On 10/31/2016 10:20 PM, Sam O'nella wrote:
> Out of curiosity, since I've never done this either but have heard
> most folks suggest it. How do you seal the newly made jacket? Is it
> not necessary or folks using scotch tape?
It's not really necessary, but use tape if it makes you feel better. I
On 10/31/16 10:20 PM, Sam O'nella wrote:
> How do you seal the newly made jacket?
It's not necessary
Out of curiosity, since I've never done this either but have heard most folks
suggest it. How do you seal the newly made jacket? Is it not necessary or folks
using scotch tape?
I have thousands of NOS chips here that i hope to finish going through. I
have no idea how many bus transceivers are in there. These were intended
for projects I don't know if I'll ever get around to.
There are a lot of NOS out there at a variety of prices. The common 74xx
are mostly there and fai
On 10/31/2016 01:04 PM, Pete Lancashire wrote:
Over the years I've played around with a few old CAMAC (*) modules, by
today's standard they pretty much have zero value, anyway that's another
story.
Well, actually, there are still a fair amount of CAMAC
modules used in various research labs.
On 10/31/2016 5:22 PM, Brian Marstella wrote:
Pete,
Regards, Brian.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Pete Lancashire
wrote:
Over the years I've played around with a few old CAMAC (*) modules, by
today's standard they pretty much have zero value, anyway that's another
story. Recently
I've
On 10/31/2016 12:41 PM, allison wrote:
On 10/31/16 3:26 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 31, 2016, at 2:58 PM, jim stephens wrote:
If you cared about not erasing the drive manufacture's data on
sealed media Winchester and the like you have to avoid any writes to
cylinder 0 at all.
The drive
Pete,
I think I might have a few Kinetic CAMAC brochures and user manuals. I'll
have to dig around but if you don't have another source, maybe I can scan
them. We had a 2 large crates in our testing lab that I kick myself for not
taking. I had no use for them but it's still some interesting hardwa
If you cared about not erasing the drive manufacture's data on sealed
media Winchester and the like you have to avoid any writes to cylinder 0
at all.
On a floppy?
It might not be relevant HERE, but SOME computers have a different
physical format on track 0 (such as systems that evolved from
On 10/31/16 3:08 PM, Vincent Slyngstad wrote:
> Isn't there some weird crap in track 0 on DECmate RX01s
It is IBM 3740 table of contents information.
GA21-9182-5_Diskette_General_Information_Manual_Jul80.pdf for the details
On 31/10/2016 23:14, "drlegendre ." wrote:
> "Hence the question - am I wasting my time without a schematic for this
> analogue board?"
>
> Might be helpful if you mentioned exactly what is or isn't wrong with the
> unit.. describe the symptom(s), etc.
I thought I'd ask before ploughing on with
On 31/10/2016 22:22, "Peter Coghlan" wrote:
>>
>> Before I replaced the failed potentiometer (new one seen top left) the
>> display looked like its horizonal hold had gone so I reasoned that's what
>> the pot controlled. I can *nearly* get a steady picture but the brightness
>> is out as well, d
On 31/10/2016 22:29, "tony duell" wrote:
>
>> Before I replaced the failed potentiometer (new one seen top left) the
>> display looked like its horizonal hold had gone so I reasoned that's what
>
> OK... The TDA1180 is the horizontal oscillator, etc, IC. It's well-known.
>
> Start by getting i
"Hence the question - am I wasting my time without a schematic for this
analogue board?"
Might be helpful if you mentioned exactly what is or isn't wrong with the
unit.. describe the symptom(s), etc.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Adrian Graham wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I think I know the answer to
> From: Don North
> Track 0 is not used by standard DEC software
I wonder why DEC did't use track 0. The thing is small enough (256KB in the
original single-density) that even 1% is a good chunk to throw away. Does
anyone know? (I had a look online, but couldn't turn anything up.)
Isn't t
In a message dated 10/31/2016 2:31:02 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
tmfdm...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, william degnan
wrote:
>>
>> Find a copy of the PDP-11 systems handbook! Say 1978, 80 and 82
versions
>> and
>> see the difference. Never mind the Unibus, Q
> Before I replaced the failed potentiometer (new one seen top left) the
> display looked like its horizonal hold had gone so I reasoned that's what
OK... The TDA1180 is the horizontal oscillator, etc, IC. It's well-known.
Start by getting its data sheet. Indentify the horizontal oscillator comp
>
> Before I replaced the failed potentiometer (new one seen top left) the
> display looked like its horizonal hold had gone so I reasoned that's what
> the pot controlled. I can *nearly* get a steady picture but the brightness
> is out as well, despite there being working pots for that and contras
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:15 AM, william degnan wrote:
>>
>> Find a copy of the PDP-11 systems handbook! Say 1978, 80 and 82 versions
>> and
>> see the difference. Never mind the Unibus, Qbus, PRO, and PDT flavors.
>>
>>
>> Allison
>>
>>> thanks Ed Sharpe _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org
>
> Find a copy of the PDP-11 systems handbook! Say 1978, 80 and 82 versions
> and
> see the difference. Never mind the Unibus, Qbus, PRO, and PDT flavors.
>
>
> Allison
>
>> thanks Ed Sharpe _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)
>>
>>
>>
Here is a thread I posted on my site, with link to th
In a message dated 10/31/2016 1:41:28 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes:
> From: Ed Sharpe
> I wonder if the pdp-11 was just called pdp-11 at t that point or was a
> pdp-11/20 like we have
Others have better info on this than me...
> at this time point they
In a message dated 10/31/2016 1:58:29 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
ajp...@verizon.net writes:
> ...
> I wonder if the pdp-11 was just called pdp-11 at t that point or
> was a pdp-11/20 like we have..
At that time PDP-11 was a general architecture name and 11/mumble was a
sp
On 10/31/16 3:29 PM, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/31/2016 6:36:17 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes:
From: Ed Sharpe
was Unix or C the one developed on the 11/20?
Both. Unix Version 1 was written in PDP-11 assembler, for the -11/20;
although
On 10/31/16 3:26 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 31, 2016, at 2:58 PM, jim stephens wrote:
If you cared about not erasing the drive manufacture's data on sealed media
Winchester and the like you have to avoid any writes to cylinder 0 at all.
The drive formatting software could read that cylinde
Over the years I've played around with a few old CAMAC (*) modules, by
today's standard they pretty much have zero value, anyway that's another
story. Recently
I've been offered a CAMAC to Unibus board. A Kinetic 3912 Unibus Crate
Controller .
A Crate in CAMAC speak is just a chassis with a backpla
On 10/31/16 2:58 PM, jim stephens wrote:
On 10/30/2016 4:24 PM, Don North wrote:
On 10/30/2016 5:47 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Don North
> .. the hardware bootstrap reads track 1 sectors 1, 3, 5, 7
Ah, thanks for that. Starting to look at the code, I had missed the
interleav
On 31/10/2016 20:51, "tony duell" wrote:
>
>> My recent Executel addition has a 5" screen with associated analogue board
>> that seems to be powered from a display chip I can't find any info on, and
>
> Well, it won't be _powered_ from that IC. My guess is that said IC provides
> the HSync and
> From: Ed Sharpe
> I wonder if the pdp-11 was just called pdp-11 at t that point or was a
> pdp-11/20 like we have
Others have better info on this than me...
> at this time point they got their PDP 11 what did it say on the front
> panel I wonder?
I'm going to _guess_ that
In a message dated 10/31/2016 12:36:35 P.M. US Mountain Standard Tim,
isk...@uw.edu writes:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:29 PM, wrote:
>
> ...
> I wonder if the pdp-11 was just called pdp-11 at t that point or
> was a pdp-11/20 like we have..
> I know they are essentially the
> My recent Executel addition has a 5" screen with associated analogue board
> that seems to be powered from a display chip I can't find any info on, and
Well, it won't be _powered_ from that IC. My guess is that said IC provides
the HSync and VSync signals, the video comes from other devices on
Folks,
I think I know the answer to this before I even ask, and that answer will be
'got a schematic' to which the answer's 'no and I doubt one exists any more'
but...
My recent Executel addition has a 5" screen with associated analogue board
that seems to be powered from a display chip I can't f
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
> I think we had this discussion a while back, but I know that my 11/20 just
> says 'PDP-11' on the front panel. I've also seen them with '11/20', which
> is almost certainly a later naming as the -11 line grew.
Yes. Mine says "11/20" and has
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:29 PM, wrote:
>
> ...
> I wonder if the pdp-11 was just called pdp-11 at t that point or
> was a pdp-11/20 like we have..
> I know they are essentially the same at this time point they got
> their PDP 11 what did it say on the front panel I wonder
In a message dated 10/31/2016 6:36:17 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu writes:
> From: Ed Sharpe
> was Unix or C the one developed on the 11/20?
Both. Unix Version 1 was written in PDP-11 assembler, for the -11/20;
although that was a re-write of an earlier version
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 2:58 PM, jim stephens wrote:
>
> If you cared about not erasing the drive manufacture's data on sealed media
> Winchester and the like you have to avoid any writes to cylinder 0 at all.
>
> The drive formatting software could read that cylinder track 0 for a defect
> map
Hi All,
I had the pleasure of visiting Rick yesterday. Please see below
additional information about remaining items, with links to photos.
Please contact Rick directly if interested.
Original posting here:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:44:39AM +, steven stengel wrote:
> ---
On 10/30/2016 4:24 PM, Don North wrote:
On 10/30/2016 5:47 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Don North
> .. the hardware bootstrap reads track 1 sectors 1, 3, 5, 7
Ah, thanks for that. Starting to look at the code, I had missed the
interleave.
So does DEC do anything with track 0,
On 2016-10-31 09:16, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:11 AM, emanuel stiebler wrote:
On 2016-10-31 08:48, Ethan Dicks wrote:
One of the great recent updates was backporting the MSCP driver from
2.11 to 2.9. That opens up KDF11 MicroPDP-11s to running 2.9 with an
RQDX3. Prior to
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mike Ross wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:09 AM, william degnan wrote:
>> *For sale 128K Core RAM Industrial PDP 11/40 Massbus System*
>>
>> *Ebay:* 272432268291
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/-/272432268291?
>>
>> $1.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Unix? Probably a com
V7 runs on an 11/34. It's pretty tight, but it will fit on two RK05s
as / and /usr. That was the first Unix machine I used at UW-Milw
circa 1978.
Mini-Unix (version of V6) ran on an 11 w/o an MMU
On 10/30/16 11:09 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
> I've run 6th Edition on an 11/34.
>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:11 AM, emanuel stiebler wrote:
> On 2016-10-31 08:48, Ethan Dicks wrote:
>
>> One of the great recent updates was backporting the MSCP driver from
>> 2.11 to 2.9. That opens up KDF11 MicroPDP-11s to running 2.9 with an
>> RQDX3. Prior to that availability, one needed a
On 2016-10-31 08:48, Ethan Dicks wrote:
One of the great recent updates was backporting the MSCP driver from
2.11 to 2.9. That opens up KDF11 MicroPDP-11s to running 2.9 with an
RQDX3. Prior to that availability, one needed an RLV12 or other Qbus
disk controller for that platform.
I missed t
> From: Philipp Hachtmann
> that one posting sounded a lot like that, sorry.
OK.
> Do you have a source where there are still 30k chips sitting and
> waiting?
It was ~30K a couple of months ago. I checked about a week ago, and it was
down to ~26K (IIRC).
Although, like I said,
On 31/10/2016 13:55, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I wonder why DEC did't use track 0. The thing is small enough (256KB in the
original single-density) that even 1% is a good chunk to throw away. Does
anyone know? (I had a look online, but couldn't turn anything up.)
If I had to _guess_, one possibility w
> From: Allison
> Later versions like 2.9 and V7 do want I&D.
V7 is only distributed with pre-built loads for split I+D machines (so you
can't boot a V7 distribution tape on a non-split machine), but it includes
machine-language OS support files for non-split machines. (It's similar
enoug
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:24 PM, allison wrote:
> Depends on the version of unix. V6 runs fine on a non-I&D machine
> as well 2.11.
>
> Later versions like 2.9 and V7 do want I&D.
2.11 is later than 2.9. It's "two point eleven" not "two point one pause one"
I beefed up my 11/24 30 years ago to
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 10:26 AM, william degnan wrote:
>
> Given 128K core, wouldn't one be able to save the OS in core, no need to
> load what would need to "get started" from a diskpak? The data would be on
> the tape drives, and something on stand by to re-load the OS back into core.
Only if
On 10/26/2016 04:54 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Philipp Hachtmann
> Very enlightening.
> You're hoarding interface ICs with commercial second thoughts
If you think either Guy, or Dave and I, expect to make much money selling the
QBUS/UNIBUS boards we are working on, you are se
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Pontus Pihlgren
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:14:46PM +1300, Mike Ross wrote:
> >
> > Yes. I want a blinkenlights web server :-)
> >
> > Of course these days RSX is also a possibility... it has an HTTPD in
> > addition to the basic TCP/IP stack I believe?
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> From: Don North
>
>> Track 0 is not used by standard DEC software
>
> I wonder why DEC did't use track 0. The thing is small enough (256KB in the
> original single-density) that even 1% is a good chunk to throw away. Does
> anyone know? (
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:14:46PM +1300, Mike Ross wrote:
>
> Yes. I want a blinkenlights web server :-)
>
> Of course these days RSX is also a possibility... it has an HTTPD in
> addition to the basic TCP/IP stack I believe?
>
It sure does:
http://magica.update.uu.se/
/P
Guys,
there's a new release PDP11GUI 1.48.5
Some enhancements:
1. "Disk Image Read/Write":
- Now compression of 2word patterns (32 bit patterns), did reduce
download of a RSX-11 system disk from 40h to 6h.
- Fix for PDP-11/44 console firmware v 3.40: ignore "(Program)" output
after driver sta
> From: Don North
> Track 0 is not used by standard DEC software
I wonder why DEC did't use track 0. The thing is small enough (256KB in the
original single-density) that even 1% is a good chunk to throw away. Does
anyone know? (I had a look online, but couldn't turn anything up.)
If I h
> From: Ed Sharpe
> was Unix or C the one developed on the 11/20?
Both. Unix Version 1 was written in PDP-11 assembler, for the -11/20;
although that was a re-write of an earlier version written in PDP-7
assembler. C was developed from B in good part because the word address model
of B (i
I've pdf'd half a dozen pages of the 360/40 development manual from IBM British
Labs at
Hursley UK, early/mid 60s. I wish I had more but these only survived because
dad used
to bring home binders with these single-sided pages for us kids to draw on, and
my
parents kept them. They may not even be
>From Pete
>>The ROM cart your going to want to get never left Tek,
Hah ha, made you say never
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxd4qJinVzkNQVBDazFGdUZBLU0/view
>From Rick
>>Mike Hass wrote regarding
heh
>>Very cool stuff. Let's see some pictures posted
https://drive.google.co
On 30/10/2016 22:47, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove wrote:
On 30 October 2016 at 18:09, Mike Ross wrote:
Unix? Probably a complete brain fart by me - but I thought Unix
required a machine with separate I/D spaces and the 11/40 wasn't one
of them?
V5 and V6 will run on an 11/40. I *think* but I mig
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Christian Gauger-Cosgrove
wrote:
> On 30 October 2016 at 18:09, Mike Ross wrote:
>> Unix? Probably a complete brain fart by me - but I thought Unix
>> required a machine with separate I/D spaces and the 11/40 wasn't one
>> of them?
>>
> V5 and V6 will run on an 1
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016, allison wrote:
Later versions like 2.9 and V7 do want I&D.
That's wrong. We run 2.9BSD on our 11/34, initially on two RL01 disks,
now on one RL01 (as boot and swap device) and one RA80 (there is a
third-party MSCP driver for 2.9BSD). I need to upgrade the machine with a
59 matches
Mail list logo
