ours is visible on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/simski/15171396948/
On 19-07-15 00:00, Rod Smallwood wrote:
Hi
I am working on an 8/f version. Its not far along enough to send out
just yet .
Rod
On 18/07/2015 12:34, simon wrote:
Hi Rod, that sounds like a good idea. we have a 8/
Hi Simon
Yes thats what I am working on right now.
I can see your problem - cracked area around keylock.
Of course I can't reproduce the old sticky labels
That looks like an original set of /e drawings in front.
How good are they?
Regards
Rod
On 19/07/2015 10:14, simon wrote:
ours is v
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 12:06 AM, Mike Stein wrote:
>
> ...
> I always wondered which was more efficient, multiplexing among essentially
> complete 'computers per user' sharing a common I/O 'channel' or swapping
> processes and memory banks…
If you’re talking about switching a single resource (
Oh, they are merely scratches from the key. We decided to keep the
labels for history's sake
and yes the printset is in good condition, but not better than te scans
available on bitsavers.
On 19-07-15 12:38, Rod Smallwood wrote:
Hi Simon
Yes thats what I am working on right now.
I can see
I have rarely seen static damage to electronic parts. I can imagine
that if I were in Nevada during winter time, I might see more. There
were times when, even with a key to be the discharge point that
my arm still jumped.
On parts, the ones I've seen that I could definitely attribute to static
were
>
> I have rarely seen static damage to electronic parts. I can imagine
> that if I were in Nevada during winter time, I might see more. There
> were times when, even with a key to be the discharge point that
> my arm still jumped.
Be careful, static daamge does not always show up at the time. Yo
(On Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:14 AM, simon wrote:)
> ours is visible on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/simski/15171396948/
Nice. That's identical to the 8m panels I have, except the the 'f' instead of
the 'm'. I like the separation of the LED rows on these panels.
Dave
On 19-07-15 00
SUN I or II board?
On 7/18/15 10:50 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Is anyone aware of any published detailed designs of Multibus
arbitration circuitry
So my house sold yesterday after < 3 days on the market (the market here is
nuts).
I have about two months to move, so a bunch of stuff has to disappear.
Location is the Vancouver, BC, Canada region (Port Moody more precisely).
Most of this stuff is larger and I'm not going to have a lot of time
That seems to be the case, logo apart , f and m seem to be the same
On 19/07/2015 15:55, Dave wrote:
(On Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:14 AM, simon wrote:)
ours is visible on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/simski/15171396948/
Nice. That's identical to the 8m panels I have, except the
Hi Brent,
I'd be interested in the TRS-80 model 100...
Sorry for replying on-list, but I've sent you
private emails in the past and got no reply so I
suspect I may not be getting through for some
reason.
I think I've got a scrap XT keyboard somewhere in
case someone needs a key or two.
m
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
> SUN I or II board?
Cool, the Sun 2 CPU board doc has description and schematic.
> -Original Message-
> From: space...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:15:37 -0600
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Multibus arbiter design
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
>> SUN I or II board?
>
> Cool, the Sun 2 CPU board doc has description and s
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote:
On 7/17/2015 1:33 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
It is generally a good idea to re-form electrolytic capacitors in
power supplies, and to bench check the power supplies (under some kind
of load) before actually applying power to the whole unit.
It is always a
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Todd Killingsworth wrote:
I suspect part of the "swap'em ALL out" mentality comes from the 90's
when some botched industrial espionage had some of the bottom-tier cap
manufacturers using a dodgy electrolytic formula for their caps. These
caps would have a frequent failure
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, tony duell wrote:
Perhaps. But not all of it, certainly. I'm currently four for four
fixing dead flatscreens by re-capping their power supplies; I imagine
others have similar experiences. It's not a huge stretch to imagine
This could be taken to show that modern capaci
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:01 PM, N0body H0me wrote:
> A quick search on the "Site Which Must Not Be Named" shows
> some NOS 8289's for about $7 each, including postage. I dunno,
> just sayin-- why re-invent the wheel?
1. The 8289, being bipolar, draws an absurd amount of current on +5V.
Well ov
Further to my earlier message today, something else to go:
DECmate I / VT278 monitor & CPU
This is the VT100 monitor/housing with the 6120-PDP8-microproc-based
CPU board in one of the logic slots.
Sadly, missing the keyboard and floppies unit, so it's not complete.
Well, all I can say is that my experience differs. I have had newer capacitors
fail, and old ones, too, of course, but nothing points to wholesale replacement
as a cost or time effective strategy, especially on something like an Altair.
FWIW, I don't run my vintage machines all that often. Of
I'm doing another run of boards.
The description of the board changes and the expected price are at:
http://www.pdp8online.com/mfm/board_revb.shtml
If you desire any please respond by email not to list with
1) How many bare boards you wish. I will assume production boards unless
you state h
On 7/19/2015 2:43 PM, Armin Diehl wrote:
Yes, that is all correct. The first machines used by Basic Four (later
MAI) were Microdata machines. Basic Four released BB1 (Business Basic
Level 1) and BB2 on these machines. These were the “blue” ones, e.g.
http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equip
Yes, that is all correct. The first machines used by Basic Four (later
MAI) were Microdata machines. Basic Four released BB1 (Business Basic
Level 1) and BB2 on these machines. These were the “blue” ones, e.g.
http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equipment/mai-basic-four-model-1200
Schematics
What are you going to do with it?Looking. For a wt78 but this fell in our
lap
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
Original message
From: Brent Hilpert
Date: 07/19/2015 9:29 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
S
> -Original Message-
> From: space...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:14:45 -0600
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Multibus arbiter design
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:01 PM, N0body H0me
> wrote:
>> A quick search on the "Site Which Must Not Be Named" shows
>> some NOS
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:04 AM, N0body H0me wrote:
> Anyways, just trying to be helpful.
I appreciate that. I wasn't criticizing, just explaining a few reasons
why I prefer not to use an actual 8289 in my design.
Thanks!
Eric
25 matches
Mail list logo
