I have connected my Teletype Model 33 to the SIMH console via a DECserver 90M
using reverse telnet. I *think* you can connect SIMH directly to a serial port
now, if so that might be a simpler way.
Regards
Rob
-Original Message-
From: "Charles"
Sent: 18/09/2015 02:46
To: "cctalk d
> Are there any computers that do let you put microcode into RAM
> now-days.
"Now-days"? There are some that do that, some of which are still in
operational shape. Some VAXen, in particular, have something called
"writable control store", which is essentially microcode RAM.
> You have a lot of
For the cost of shipment, the below is surging for a new owner.
About nine books with program cards containing programs about:
-Control
-Electrical Engineering
-Business
-81XX Processors assembly conversion
-Math and calculus
-Graphics and p
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:58:24AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>
> > You have a lot of byte code virtual machines out there.
>
> Such as every x86 processor since, what, the Pentium? They're all RISC
> cores (designed for and) running an x86 emulator.
>
I've been told this more than a few times and re
> Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good
> enough for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money:
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725
So I see this sold - anyone know who got it?
Noel
Pontus Pihlgren writes:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:58:24AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>> Such as every x86 processor since, what, the Pentium? They're all
>> RISC cores (designed for and) running an x86 emulator.
>
> I've been told this more than a few times and read it in various places.
> It always
On 18 September 2015 at 13:06, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> I've been told this more than a few times and read it in various places.
> It always make me wonder, could we not allow a mode in modern Intel
> processors that lets us bypass the x86 code emulation/translation and
> run "directly on the meta
On 18 September 2015 at 13:35, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> I believe the VIA C3 had an undocumented feature to allow executing the
> underlying RISC instructions.
[[Citation needed]]
I've never heard of anything like this. Are you perhaps thinking of
the Crusoe family chips?
--
Liam Proven • Prof
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Liam
> Proven
> Sent: 18 September 2015 13:23
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: OT: x86 machine code [Was: Re: Self modifying code, lambda
> calculus - Re: ENIAC p
On 2015-09-18 7:06 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:58:24AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
You have a lot of byte code virtual machines out there.
Such as every x86 processor since, what, the Pentium? They're all RISC
cores (designed for and) running an x86 emulator.
I've been
Spoken for.
-Rik
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Namens Rik Bos
> Verzonden: vrijdag 18 september 2015 13:03
> Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Onderwerp: HP-41 User Library Programs and Documentation.
>
> For the cos
>
> > Are there any computers that do let you put microcode into RAM
> > now-days.
>
> "Now-days"? There are some that do that, some of which are still in
> operational shape. Some VAXen, in particular, have something called
> "writable control store", which is essentially microcode RAM.
As fa
>> Such as every x86 processor since, what, the Pentium? They're all
>> RISC cores (designed for and) running an x86 emulator.
> I've been told this more than a few times and read it in various
> places. It always make me wonder, could we not allow a mode in
> modern Intel processors that lets u
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of tony
duell
> Sent: 18 September 2015 14:33
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: RE: Self modifying code, lambda calculus - Re: ENIAC programming
>
> >
> > > Are there any
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:33:05PM +, tony duell wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any computers that do let you put microcode into RAM
> > > now-days.
> >
> > "Now-days"? There are some that do that, some of which are still in
> > operational shape. Some VAXen, in particular, have something calle
> >
> > As far as I know, the VAX11/730 (There is one next to me waiting for me to
> > have time
> > to restore it) has the microcode entirely in RAM. Classic PERQs (3 in the
> > next room) have
>
> The PDP-11 console loads the microcode from disk then mostly just sits there
> looking pretty whi
At 01:01 PM 9/16/2015, Fred Cisin wrote:
>But, those still require a gullibility error on the part of the user, don't
>they? Do the ads actually load and run the ransomware, or just present the
>fraudulent upgrade offer to bring it in?
The bad guys are slipping silent-install vulnerability expl
From: Charles: Thursday, September 17, 2015 6:46 PM
Anyway, I'd like to do the same thing in SIMH (get the text file into Focal
and then save it as a Focal program). Is there any way to do this with SIMH?
Can I assign the text file to a paper tape reader, for example?
This should work fairly e
"Self modifying code may seem like a neat idea. But, it will turn around
and byte you in the arse. Maybe not now, but soon, and for the rest of
your life."
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, John Foust wrote:
As to why your antivirus didn't see it... there's always a few days
before the latest infection mechanisms are documented and added to
the AV updates.
CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor
AVG see it. "Well, it's not a V
I bet there were no bids and the seller took it off the auction.Probably was
too embarrassed to admit what I told them that it had virtually no value (or
very little)in a non-working condition. You might see it offered again at
much lower price.
From: Noel Chiappa
To: cctalk@classiccmp
Well it sold for 899.99$ with one bidder..so it had that value to someone.
/P
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 03:38:02PM +, Able Baker wrote:
> I bet there were no bids and the seller took it off the auction.Probably was
> too embarrassed to admit what I told them that it had virtually no value (or
On 09/17/2015 11:19 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
On 9/17/15 8:55 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
I think the later X86 machines have a tiny block of patch
microcode that is available to the OS to put special
routines into.
Certainly not Intel CPUs. All of the microcode patches
are loaded via special i
On 18 September 2015 at 16:55, Fred Cisin wrote:
> CryptoLocker has been around for a year. I don't think that McAfee nor AVG
> see it. "Well, it's not a VIRUS, . . ."
Former AVG employee here. I quit; this is not an official statement.
CryptoLocker/CryptoWall/etc are *not* a single program.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:45 AM, tony duell wrote:
> The 11/780 has a PDP11 to load the microcode (I think) but the 11/730 makes
> do with an
> 8085. After booting I think that handles the console port still.
Most of the 11/780 microcode is in bipolar PROM. There's a small patch
area which is lo
On 09/18/2015 08:45 AM, tony duell wrote:
As far as I know, the VAX11/730 (There is one next to me waiting for me to have
time
to restore it) has the microcode entirely in RAM. Classic PERQs (3 in the next
room) have
The PDP-11 console loads the microcode from disk then mostly just sits there
Are you 100 % sure you don't need anti-malware...
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/05/apple-to-patch-actively-exploited-privilege-escalation-bug-in-os-x-10105---report
from what I have seen the fix from Apple isn't a fix...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/22/os_x_root_hole/
but to ru
On 18 September 2015 at 18:25, Dave G4UGM wrote:
> Are you 100 % sure you don't need anti-malware...
>
> http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/08/05/apple-to-patch-actively-exploited-privilege-escalation-bug-in-os-x-10105---report
>
> from what I have seen the fix from Apple isn't a fix...
>
> http:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote:
However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running
something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered.
Absolutely.
I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player"
or maybe "Java update"
But, I never got
On 18 September 2015 at 18:49, Fred Cisin wrote:
> Absolutely.
> I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to update Flash Player"
> or maybe "Java update"
I can see how one of those, done well, might fool most of us. I am not
one of those daredevil ascetics who runs Windows without anti
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Liam
> Proven
> Sent: 18 September 2015 17:47
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: Backups [was Re: Is tape dead?]
>
> On 18 September 2015 at 18:25, Dave G4UGM
>
Just a quick history of x86 implementation styles (from memory, so don't
take this very seriously):
8086: Intel's first pipeline, with separate Fetch and Execution units
iAPX286: borrowed some ideas from iAPX432's protection model, but I
don't know any implementation details
386: traditional CIS
On 09/18/2015 09:49 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015, Liam Proven wrote:
However, Cryptolocker et al spread by fooling users into running
something they shouldn't run. I'm sorry, but you got suckered.
Absolutely. I now think that it was a "We're Adobe, click here to
update Flash Playe
On 9/18/2015 9:09 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
Well it sold for 899.99$ with one bidder..so it had that value to someone.
Watch the auction seller's feedback. If you are lucky, the buyer will
leave feedback and you can see some more info about the buyer at that point.
/P
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015
Someone asked about uploading the SunOS 4.1 docubox I had scanned, so I finally
got around to doing that today, but discovered that I never scanned the part 1,
just the system calls of 800-3827. I suspect that I never had it. So if someone
has that or a Solaris 1.x docubox a scan would be helpful.
Liam Proven writes:
> On 18 September 2015 at 13:35, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
>> I believe the VIA C3 had an undocumented feature to allow executing
>> the underlying RISC instructions.
>
> [[Citation needed]]
>
> I've never heard of anything like this. Are you perhaps thinking of
> the Crusoe famil
It shows one bid
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Able Baker
> Sent: 18 September 2015 16:38
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: IBM 026
>
> I bet there were no bids and the seller took it off the
It shows one bid
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Able Baker
> Sent: 18 September 2015 16:38
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: IBM 026
>
> I bet there were no bids and the seller took it off
On 9/18/2015 7:33 AM, tony duell wrote:
Are there any computers that do let you put microcode into RAM
now-days.
"Now-days"? There are some that do that, some of which are still in
operational shape. Some VAXen, in particular, have something called
"writable control store", which is essenti
On 09/18/2015 11:00 AM, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
I would love to provide a proper citation, but I searched the net and
couldn't find anything to back this up.
Too bad--I've got a couple of C3 systems here that might be fun to
experiment with... (very common processor to find on older thin client
On 18 September 2015 at 19:10, Dave G4UGM wrote:
> But you do use a browser and all of those have holes...
True, but they do on any OS. There are far fewer 'sploits for OS X or
for Linux than for Windows (e.g. the famed WMF decoder one) -- andf by
avoiding IE or anything that embeds or wraps
On 18 September 2015 at 20:00, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> No, it was not Crusoe. I'm fairly sure it was VIA, and less sure it was
> the C3. Maybe Cyrix? Whatever was current technology around 2002 I
> guess.
>
> I remember reading the rumour that the RISC instruction set was
> accessible, and I co
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
> Someone asked about uploading the SunOS 4.1 docubox I had scanned, so I
> finally
> got around to doing that today, but discovered that I never scanned the part
> 1,
> just the system calls of 800-3827. I suspect that I never had it. So if
> som
On 9/18/15 1:40 PM, Jason T wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
Someone asked about uploading the SunOS 4.1 docubox I had scanned, so I
finally
got around to doing that today, but discovered that I never scanned the part
1,
just the system calls of 800-3827. I suspect that
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
> great timing!
> the rest of the set is under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sun/sunos/4.1
Good deal. I don't know if I have the full set or not - I suspect
not. I was given many boxes of Sun binders and I'm slowly working
through them, using your na
On 9/18/15 1:46 PM, Jason T wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
great timing!
the rest of the set is under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sun/sunos/4.1
Good deal. I don't know if I have the full set or not - I suspect
not. I was given many boxes of Sun binders and I'm slowly
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
> On 9/18/15 1:46 PM, Jason T wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>>
>>> great timing!
>>> the rest of the set is under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sun/sunos/4.1
>>>
>>
>> Good deal. I don't know if I have the full set or
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
> I need to check my shelves for specifics, but I have a lot of SunOS
> documentation for early releases (1.0-3.0 or so) -- I can scan it if you
> don't already have it in the queue...
AFAIK I have nothing pre-4.0 here.
On 9/18/15 1:52 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 9/18/15 1:46 PM, Jason T wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
great timing!
the rest of the set is under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sun/sunos/4.1
Good deal. I don't know if I
On 2015-09-18 15:33, tony duell wrote:
Are there any computers that do let you put microcode into RAM
now-days.
"Now-days"? There are some that do that, some of which are still in
operational shape. Some VAXen, in particular, have something called
"writable control store", which is essentia
On 2015-09-18 15:45, tony duell wrote:
As far as I know, the VAX11/730 (There is one next to me waiting for me to have
time
to restore it) has the microcode entirely in RAM. Classic PERQs (3 in the next
room) have
The PDP-11 console loads the microcode from disk then mostly just sits there
l
On 2015-09-18 18:21, Jon Elson wrote:
On 09/18/2015 08:45 AM, tony duell wrote:
As far as I know, the VAX11/730 (There is one next to me waiting for
me to have time
to restore it) has the microcode entirely in RAM. Classic PERQs (3
in the next room) have
The PDP-11 console loads the microcode f
On 2015-09-18 18:21, Eric Smith wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:45 AM, tony duell wrote:
The 11/780 has a PDP11 to load the microcode (I think) but the 11/730 makes do
with an
8085. After booting I think that handles the console port still.
Most of the 11/780 microcode is in bipolar PROM. T
On 9/18/2015 7:08 AM, Vincent Slyngstad wrote:
From: Charles: Thursday, September 17, 2015 6:46 PM
Anyway, I'd like to do the same thing in SIMH (get the text file into Focal
and then save it as a Focal program). Is there any way to do this with SIMH?
Can I assign the text file to a paper tape
On 18/09/15 14:31, Mouse wrote:
|
| The single exception is that we will not publish the list of "system
| killers" outside of Digital. All questions about "system killers",
| even ones asking if there are any, will be answered "No Comment". The
| reason for this is to protect cust
* Noel Chiappa [150918 07:25]:
> > Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good
> > enough for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money:
> > http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725
>
> So I see this sold - anyone know who got it?
>
> Noel
Yes.
Lucky it is not just scrap metal then, it is a probably restorable 026 keypunch,
of which very few still exist.
By your criteria any classic computer is worth well less than $99, as the metal
content is much smaller than an 026.
And then any car from the 50s or 60s is only worth a few hundred
rule #1
Dont feed the trolls.
On 9/18/2015 6:33 PM, Don North wrote:
> Lucky it is not just scrap metal then, it is a probably restorable 026
> keypunch, of which very few still exist.
>
> By your criteria any classic computer is worth well less than $99, as
> the metal content is much smaller th
On 09/18/2015 04:42 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
The normal WCS option for the 11/780 was an option. Not
everyone had it. Were there another option with some WCS
that actually everybody had?
I don't recall clearly whether our 780 (bought about 1980?)
came with a small WCS or no WCS.
I do rem
Why not?
How do you know how many still exist?It may be restorable or maybe not.If not,
then what is its value?If it is just a display item, then you have to really
want to look at it and admire its inherent 'beauty'.If it is restored, then you
probably want to exercise its functionality.Maybe p
On 09/18/2015 06:33 PM, Don North wrote:
Lucky it is not just scrap metal then, it is a probably restorable
026 keypunch, of which very few still exist.
There had to be many more 029s than 026s made. Yet I've never seen a
lot of them offered. I'd much rather use an 029 than an 026--given t
Update-
M8316- $175
M8365 $100 LC8-E LA180 interface Good to hack for output device
M8366 $100 LQP8-E LQP01 printer interface, also good for hacking
Both printer interfaces are probably NOS, still in the dec box, if my
workers didn't move them again...
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:32 PM,
> The VAX-11/730 would have to have the microcode on TU58, as that is the
> console media. Quite possible that it actually do load the microcode
> from there at power up. I've heard that those machine were slow in so
> many ways... :-)
The 11/730 has no microcode ROM as far as I can see. However p
On 9/18/2015 9:51 PM, tony duell wrote:
The VAX-11/730 would have to have the microcode on TU58, as that is the
console media. Quite possible that it actually do load the microcode
from there at power up. I've heard that those machine were slow in so
many ways... :-)
The 11/730 has no microcode
>
>
> Simple answer. The control store functionality had to fit in the available
> space
> on one hex
> sized card, and 16K density DRAM was the only option. Allocating additional
> space to use
> 4K or 1K SRAM would have pushed the CPU design to an additional board, which
> was not
> a design
On 9/18/2015 10:15 PM, tony duell wrote:
Simple answer. The control store functionality had to fit in the available space
on one hex
sized card, and 16K density DRAM was the only option. Allocating additional
space to use
4K or 1K SRAM would have pushed the CPU design to an additional board, whic
66 matches
Mail list logo
