On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 6:50 PM Guy Dunphy via cctalk
wrote:
>
> At the moment I'm not sure if my machine is an 'A-series' or not. How do I
> tell?
> It's a 2113E, apparently quite a late model. I've had it and related hardware
> (minus disk drives)
> since the early 2000's. It was a junkyard fi
Hi Jay,
> On Jan 27, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>
> I think I can help some... I DO have earlier PDP-11/45 CPU drawings...
Man, this list is the absolute best!
The '72 KB11-A drawings would be most immediately useful. If you only have
time for a subset of pages, I would find the sch
I think I can help some. I have a PDP-11/45 From U. Wisc. ECE that
claims to be S/N 1525 .
* I do NOT have an actual wire list, it seems, but I will hunt a bit
more tomorrow or Tuesday.
* I DO have earlier PDP-11/45 CPU drawings, but no ECO info
Here is what I have for drawings:
B-DD-11/45-
Hello Jesse,
I have this:
http://everist.org/NobLog/20131112_HP_1000_minicomputer_teardown.htm
It's a stalled project, due to unfortunate circumstance. I was at the point of
preparing
to reassemble the machine (after cleaning) and start testing. Wanted to first
test the power
supply under dumm
If anyone can use any of the 1000 A Series boards, I have the
following.. feel free to contract need anything. Sorry for the two
inventory postings, I spent all weekend inventorying these boards.
02430-60009 Voltage jumper board
12001-60003 A400 CPU board
12004-60001 Memory Controller
> On Jan 27, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Fritz Mueller wrote:
>
> I'll keep you posted about what I find out from ANALYS!
Posted below. I've elided the core dump here so not to spam everybody; will
send off-list.
Note that I only copied over the blocks of [0,1]CRASH.SYS, and overlaid them on
a copy
Those reading through the recent "PDP-11/45 RSTS/E boot problem" thread here
will know that I've gotten to some corners of my 11/45 CPU now that don't match
up with the commonly available engineering drawings.
My /45 is an early serial number (#152). So far I've verified hardware
differences o
> On Jan 27, 2019, at 1:34 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> I have the impression that RSTS tries to identify the parity CSRs by forcing
> wrong parity and seeing which CSR reports the issue. So if you have a CPU
> ECO issue that causes trap to 114 not to work, I don't see how you could get
> RST
> On Jan 26, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
> I don't think this is directly related to the parity abort issue, since Noel
> informs me that V6 Unix doesn't care at all, and I can also see under both
> OS's that after the recent repairs no parity faults are occu
