On 10/19/2016 02:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Glen Slick
>> Went unsold at $3500. Relisted, this time at $5000.
> there was a taker for that 11/35 at $5000 today
Smack me with a wet halibut. They must not have seen the original listing?
I can't come up with any other e
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 01:12:50PM +0200, Philipp Hachtmann wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2016 02:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> >> From: Glen Slick
> >
> >>> Went unsold at $3500. Relisted, this time at $5000.
> >
> >> there was a taker for that 11/35 at $5000 today
> >
> >Smack me with a
> Philipp Hachtmann wrote:
> Was it really sold? I can't figure that out from here. Only "listing
> has ended". And when I try to search for it, the website doesn't show
> it :-(
??? If you go to the listing:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/142146207101
the image has 'Sold' emblazoned
On 10/22/2016 01:36 PM, Ali wrote:
>>> I didn't think modern A/V products included complete historical sets
>>> of signatures. I
>>
>> I would certainly expect them to, yes!
>
> Just wondering are you guys not running AV SW on your old HW? I personally
> run period specific AV SW on my older machi
Hello,
we are discussing on separate thread about doing an universal interface for
PDP11.
I'm taking all the relevant documentation about Unibus and Qbus busses,
aiming to check the possibility of doing a board compatible, with some
adjustments, with both worlds.
I started to read the 1979 specific
On 10/22/2016 03:18 PM, shad wrote:
> Hello,
> we are discussing on separate thread about doing an universal interface for
> PDP11.
> I'm taking all the relevant documentation about Unibus and Qbus busses,
> aiming to check the possibility of doing a board compatible, with some
> adjustments, w
On 2016-10-22 22:08, allison wrote:
So to do that you have two project the hardware is fairly straight
forward (see the
applicable Bus interfacing books put out by DEC) but the software to use
it is a project.
FYI I have never heard of any one recreating the RQDX1/2/3 software
protocol MSCP
as i
On 10/22/2016 06:40 PM, David Bridgham wrote:
> On 10/22/2016 12:44 PM, shad wrote:
>
>> What kind of bus transceivers did you used for the QSIC, specially
>> because you have
>> to go from 5V open-drain logic to 3.3V logic?
> To add to Noel's answer, here's a picture of our current prototype b
On 2016-10-22 4:08 PM, allison wrote:
...
FYI I have never heard of any one recreating the RQDX1/2/3 software
protocol MSCP
as it was nontrivial, proprietary, and copyrighted.
It's been implemented in simh, afaik. Its reputation is a little more
imposing than the reality.
--Toby
Allison
On 10/23/2016 09:15 PM, Mouse wrote:
>> My favorite formatter was my S100 crate with CP/M, [it's] impossible
>> to give a single user OS without background processing a virus.
> I disagree. I see nothing about "a single-user OS without background
> processing" that would prevent a virus from infec
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-22 4:08 PM, allison wrote:
>> ...
>> FYI I have never heard of any one recreating the RQDX1/2/3 software
>> protocol MSCP
>> as it was nontrivial, proprietary, and copyrighted.
>
> It's been implemented in simh, afaik. Its reputati
On 10/23/2016 04:57 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
> On 2016-10-23 2:50 PM, shad wrote:
>> Hello,
>> surely the old transceivers are the most compatible solution, however
>> you
>> still need to convert the voltages back and forth...
>> Plus the solution is not the cheaper, and a little uncomfortable to
On 10/22/16 6:05 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-10-22 4:08 PM, allison wrote:
...
FYI I have never heard of any one recreating the RQDX1/2/3 software
protocol MSCP
as it was nontrivial, proprietary, and copyrighted.
It's been implemented in simh, afaik. Its reputation is a little more
imposing
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:39 AM, allison wrote:
>
> On 10/22/16 6:05 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
>> On 2016-10-22 4:08 PM, allison wrote:
>>> ...
>>> FYI I have never heard of any one recreating the RQDX1/2/3 software
>>> protocol MSCP
>>> as it was nontrivial, proprietary, and copyrighted.
>>
>> It's
On 10/24/16 8:51 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 01:12:50PM +0200, Philipp Hachtmann wrote:
On 10/19/2016 02:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Glen Slick
>> Went unsold at $3500. Relisted, this time at $5000.
> there was a taker for that 11/35 at $5000 today..
I have pmaz SCSI controller, a couple lofis, and a bunch of 8MB pmax+
modules that are being threatened with the local electronics recycler.
send me the address of your good home or place of business in the
continental US states, and I'll spare them that fate.
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ord
> From: David Bridgham
> Just the bus interface takes over half the area of a dual-height board!
In part because the level converters are SMD, and we had to mount them on
(modified) wide DIP carriers to use them in a wire-wrap board.
> I've played around with laying out what might be
> On Oct 23, 2016, at 2:50 PM, shad wrote:
>
> ...
> The idea of using bare transistors seems to me too much simple.
> Not that it couldn't work, but it would be almost impossible to satisfy all
> the specifications of the bus in this way... unless you use a more complex
> circuit with preci
But, I was explicitly referring to the time BEFORE OS-X! (<1999?)
Assholes who proclaimed themselves to be "experts" kept pushing our college
administration to SWITCH ALL of our our student computer labs from PC to Mac,
mostly using the LIE that "Macs are immune to viruses".
Jumping in here l
Can't see the video (access denied).. but that looked like an exceptionally
nice unit, with the stand to boot! Some day I'd like to have one of those
to go with my Tektronix 6800 board bucket.. but shipping will always be an
issue.
If you decide to put a video up somewhere public please let me kn
having half of this conversation not making it from cctech to cctalk is really
starting to piss me off
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DEC bus transceivers
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:10:21 -0400
From: allison
Reply-To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts
To: General Discussion:
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DEC bus transceivers
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:37:14 -0400
From: allison
Reply-To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts
To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts
On 10/23/16 2:59 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> On 10/23/16 11:50 AM, shad wrote:
>
>> T
> Early Macs definitely had viruses, a few that I got from thrift stores
> still have the viruses on them. I don't think there is any memory
> protection at all. Software selection for MacOS was pretty crappy, and it
> was hard to get under the hood. So protecting yourself from them would be
>
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, et...@757.org wrote:
I *DO* remember that in the local BBS wars, people who were toying with
MS-DOS viruses would make them then submit them to the AV companies to get
them on "the list." The huge list of viruses that the software would defend
against. But in reality, they
I'm still getting duplicates from cctech: I'm registered to cctalk but for
many messages, a day after it appears via cctalk, the same message shows up
from cctech - this has been going on since the list crash a year or two ago.
It seems to be the messages that were sent to cctech.
It gets annoyi
As repl to my own post...
The problem was the current adress register. One of three 74161 binary
counters was bad. After replaceing it, RK8E Diskless Controlltest
working fine
Marco
Am 18.10.2016 um 21:55 schrieb Marco Rauhut:
Hello all together,
i restore a rk05 disk drive in combination
On 10/24/2016 12:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> I don't know about the receiver part, but I'd expect that the drivers could
> very easily be done with a simple transistor circuit.
Agreed. However ...
> As for slew rates, unless you have antique transistors, that's not going to
> be an issue give
good job!
On 10/24/16 12:48 PM, Marco Rauhut wrote:
> As repl to my own post...
>
> The problem was the current adress register. One of three 74161 binary
> counters was bad. After replaceing it, RK8E
> Diskless Controlltest working fine
>
On 23 October 2016 at 18:03, Electronics Plus wrote:
> I used to have factory original CD install disks from Zip drives, but I threw
> them all out, because they were all infected with viruses. Iomega was kind
> enough to send me clean install disks, after I mailed them back one of the
> infect
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 3:55 PM, David Bridgham wrote:
>
> On 10/24/2016 12:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> I don't know about the receiver part, but I'd expect that the drivers could
>> very easily be done with a simple transistor circuit.
>
> Agreed. However ...
>
>> As for slew rates, unles
On 23 October 2016 at 19:12, Fred Cisin wrote:
> But, I was explicitly referring to the time BEFORE OS-X! (<1999?)
Ahh, well, that's entirely fair then.
> Assholes who proclaimed themselves to be "experts" kept pushing our college
> administration to SWITCH ALL of our our student computer labs
On 24 October 2016 at 03:15, Mouse wrote:
>
> I disagree. I see nothing about "a single-user OS without background
> processing" that would prevent a virus from infecting other programs,
> even including the OS, when it's run, and potentially doing something
> else as well.
Exactly. This. I agre
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 24, 2016, at 3:55 PM, David Bridgham wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2016 12:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about the receiver part, but I'd expect that the drivers could
>>> very easily be done with a simple transistor ci
On 24 October 2016 at 04:03, allison wrote:
> Its highly unlikely as first it would have to install itself and do so
> without corrupting the OS.
> CP/M-80 is a machine monitor with a file system and lacking most of the
> usual
> read the disk and "do something" automation. The only automation in
On 24 October 2016 at 18:58, wrote:
> Software selection for MacOS was pretty crappy, and it was hard to get under
> the hood.
That's not my experience, TBH. Big, great S/W range, shareware and PD,
hard_er_ but still possible to get under the hood.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.li
On 24 October 2016 at 20:20, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> - Yes, classic Macs did get viruses. But as a user of a classic Mac since
> 1987, I think I encountered one exactly once and my experience was not
> unusual. They just weren't all that common and nearly everyone ran Virex
> anyway until Ma
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
>> ...
>
> OK, I guess my last email didn’t make it. It appears to me that the rise
> time is set at 25ns.
>
> You need to look at the PDP-11 UNIBUS Design Description document on
> Bitsavers. Firstly,
> in section 4-1, it specifies whi
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 24, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>> OK, I guess my last email didn’t make it. It appears to me that the rise
>> time is set at 25ns.
>>
>> You need to look at the PDP-11 UNIBUS Design Description docume
On 10/24/2016 04:30 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> I don't see any max slew rate spec in the driver specs in the peripherals
> handbook.
For the QBUS from the PDP11 Bus Handbook 1979, page 125:
AC Specifications
Bus driver output pin capacitive load: Not to exceed 10 pF
Propagation delay: Not to exce
It was thus said that the Great allison once stated:
> On 10/23/2016 09:15 PM, Mouse wrote:
> >> My favorite formatter was my S100 crate with CP/M, [it's] impossible
> >> to give a single user OS without background processing a virus.
> > I disagree. I see nothing about "a single-user OS without b
It was thus said that the Great et...@757.org once stated:
>
> Early Macs definitely had viruses, a few that I got from thrift stores
> still have the viruses on them. I don't think there is any memory
> protection at all. Software selection for MacOS was pretty crappy, and it
> was hard to get un
Memory protection does not protect you from a virus. It can protect other
running processes from being modified (if they belong to other users they
can't be infected at all; other processes owned by the user it's possible,
depending upon the system [1]) but that's it.
-spc
Sorry, I was thinki
Here is some I wrote some time ago on my experiences with vintage viruses.
Bear in mind it's a narrative (and hence somewhat long-winded and rambling)
but anyway..here it is for anyone interested...
http://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/2009-08-30-vintage-viruses.htm
Terry (Tez)
Does anyone have a datasheet for an Intel 8089A, 8089A-3, or 8089-3?
The only datasheets I've found are for the "plain" 8089 with no "A" or
numeric suffix. The component resellers show better availabiliity for with
the "A" and/or "-3" suffix, though it's possible that those are in error.
The 8089
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:
> OK, I guess my last email didn’t make it. It appears to me that the rise
> time is set at 25ns.
>
> You need to look at the PDP-11 UNIBUS Design Description document on
> Bitsavers. Firstly,
> in section 4-1, it specifies which chips t
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 5:39 PM, emanuel stiebler wrote:
> Every time I thought about it, or even started, I gave up, because there
> aren't simply enough people who would buy such a thing. The prices for an
> old working Qbus SCSI controller are low enough, to just wait until you get
> one on eba
From: Sean Conner
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 2:00 PM
> MS-DOS had CP/M at its heart, and it had its fair share of virii (viruses?
> What is the plural of a computer virus?).
Viruses.
The Latin word _virus_ means "slime, poison", and is a collective noun, like
English _milk_ or _flour_ or
What is the plural of a computer virus?).
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Rich Alderson wrote:
Viruses.
The Latin word _virus_ means "slime, poison", and is a collective noun
. . .
Furthermore, it is a neuter (neither masculine nor feminine) o-stem noun,
. . .
The -i marker of nominative plurals is rest
>>> What is the plural of a computer virus?).
>> Viruses.
>> The Latin word _virus_ [...]
>> More than you ever wanted to know, I'm sure.
> Actually, NO.
What Fred said. Across the board.
Thank you. That was informative, authoritative, and - impressive,
managing to combine this with the other t
On 10/24/16 8:51 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 24, 2016, at 7:39 AM, allison wrote:
On 10/22/16 6:05 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-10-22 4:08 PM, allison wrote:
...
FYI I have never heard of any one recreating the RQDX1/2/3 software
protocol MSCP
as it was nontrivial, proprietary, and copyrig
On 10/23/16 2:50 PM, shad wrote:
Hello,
surely the old transceivers are the most compatible solution, however you
still need to convert the voltages back and forth...
Plus the solution is not the cheaper, and a little uncomfortable too, as
you need to find these old chips, hoping not to buy f
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 12:34 PM, allison wrote:
>
>> ...
> And the RQDX1/2/3 used T11 for the job so its not that intense save for speed.
> The other part of it is much of the code is likely the interface to the MFM
> disk and thats
> speed intensive and likely more hardware than software.
FWIW
On 10/23/16 2:59 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 10/23/16 11:50 AM, shad wrote:
The problem is that there aren't open drain bus transceivers, but the
problem could be solved simply using input-only and output-only components,
connecting two in parallel but opposite direction on bidirectional pins.
The ROM cart your going to want to get never left Tek, it had the capacity
to hold all the packs, another one is very high (for a 6800) performance
graphics.
To use multiple ROMs you will need a 4051 Toaster. That's what we called
it. Can't remember if it was a product or not.
I may have a couple
Hi Noel,
>> Any chance it could be put into 'production'?
Sure, if there is interest, I could make a run of boards.
>> Also, what FPGA board are you using? I assume it's one that has an SD
>> card socket or something, for actually storing the bits on?
My project is just an interface board for an
Start with this
http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?33684-Tek-4051-BASIC-Simulator
Read the thread carefully, forget about the threads title/subject and you
will get close to all the information you need
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Pete Lancashire
wrote:
> The ROM cart your going
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:37 AM, allison wrote:
>
> On 10/23/16 2:59 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/16 11:50 AM, shad wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that there aren't open drain bus transceivers, but the
>>> problem could be solved simply using input-only and output-only components,
>>>
Aaron! I'm interested.
164 S. Aspen Dr.
Chandler, AZ 85226
G
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Aaron J. Grier
wrote:
> I have pmaz SCSI controller, a couple lofis, and a bunch of 8MB pmax+
> modules that are being threatened with the local electronics recycler.
>
> send me the address of you
On 10/24/2016 01:37 PM, allison wrote:
> The voltages are based on TTL levels. What are the unique voltages?
The QBUS spec from the 1979 Bus Handbook (the Unibus levels are the same):
Input low voltage (maximum): 1.3 V
Input high voltage (minimum): 1.7 V
And from the TI datasheet for the 74LS7
On 10/24/2016 03:55 PM, David Bridgham wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 12:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> I don't know about the receiver part, but I'd expect that the drivers could
>> very easily be done with a simple transistor circuit.
> Agreed. However ...
>
>> As for slew rates, unless you have antiqu
My 11/34 and 11/10 would be very happy to have one of these each .
Doug Jackson
On 25 October 2016 5:28:05 am AEDT, Scott Baker wrote:
>Hi Noel,
>
>>> Any chance it could be put into 'production'?
>Sure, if there is interest, I could make a run of boards.
>
>>> Also, what FPGA board are you usi
On 10/24/2016 1:18 PM, David Bridgham wrote:
On 10/24/2016 01:37 PM, allison wrote:
The voltages are based on TTL levels. What are the unique voltages?
The QBUS spec from the 1979 Bus Handbook (the Unibus levels are the same):
Input low voltage (maximum): 1.3 V
Input high voltage (minimum):
62 matches
Mail list logo
