On 07/14/2015 09:16 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
Other than clones and the like (e.g., from folks like Honeywell), I'm
not aware of any other machines with a similar architecture to the 1401
and 1410. Name them?
Well, how about a bit-addressable, variable field length machine that
had not only your
On 7/14/2015 11:07 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Kip Koon wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have finally decided to restore my original Altair 8800 which has
been in
storage for over 30 years. Does anyone have a copy of Microsoft's
Multiuser
Disk Extended Basic for the Altair 8800? When I was in
On 7/14/15 9:53 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
The 8086 had four segment registers:
CS- Code segment, used with IP register
DS- Data segment
SS- Stack segment, used with SP and BP registers
ES- Extra segment, used with DI for string instructions as
destination
Hey Kip
I can't help you with the software, but I just finished an Altair
restoration (my first) a few months ago, and am still interested in getting
the machine connected and actually doing something interesting. The Altair
was almost totally below the radar by the time I really started getting u
> > My experience of FPGAs is that if you design a circuit for an FPGA it will
> > work. If you take an existing design
> > feed it into a schematic capture program and compile it for an FPGA then it
> > won't.
>
> Actually, you can, and I have done so - provided that the original
> machine was
I wonder if there is anywhere near enough information available to do a
Stretch.
JRJ
On 7/14/2015 6:53 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Jay Jaeger
>
> > I am going to attempt to do the same for IBM's 1410 computer - a really
> > big effort.
>
> Now, the IBM machine you (or someone)
Buchholz's 'Planning a Computer System: Project Stretch' is a good start,
but I'd be interested in hearing about any other technical sources that
folks know about. -C
amturing.acm.org/Buchholz_102636426.pdf
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
> I wonder if there is anywhere near
I have an interesting brochure, that is not on bitsavers (that I can find),
for the Digital " IDACS 11/07 Industrial Control System "
This is a stand-alone-capable UNIBUS PDP 11 industrial system made for
analog and digital inputs with RSX-11C software, FORTRAN, PDP-11 DOS,
COMTEX-11.
If this is
> yes, but the only software that survives are diagnostic listings.
> I tried and gave up trying to get the software from the person who saved the
> Livermore Stretch
Is he a typical "hoarder"? He can do a better job saving the stuff
than a museum?
--
Will
yes, but the only software that survives are diagnostic listings.
I tried and gave up trying to get the software from the person who saved
the Livermore Stretch
On 7/14/15 8:58 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
I wonder if there is anywhere near enough information available to do a
Stretch.
JRJ
On 7/14/
I have a document that describes how to convert 709 Fortran to
7090-compatible Fortran. Might help imply what you'd need generally when
compared to a 709, using that as a starting point.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
> yes, but the only software that survives are diagnostic
ATT has gone wierded out on attachments for the moment, so I'm dumping all this
into a long text ramble
Jim:
Please forward these observations to the appropriate parties, copying me. I am
having trouble sorting out who started the thread and who is receiving replies.
I will respond directly
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
> I wonder if there is anywhere near enough information available to do a
> Stretch.
There's enough information to develop a architecturally equivalent
system, either in software or hardware, but AFAIK not anywhere near
enough to build a microarc
That's an interesting argument against using FPGAs in this sort of
application; definitely food for thought. That said, from my (admittedly
limited hobbyist and academic exposure) to FPGAs, I would expect the bulk
of of whatever's being implemented would be fairly device-agnostic ...
certainly you
As well, some early microprocessors used multiple clocks i.e. the TMS9900.
Best,
Sean
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, tony duell
> wrote:
> > If you mean 6 different clock sources (i.e. clocks delayed from each
> other, etc) then that
> >
> In the 7000 series, the 1410 equivalent was the 7010 - architecturally
> compatible, ran the same software, but implemented in 7000 series
> technology. It came along in 1962. So that was really the last one to
> be introduced of its ilk.
>
> Other than clones and the like (e.g., from folks lik
I think a lot of things drive the popularity of the PDP-8 from nostalgia to
historicity to perhaps the relative simplicity of the CPU to understand as
a design example in computer architecture ... IMO the machine is just a bit
too limited to be much fun to program in assembly ... although maybe som
> 1450 and 1460 came even later...but I have never seen evidence of any
> of these actually being installed.
Oops, replace 1460 with 1420. 1460 did exist in reasonable numbers.
--
Will
101 - 118 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
