On 10/1/17 1:22 PM, Fred Cisin via cctech wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2017, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
I've looked for but cannot find any WD or Compaq documents publically
using IDE to describe what ultimately issued as ATA-1. My search
included various Compaq maintenance manuals.
Thank you v
>
>
> ATA-IDE and SCSI (OK SASI) are about the same age but had different
> adoption and growth rates.
>
> Earliest SASI/SCSI was AmproLB+ and Visual 1050 with adaptor. I have both
> with hard disks.
> FYI the Z80 powered AMPROLB+ was 1984 introduction.
The Commodore D9060/D9090 pre-dates these
On 10/2/17 8:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:
On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee of
X3T9.2
(SCSI-2) on 30 Sept 1988 and they first met on 19 Oct 1988. The primary
goal was to come up with a SCSI subse
On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee of X3T9.2
(SCSI-2) on 30 Sept 1988 and they first met on 19 Oct 1988. The primary
goal was to come up with a SCSI subset to facilitate it support in multiple
OSs and BIOS on PCs.
On 10/2/17 9:40 AM, william degnan wrote:
ATA-IDE and SCSI (OK SASI) are about the same age but had
different adoption and growth rates.
Earliest SASI/SCSI was AmproLB+ and Visual 1050 with adaptor. I
have both with hard disks.
FYI the Z80 powered AMPROLB+ was 1984 intro
On 10/2/17 10:13 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:
On 10/02/2017 08:29 AM, allison via cctech wrote:
On 10/2/17 8:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:
On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee
of X3T9.2
On 10/02/2017 08:29 AM, allison via cctech wrote:
On 10/2/17 8:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:
On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee of X3T9.2
(SCSI-2) on 30 Sept 1988 and they first met on 19 Oct 1988.
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know why IDE/ATA even came about? I mean, why SCSI wasn't used?
> It would have been an established standard by then, the drive complexity
> seems comparable to IDE/ATA (i.e. intelligent commands over a paralle
On 2017-10-02 08:22, Jules Richardson via cctalk wrote:
> I mean, why SCSI wasn't used? It would have been an established standard by
> then, the drive complexity seems comparable to IDE/ATA (i.e. intelligent
> commands over a parallel bus), and SCSI controllers can be extremely simple -
>
On 01/10/2017 20:46, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote:
As best I can tell WD began publically using the term IDE for its drives sometime around 1990
Nope. I recall conversations with a small-scale developer in the UK who
was creating addons and accessories for the company I worked for (Acorn
Co
Hi everybody,
Here is the next episode of the restoration of my UTS 40.
During the previous “season”, I was talking about buying a wreck of an
UTS 40 from the USA.
http://www.zeltrax.com/classiccmp_forum/annonce.jpg
I had taken the risk to buy it, after the conclusion of the sale, the
selle
On 10/2/2017 9:13 AM, Dominique Carlier via cctalk wrote:
Everything would be perfectly fine if most of the time I did not have
at startup an error at line 9. of the POC test:
SERIAL I / O CHANNEL B: FAILED
I doubt the US unit you bought was used with a floppy running CPM. It
most likely
Anyone have an interest in a 53ft trailer load of CRT monitors 24 pallets
good condition, no broken plastic, no broken tubes or cut cables. Most are
17" with a few 15" and 19/21". These are free if there is an interest,
located in our Weirton WV warehouse. Please reply back if there is an
interest.
Yes indeed, on the "Peripheral Interface" connector of the US
configuration there was a terminator which seems indicated that nothing
was connected there. Moreover, with the Program Cartridge US, the
terminal does not recognize the PERIPHERAL I/O board of my original
configuration.
This is why
On 10/02/2017 08:29 AM, allison via cctech wrote:
It was price... ATA-IDE was cheaper and PC industry was
working hard to push the price down.
SCSI always remained more costly.
Yes. I think there were royalties to pay for a true SCSI
drive. Anyway, there was a VERY significant price
diffe
On 10/02/2017 09:04 AM, allison via cctech wrote:
On 10/2/17 9:40 AM, william degnan wrote:
ATA-IDE and SCSI (OK SASI) are about the same age but
had
different adoption and growth rates.
Earliest SASI/SCSI was AmproLB+ and Visual 1050 with
adaptor. I
have both with hard
On 10/2/17 5:22 AM, Jules Richardson via cctech wrote:
On 10/02/2017 01:46 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
There was a call to form the CAM (Common Access Method) Committee of
X3T9.2
(SCSI-2) on 30 Sept 1988 and they first met on 19 Oct 1988. The primary
goal was to come up with a SCSI subse
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Jon Elson via cctech
wrote:
> On 10/02/2017 08:29 AM, allison via cctech wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It was price... ATA-IDE was cheaper and PC industry was working hard to
>> push the price down.
>> SCSI always remained more costly.
>>
>> Yes. I think there were royalties
On 8/13/17, 11:15 PM, "cctech on behalf of Dominique Carlier via cctech"
wrote:
>On 12/08/2017 19:35, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> the black one in the lower left
>>
>> it is a tantalum, which are known to short, try removing them
>>
>
>Yes ! It was this one that was shorted !
>I decided in th
You're probably right, but the work is so massive, and also this time I
would like to understand and target this breakdown instead of working
(as usual) in blind mode.
In addition, I do not see the same type of capacitor on the CPU board as
the one from the subsystem you quote as being known to
On 10/2/17 11:34 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctech wrote:
On 10/02/2017 10:03 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
Here is a complete quote from the minutes:
"Jim McGrath of Quantum defined his company's interest as being
primarily in the ability to embed SCSI into a drive without there being
a physical
On 10/02/2017 10:03 AM, Alan Perry via cctech wrote:
> Here is a complete quote from the minutes:
> "Jim McGrath of Quantum defined his company's interest as being
> primarily in the ability to embed SCSI into a drive without there being
> a physical SCSI bus present. He described some problems of
Sorry for the typo, I typed 6 where I should have typed 9, as in 1969 when I
meant 1989. But my 20 years typo doesn’t change a thing. L
Chuck’s old Wren III supports the point. Wren III’s began shipping in the late
80s and so his recollection (if correct) that ‘ the interface is called "ATA
Unfortunately there is no documentation to support Pete's recollection - if
there is any I would like to see it.
For example:
· WD's Fall 1988 Corporate Product Overview does not use the terms IDE,
Intelligent d..., or Integrated d... Similarly, WD's October 23, 1989 press
release
See:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HXDkCoqMiVIC&pg=PP399&dq=IDE+hard+disk+interface+1989&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj01P2UmdPWAhUJhlQKHTBVD9IQ6AEILTAB#v=snippet&q=IDE%20hard%20disk%20interface%201989&f=true
For a CompuAdd 1989 ad that offers a dual IDE hard disk interface on
their motherboards.
I
I'm looking for the schematic of a Tektronix 4050E01 ROM expander
(toaster). This is the one that works with either the
Tektronix 4051 or 4052/4054 units. Different than the 4051E01. I have a
few to fix. Anyone have a manual for one that they
could scan?
Thanks,
Bob
--
Vintage computers and e
Here's one a bit earlier: Jan 31, 1989, for a CompuAdd 286 machine with
on-board IDE interface:
https://books.google.com/books?id=pMnJ2MkrjNgC&pg=PA161&dq=Built-in+IDE+interface&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYnpG0yNPWAhVSy2MKHXdMA4kQ6AEIXTAI#v=onepage&q=Built-in%20IDE%20interface&f=true
Which means that
Hi all --
I find myself with an Owens Illinois Digivue plasma display, model
designation MDXVI. This appears to be a later model than the ones used
in the PLATO IV and V terminals and I can't find any real information on
it. This one has two D-sub connectors on the rear -- a 15-pin for the
Nice find but still later than Mar 1989.
Since Compuadd didn’t make drives it does raise the question of whose drives
were in there.
Thanks
Tom
From: wrco...@wrcooke.net [mailto:wrco...@wrcooke.net]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 5:48 PM
To: Tom Gardner; General Discussion: On-Top
29 matches
Mail list logo
