Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10
And don't forget about the 25% buyer's premium! Wow From: cctalk on behalf of Ethan Dicks via cctalk Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 1:59 AM To: Paul Birkel; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10 On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:23 AM Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote: > Now consider a DSKY. Currently at $27,500.00. Auction estimate: $60,000+ I'd love to have a DSKY to fiddle around on, just for kicks, but my budget for a replica is a tiny fraction of that... -ethan
Re: Fujitsi 2444AC 9-track tape drive/PDP-11
Great, thank you to everyone! This is what I purchased... https://www.ebay.com/itm/171171330190 looks to be the right thing. I would have made it myself but I'd have to buy like 50 feet minimum of the ribbon plus connectors plus shipping plus my time. This seemed like a good compromise. From: cctalk on behalf of Glen Slick via cctalk Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 9:10 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Fujitsi 2444AC 9-track tape drive/PDP-11 On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:55 PM W2HX via cctalk wrote: > > Question to owners of the 2444AC. I have been looking to acquire the Emulex > QT13 but cannot find anything on ebay (I did miss one early on and wanted to > kick myself). Anyone have one available for purchase? > > Second question. The cable that I need to make here. Can anyone confirm I > need to female IDC connectors on each side? (the tape drive and the QT13 have > male pins)? > > Thanks That reminds me I need to check to see how many QT13 boards I currently have and see if I have one to spare. This picture shows the SUN configuration female D-shell connectors with ribbon cables running to the two 50-pin Pertec interface connectors on the cache controller board: http://w2hx.com/x/VintageComp/Fujitsu-2444AC/0306192310.jpg If you remove those 'A' and 'B' ribbon cables then you just need a pair of 50-pin cables with female IDC connectors on one side, and if you are using a QT13 then female IDC connectors on the other side as well. You need to check the connector pinout tables in the 2444AC manual against the QT13 manual to see which connector on the 2444AC goes to which connector on the QT13 so you don't get the cables crossed. I forget without checking the manuals myself.
Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10
You should talk to Carl as he’s created (or far along in the process) of a DSKY to interface to an actual AGC that’s being restored (there are a number of videos on-line of the restoration effort…mostly done by converting a hotel room into a lab). TTFN - Guy > On Apr 11, 2019, at 10:59 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:23 AM Paul Birkel via cctalk > wrote: >> Now consider a DSKY. Currently at $27,500.00. Auction estimate: $60,000+ > > I'd love to have a DSKY to fiddle around on, just for kicks, but my > budget for a replica is a tiny fraction of that... > > -ethan
Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10
It is funny that the fellow that is selling the DSKY may not have the legal right to sell it. It may technically belong to the trash company that collected the rest of the stuff. I'm a trash scrounger myself but there are differences with stuff no one cares about and things of value. Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:45 AM To: Ethan Dicks; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: Paul Birkel Subject: Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10 You should talk to Carl as he’s created (or far along in the process) of a DSKY to interface to an actual AGC that’s being restored (there are a number of videos on-line of the restoration effort…mostly done by converting a hotel room into a lab). TTFN - Guy > On Apr 11, 2019, at 10:59 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:23 AM Paul Birkel via cctalk > wrote: >> Now consider a DSKY. Currently at $27,500.00. Auction estimate: $60,000+ > > I'd love to have a DSKY to fiddle around on, just for kicks, but my > budget for a replica is a tiny fraction of that... > > -ethan
Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:01 AM dwight via cctalk wrote: > It is funny that the fellow that is selling the DSKY may not have the > legal right to sell it. It may technically belong to the trash company that > collected the rest of the stuff. > I'm a trash scrounger myself but there are differences with stuff no one > cares about and things of value. > It's likely more complicated than that given the amount of time that has passed. He may have had permission to retain it when the rest was dismantled, and title passes to the trash company once they remove the trash. Until then it's in a grey zone of semi-abandoned property with statutes of limitations for who may try to claw it back should some third party make off with it. This many years later, possession is more than 9/10th the law :) Warner > Dwight > > > From: cctalk on behalf of Guy Sotomayor > Jr via cctalk > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:45 AM > To: Ethan Dicks; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Cc: Paul Birkel > Subject: Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10 > > You should talk to Carl as he’s created (or far along in the process) of a > DSKY to interface to > an actual AGC that’s being restored (there are a number of videos on-line > of the restoration > effort…mostly done by converting a hotel room into a lab). > > TTFN - Guy > > > On Apr 11, 2019, at 10:59 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 1:23 AM Paul Birkel via cctalk > > wrote: > >> Now consider a DSKY. Currently at $27,500.00. Auction estimate: > $60,000+ > > > > I'd love to have a DSKY to fiddle around on, just for kicks, but my > > budget for a replica is a tiny fraction of that... > > > > -ethan > >
Interesting article in Spectrum about IBM's System/360
Building the System/360 Mainframe Nearly Destroyed IBM https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/building-the-system360-mainframe-nearly-destroyed-ibm
Re: Interesting article in Spectrum about IBM's System/360
The article says: Poughkeepsie’s engineers were close to completing work on a set of four > computers known as the 8000s that were compatible with the 7000s. AFAICT, that is totally wrong. The 8000 series was completely INCOMPATIBLE with any of the 7000 series machines. In fact, most of the 7000 series machines weren't even compatible with each other, though the 7040 and 7044 had partial compatibility with the 7090 and 7094. There are some 8000 documents on Bitsavers so you can see for yourself. http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/8000/ Had the 8000 series in fact been compatible with the 7090/7094, I suspect that Bob Evans might not have recommended killing them, as part of the rationale for killing them was the fact that they weren't compatible with anything, but I think Bob still would have recommended that IBM develop a broad line of compatible computers (but mostly incompatible with 7094 and 8000) to replace them. I only met Bob once in 2004 at CHM, and only got to talk with him for a few minutes, so I could be entirely wrong.
AGC DSKY auction / was Re: Control Console, but not PDP-10
On 2019-Apr-11, at 10:04 PM, Paul Birkel via cctalk wrote: > > Now consider a DSKY. Currently at $27,500.00. Auction estimate: $60,000+ > Great provenance! “The DSKY that saved Apollo 14.” > > https://www.rrauction.com/bidtracker_detail.cfm?IN=5222 I looked up this auction too, after Marc mentioned it in his latest AGC restoration video. But while looking up the current auction, an earlier auction showed up. The same auction house sold a DSKY in 2011 for 93K$. https://www.rrauction.com/past_auction_item.cfm?ID=3242600 (That 93K$ includes the buyer's premium, so the hammer price was presumably 74K$, for comparing to the current auction.) My sense is awareness of the AGC has gone up in the intervening years, so this sale will be interesting. I guess one could debate which one has a more 'valuable' provenance. One can only speculate what an entire AGC would go for.
Re: Interesting article in Spectrum about IBM's System/360
Building the System/360 Mainframe Nearly Destroyed IBM https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/building-the-system360-mainframe-nearly-destroyed-ibm It's an excerpt from a new book. I know the author. Very nice and smart guy who spent several decades at IBM.
Re: Interesting article in Spectrum about IBM's System/360
On 4/12/19 11:15 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > The article says: > > Poughkeepsie’s engineers were close to completing work on a set of four >> computers known as the 8000s that were compatible with the 7000s. > My tendency has been to consider 7000 xeries machines as transistorized 700 series. Certainly that applies in the case of the 7090. --Chuck
Re: Interesting article in Spectrum about IBM's System/360
On 04/12/2019 12:41 PM, Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk wrote: Building the System/360 Mainframe Nearly Destroyed IBM https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/building-the-system360-mainframe-nearly-destroyed-ibm Yup, they bet the company on a new product. it was a VERY well thought-out bet, but still a big reach. One area they really made a mistake on was software. They designed a really ambitious OS (OS/360 MFT) and then an even more ambitious version (OS/360 MVT) on a poorly thought-out timeline. Fred Brooks actually had a nervous breakdown over it, and maybe some other guys, too. Fred Brooks' "The mythical man month" is just too short, and doesn't have enough actual anecdotes, but is a good read anyway. At the time he wrote it, there were probably a bunch of stories that he couldn't yet tell. Also, the hardware was a huge leap. IBM went from building computers with all purchased components on single-sided paper-phenolic PC boards to making their own transistors and diodes and packaging them on little ceramic hybrid modules, and then putting those on 4-layer PC boards. They pioneered a LOT of packaging technology on the 360. The developed flip-chip bump-bonding of semiconductors, and were doing this almost 20 years before anybody else were doing this. But, of course, there would be growing pains with such development. The entire state of New York was a bustling beehive of computer manufacturing. They made disk and tape drives, printers, hand-assembled close to 20,000 mainframe CPUs plus all the controllers and memory, between 1965 and 1969. Totally mind boggling! Jon
Re: Interesting article in Spectrum about IBM's System/360
On 04/12/2019 04:14 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 4/12/19 11:15 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: The article says: Poughkeepsie’s engineers were close to completing work on a set of four computers known as the 8000s that were compatible with the 7000s. My tendency has been to consider 7000 xeries machines as transistorized 700 series. Certainly that applies in the case of the 7090. Well, to an extent. Yes, the 709x was able to run 709 programs, and had a few extensions. But, really, the hardware was VERY advanced. The 7094 was a real lightning fast machine, for the technology available at the time. In fact, it was faster than most of the 360 line that replaced it. But, the funny thing was, it didn't multitask well, and so you could only run one program at a time. And, spooling input and output to tapes slowed it badly (although not as badly as reading cards and printing directly would have). So, while fast, it didn't run efficiently. Slower 360's could keep busy by multiprocessing, and thus get more work done. Jon
Re: Fujitsi 2444AC 9-track tape drive/PDP-11
Hi Eugene, I found my Emulex boards, but found TU13s and not QT13s. I did not look at the S box boards. Then I found a few Cipher Data Products ( AKA Spectra Logic Products) 500A00s. I'm not sure what they are, but they look like re-branded Emulex with different handles. Did Dilog or anyone else make anything else that would work? Paul On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 9:37 AM W2HX via cctalk wrote: > Great, thank you to everyone! > This is what I purchased... > https://www.ebay.com/itm/171171330190 > > looks to be the right thing. I would have made it myself but I'd have to > buy like 50 feet minimum of the ribbon plus connectors plus shipping plus > my time. This seemed like a good compromise. > > > From: cctalk on behalf of Glen Slick via > cctalk > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 9:10 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Fujitsi 2444AC 9-track tape drive/PDP-11 > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:55 PM W2HX via cctalk > wrote: > > > > Question to owners of the 2444AC. I have been looking to acquire the > Emulex QT13 but cannot find anything on ebay (I did miss one early on and > wanted to kick myself). Anyone have one available for purchase? > > > > Second question. The cable that I need to make here. Can anyone confirm > I need to female IDC connectors on each side? (the tape drive and the QT13 > have male pins)? > > > > Thanks > > That reminds me I need to check to see how many QT13 boards I > currently have and see if I have one to spare. > > This picture shows the SUN configuration female D-shell connectors > with ribbon cables running to the two 50-pin Pertec interface > connectors on the cache controller board: > > http://w2hx.com/x/VintageComp/Fujitsu-2444AC/0306192310.jpg > > If you remove those 'A' and 'B' ribbon cables then you just need a > pair of 50-pin cables with female IDC connectors on one side, and if > you are using a QT13 then female IDC connectors on the other side as > well. > > You need to check the connector pinout tables in the 2444AC manual > against the QT13 manual to see which connector on the 2444AC goes to > which connector on the QT13 so you don't get the cables crossed. I > forget without checking the manuals myself. >
Re: Daisywhell typewriter emulating a TTY
Chuck, The Group Mark key was on later IBM 1620 Model 1 typewriters as well as the Model 2 Selectrics. See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2b1449zr6uqh6p/IBM_1620_Console_Typewriter.png?dl=0 The flagged numeric blank was accidentally left out of the print sample I made. Thanks, Dave On 4/10/2019 10:49 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Thanks, Dave. Was the group mark on the Model 2 typewriter keyboard? I don't recall it from the CADET. It was associated with the 1311 disk option anyway. How does one print a flagged numeric blank? (the "dump numeric" instruction prints it)? Thanks, Chuck On 4/10/19 10:10 PM, Dave Babcock via cctalk wrote: Sorry about the missing photos. Here's the keyboard: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oyxdpwi2mzz4kek/custom-keyboard.jpg?dl=0 Here's the printed output: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb7lzrlzygnnvhl/Console_Typewriter_Output.png?dl=0 Thanks, Dave On 4/10/2019 11:56 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Dave, I'd love to see the keyboard and printed output; unfortunately, the listserv strips out anything but test. Got a link? --Chuck On 4/10/19 11:14 AM, Dave Babcock via cctalk wrote: Chuck, True, the 1620 Model 1 Model B typewriter (1st gen). The 1620 Model 2 used a Selectric (2nd gen). We're using the 3rd generation IBM electric typewriter (Wheelwriter) with the 1620 Jr. (3rd gen 1620?). [I know it's a stretch.] The issue is that for Jr. we needed a reliable, robust, very low maintenance device. The IBM 1620 Jr. will be used by the CHM Education Department and needs to stand up to hands-on use without needed difficult & expensive maintenance. Here's the keyboard of our Wheelwriter-based IBM 1620 Jr. Console Typewriter: And here is the printed output: Note the slashed zero, flagged digits, and all of the 1620 special characters. :-) Thanks, Dave
Re: Daisywhell typewriter emulating a TTY
On 4/12/19 10:00 PM, Dave Babcock via cctalk wrote: > Chuck, > > The Group Mark key was on later IBM 1620 Model 1 typewriters as well as > the Model 2 Selectrics. > > See: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2b1449zr6uqh6p/IBM_1620_Console_Typewriter.png?dl=0 > > > The flagged numeric blank was accidentally left out of the print sample > I made. > > Thanks, > Dave Thanks for that--I guess the CADETs that I fooled with way back when didn't have the group mark on the typewriter keyboard. Didn't matter much, as I mostly used cards, which allowed for some additional bit patterns (e.g. 821 for a record mark). I could see Dijstra's gripes with the machine--characters that you can only move, not test for or do arithmetic on. Characters that you could read, but not write. One thing that I never tried was to insert numeric blanks, record marks and group marks into the addition table and see what happened. Did you ever try that? Would you simply get an error stop if one of the non-numerics showed up in an addition? Egad, I haven't touched one of the things in something like 50 years and yet I can remember the numeric opcodes for much of it. It's amazing that the machines were as popular as they were. Ah, memories... --Chuck
