On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 10:37 AM Noel Chiappa via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> AFAIK, the first ICs (in the modern sense) on FLIP CHIPS were on M-series.
>
The B198, B199, and B250 modules of the KA10 use ICs. First customer
shipments are claimed to have been in late 1967.
>From somet
At 06:03 PM 12/28/2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>Let's see you do that with your LTO carts!
I suppose we could do the math if we had enough data about the
reliability of each. There's more bytes in the LTO basket,
but a lot more baskets needed if you want to store the same
amount of data on
On 12/29/18 5:31 AM, John Foust via cctalk wrote:
> At 06:03 PM 12/28/2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> Let's see you do that with your LTO carts!
>
> I suppose we could do the math if we had enough data about the
> reliability of each. There's more bytes in the LTO basket,
> but a lot more
> On Dec 29, 2018, at 6:00 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-Dec-28, at 4:43 PM, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:
>> have u seen the agc being fired up videos
>
>
> Yes, videos from list member curiousMarc :
>Episode 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU
>
>
wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or unbound...
dtop us a line off list please ed# SMECC
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
think that core pack will ever live again?
Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common
machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to
distinguish the two types.
--
Will
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:10 PM Paul Koning via cctalk
wrote:
>
> The second one is a 6000 mainframe "cordwood" module. It shou
On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote:
> Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common
> machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to
> distinguish the two types.
That's an interesting observation, but I'm not sure I'd agree with you.
Whi
On 2018-12-29 1:32 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
> On 2018-12-29 12:47 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
>> On 2018-12-26 4:29 PM, Mattis Lind via cctalk wrote:
>>> Finally I got hold of the sources for the PDP-11 SPACE WAR that was
>>> submitted to DECUS by Bill Seiler.
>>>
>>> The format is sca
Don't let the (very few) online pictures of early 1700s (1704 and
1706) fool you - the things have a *lot* of modules when the options
are added. It might be that while the 6000 series followed the Cray
"simple/fewer" design philosophy, the 1700 line may not have.
--
Will
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at
I just passed along three boxes of these to the VCFed collection.
Eventually I assume there will be a library to make these available onsite,
not sure.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 1:01 PM ED SHARPE via cctalk
wrote:
>
> wanted back issues IEEE ANNALS OF THE HISTORY OF COMPUTING bound or
> unbound..
On 12/29/18 11:49 AM, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:
> I just passed along three boxes of these to the VCFed collection.
> Eventually I assume there will be a library to make these available onsite,
> not sure.
Stupid question, but doesn't IEEE CS already have these archived? (Yes,
I know for acce
On 12/29/18 12:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
> Stupid question, but doesn't IEEE CS already have these archived?
of course they are
we are speaking with paper obsessed siverfish lovers here though
On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote:
> Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common
> machine). The front bracket is missing, which is the easy way to
> distinguish the two types.
Don't know what the 1700 count was, but each 6600 had about 6,000
modules--
I think the Cyber 70s used the later modules (the multilayer and/or IC things).
--
Will
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 3:06 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
>
> On 12/29/18 10:47 AM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote:
> > Statistically, it is more likely to be a 1700 module (a more common
> > machine).
Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone who was
involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this Osborne 1
motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100.
I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related to
the boards pro
On 12/29/18 12:34 PM, William Donzelli wrote:
> I think the Cyber 70s used the later modules (the multilayer and/or IC
> things).
Nope, the Cyber 70s were very minor upgrades to the 6000 series. A
bunch of QSEs were made standard features, such as CMU (lower Cyber),
CEJ, ILR, etc. Same cordwood
On 12/29/18 12:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote:
> I've posted a blog about it here with a picture of the board for those
> curious: http://bradhodge.ca/blog/?p=1186
If you can run down any of the old Sorcim crowd, say, Richard Frank or
Marty Herbach, they might have saved some information.
I fir
On 12/29/18 12:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote:
> I reached out to Lee Felsenstein on it and he suggested it was related to
> the boards produced for the 10 prototypes Osborne built
I'm pretty sure I threw one of those out about five years ago.
Will dig through the archive to see if there are
Were the brackets on the 1700 cordwood modules shorter than the 6000
series? I've got a switch module here in a desk drawer--it's a
3-position switch labeled A O C and is illuminated with a couple of reed
relays on the PCB. PCB size is the same as 6000, as is the connector,
but bracket is defini
Maybe too easy but have you asked the seller if they know anything about it's
origins? I'd also guess maybe an employee or it could just be one of the 6
motherboard types as someone else commented. Pretty awesome though with the low
serial. Thanks also for the blog. I had no idea about the diffe
Yeah, I'm thinking mine is a Rev C that met the requirements for Rev D (seems
to be a D in marker).
If the board serial is what's in marker there, and is 1-00494 - that's pretty
close to the serial, so that would kind of line up. I just haven't been able
to find any other machines in the same
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 18:52, Grant Taylor via cctalk
wrote:
>
> On 12/19/2018 10:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> > 80186?
>
> I really thought it was 8x86 where the x was 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4.
:-o
No no, never.
But there was the i860 and i960 as well, remember. And the iAPX-432.
There's mo
so, already asked but i haven't yet got a clear answer
I have an xterm Tektronix xp217 for sale
it comes with *everything* you need to use it
- its original PSU, able to operate from 100-to-250V
- its original CD with the firmware (it's required a tftpboot server)
it's located in Italy
let me know
On 12/29/18 2:53 PM, Brad H via cctalk wrote:
Am just posting this as I am hoping someone out there knows someone who was
involved with Osborne back in the day to find out more this Osborne 1
motherboard I found in a low serial O1 I picked up for $100.
Is it just the board layout that's differe
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
I first saw the O1 when Richard showed me into a room with the various
bits strewn about on a tabletop (no case yet). I opined that it would
never sell with the tiny display.
I had known that Lee was working on something like that, but no deta
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote:
Maybe too easy but have you asked the seller if they know anything about
it's origins? I'd also guess maybe an employee or it could just be one
of the 6 motherboard types as someone else commented. Pretty awesome
though with the low serial. Tha
At 12:05 PM 29/12/2018 -0800, Al Kossow wrote:
>On 12/29/18 12:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
>> Stupid question, but doesn't IEEE CS already have these archived?
>
>of course they are
>
>we are speaking with paper obsessed siverfish lovers here though
>
Coming from you that's a worrying co
There are definitely some differences.
For example, the ROM BIOS on mine is contained on two 2716s instead of a
single 2732 as in the later boards. There's a few jumper wires on the
board too. I imagine it's largely the same, although if it were completely
I'm not sure why they'd do a full red
I'd love to see a photo of the innards of the prototype if anyone knows
where to find them. There were 10 built, and someone took a photo recently
enough for it to be of decent quality (the one that appears on
oldcomputers.net). Someone must have one somewhere.
I think Al might be onto something
> Some small companies would give employees extreme discounts if they
assembled one themselves using mostly parts which had been deemed too >
>obsolete for production.
I was thinking something like that, or it was repaired at one point and this
particular board was on hand to use as a replacement.
I wish I would have known. I joined IEEE Annals at the beginning. I
eventually dropped my subscription because I found that the inaccuracies
would just make me mad.
I threw out a bunch of ACM SIGPLAN notices (the local library didn't
want them) from the 1978s. Still need to get rid of a pile o
> On Dec 29, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Curious Marc via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Yes that would be lucky us. Hotel was no fun but owner understandably did not
> want to ship or even get separated from his AGC. We have been offered some
> real lab space in Houston for next time, so hopefully we’ll be in
On 30/12/2018 06:27, Daniel Seagraves via cctalk wrote:
On Dec 29, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Curious Marc via cctalk
wrote:
Yes that would be lucky us. Hotel was no fun but owner understandably did not
want to ship or even get separated from his AGC. We have been offered some real
lab space in
> On Dec 30, 2018, at 12:37 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> What is dox?
New-era-internet term for illegally gaining access to someone's real world
“documents" (place of employment, home address, phone numbers, medical records,
family members’ info, etc) for harassment, stalking,
35 matches
Mail list logo
