of course if it's got problems inside the HDA, it's going to > ne a lot harder.. > > -tony As I remember well it's not making enough speed (revs) at startup. -Rik From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 11 15:42:41 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:42:41 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs In-Reply-To: References: <4B72D4B6.19647.16A22D9@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 10, 10 03:45:58 pm, Message-ID: <4B740951.11711.90A64@cclist.sydex.com> On 11 Feb 2010 at 20:54, Tony Duell wrote: > > Personally, I still want a computer that will paint my house and > > repair the fence in the backyard. > > IIRC, the original definiton of 'computer' was a person who operates a > computing machine. In which case finding one that can paint your house > shouldn't be too hard. Heh. I haven't looked at the latest ANSI X3 Fortran (2003?) spec, but I do recall that the '90 spec defined computer as "anyhing capable of computation, including a human being. On the other hand, I'm not certain about some human beings... --Chuck From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 11 16:00:02 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:00:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800> from "Rik Bos" at Feb 11, 10 10:29:12 pm Message-ID: > > What is it about classic computer people and cats? Cats have > > this habit of curling up asleep on top of service manuals, > > and demanding food with menaces when you're in the middle of > > solving a complex problem. On the other hand, I wouldn't swap > > my cat for anything ;-) > > > > -tony > > Ours is keeping the house free of mice (the ones that eat things). Ah yes. Mine (a ginger cat called Pentia [1]) has the hackish habit of dismantling mice, birds, frogs, etc. Alas he's not figured out how to put them back together again :-) [1] Namever after the East German SLR camera. There is a rare version of this camera which is gold plated (rather than chrome) with green leatherette trim (rather than black). Seems toi be an apporpriate name for a ginger cat with geeen eys. Oh, and the camera is a remarkably clever design in many ways (it's getting to far off topic to explain the operation of the Prestor Reflex shutter), Mayn people moan about them, but that;'s because they try to fix them like they fix more normal cameras and get in a mess. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Thu Feb 11 16:01:54 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:01:54 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <39780ABF985A4BA386299A2072E64709@xp1800> from "Rik Bos" at Feb 11, 10 10:31:03 pm Message-ID: > > Mosre seriosuly, I would stronlg suggest the OP obtains this > > drive. It'll give yo a good ideas as to what's going on. And > > apart from that 40 pin custom chip I mentioned, the eletdonic > > side is not hard to fix. > > > > Of course if it's got problems inside the HDA, it's going to > > ne a lot harder.. > > > > -tony > > As I remember well it's not making enough speed (revs) at startup. I seem to rememebr some of the motor control circuitery is in that ASIC, but ther'es also a lot that's outside it, and those are the parts most likely to fail. There are some power transistors, for example, that could well be the problem. -tony From robert at irrelevant.com Thu Feb 11 16:43:18 2010 From: robert at irrelevant.com (Rob) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:43:18 +0000 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800> Message-ID: <2f806cd71002111443s7bb11eby6b56850f164e57eb@mail.gmail.com> >> > What is it about classic computer people and cats? We're brighter! >> People who own a cat are more likely to have a university degree than those with a pet dog, a study by Bristol University suggests. << http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8501042.stm From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 11 17:03:39 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:03:39 -0800 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <2f806cd71002111443s7bb11eby6b56850f164e57eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800>, , <2f806cd71002111443s7bb11eby6b56850f164e57eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com> On 11 Feb 2010 at 22:43, Rob wrote: > >> > What is it about classic computer people and cats? > > We're brighter! > > >> People who own a cat are more likely to have a university degree > >> than those with a pet dog, a study by Bristol University suggests. > >> << > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8501042.stm Not necessarily--you're probably a city dweller with limited time and space--or you're female: "Of those surveyed, dog-lovers were more likely to be male, living in rural areas and under the age of 55. " I've had cats and dogs, some at the same time. I'll take dogs any day. --Chuck From spc at conman.org Thu Feb 11 17:32:21 2010 From: spc at conman.org (Sean Conner) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:32:21 -0500 Subject: Hostnames and machine names (was Re: Dave's walls) In-Reply-To: <4B7451F0.3060203@arachelian.com> References: <01CAAA72.27E20D00@MSE_D03> <82F55E20-F398-4FC8-A93E-81C2CA8F1796@neurotica.com> <4B734C73.8010407@philpem.me.uk> <4B7451F0.3060203@arachelian.com> Message-ID: <20100211233221.GA16339@brevard.conman.org> It was thus said that the Great Ray Arachelian once stated: > Philip Pemberton wrote: > > Nice.. I have yet to find a religion that worships a chinchilla god, > > though. > Too bad you don't have pet squids, otherwise that would have been > easy... Ia Ia Cthulhu. ;) > > > opening Pandora's Box. "You have no idea of the terror you hath > > wrought..." and all that. > Even better fitting since the name means adored by everyone - well, not > everyone, but the public doesn't know any better, and woe to them when > the plagues are unleashed. > > > > > I do know someone who named his servers after curse words. Two DNS > > servers: "f*ck" and "sh*t", an email server called "bullsh*t" and a > > web server called "jacksh*t". He was a strange guy... > I once named an openbsd firewall I created for the office sh!+stains - > because of the really crappy machine they gave me to install it on. > Worked just fine. :-) I remember calling one of our servers "pain," since it was. Also, a friend of mine named one of his machines "kwalitee" because, you know, quality with a K and all that. Right now, we tend to name physical machines after our pets, and virtual machines after cities. I don't think they've forgiven me for naming one of them "truth-or-consequences" (New Mexico). -spc (At least I didn't name it Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch) From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Thu Feb 11 18:00:45 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:00:45 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs References: Message-ID: <4B749A2D.92004FF5@cs.ubc.ca> Tony Duell wrote: > > > Personally, I still want a computer that will paint my house and > > repair the fence in the backyard. > > IIRC, the original definiton of 'computer' was a person who operates a > computing machine. In which case finding one that can paint your house > shouldn't be too hard. To put a finer point on it, I expect the original definition would have been someone who did the computation, then became someone who operated an adding machine or calculator, then the modern/current definition. From cisin at xenosoft.com Thu Feb 11 18:17:16 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs In-Reply-To: <4B749A2D.92004FF5@cs.ubc.ca> References: <4B749A2D.92004FF5@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <20100211161622.X8669@shell.lmi.net> > Personally, I still want a computer that will paint my house and > repair the fence in the backyard. Well, we all know about "fencepost errors", but how computationally intensive is your house painting? From legalize at xmission.com Thu Feb 11 18:38:21 2010 From: legalize at xmission.com (Richard) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:38:21 -0700 Subject: Inflation. [Was: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: ...]] In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:53:19 -0800. Message-ID: In article , "Tom Gardner" writes: > Last time I checked we are deflating, not inflating! Inflating the money supply devalues the currency. Two ways of looking at the same problem. What you describe is the effect of what is typically called "inflation". -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download Legalize Adulthood! From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 11 19:17:19 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:19 -0800 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs In-Reply-To: <20100211161622.X8669@shell.lmi.net> References: , <4B749A2D.92004FF5@cs.ubc.ca>, <20100211161622.X8669@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4B743B9F.16632.CD8AD5@cclist.sydex.com> On 11 Feb 2010 at 16:17, Fred Cisin wrote: > Well, we all know about "fencepost errors", but how computationally > intensive is your house painting? It's basically a ladder funciton... --Chuck From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Thu Feb 11 20:05:53 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:05:53 +0000 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800>, , <2f806cd71002111443s7bb11eby6b56850f164e57eb@mail.gmail.com> <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B74B781.6060002@philpem.me.uk> Chuck Guzis wrote: > I've had cats and dogs, some at the same time. I'll take dogs any > day. If the cat happens to have the personality that makes it sit on your lap and purr, then I'd go with the cat. Similarly, as long as the dog is reasonably quiet (typically bigger dogs) and not a clumsy nutcase (as in, doesn't run round the house actively trying to break things -- seen that on too many occasions) then I'd go with the dog. But I wouldn't trade my little "colony" of chinchillas for anything. They're just too much fun to watch (especially the little 'uns!) :) -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From cclist at sydex.com Thu Feb 11 20:21:44 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:21:44 -0800 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B74B781.6060002@philpem.me.uk> References: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800>, <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B74B781.6060002@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: <4B744AB8.23252.1088410@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 2:05, Philip Pemberton wrote: > Similarly, as long as the dog is reasonably quiet (typically bigger > dogs) and not a clumsy nutcase (as in, doesn't run round the house > actively trying to break things -- seen that on too many occasions) > then I'd go with the dog. All in all, my cats were pretty good. The current crop of canines is one female black lab and a male golden retriever. Both are smart and well-behaved. Plus, they'll chase the neighbor's geese off my property--something that a cat would never do. > But I wouldn't trade my little "colony" of chinchillas for anything. > They're just too much fun to watch (especially the little 'uns!) :) Fur critters, huh? I'm fighting a running battle with some nutria that keep invading my pond, but they are definitely not "cute". --Chuck From jthecman at netscape.net Thu Feb 11 21:24:59 2010 From: jthecman at netscape.net (jthecman at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:24:59 -0500 Subject: Manual Needed Message-ID: <8CC79AA1704C4E9-27F8-7F3C@webmail-m063.sysops.aol.com> Hello Does anyone have a copy of the hp Draftmaster II manual for loan, sale, can make a copy of it? Thanks, John K From bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca Thu Feb 11 22:37:28 2010 From: bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca (Ben) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:37:28 -0700 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs In-Reply-To: <4B743B9F.16632.CD8AD5@cclist.sydex.com> References: , <4B749A2D.92004FF5@cs.ubc.ca>, <20100211161622.X8669@shell.lmi.net> <4B743B9F.16632.CD8AD5@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B74DB08.9000900@jetnet.ab.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 11 Feb 2010 at 16:17, Fred Cisin wrote: > >> Well, we all know about "fencepost errors", but how computationally >> intensive is your house painting? > > It's basically a ladder funciton... Random walk to keep paint free, here! > --Chuck > From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 22:38:57 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:38:57 -0500 Subject: Manual Needed In-Reply-To: <8CC79AA1704C4E9-27F8-7F3C@webmail-m063.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CC79AA1704C4E9-27F8-7F3C@webmail-m063.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:24 PM, wrote: > Hello > Does anyone have a copy of the hp Draftmaster II manual for loan, sale, can > make a copy of it? If something turns up in electronic form, I'd like a pointer as well. I have one of those upstairs that did not come with documentation (via University surplus). -ethan From spectre at floodgap.com Thu Feb 11 22:48:11 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:48:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hostnames and machine names (was Re: Dave's walls) In-Reply-To: <20100211233221.GA16339@brevard.conman.org> from Sean Conner at "Feb 11, 10 06:32:21 pm" Message-ID: <201002120448.o1C4mBkq017196@floodgap.com> > Right now, we tend to name physical machines after our pets, and virtual > machines after cities. I don't think they've forgiven me for naming one of > them "truth-or-consequences" (New Mexico). servers: Scandinavian cities stockholm (AIX ANS 500), helsinki (NetBSD PM 7300), oslo (PM G4), reykjavik (Solbourne), thule (NetBSD IIci), sondrestrom (AMOS Alpha Micro), godthaab (NetBSD Q605), uppsala (staging for the p720) Don't ask how that got started. clients: someone important in their development Figure out which are which (grouped ones are similar) bryan, bruce, andy, jonathan gordon, alex, nathan bil jean laptops and portables: dogs (except gordon for historical reasons) Benji (PB 1400), rover (SX-64) [uses von and hedley on the network], Rin Tin Tin (PB 540c), barkley (iBook G3), underdog (iBook G4), atomicdog (PB G4) Oh, and guess what bigbunny is. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell --------------------------- From spectre at floodgap.com Thu Feb 11 22:51:28 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:51:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com> from Chuck Guzis at "Feb 11, 10 03:03:39 pm" Message-ID: <201002120451.o1C4pSXS021092@floodgap.com> > Not necessarily--you're probably a city dweller with limited time and > space The computers take up the space. The cat right now lives with my folks. They're secretly happy to have her, she's a very nice cat. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- A dean is to faculty as a hydrant is to a dog. -- Alfred Kahn -------------- From spectre at floodgap.com Thu Feb 11 23:09:10 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:09:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <4B7453D9.7060603@arachelian.com> from Ray Arachelian at "Feb 11, 10 02:00:41 pm" Message-ID: <201002120509.o1C59AL1021040@floodgap.com> > I've recently taken a liking to Lua. Pretty decent for what it is. I maintained, until the project died, the Mac port of a cross-"compiler" for Plua, which was my favourite way to program classic PalmOS apps. But my preferred language for 90% of my tasks is Perl. After that, a smattering of C/C++, BASIC, Pascal, Tcl/Tk, csh, whatever works well for the project at hand. I refuse to write Python, and I find Ruby and PHP too trendy. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Everything! Is my! Delusion! -- "Dead or Alive 2" -------------------------- From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 12 02:00:48 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 03:00:48 -0500 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <4D22312E-3223-484F-A18B-59E5FFF29AE7@microspot.co.uk> References: <4D22312E-3223-484F-A18B-59E5FFF29AE7@microspot.co.uk> Message-ID: On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Roger Holmes wrote: > By the way I spent three hours this morning showing a BBC regional > news crew my 1962 mainframe, apparently it will be condensed down > to three minutes. I don't have a transmission date, it didn't go > out today and probably will only shown in the south east area of > England but should be on the BBC web site. Oh and a couple of weeks > ago I posted an old video of it on U-Tube if anyone is interested > the URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsBPuUJPvKg or just > Google ICT 1301 and select video. I hope to post a better one later > in the year. Man oh MAN that's a beautiful machine. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Fri Feb 12 04:00:11 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:00:11 -0500 Subject: Western NY Message-ID: <4AAE851F-79E1-4B07-BDFF-B0F207EA4D7C@neurotica.com> Hey folks...Is there anyone in the western part of New York who might be willing to help me with the retrieval and temporary storage of a smallish system? It's a big deskside chassis, would need a station wagon or pickup truck type of thing. I'd be able to pick it up within the next 2-3 months. Anyone? Thanks, -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From christian_liendo at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 08:36:16 2010 From: christian_liendo at yahoo.com (Christian Liendo) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:36:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <905687.22685.qm@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I figured some one on this list would find this useful. http://numist.net/post/2010/project-typewriter.html From stimpy.u.idiot at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 09:59:49 2010 From: stimpy.u.idiot at gmail.com (Pete Edwards) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:59:49 +0000 Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: References: <4D22312E-3223-484F-A18B-59E5FFF29AE7@microspot.co.uk> Message-ID: <11c909eb1002120759u37cef5e6x4d7e5470b6678d56@mail.gmail.com> On 12 February 2010 08:00, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Roger Holmes wrote: >> >> the BBC web site. Oh and a couple of weeks ago I posted an old video of it >> on U-Tube if anyone is interested the URL is >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsBPuUJPvKg or just Google ICT 1301 and >> select video. I hope to post a better one later in the year. > > ?Man oh MAN that's a beautiful machine. > > ? ? ? ? -Dave > Seconded! That's an awesome piece of kit Roger. I *especially* like the Forbidden Planet noises at the end. What is that audio signal derived from? -- Pete Edwards "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future" - Niels Bohr From emu at e-bbes.com Fri Feb 12 10:20:05 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:20:05 -0700 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B731C6F.2080306@bitsavers.org> References: <201002101937.o1AJbENf004322@smtp-vbr18.xs4all.nl> <4B731C6F.2080306@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4B757FB5.8030002@e-bbes.com> Al Kossow wrote: > On 2/10/10 11:37 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > >> So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller >> with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? >> And simply forget about the box I have here ? > And thus the wheel is recreated again. > How many times is this going to have to be done before someone open-sources > this code? So, if I would make the hardware, how many people are interested in a box which emulates HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 ? If the source would be open, is SourceForge the best way to do it ? Or are people just downloading it, without working/helping out ? Cheers From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 10:44:40 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:44:40 -0800 Subject: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype In-Reply-To: <905687.22685.qm@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: , <905687.22685.qm@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B7514F8.19394.8B6F5@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 6:36, Christian Liendo wrote: > I figured some one on this list would find this useful. > > http://numist.net/post/2010/project-typewriter.html Didn't a number of Brother typewriter models have the capability of also serving as printers--without modifications? I also wonder if it might not be better to start with a word-processor type of typewriter. Mr. Obvious on the web page stated: "it also revealed that avr-gcc's code generation is very poorly optimized" --Chuck From arcbe2001 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 11:07:11 2010 From: arcbe2001 at yahoo.com (Russ Bartlett) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:07:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] In-Reply-To: <11c909eb1002120759u37cef5e6x4d7e5470b6678d56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <443912.13570.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I worked on one of these systems? 400 words IAS , magnet drum, and 4 tape decks .Programming was MPL.? We would use a card sorter (off-line) to save on sort time for a tape sort/merge process. --- On Fri, 2/12/10, Pete Edwards wrote: From: Pete Edwards Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Date: Friday, February 12, 2010, 10:59 AM On 12 February 2010 08:00, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Roger Holmes wrote: >> >> the BBC web site. Oh and a couple of weeks ago I posted an old video of it >> on U-Tube if anyone is interested the URL is >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsBPuUJPvKg or just Google ICT 1301 and >> select video. I hope to post a better one later in the year. > > ?Man oh MAN that's a beautiful machine. > > ? ? ? ? -Dave > Seconded! That's an awesome piece of kit Roger. I *especially* like the Forbidden Planet noises at the end. What is that audio signal derived from? -- Pete Edwards "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future" - Niels Bohr From arcbe2001 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 11:19:29 2010 From: arcbe2001 at yahoo.com (Russ Bartlett) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:19:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... Message-ID: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I get back to my point that a lot of the comments and criticisms concerning the absence of the century in system design comes? from people ill equipped? and knowledgeable to be able to pass judgment.? By 1985 I had been working in Data Processing for 20 years!? Hardware constraints dictated what we did and didn't do.? The hardware constraints were our main obstacle and? were twofold: 1) Cost - Memory was incredibly expensive (Read The mythical man month) 2) Hardware Technology - Early systems were mag tape only.? The bottom line to this is that there is always a price point.? Added to which, and factored in, is the life expectancy of any system.? Back then it was considered around 10-15 years plus.? A lot of systems had no upward compatability and applications needed to be modified to run. In the mid 60's only large companies had systems with greater than 16K memory and disc drives.? Mag tape 800 and 1600 bpi if you were lucky was the norm.? Systems running a single job stream were common place. ?? Now the more sophisticated systems - of which the British ICT (ICL) was one - used an offset to hold dates.? The ICL 1900 range? used a technique of holding the number of days since the Jan 1st 1900.? Richard Pick later used a similar off-set technique in his Pick O/S (Dec 31, 1967).? We used assembler language because we had to.? Generally they were considered a necessary evil although I loved using it. 3rd generation language compilers weren't that mature and generated a lot of machine code instructions making them a memory hog and slow to execute. ?? While the main pack (IBM lead) pursued architecture that used Assembler, Burroughs took a different, and far better approach as their systems used Algol. In the early days when we wrote programs they were written onto coding forms.? Once punched onto 80 column cards we would check each card to ensure that had been key punched correctly.? Checking an 8000 statement? program took time.? Once checked we would have it listed (used little machine time).? We would then dry run through the program looking for logic errors.? Having done that we would have it compiled.? Typically there would be a couple of development slots or so a week for testing so we had ensure that we had done due diligence.? If it compiled we would schedule a test slot and run against test data.? Debugging consisted of analyzing dumps and correcting the code.? Contrast this against interactive source debuggers.? Today machine time is inexpensive and many compiles and test shots may be performed in a day.? "Workbench" tools allow the programmer to run their program without even hitting the mainframe.? A totally different world.? There was no padding of EDP (Electronic Data Processing) budgets - they didn't exist, there was not an EDP cost center in the G/L.? EDP was a huge investment for any company.? We didn't have an EDP Manager in the true sense of the term as we reported to the head of finance - The chief accountant.? It was later that we split off and became a separate entity with our own budget. --- On Wed, 2/10/10, Brent Hilpert wrote: From: Brent Hilpert Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... To: General at invalid.domain, "On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 1:25 AM William Donzelli wrote: > > > 11 years ago, I pointed this very fact out to "journalists" who were > > convinced that Y2K was all a scam to pad IT budgets because "nobody > > would have gone to that much trouble to save 4 bits (00-99 fits in 7 > > bits, 2000 fits in 11 bits) even in the 1950s. > > While it was not a scam, it certainly was used to pad IT budgets. I would argue the public aspect of the issue was a scam. The people who needed to know, knew already. The public hype around the issue was overblown and unnecessary. Remember the various experts and consultants railing about how microwave ovens and cars and anything with a microprocessor in it (things that didn't even know about the date) were going to fail? I still have the bulletin from the government mailed out to every household in Canada to prepare everyone for Y2K: a fine example of public folly. From nico at farumdata.dk Fri Feb 12 11:48:03 2010 From: nico at farumdata.dk (Nico de Jong) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:48:03 +0100 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >From: "Russ Bartlett" xxx at yahoo.com --------------- I get back to my point that a lot of the comments and criticisms concerning the absence of the century in system design comes from people ill equipped and knowledgeable to be able to pass judgment. By 1985 I had been working in Data Processing for 20 years! Hardware constraints dictated what we did and didn't do. The hardware constraints were our main obstacle and were twofold: 1) Cost - Memory was incredibly expensive (Read The mythical man month) 2) Hardware Technology - Early systems were mag tape only. The bottom line to this is that there is always a price point. Added to which, and factored in, is the life expectancy of any system. Back then it was considered around 10-15 years plus. A lot of systems had no upward compatability and applications needed to be modified to run. In the mid 60's only large companies had systems with greater than 16K memory and disc drives. Mag tape 800 and 1600 bpi if you were lucky was the norm. -------------------- I fully agree with Russ. In many files we used julian date, expressed as YYDDD. In COMP-3 (packed decimal), this would occupy 3 bytes. A full date, CCYYMMDD, would occupy 5 bytes. You might laugh, but in many financial systems this was a PITA. The smalles mainframe I used in the 70's, was an IBM 360/25. It was equipped with a whopping. When I developped a program for statistics, the first compilation wanted 80K of memory (double buffering, blocked records, etc). After having cut the fat away, I couldnt get it below 32K, so the boss had to go to his boss, and ask for money so we could RENT 4K of memory ! When that was in place, I had 4 (four) bytes left. Nico From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 11:52:15 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:52:15 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B7524CF.9161.46C445@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 9:19, Russ Bartlett wrote: > I get back to my point that a lot of the comments and criticisms > concerning the absence of the century in system design comes? from > people ill equipped? and knowledgeable to be able to pass judgment.? > By 1985 I had been working in Data Processing for 20 years!? Hardware > constraints dictated what we did and didn't do.? The hardware > constraints were our main obstacle and? were twofold: > > 1) Cost - Memory was incredibly expensive (Read The mythical man > month) 2) Hardware Technology - Early systems were mag tape only.? Oh, c'mon, Russ! I was there too and the greatest number of 2-digit Y2K gaffes were committed by COBOL programmers using PICTURE 99 for the year. Had they thought just a bit, using PICTURE XX and then supplementing with a conversion routine to the appropriate decimal form of the year would have worked wonders. Consider, for example, that if a programmer had allowed 0-9 and A-Z (uppercase) in the year field, the collating order would have been preserved and the 2- position year field could have expressed 1,296 years in 2 character positions. No, the prime cause was lazy programming. I was guilty of it also. --Chuck From nico at farumdata.dk Fri Feb 12 12:06:57 2010 From: nico at farumdata.dk (Nico de Jong) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:06:57 +0100 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <59933B3C325A4CE5AF75265DEE326C14@udvikling> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nico de Jong" > The smalles mainframe I used in the 70's, was an IBM 360/25. It was > equipped with a whopping. When I developped a program for statistics, the > first compilation wanted 80K of memory (double buffering, blocked records, > etc). After having cut the fat away, I couldnt get it below 32K, so the > boss had to go to his boss, and ask for money so we could RENT 4K of > memory ! When that was in place, I had 4 (four) bytes left. Sorry, I forgot to mention the original core size. A whole 28K ! From onymouse at garlic.com Fri Feb 12 12:16:21 2010 From: onymouse at garlic.com (jd) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:16:21 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> Nico de Jong ????????: > The smalles mainframe I used in the 70's, was an IBM 360/25. It was > equipped with a whopping. When I developped a program for statistics, > the first compilation wanted 80K of memory (double buffering, blocked > records, etc). After having cut the fat away, I couldnt get it below > 32K, so the boss had to go to his boss, and ask for money so we could > RENT 4K of memory ! When that was in place, I had 4 (four) bytes left. I never heard of a whopping option for the s360. Was it useful? Could it be used in PC's? (^_^) == jd From onymouse at garlic.com Fri Feb 12 12:44:13 2010 From: onymouse at garlic.com (jd) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:44:13 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B75A17D.5050106@garlic.com> Russ Bartlett ????????: > > In the early days when we wrote programs they were written onto > coding forms. Once punched onto 80 column cards we would check > each card to ensure that had been key punched correctly. Checking > an 8000 statement program took time. Once checked we would have > it listed (used little machine time). We would then dry run > through the program looking for logic errors. Having done that we > would have it compiled. Typically there would be a couple of > development slots or so a week for testing so we had ensure that we > had done due diligence. If it compiled we would schedule a test > slot and run against test data. Debugging consisted of analyzing > dumps and correcting the code. Contrast this against interactive > source debuggers. Today machine time is inexpensive and many > compiles and test shots may be performed in a day. "Workbench" > tools allow the programmer to run their program without even > hitting the mainframe. A totally different world. > I still have a pad or two of IBM coding forms and print formatting forms. And an IBM flowchart template. And slide rules. And trig tables. And those stinky Bishop Graphics PCB templates that still stink after 35 years. Although I coded in my head and thought flowcharts a waste of time when I could clearly see the program flow, I still kept the forms and template. Somehow I didn't keep the boxes full of listings and punched tape. > > I would argue the public aspect of the issue was a scam. The people > who needed to know, knew already. The public hype around the issue > was overblown and unnecessary. And it turns out that y2k+10 is a problem, sometimes very critical, which gets no attention and certainly no hype. It caught everyone unawares. > > Remember the various experts and consultants railing about how > microwave ovens and cars and anything with a microprocessor in it > (things that didn't even know about the date) were going to fail? I was told my 1976 Litronix LED watch was going to quit working on 2000 Jan 1. It stopped working in 2003. I forgot to replace the battery. Reminds me that a friend's 99 Buick wouldn't start on New Year's 2001. She said it was Y2K. It was a dead battery cos the lights were left on. She countered that the lights were infected with the Y2K bug. > > I still have the bulletin from the government mailed out to every > household in Canada to prepare everyone for Y2K: a fine example of > public folly. I have one of those but it came from the California Office of Emergency Services, over the Governor's signature. Understated. Scarily understated. There's still nothing about y2k+10. == jd From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 13:17:39 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:17:39 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> Message-ID: <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 10:16, jd wrote: > I never heard of a whopping option for the s360. Was it useful? Could > it be used in PC's? I thought the "whopping" option applied only to the model 20. As in "whopping stupid". It's interesting to go back to the old documenation and remember how much space an operating system could take. On a 360/40, DOS could occupy all of 8K bytes--and that was with support for one background and two foreground partitions. Granted, the number of transient phases was considerable, but this hails from a time when an OS was considered to be a necessary evil that was best kept to a minimum. How far we've come! --Chuck From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 13:04:13 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:04:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <2f806cd71002111443s7bb11eby6b56850f164e57eb@mail.gmail.com> from "Rob" at Feb 11, 10 10:43:18 pm Message-ID: > > >> > What is it about classic computer people and cats? > > We're brighter! > > >> People who own a cat are more likely to have a university degree than those with a pet dog, a study by Bristol University suggests. << > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8501042.stm That piece of research seems to be a perfect illustration of something Rutherford said and which I'll now misquote : "The only possible conclusion of research in the social sciences is 'Some people do and some people don't' " :-) -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 13:10:13 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:10:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Manual Needed In-Reply-To: <8CC79AA1704C4E9-27F8-7F3C@webmail-m063.sysops.aol.com> from "jthecman@netscape.net" at Feb 11, 10 10:24:59 pm Message-ID: > > Hello > Does anyone have a copy of the hp Draftmaster II manual for loan, sale,=20 > can make a copy of it? I don;t know if they're of any use to yuu (in that they seem to be for the Draftmaster, not the -II specifically), but there are a fair number of manuals in pdf format on http://www.hpmuseum.net. IIRC, they're under 'peripherals' and then 'pen plotters', or just select the 'documentation' link from the home page. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 13:15:38 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:15:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B757FB5.8030002@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 12, 10 09:20:05 am Message-ID: > > Al Kossow wrote: > > On 2/10/10 11:37 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > > > >> So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a microcontroller > >> with an sd-flash and start programming Amigo/CS80 ? > >> And simply forget about the box I have here ? > > And thus the wheel is recreated again. > > How many times is this going to have to be done before someone open-sources > > this code? > > So, if I would make the hardware, how many people are interested in a > box which emulates HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 ? > I would be very interested provided (a) I can acutally build one (no BGAs, but PQFPs, SOICs, etc are no problem) and (b) it's 'open'. Although I am not much of a programmer, I'd be happy to help out where I can. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 13:20:03 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:20:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype In-Reply-To: <4B7514F8.19394.8B6F5@cclist.sydex.com> from "Chuck Guzis" at Feb 12, 10 08:44:40 am Message-ID: > > On 12 Feb 2010 at 6:36, Christian Liendo wrote: > > > I figured some one on this list would find this useful. > > > > http://numist.net/post/2010/project-typewriter.html > > Didn't a number of Brother typewriter models have the capability of > also serving as printers--without modifications? I also wonder if it I think they did. I have a 'typewriter' somewhere that's a wide-carriage version of that little Alps 4-colour plotter (you know, the one that everybody used in the mid 1980s -- Tandy CGP115, Commodore 1520, etc). It has a Centronice posrt on the side and takes the same commands as said plotters. I also haev a little box in my pile of oddments that cotnains a microcontroller, has a Cntronics socket on one side and a ribbob cable ending in an adge connector coming out of it). On top is a swtich marked something like 'typewirter/computer' I assume it's an interface for some modle of electornic typewriter to turn it into a printer. > might not be better to start with a word-processor type of > typewriter. I am not so sure. I would have thought you didn't want too much intellegence i nthe machine to get in the way. -tony From jules.richardson99 at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 13:46:43 2010 From: jules.richardson99 at gmail.com (Jules Richardson) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:46:43 -0600 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com> References: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800>, , <2f806cd71002111443s7bb11eby6b56850f164e57eb@mail.gmail.com> <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B75B023.1070601@gmail.com> Chuck Guzis wrote: > I've had cats and dogs, some at the same time. I'll take dogs any > day. Hmm, three cats and two dogs here - can't say I've really got a preference, and they've all got their little personality plusses and then things that drive me completely nuts. At this time of year they're all useful little portable space heaters, anyway :-) cheers Jules From aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 12 08:28:19 2010 From: aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk (Andrew Burton) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:28:19 -0000 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) References: <4b6fd060.26695.66eba@cclist.sydex.com> <6F365783BCA.000005DDn0body.h0me@inbox.com> <0A82C779-29AA-41C6-BAF2-C1571B808D0C@neurotica.com> <201002090914.28688.pat@computer-refuge.org><3690A970-A290-4EC2-A8E3-11016BB120A4@neurotica.com> <4B72E4DD.1060303@arachelian.com><016401caaaa9$39828350$78fdf93e@user8459cef6fa> <4B744F4C.5030609@arachelian.com> Message-ID: <00c801caac1c$26a88300$5216610a@user8459cef6fa> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Arachelian" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:41 PM Subject: Re: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) > > > I had Windows Media Player crash on me the other week and jammed CPU usage > > at 100% :( Not great on my laptop, as the only way to shut it down is to > > pull the plug out of the mains and then pull out the battery (timed > > carefully - thank god for the HD access light!). > Ouch. Well, that's not exactly well written software either. I get by > with Miro or VLC for video and Songbird, which I also use as a browser > since it's built ontop of the same engine as Firefox and can use most of > Firefox's plugins. Much nicer than itunes or anything else I've used > recently, though it takes some work to get it to be as nice as firefox. > Running this on OS X or Linux is a godsend over that other thing from > Redmond that they claim is an operating system. I've not been able to > make any app crash the OS so far in that manner, but that's just me. :-) > > > It was just as it was about > > to reload in the music file (something else I hate - why re-load in the > > music file you were just playing, especially when it's not a large file > > (<5MB)?!!) after reaching the end when the problem occured. > > > Well, I do like the ability for the apps I use to restore themselves to > the same state they were in before I quit them - saving context is a > good thing. Obviously if you had just crashed you should detect that > the app wasn't closed cleanly and give the user some options. If you've > seen the Session Manager plugin to Firefox, IMHO, the way to do right by > the user. Yes, I quite agree with you on that. When Firefox crashes (usually because of a flash plug-in) I love the fact that it gives you the option to restore it's status. However, the point I was making with WMP was that it reloads the music file each time it reaches playing the end of it. I can understand re-loading it in if WMP was shut down, crashed or not used for a long time, but to re-load in the music file before each time it is played is ludicrous. For example, if I were to play a 1 minute long song for 1 hour, it would load it in an additional 59 times after opening WMP and loading in the song. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Fri Feb 12 13:59:46 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:59:46 +0100 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: <4B757FB5.8030002@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 12, 10 09:20:05 am Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Tony Duell > Verzonden: vrijdag 12 februari 2010 20:16 > Aan: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Onderwerp: Re: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > > > > Al Kossow wrote: > > > On 2/10/10 11:37 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > > > > > >> So, what you're saying is, that I should get myself a > > >> microcontroller with an sd-flash and start programming > Amigo/CS80 ? > > >> And simply forget about the box I have here ? > > > And thus the wheel is recreated again. > > > How many times is this going to have to be done before someone > > > open-sources this code? > > > > So, if I would make the hardware, how many people are > interested in a > > box which emulates HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 ? > > > > I would be very interested provided (a) I can acutally build > one (no BGAs, but PQFPs, SOICs, etc are no problem) and (b) > it's 'open'. Although I am not much of a programmer, I'd be > happy to help out where I can. And of cause I'm interested too.. -Rik From hp-fix at xs4all.nl Fri Feb 12 14:03:40 2010 From: hp-fix at xs4all.nl (Rik Bos) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:03:40 +0100 Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <39780ABF985A4BA386299A2072E64709@xp1800> References: from "Rik Bos" at Feb10, 10 11:05:42 pm <39780ABF985A4BA386299A2072E64709@xp1800> Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Rik Bos > Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 22:31 > Aan: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' > Onderwerp: RE: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org > > [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Namens Tony Duell > > Verzonden: donderdag 11 februari 2010 21:48 > > Aan: cctalk at classiccmp.org > > Onderwerp: Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk > > > > > I do have a defective nighthawk if you want to try your > luck on it.. > > > (off-list) > > > > What's the problem with it? No, I am not going to try to outbid the > > OP, but I am just curious. After all, I'll probably end up > helping to > > fix it :-) > > > > Mosre seriosuly, I would stronlg suggest the OP obtains this drive. > > It'll give yo a good ideas as to what's going on. And apart > from that > > 40 pin custom chip I mentioned, the eletdonic side is not > hard to fix. > > > > Of course if it's got problems inside the HDA, it's going > to ne a lot > > harder.. > > > > -tony > > As I remember well it's not making enough speed (revs) at startup. > > -Rik And that is confirmed, the problem with the disc is not making enough speed at startup to intialize the controller. The colder the envirement the bigger the problem, warming the disc would make it start some times, I had a spare so I changed it. And now is this one 'Going to America'. -Rik > From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 14:04:59 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:04:59 -0500 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: <4B757FB5.8030002@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >> So, if I would make the hardware, how many people are interested in a >> box which emulates HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 ? > > I would be very interested provided (a) I can acutally build one (no > BGAs, but PQFPs, SOICs, etc are no problem) and (b) it's 'open'. Although > I am not much of a programmer, I'd be happy to help out where I can. How about an AVR-based box (open, no BGAs, etc) perhaps with an SD socket or CF socket, with an HPIB interface that will work with a) "real" IEEE-488 hosts and b) PET/CBM hosts which are electrically GPIB/IEEE-488, but might have some "Commodoreisms" when it comes to timing and throughput and such since they are implemented as 6502 code wiggling PIA and/or VIA I/O lines? Once you have a platform that is electrically and timing-compatible with HPs and PETs, it shouldn't matter if you choose to implement Amiga/CS80 or CBM "DOS" at the firmware level, and a generic "IEEE Disk" would be useful in a number of environments, not just HP and CBM. I wouldn't require that the same box be able to do either Amiga/CS80 and CBM DOS without a reflash, but it might not be impossible if the MCU has enough code space and perhaps a spare I/O bit to look for a configuration jumper (or even some sort of "magic" secondary address to send configuration requests to). There are several options in the PET/CBM/C64 arena for IEC (serialized IEEE), but so far, I don't know that any of the discussions or proposed projects for a parallel IEEE disk have progressed to the point of hardware you can build and firmware you can download. I'd love to have one, though. -ethan From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 14:12:01 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:12:01 -0800 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B75B023.1070601@gmail.com> References: <4BB22ED0B00E46BFA46809A6AA73AEC8@xp1800>, <4B741C4B.26478.5329CB@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B75B023.1070601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B754591.12195.C6BAC1@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 13:46, Jules Richardson wrote: > At this time of year they're all useful little portable space heaters, > anyway :-) Yup, two big dogs and two humans in a bedroom allows for setting the thermostat pretty low at night... --Chuck From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 14:19:24 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:19:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: from "Ethan Dicks" at Feb 12, 10 03:04:59 pm Message-ID: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Tony Duell wrote: > >> So, if I would make the hardware, how many people are interested in a > >> box which emulates HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 ? > > > > I would be very interested provided (a) I can acutally build one (no > > BGAs, but PQFPs, SOICs, etc are no problem) and (b) it's 'open'. Although > > I am not much of a programmer, I'd be happy to help out where I can. > > How about an AVR-based box (open, no BGAs, etc) perhaps with an SD > socket or CF socket, with an HPIB interface that will work with a) That would seem to be a good idea. I would suggest that the HPIB interface be buffered (using either the 75160/1/2 series of chips, which would use 2 devices, or 4 off 3448 or similar.). As I mentiond a few weeks back it is a lot easier to replace a buffer chip than a microcontorller iff something goes wrong). > "real" IEEE-488 hosts and b) PET/CBM hosts which are electrically > GPIB/IEEE-488, but might have some "Commodoreisms" when it comes to > timing and throughput and such since they are implemented as 6502 code > wiggling PIA and/or VIA I/O lines? There should be no broblem with 'banging' the handshake on microcontroller port lines. HP haev been known to do this. IIRC you need a very small maount of external logic (let me check) to ensure one signal changes fast enough. It's only a couple of TTL chips, though (and common ones, like 74x00), not really worth putting in a PLD. HPIB would take 16 port lines of the microcontroller + 2 or 3 to control the buffer driection. And then you need however many port lines it takes to talk to the flash memroy device. As regards code size, IIEC, the HP9133H (SS/80 protocol) has 16K of 6809 conde in it. That should give you some idea as to the complexity. > > Once you have a platform that is electrically and timing-compatible > with HPs and PETs, it shouldn't matter if you choose to implement > Amiga/CS80 or CBM "DOS" at the firmware level, and a generic "IEEE > Disk" would be useful in a number of environments, not just HP and > CBM. I wouldn't require that the same box be able to do either > Amiga/CS80 and CBM DOS without a reflash, but it might not be The Commodore and HP command sets are very different. The major difference is that Commodore drives are file-oriented devices (you open a file by name, you can get a directory, etc), while HP devices are block oriented (you ask to read a particular block on the disk, the host OD reads the appropratie blocks to read the directory, then finds the blocks that comprise the file you want, and reads those, etc). Yes, I know the Commodore drives let you read disks at hte block level, but most of the time you didn't do that. H -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 14:23:48 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:23:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: from "Rik Bos" at Feb 12, 10 09:03:40 pm Message-ID: > And that is confirmed, the problem with the disc is not making enough speed > at startup to intialize the controller. The colder the envirement the bigger > the problem, warming the disc would make it start some times, I had a spare > so I changed it. > And now is this one 'Going to America'. This sounds as though it has a mechnical provlem, possibly bnearings. It's possible to remove the lower metal housing complete with the motor/control PCB. The motor state is clipped into a large hole in that PCB, the driver components are around it. The magnetic rotor comes off the spinde (obvious nut), and yoyu can remove the data PCB. But that's about as far as I've gone. Opening the HDA should be possible (it's low enough density that the head hieight is probably large enough not to requrie a very exotic clean room), but it's not going to be trivlal. I can try to measure the totrational force of my drive (e.g. by siding a string around the rotor and pulling it with a spring balance) so you can see if yours is mechanically sticking. -tony From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de Fri Feb 12 14:32:24 2010 From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:32:24 +0100 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: References: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <20100212213224.eb29ff08.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:56:03 -0700 Richard wrote: > C++ is a tactical nuclear weapon. > > You don't give tactical nukes to a cadet. :-) http://classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/2008-July/259890.html -- tsch??, Jochen Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/ From IanK at vulcan.com Fri Feb 12 14:39:13 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:39:13 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Russ Bartlett > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:19 AM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... > [snip] > > In the early days when we wrote programs they were written onto coding > forms.? Once punched onto 80 column cards we would check each card to > ensure that had been key punched correctly.? Checking an 8000 > statement? program took time.? Once checked we would have it listed > (used little machine time).? We would then dry run through the program > looking for logic errors.? Having done that we would have it compiled. > Typically there would be a couple of development slots or so a week for > testing so we had ensure that we had done due diligence.? If it > compiled we would schedule a test slot and run against test data. > Debugging consisted of analyzing dumps and correcting the code. > Contrast this against interactive source debuggers.? Today machine time > is inexpensive and many compiles and test shots may be performed in a > day.? "Workbench" tools allow the programmer to run > their program without even hitting the mainframe.? A totally different > world. > And yet, despite those inexpensive tools and resources, one of my most persistent challenges as a test manager at a certain large software company was to convince developers that they should do local builds (which could be done incrementally) before checking in their changes. Some devs were good about 'buddy builds' and the like, but usually only after some test manager they had encountered in their careers managed to convince them that the small amount of time it took to do a build was minimal cost compared to the productivity hit of a broken main build. One of the tactics I used to educate one team was a public recognition of 'he/she who broke the build' - a rubber chicken hung from that dev's office relight until either the end of a week or until someone else broke the build. One dev came to my office steaming mad about it - he thought this was childish and a waste of his time. I pointed out that by breaking the build, he was wasting *everyone's* time, including his and mine. He eventually became one my staunchest supporters regarding QA practices. And yes, I had my experience with punched cards - FORTRAN IV. One of the best habits I ever developed was sequence numbers. -- Ian From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 15:16:29 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:16:29 -0500 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >> How about an AVR-based box (open, no BGAs, etc) perhaps with an SD >> socket or CF socket, with an HPIB interface that will work with a) > > That would seem to be a good idea. > > I would suggest that the HPIB interface be buffered (using either the > 75160/1/2 series of chips, which would use 2 devices, or 4 off 3448 or > similar.). ?As I mentiond a few weeks back it is a lot easier to replace > a buffer chip than a microcontorller iff something goes wrong). I'm all in favor of buffered devices - especially since CBM machines quickly grow to 1-2 disk devices and a printer, at least, if you are using real hardware (vs just imaging old floppies). Is there really a significant advantage, cost or availability, between 75160/1/2s and 3448s? I've seen both used in 1970s and 1980s IEEE-488 devices and have no personal preferences either way. > There should be no broblem with 'banging' the handshake on > microcontroller port lines. HP haev been known to do this. IIRC you need > a very small maount of external logic (let me check) to ensure one signal > changes fast enough. It's only a couple of TTL chips, though (and common > ones, like 74x00), not really worth putting in a PLD. I do recall seeing something like that in discussions on the CBM Hackers' list - a gate or two to flip a signal faster than a 1MHz processor can do in software. > HPIB would take 16 port lines of the microcontroller + 2 or 3 to control > the buffer driection. And then you need however many port lines it takes > to talk to the flash memroy device. If it's quick enough, you _could_ use an 8-bit shift register for input and/or output, reducing the MCU pincount substantially, but that would probably only be important if you were trying to keep the MCU below the size of the 40/44-pin varieties. > As regards code size, IIEC, the HP9133H (SS/80 protocol) has 16K of 6809 > conde in it. That should give you some idea as to the complexity. That does. Even a $4 AVR has 16K of code space these days. >> Once you have a platform that is electrically and timing-compatible >> with HPs and PETs, it shouldn't matter if you choose to implement >> Amiga/CS80 or CBM "DOS" at the firmware level... > The Commodore and HP command sets are very different. The major > difference is that Commodore drives are file-oriented devices (you open a > file by name, you can get a directory, etc), while HP devices are block > oriented. Yes. In terms of complexity, the CBM command set encompasses the functionality of the HP command set. If you coded for the PET, I don't think it would be hard to have it also do Amiga/CS80, but I'd have to examine the HP technique since I've never worked with it. > Yes, I know the Commodore drives let you read disks at hte block level, but most > of the time you didn't do that. H It depends on what you are doing. I've written many disk utilities that "understand" the block-level format to do things like undelete files, etc. 95%+ of what CBM users do though is, as you point out, at the file level. You have to implement memory read and write commands (M-R, M-W) to do things like change unit numbers, so I would consider a strict files-only implementation to be incomplete. Armed with disk buffer requirements (CBM drives allow the machine to open multiple simultaneous sector buffers and read/write them - a feature which *does* get use) and I/O line requirements, it should be easy to narrow down the field to a handful of MCU candidates... http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/param_table.asp?family_id=604&OrderBy=part_no&Direction=ASC No BGAs in sight, but there are TQFPs and VQFNs in there. -ethan From trag at io.com Fri Feb 12 15:30:17 2010 From: trag at io.com (Jeff Walther) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:30:17 -0600 (CST) Subject: OT: Datasheet for Motorola MCM62940 32K X 9 SRAM? Message-ID: <25b4e7c278299260ffe39fb3214358cb.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com> Anyone have a datasheet for the MCM62940 (MCM62940AFN14) static RAM? It's not strictly off topic, as it's from the 256K level 2 cache of a computer from the mid-90s (NuBus PPC Macintoshes). The usual web searches have failed me. I thought I had downloaded it years ago, but it turns out I only collected the datasheet for the TAG SRAM and not for the cache chips. This is particularly interesting because one can get 4000 of the chips (soldered to boards) for about $50. I have a couple of projects in mind where they might be useful. On the other hand, they do take up a lot of board real estate (about .75" square). Jeff Walther From IanK at vulcan.com Fri Feb 12 15:51:21 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:51:21 -0800 Subject: ASR-33 (was Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: <4B722991.2050603@mail.msu.edu> References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <4B722991.2050603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Josh Dersch > Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:36 PM > To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: ASR-33 (was Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) > > Dave McGuire wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:20 PM, William Donzelli wrote: > >> Oh, and I found my new in box ASR-33 today. Any takers? > > > > Holy cow!! > > > > That reminds me -- saw a complete ASR-33 w/pedestal mount in an antique > store in Seattle over the weekend. Looked to be in decent condition > (obviously no idea if it's in working order). I believe they wanted > just around $300, which seemed a bit spendy for my tastes, but I > thought > I'd mention it in case anyone in the area was interested. > > Address: > Pacific Galleries > 241 South Lander Street, Seattle, WA 98134 > He came, he shopped, he scored! This machine is now in its new home at the Living Computer Museum. It's in beautiful cosmetic shape and is surprisingly clean inside, showing evidence of low hours. The only issue with the machine is that its keyboard is stuck and needs to be lubricated - SOP, according to our resident expert. We plan to hook this up to the PDP-8/e we have on the exhibit floor. Hey Josh, thanks for sharing! -- Ian From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 15:55:50 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:55:50 -0500 Subject: ASR-33 (was Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: <201002021239.53154.pat@computer-refuge.org> <36C3D71D-EC51-4CC0-9ED4-5D59122AEFED@neurotica.com> <4B6F74B6.4050708@hachti.de> <201002090928.03169.pat@computer-refuge.org> <4B718D8D.4070201@hachti.de> <4B722991.2050603@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Ian King wrote: >> That reminds me -- saw a complete ASR-33 w/pedestal mount in an antique >> store in Seattle over the weekend... > > He came, he shopped, he scored! ?This machine is now in its new home at the Living Computer Museum. ?It's in beautiful cosmetic shape and is surprisingly clean inside, showing evidence of low hours. ?The only issue with the machine is that its keyboard is stuck and needs to be lubricated - SOP, according to our resident expert. Nicely done! I've done a little ASR-33 maintenance over the years - cleaning, lubricating (with real oil!) and a few specific adjustments take care of many common issues. I've only rarely had to do more (like replace the hammer pad after it turns into a gooey jellybean). > We plan to hook this up to the PDP-8/e we have on the exhibit floor. Cool. Pictures?!? -ethan From gmeanie at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 14:20:54 2010 From: gmeanie at gmail.com (GreenMeanie) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:20:54 -0500 Subject: IMSAI / SOL-20 / Northstar + much other for sale Message-ID: <3EC2EB82-D8D3-47B2-9F06-850B60289445@gmail.com> Any of those old computers left? From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 16:09:09 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:09:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: from "Ethan Dicks" at Feb 12, 10 04:16:29 pm Message-ID: > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Tony Duell wrote= > : > >> How about an AVR-based box (open, no BGAs, etc) perhaps with an SD > >> socket or CF socket, with an HPIB interface that will work with a) > > > > That would seem to be a good idea. > > > > I would suggest that the HPIB interface be buffered (using either the > > 75160/1/2 series of chips, which would use 2 devices, or 4 off 3448 or > > similar.). =A0As I mentiond a few weeks back it is a lot easier to replac= > e > > a buffer chip than a microcontorller iff something goes wrong). > > I'm all in favor of buffered devices - especially since CBM machines > quickly grow to 1-2 disk devices and a printer, at least, if you are > using real hardware (vs just imaging old floppies). And HP set-ups might have even more devices (HP made a lot of nice HPIB peripehrals, the 5930x series, for example). > > Is there really a significant advantage, cost or availability, between > 75160/1/2s and 3448s? I've seen both used in 1970s and 1980s IEEE-488 > devices and have no personal preferences either way. I can't comment on the cont, I've not bought these chips for many years. I remember seeing the 75160 listed by, IIRC, Digikey recently, so I guess it's still easily avaialble. The difference is hat the 7516x devices contain 8 buffers. The 75160 has a common dirextion line, and is usd for the 8 data lines. The 75161 has direction control set up so the buffer can be used in a device, or, IIRC as the system controller, but not as a 'second' controller. The 75162 can operate in all 3 ways, A 75161 should eb enough for the disk emulator, but the 75162 might be easier to find. The 3448, etc, contain 4 buffers. 4 of them can be used as a device, controller, or system controller interface. You may need a little external logic 9or exra port pins) so as to get DAV and NRFD/NDAC going in oposite directions. > > > There should be no broblem with 'banging' the handshake on > > microcontroller port lines. HP haev been known to do this. IIRC you need > > a very small maount of external logic (let me check) to ensure one signal > > changes fast enough. It's only a couple of TTL chips, though (and common > > ones, like 74x00), not really worth putting in a PLD. > > I do recall seeing something like that in discussions on the CBM > Hackers' list - a gate or two to flip a signal faster than a 1MHz > processor can do in software. Exactly. If /when we get to this stage in the design I will see what HP did in soem of their software-implemented HPIB units. > > > HPIB would take 16 port lines of the microcontroller + 2 or 3 to control > > the buffer driection. And then you need however many port lines it takes > > to talk to the flash memroy device. > > If it's quick enough, you _could_ use an 8-bit shift register for > input and/or output, reducing the MCU pincount substantially, but that > would probably only be important if you were trying to keep the MCU > below the size of the 40/44-pin varieties. 40 pin microcontorllers may have 32 port lines (4 8 bit ports) IIRC. That should eb easily enough -- 8 data lines for HPIB, 8 control lines for HPIB and 3 driection cotnrol ines would still leave 11 lines free. IIRC some of the flash memory card things have an SPI-like serial interfacewhich needs 3 or 4 lines. I would prefer a microcontroller that could be socketed (DIP or PLCC, possibly) since it's easier to hand-wire the prototype board. But it's not essential. > > > As regards code size, IIEC, the HP9133H (SS/80 protocol) has 16K of 6809 > > conde in it. That should give you some idea as to the complexity. > > That does. Even a $4 AVR has 16K of code space these days. I suspect that 6809 code is a bit more efficient than many microcontroller codes. But these days memory space is probably not a major problem. > > >> Once you have a platform that is electrically and timing-compatible > >> with HPs and PETs, it shouldn't matter if you choose to implement > >> Amiga/CS80 or CBM "DOS" at the firmware level... > > > The Commodore and HP command sets are very different. The major > > difference is that Commodore drives are file-oriented devices (you open a > > file by name, you can get a directory, etc), while HP devices are block > > oriented. > > Yes. In terms of complexity, the CBM command set encompasses the > functionality of the HP command set. If you coded for the PET, I HP have all sorts of indentification, status, etc, commands. It's not a totally trivial command set to implement. > don't think it would be hard to have it also do Amiga/CS80, but I'd > have to examine the HP technique since I've never worked with it. You need to hunt through some of the manuals on hpmuseum.net. If I have time I'll see if I can identify manuals that document the 3 main command sets. > > > Yes, I know the Commodore drives let you read disks at hte block level, b= > ut most > > of the time you didn't do that. H > > It depends on what you are doing. I've written many disk utilities Oh sure. I was thinking of rthe average user, loading and saving BASIC programs, etc. > that "understand" the block-level format to do things like undelete > files, etc. 95%+ of what CBM users do though is, as you point out, at > the file level. You have to implement memory read and write commands > (M-R, M-W) to do things like change unit numbers, so I would consider > a strict files-only implementation to be incomplete. I would agree. -tony From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Fri Feb 12 16:18:31 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:18:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: ASR-33 (was Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: from "Ethan Dicks" at Feb 12, 10 04:55:50 pm Message-ID: > Nicely done! I've done a little ASR-33 maintenance over the years - > cleaning, lubricating (with real oil!) and a few specific adjustments > take care of many common issues. I've only rarely had to do more > (like replace the hammer pad after it turns into a gooey jellybean). > I reparied my first ASR33 over 25 years ago. At the time I didn't have the 3 grey books, so I just took it completely apart, figured out how it should work, cleaned all the parts, put oil in the appropriate places, and put it back toguther. I still remeebr goign rounf all the local tool shops looking for a 9/64" allen key (used for the bolts hold the rear carriage rail in place) -- this is a common size in the States, but not included in most UK sets. No it didn;'t work first time. I had the print supression linkage way out of adjustment, so it tried to print something even when it received a control code. The second ASR33 I repaired was a lot easier. Firstly because I had the experience amd secondly becuase I had the manuals... -tony From legalize at xmission.com Fri Feb 12 16:27:38 2010 From: legalize at xmission.com (Richard) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:27:38 -0700 Subject: Poor programming (was Re: Algol vs Fortran) In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:28:19 +0000. <00c801caac1c$26a88300$5216610a@user8459cef6fa> Message-ID: In article <00c801caac1c$26a88300$5216610a at user8459cef6fa>, "Andrew Burton" writes: > Yes, I quite agree with you on that. When Firefox crashes (usually because > of a flash plug-in) I love the fact that it gives you the option to restore > it's status. IE8 does the same. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download Legalize Adulthood! From ian_primus at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 16:49:59 2010 From: ian_primus at yahoo.com (Mr Ian Primus) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:49:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... Message-ID: <477457.27098.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Anyone happen to know how the Vax 11/780 and the single-wide corporate peripheral cabinet are joined together? The Vax has good casters, the peripheral cabinet has stupid casters, and they're joined at the hip. Are there hidden bolts or latches, or some kind of joiner panel like on the 11/750? -Ian From IanK at vulcan.com Fri Feb 12 16:53:43 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:53:43 -0800 Subject: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... In-Reply-To: <477457.27098.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <477457.27098.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There are bolts you can reach from the inside of the CPU cabinet on the right (as you're facing it) and from the inside of the peripheral cabinet on its left. They're right where you'd expect, around the edges. There's an installation manual on Bitsavers that has pictures. -- Ian -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Mr Ian Primus Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 2:50 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... Anyone happen to know how the Vax 11/780 and the single-wide corporate peripheral cabinet are joined together? The Vax has good casters, the peripheral cabinet has stupid casters, and they're joined at the hip. Are there hidden bolts or latches, or some kind of joiner panel like on the 11/750? -Ian From legalize at xmission.com Fri Feb 12 17:03:39 2010 From: legalize at xmission.com (Richard) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:03:39 -0700 Subject: Fwd: [comp.sys.dec] BASIC-Plus-2 Message-ID: This message has been forwarded from Usenet. To reply to the original author, use the email address from the forwarded message. Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:18:22 -0500 Groups: comp.sys.dec From: "Tom Lake" Org: albasani.net Subject: BASIC-Plus-2 Id: ======== I'm running RSTS/E on the SIMH PDP-11 emulator and it works fine. It only has BASIC-Plus, though. Is there somewhere I can get a disk or tape image of BASIC-Plus-2? Me ntec was swallowed up and the new owners don't want to know from PDP-11. TIA Tom Lake From ian_primus at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 17:14:21 2010 From: ian_primus at yahoo.com (Mr Ian Primus) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:14:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <176745.39334.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Fri, 2/12/10, Ian King wrote: > There are bolts you can reach from > the inside of the CPU cabinet on the right (as you're facing > it) and from the inside of the peripheral cabinet on its > left.? They're right where you'd expect, around the > edges.? There's an installation manual on Bitsavers > that has pictures.? -- Ian Good to know it's as straightforward as it should be. This is one of those "Haven't seen it yet, but we are gonna need to figure out how it comes apart..." kind of questions. I'll see if I can find the installation manual. -Ian From cisin at xenosoft.com Fri Feb 12 17:39:21 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:39:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <59933B3C325A4CE5AF75265DEE326C14@udvikling> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <59933B3C325A4CE5AF75265DEE326C14@udvikling> Message-ID: <20100212153603.C58405@shell.lmi.net> > The smalles mainframe I used in the 70's, was an IBM 360/25. It was > equipped with a whopping. When I developped a program for statistics, the Was a whopping a costly add-on? Did the WOPR have one? From RichA at vulcan.com Fri Feb 12 17:45:41 2010 From: RichA at vulcan.com (Rich Alderson) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:45:41 -0800 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <20100212153603.C58405@shell.lmi.net> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <59933B3C325A4CE5AF75265DEE326C14@udvikling> <20100212153603.C58405@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: From: Fred Cisin Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:39 PM >> The smalles mainframe I used in the 70's, was an IBM 360/25. It was >> equipped with a whopping. When I developped a program for statistics, the > Was a whopping a costly add-on? > Did the WOPR have one? No, but it had a big MAC address. From lynchaj at yahoo.com Fri Feb 12 17:53:48 2010 From: lynchaj at yahoo.com (Andrew Lynch) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:53:48 -0500 Subject: S-100 home brew PCB projects Message-ID: <5810593689964166978AB95D40D569A2@andrewdesktop> Hi! John Monahan and I are making some S-100 home brew PCB projects. The S-100 backplane, S-100 prototyping board, and S-100 buffered prototyping board projects are essentially done. I am gathering up those who would like any of those boards and when there is sufficient interest I'll make a manufactured PCB order. We nearly done with the S-100 IDE and S-100 keyboard projects. Both projects have been prototyped, manufactured PCBs made, and are demonstrated working. However, there are a few minor issues we'd like to clear up on both projects and are considering respins of those PCBs. If anyone is interested in those projects please let me know so I can make an order. The PCBs typically are in the $20-$30 range depending on quantity. There is an S-100 SRAM/EPROM prototype PCB in the build and test phase and an S-100 Front Panel in design phase. No estimate on when either of those will be done but it will be quite a while since we are making local prototype PCBs first before ordering manufactured PCBs. Thanks and have a nice day! Andrew Lynch From robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 12 17:59:10 2010 From: robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com (Rob Jarratt) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:59:10 -0000 Subject: [comp.sys.dec] BASIC-Plus-2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101caac3f$5fe80a00$1fb81e00$@jarratt@ntlworld.com> I run Basic-Plus-2 on the SIMH PDP-10 emulation running TOPS-20. I seem to remember getting the virtual tape from http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/. That site also has PDP-11 software, so you may find it there. Regards Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk- > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Richard > Sent: 12 February 2010 23:04 > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Subject: Fwd: [comp.sys.dec] BASIC-Plus-2 > > > This message has been forwarded from Usenet. To reply to the > original author, use the email address from the forwarded message. > > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:18:22 -0500 > Groups: comp.sys.dec > From: "Tom Lake" > Org: albasani.net > Subject: BASIC-Plus-2 > Id: > ======== > I'm running RSTS/E on the SIMH PDP-11 emulator and it works fine. It > only has > BASIC-Plus, > though. Is there somewhere I can get a disk or tape image of BASIC- > Plus-2? Me > ntec was > swallowed up and the new owners don't want to know from PDP-11. > > TIA > > Tom Lake From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Fri Feb 12 18:17:08 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:17:08 -0800 Subject: OT: Datasheet for Motorola MCM62940 32K X 9 SRAM? References: <25b4e7c278299260ffe39fb3214358cb.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com> Message-ID: <4B75EF84.2D53F4B6@cs.ubc.ca> Jeff Walther wrote: > > Anyone have a datasheet for the MCM62940 (MCM62940AFN14) static RAM? It's > not strictly off topic, as it's from the 256K level 2 cache of a computer > from the mid-90s (NuBus PPC Macintoshes). > > The usual web searches have failed me. I thought I had downloaded it > years ago, but it turns out I only collected the datasheet for the TAG > SRAM and not for the cache chips. > > This is particularly interesting because one can get 4000 of the chips > (soldered to boards) for about $50. > > > I have a couple of projects in mind where they might be useful. On the > other hand, they do take up a lot of board real estate (about .75" > square). I have the Motorola 1995 Fast Static RAM databook, containing the datasheet for the MCM62940A and B devices. 32K * 9 BurstRAM Synchronous Static RAM with Burst Counter and Self-Timed Write I can: - send you the entire databook for the cost of shipping from Vancouver, B.C. (happy to send it somewhere it will be useful) - send you a photocopy of the relevant pages, or scan if I can get near a scanner in the near future, - extract some pertinent data to you. From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 18:46:58 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:46:58 -0800 Subject: OT: Datasheet for Motorola MCM62940 32K X 9 SRAM? In-Reply-To: <25b4e7c278299260ffe39fb3214358cb.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com> References: <25b4e7c278299260ffe39fb3214358cb.squirrel@webmail.prismnet.com> Message-ID: <4B758602.12833.B92E9D@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 15:30, Jeff Walther wrote: > Anyone have a datasheet for the MCM62940 (MCM62940AFN14) static RAM? > It's not strictly off topic, as it's from the 256K level 2 cache of a > computer from the mid-90s (NuBus PPC Macintoshes). Apparently, the MCM62486 is pin compatible and there are datasheets for that online: http://pdf.chinaicmart.com/86B/MCM62486BFN11_1159896.pdf --Chuck From cisin at xenosoft.com Fri Feb 12 18:57:55 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:57:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <20100212213224.eb29ff08.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> References: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu> <20100212213224.eb29ff08.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> Message-ID: <20100212165409.H61782@shell.lmi.net> > C++ is a tactical nuclear weapon. > > You don't give tactical nukes to a cadet. :-) I have NEVER seen a C++ compiler for the 1620. The PDQ FORTRAN and the 1401 emulator were far from nuclear. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com From ken at seefried.com Fri Feb 12 19:05:43 2010 From: ken at seefried.com (Ken Seefried) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 01:05:43 +0000 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) Message-ID: "Chuck Guzis" wrote: > >Fur critters, huh? I'm fighting a running battle with some nutria >that keep invading my pond, but they are definitely not "cute". > They are, however, reasonably tasty when properly prepared, so there's a way to deal with that situation. KJ From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 19:15:37 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:15:37 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog In-Reply-To: <20100212165409.H61782@shell.lmi.net> References: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu>, <20100212213224.eb29ff08.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>, <20100212165409.H61782@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4B758CB9.81.D3686C@cclist.sydex.com> On 12 Feb 2010 at 16:57, Fred Cisin wrote: > I have NEVER seen a C++ compiler for the 1620. Very clever, Fred! --Chuck From cclist at sydex.com Fri Feb 12 19:20:16 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:20:16 -0800 Subject: Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B758DD0.30919.D7ACB5@cclist.sydex.com> On 13 Feb 2010 at 1:05, Ken Seefried wrote: > They are, however, reasonably tasty when properly prepared, so there's > a way to deal with that situation. I've heard the same thing about squirrels. Dredge in an egg wash and breadcrumbs, bake in a moderate oven. But nutria look too much like big rats to me. --Chuck From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Fri Feb 12 19:35:30 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:35:30 -0800 Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog References: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu>, <20100212213224.eb29ff08.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>, <20100212165409.H61782@shell.lmi.net> <4B758CB9.81.D3686C@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B7601E1.C3E930C5@cs.ubc.ca> Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 12 Feb 2010 at 16:57, Fred Cisin wrote: > > > I have NEVER seen a C++ compiler for the 1620. > > Very clever, Fred! .. Took me a while. That I was able to get it was due only to the references to the 1620 you and others have made on the list previously. From cisin at xenosoft.com Fri Feb 12 19:47:06 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:47:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Algol vs Fortran was RE: In-Reply-To: <4B7601E1.C3E930C5@cs.ubc.ca> References: <4B7393E4.4000603@mail.msu.edu>, <20100212213224.eb29ff08.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>, <20100212165409.H61782@shell.lmi.net> <4B758CB9.81.D3686C@cclist.sydex.com> <4B7601E1.C3E930C5@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: <20100212174315.T61782@shell.lmi.net> [C++ is tactical nuclear; don't give tactical nuclear to a CADET) > > > I have NEVER seen a C++ compiler for the 1620. On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Brent Hilpert wrote: > .. Took me a while. That I was able to get it was due only to the references to > the 1620 you and others have made on the list previously. Sorry, couldn't resist, even though not everybody knows that the 1620 was also called "CADET" (Can't Add, Doesn't Even Try) From wdonzelli at gmail.com Fri Feb 12 23:57:03 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:57:03 -0500 Subject: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... In-Reply-To: <176745.39334.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <176745.39334.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Good to know it's as straightforward as it should be. This is one of those "Haven't seen it yet, but we are gonna need to figure out how it comes apart..." kind of questions. I'll see if I can find the installation manual. So bring a socket set. They look 1/4-20 or thereabouts. There is probably a cable we will also need to deal with, that connects the VAX to the MAP. -- Will From IanK at vulcan.com Sat Feb 13 01:28:51 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:28:51 -0800 Subject: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... In-Reply-To: References: <176745.39334.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, Message-ID: You hit the size on the head, 1/4-20. There are three ribbon cables and one small Molex connector. I recommend labeling the ribbon cables as you remove them (if they aren't already), or you're going to be tracing through a rat's maze to get them right again. -- Ian ________________________________________ From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of William Donzelli [wdonzelli at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:57 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Separating a Vax 11/780 from it's peripheral cabinet... > Good to know it's as straightforward as it should be. This is one of those "Haven't seen it yet, but we are gonna need to figure out how it comes apart..." kind of questions. I'll see if I can find the installation manual. So bring a socket set. They look 1/4-20 or thereabouts. There is probably a cable we will also need to deal with, that connects the VAX to the MAP. -- Will From spedraja at ono.com Sat Feb 13 02:19:25 2010 From: spedraja at ono.com (SPC) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:19:25 +0100 Subject: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype In-Reply-To: <905687.22685.qm@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <905687.22685.qm@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Very interesting. Could it be possible to do it with other models ? Regards ---------- http://es.linkedin.com/in/sergiopedraja 2010/2/12 Christian Liendo > I figured some one on this list would find this useful. > > http://numist.net/post/2010/project-typewriter.html > > > > From steerex at ccvn.com Fri Feb 12 21:04:38 2010 From: steerex at ccvn.com (Steve Robertson) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 22:04:38 -0500 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk References: <4B757FB5.8030002@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <002501caac59$47c59b80$0301a8c0@win2k> > > I am not much of a programmer, I'd be happy to help out where I can. > > How about an AVR-based box (open, no BGAs, etc) perhaps with an SD > socket or CF socket, with an HPIB interface that will work with a) > "real" IEEE-488 hosts and b) PET/CBM hosts which are electrically > GPIB/IEEE-488, but might have some "Commodoreisms" when it comes to > timing and throughput and such since they are implemented as 6502 code > wiggling PIA and/or VIA I/O lines? > > Once you have a platform that is electrically and timing-compatible > with HPs and PETs, it shouldn't matter if you choose to implement > Amiga/CS80 or CBM "DOS" at the firmware level, and a generic "IEEE > Disk" would be useful in a number of environments, not just HP and > CBM. I wouldn't require that the same box be able to do either > Amiga/CS80 and CBM DOS without a reflash, but it might not be > impossible if the MCU has enough code space and perhaps a spare I/O > bit to look for a configuration jumper (or even some sort of "magic" > secondary address to send configuration requests to). > > There are several options in the PET/CBM/C64 arena for IEC (serialized > IEEE), but so far, I don't know that any of the discussions or > proposed projects for a parallel IEEE disk have progressed to the > point of hardware you can build and firmware you can download. > I've been tinkering with this idea for quite some time and have a couple of observations. The project I'm been pondering would use AVR micro along with an IDE disk to emulate a CS80 drive. The IDE interface is pretty simple although like the HPIB it does requires a lot of I/O lines. Between all the handshaking and control signals with the IDE and HPIB devices, it would require a TON of I/O. Either that or you have to do some fancy muxing of the I/O. So, to make the HPIB control simpler, I'd prefer to use a HPIB controller chip like the NEC7210. That chip just hangs on an 8-bit bus and uses internal registers to free up some of the I/O lines on the micro. The biggest problem is finding a reliable supply of HPIB controller chips. My solution to this would be to break this project in to two separate smaller projects. Firstly, use a separate microprocessor to emulate the 7210 controller chip. This would provide several advantages: 1.) You wouldn't need to worry about the supply of 7210's for future projects. Simply burn a $4 AVR and you have a HPIB controller chip. 2.) The dedicated controller would handle all the low-level interface stuff, the signaling, BUS timing, etc... So, programming would be much simpler. You just read and write to the AVR controller "registers" just like you would a 7210. 3.) The 75160/1 pairs are still available. I think DIGIKEY has them in stock at a reasonable price. Note that these are not "just" I/O buffers. There are a few additional gates in the devices that add some more logic that one might expect. So, the AVR could eliminate the need for the 75160/1 bus driver chips. If you fry a $4 AVR... Who cares? It doesn't cost much more than the dedicated drivers. Hmmm... The more I think about this, the less certain I am about eliminating the 75160/1 pairs. Normally, one would know what direction data was moving on a bus. But with HPIB, it can be ambigious. IE: A device might assert a SRQ (service request) at the same time another device is receiving data. So... What direction is the data moving on the bus. The talker is asserting some of the control lines, the listener is asserting some of the lines (NFRD, etc), and a third device might be asserting some lines. Hmmm. I gotta give this a little more thought. 4.) You might be able to build a simple "adapter" board and use the AVR in place of hard-to-find 7210's in existing equipment. 5.) Modifying the project for other purposes would be much easier. For instance, you could use the same project with some code modifications to emulate a HPIB tape drive, a HPIB instrument, a bus analyzer, etc... Just a few quick observations. See yas, SteveRob From andyh at andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk Fri Feb 12 23:59:08 2010 From: andyh at andyh-rayleigh.freeserve.co.uk (Andy Holt) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:59:08 -0000 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >>>> Now the more sophisticated systems - of which the British ICT (ICL) was one - used an offset to hold dates.? The ICL 1900 range? used a technique of holding the number of days since the Jan 1st 1900 <<<< Except that they made a minor blunder ... Originally it had been defined that Day 0 was Jan 1st 1900 Then - after lots of such dates were "in the field" - someone discovered that 1900 was not a leap year. (probably the first well-informed person to write their own date-conversion routine who wondered why their code produced different results from the system standard) The only reasonable solution was to redefine Jan 1st 1900 as Day 1 so all dates from Mar 1st 1900 onwards remained unchanged. Andy From dm561 at torfree.net Sat Feb 13 03:01:31 2010 From: dm561 at torfree.net (MikeS) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:01:31 -0500 Subject: cctech Digest, Vol 78, Issue 17 References: Message-ID: Message: 12 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:44:40 -0800 From: "Chuck Guzis" Subject: Re: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Message-ID: <4B7514F8.19394.8B6F5 at cclist.sydex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On 12 Feb 2010 at 6:36, Christian Liendo wrote: > I figured some one on this list would find this useful. > > http://numist.net/post/2010/project-typewriter.html Didn't a number of Brother typewriter models have the capability of also serving as printers--without modifications? I also wonder if it might not be better to start with a word-processor type of typewriter. Mr. Obvious on the web page stated: "it also revealed that avr-gcc's code generation is very poorly optimized" --Chuck ----------------Reply: There's a genuine Brother computer>typewriter RO interface for sale right now ($5) on the Vintage Computer auction site. And if anyone wants to convert an Olivetti typewriter, I still have a box full of interfaces for several models from the days when I was involved in their sales and support. mike From roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk Sat Feb 13 05:53:37 2010 From: roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk (Roger Holmes) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:53:37 +0000 Subject: YouTube video of ICT1301 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B58DCDF-D0DD-4988-9E45-4C4A8173FF7E@microspot.co.uk> On 12 Feb 2010, at 18:00, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote: > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:59:49 +0000 > From: Pete Edwards > Subject: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: > Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog] > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > > Message-ID: > <11c909eb1002120759u37cef5e6x4d7e5470b6678d56 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 12 February 2010 08:00, Dave McGuire wrote: >> On Feb 10, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Roger Holmes wrote: >>> >>> the BBC web site. Oh and a couple of weeks ago I posted an old video of it >>> on U-Tube if anyone is interested the URL is >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsBPuUJPvKg or just Google ICT 1301 and >>> select video. I hope to post a better one later in the year. >> >> ?Man oh MAN that's a beautiful machine. >> >> ? ? ? ? -Dave >> > > Seconded! That's an awesome piece of kit Roger. > I *especially* like the Forbidden Planet noises at the end. > What is that audio signal derived from? Thanks to all who responded, I think you will like it even more when you see the new layout with 8 decks in a row, four of which worked at last years open day. The sound is produced by executing a very small loop of three or four instructions many times which contains a (decimal) multiply instruction, the duration of which varies with one of its operands. Zero takes almost no time, 555555555555 takes longest because for each digit it can either count down for 1,2,3,4 or 5 or count up for 6,7,8 and 9. There is an increment in the loop hence the time varies with each iteration. A conditional branch at the end of the loop flips a bit which drives the speaker. In the demo software being run in the video there is also a small test for the bottom 2 or 3 digits of incremented value being zero which allows it to branch off and drive the peripherals from time to time. This does no seem to affect the sound too much though it is not quite as pure as the original 'ghost' program. From time to time (but not in the video) it does a bubble sort of a block of data read from tape which produces a more recognisable 'computer' type sound. I once keyed in a short sequence of jumps activated by some of the switches on the front panel. The longer loops worked fine but there seemed to be a problem with the top note. There happened to be a young lady present and she said she could hear it fine, it seems it was simply beyond the frequency range of my old ears. I think it would flip the bit 1000000 / 12 times a second, so dividing by another 2 that would be 41.666 kHz. The machine has a nominal 1MHz clock derived from a 250kHz timing track recorded on the last drum accessed and the shortest instruction is 12 clock cycles. As another thread is discussing cats, I have to add that the first time I saw my 1301, there was a cat asleep on the main power stabiliser rack which was stuffed full of 6 inch by 4 inch by 4 inch heat sinks for the GET875 transistors used in parallel to regulate the various voltage DC supplies. It was the rack which was stuffed, not the cat by the way, the cat got up later and played with my host's hands as he tried to operate the main control panel. > From: Russ Bartlett > > I worked on one of these systems? 400 words IAS , magnet drum, and 4 tape decks .Programming was MPL.? We would use a card sorter (off-line) to save on sort time for a tape sort/merge process. You've got it, though I didn't know they ever shipped them with just 400 words. I knew it was theoretically possible to have just one 'barn door' but that must have been incredibly restrictive, especially on a tape machine where you need I/O buffers for Data Transfer Unit to do what we now call DMA into/from. Yes it could be programmed in MPL (Mnemonic or machine code or TAS (Thirteen hundred Assembly System) or MAC (Manchester Auto Code) and later there was COBOL and ICT's attempt to make COBOL more bearable, RapidWrite. Do you mind telling me where this 1300 or 1301 was? I don't suppose you know its serial number do you? I am trying to identify as many machines as I can, especially so I can find out how many were made. Mine is number 6 and I have parts of numbers 58, 75 and 166 but I suspect the number nearly reached 200 but the best remaining official ICT record is incomplete, some pages were lost and it was a marketing document, a list of customers in alphabetical order, and probably made before production ceased anyway as marketing would hardly be interested in an obsolete product. Your 400 words reflects on another thread where someone said "In the mid 60's only large companies had systems with greater than 16K memory and disc drives. Mag tape 800 and 1600 bpi if you were lucky was the norm." Taking the middle of the mid 60's, 1965, about a quarter of the machines in the UK were 1300 series with between 400 and 2000 words of Immediate Access Store (core), no discs just usually one 12000 word drum. Those lucky enough to have mag tape (which roughly doubled the cost of the computer as well as requiring air conditioning) were 300 bpi, usually 10 track (4 data + 6 CRC) half inch or for a lucky few, 16 track (8 + 8) one inch wide tape. There were of course scientific machines like ATLAS around but only three? were ever built, most actual data processing was done on much more mundane machines like the 1301. The IBM 360 was announced in 1965 but how many actually got their hands on one in the UK that year? If you only had 400 words (4800 digits) of storage, who would waste it hold 19s. As to using PICTURE XX , I only ever wrote one COBOL program (put me off for life) but I think PICTURE XX means two characters, which means 4 digits so exactly the same storage size as PICTURE 9999. Roger Holmes. From roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk Sat Feb 13 04:22:59 2010 From: roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk (Roger Holmes) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 10:22:59 +0000 Subject: Manual Needed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CCE0E49-8846-423D-81B0-812BECC09FA3@microspot.co.uk> I have two shelves of pen plotter manuals at work, including many HP ones. Are you after the operators manual or the programmers manual i.e. the command set. I have a DraftMaster (MX plus IIRC) here. Maybe I can answer your questions from memory, if not I can look next week. Roger Holmes (Author of MacPlot, a pen plotter driver for Mac which was an application in 1984 but became a chooser level driver after Apple contracted us to change it so they could bundle it with MacProject and what became Claris Draw II). On 12 Feb 2010, at 18:00, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote: > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:24:59 -0500 > From: jthecman at netscape.net > Subject: Manual Needed > To: cctech at classiccmp.org > Message-ID: <8CC79AA1704C4E9-27F8-7F3C at webmail-m063.sysops.aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Hello > Does anyone have a copy of the hp Draftmaster II manual for loan, sale, > can make a copy of it? > > Thanks, > John K From stimpy.u.idiot at gmail.com Sat Feb 13 10:46:59 2010 From: stimpy.u.idiot at gmail.com (Pete Edwards) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:46:59 +0000 Subject: Storage Clear-Out Message-ID: <11c909eb1002130846m371c8c9es9ed76c1970354927@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, I'm having a clear out of the loft in the face of an imminent house move and I need to compress the collection a bit. On offer are: 1 x Panasonic SCSI LT-7010E Magneto-Optical Drive, no media, hence never tested but ID'd properly when SCSI hooked up. 1 x Syquest SCSI 5.25 Drive plus 2 x SQ400 44MB cartridges. In working order when last used. Both in Chester, UK. Free if collected. I will investigate shipping costs if anyone is really keen. MO drive is pretty heavy though. Cheers, Pete -- Pete Edwards "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future" - Niels Bohr From arcbe2001 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 13 14:02:23 2010 From: arcbe2001 at yahoo.com (Russ Bartlett) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:02:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <865394.63433.qm@web110410.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Right - But still not as bad as the Wang bug back in 1984 that shut down VS machines! --- On Sat, 2/13/10, Andy Holt wrote: From: Andy Holt Subject: RE: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" Date: Saturday, February 13, 2010, 12:59 AM >>>> Now the more sophisticated systems - of which the British ICT (ICL) was one - used an offset to hold dates.? The ICL 1900 range? used a technique of holding the number of days since the Jan 1st 1900 <<<< Except that they made a minor blunder ... Originally it had been defined that Day 0 was Jan 1st 1900 Then - after lots of such dates were "in the field" - someone discovered that 1900 was not a leap year. (probably the first well-informed person to write their own date-conversion routine who wondered why their code produced different results from the system standard) The only reasonable solution was to redefine Jan 1st 1900 as Day 1 so all dates from Mar 1st 1900 onwards remained unchanged. Andy From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 13 15:04:07 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:04:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <002501caac59$47c59b80$0301a8c0@win2k> from "Steve Robertson" at Feb 12, 10 10:04:38 pm Message-ID: > I've been tinkering with this idea for quite some time and have a couple of > observations. > > The project I'm been pondering would use AVR micro along with an IDE disk to > emulate a CS80 drive. The IDE interface is pretty simple although like the > HPIB it does requires a lot of I/O lines. Between all the handshaking and IIRC, the interface to a CF card is essentially IDE, so you could use non-rotating memory if you wanted to. > control signals with the IDE and HPIB devices, it would require a TON of > I/O. Either that or you have to do some fancy muxing of the I/O. Or you could use a microprocssor rather than a microcontroller with external ROM and RAM chips. Then hange the iDE drive off the bus as was origianlly intended, and connect up an HPIB controller chip or a parallel port chip to bang out the HPIB protocol. It puts the chip count right up, but it means the only programmed drvice is the firmware EPROM (which is easy to provgram)m and it's a lot easier to debug the firmware (you can use a logic analyser on the processor bus). > > So, to make the HPIB control simpler, I'd prefer to use a HPIB controller > chip like the NEC7210. That chip just hangs on an 8-bit bus and uses > internal registers to free up some of the I/O lines on the micro. The > biggest problem is finding a reliable supply of HPIB controller chips. Yes, that's the problem. Most of the traditional HPIB interface chips have long beend discontinued. And ehile you might be able to fet them for repair purposed, I'd rahter not such a device in a new design. > My solution to this would be to break this project in to two separate > smaller projects. Firstly, use a separate microprocessor to emulate the 7210 > controller chip. This would provide several advantages: Why do you need 2 mircoprocessors? The HPIB low-level protocol is simple enough that it could easily be handled by whatever chip is running the main software > 3.) The 75160/1 pairs are still available. I think DIGIKEY has them in stock > at a reasonable price. Note that these are not "just" I/O buffers. There are > a few additional gates in the devices that add some more logic that one > might expect. > > So, the AVR could eliminate the need for the 75160/1 bus driver chips. If > you fry a $4 AVR... Who cares? It doesn't cost much more than the dedicated > drivers. The problem is that the AVR needs to be programmed, It's a lot easier to replace a DIL packaged IC (particularly if you put it in a socket) than have to program a new AVR and plug it in. I am also not sure (I would have to check) if the AVR (or any other mcirocontoller) poer pins meet the specs for driving/sensing an HPIB line. > 4.) You might be able to build a simple "adapter" board and use the AVR in > place of hard-to-find 7210's in existing equipment. I doubt it. I don't think an AVR on its own would be able to respond to the states of the host-interface address/data/control lines quickly enough. You'd need some hardware to provide the actually 'registers'. OK, it could be a CPLD or something, but this makes things ever more complicated. If you're goign to use CPLDs of FPGAs, you might as well make the entire HPIB interface in one and not use the AVR at all. -tony From emu at e-bbes.com Sat Feb 13 15:59:39 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:59:39 -0700 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7720CB.1090707@e-bbes.com> Tony Duell wrote: > IIRC, the interface to a CF card is essentially IDE, so you could use > non-rotating memory if you wanted to. Sorry, I would use sd-flash. much easier to deal with, less I/O. > Yes, that's the problem. Most of the traditional HPIB interface chips > have long beend discontinued. And ehile you might be able to fet them for > repair purposed, I'd rahter not such a device in a new design. Here I would put an cpld/fpga on it. Only newer chips available are PCI. Bit-Banging the GP-IB is doable, but why ? > [75160/xxx] Definitely I would use them. No reason to make a real project out of this, and suffer, because somebody put 200 devices on it. If you do it, do it right (tm) > (DIL CPUs, whatever) Here I'm disagreeing, Probably even BGA, but who cares ? There more interesting chips are BGA, and I'm not thinking about replacing the CPU anyway. > I am also not sure (I would have to check) if the AVR (or any other > mcirocontoller) poer pins meet the specs for driving/sensing an HPIB > line. Use the drivers which are meant to be used on the specific bus. I used the 75160 before, and they worked. > I doubt it. I don't think an AVR on its own would be able to respond to > the states of the host-interface address/data/control lines quickly > enough. You'd need some hardware to provide the actually 'registers'. OK, > it could be a CPLD or something, but this makes things ever more > complicated. If you're goign to use CPLDs of FPGAs, you might as well > make the entire HPIB interface in one and not use the AVR at all. Thank you ;-) That would be my approach, to put everything in one chip, but the drivers ;-) Cheers From cisin at xenosoft.com Sat Feb 13 17:27:59 2010 From: cisin at xenosoft.com (Fred Cisin) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:27:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype In-Reply-To: References: <905687.22685.qm@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100213152355.Q2735@shell.lmi.net> > Very interesting. Could it be possible to do it with other models ? Olympia ES101, etc. Daisy wheel typewriters with centronics port. Rochester Dynatyper KGS-80 were boxes of solenoids that sat on top of the keyboard, and pressed the keys. They would work for almost anything that had a relatively "normal" keyboard, even a Merganthaler from Hell! One had a Centronics compatible interface (34 pin card-edge connector to fit with TRS80 Model I LPT port), crimping an IDC 36 pin Blue Ribbon connector on its cable was sufficient to interface it to a 5150 parallel port. It worked well with PC-Write. The other had a double-ended board that fit Apple][ slots and/or TRS80 expansion port. It worked OK with Electric Pencil and Scripsit. Escon? in Walnut Creek made a kit for butchering Selectrics. It fit on the bottom and pulled keys down as needed. At the West Coast Computer Faire (one of the earlier ones, maybe #4 - #6), somebody demo'ed a unit that worked on almost any typewriter (they demo'ed with a MANUAL PORTABLE). It connected up all over the typewriter with fishing wire. The crowd seemed to like it, and applauded vigorously every time that it successfully completed a Carriage Return. At the Third? West Coast Computer Faire (LA?), somebody presented a "paper"proposing a $50 typewriter interface. But, it was all speculation on what the toy companies COULD DO, if they wanted to. It was NOT on a par with the paper by George Morrow and Howard Fullmer about standardization of S100. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com From cclist at sydex.com Sat Feb 13 17:46:27 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:46:27 -0800 Subject: Hacking a typewriter into a teletype In-Reply-To: <20100213152355.Q2735@shell.lmi.net> References: , , <20100213152355.Q2735@shell.lmi.net> Message-ID: <4B76C953.7033.16B88B2@cclist.sydex.com> On 13 Feb 2010 at 15:27, Fred Cisin wrote: > Escon? in Walnut Creek made a kit for butchering Selectrics. It fit > on the bottom and pulled keys down as needed. I remember when the thing made its appearance that some IBM repair guys said that using it would likely destroy the typewriter. Apparently, the I/O Selectrics were built a bit huskier than the usual office models. I don't know how true that was. I never could stand daisywheel typewriters. The lack of "push a key and get a "kerchunk" immediacy really throws my typing rhythm off. --Chuck From jhfinedp3k at compsys.to Sat Feb 13 20:03:10 2010 From: jhfinedp3k at compsys.to (Jerome H. Fine) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:03:10 -0500 Subject: Manual for Codar QTimer II Model 102 Message-ID: <4B7759DE.1080707@compsys.to> I had excellent results asking for the Matrox QRGB-Alpha board, so I am trying again. I notice that there is a section in bitsavers with one manual for Codar boards, but not the item I am looking for. There is also a Qtimer II Model 120 which is not the specific manual I am looking for, but might be useful. Does anyone know where I might be able to locate a Qtimer II Model 102 manual? Sincerely yours, Jerome Fine From brain at jbrain.com Sat Feb 13 23:00:22 2010 From: brain at jbrain.com (Jim Brain) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 23:00:22 -0600 Subject: Tandy Pocket Computer 4 for Auction Message-ID: <4B778366.4060304@jbrain.com> Cameron or others, not sure if you're interested, but it's time to get rid of the Tandy PC-4 and all the accessories: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290402539975&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT I'll be putting a Northstar Horizon Z80 card and an Horizon HRAM5 card up tomorrow, if anyone is interested. Jim -- Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X) brain at jbrain.com Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times! Home: http://www.jbrain.com From IanK at vulcan.com Sun Feb 14 00:00:29 2010 From: IanK at vulcan.com (Ian King) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:29 -0800 Subject: VMS source distributions Message-ID: I've been talking with HP about obtaining VMS sources for the 6.2 release, which we're running on our VAX-11/780-5. Interestingly, they tell me that source for the original release is available, but not the 'updates' which I believe is the patches issued for this particular release. Does anyone on the list have any experience with these subsequent update releases? If so, please respond to me privately at iank at vulcan.com. I'd like to understand what is or isn't included and how they interacted with the original release. Thanks -- Ian From spectre at floodgap.com Sun Feb 14 00:11:56 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:11:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Tandy Pocket Computer 4 for Auction In-Reply-To: <4B778366.4060304@jbrain.com> from Jim Brain at "Feb 13, 10 11:00:22 pm" Message-ID: <201002140611.o1E6BuwQ021042@floodgap.com> > Cameron or others, not sure if you're interested, but it's time to get > rid of the Tandy PC-4 and all the accessories: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290402539975&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT I'm good on PC-4 junk, but I'll officially pass the hand of blessing and say that the collection looks complete -- I can't see anything obviously missing. It appears to be an original -3650, not a -3650B. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Rational behavior is a choice, not a predestination. -- Kent Paul Dolan ---- From spectre at floodgap.com Sun Feb 14 00:13:13 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:13:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Tandy Pocket Computer 4 for Auction In-Reply-To: <201002140611.o1E6BuwQ021042@floodgap.com> from Cameron Kaiser at "Feb 13, 10 10:11:56 pm" Message-ID: <201002140613.o1E6DD2I028512@floodgap.com> > > Cameron or others, not sure if you're interested, but it's time to get > > rid of the Tandy PC-4 and all the accessories: > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290402539975&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT > > I'm good on PC-4 junk, but I'll officially pass the hand of blessing and > say that the collection looks complete -- I can't see anything obviously > missing. It appears to be an original -3650, not a -3650B. ... except the RAM expansion, of course, but Jim mentions this in the auction. -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- Line printer paper is strongest at its perforations. ----------------------- From gkleba at wi.rr.com Sat Feb 13 11:16:23 2010 From: gkleba at wi.rr.com (gkleba) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:16:23 -0600 Subject: Radio Shack Science Fair manuals Message-ID: Is it possible that you still may have the 200 in 0ne manual for the radio shack 28-249 electronics kit? I've been searching for a while for this & would like to turn the kit over to one of the grandchildren but I have no manual. I realize your post is extremely old but it's worth a shot. regards Glenn From dkelvey at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 10:17:28 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:17:28 -0800 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: Hi I begining to dislike these things. I recently got an old 2090 Nicolet DSO ( Digital scope ). When I got it, it had a blown tantilum on the 5V for the I/O section. I fixed this and the blown regulator along with it. I originally got it so that I could display things from my analog computer ( That I'm having fun with ). I powered it up and was just getting the parameters right for a nice Rose Engine display when the display went to a defocused dot. I spent the next few hours trying to figure the best way to disassemble this puzzle box. I know scope have to be compact but it would be nice if there was some thng that said, do this first then this and then this. In any case, I figured that it must be something in the main frame, because the display was completely dead. I found the failing area and measure some supply lines. Sure enough, a -12V was missing from the D/A's. It was run by a local regulator from a +18V line and that was dead too. Some more tracing and disassembling, I followed the short to the input module. I wish I'm know this from the start. The input module is easily removed. I should have followed the first rules of trouble shooting, isolate the parts first and have the minimum connected. Now, I'd disassembled the entire mainframe that I'd have to put back together later. The input module is a pain to take apart. A number of places, they soldered grounding straps. After unsoldering, I traced it down to a cap on the common mother board. I reassembled everything and just had it running for about 10 or 15 minutes and the screen went to a fuzzy dot again. This time, I was smarter. I pulled the input module first. This restored a nice focused dot in the left lower corner. I quickly located the next shorted cap and put the unit back together. It has been running now for several hours. I just hope it doesn't blow another cap but I'm sure it will. As you can see, my love for old tantalum caps is lost it luster. I wish there was some way to get them to fail at one time, but then I'd had to do tricks to find a multiply shorted line ( I can do that but it is a lot of pain ). Dwight _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ From hachti at hachti.de Sun Feb 14 12:04:34 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:04:34 +0100 Subject: Docs found: Some docs scanned Message-ID: <4B783B32.2050203@hachti.de> Hi folks, I arranged to get one of those office machines that do everything. And scanned a box of documents. This is how it looks when I use it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70m0ZdcFOuE If anybody has some money to help me funding my copy machine - please let me know..... It cost me most of what I could spend at the moment. I uploaded the documents to: http://pdp8.hachti.de/newscan/box1 Feel free to take what's needed and archive it. My files will not stay there for forever! Here's a list of the box1 directory: ************************************ > hachti at sumpf64:~/scanner/ready/box1$ ls * > ampex: > 5104036-10 TM-2 Technical Manual for Siemens+Halske April 1965 .pdf > > cdc: > 41247200 Rev. B 9465 Disk Storage Drive Maintenance Manual.pdf 41248800 Rev. D 9465 Disk Storage Drive Schematics.pdf > > dartmouth_dtss: > 20100212100751305.pdf 20100212101335486.pdf > > emulex: > CD1151007 Rev. B CS11_F1 Technical Manual.pdf > > facit: > PE1000 Technical Description, German.pdf UP631001 FACIT PE 1000 Paper Tape Reader Spare Parts.pdf > UP630201 FACIT PE 1000 Paper Tape Reader Manual.pdf > > honeywell: > BJ67A Rev. 1 Series 600_6000 FORTRAN Addendum A.pdf > BJ67 Rev. 1 Series 600_6000 FORTRAN Manual.pdf > BP82 Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Biomedical (BMD) Statistical Programs Reference Manual.pdf > BS06 Rev. 1 Series 600_6000 Jovial Language Manual.pdf > BS11A Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Algol Addendum A.pdf > BS11 Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Algol Manual.pdf > D43A Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applicatons Library Guide I - Mathematics, Addendum A.pdf > D43 Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applicatons Library Guide I - Mathematics.pdf > DA44A Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applications Library Guide II - Statistics, Addendum A.pdf > DA44 Rev. 0 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applications Library Guide II - Statistics.pdf > DA45A Rev. 2 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applications Library Guide III - Industry, Addendum A.pdf > DA45B Rev. 2 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applications Library Guide III - Industry, Addendum B.pdf > DA45 Rev. 2 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applications Library Guide III - Industry.pdf > DA64 Rev. 1 Series 600_6000 Time-Sharing Applications Library Guide IV - Business+Finance.pdf > > plessey: > PM-TC11 Drawing Package.pdf > > xerox: > 190572C Rank Xerox extended Algol-60 Language and Operations Reference Manual.pdf > 191692A Xerox Universal Time-Sharing System (UTS) Users Guide.pdf > 900907E Xerox Control-Program-Five (CP-V) Time-Sharing Reference Manual.pdf > 901677A-1(9-71) Xerox FORTRAN Debug Package (FDP) Revision Package.pdf > 901677A Xerox FORTRAN Debug Package (FDP) Reference Manual.pdf > 901733C Sigma 9 Computer Reference Manual.pdf > 901765A Xerox Operating System (XOS) Batch Processing Reference Manual.pdf > hachti at sumpf64:~/scanner/ready/box1$ du -h > 41M ./facit > 396M ./xerox > 511M ./honeywell > 123M ./plessey > 124M ./ampex > 32M ./emulex > 146M ./cdc > 110M ./dartmouth_dtss > 1,5G . ****************************** Best wishes, Philipp -- http://www.hachti.de From aek at bitsavers.org Sun Feb 14 12:37:43 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:37:43 -0800 Subject: Docs found: Some docs scanned In-Reply-To: <4B783B32.2050203@hachti.de> References: <4B783B32.2050203@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B7842F7.5080001@bitsavers.org> On 2/14/10 10:04 AM, Philipp Hachtmann wrote: > ampex: 5104036-10 TM-2 >> Technical Manual for Siemens+Halske April 1965 .pdf That will make the B-205 fans happy. The TM-2 manual has been difficult to find. From rdawson16 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 12:45:48 2010 From: rdawson16 at hotmail.com (Randy Dawson) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:45:48 -0600 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, ,,, , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: Dwight, There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era, from the asian manufacturers. Almost everybody associated with the type of electronics that was not 'throw away' remembers this. I had a note from a pro video repair shop, saying that to get a $15,000 pro video camera back in operation would require the replacement of all the tant caps, as they were all destined to fail, and yet another trip to the shop. Anybody else recall this? There was one chemical manufacturer pinpointed, that was supplying XR7 or whatever electrolyte to all the manufacturers. They shortcut their process and cut costs, and several years of electronic products were affected. Please pots your analog computer work! Have you read the Electronic Research Associates books out there (IIRC) Randy > From: dkelvey at hotmail.com > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org > Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps > Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:17:28 -0800 > > > Hi > > I begining to dislike these things. > > I recently got an old 2090 Nicolet DSO ( Digital scope ). > > When I got it, it had a blown tantilum on the 5V > > for the I/O section. I fixed this and the blown regulator > > along with it. > > I originally got it so that I could display things from > > my analog computer ( That I'm having fun with ). > > I powered it up and was just getting the parameters > > right for a nice Rose Engine display when the display > > went to a defocused dot. > > I spent the next few hours trying to figure the best > > way to disassemble this puzzle box. I know scope have > > to be compact but it would be nice if there was some > > thng that said, do this first then this and then this. > > In any case, I figured that it must be something in > > the main frame, because the display was completely > > dead. > > I found the failing area and measure some supply lines. > > Sure enough, a -12V was missing from the D/A's. > > It was run by a local regulator from a +18V line and > > that was dead too. > > Some more tracing and disassembling, I followed the > > short to the input module. I wish I'm know this from > > the start. The input module is easily removed. I should > > have followed the first rules of trouble shooting, isolate > > the parts first and have the minimum connected. > > Now, I'd disassembled the entire mainframe that I'd > > have to put back together later. > > The input module is a pain to take apart. A number > > of places, they soldered grounding straps. After unsoldering, > > I traced it down to a cap on the common mother board. > > I reassembled everything and just had it running for > > about 10 or 15 minutes and the screen went to a fuzzy > > dot again. > > This time, I was smarter. I pulled the input module first. > > This restored a nice focused dot in the left lower corner. > > I quickly located the next shorted cap and put the unit > > back together. > > It has been running now for several hours. I just hope it > > doesn't blow another cap but I'm sure it will. > > As you can see, my love for old tantalum caps is lost > > it luster. I wish there was some way to get them to > > fail at one time, but then I'd had to do tricks to find a > > multiply shorted line ( I can do that but it is a lot of > > pain ). > > Dwight > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ From ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk Sun Feb 14 12:43:34 2010 From: ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:43:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B7720CB.1090707@e-bbes.com> from "e.stiebler" at Feb 13, 10 02:59:39 pm Message-ID: > > Tony Duell wrote: > > IIRC, the interface to a CF card is essentially IDE, so you could use > > non-rotating memory if you wanted to. > > Sorry, I would use sd-flash. much easier to deal with, less I/O. So would I (is that thw oen with an SPI-like interface?). But another list member mentioned making a device using IDE hard disks, and I was commenting that if such a device was created, it could also use CF cards with little, if any, modification. > > > Yes, that's the problem. Most of the traditional HPIB interface chips > > have long beend discontinued. And ehile you might be able to fet them for > > repair purposed, I'd rahter not such a device in a new design. > > Here I would put an cpld/fpga on it. Only newer chips available are PCI. > Bit-Banging the GP-IB is doable, but why ? Why would you want to use a CPLD/FPGA here? It's another chip, it's another chip that has to be programmed (and for which you need the development tools [1] and a machine to run them on), and it doesn't give you anyting. Using just about any microcontroller, you can bit-bang the HPIB handshake plenty fast enough. [1] And unlike most microcontroollers, you have to use the proprietary tools, you can't write your own. I suspect that with a sensible choice of microcntroller, it could be built in 4 or 5 chips (microcontroller, a couple of HPIB buffers, the minimal logic needed to support a banged HPIB handshake and maybe buffers to the flash memroy device). Now if I was designing this for myself, I can assure you I'd use a microprocessor, separate ROM and RAM, some kind of HPIB controller chip (HP used the Intel 8291 in most of their drive units), and whatever chips were needed to link up the flash memory device. And of course a pile of TTL for clocks, reset, address decoding, etc. The reason is that it would be easier for me to debug the firmware in a setup like that (I could use an EPROM emulaotr, I could also use a logic analyser to trace the code as it was running). Problem is, nobody would want to build that, so I feel a single-chip miocrocontroller + buffers is probably the most senible solution. > > > [75160/xxx] > > Definitely I would use them. No reason to make a real project out of > this, and suffer, because somebody put 200 devices on it. > If you do it, do it right (tm) Indeed... > > > (DIL CPUs, whatever) > Here I'm disagreeing, Probably even BGA, but who cares ? > There more interesting chips are BGA, and I'm not thinking about > replacing the CPU anyway. The problem with BGAs is that they're alomost impossible to prototype with, and not many people have the setup to solder them onto a PCB anyway (I don't). So who is going to be able to actually build the thing? Oh yes, I'd want to solder the PCBs myself. That way I know they're soldeed with 'real' solder... [...] > That would be my approach, to put everything in one chip, but the > drivers ;-) My (serious) approach too. One chip + buffers (to HPIB) + the flash memory device. And since you really need that chip to be a processor (you try doing the CS/80 protocol in random logic ;-)),, it makes more sense to use a microcontroller than an FPGA here (yes, I know you _can_ make a processor in an FPGA, I've done it, but it's not the sensible thing to use hree). -tony From aek at bitsavers.org Sun Feb 14 13:28:13 2010 From: aek at bitsavers.org (Al Kossow) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:28:13 -0800 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> On 2/14/10 10:45 AM, Randy Dawson wrote: > > Dwight, > > There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era This has absolutely NOTHING to due with the problems he is seeing, nor is it even from the right DECADE. Solid Tantalum capacitors have the failure mode he is observing, they short. Many electronics companies banned their engineers from designing them in for this exact reason. When they short, they BURN UP, often taking large chunks of the circuit board with them. From teoz at neo.rr.com Sun Feb 14 13:59:00 2010 From: teoz at neo.rr.com (Teo Zenios) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:59:00 -0500 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <773F78C240DD456F97953FEC9340F000@dell8300> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Kossow" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Getting to dislike tantalum caps > On 2/14/10 10:45 AM, Randy Dawson wrote: >> >> Dwight, >> >> There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era > > This has absolutely NOTHING to due with the problems he is seeing, nor is > it even from the right DECADE. > > Solid Tantalum capacitors have the failure mode he is observing, they > short. > > Many electronics companies banned their engineers from designing them in > for > this exact reason. When they short, they BURN UP, often taking large > chunks of the > circuit board with them. > > The aluminum electrolytic were the ones with problems. Tantalums are nice as long as you don't have a voltage spike (they hate going above their rated voltage and short). At least when the aluminum electrolytic leak/go bad they just quit working (open), hopefully not eating the circuit board. From jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de Sun Feb 14 14:01:09 2010 From: jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de (Jochen Kunz) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:01:09 +0100 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <20100214210109.55d3f895.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:45:48 -0600 Randy Dawson wrote: > There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era, AFAIK this is an urban legend. And that legend was about aluminium electrolyte capacitors, not tantalum. Most common faild capacitors where the low ESR types found in the CPU core voltage regulator on PeeCee mainboards. > There was one chemical manufacturer pinpointed, > that was supplying XR7 or whatever electrolyte to all the manufacturers. X7R is a ceramic dielectric. It has nothing to do with electrolyte capacitors. Even cheap X7R capacitors are far more reliable then electrolyte capacitors. -- tsch??, Jochen Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/ From melamy at earthlink.net Sun Feb 14 14:26:56 2010 From: melamy at earthlink.net (melamy at earthlink.net) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:26:56 -0800 (GMT-08:00) Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps Message-ID: <32919605.1266179216336.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> the issue was definitely normal electrolytic capacitors. The Dell GX-270 desktop computer was one of the victims. We had over 100 of these and Dell replaced nearly every motherboard due to this specific manufacturer's defect. The electrolytic caps used around the cpu would bulge on the top and in some cases burp out electrolyte out of the top. I didn't research the actual cap manufacturer. best regards, Steve Thatcher -----Original Message----- >From: Randy Dawson >Sent: Feb 14, 2010 10:45 AM >To: classic computers >Subject: RE: Getting to dislike tantalum caps > > >Dwight, > >There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era, from the asian manufacturers. Almost everybody associated with the type of electronics that was not 'throw away' remembers this. I had a note from a pro video repair shop, saying that to get a $15,000 pro video camera back in operation would require the replacement of all the tant caps, as they were all destined to fail, and yet another trip to the shop. > >Anybody else recall this? There was one chemical manufacturer pinpointed, that was supplying XR7 or whatever electrolyte to all the manufacturers. They shortcut their process and cut costs, and several years of electronic products were affected. > >Please pots your analog computer work! Have you read the Electronic Research Associates books out there (IIRC) > >Randy From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 14 14:27:34 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:27:34 -0500 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <20100214210109.55d3f895.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> <20100214210109.55d3f895.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> Message-ID: <9B2E6ED2-984E-45A0-B636-452867A1BBA5@neurotica.com> On Feb 14, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Jochen Kunz wrote: >> There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era, > > AFAIK this is an urban legend. And that legend was about aluminium > electrolyte capacitors, not tantalum. It's not an urban legend, unfortunately: http://www.neurotica.com/misc/chinese_capacitor.jpg I didn't take that picture, but I've seen it with my own eyes. Other crap that happened was the fun of 2003 when capacitor manufacturers starting making electrolytic capacitors using stolen electrolyte formula that was incomplete. >> There was one chemical manufacturer pinpointed, >> that was supplying XR7 or whatever electrolyte to all the >> manufacturers. > > X7R is a ceramic dielectric. It has nothing to do with electrolyte > capacitors. Even cheap X7R capacitors are far more reliable then > electrolyte capacitors. X7R is an EIA-198 specification that defines electrical and thermal behaviors of ceramic capacitors, not a type of dielectric material. The first of the three-character code is a code letter indicating lower limit of the operating temperature range, the middle character is a code number indicating the upper limit of the operating temperature range, and the third is a code letter indicating the maximum change in capacitance allowed over that operating temperature range. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 14 14:37:02 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:37:02 -0500 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, Message-ID: <4A8152CE-32B6-47B8-BE0D-347F9EF275AD@neurotica.com> On Feb 14, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Randy Dawson wrote: > There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this > era, from the asian manufacturers. Almost everybody associated > with the type of electronics that was not 'throw away' remembers > this. I had a note from a pro video repair shop, saying that to > get a $15,000 pro video camera back in operation would require the > replacement of all the tant caps, as they were all destined to > fail, and yet another trip to the shop. > > Anybody else recall this? There was one chemical manufacturer > pinpointed, that was supplying XR7 or whatever electrolyte to all > the manufacturers. They shortcut their process and cut costs, and > several years of electronic products were affected. Not tantalum, and not X7R. X7R is an EIA specification that pertains to ceramic capacitor temperature stability. The electrolyte problem was a stolen formula that was incomplete, but was used by several manufacturers. This happened in 2003; the market is still flooded with bad (non-tantalum!) electrolytic capacitors. -Dave > -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Sun Feb 14 15:07:20 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:07:20 -0700 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B786608.4040802@e-bbes.com> Tony Duell wrote: > My (serious) approach too. One chip + buffers (to HPIB) + the flash > memory device. And since you really need that chip to be a processor (you > try doing the CS/80 protocol in random logic ;-)),, it makes more sense > to use a microcontroller than an FPGA here (yes, I know you _can_ make a > processor in an FPGA, I've done it, but it's not the sensible thing to > use hree). My problem or benefit is, that I have the FPGA boards already. All I need is to wire up the GP-IB drivers & a connector for the Logic Analyzer. Cheers From mcguire at neurotica.com Sun Feb 14 15:10:55 2010 From: mcguire at neurotica.com (Dave McGuire) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:10:55 -0500 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FA74B90-4E51-40DF-A0AA-4A1EF2F30C6B@neurotica.com> On Feb 14, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >>> IIRC, the interface to a CF card is essentially IDE, so you could >>> use >>> non-rotating memory if you wanted to. >> >> Sorry, I would use sd-flash. much easier to deal with, less I/O. > > So would I (is that thw oen with an SPI-like interface?). SD and MMC can use what is more-or-less standard SPI, or a 4-bit- wide interface that's more difficult to use but much faster. -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL From emu at e-bbes.com Sun Feb 14 15:22:00 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:22:00 -0700 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <3FA74B90-4E51-40DF-A0AA-4A1EF2F30C6B@neurotica.com> References: <3FA74B90-4E51-40DF-A0AA-4A1EF2F30C6B@neurotica.com> Message-ID: <4B786978.4090402@e-bbes.com> Dave McGuire wrote: > SD and MMC can use what is more-or-less standard SPI, or a 4-bit-wide > interface that's more difficult to use but much faster. But as we are replacing disks which were on HP-IB, the normal few MBytes/sec you get out of SPI whould be sufficient. Or, what was the fastest HP-IB harddrive ? From oltmansg at bellsouth.net Sun Feb 14 15:51:03 2010 From: oltmansg at bellsouth.net (Geoff Oltmans) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:51:03 -0600 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: I hate capacitors period. If only we could get rid of the buggers. :) On Feb 14, 2010, at 10:17 AM, dwight elvey wrote: > > Hi > > I begining to dislike these things. > > I recently got an old 2090 Nicolet DSO ( Digital scope ). > > When I got it, it had a blown tantilum on the 5V > > for the I/O section. I fixed this and the blown regulator > > along with it. > > I originally got it so that I could display things from > > my analog computer ( That I'm having fun with ). > > I powered it up and was just getting the parameters > > right for a nice Rose Engine display when the display > > went to a defocused dot. > > I spent the next few hours trying to figure the best > > way to disassemble this puzzle box. I know scope have > > to be compact but it would be nice if there was some > > thng that said, do this first then this and then this. > > In any case, I figured that it must be something in > > the main frame, because the display was completely > > dead. > > I found the failing area and measure some supply lines. > > Sure enough, a -12V was missing from the D/A's. > > It was run by a local regulator from a +18V line and > > that was dead too. > > Some more tracing and disassembling, I followed the > > short to the input module. I wish I'm know this from > > the start. The input module is easily removed. I should > > have followed the first rules of trouble shooting, isolate > > the parts first and have the minimum connected. > > Now, I'd disassembled the entire mainframe that I'd > > have to put back together later. > > The input module is a pain to take apart. A number > > of places, they soldered grounding straps. After unsoldering, > > I traced it down to a cap on the common mother board. > > I reassembled everything and just had it running for > > about 10 or 15 minutes and the screen went to a fuzzy > > dot again. > > This time, I was smarter. I pulled the input module first. > > This restored a nice focused dot in the left lower corner. > > I quickly located the next shorted cap and put the unit > > back together. > > It has been running now for several hours. I just hope it > > doesn't blow another cap but I'm sure it will. > > As you can see, my love for old tantalum caps is lost > > it luster. I wish there was some way to get them to > > fail at one time, but then I'd had to do tricks to find a > > multiply shorted line ( I can do that but it is a lot of > > pain ). > > Dwight > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ From brain at jbrain.com Sun Feb 14 15:52:37 2010 From: brain at jbrain.com (Jim Brain) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:52:37 -0600 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7870A5.2090001@jbrain.com> On 2/14/2010 12:43 PM, Tony Duell wrote: >> > So would I (is that thw oen with an SPI-like interface?). But another > list member mentioned making a device using IDE hard disks, and I was > commenting that if such a device was created, it could also use CF cards > with little, if any, modification. > I'm not sure if I'm the list member in question, but uIEC/IDE uses the AVR ATMEGA1281 and provides an IDE/CF interface. However, the same firmware also supports SD cards (and is available as uIEC/SD). There has also been significant interest in the CBM world for an uIEEE solution, so I have sketched out a solution that utilizes the AVR. FOr the IEEE bus I am considering both the 75160/75161 versus a pair of input buffers and a pair of TPIC6B273 high current output drivers. Currently, the 7516X units are a price premium, but the price difference is minimal. The uIEC firmware currently supports FAT16/FAT32 and SD/SDHC/IDE protocols already, I simply need to write the IEEE support. I'm happy to have help :-) jim From dm561 at torfree.net Sun Feb 14 15:50:05 2010 From: dm561 at torfree.net (M H Stein) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:50:05 -0500 Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... Message-ID: <01CAAD96.3BB07480@MSE_D03> Unless I just missed it I haven't noticed any reference in this thread to the upcoming Y2K38: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem From tpeters at mixcom.com Sun Feb 14 16:35:06 2010 From: tpeters at mixcom.com (Tom Peters) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:35:06 -0600 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20100214162909.0b259be0@localhost> At 08:17 AM 2/14/2010 -0800, you wrote: >Hi > > I begining to dislike these things. > >I recently got an old 2090 Nicolet DSO ( Digital scope ). > >When I got it, it had a blown tantilum on the 5V > >for the I/O section. I fixed this and the blown regulator > >along with it. > >Dwight I bought a Tek 7904 scope on e-pay, a frame-and-4-plugins design. At least 4 of the tants on the power supply were shorted, so I ordered new ones to replace all the tantalums in the power supply. I think I spent $25 at Digikey. Works great now. I thought the caps the leaked on PC motherboards were aluminum electrolytics. ISTR that some guy defected from the Chinese factory where they were made and stole the formula for the electrolyte so he could start up somewhere else, but there were additional chemicals added after the solution was first made up and his formula didn't tell him anything about the later steps, so all of his caps failed after various amounts of time in-circuit. ----- 85. [Science Fiction] "Even the AI hated [my book] ?" "The AI _loved_ it. That's when we knew for sure that _people_ were going to hate it." --Dan Simmons, _Hyperion_ --... ...-- -.. . -. ----. --.- --.- -... tpeters at nospam.mixcom.com (remove "nospam") N9QQB (amateur radio) "HEY YOU" (loud shouting) WEB: http://www.mixcom.com/tpeters 43? 7' 17.2" N by 88? 6' 28.9" W, Elevation 815', Grid Square EN53wc WAN/LAN/Telcom Analyst, Tech Writer, MCP, CCNA, Registered Linux User 385531 From emu at e-bbes.com Sun Feb 14 17:07:59 2010 From: emu at e-bbes.com (e.stiebler) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:07:59 -0700 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B7870A5.2090001@jbrain.com> References: <4B7870A5.2090001@jbrain.com> Message-ID: <4B78824F.6010306@e-bbes.com> Jim Brain wrote: > There has also been significant interest in the CBM world for an uIEEE > solution, so I have sketched out a solution that utilizes the AVR. FOr > the IEEE bus I am considering both the 75160/75161 versus a pair of > input buffers and a pair of TPIC6B273 > high current output > drivers. Currently, the 7516X units are a price premium, but the price > difference is minimal. > The uIEC firmware currently supports FAT16/FAT32 and SD/SDHC/IDE > protocols already, I simply need to write the IEEE support. You have enough I/O pins for the HP-IB bus ? How fast ist this AVR reading and writing from sd-flash ? From brain at jbrain.com Sun Feb 14 17:20:49 2010 From: brain at jbrain.com (Jim Brain) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:20:49 -0600 Subject: HP-IB, Amigo/cs80 was Re: hp 9153 floppy & disk In-Reply-To: <4B78824F.6010306@e-bbes.com> References: <4B7870A5.2090001@jbrain.com> <4B78824F.6010306@e-bbes.com> Message-ID: <4B788551.2070701@jbrain.com> On 2/14/2010 5:07 PM, e.stiebler wrote: > Jim Brain wrote: >> There has also been significant interest in the CBM world for an >> uIEEE solution, so I have sketched out a solution that utilizes the >> AVR. FOr the IEEE bus I am considering both the 75160/75161 versus a >> pair of input buffers and a pair of TPIC6B273 >> high current >> output drivers. Currently, the 7516X units are a price premium, but >> the price difference is minimal. > >> The uIEC firmware currently supports FAT16/FAT32 and SD/SDHC/IDE >> protocols already, I simply need to write the IEEE support. > > You have enough I/O pins for the HP-IB bus ? No, which is why I was considering the TPIC and some 74'245s > > How fast ist this AVR reading and writing from sd-flash ? We run the SPI clock at 1MHz, so we can clock in at ~ 125kBPS jim -- Jim Brain, Brain Innovations (X) brain at jbrain.com Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times! Home: http://www.jbrain.com From ethan.dicks at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 17:27:35 2010 From: ethan.dicks at gmail.com (Ethan Dicks) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:27:35 -0500 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: On 2/14/10, Al Kossow wrote: > Solid Tantalum capacitors have the failure mode he is observing, they short. > > Many electronics companies banned their engineers from designing them in for > this exact reason. When they short, they BURN UP, often taking large chunks > of the circuit board with them. In 1984 or 1985, we had a 10uF tantalum cap blow on a COMBOARD at a customer site. It put a 6mm hole in a six layer board and took out the boards on either side of it in the BA-11 box. I saw the board when it was returned - looked like someone shot it with a .22 at close range. -ethan From geoffr at zipcon.net Sun Feb 14 17:44:36 2010 From: geoffr at zipcon.net (Geoffrey Reed) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:44:36 -0800 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <20100214210109.55d3f895.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> Message-ID: On 2/14/10 12:01 PM, "Jochen Kunz" wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:45:48 -0600 > Randy Dawson wrote: > >> There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era, > AFAIK this is an urban legend. And that legend was about aluminium > electrolyte capacitors, not tantalum. Most common faild capacitors > where the low ESR types found in the CPU core voltage regulator on > PeeCee mainboards. Actually it's not urban legend, there was a huge problem with electrolytic caps a few years back, and still popping up as those caps continue to filter through various suppliers stock. What happened is some engineers left one company for another, and they took the electrolyte formula with them, however the formula that they had did not have a good stabilizer in it, and the electrolyte ?boils? And leaks out of the capacitors. A lot of the Taiwanese, Korean, Hong-Kong and Chinese cap manufacturers ended up using the unstable electrolyte and had caps that failed early in their lifespan. Initially PC motherboard manufacturers denied that the problem existed until the threat of lawsuits and bad publicity was brought to bear. MSI for almost 2 years was replacing all the caps on my failed motherboard for free. From cclist at sydex.com Sun Feb 14 18:26:18 2010 From: cclist at sydex.com (Chuck Guzis) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:26:18 -0800 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <20100214210109.55d3f895.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>, Message-ID: <4B78242A.588.141CEFE@cclist.sydex.com> On 14 Feb 2010 at 15:44, Geoffrey Reed wrote: > Actually it's not urban legend, there was a huge problem with > electrolytic caps a few years back, and still popping up as those caps > continue to filter through various suppliers stock. Oh, heck--bad Chinese capacitors are showing up in new gear too. I just picked up a couple of HP LCD monitors (circa 2007-2008). Both had bulgy filter caps in the power supply. Replaced with new ones (Nichicons), the monitors work fine. I've seen the same thing in lots of other gear as well. I wonder how much of it is discarded before its time. There's a forum dedicated to this phenomenon--badcaps.net. --Chuck From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Sun Feb 14 18:32:02 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:32:02 +0000 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <773F78C240DD456F97953FEC9340F000@dell8300> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> <773F78C240DD456F97953FEC9340F000@dell8300> Message-ID: <4B789602.2090005@philpem.me.uk> Teo Zenios wrote: > The aluminum electrolytic were the ones with problems. True, that. Google "Capacitor Plague." It's been happening since the turn of the century, if not a bit earlier. AIUI there are at least three different explanations: - Early SMD electrolytics (the tin-can-on-plastic-base ones) tended to suffer from failures of the sealing plug. Basically, convection or IR soldering made the rubber plug deform, and after a while the cap would just dry out, or leak all over the PCB. - Later SMD capacitors had to be soldered with incredibly exact thermal profiles. Some contract manufacturers upped the peak temperature to get the solder joints to flow better. Catch: this also buggered up the rubber seals on electrolytic caps. Same result as above. - The "industrial espionage" explanation. Some jerkoff stole a chemical formula for a low-ESR capacitor electrolyte from a major Japanese capacitor manufacturer (I've heard the name Rubycon banded about). Of course they only got part of the formula; it was missing a few stabilising chemicals. Result: fzzt-boom after about 500 hours runtime, or electrolyte leaking all over the PCB... And then there's "just plain crap parts." Panasonic, Chemi-Con and Rubycon are usually safe bets (though there are a lot of fake and knock-off parts about -- e.g. "Rulycon" and "Fuhjyuu" -- the latter has the audacity to use a very slightly modified version of Hitachi's logo). There's a database of capacitor manufacturers and their logos here -- . The page is in Japanese, but Google translates it into (mostly) readable English. > Tantalums are nice as long as you don't have a voltage spike (they hate > going above their rated voltage and short). This is why I usually spec them 50 to 100% higher than the highest voltage I expect to see on the power line the cap is filtering. That is to say, if I'm using a tantalum cap on a 5V line, I'll put a 7.5 or 10V capacitor in there. > At least when the aluminum > electrolytic leak/go bad they just quit working (open), hopefully not > eating the circuit board. Though more often than not, they *do* eat the PCB when they pack in, especially the SMD ones... -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From rdawson16 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 18:46:00 2010 From: rdawson16 at hotmail.com (Randy Dawson) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:46:00 -0600 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , ,,, , ,,<4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, , , , <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: Sorry Al, I cant resist the war with you, and all caps (pun intended) in your email. We design in a tant cap for the low ESR, and will continue to do so. Have you seen the new low ESR ceramics, surface mount cap that looks like a 0806, but it has multiple terminals along the long side? Pop open a old CPU, they sit along side the chip. You guys must have lotsa time on your hands, and tribal knowledge but no current experience. I wrote about the cap problems in old equipment because they were real in the day, and yes wrong decade. Nicolet did much better in their plotters. I installed a bunch of them, NASA, shuttle and station design teams. I always liked the Nicolet products. Randy Dawson KF7CJW Extra > Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:28:13 -0800 > From: aek at bitsavers.org > To: > Subject: Re: Getting to dislike tantalum caps > > On 2/14/10 10:45 AM, Randy Dawson wrote: > > > > Dwight, > > > > There was some criminal stuff going on with electrolytes in this era > > This has absolutely NOTHING to due with the problems he is seeing, nor is > it even from the right DECADE. > > Solid Tantalum capacitors have the failure mode he is observing, they short. > > Many electronics companies banned their engineers from designing them in for > this exact reason. When they short, they BURN UP, often taking large chunks of the > circuit board with them. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ From rdawson16 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 18:49:30 2010 From: rdawson16 at hotmail.com (Randy Dawson) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:49:30 -0600 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B789602.2090005@philpem.me.uk> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , ,,, , ,,<4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, , <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org>, <773F78C240DD456F97953FEC9340F000@dell8300>, <4B789602.2090005@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: Further, anybody that does radio restoration knows the first step is to "De Cap it" Pull all electrolytics and replace. Ceramic non polar is the way... > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:32:02 +0000 > From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk > To: > Subject: Re: Getting to dislike tantalum caps > > Teo Zenios wrote: > > The aluminum electrolytic were the ones with problems. > > True, that. Google "Capacitor Plague." > > It's been happening since the turn of the century, if not a bit earlier. > > AIUI there are at least three different explanations: > - Early SMD electrolytics (the tin-can-on-plastic-base ones) tended > to suffer from failures of the sealing plug. Basically, convection or IR > soldering made the rubber plug deform, and after a while the cap would > just dry out, or leak all over the PCB. > - Later SMD capacitors had to be soldered with incredibly exact > thermal profiles. Some contract manufacturers upped the peak temperature > to get the solder joints to flow better. Catch: this also buggered up > the rubber seals on electrolytic caps. Same result as above. > - The "industrial espionage" explanation. Some jerkoff stole a > chemical formula for a low-ESR capacitor electrolyte from a major > Japanese capacitor manufacturer (I've heard the name Rubycon banded > about). Of course they only got part of the formula; it was missing a > few stabilising chemicals. Result: fzzt-boom after about 500 hours > runtime, or electrolyte leaking all over the PCB... > > And then there's "just plain crap parts." Panasonic, Chemi-Con and > Rubycon are usually safe bets (though there are a lot of fake and > knock-off parts about -- e.g. "Rulycon" and "Fuhjyuu" -- the latter has > the audacity to use a very slightly modified version of Hitachi's logo). > > There's a database of capacitor manufacturers and their logos here -- > . The page is in Japanese, but Google > translates it into (mostly) readable English. > > > Tantalums are nice as long as you don't have a voltage spike (they hate > > going above their rated voltage and short). > > This is why I usually spec them 50 to 100% higher than the highest > voltage I expect to see on the power line the cap is filtering. That is > to say, if I'm using a tantalum cap on a 5V line, I'll put a 7.5 or 10V > capacitor in there. > > > At least when the aluminum > > electrolytic leak/go bad they just quit working (open), hopefully not > > eating the circuit board. > > Though more often than not, they *do* eat the PCB when they pack in, > especially the SMD ones... > > -- > Phil. > classiccmp at philpem.me.uk > http://www.philpem.me.uk/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/ From classiccmp at philpem.me.uk Sun Feb 14 18:50:17 2010 From: classiccmp at philpem.me.uk (Philip Pemberton) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:50:17 +0000 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B78242A.588.141CEFE@cclist.sydex.com> References: <20100214210109.55d3f895.jkunz@unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>, <4B78242A.588.141CEFE@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B789A49.4090306@philpem.me.uk> Chuck Guzis wrote: > Oh, heck--bad Chinese capacitors are showing up in new gear too. I > just picked up a couple of HP LCD monitors (circa 2007-2008). Both > had bulgy filter caps in the power supply. Replaced with new ones > (Nichicons), the monitors work fine. I've had that with my ca.2007 Viewsonic VX922. It was great "fun" trying to claim on the Viewsonic "guarantee." Quoted because said guarantee isn't worth the paper it's printed on -- the paper slip included with the monitor states that parts and labour are covered, and return shipping. Apparently there's been a "retroactive change in policy" since then and that "no longer applies" -- now customers are expected to pay shipping both ways (to the Netherlands), and the warranty is now two years instead of three. From what I was told, the warranty starts from the date of manufacture, not the date of sale (which I'm pretty sure is illegal under UK law). NEC (aka NEC-Mitsubishi) are scarcely any better. The anti-glare coating started peeling off my old CRT monitor just shy of the guarantee ending. Called them and got the runaround: "Well you must have cleaned it with a chemical solvent." "Only Water and a microfibre cloth, as it says in the instruction book." "Water is a chemical solvent." I ended up being passed back and forth between two different CSRs, then finally to a "customer services supervisor" who stated quite plainly that "any failure of the anti-glare coating would be considered customer misuse and void the guarantee entirely." "So what if, say, the power supply fails?" "Well, you'd have to pay for that because the warranty is voided by the CRT damage." It'll be a cold day in hell before NEC or Viewsonic see any more of my money. Perhaps it's just me, but monitor manufacturers really seem to be the lowest-of-the-low for customer service. The only companies with a worse rating (IME) are computer parts suppliers. As for the Viewsonic, I opened it up, catalogued all the electrolytics, then bought a full set of Panasonic parts from Farnell. Had the monitor working again by 4pm. Eight capacitors, most soldered between power and ground, none of which had any form of thermal relief against the ground plane. The PCBs have BIG ground planes. Soldering them was not fun. > There's a forum dedicated to this phenomenon--badcaps.net. And a very useful forum it is, too. -- Phil. classiccmp at philpem.me.uk http://www.philpem.me.uk/ From wdonzelli at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 18:55:33 2010 From: wdonzelli at gmail.com (William Donzelli) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:55:33 -0500 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B789602.2090005@philpem.me.uk> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> <4B784ECD.2020401@bitsavers.org> <773F78C240DD456F97953FEC9340F000@dell8300> <4B789602.2090005@philpem.me.uk> Message-ID: > It's been happening since the turn of the century, if not a bit earlier. Which century? Crap parts have been around forever. -- Will From spectre at floodgap.com Sun Feb 14 19:42:20 2010 From: spectre at floodgap.com (Cameron Kaiser) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:42:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ... In-Reply-To: <01CAAD96.3BB07480@MSE_D03> from M H Stein at "Feb 14, 10 04:50:05 pm" Message-ID: <201002150142.o1F1gKkr013276@floodgap.com> > Unless I just missed it I haven't noticed any reference in this thread > to the upcoming Y2K38: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem And then of course the classic Mac epoch ends in 2040: http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/e/epoch.htm ... although I "heard" that the Date/Time control panel can't cope with dates past 2020. Anyone confirm this? -- ------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't. -- From hilpert at cs.ubc.ca Sun Feb 14 20:21:34 2010 From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca (Brent Hilpert) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:21:34 -0800 Subject: Nicolet DSO & analog comps / was Re: Getting to dislike tantalum caps References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, , , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <4B78AFAE.C358B310@cs.ubc.ca> dwight elvey wrote: > I begining to dislike these things. > I recently got an old 2090 Nicolet DSO ( Digital scope ). > When I got it, it had a blown tantilum on the 5V > for the I/O section. I fixed this and the blown regulator > along with it. There are two Nicolet DSO at theradio museum here, a 1090A and a 2090-III. I played with the 1090 when it first arrived a few years ago, until the switching power supply blew up. I RE'd the power supply to produce the schematic but didn't get around to repairing it. The 2090 I haven't even tried powering up yet. IIRC from when I was working on it, the 1090 is 8080-based. JOOI, have you determined what microproc the 2090 uses? > I originally got it so that I could display things from > my analog computer ( That I'm having fun with ). > I powered it up and was just getting the parameters > right for a nice Rose Engine display when the display > went to a defocused dot. I'm also interested in hearing about analog computer work, would like to go back to working on programs for mine sometime: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~hilpert/e/tyrotek/index.html From jfoust at threedee.com Sun Feb 14 20:20:14 2010 From: jfoust at threedee.com (John Foust) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:20:14 -0600 Subject: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com> <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com> Message-ID: <201002150225.o1F2PY2m022323@billY.EZWIND.NET> At 12:45 PM 2/14/2010, Randy Dawson wrote: > I had a note from a pro video repair shop, saying that to get a $15,000 pro video camera back in operation would require the replacement of all the tant caps, as they were all destined to fail, and yet another trip to the shop. For me, it was a late 80s Sony consumer camera that failed slowly in the mid 90s... I recorded the first few years of my kids' lives with it. I could immediately rewind and see that it was still recording, but recordings from a year before were unplayable. Something about the fading caps would smell like tuna fish. I'm not sure how I'll ever be able to recover those recordings. Anyone have an 8mm helical low-level digitizer with software recovery of drifting video tracks yet? - John From hachti at hachti.de Sun Feb 14 21:35:55 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:35:55 +0100 Subject: Docs found: Some docs scanned In-Reply-To: <4B7842F7.5080001@bitsavers.org> References: <4B783B32.2050203@hachti.de> <4B7842F7.5080001@bitsavers.org> Message-ID: <4B78C11B.2040208@hachti.de> > That will make the B-205 fans happy. > The TM-2 manual has been difficult to find. Whoever those are :-) Did you pick some of the rest? -- http://www.hachti.de From hachti at hachti.de Sun Feb 14 21:36:26 2010 From: hachti at hachti.de (Philipp Hachtmann) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:36:26 +0100 Subject: Docs found: Honeywell 800, Facit PE1000, Rank Xerox In-Reply-To: References: <4B735F6E.2010802@hachti.de> Message-ID: <4B78C13A.9050900@hachti.de> Rich Alderson wrote: > Oh, yes, please save the Sigma manuals!!!! --rma Online. See next posting. -- http://www.hachti.de From dkelvey at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 21:57:26 2010 From: dkelvey at hotmail.com (dwight elvey) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:57:26 -0800 Subject: Nicolet DSO & analog comps / was Re: Getting to dislike tantalum caps In-Reply-To: <4B78AFAE.C358B310@cs.ubc.ca> References: <17641.39335.qm@web110403.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>, ,,, , , <4B759AF5.3080709@garlic.com>, , <4B7538D3.20133.94F368@cclist.sydex.com>, , <4B78AFAE.C358B310@cs.ubc.ca> Message-ID: > Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:21:34 -0800 > From: hilpert at cs.ubc.ca > To: General at invalid.domain > Subject: Nicolet DSO & analog comps / was Re: Getting to dislike tantalum caps > > dwight elvey wrote: > > I begining to dislike these things. > > I recently got an old 2090 Nicolet DSO ( Digital scope ). > > When I got it, it had a blown tantilum on the 5V > > for the I/O section. I fixed this and the blown regulator > > along with it. > > There are two Nicolet DSO at theradio museum here, a 1090A and a 2090-III