Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Mouse]

>>>   -spc (Wish the C standard committee had the balls to say "2's
>>>   complement all the way, and a physical bit pattern of all 0s is a
>>>   NULL pointer" ... )
>> As far as I'm concerned, this is different only in degree from `Wish
>> the C standard committee had the balls to say "Everything is x86".'.

> First off, can you supply a list of architectures that are NOT 2's
> complement integer math that are still made and in active use today?

> Second, are there any architectures still commercially available and
> used today where an all-zero bit pattern for an address *cannot* be
> used as NULL?

What's the relevance?  You think the C spec should tie itself to the
idiosyncracies of today's popular architectures?

> [3]   I only bring this up because you seem to be assuming my
>   position is "all the world's on x86"

No, I don't think that's your position.  I'm using that as a satirical
exaggeration of your position.  If I'd been writing this twenty years
ago, I would have written "VAX" instead, because that was the machine
widely assumed at the time.

>   And because of this, I checked some of your C code and I
>   noticed you used 0 and 1 as exit codes, which, pedantically
>   speaking, isn't portable.

%SYSTEM-W-NORMAL, normal successful completion.

My code makes no pretense to portability to all dialects of C.  (Well,
most of it; there might be a little that is supposed to be that
portable, but I can't think of anything offhand.)

Besides exit codes, I assume ints are relatively large (a significant
fraction of my code will explode badly on <32-bit ints) and that the
underlying system is basically Unix.  Some of it should work on
anything POSIX.  Relatively little of it will work on non-POSIX C
implementations.  Some of it even calls for NetBSD with my patches
applied (eg, anything depending on AF_TIMER sockets).

>   Yes, I'll admit this might be a low blow here ...

Perhaps.  But I don't see it as relevant.  It's a long way from "much
of my code is restricted to $CLASS_OF_ENVIRONMENTS" to "I think the C
standard should write off anything outside $CLASS_OF_ENVIRONMENTS".

/~\ 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

RE: MSI 6800

[Kip Koon]

Hi Brad,
I found these two links.  I hope they help.
< http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=732>
< http://www.hinkles.us/chuckbo/MSI-6800/index.htm>
Take care my friend.

Kip Koon
computer...@sc.rr.com
http://www.cocopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Kip_Koon


> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Brad H
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 10:31 AM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: MSI 6800
> 
> 
> 
> Hi there,
> I have acquired an MSI 6800 (SS50) computer and am trying to figure out how 
> to get it going.  I am reaching out everywhere hoping to
> find someone with knowledge of these as I have searched around extensively 
> and cannot find a manual.
> With a null modem cable connected to a PC I can get a response from the 
> computer by typing things or resetting it, but the output is
> garbled.  I know the baud rate but at present have no way to determine the 
> other settings like bit, parity, etc.
> Any help/advice would be appreciated!
> Brad
> Sent from my Samsung device

Re: C standards and committees (was Re: strangest systems I've sent email from)

[Mouse]

>> Most executables are not performance-critical enough for
>> dynamic-linker overhead to matter.  (For the few that are, or for
>> the few cases where lots are, yes, static linking can help.)
> I keep telling myself that whenever I launch Firefox after a reboot
> ...

Do you have reason to think dynamic-linker overhead is a perceptible
fraction of that delay?

>> [file formats and protocols]
> First off, the C standard mandates that the order of fields in a
> struct cannot be reordered,

Yes.  (I think this is a Bad Thing, but I can see why they did it.)

> so that just leaves padding and byte order to deal with.

And data type size.  (To pick a simple example, if your bytes are
nonets, you will have an interesting time generating an octet stream by
overlaying a struct onto a buffer.)

And alignment.  Not all protocols and file formats place every datatype
at naturally-aligned boundaries in the octet stream.

> Now, it may sound cavalier of me, but of the three compilers I use at
> work (gcc, clang, Solaris Sun Works thingy) I know how to get them to
> layout the structs exactly as I need them

Great.  ...for code that doesn't mind writing off portability to other,
including future, hardware and compilers.

I still don't see why you're citing "it works for my work environment"
as justification for "the C standard should write off anything else".

/~\ 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

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Liam Proven]

On 21 May 2016 at 07:14, Sean Conner  wrote:
>
>   Oh my!  I'm reading the manual for the C compiler for the Unisys 2200 [1]
> system and it's dated 2013!  And yes, it does appear to be a 36-bit non-byte
> addressable system.


And you can run the OS free of charge on high-end x86 kit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/31/free_x86_mainframes_for_all_virtual_mainframes_that_is/

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[William Donzelli]

>   Wow!

Unisys is still making new machines as well.

--
Will

RE: Best LCDs for retrocomputing - Was: Re: New *square* 1:1 26.5"LCD monitor 1920x1920

[Robert Jarratt]

I tried the Dell on my Rainbow, but unfortunately it did not work. Looks like I 
would need the scan doubler that was mentioned.

Regards

Rob

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rob Jarratt
> Sent: 17 May 2016 07:31
> To: Ian Finder ; General Discussion: On-Topic and
> Off-Topic Posts 
> Subject: RE: Best LCDs for retrocomputing - Was: Re: New *square* 1:1
> 26.5"LCD monitor 1920x1920
> 
> I’ll let you know in a few days when I get back home.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rob
> 
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> 
> From: Ian Finder
> Sent: 16 May 2016 23:48
> To: Jarratt RMA; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Best LCDs for retrocomputing - Was: Re: New *square* 1:1
> 26.5"LCD monitor 1920x1920
> 
> Addendum-
> 
> This thread  (http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=44692)  seems
> to indicate the 2007FP CAN do 15hkz on the VGA / RGB input... so maybe
> you're all good. Anyone here want to test?
> 
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ian Finder  wrote:
> This post: http://www.vcfed.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-16744.html
> Seems to indicate that the Rainbow is a 15khz sync signal, more akin to
> normal interlaced video- which I called out in my other post as being the
> one type of signal that doesn't always work for these displays.
> 
> You may find success using a GBS-8220 scan-doubler, (ebay, c. $28
> USD), perhaps with a sync-strainer circuit to feed the SoG signal to the Scan
> Doubler as composite sync, if it doesn't work directly with the 2007FP.
> 
> Curious to hear what you figure out.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Jarratt RMA
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> > On 16 May 2016 at 22:52 Adrian Graham
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 16/05/2016 20:13, "Ian Finder"  wrote:
> >
> > > I dunno if it's relevant or not, but my go-to LCD for retro
> >stuff is the
> > > Dell 2007FP-
> > > There was a panel lottery, some are TN, some IPS. Both are solid.
> > >
> > > They are 4:3, 1600x1200 native.
> > >
> > > They have DVI, VGA, Composite and S-Video inputs, and very
> >stellar
> > > scalers.
> >
> > In fact there was one available for ukp35 so it's now mine. I
> >remember  these
> > monitors from a few years ago at a customer that specialised in
> >video for
> > aeroplanes, I used one not quite daily but remember being irked at
> >the  time
> > that it was several button presses needed to get from VGA to DVI
> >input,
> > hahaha.
> >
> 
> 
> He had another one at that price (the last one apparently), so I have bagged
> that one. I tried my Viewsonic, which does SoG, on my Rainbow at the
> weekend, but that didn't work, perhaps this will. Even if it doesn't it will 
> still
> be a good second monitor for my everyday PC.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> --
>Ian Finder
>(206) 395-MIPS
>ian.fin...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
>Ian Finder
>(206) 395-MIPS
>ian.fin...@gmail.com

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Liam Proven]

On 21 May 2016 at 17:33, William Donzelli  wrote:
> Unisys is still making new machines as well.


Yes it is, but they are x86 boxes running an emulator.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/unisys_finally_weans_itself_off_cmos_chippery/

AFAIK only IBM is still making actual hardware mainframe processors.
The handful of other remaining vendors are all using software
emulation on generic x86 hardware. High-end hardware, sure, yes.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[William Donzelli]

Yes, I know - but so what? That is nothing new. The IBM 9370 line from
20-odd years ago was really an 801 inside, running S/370 in emulation.

--
Will

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Liam Proven  wrote:
> On 21 May 2016 at 17:33, William Donzelli  wrote:
>> Unisys is still making new machines as well.
>
>
> Yes it is, but they are x86 boxes running an emulator.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/unisys_finally_weans_itself_off_cmos_chippery/
>
> AFAIK only IBM is still making actual hardware mainframe processors.
> The handful of other remaining vendors are all using software
> emulation on generic x86 hardware. High-end hardware, sure, yes.
>
> --
> Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
> Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
> MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
> Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: C standards and committees (was Re: strangest systems I've sent email from)

[Guy Sotomayor Jr]

> On May 21, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Mouse  wrote:
> 
>>> Most executables are not performance-critical enough for
>>> dynamic-linker overhead to matter.  (For the few that are, or for
>>> the few cases where lots are, yes, static linking can help.)
>> I keep telling myself that whenever I launch Firefox after a reboot
>> ...
> 
> Do you have reason to think dynamic-linker overhead is a perceptible
> fraction of that delay?
> 
>>> [file formats and protocols]
>> First off, the C standard mandates that the order of fields in a
>> struct cannot be reordered,
> 
> Yes.  (I think this is a Bad Thing, but I can see why they did it.)

Given that C is a systems implementation language, how would you
define HW related data structures where the order of the fields is
critical (ie HW defines them).

> 
>> so that just leaves padding and byte order to deal with.
> 
> And data type size.  (To pick a simple example, if your bytes are
> nonets, you will have an interesting time generating an octet stream by
> overlaying a struct onto a buffer.)
> 
> And alignment.  Not all protocols and file formats place every datatype
> at naturally-aligned boundaries in the octet stream.

That’s why there are #pragmas and other compiler directives (i.e. “packed”)
to handle this.

> 
>> Now, it may sound cavalier of me, but of the three compilers I use at
>> work (gcc, clang, Solaris Sun Works thingy) I know how to get them to
>> layout the structs exactly as I need them
> 
> Great.  ...for code that doesn't mind writing off portability to other,
> including future, hardware and compilers.
> 
> I still don't see why you're citing "it works for my work environment"
> as justification for "the C standard should write off anything else”.

My biggest complaint about the C standard is that the order that bits
within a bit field are compiler defined.  This basically means that they
are completely unusable for anything that requires interoperability.

TTFN - Guy

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Liam Proven]

On 21 May 2016 at 17:58, William Donzelli  wrote:
> Yes, I know - but so what? That is nothing new. The IBM 9370 line from
> 20-odd years ago was really an 801 inside, running S/370 in emulation.


I thought it was noteworthy considering that this subthread originated
in discussion of how all contemporary processors conformed to certain
norms.

This example of one that doesn't -- a 36-bit processor which doesn't
use 2's complement and so on -- today exists only as a software
emulation on an underlying architecture that /does/ conform and which
thus doesn't really resemble the architecture being emulated.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Sean Caron]

On Sat, 21 May 2016, Liam Proven wrote:


On 21 May 2016 at 07:14, Sean Conner  wrote:


  Oh my!  I'm reading the manual for the C compiler for the Unisys 2200 [1]
system and it's dated 2013!  And yes, it does appear to be a 36-bit non-byte
addressable system.



And you can run the OS free of charge on high-end x86 kit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/31/free_x86_mainframes_for_all_virtual_mainframes_that_is/

--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)



Thanks for posting that. I read the Reg but not on "the reg" so that one 
missed me. Downloading now! Sounds like fun ;)


Best,

Sean

Re: ND-10 software - Re: Harris H800 Computer

[Mattis Lind]

2016-04-22 14:52 GMT+02:00 Tor Arntsen :

> On 21 April 2016 at 14:43, Mattis Lind  wrote:
>
> > PED2.DMK and DISK8.IMD is the same disk, but different ways of reading it
> > off the disk. I used both the standard PC-floppy and then also the
> > catweasel card. I tried the catweasel for some floppies that I had
> reading
> > trouble with.
> >
> > I am really interested in hearing more about your emulator!
> >
> > /Mattis
>
> Notis-calc (from floppy NDDISK33) runs fine, at least. I just had to
> install a version of ddbtables-d which has support for VT100 (the one
> which is on the floppy doesn't). I never got around to write a
> Tandberg terminal emulator.. but vt100 works fine in an xterm.
> As with every ND GUI program the help system is intuitive, fast, and
> useful. That spreadsheet is easy to use. I have never used notis-calc
> before, but it's so easy that I could as well use it instead of
> gnumeric.
>
> Screenshot: http://picpaste.com/notis-calc.png
> (trying an image service I haven't used before)
>
>

I have now added some 80 more floppies to download if you would like to
check.

http://www.datormuseum.se/documentation-software/norsk-data-floppy-disks

/Mattis

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Liam Proven]

On 21 May 2016 at 18:37, Sean Caron  wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>
>> On 21 May 2016 at 07:14, Sean Conner  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   Oh my!  I'm reading the manual for the C compiler for the Unisys 2200
>>> [1]
>>> system and it's dated 2013!  And yes, it does appear to be a 36-bit
>>> non-byte
>>> addressable system.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you can run the OS free of charge on high-end x86 kit:
>>
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/31/free_x86_mainframes_for_all_virtual_mainframes_that_is/
>>
>
> Thanks for posting that. I read the Reg but not on "the reg" so that one
> missed me. Downloading now! Sounds like fun ;)

Yes, I thought so, too. :-)

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)

DEC Rainbow 100B For Sale, Manchester, UK

[Robert Jarratt]

I have a DEC Rainbow 100B in the upright pedestal for sale. It comes with
128K of memory, a hard disk controller with hard disk cable, an RX50 drive
and the graphics option. It is just the base unit and the pedestal, there is
no keyboard, monitor or hard disk included. I collected this machine
recently and had to replace the shorted EMI filter on the input of the PSU
with something more modern, so it is a working machine.

 

When I have been given a machine for free that I can't keep, then I give it
away. In this case, this one cost me money to buy and repair, so this time I
am selling it. I would much prefer collection as it is quite large. If I
must ship it then so be it, but it may take me a while to find a suitable
box to ship it in, and I may have to add that to the cost.

 

Pictures here: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=FC758A5A91B91301!5858
 &authkey=!AC9g74Lag3CoW5k&ithint=folder%2cjpg

 

Looking for offers.

 

Regards

 

Rob

The RSTS riddle.

[Rod Smallwood]

Hi

 Further to my posts this morning I have one last hurdle to jump.

1.  I  have a  VAX with a TK70 attached and a TQK70 controller.

2.  The tape drive works just fine.

3.  Also on the VAX I have the correct tape (.TAP) image file for a 
RSTS/E V10 install tape.


4. I would like to copy the .tap file to the tape so as to end up with a 
bootable install tape.


5. I then power down the VAX and move the controller to an 11/83. (The 
drive is external with its own PSU)


6. Boot the install tape and go from there.

So suggestions please as to how to do  4.

Rod Smallwood

RE: The RSTS riddle.

[Robert Jarratt]

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
> Smallwood
> Sent: 21 May 2016 19:29
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> 
> Subject: The RSTS riddle.
> 
> Hi
> 
>   Further to my posts this morning I have one last hurdle to jump.
> 
> 1.  I  have a  VAX with a TK70 attached and a TQK70 controller.
> 
> 2.  The tape drive works just fine.
> 
> 3.  Also on the VAX I have the correct tape (.TAP) image file for a RSTS/E V10
> install tape.
> 
> 4. I would like to copy the .tap file to the tape so as to end up with a 
> bootable
> install tape.
> 
> 5. I then power down the VAX and move the controller to an 11/83. (The
> drive is external with its own PSU)
> 
> 6. Boot the install tape and go from there.
> 
> So suggestions please as to how to do  4.
> 

Assuming the tape needs to be ANSI formatted then I would mount the .TAP file 
under SIMH, copy the files to a simulated VAX, noting the order of storage. 
Then copy the files to the real VAX and copy the files in the same order to the 
real TK70. I think a long time ago I made a diagnostic tape in this way 
(possibly in reverse though, from real tape to virtual tape, can't quite 
remember now).

Regards

Rob

Re: The RSTS riddle.

[Rod Smallwood]

On 21/05/2016 19:56, Robert Jarratt wrote:



-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
Smallwood
Sent: 21 May 2016 19:29
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts

Subject: The RSTS riddle.

Hi

   Further to my posts this morning I have one last hurdle to jump.

1.  I  have a  VAX with a TK70 attached and a TQK70 controller.

2.  The tape drive works just fine.

3.  Also on the VAX I have the correct tape (.TAP) image file for a RSTS/E V10
install tape.

4. I would like to copy the .tap file to the tape so as to end up with a 
bootable
install tape.

5. I then power down the VAX and move the controller to an 11/83. (The
drive is external with its own PSU)

6. Boot the install tape and go from there.

So suggestions please as to how to do  4.


Assuming the tape needs to be ANSI formatted then I would mount the .TAP file 
under SIMH, copy the files to a simulated VAX, noting the order of storage. 
Then copy the files to the real VAX and copy the files in the same order to the 
real TK70. I think a long time ago I made a diagnostic tape in this way 
(possibly in reverse though, from real tape to virtual tape, can't quite 
remember now).

Regards

Rob



Thank you Rob.

  OK first interesting point.
SIMH knows about .TAP and real DEC systems don't

   Second point:
  The RSTS install tape is just a bunch of files.
 There's nothing requiring image copy to deal with funny file formats

  Third Point
There's no way to copy an image only files under any DEC operating 
system.

  Fourth Point
 
 If I had a RSTS system how would I make a backup copy of the install tape?



So its a SIMH route answer.

Regards
Rod
 

Re: The RSTS riddle.

[Al Kossow]

On 5/21/16 12:28 PM, Rod Smallwood wrote:

>   Third Point
> There's no way to copy an image only files under any DEC operating system.
> 
>   Fourth Point
>  
>  If I had a RSTS system how would I make a backup copy of the install 
> tape?
> 

you would use TPC, and you can convert between TAP and TPC

dealing with tape images is easier in the unix world
https://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/tapeutils/


from the "SIMH tape images to real tapes" thread on the simh mailing list
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/

>
> Googling around only seems to want to show me how to copy real tapes
> to images.  I need to copy a SIMH tape image to a real tape!
>
> I seem to recall SIMH including a utility for this...but I could be
> mistaken.
>
> I will need a utility that will run on VMS (VAX) as I need to use a
> TK50 to make a TK50. (Unless someone wants to doante a TK70.  )
>

I use vtapeutils to convert from the 4 byte record header format that
Simh uses to a 2 byte record header format:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/vtapeutils/

Then I use VMSTPC to copy this to a real tape:

http://decuslib.com/decus/vax86d/bnelson/vmstpc/

HP Draftmaster II 7596A: EPROM dumps needed, urgent :-(

[Martin Peters]

Hello,

the EPROMs are labeled 07595-18045 and 07595-18046.

Can anyone do a dump for me? It's really urgent. Our local hackerspace
wants to get rid of it, if there is no chance to get the Firmware again.

greetings,
Martin

RE: MSI 6800

[Brad H]

Thanks Kip!
I did manage to get it going. Turned out the switches for baud rate are not 
labelled accurately. It has a monitor called Weebug.. no idea how to operate 
it. :)  Hoping it's similar to SWTBUG, MIKBUG etc.
Brad

Sent from my Samsung device

 Original message 
From: Kip Koon  
Date: 2016-05-21  4:29 AM  (GMT-08:00) 
To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'" 
 
Subject: RE: MSI 6800 

Hi Brad,
I found these two links.  I hope they help.
< http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=732>
< http://www.hinkles.us/chuckbo/MSI-6800/index.htm>
Take care my friend.

Kip Koon
computer...@sc.rr.com
http://www.cocopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Kip_Koon


> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Brad H
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 10:31 AM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: MSI 6800
> 
> 
> 
> Hi there,
> I have acquired an MSI 6800 (SS50) computer and am trying to figure out how 
> to get it going.  I am reaching out everywhere hoping to
> find someone with knowledge of these as I have searched around extensively 
> and cannot find a manual.
> With a null modem cable connected to a PC I can get a response from the 
> computer by typing things or resetting it, but the output is
> garbled.  I know the baud rate but at present have no way to determine the 
> other settings like bit, parity, etc.
> Any help/advice would be appreciated!
> Brad
> Sent from my Samsung device

RE: MINC is going to Pete Turnbull (tony duell)

[Mark Matlock]

> I would hope whoever gets it is prepared to exchange information. There is no 
> software with my machine, of course.


Pete,
 Congrats! Once you pick up the system feel free to contact me about 
getting copies of the limited software I have for the MINC at this time. They 
are great systems to experiment with.

Mark Matlock

> 
> In case anyone is worried I am keeping 2 MINCs myself. One is an RL01-based
> one that I have pulled the CPU, RAM and Bootstrap cards from and hung it off
> a DW11-B (Unibus-Qbus interface) on a PDP11/45 (yes, that does work!). I've 
> not
> got the 11/45 running after the house move, but it is all there and sorting 
> it out
> is just a matter of time The other MINC is a MINC-23 (PDP11/23 CPU board),
> with an RX02. I am also keeping at least one of every MINC module I have 
> ever owned, including MNCAG (analogue preamplifier) and MNCTP 
> (thermocouple interface).

Tony,
Using a DW11-B to connect the MINC to a PDP-11/45 sounds fantastic! What a 
neat idea! I have all the MINC modules except the MNCTP thermocouple interface 
and the MNCAM analog mux. With the modified BDV11 I've been able to boot 11/03, 
11/23 and 11/73 CPUs. I run either RT-11 and RSX11M by changing MicroSD cards 
on the UC07 / SCSI2SD drives (configured as 4 150 MB drives). I understand some 
MINC-23s ran RSX and would love to find any drivers for RSX and the MINC 
modules.

Mark Matlock

Re: MINC is going to Pete Turnbull

[SPC]

Congratulations, Pete. I'd like to put some day my hands in one of these
but work and distance (Spain) make it complicated. Perhaps in some years
from now.

Kind Regards
Sergio

RE: MINC is going to Pete Turnbull (tony duell)

[tony duell]

> Using a DW11-B to connect the MINC to a PDP-11/45 sounds fantastic!

Believe-it-or-not I did it becuase I didn't have an RL11. I used the RLV11 in 
the 
MINC to interface to the RL01s. Yes, that does work. 

> What a neat idea! I have all the MINC modules except the MNCTP
> thermocouple interface and the MNCAM analog mux. With the modified

I think the MNCAM is the only one I am missing.
I have : MNCAD (ADC), MNCAA (DAC), MNCAG (preamplifier, MNCTP 
(Thermocouple amplifier), MNCDI (Digital Input), MNCDO (Digital
Output) and MNCKW (Clock). Are there others?


> BDV11 I've been able to boot 11/03, 11/23 and 11/73 CPUs. I run either
> RT-11 and RSX11M by changing MicroSD cards on the UC07 / SCSI2SD 
> drives (configured as 4 150 MB drives). I understand some MINC-23s ran
>  RSX and would love to find any drivers for RSX and the MINC modules.

The MINC is a standard Q-bus system. The backplane looks odd, but it's 
just Qbus with CD interconnect. I can't remember if there is CD interconnect
between the logic cards (in the right hand compartment with the silly notice
on top [1]) and the MINC modules, but there is certainly CD interconnect 
between the logic boards (the RLV11 needs it for one thing) and between
the MINC modules (that's how the clock gets to trigger the ADC and how
the mux and preamplifiers feed the ADC). The rear 2 connectors of each 
MINC module are normal Qbus AFAIK.

I've never seen RSX drivers for the MINC modules. There was a set of 
RT11 libraries, etc. 

-tony

Re: MINC is going to Pete Turnbull (tony duell)

[Ian S. King]

Hey Pete,

I have software and documentation, too.  I really like my MINC.  My machine
is RX02 based, but I have a SCSI adapter for it.  One of these days, I'm
going to get around to either putting a real SCSI drive or a SCSI-to-SD
adapter in it.

If you have the 11/03 version, you need the earlier version of the MINC
software.  The 11/23 version needs a later version of the software, because
of some changes in the instruction set - not all PDP-11 processors were
created equal!  And RT-11 will indeed run fine on these.

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:37 AM, tony duell 
wrote:

>
> > Using a DW11-B to connect the MINC to a PDP-11/45 sounds fantastic!
>
> Believe-it-or-not I did it becuase I didn't have an RL11. I used the RLV11
> in the
> MINC to interface to the RL01s. Yes, that does work.
>
> > What a neat idea! I have all the MINC modules except the MNCTP
> > thermocouple interface and the MNCAM analog mux. With the modified
>
> I think the MNCAM is the only one I am missing.
> I have : MNCAD (ADC), MNCAA (DAC), MNCAG (preamplifier, MNCTP
> (Thermocouple amplifier), MNCDI (Digital Input), MNCDO (Digital
> Output) and MNCKW (Clock). Are there others?
>
>
> > BDV11 I've been able to boot 11/03, 11/23 and 11/73 CPUs. I run either
> > RT-11 and RSX11M by changing MicroSD cards on the UC07 / SCSI2SD
> > drives (configured as 4 150 MB drives). I understand some MINC-23s ran
> >  RSX and would love to find any drivers for RSX and the MINC modules.
>
> The MINC is a standard Q-bus system. The backplane looks odd, but it's
> just Qbus with CD interconnect. I can't remember if there is CD
> interconnect
> between the logic cards (in the right hand compartment with the silly
> notice
> on top [1]) and the MINC modules, but there is certainly CD interconnect
> between the logic boards (the RLV11 needs it for one thing) and between
> the MINC modules (that's how the clock gets to trigger the ADC and how
> the mux and preamplifiers feed the ADC). The rear 2 connectors of each
> MINC module are normal Qbus AFAIK.
>
> I've never seen RSX drivers for the MINC modules. There was a set of
> RT11 libraries, etc.
>
> -tony
>



-- 
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: MINC is going to Pete Turnbull

[Dave Wade]

Sergio,

Lots of folks travel from UK to Spain with large vans and the rates are quite 
reasonable. I have just bought a house in Torrox near Malaga and have been 
looking at the oprions.

Dave
G4UGM

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of SPC
> Sent: 21 May 2016 13:04
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
> Subject: Re: MINC is going to Pete Turnbull
> 
> Congratulations, Pete. I'd like to put some day my hands in one of these but
> work and distance (Spain) make it complicated. Perhaps in some years from
> now.
> 
> Kind Regards
> Sergio

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great Mouse once stated:
> >>>   -spc (Wish the C standard committee had the balls to say "2's
> >>>   complement all the way, and a physical bit pattern of all 0s is a
> >>>   NULL pointer" ... )
> >> As far as I'm concerned, this is different only in degree from `Wish
> >> the C standard committee had the balls to say "Everything is x86".'.
> 
> > First off, can you supply a list of architectures that are NOT 2's
> > complement integer math that are still made and in active use today?
> 
> > Second, are there any architectures still commercially available and
> > used today where an all-zero bit pattern for an address *cannot* be
> > used as NULL?
> 
> What's the relevance?  You think the C spec should tie itself to the
> idiosyncracies of today's popular architectures?

  I'd wager that most C code is written *assuming* 2's complement and 0 NULL
pointers (and byte addressable, but I didn't ask for that 8-).  That the C
Standard is trying to cover sign-magnitude, 1's complement and 2's
complement leads to the darker, scarier, dangerous corners of C programming.

  I've been reading some interesting things on this.  

"Note that removing non-2's-complement from the standard would
completely ruin my stock response to all "what do you think of this
bit-twiddling extravaganza?" questions, which is to quickly confirm
that they don't work for 1s' complement negative numbers. As such
I'm either firmly against it or firmly in favour, but I'm not sure
which."

...

"[W]rite a VM with minimal bytecode and that uses 1s' complement
and/or sign-magnitude. Implement a GCC or LLVM backend for it if
either of them has nominal support for that, or a complete C
implementation if not. That both answers the question ("yes, I do
now know of a non-2's-complement implementation") and gives an
opportunity to file considered defect reports if the standard does
have oversights. If any of the defects is critical then it's
ammunition to mandate 2's complement in the next standard."


http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12276957/are-there-any-non-twos-complement-implementations-of-c?lq=1

  Personally, I would *love* to see such a compiler (and would actually use
it, just to see how biased existing code is).  From reading this
comp.lang.c++.moderated thread:


https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&hl=en#!topic/comp.lang.c++.moderated/gzwbsrZhix4

I'm not even sure 

size_t foo = (size_t)-1;

is legal, or even does what I expect it to do (namely---set foo to the
largest size_t value possible (pre C99).

  Now, I realize this is the Classic Computers Mailing list, which include
support for all those wnoderful odd-ball architectures of the past, but
really, in my research, I've found three sign-mangnitude based computers:

IBM 7090
Burroughs series A
PB 250

(the IBM 1620 was signed-magnitude, but decimal based, which the C standard
doesn't support.  And from what I understand, most sign-magnitude based
machines were decimal in nature, not binary, so they need tno apply)

and a slightly longer list of 1's complement machines:

Unisys 1100/2200
PDP-1  
LINC-8
PDP-12  (2's complement, but also included LINC-8 opcodes!)
CDC 160A
CDC 6000
Electrological EL-X1 and EL-X8

I won't bother with listing 2's complement architectures because the list
would be too long and not at all inclusive of all systems (but please, feel
free to add to the list of binary sign-magnitude and 1's complement
systems).  Of the 1's complement listed, only the Unisys is still in active
use with a non-trivial number of systems but not primarily emulated.

  To me, I see 2's complement as having "won the war" so to speak.  It is
far from "idiosyncratic." And any exotic architecture of tomorrow won't be
covered in the C standard becuase the C standard only covers three integer
math implementations:

signed magnitude
1's complement
2's complement

If tinary or qubit computers become popular enough to support C, the C
standard would have to be changed anyway.

  The initial C standard, C89, was a codification of *existing* practice,
and I'm sure IBM pressed to have the C standard support non-2's complement
so they could check off the "Standard C box."  Yes, Unisys has a C compiler
for the Unisys 2200 system and one that is fairly recent (2013).  But I
could not find out if it supported C99, much less C89.  I couldn't tell.  

  And yes, you can get a C compiler for a 6502.  They exist.  But the ones
I've seen aren't ANSI C (personally, I think one would be hard pressed to
*get* an ANSI C compiler for a 6502; it's a poor match) and thus, again,
aren't affected by what I'd like.

  I'm not even alone in this.  Again, for your reading pleasure:

Proposal for a Friendly Dialect of C

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great Mouse once stated:
> >>>   -spc (Wish the C standard committee had the balls to say "2's
> >>>   complement all the way, and a physical bit pattern of all 0s is a
> >>>   NULL pointer" ... )
> >> As far as I'm concerned, this is different only in degree from `Wish
> >> the C standard committee had the balls to say "Everything is x86".'.
> 
> > First off, can you supply a list of architectures that are NOT 2's
> > complement integer math that are still made and in active use today?
> 
> > Second, are there any architectures still commercially available and
> > used today where an all-zero bit pattern for an address *cannot* be
> > used as NULL?
> 
> What's the relevance?  You think the C spec should tie itself to the
> idiosyncracies of today's popular architectures?

  One more thing I forgot to mention:  Java integer ranges are 2's
complement, so it must assume 2's complement implementation.  I noticed that
Java is *also* available on the Unisys 2200, so either their implementation
of Java isn't quite kosher, or because the Unisys 2200 is emulated anyway,
they can "get by" with Java since the emulation of the Unisys is done on a
2's complement machine.

  -spc

Re: C standards and committees (was Re: strangest systems I've sent email from)

[Eric Smith]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr  wrote:
>> On May 21, 2016, at 4:33 AM, Mouse  wrote:
>>> First off, the C standard mandates that the order of fields in a
>>> struct cannot be reordered,
>> Yes.  (I think this is a Bad Thing, but I can see why they did it.)
> Given that C is a systems implementation language, how would you
> define HW related data structures where the order of the fields is
> critical (ie HW defines them).
[...]
> My biggest complaint about the C standard is that the order that bits
> within a bit field are compiler defined.  This basically means that they
> are completely unusable for anything that requires interoperability.

Agreed. It was a solved problem in Ada back in 1983, so I don't know
why the C committees couldn't have solved it in ANSI C in  1989, or
ISO C in 1990, 1995, 1999, or 2011.  Maybe the C committee is no
longer concerned with use of C for low-level systems programming?
(Though IMNSHO that's the only thing that it's even vaguely reasonable
for.)

Admittedly representation specifications are an *optional* part of
Ada, but any Ada compiler intended for systems programming use would
support them.

Re: The RSTS riddle.

[Paul Koning]

> On May 21, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Rod Smallwood  
> wrote:
>   Second point:
>  The RSTS install tape is just a bunch of files.
> There's nothing requiring image copy to deal with funny file formats

No, that is not accurate.  An install tape (for V9 or later) is a bootable tape 
with a backup set on it.  Bootable tapes have DOS labels, but backupsets have 
ANSI labels.  The install tape is a hybrid, part DOS, part ANSI.  I'd have to 
dig in the machinery to find the details, but I definitely remember that it's a 
rather odd beast.

If you do an image copy of the TAP file to tape none of this matters.

paul

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Eric Christopherson]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016, Mouse wrote:
> Also,
> PostScript has a lot of language syntax, whereas FORTH has immediate
> words that act like language syntax.  (The difference is that FORTH
> makes it possible to change those words, thereby changing the apparent
> syntax.)

What do you mean by that?

-- 
Eric Christopherson

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[ben]

On 5/21/2016 6:42 AM, Liam Proven wrote:

On 21 May 2016 at 07:14, Sean Conner  wrote:


  Oh my!  I'm reading the manual for the C compiler for the Unisys 2200 [1]
system and it's dated 2013!  And yes, it does appear to be a 36-bit non-byte
addressable system.



And you can run the OS free of charge on high-end x86 kit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/31/free_x86_mainframes_for_all_virtual_mainframes_that_is/



Strange how 36 bit computers have never left us. The real computers go 
to the US Goverment, and Windows goes to the UNWASHED MASSES.

I wonder how things would have changed if the PDP 11 was 18 bits?
Ben.

1's comp

[ben]

On 5/20/2016 7:19 PM, Sean Conner wrote:



Hehe, what is a long long? Yes, you are totally right. Still, I assert
that C is still the defacto most portable language on Earth. What other
language runs on as many OS's and CPUs ? None that I can think of.


  A long long is at least 64-bits long.


Only if you get rid of char pointers you are portable.
I like 1's compilent because it handles shifting properly.
using 1's compilment unsigned would be 1 bit less in size
not 1 bit more the C standard seems to make it.
Ben.

Re: 1's comp

[Toby Thain]

On 2016-05-21 10:26 PM, ben wrote:

On 5/20/2016 7:19 PM, Sean Conner wrote:



Hehe, what is a long long? Yes, you are totally right. Still, I assert
that C is still the defacto most portable language on Earth. What other
language runs on as many OS's and CPUs ? None that I can think of.


  A long long is at least 64-bits long.


Only if you get rid of char pointers you are portable.
I like 1's compilent because it handles shifting properly.
using 1's compilment unsigned would be 1 bit less in size
not 1 bit more the C standard seems to make it.


Don't underestimate the headache of handling two zeroes.

--Toby



Ben.

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[ben]

On 5/20/2016 2:58



[4] Say, a C compiler an 8088.  How big is a pointer?  How big of an
object can you point to?  How much code is involved with "p++"?


How come INTEL thought that 64 KB segments ample? I guess they only used
FLOATING point in the large time shared machines.
Ben.

Re: 1's comp

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great ben once stated:
> On 5/20/2016 7:19 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
> 
> >>
> >>Hehe, what is a long long? Yes, you are totally right. Still, I assert
> >>that C is still the defacto most portable language on Earth. What other
> >>language runs on as many OS's and CPUs ? None that I can think of.
> >
> >  A long long is at least 64-bits long.
> 
> Only if you get rid of char pointers you are portable.

  I don't understand this statement.

> I like 1's compilent because it handles shifting properly.

  Again, I'm not sure how this follows.  Right shifting signed quantities is
undefined because different CPUs handle it differently---some copy the sign
bit, some don't.  I don't see how being 1's complement fixes this.

  -spc

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Sean Conner]

It was thus said that the Great ben once stated:
> On 5/20/2016 2:58
> 
> >
> >[4]  Say, a C compiler an 8088.  How big is a pointer?  How big of an
> > object can you point to?  How much code is involved with "p++"?
> 
> How come INTEL thought that 64 KB segments ample? I guess they only used
> FLOATING point in the large time shared machines.

  The industry at the time was wanting larger CPUs than 8 bit.  Intel had an
existing 8-bit design, the 8080 and to fill demand, Intel had a few choices. 
It could break with any form of compatibility (object or source) and start
over with a clean slate [1].  Or they could keep some form of compatibility
and Intel went with (more or less) source compatibility.  You could
mechanically translate 8080 code into 8086 code with a high assurance it
would work, and thus customers of Intel could leverate the existing 8080
(and Z80) source base.

  And that's how you end up with a bizare segmented 16-bit architecture.

  -spc

[1] Motorola took this approach when making the 68000.  It's nothing at
all like the 6800.

Re: strangest systems I've sent email from

[Guy Sotomayor Jr]

> On May 21, 2016, at 7:34 PM, ben  wrote:
> 
> On 5/20/2016 2:58
> 
>> 
>> [4]  Say, a C compiler an 8088.  How big is a pointer?  How big of an
>>  object can you point to?  How much code is involved with "p++"?
> 
> How come INTEL thought that 64 KB segments ample? I guess they only used
> FLOATING point in the large time shared machines.

Because the 808x was a 16-bit processor with 1MB physical addressing.  I
would argue that for the time 808x was brilliant in that most other 16-bit
micros only allowed for 64KB physical.  If people wanted more they had to
add external hardware and the calling linkage became problematic (I know
because that’s what we did on the IBM S/23 Datamaster that used an 8085
and allowed for 192KB of ROM and 128KB of RAM).

Floating point was not common at the time in micros because of the number
of transistors/gates necessary for the implementation.  Intel added it as
a “coprocessor” in the 8087.  When I was at IBM we continually railed on
Intel to make floating point standard so that we could have code that
assumed floating point was always present. It finally happened with the
80486 but then Intel took it away again (sort-of) with the 486-SX which
was brilliant marketing by Intel…initially allowed them to sell “floor
swept” 486’s with non-functional floating point units…eventually their
process improved and more often than not 486-SX systems that had the 
floating point coprocessor actually had 2 fully functional 486 processors!

TTFN - Guy

Re: 1's comp

[Jon Elson]

On 05/21/2016 09:34 PM, Toby Thain wrote:

On 2016-05-21 10:26 PM, ben wrote:

On 5/20/2016 7:19 PM, Sean Conner wrote:



Hehe, what is a long long? Yes, you are totally right. 
Still, I assert
that C is still the defacto most portable language on 
Earth. What other
language runs on as many OS's and CPUs ? None that I 
can think of.


  A long long is at least 64-bits long.


Only if you get rid of char pointers you are portable.
I like 1's compilent because it handles shifting properly.
using 1's compilment unsigned would be 1 bit less in size
not 1 bit more the C standard seems to make it.


Don't underestimate the headache of handling two zeroes.

Right, on the LINC, if you compared positive zero to 
negative zero, it would not set the equals flag!
I have no idea how many tests had to be put in the code for 
that, but anyplace where the two values could be zero, you 
had to check for that special case.


Jon

Re: 1's comp

[ben]

On 5/21/2016 8:56 PM, Jon Elson wrote:

On 05/21/2016 09:34 PM, Toby Thain wrote:

On 2016-05-21 10:26 PM, ben wrote:

On 5/20/2016 7:19 PM, Sean Conner wrote:



Hehe, what is a long long? Yes, you are totally right. Still, I assert
that C is still the defacto most portable language on Earth. What
other
language runs on as many OS's and CPUs ? None that I can think of.


  A long long is at least 64-bits long.


Only if you get rid of char pointers you are portable.
I like 1's compilent because it handles shifting properly.
using 1's compilment unsigned would be 1 bit less in size
not 1 bit more the C standard seems to make it.


Don't underestimate the headache of handling two zeroes.


Right, on the LINC, if you compared positive zero to negative zero, it
would not set the equals flag!
I have no idea how many tests had to be put in the code for that, but
anyplace where the two values could be zero, you had to check for that
special case.

Jon


I favor TWO zeros over 2's compliment 0x80... 0 number that is always a 
minus.

0 and 1 for logic word size only.
The big thing is to know your hardware, one machine does not fit all.
Ben.

Making MAINDEC paper tapes with a 33 ASR

[Charles Dickman]

I need to make some paper tapes of the diagnostics for my PDP-8/e. I
built an RS232/current loop interface and have it working I think

Did anyone else notice that the standard cable to connect  the M8655
to a tty uses shielded twisted pair cable, but doesn't have the signal
pairs in the twisted pairs? This same cable is used with the DL11 too.

-chuck

Re: 1's comp

[Toby Thain]

On 2016-05-21 10:56 PM, Jon Elson wrote:

On 05/21/2016 09:34 PM, Toby Thain wrote:

On 2016-05-21 10:26 PM, ben wrote:

On 5/20/2016 7:19 PM, Sean Conner wrote:



Hehe, what is a long long? Yes, you are totally right. Still, I assert
that C is still the defacto most portable language on Earth. What
other
language runs on as many OS's and CPUs ? None that I can think of.


  A long long is at least 64-bits long.


Only if you get rid of char pointers you are portable.
I like 1's compilent because it handles shifting properly.
using 1's compilment unsigned would be 1 bit less in size
not 1 bit more the C standard seems to make it.


Don't underestimate the headache of handling two zeroes.


Right, on the LINC, if you compared positive zero to negative zero, it
would not set the equals flag!
I have no idea how many tests had to be put in the code for that, but
anyplace where the two values could be zero, you had to check for that
special case.


The Grishman book[1] gave me the impression that this was challenging on 
the CDC 6x00 as well.


[1] http://ygdes.com/CDC/Grishman_CDC6000AsmLangPgmg.pdf

--Toby




Jon

Re: Hamvention

[Jerry Weiss]

I saw one Altair 8800 and one TRS-80 III out in the swap fest.  Some more 
recent power (5?) series, but that’s about it.

Jerry WB9MRI  


> On May 20, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Alex McWhirter  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone spot anything list related at hamvention? I'm around trying to find 
> anything cool. Particularly sun and ibm stuff.
> 
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

Re: The RSTS riddle.

[Rod Smallwood]

On 22/05/2016 02:25, Paul Koning wrote:

On May 21, 2016, at 3:28 PM, Rod Smallwood  
wrote:
   Second point:
  The RSTS install tape is just a bunch of files.
 There's nothing requiring image copy to deal with funny file formats

No, that is not accurate.  An install tape (for V9 or later) is a bootable tape 
with a backup set on it.  Bootable tapes have DOS labels, but backupsets have 
ANSI labels.  The install tape is a hybrid, part DOS, part ANSI.  I'd have to 
dig in the machinery to find the details, but I definitely remember that it's a 
rather odd beast.

If you do an image copy of the TAP file to tape none of this matters.

paul

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. So how do I make the image copy to 
tape.
I am none to clever. Besides being told what to do I need to know how to 
do it.

Rod

Re: Hamvention

[Brian Marstella]

After Alex mentioned it, I'd thought about driving up if anyone saw
anything of interest, but sounds like there isn't a great deal to pick from
for older computers. I really can't justify the drive anyway, this year...

Brian KI4GTD

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Jerry Weiss  wrote:

> I saw one Altair 8800 and one TRS-80 III out in the swap fest.  Some more
> recent power (5?) series, but that’s about it.
>
> Jerry WB9MRI
>
>
> > On May 20, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Alex McWhirter 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone spot anything list related at hamvention? I'm around trying to
> find anything cool. Particularly sun and ibm stuff.
> >
> > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>

RE: HP Draftmaster II 7596A: EPROM dumps needed, urgent :-(

[David Collins]

Martin, I might be able to help you as I think we have a 7596A.

Are these EPROMs from the processor PCA?  Are you able to tell me which 'U'
numbers they are in the PC board? 

I haven't looked at the plotter itself, but the service manual we have shows
the following part numbers for the processor PCA 

07595-18039
07595-18040
07595-18041
07595-18042

So I'm not sure if my manual is old and the plotters at that time had 4
EPROMs and yours is newer and has 2? Or are they on another PCA somewhere?

Let me know. 

If the plotter we have is in the main museum facility I can possibly help
you, I will check. 

David Collins
Curator
HP Computer Museum.  

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Martin
Peters
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2016 7:21 AM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: HP Draftmaster II 7596A: EPROM dumps needed, urgent :-(

Hello,

the EPROMs are labeled 07595-18045 and 07595-18046.

Can anyone do a dump for me? It's really urgent. Our local hackerspace wants
to get rid of it, if there is no chance to get the Firmware again.

greetings,
Martin