Re: Identifying Data General (or DG-related) console/terminal/whatsit?
I have some reason to suspect the machines had something to do with the FAA, if that narrows it down at all. The hardware that goes in the enclosure may or may not be present- the fellow appeared to be a hoarder. Still an interesting mystery to solve- - Ian > On Dec 13, 2015, at 19:09, Bruce Ray wrote: > > Not identifiable as DG product - 3rd-party custom (graphics?) console for > client? (I can't read logo on bottom of console.) > > NOAA/NWS AFOS system had similar-looking system with interesting > trackball/keyboard combination. Then there was GE Medical... > > Bruce > Wild Hare Computer Systems, Inc. > b...@wildharecomputers.com > > >> On 12/13/2015 5:22 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: >> Hi all -- >> >> A friend of mine is investigating picking up some DG hardware, and this >> item: >> >> http://yahozna.dyndns.org/scratch/dg/dg%20console.jpg >> >> Is included along with the rest of it. I *know* I've seen something >> like this somewhere but I can't find anything now that I need it :). Can >> anyone identify this? >> >> Thanks, >> - Josh
Re: IDE knowledge anyone?
Marc Verdiell wrote: Danke sehr, Oliver! Is your implementation available online? Yes - here it is: https://github.com/OlliL/P8000_WDC_Emulator/tree/master/P8000_WDC_Emulator But right now I'm working on an enhanced version of it where I don't uses latches for the higher 8 bits of the ATA 16 bits. This boosts the read and write speeds from around 700kB/sec to around 1.7MB/sec. Unfortunally the ATA interaction is done but not the other parts of my emulator so the enhanced version is not yet online available. Oliver Marc Marc Verdiell wrote: Do you mind providing links to any good implementations of IDE on ATMega you know of? Marc Of course mine ;) And http://www.opend.co.za/hardware/avride/avride.htm but I never verified
RE: VAX 4000-500 PSU Overload?
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Glen Slick > Sent: 14 December 2015 01:36 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: VAX 4000-500 PSU Overload? > > I took a look at the DSSI & SCSI termination power supply board in my VAX > 4000 BA440 chassis. It's the small board in the storage area of the backplane > mounted in place by a single screw. There are two identical circuits based on > the LT-1086 with the adjustable output voltage set at 5.30V [1.25V * (1 + > 392/121)]. Each circuit has a 100uF 35V 105C nichicon cap between the input > and ground and the output and ground. Both circuits on my board still output > 5.3V from a 12V input, but I think the caps are starting to leak electrolyte > on > the PCB and I should replace them all (4 total) before things get ugly. > I just got the board out. The caps on mine look OK, but I see the ESR is at or just above the value suggested on the table printed on my meter. So I will replace them all. > Each circuit has three diodes, an SB520 and a 1N4735A for which I can find > datasheets, and a third one which looks like a General Instrument > MP654 for which I can't find a datasheet and I'm not sure if that is the > correct > part number. I can't quite read the marking all the way around the body of > the diode. If someone else takes a look at their > BA440 DSSI & SCSI termination power supply board let me know if you can > make out what that part number is, or if MP654 is a GI part for which you can > find a datasheet. > I had a look and all I can make out on one is"P654" with "143" underneath. On the second one I can see "MP" with "GI" underneath. So, presumably, the full marking is MP654/ GI 143. Presumably, one of these parts is the date code. Regards Rob
Re: Commodore 64?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 05:41:23AM -0600, Mike wrote: > new Commodore 64's. Can we do that? I make a post about creepy > pastas and all I got was made fun of? Do yall not want new people to > join? We want new people, and my own reply to that thread was intended as a joke but not on your behalf. I'm sorry if that was how it came across. Regards, Pontus.
Re: Bye for now... was:
Hi I'm sorry to see you go. This list has it ups and downs. I certainly don't read everything, not even all things that are on topic. But whenever there is a storm of boring/off-topic/ranting posts I just ride it out. Eventually there will be a fun post to read. So, guys, hang on and don't feed the trolls. No need to go "eternal september" and rage-quit. /P On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 08:06:52PM +0100, simon wrote: > Hi all. > > Another great day started with me deciding that thorwing away 70% of a list > every day is not worthwhile any more. This list is acting like Whatsapp and > Facebook more and more. > > It seems that a lot of people are unable to keep on topic. Its a shame. It > would be so handy if people could refrain from "biting the troll". I am > truly not interested in top, bottom posting, and other non classic computer > blabla. > > Bye > -- > Met vriendelijke Groet, > > Simon Claessen > drukknop.nl
Re: VAX 4000-500 PSU Overload?
Robert Jarratt wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Glen Slick > > Sent: 14 December 2015 01:36 > > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: VAX 4000-500 PSU Overload? > > > > I took a look at the DSSI & SCSI termination power supply board in my VAX > > 4000 BA440 chassis. It's the small board in the storage area of the > > backplane > > mounted in place by a single screw. There are two identical circuits based > > on > > the LT-1086 with the adjustable output voltage set at 5.30V [1.25V * (1 + > > 392/121)]. Each circuit has a 100uF 35V 105C nichicon cap between the input > > and ground and the output and ground. Both circuits on my board still output > > 5.3V from a 12V input, but I think the caps are starting to leak > > electrolyte on > > the PCB and I should replace them all (4 total) before things get ugly. > > > > > I just got the board out. The caps on mine look OK, but I see the ESR is at > or just above the value suggested on the table printed on my meter. So I will > replace them all. All of the Nichicons in my PSU and that Terminator Power Source looked ok, but that was all...totally dead from the ESR side of view. Don't bother with what you measure, replace them all if you can. The leaking Caps in my PSU where from another Manufacturer (don't remember wich one) and had a black color. Regards, Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Straße 42, 09600 Oberschöna, USt-Id: DE253710583 www.tsht.de, i...@tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
Re: Webster WQSMD/04 Qbus SMD Controller
> On 13 Dec 2015, at 18:40, Robert Jarratt wrote: > > I picked up some Qbus cards yesterday. They seem to be board set for a > MicroVAX II. However, one of the cards was, to me at least, a bit unusual. > It was made by a company called Webster, and it appears to be a controller > for SMD disks. I was not familiar with SMD disks and had to look them up. I > suspect this might be a little out of the ordinary, and, possibly, an odd > combination for a small Qbus system to access such a physically large type > of disk. Were MicroVAX IIs used much with such disks? Is this a bit of an > unusual find? Webster were based in Melbourne Australia and developed a lot of innovative products in the 1980s/1990s. We had one such controller in a MicroVAX-II I used to manage with a Fujitsu Super Eagle SMD drive. It was a very cost effective solution compared with an RA-82. I hadn’t thought about this particular system for a long while and it brought back fond memories. The fact that I still manage OpenVMS systems 30 years later is cause for celebration! Huw Davies | e-mail: huw.dav...@kerberos.davies.net.au Melbourne| "If soccer was meant to be played in the Australia| air, the sky would be painted green"
Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
Folks, I'm still probing the alleged "parallel ASCII" interface that was supposedly fitted to my 'Western I/O' converted IBM 2970 Selectric. Here's where we're at: http://corestore.org/2970pins.jpg I've traced the pins from the DB25 connector back to the board; the ribbon cable in the above pic is straight-through to the DB25. It doesn't resemble any interface with which I'm familiar, and I can't see how it can possibly be parallel. Only the following pins (these are the DB25 pin numbers remember) connect to any pins or devices on the interface board: 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24. All other pins are either unconnected, or ground. Of the above 10 pins, 11, 13, 22 & 23 are high at power-up (printer NOT connected to any interface). The only pin with known function is 19, which is 'paper out'; if I toggle the paper out switch I can see it going high and low. There is no frigging way that can be a conventional 8-bit parallel interface, obviously, with only 10 pins in use, and 4 or 5 of them (depending on paper out) high on power-up - obviously signaling something. Whatever it is, most of the pins are driven by an IC - an Allen Bradley 314B102. Google has nothing, except a few for sale. No datasheet anywhere I can find. Can anyone give me a clue as to the purpose and pinouts of an Allen Bradley 314B102??!! Here's the component side of the driver board, the interface and 314B102 bottom right: http://corestore.org/2970driver.jpg Help? Please? Anyone out there with old reference material? Anyone make a stab at what the hell this interface might be??? Maybe, maybe, it's some kind of custom 'internal' interface and was intended to be used with a (missing) external converter box/cable that made a standard parallel interface of it?? Mike http://www.corestore.org 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame. For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
RE: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
> Can anyone give me a clue as to the purpose and pinouts of an Allen > Bradley 314B102??!! First guess, it's not really an IC, it's a resistor array. Either separate resistors going across the chip or resistors all commoned to the highest numbered pin (which may well be +5V). I would secondly guess that '102' means 1k (10*10^2) -tony
RE: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
Pretty good guess actually... The rest of the board is pretty simple stuff I think... Maybe just pullups... Someone who is better than me at squinting at old circuitry can take a peek! Mike On Dec 15, 2015 2:18 AM, "tony duell" wrote: > > > Can anyone give me a clue as to the purpose and pinouts of an Allen > > Bradley 314B102??!! > > First guess, it's not really an IC, it's a resistor array. Either separate > resistors > going across the chip or resistors all commoned to the highest numbered > pin (which may well be +5V). > > I would secondly guess that '102' means 1k (10*10^2) > > -tony > >
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On 14/12/15 13:12, tony duell wrote: Can anyone give me a clue as to the purpose and pinouts of an Allen Bradley 314B102??!! First guess, it's not really an IC, it's a resistor array. Either separate resistors going across the chip or resistors all commoned to the highest numbered pin (which may well be +5V). I would secondly guess that '102' means 1k (10*10^2) -tony I agree, especially as it looks like pins 8-14 are commoned to the power?-plane. I wondered whether P1,P2 and P3 could be decoding PROMs to convert ASCII to Tilt/Rotate. In which case there must be separate solenoid drivers somewhere. The 7475s are 4-bit latches, so maybe it pushes out 4 bits at a time? But I think there would be enough on there to do the interfacing, so are you sure it only uses 10 pins on the DB-25? -- Lawrence Wilkinson lawre...@ljw.me.uk The IBM 360/30 page http://www.ljw.me.uk/ibm360
Emergency Moderation Mode
Sorry, that last post ('Re: bye for now') was not intended to get through.
The list was put into emergency moderation mode the past couple days so I
have had to approve each post and apparently slipped on that one. Hopefully,
people noticed the quick return to on-topicness the past day or two.
Several last thoughts on the topic...
Being the list owner, last I checked - I'm allowed to state my preference on
things. I have a strong preference against top posting. I have never banned
anyone for it. I see no problem with me stating that preference once in a
(great) while, especially when new members first join the list.
I also find it rather odd that people post ad-nauseum about how much they
hate the off-topicness (or the specific off-topic post in question), when in
fact the quickest/easiest way for a list member to end an off-topic thread
(other than contacting me) is to simply not respond to the post. Venting
your angst is a sure way to continue the flame-fest.
In any case, I'll continue to moderate 100% of the inbound posts, until such
time as I see things staying level-headed for a while.
J
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, tony duell wrote: > > >> Can anyone give me a clue as to the purpose and pinouts of an Allen >> Bradley 314B102??!! > > First guess, it's not really an IC, it's a resistor array. Either separate > resistors > going across the chip or resistors all commoned to the highest numbered > pin (which may well be +5V). Yes. The former. You can see it clearly on a photo on Ebay where someone offers a set of 24 of these; the lighting reveals the thick film resistor elements running across the package, showing up as humps in the lacquer coating. > I would secondly guess that '102' means 1k (10*10^2) That sounds right, and for pullup resistors that would be a plausible value. It matches the numbering used on surface mount components. paul
RE: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
Some more random thoughts > > Of the above 10 pins, 11, 13, 22 & 23 are high at power-up (printer > NOT connected to any interface). The only pin with known function is > 19, which is 'paper out'; if I toggle the paper out switch I can see > it going high and low. Well, 19 could be a general printer-ready pin in that if the paper runs out it would say the printer is not ready for another character but it might well also be put to the not-ready state when the printer was printing the current character. Seen that before. Also, having now looked at the photos (sorry I was rushed before) I am pretty sure that Allen Bradley package is a pull-up resistor array. Half the pins seem to go to the +5V trace. The others go to signals Remember that a pulled-up logic input will test as a high level. So some or all of the 'high' pins might be inputs. I notice the 3 chips with the Pn lables. I think I can make out a Harris logo on one of them. I would guess these are programmed PROMs to convert between ASCII (I hope) and the solenoid codes for the Selectric. The next thing of interest to me is the pair of 7475 latches at the bottom of the board. 4 bits each. Maybe hold the 8 bit input character. I would trace where the D's and Q's of those go first. Perhaps you load the character a nybble at a time??? This board does not look that complicated and all the ICs have known numbers on them (mostly TTL logic). If it were mine I'd trace out the schematic. -tony
PDP 11/05 S vs 11/05 NC
Just to change the subject.. There were "S" and an "NC" version of 11/05 high profile system. Why? I am curious if any DEC historians here know the reason for two versions of the same DEC PDP 11/05 *high profile* computer (not talking about the low profile).There are separate manuals for each type. The S seems to be more OEM-ish because it comes in an BA11-K chassis. I am guessing you'd see an 11/05 S as part of a larger system (PDP 10), whereas the NC model would be for a stand alone system. ??? This S's BA11-K chassis was used by other hardware by simply changing the backplane. The "NC" model chassis seems to be specifically for the 11/05 I don't think it appears anywhere else. If anyone is interested to see the different models I have a thread on my site for each type: 11/05 S http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=622 11/05 NC http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=249 ... and then there are the 11/10's -- Bill
Re: Webster WQSMD/04 Qbus SMD Controller
On 2015-12-13 1:40 AM, Robert Jarratt wrote: I picked up some Qbus cards yesterday. They seem to be board set for a MicroVAX II. However, one of the cards was, to me at least, a bit unusual. It was made by a company called Webster, and it appears to be a controller for SMD disks. I was not familiar with SMD disks and had to look them up. I suspect this might be a little out of the ordinary, and, possibly, an odd combination for a small Qbus system to access such a physically large type of disk. Were MicroVAX IIs used much with such disks? Is this a bit of an unusual find? Not completely unusual. Our company had a pair of Microvax IIs, in rack mount form, that shared a pair of SMD drives in another rack mount chassis. The cards used to interface to the 8" drives were EMULEX QD33 MSCP-compatible SMD/SMD-E disk controllers. I would have one of these up and running right now, except that the power supply in the drive chassis died the last time I tried it and haven't had time to fix it. I believe the drives are from fujitsu. I believe the drives were mainly used as NFS mounts for other UNIX boxes. -Jon
What did computers without screens do?
On 12/12/2015 6:11 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2015, Mike wrote: The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in the world did the computers without a screen to look at do? Now I know about the tape, cassette tape's and even the paper with the hole punches in them but what kind of applications were they use for? Mathematics or? ? ? I think that's a very inviting question for those of us who view those years with a good bit of fond nostalgia! The first ones I personally encountered all read and punched 80-column cards. Some read and wrote to physically rather huge disk drives which could store all of 5MB, but most of them read and wrote 7-track 1/2" wide magnetic tape. The "display" was a line printer. These were strictly business systems used to maintain the needed data for insurance companies, banks, General Services Administration, and a local daily newspaper. Later, rather more interesting ones to me, read and punched 1" wide paper tape. Their primary output was to 1/2" magnetic tape, and their operator consoles were an I/O Selectric typewriter. Some of them also had line printers. They were more interesting to me because they were interfaced to optical character readers, and their main role was to control certain parameters in the OCR system but mostly to receive the characters which were read and write them to the mag tape. The mag tapes were further processed on much larger computer systems as desired by the customers. All text, no graphics at all. Well, I did once write a graph plotting program that could plot data to a line printer. It could even plot multiple graphs overlaid, and kept the curves separated by using a different text character for each input data set. That was fun. :-) Please note that I did change the subject on you so folks would know this is not part of the abominable thread. Later, Charlie C.
Re: Emergency Moderation Mode
> The list was put into emergency moderation mode the past couple days > so I have had to approve each post and apparently slipped on that > one. [...] > In any case, I'll continue to moderate 100% of the inbound posts, > until such time as I see things staying level-headed for a while. Jay, you are an _awesome_ listowner. Thank you - once again! - for running this resource for us. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
New Heathkit videos...
Part 2: Backplane Circuit Board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdeHfcasBbM Part 3: RAM Board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbO4bBnpEg g.
Re: Display-less computing was Re: TOP POSTING
On 12/13/2015 2:44 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: I've heard from a couple of CEs that the loathing for the 557 was legend. Legend has it that someone once turned in a suggestion form at IBM saying that the Cardatype(sp?) plant should be bombed with 557s. :-) Charlie C. And while you were there with the UR gear; sorters, reproducing punches, interpreters, collators, you'd make a stop by the 407 accounting machine set up to do 80-80 listings so you'd have a printed version of your card deck to mark up with your blunders. --Chuck
Re: Display-less computing
On 12/14/2015 11:17 AM, Charlie Carothers wrote: On 12/12/2015 6:11 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2015, Mike wrote: The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in the world did the computers without a screen to look at do? Now I know about the tape, cassette tape's and even the paper with the hole punches in them but what kind of applications were they use for? Mathematics or? ? ? I think that's a very inviting question for those of us who view those years with a good bit of fond nostalgia! The first ones I personally encountered all read and punched 80-column cards. Some read and wrote to physically rather huge disk drives which could store all of 5MB, but most of them read and wrote 7-track 1/2" wide magnetic tape. The "display" was a line printer. These were strictly business systems used to maintain the needed data for insurance companies, banks, General Services Administration, and a local daily newspaper. Later, rather more interesting ones to me, read and punched 1" wide paper tape. Their primary output was to 1/2" magnetic tape, and their operator consoles were an I/O Selectric typewriter. Some of them also had line printers. They were more interesting to me because they were interfaced to optical character readers, and their main role was to control certain parameters in the OCR system but mostly to receive the characters which were read and write them to the mag tape. The mag tapes were further processed on much larger computer systems as desired by the customers. All text, no graphics at all. Well, I did once write a graph plotting program that could plot data to a line printer. It could even plot multiple graphs overlaid, and kept the curves separated by using a different text character for each input data set. That was fun. :-) Please note that I did change the subject on you so folks would know this is not part of the abominable thread. Later, Charlie C. Whoops, I should have read further before changing the subject! Sorry about that. Hopefully this will "fix" it, even though I'm probably committing a no-no by replying to my own post. Charlie C.
Re: CBM 1541 drive faults
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:22 AM, tony duell wrote: >> >> I've done the obvious, reseating socketed ICs, checking the +12V and +5 >> rails, and checking the on-board CPU reset line. Does anyone have any tips >> for what's best to try next? > > Didn't at least some versions use 2114 RAM chips? If so, then check/change > those first I don't think any of the single-disk CBM drives used 2114s (but I agree - those are favorite suspects when present). I'm pretty sure all the units I've worked on have 6116-type 2K SRAMs or perhaps 6264s. I'd have to go back and check parts lists, but the older dual-drive units might have had 2114s as the shared memory between the two processors. -ethan
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015, Mike wrote: > The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in the > world did the computers without a screen to look at do? Now I know about the > tape, cassette tape's and even the paper with the hole punches in them but > what kind of applications were they use for? Mathematics or? ? ? I'll add my perspective. My first exposure to the use of computers came from my father, who was a mechanical engineering professor at TU Eindhoven, doing precision measurement. He used the university's computer (there was a single computer serving most of the university's needs) to do analysis of the test results. For example, one instrument was an interferometer, which would measure positions in terms of wavelength (1/8th of the wavelength of a very stable helium-neon laser). Those measurements were punched on paper tape by custom hardware, along with temperature and humidity observations. The software would read those numbers, adjust the measurements to account for temperature (which changes both wavelength and the size of the test object) and humidity (which affects wavelength). The results could be printed, but often would be shown graphically using a plotter (drum plotter). A plotter is a pretty simple device, involving a pen that can move across paper in X and Y directions, usually with stepper motors, and a solenoid to raise or lower the pen. Some had multiple pens (different color or size). A "flat bed" plotter has an X/Y carriage moving over a flat table on which the paper is mounted. A drum plotter has a carriage for one axis moving along a drum a few inches diameter, which transports paper (a long roll) in the other direction. This stuff used the "THE" operating system, an early multi-process operating system and the first to use rigorous design for correctness and clean structure. User input was via paper tape, for programs and data; output could be paper tape, line printer output, or plotter output. There were some magnetic tapes as well, I'm not sure how those were used. The OS used a magnetic drum (similar to a disk drive, older but for those days quite fast) for virtual memory (code and data) and for buffering I/O data streams for paper tape, printer, and plotter. paul
RE: CBM 1541 drive faults
> > I don't think any of the single-disk CBM drives used 2114s (but I > agree - those are favorite suspects when present). I'm pretty sure > all the units I've worked on have 6116-type 2K SRAMs or perhaps 6264s. > I'd have to go back and check parts lists, but the older dual-drive > units might have had 2114s as the shared memory between the two > processors. At least one version of the 8050 uses 8 off 2114s as the shared memory I had to replace the lot in mine -tony
Re: What did computers without screens do?
> From: Mike > The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in > the world did the computers without a screen to look at do? There are a number of different generations, and the way they were used generally depended on what the computer in question had for I/O capabilities. In the very earliest machines, the computations tended to be mathematical modeling; things that needed a lot of computing, but had very modest I/O requirements. The classic example was the hydrogen bomb calculations performed on ENIAC (which was originally built to do ballistics computations), but other similar ones included structural modeling, etc. That class of application continued (and does so, to this day), but over time, more and more things got done using computers, as their capabilities (online storage, I/O, etc) grew. In general, the new applications were added to the existing ones, but did not supplant the earlier ones. Starting with a computer in England called LEO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer) they were also applied to business applications (inventory, payroll, billing, etc), which typically did more modest computations, but more I/O, which required better I/O capability (cards, tapes, printers, etc). With the advent of timesharing in the early 1960's, it became common to add individual character-output terminals (initially printing, moving mostly to video terminals circa the mid-70's), and with the ability of users to interact with applications running on a computer, applications broadened even further; online text preparation was one common one. The final phase came with the introduction of bit-mapped video terminals, which allowed the interactive users to use graphics, and images; the very earliest such systems were on time-sharing mainframes, but with the growth of personal computers, that technology migrated there (note that the very earlist PC's had only character-output terminals, mimicing their main-frame big brothers of the time). Noel
Re: PDP 11/05 S vs 11/05 NC
2015-12-14 17:12 GMT+01:00 william degnan : > Just to change the subject.. > > There were "S" and an "NC" version of 11/05 high profile system. Why? > > I am curious if any DEC historians here know the reason for two versions of > the same DEC PDP 11/05 *high profile* computer (not talking about the low > profile).There are separate manuals for each type. > Age? The NC (and ND if you are in 230VAC area) are in the BA11-D chassis which uses the H750 PSU. The same chassis was used by for example 11/35. The H750 PSU has partly the same assemblies as the low PDP-11/05 chassis and then also a H744. The memory system is somewhat different in that the H214 is 8kW and the H217 is 16kW and the former is used in the NC/ND while the S uses the latter. But of course there can be all sorts of other reasons as well. /Mattis > The S seems to be more OEM-ish because it comes in an BA11-K chassis. I am > guessing you'd see an 11/05 S as part of a larger system (PDP 10), whereas > the NC model would be for a stand alone system. ??? > > This S's BA11-K chassis was used by other hardware by simply changing the > backplane. The "NC" model chassis seems to be specifically for the 11/05 I > don't think it appears anywhere else. > > If anyone is interested to see the different models I have a thread on my > site for each type: > 11/05 S > http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=622 > > 11/05 NC > http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=249 > > ... and then there are the 11/10's > > -- > Bill >
Re: What did computers without screens do?
The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably 100 would be a safe bet. Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of my PC. I can't honestly say how many computers my car uses. Probably 100 is much too low. --Chuck
Re: What did computers without screens do?
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we > encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably 100 > would be a safe bet. > > Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and > heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of my PC. > > I can't honestly say how many computers my car uses. > > Probably 100 is much too low. > > --Chuck You know Chuck that is a extremely great point that never even crossed my mind! Come to think about my "pen mouse" probably has mor power than most computers before 1980 lol that Mr Chuck is a thing I will think about for a long time because if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a computer cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!!
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:11 PM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: >> From: Mike > >> The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in >> the world did the computers without a screen to look at do? > > There are a number of different generations, and the way they were used > generally depended on what the computer in question had for I/O capabilities. > > In the very earliest machines, the computations tended to be mathematical > modeling; things that needed a lot of computing, but had very modest I/O > requirements. The classic example was the hydrogen bomb calculations > performed on ENIAC (which was originally built to do ballistics > computations), but other similar ones included structural modeling, etc. > > That class of application continued (and does so, to this day), but over > time, more and more things got done using computers, as their capabilities > (online storage, I/O, etc) grew. In general, the new applications were added > to the existing ones, but did not supplant the earlier ones. > > Starting with a computer in England called LEO: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer) > > they were also applied to business applications (inventory, payroll, billing, > etc), which typically did more modest computations, but more I/O, which > required better I/O capability (cards, tapes, printers, etc). > > With the advent of timesharing in the early 1960's, it became common to add > individual character-output terminals (initially printing, moving mostly to > video terminals circa the mid-70's), and with the ability of users to > interact with applications running on a computer, applications broadened even > further; online text preparation was one common one. > > The final phase came with the introduction of bit-mapped video terminals, > which allowed the interactive users to use graphics, and images; the very > earliest such systems were on time-sharing mainframes, but with the growth of > personal computers, that technology migrated there (note that the very > earlist PC's had only character-output terminals, mimicing their main-frame > big brothers of the time). > >Noel Thanks Noel for the great link and wow they still used LEO all the way up to 1981 crazy. This is what I am talking about just the knowledge I ca soak up here. . . Man I could read up on this stuff for years! Again thanks for the great info.
RE: Webster WQSMD/04 Qbus SMD Controller
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jon > Auringer > Sent: 14 December 2015 16:46 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Webster WQSMD/04 Qbus SMD Controller > > > > Not completely unusual. Our company had a pair of Microvax IIs, in rack > mount form, that shared a pair of SMD drives in another rack mount chassis. > The cards used to interface to the 8" drives were EMULEX QD33 MSCP- > compatible SMD/SMD-E disk controllers. I would have one of these up and > running right now, except that the power supply in the drive chassis died the > last time I tried it and haven't had time to fix it. I believe the drives are from > fujitsu. I believe the drives were mainly used as NFS mounts for other UNIX > boxes. > I have had a few replies now. So it seems that it wasn't that unusual to connect up these big drives to a MicroVAX II. Can't see myself ever having the space, or a strong enough floor, for such a drive though, and I suspect they are not that easy to find in any case, but it would be nice to see such a beast in action. Regards Rob
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike wrote: >> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> >> The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we >> encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably 100 >> would be a safe bet. >> Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and >> heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of my >> PC. > > if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a > computer cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!! Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers out of discarded emergency lighting. "In the old days", a switching supply might have a 555 timer for an oscillator. These days, an 8-pin uC is cheap ($0.75 or far less) and allows the behavior to be changed without a soldering iron, or allows the hardware design to be completed and sent out for manufacture before the software is complete. If you want to change the frequency of a 555 oscillator, you have to design in a potentiometer or remove and install different value components. If you want to change the frequency of a uC oscillator, you reprogram it (or if you have enough pins, design in some removable jumpers). Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has been replaced in many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility and reduces the overall product cost. -ethan
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On 12/14/2015 11:34 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers we encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably 100 would be a safe bet. Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard and heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of my PC. I can't honestly say how many computers my car uses. Probably 100 is much too low. --Chuck As I was debugging the fpga computer design I had, I found a feature with the software, no warning just compile with the bug. ARG! How ever this was code for testing a SD card interface, and since the card was NOT working I was looking all over for doc's on SD cards (Not SDHC cards). They now have a bunch of interface chips for them so your little embedded controller does not have to bit bang. Next they will create one BIG chip to control all I/O until somebody changes the standard again. Ben. PS Will reply back in January when the new standards hit the market place.PAY big $$$ for the doc's.
RE: CBM 1541 drive faults
They can be easily replaced with newer chips. But any work with it should make you think about building a sd2iec hehehehe (I gotta build one for me...) Enviado do meu Tele-Movel Em 14/12/2015 16:09, "tony duell" escreveu: > > > > I don't think any of the single-disk CBM drives used 2114s (but I > > agree - those are favorite suspects when present). I'm pretty sure > > all the units I've worked on have 6116-type 2K SRAMs or perhaps 6264s. > > I'd have to go back and check parts lists, but the older dual-drive > > units might have had 2114s as the shared memory between the two > > processors. > > At least one version of the 8050 uses 8 off 2114s as the shared memory > I had to replace the lot in mine > > -tony >
Re: Webster WQSMD/04 Qbus SMD Controller
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Robert Jarratt wrote: > I have had a few replies now. So it seems that it wasn't that unusual to > connect up these big drives to a MicroVAX II. In the late 1980s, your choices for uVAXII disk were essentially, 5.25" DEC RD drives, which topped out at 154MB, or external drives, often 8" or 14", and unless you were tied to DEC-only (and went with an QDA50 and first an RA81, then RA82, then possibly RA90, etc), your next choice was some 3rd party controller and the drives to match. If the goal was > 150MB, that often meant Fujitsu SMD drives, but then later, large-capacity 5.25" ESDI drives started to appear. I have a bit of both with my VAX 8300... a KDB50 with a real RA81 (because we already had that when we got the used 8300 in 1989) then some years later, I landed a 5"-tall 3rd party disk box with ESDI on the inside and SDI on the outside. ISTR mine has 2x 600MB ESDI, so it's 3X the storage of the RA81 in 1/2 the volume, in less than 1/4 the weight, and probably 1/5 the power. :-) -ethan
RE: What did computers without screens do?
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Paul > Koning > Sent: 14 December 2015 17:55 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: What did computers without screens do? > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015, Mike wrote: > > The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in the > world did the computers without a screen to look at do? Now I know about > the tape, cassette tape's and even the paper with the hole punches in them > but what kind of applications were they use for? Mathematics or? ? ? > Computers without screens were used for almost everything that you use computers with screens for. They are still that "Universal Machine" envisaged by Turing... Almost all had some kind of console that could be used for playing games, when not used for operating the computer. The experimental MU5 machine at Manchester University used to play tunes when not doing other work. The console switches selected the tune. When it was changed MU5 would compose a suitable short piece of music to provide a graceful change... A lot of the real work was accounting. My first computing job was at an insurance company. At least in the UK most Insurance Companies had converted to Punch Card systems in the 1940's so moving their systems to computers was easy. At first they just used card files to record the basic policy details, and last premium paid. Then they moved to tape files. The tapes contained details of each policy, for a "Life" policy it would record the Name, Date of Birth, Premium, Payment Frequency, Policy Type, Sum Assured etc. The main update program would have as inputs the current file and a file of updates. The updates might be "premium paid", "add new policy" , "Lapse a policy", "Pay the sum assured" etc. The outputs would be a new updated master file, a journal of changes and perhaps letters or checks. This basic three file update was used for insurance policies, stock control, financial account of other types (e.g. stock and shares trading), pensions mortgages, payroll. There were other programs that ran to work out what funds we needed to pay the policies, these were called "valuations" ... then I went to work at a Scientific establishment. Here we ran tidal prediction programs, ocean models, and did media conversion to convert data from under-sea data loggers to normal 9-track tape. Here we also had a Calcomp plotter that was driven from tape and used to print graphs of the height of the tide. .;.. and of course the most important job of all, printing line printer pictures. So Christmas Trees, Father Christmas, Sleighs and Reindeer, Best wishes for Birthdays, Weddings and retirements Dave G4UGM P.S. I noted one Christmas at Newcastle University after the file space had been cleaned up and the Christmas Prints deleted there was a note in the data prep area which read:- "Due to a lack of Reindeer Santa will not be directing an output stream down Roger's (The ops manager) chimney"
Re: CBM 1541 drive faults
Do remember when ordering 2114's that these are all NOS units and just about as likely to be bad as the ones in your unit. I don't know of any surplus place that has the ability to test them. Most any of the places that I've dealt with will replace bad ones but if dealing by mail order, it may not be worth the hassle. Order a few extras. Dwight
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On Mon, 12/14/15, Ethan Dicks wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike wrote: >> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: >>> >>> The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less >>> computers we encounter every day without giving it a >>> thought. I think that probably 100 would be a safe bet. >> >> if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a >> computer cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!! > > Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers > out of discarded emergency lighting. ... Along those lines, as I was preparing for a class I taught this quarter called Computing in the Small, I came across some interesting stats. Microchip crossed the 12 billion PICs shipped a few years ago and were running at nearly a billion a year then. ARM holdings quotes over 50 billion ARMs shipped. They estimate that about 60% of the Earth's population has daily contact with a device containing an ARM. That's not too far behind the 64% who have running water. And not all that long ago the 8051 was the most fabbed ISA in the world. The bottom line is that computers involving humans interacting through keyboards, mice, and screens are really just a niche in the computing world. Embedded systems are the predominant class of computing systems. Or to twist a line from Shakespeare, There's more in the universe of computing than is dreamt of in the PC philosophy. BLS
Re: What did computers without screens do?
And think of all the PDP-8s *still* buried in the control units of
factories across the world. The majority of these machines had no
displays, not even teleprinters. Some had custom controls wired in through
stock or custom modules, and some had no more "UI" than the front panel
("set switches 2 and 3 to the 'on' position and press the 'run' key").
Some didn't even have that - the stock 8/m was a turnkey system. The
reasoning was the same as that behind the microcontroller replacing the
555: complex behavior could be modeled in software rather than intricate
analog elements, and it was easy to change things if you needed to (e.g.,
if you changed out an instrument or effector. -- Ian
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> >>
> >> The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers
> we encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably
> 100 would be a safe bet.
> >> Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard
> and heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of
> my PC.
> >
> > if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a
> computer cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!!
>
> Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers
> out of discarded emergency lighting. "In the old days", a switching
> supply might have a 555 timer for an oscillator. These days, an 8-pin
> uC is cheap ($0.75 or far less) and allows the behavior to be changed
> without a soldering iron, or allows the hardware design to be
> completed and sent out for manufacture before the software is
> complete. If you want to change the frequency of a 555 oscillator,
> you have to design in a potentiometer or remove and install different
> value components. If you want to change the frequency of a uC
> oscillator, you reprogram it (or if you have enough pins, design in
> some removable jumpers).
>
> Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has been replaced in
> many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not
> because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility
> and reduces the overall product cost.
>
> -ethan
>
--
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens
Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab
University of Washington
There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
Anyone want a copy of DIGITAL ServerWORKS Manager ?
Before I chuck these in the recycle bin, does anyone want a copies of DIGITAL ServerWORKS Manager? I have two boxes, QB-4QYAA-SA 3.2 sealed in shrink wrap, and QB-4QYAA-SA 3.3 open box that is slightly crushed. The boxes (at least the still sealed one) look like this eBay item (not mine) listing: http://www.ebay.com/itm/321413114710 The DIGITAL ServerWORKS™ Manager Installation and User Guide in the QB-4QYAA-SA 3.3 open box is the ER-4QXAA-UA. G01 version of the ER-4QXAA-UA. H01 manual here: http://manx.classiccmp.org/collections/mds-199909/cd2/network/4qxaauah.pdf It doesn't look like there is a market for these worth the bother of listing them on eBay. Free for the cost of covering postage from Seattle, WA if anyone wants them. -Glen
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 4:59 AM, tony duell wrote: > Some more random thoughts >> >> Of the above 10 pins, 11, 13, 22 & 23 are high at power-up (printer >> NOT connected to any interface). The only pin with known function is >> 19, which is 'paper out'; if I toggle the paper out switch I can see >> it going high and low. > > Well, 19 could be a general printer-ready pin in that if the paper runs > out it would say the printer is not ready for another character but > it might well also be put to the not-ready state when the printer > was printing the current character. Seen that before. Maybe, but Selectrics aren't exactly fast devices; there's a whole lot of potential 'no, wait, I'm not ready!' conditions. Would they all be ORed onto one pin? > Also, having now looked at the photos (sorry I was rushed before) I > am pretty sure that Allen Bradley package is a pull-up resistor > array. Half the pins seem to go to the +5V trace. The others go > to signals Confirmed off-list; it's a resistor network; 14 pins, seven resistors. > Remember that a pulled-up logic input will test as a high level. So some > or all of the 'high' pins might be inputs. True and possible. But even if they're ALL inputs, only seven of them? > I notice the 3 chips with the Pn lables. I think I can make out a Harris > logo on one of them. I would guess these are programmed PROMs > to convert between ASCII (I hope) and the solenoid codes for the > Selectric. That was my conclusion too. The old Western I/O ads I've seen definitely refer to it as having an 'ASCII' or 'parallel' interface. Assuming they only ever made the two models; I suppose it *could* be some variant of RS232, with very non-standard pinouts - but the ads are specific; they made a smart terminal with 6800 CPU & serial interface, and a dumb printer with an 'ASCII parallel' interface. And that's all I have to go on, beyond prodding the hardware. > The next thing of interest to me is the pair of 7475 latches at the bottom > of the board. 4 bits each. Maybe hold the 8 bit input character. I would > trace where the D's and Q's of those go first. > > Perhaps you load the character a nybble at a time??? That would be well weird. Still trying to work out what exactly it was intended to hook up to; a standard parallel port with a special cable, using only four of the data lines, and a driver, to drive it nybble-wise? Maybe I could use business records to try to track down the former owner of 'Western I/O' and just ASK him, if he's still alive, but that would be cheating :-) I've gone over the connector again and we have ten signal pins plus a ground plane... that's *just* enough for 8 data bits, a strobe, a ready/wait line... but that Allen Bradley pull-up pack is only 14 leads, 7 lines... I'd expect to see 8 data lines all going to the same place if it was anything resembling standard Centronics but with a weird pinout. So I'm scratching my head still over just exactly what it was supposed to hook up to. > This board does not look that complicated and all the ICs have known > numbers on them (mostly TTL logic). If it were mine I'd trace out the > schematic. That's true and possible. I'm in two minds on this thing: - intention was to rip all this out and convert it to a full I/O serial terminal, using an Arduino-based setup that Lawrence Wilkinson has already built and tested: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ljw/sets/72157632841492802/with/9201494189/ - all the keyboard contacts are already in there, Western I/O just cut the IBM wires off when they ripped the IBM guts out and converted it printer-only. I'd like to figure out the interface that's presently in it, just to check out the mechanism, and for that 'ah ha!' moment :) - but I don't want to spend any significant time on it if I'm just going to rip it all out. - but, although the Western I/O conversion 'butchered' a perfectly good IBM 2970, it IS a rare representative of that era, when all kinds of Selectric conversions were commonplace. So perhaps, as a nod to that era, it should be left as-is, as a preserved example? What say people? I've seen posts on old lists where people have referred to buying these back in the day - converted Selectrics I mean - and seeing 'mountains' of them in warehouses. They were once common. Where have they all gone? Is mine the *only* survivor from those mountains of 3rd-party backstreet conversions? Does anyone else have any? I've just spent a few hundred bucks with one of the few mechanical Selectric gurus left standing - a local guy here in NZ who did an amazing job, several broken and seized bits fixed, the mechanism is now like new and works perfectly in typewriter mode - so it's going to end up working, one way or another! Mike http://www.corestore.org 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame. For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
RE: What did computers without screens do?
I spent a lot of time in my early career on Allen-Bradley PLC 3's & 5's. They were definitely computers - no screens, and obviously purpose built for process control. But then I started thinking... the HP 2100's that are the focus of my collecting, very often (usually, actually) didn't have system consoles. They were used primarily for test & measurement. And this wasn't just the earliest models; I acquired quite a few later full rack (21MX/E) systems that did not have a console board in them. They were booted via switch register settings and set about their task. Various changes to operation were made strictly via switch register. Then I recalled one of the early Educational BASIC HP systems (No, not TSB). It accepted BASIC programs from punched cards *only*. Output was to the printer. I can't recall what it was. I believe it used a TTY for initial configuration, but not thereafter. In any case... early computers without screens weren't necessarily so "early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and test & measurement :) J
Re: Display-less computing was Re: TOP POSTING
On Dec 13, 2015, at 1:20 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: >> > So did you have to learn how to read the punch hole cards also or did >> > the punch hole cards go into the computer and than printed out the >> > data on the fan fold paper also was it in code or just plane English? >> You COULD read the holes, if you really HAD to. Keypunches printed >> the alphanumeric form on the top edge of the cards. if you punched a >> deck of cards on the CPU's card punch, there was no printing. If it >> was an "object deck" ie. binary code, you would never "interpret" the >> deck. But, if it had something that might be human readable, there >> was a machine called an interpreter, and it would type the symbols on >> the top of the card for you. > > At > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:Blue-punch-card-front-horiz.png > is a picture of a card. It was punched with a printing punch, or run through > a 029 series interpreter punch, NOT with an INTERPRETER, which didn't line up > what it printed with the columns (too large a font to do so), and couldn't > interpret and run COBOL anyway. > > Notice the punches used for the numbers. > The rows above '0' were called 'Y' and 'X' > Now look at the punches used for 'A' and 'B', and the relationship between > them. > Now look at 'K', and compare it with 'J', 'L', and 'B' > Now look at 'T', and compare it with 'S', 'U', 'B', and 'K' > Letters and numbers were a simple easy to learn pattern. I never fully > learned the patterns for punctuation characters, and had to often look them > up. > > The diagonally cut corner was not always on the left (incompletely > standardized) > > > There was another special purpose punch, called a "VERIFIER". > You loaded it up with cards that were already punched, and proceeded to type > from the same coding sheet. If the whole card matched, then it put a little > notch in the 80 end of the card, to show that its content was confirmed, or > "VERIFIED". If the content didn't match, then the VERIFIER put a notch in > the top edge of the card above the column that didn't match. > Sometimes service bureaus that were hired to keypunch would verify whole > boxes of blank cards. Then they could give their client decks of "VERIFIED" > cards, without having to actually rekey the content. Yes, we did run into > them. > > > Hanging Chad was a miscarriage of justice. > > > Bury me face down, 9 edge first. > > > -- > Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com It almost seems like it was a lot more physical not mental to run computers back in the day.
Re: What did computers without screens do?
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:55 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015, Mike wrote: >> The one question I do have for the older gentlemen on here is what in the >> world did the computers without a screen to look at do? Now I know about the >> tape, cassette tape's and even the paper with the hole punches in them but >> what kind of applications were they use for? Mathematics or? ? ? > > > I'll add my perspective. My first exposure to the use of computers came from > my father, who was a mechanical engineering professor at TU Eindhoven, doing > precision measurement. He used the university's computer (there was a single > computer serving most of the university's needs) to do analysis of the test > results. For example, one instrument was an interferometer, which would > measure positions in terms of wavelength (1/8th of the wavelength of a very > stable helium-neon laser). Those measurements were punched on paper tape by > custom hardware, along with temperature and humidity observations. The > software would read those numbers, adjust the measurements to account for > temperature (which changes both wavelength and the size of the test object) > and humidity (which affects wavelength). The results could be printed, but > often would be shown graphically using a plotter (drum plotter). > > A plotter is a pretty simple device, involving a pen that can move across > paper in X and Y directions, usually with stepper motors, and a solenoid to > raise or lower the pen. Some had multiple pens (different color or size). A > "flat bed" plotter has an X/Y carriage moving over a flat table on which the > paper is mounted. A drum plotter has a carriage for one axis moving along a > drum a few inches diameter, which transports paper (a long roll) in the other > direction. > > This stuff used the "THE" operating system, an early multi-process operating > system and the first to use rigorous design for correctness and clean > structure. User input was via paper tape, for programs and data; output > could be paper tape, line printer output, or plotter output. There were some > magnetic tapes as well, I'm not sure how those were used. The OS used a > magnetic drum (similar to a disk drive, older but for those days quite fast) > for virtual memory (code and data) and for buffering I/O data streams for > paper tape, printer, and plotter. > >paul > Thank you Paul for that reply I have learned more about the history in the short time I have been on here than I have if I would have spent 10 bagillion dollars in collage I'm just a busted up old welder now but I wet to collage for that and it was not cheap I could not even fathom what it would cost to have a teaching degree in computer science Again thank you very much for your input you a humble me greatly and I have the highest respect for all the pioneers of the computers rocky road some of you have went down.
Re: What did computers without screens do?
I am starting to think that the age of the PDP-8 is finally coming to
a close. The last bastion of PDP-8ness - controlling machine tools and
industrial processes - well, think about that. When was the last time
you *actually* *saw* a PDP-8 in production doing this? The US has very
little left in the way of machine shops. They have mostly all closed
up and moved to China, and the ones that survive do so because they
upgraded their machines so their productivity can trump the Chinese
currency imbalance.
I was at HGR recently, and asked about machine tools and PDP-8s, and
the salesman said it has been years since they have seen that stuff.
What is coming out now is basically 1980s technology, at the oldest.
Most of what they see is 1990s and 2000s.
Yes, there are probably a *very* few PDP-8s still out there, but I
think that population number is approaching single digits.
Here is a challenge - show me a real PDP-8 (or clone) still in active
service. I want real evidence, not hearsay. I think it would be great
if they were still out there, doing their thing, but I am very
skeptical.
--
Will
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
> And think of all the PDP-8s *still* buried in the control units of
> factories across the world. The majority of these machines had no
> displays, not even teleprinters. Some had custom controls wired in through
> stock or custom modules, and some had no more "UI" than the front panel
> ("set switches 2 and 3 to the 'on' position and press the 'run' key").
> Some didn't even have that - the stock 8/m was a turnkey system. The
> reasoning was the same as that behind the microcontroller replacing the
> 555: complex behavior could be modeled in software rather than intricate
> analog elements, and it was easy to change things if you needed to (e.g.,
> if you changed out an instrument or effector. -- Ian
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mike wrote:
>> >> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:34 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The subject brought up the thought of how many display-less computers
>> we encounter every day without giving it a thought. I think that probably
>> 100 would be a safe bet.
>> >> Looking over past this screen, I see my network hub, mouse, keyboard
>> and heaven knows how many display-less computers inside the actual shell of
>> my PC.
>> >
>> > if you think about it almost everything we touch has some kind of a
>> computer cycle! ! ! GREAT POINT!!!
>>
>> Even lighting... I've pulled (and reused!) 8-pin PIC microcontrollers
>> out of discarded emergency lighting. "In the old days", a switching
>> supply might have a 555 timer for an oscillator. These days, an 8-pin
>> uC is cheap ($0.75 or far less) and allows the behavior to be changed
>> without a soldering iron, or allows the hardware design to be
>> completed and sent out for manufacture before the software is
>> complete. If you want to change the frequency of a 555 oscillator,
>> you have to design in a potentiometer or remove and install different
>> value components. If you want to change the frequency of a uC
>> oscillator, you reprogram it (or if you have enough pins, design in
>> some removable jumpers).
>>
>> Short version is, even the cheap and simple 555 has been replaced in
>> many products with a cheap-as-or-cheaper-than microcontroller, not
>> because it's simpler, but because it allows for greater flexibility
>> and reduces the overall product cost.
>>
>> -ethan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
> The Information School
> Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
> Narrative Through a Design Lens
>
> Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal
> Value Sensitive Design Research Lab
>
> University of Washington
>
> There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Ross wrote: Maybe, but Selectrics aren't exactly fast devices; there's a whole lot of potential 'no, wait, I'm not ready!' conditions. Would they all be ORed onto one pin? possibly. It's been done that way before. That was my conclusion too. The old Western I/O ads I've seen definitely refer to it as having an 'ASCII' or 'parallel' interface. Assuming they only ever made the two models; I suppose it *could* be some variant of RS232, with very non-standard pinouts - but the ads are specific; they made a smart terminal with 6800 CPU & serial interface, and a dumb printer with an 'ASCII parallel' interface. And that's all I have to go on, beyond prodding the hardware. REMEMBER, "ASCII parallel" does NOT necessarily mean "centronics-style", as was used on TRS80, IBM PC, etc. "Centronics-style" was a good system, but it was NOT the only one. "ASCII parallel" could just as easily mean SEVEN bit, with a bit or two in each direction for handshaking. "ASCII" was SEVEN bits, not EIGHT. That would be well weird. Still trying to work out what exactly it was intended to hook up to; a standard parallel port with a special cable, There was a time, 35 years ago, when "standard parallel" was an oxymoron. leads, 7 lines... I'd expect to see 8 data lines all going to the same place if it was anything resembling standard Centronics but with a weird pinout. So I'm scratching my head still over just exactly what it was supposed to hook up to. something other than "Centronics"?
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Mike wrote: Thank you Paul for that reply I have learned more about the history in the short time I have been on here than I have if I would have spent 10 bagillion dollars in collage I'm just a busted up old welder now but I wet to collage for that and it was not cheap I could not even fathom what it would cost to have a teaching degree in computer science Currently, at community college or equivalent level, it requires a Masters degree, with some variations and exceptions. Universities want a PhD. 30 years ago, it required a Masters degree, or a Bachelors degree plus three years professional experienc, or an Associate degree plus six years of professional experience. It was a little easier to get into the field in those days. Again thank you very much for your input you a humble me greatly and I have the highest respect for all the pioneers of the computers rocky road some of you have went down. Yeah, but what a ride! -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: Re-inking printer ribbons
On 12/13/2015 10:17 AM, william degnan wrote: I have found that most vintage ribbons can be replaced with new ribbons for new devices. Worst case you may find the right width but you'll have to re-thread to fit the vintage spindle. Just have to match the width. I recently bought new ribbons for Decwriter II and TI Omni 810 without any problem. Bill I'm having this issue right now with a Panasonic printer. The black ink ribbons are still a dime/dozen. The 4-color ribbons are NLA from Panasonic and finding them is proving to get quite difficult. I'd be more than happy to re-thread a cartridge, but where does one find CMYK 1 inch fabric ribbon? -Jason
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On 12/14/2015 03:53 PM, Jay West wrote: In any case... early computers without screens weren't necessarily so "early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and test & measurement :) The IBM 1710 didn't have a screen; neither did the 1800. Personally, I think the world is GUI-addicted. --Chuck
Re: CBM 1541 drive faults
If you need 6522 chip(s) please contact me off-list - I have more than I need, would be happy to pass one along to a needy drive.. On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:32 PM, dwight wrote: > > Do remember when ordering 2114's that these are all NOS units > and just about as likely to be bad as the ones in your unit. > I don't know of any surplus place that has the ability to test them. > Most any of the places that I've dealt with will replace bad ones > but if dealing by mail order, it may not be worth the hassle. > Order a few extras. > Dwight >
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Ross wrote: >> That was my conclusion too. The old Western I/O ads I've seen >> definitely refer to it as having an 'ASCII' or 'parallel' interface. >> Assuming they only ever made the two models; I suppose it *could* be >> some variant of RS232, with very non-standard pinouts - but the ads >> are specific; they made a smart terminal with 6800 CPU & serial >> interface, and a dumb printer with an 'ASCII parallel' interface. And >> that's all I have to go on, beyond prodding the hardware. > > > REMEMBER, "ASCII parallel" does NOT necessarily mean "centronics-style", as > was used on TRS80, IBM PC, etc. "Centronics-style" was a good system, but > it was NOT the only one. > "ASCII parallel" could just as easily mean SEVEN bit, with a bit or two in > each direction for handshaking. "ASCII" was SEVEN bits, not EIGHT. I guessed that might be the case... any suggestions for what were common pinouts and signals used? I can analyze 'backwards', testing possible suggestions, as fast or faster than I can do it 'forwards', trying to recreate a schematic from examination of the hardware. It sounds a lot like what we have here. But I'm not certain a modern standard parallel port can ever be trivially adapted to drive this thing... > There was a time, 35 years ago, when "standard parallel" was an oxymoron. > >> leads, 7 lines... I'd expect to see 8 data lines all going to the same >> place if it was anything resembling standard Centronics but with a >> weird pinout. So I'm scratching my head still over just exactly what >> it was supposed to hook up to. > > > something other than "Centronics"? I thought Centronics dated back to early 1970s - not always in the standard 'modern' form, but in general principles with same signaling and strobing of data. Thanks for input! Mike http://www.corestore.org 'No greater love hath a man than he lay down his life for his brother. Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame. For one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see.'
Re: Display-less computing
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Mike wrote: > > ... >> >> At >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:Blue-punch-card-front-horiz.png >> is a picture of a card. It was punched with a printing punch, or run >> through a 029 series interpreter punch, NOT with an INTERPRETER, which >> didn't line up what it printed with the columns (too large a font to do so), >> and couldn't interpret and run COBOL anyway. >> >> Notice the punches used for the numbers. >> The rows above '0' were called 'Y' and 'X' I've only ever seen them called "12" and "11" for the top and next rows respectively. For example, the card code listing on the IBM 360 "green card" shows them that way (e.g., A is 12-1). paul
Re: What did computers without screens do?
> The IBM 1710 didn't have a screen; neither did the 1800. It was an option on the 1800, using a cheap TV. I have docs (not much) for it. -- Will
Re: PDP 11/05 S vs 11/05 NC
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Mattis Lind wrote: > 2015-12-14 17:12 GMT+01:00 william degnan : > > > Just to change the subject.. > > > > There were "S" and an "NC" version of 11/05 high profile system. Why? > > > > I am curious if any DEC historians here know the reason for two versions > of > > the same DEC PDP 11/05 *high profile* computer (not talking about the low > > profile).There are separate manuals for each type. > > > > Age? The NC (and ND if you are in 230VAC area) are in the BA11-D chassis > which uses the H750 PSU. The same chassis was used by for example 11/35. > The H750 PSU has partly the same assemblies as the low PDP-11/05 chassis > and then also a H744. The memory system is somewhat different in that the > H214 is 8kW and the H217 is 16kW and the former is used in the NC/ND while > the S uses the latter. > > But of course there can be all sorts of other reasons as well. > > /Mattis > > > > Yes I did know that power supplies and RAM are different within the two versions, being that have both types of 11/05. That's what prompted my question - *why* did they make these two versions of the high-profile 11/05? What was one used for vs. the other? *Why did DEC do this*? It is simply that as long as the box had the M7260/M7261 CPU cards it was an "11/05"? (or 11/10) Those of you who knew DEC back then may have a perspective I don't on the subject. Seems to me that they did not care, they just used what they had available. -- Bill
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Ross wrote: I thought Centronics dated back to early 1970s - not always in the standard 'modern' form, but in general principles with same signaling and strobing of data. I got in late. My first encounter with Centronics was TRS80 (1979?) At that time, Centronics did not yet have a monopoly on parallel "protocols", although the company had certainly been around for a while. Once they got the TRS80 market, and then the IBM PC market, any other designs faded away fast.
Re: CBM 1541 drive faults
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:32 PM, dwight wrote: > Do remember when ordering 2114's that these are all NOS units > and just about as likely to be bad as the ones in your unit. Too true. NOS doesn't mean it's working. > I don't know of any surplus place that has the ability to test them. Or the interestg. > Most any of the places that I've dealt with will replace bad ones > but if dealing by mail order, it may not be worth the hassle. > Order a few extras. That reminds me, I need to make a quickie little microcontroller-based 2114 tester. I have tubes of the chips (NOS from 1982 - we used them in the COMBOARD 1) and no confidence of which ones work and which ones do not. I'm sure 98% or more work. Which 98% is the question. It's not hard to make one with a <$10 microcontroller. It's just a question of sitting down and building it. -ethan
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On 12/14/2015 06:15 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: I got in late. My first encounter with Centronics was TRS80 (1979?) At that time, Centronics did not yet have a monopoly on parallel "protocols", although the company had certainly been around for a while. Once they got the TRS80 market, and then the IBM PC market, any other designs faded away fast. The other common interface was the Dataproducts--IMOHO, a much better one. The usual DP connector was a 4-row job (I don't know what the connector part number was), but DC-37 was also an option. I think DP used 220/330 termination on lines, where Centronics was a simple 1K pullup. There were also differences in signalling--DP has both "ready" and and "online" signals. When I first encountered the Centronics, I thought that it required OC drivers, but apparently totem-pole was good enough for IBM, something which surprised me. Most medium-sized line printers around 1980 could be configured for either interface. Otherwise, converters could be purchased inexpensively. --Chuck
Re: Mystery IC: Allen Bradley 314B102
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, Mike Ross wrote: >> >> I thought Centronics dated back to early 1970s - not always in the >> standard 'modern' form, but in general principles with same signaling >> and strobing of data. > > I got in late. My first encounter with Centronics was TRS80 (1979?) > At that time, Centronics did not yet have a monopoly on parallel > "protocols", although the company had certainly been around for a while. My first experience was in the mid-1980s. Someone gave me an ancient tank of a Centronics-brand printer - 132 columns and 2 print heads! One head got the left side of the paper, the other head got the right side. Unlike the later "Centronics Interface", this one had an internal edge connector for input - 40 or 44 pins (I used a standard 44-pin protoboard but I can't remember if I had to cut it down or not) I interfaced it to the user port on my Commodore 64 and wrote my own handler to trap device #4 and squirt out the data through the user port. > Once they got the TRS80 market, and then the IBM PC market, any other > designs faded away fast. Yep. About the only exceptions I can think of are the Amiga 1000 (proprietary but similar parallel port pinout on a DB25M) and DEC minicomputers which leaned towards the Dataproducts-type interfaces that required a gate or two (and probably a cable pin swabber) to talk to "modern" Centronics printers - one example was the DC37 on the back of a VAX-11/730... you had to add somewhere between 1-3 inverters to make that talk "Centronics" but once you did, you could just tell the VMS line printer process to squirt chars out the parallel interface and it would "just work". -ethan
Re: What did computers without screens do?
On 12/14/2015 08:21 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > On 12/14/2015 03:53 PM, Jay West wrote: > >> In any case... early computers without screens weren't necessarily so >> "early" in the scheme of things, and often did process control and >> test & measurement :) > > The IBM 1710 didn't have a screen; neither did the 1800. > > Personally, I think the world is GUI-addicted. > > --Chuck > Chuck If I may ask... What would you do with a home no screen computer? I mean what could be done with one that would benefit your work / hobby. I mean NO DISREPECT by asking this question.
Re: Identifying Data General (or DG-related) console/terminal/whatsit?
"Data General Alumni" lots of knowledge there. Original message From: Bruce Ray Date: 12/13/2015 7:09 PM (GMT-08:00) To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Subject: Re: Identifying Data General (or DG-related) console/terminal/whatsit? Not identifiable as DG product - 3rd-party custom (graphics?) console for client? (I can't read logo on bottom of console.) NOAA/NWS AFOS system had similar-looking system with interesting trackball/keyboard combination. Then there was GE Medical... Bruce Wild Hare Computer Systems, Inc. b...@wildharecomputers.com On 12/13/2015 5:22 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > Hi all -- > > A friend of mine is investigating picking up some DG hardware, and this > item: > > http://yahozna.dyndns.org/scratch/dg/dg%20console.jpg > > Is included along with the rest of it. I *know* I've seen something > like this somewhere but I can't find anything now that I need it :). Can > anyone identify this? > > Thanks, > - Josh
