Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

Tom Gardner thomas.gardner at sbcglobal.net
Fri Oct 22 12:10:21 CDT 2010


On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:03:10 +0200 (CEST) Christian Corti wrote: 

 

>Per definition, a magnetic drum is not random access. 

>A random access storage is defined by the fact that addressing 

>any arbitrary cell needs the same time.

.

 

That may be today's definition but if you check the literature of the 50's
and 60's I am sure u will find drums (along with Williams Tubes, etc)
categorized as random access devices.  Even the first disk drive was the IBM
RAMAC 350 - as in Random Access Memory!  I think IBM invented the term
Direct Access Storage in the 1960s to distinguish devices whose assess time
was short but variable; that is, in between core (random) and tape
(sequential).

 

So the historical definition may have been . needs essentially the same
time.

 

Tom

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]

> On Behalf Of cctalk-request at classiccmp.org

> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:14 AM

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Subject: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 46

> 

> Send cctalk mailing list submissions to

>     cctalk at classiccmp.org

> 

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

>     http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>     cctalk-request at classiccmp.org

> 

> You can reach the person managing the list at

>     cctalk-owner at classiccmp.org

> 

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of cctalk digest..."

> 

> 

> Today's Topics:

> 

>    1. Re: 1986 NSA paper on computers (William Donzelli)

>    2. RE: the new manx is live (Rob Jarratt)

>    3. RE: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

>       (Ian King)

>    4. Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 45 (MikeS)

>    5. Re: Moving House - Need to downsize (Dan Williams)

>    6. Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 45 (Al Kossow)

>    7. Re: the new manx is live (Dan Roganti)

>    8. Re: the new manx is live  (Richard)

>    9. Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 45 (Chuck Guzis)

>   10. RE: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

>       (Rich Alderson)

>   11. Re: HTL (Charles Dickman)

>   12. Re: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

>       (Al Kossow)

>   13. Viper 2150S scsi tape drive (dwight elvey)

>   14. Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive (Chuck Guzis)

>   15. Re: Moving House - Need to downsize (Pontus Pihlgren)

>   16. Re: the new manx is live (Pontus Pihlgren)

>   17. Test Diablo Model 31 drive and disk pack on a PC (Operation

>       Alto      Restoration) (Nick Allen)

>   18. Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

>       (Charlie Carothers)

>   19. Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive (r.stricklin)

>   20. Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

>       (Jochen Kunz)

>   21. Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

>       (Christian Corti)

>   22. RE: Oldest original working proper computer (stored program

>       etc) (Roger Holmes)

>   23. Re: lilith computer by wikipedia (Simon Fryer)

>   24. Re: Test Diablo Model 31 drive and disk pack on a PC

>       (Operation Alto Restoration) (Al Kossow)

>   25. RE: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive (dwight elvey)

>   26. Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive (Dave McGuire)

> 

> 

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:25:52 -0400

> From: William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: 1986 NSA paper on computers

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID:

>     <AANLkTinUBCts0XvV0RaGH7RcJQab-Vqm5YjBrks8aQP3 at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 

> > Will, you've got a 1604; do you know anything about this?

> 

> Not me.

> 

> I probably have enough of the modules that I could build one, however.

> 

> --

> Will

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 2

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:28:17 +0100

> From: "Rob Jarratt" <robert.jarratt at ntlworld.com>

> Subject: RE: the new manx is live

> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>,      "'General Discussion: On-Topic Posts

> Only'"

>     <cctech at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <015601cb7166$e49b58a0$add209e0$@ntlworld.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="us-ascii"

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-

> > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Torfinn Ingolfsen

> > Sent: 21 October 2010 08:10

> > To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only

> > Subject: Re: the new manx is live

> >

> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:

> >

> > > Manx is an online catalog of computer documentation.

> > >

> > > The new manx is up for beta testing here: <http://manx.classiccmp.org>

> > >

> >

> > I seem to be having problems reaching the site.

> > Details:

> > root at kg-quiet# traceroute manx.classiccmp.org traceroute to

> classiccmp.org

> > (209.145.140.17), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets

> >  1  kg-omni1 (10.1.10.1)  0.228 ms  0.182 ms  0.158 ms

> >  2  kg-ruter (10.0.0.1)  77.819 ms  127.069 ms  86.825 ms

> >  3  1.80-203-92.nextgentel.com (80.203.92.1)  15.481 ms  14.011 ms

> 14.051

> ms

> >  4  80-202-3-30.dd.nextgentel.com (80.202.3.30)  17.763 ms *  59.706 ms

> >  5  217-13-0-70.dd.nextgentel.com (217.13.0.70)  18.365 ms  14.260 ms

> > 14.759 ms

> >  6  oso-b3-link.telia.net (80.239.193.93)  15.088 ms  14.948 ms  14.765

> ms

> >  7  kbn-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.251.49)  34.331 ms  27.930 ms  28.293

> ms

> >  8  hbg-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.252.114)  78.106 ms  34.255 ms  34.479

> ms

> >  9  ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.247.142)  67.265 ms

> >     ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.245.123)  44.158 ms

> >     ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.247.142)  50.006 ms

> > 10  ffm-b2-link.telia.net (80.91.249.103)  42.490 ms

> >     ffm-b2-link.telia.net (80.91.252.174)  41.347 ms

> >     ffm-b2-link.telia.net (80.91.249.103)  42.628 ms

> > 11  cogent-ic-135155-ffm-b2.c.telia.net (213.248.93.174)  51.872 ms

> 42.313 ms

> > 40.571 ms

> > 12  te0-2-0-6.ccr22.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.36.81)  42.860 ms

> >     te0-2-0-6.mpd21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.245)  132.058 ms

> >     te0-4-0-0.mpd21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.101)  147.305 ms

> > 13  te0-4-0-0.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.113)  140.836 ms

> >     te0-2-0-4.mpd21.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.226)  152.265 ms

> >     te0-2-0-6.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.241)  135.140 ms

> > 14  te0-1-0-4.ccr22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.206)  143.202 ms

> >     te0-2-0-4.ccr22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.210)  157.894 ms

> > 147.097 ms

> > 15  te3-2.ccr01.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.30)  150.725 ms

> 150.014

> > ms  150.329 ms

> > 16  vl3808.na41.b003211-0.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.20.47.170)

> 167.084

> > ms  156.374 ms

> >     vl3508.na41.b003211-0.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.20.47.166)

> 158.136

> ms

> > 17  38.104.146.10 (38.104.146.10)  155.110 ms  155.902 ms  152.225 ms

> > 18  host42.datotel.com (208.82.151.42)  161.893 ms  179.548 ms  167.528

> ms

> > 19  stl-d1-g5-1.datotel.com (208.82.151.22)  157.149 ms  151.804 ms

> 151.915

> > ms

> > 20  * * *

> > 21  * * *

> > 22  * * *

> > 23  * * *

> > 24  * * *

> > 25  * * *

> > 26  * * *

> > 27  * * *

> > 28  * * *

> > 29  * * *

> > 30  * * *

> > 31  * host50.datotel.com (208.75.82.50)  156.517 ms !X *

> > 32  * * *

> > 33  * * *

> > 34  * * *

> > 35  * * *

> > 36  * * *

> > 37  * * *

> > 38  * * *

> > 39  * * *

> > 40  * * *

> > 41  * * *

> > 42  * * *

> > 43  * * *

> > 44  * * *

> > 45  * * *

> > 46  * * *

> > 47  * * *

> > 48  * * *

> > 49  * * *

> > 50  * * *

> > 51  * * *

> > 52  * * *

> > 53  * * *

> > 54  * * *

> > 55  * * *

> > 56  * * *

> > 57  * * *

> > 58  * * *

> > 59  * * *

> > 60  * * *

> > 61  * * *

> > 62  * * *

> > 63  * * *

> > 64  * * *

> > root at kg-quiet#

> >

> > Is it working ok for everyone else?

> > --

> > Regards,

> > Torfinn Ingolfsen

> > Oslo, Norway

> 

> Works OK for me, here is my tracert:

> 

>   1     8 ms     3 ms    <1 ms  JUPITER [192.168.0.1]

>   2    42 ms    22 ms    26 ms  10.236.80.1

>   3    29 ms    66 ms     9 ms  oldh-cam-1a-v100.network.virginmedia.net

> [80.5.1

> 65.13]

>   4    11 ms    24 ms    12 ms  manc-core-1a-ae2-0.network.virginmedia.net

> [195.

> 182.180.37]

>   5    25 ms    23 ms    18 ms  manc-bb-1a-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net

> [213.10

> 5.175.1]

>   6    22 ms    31 ms    49 ms  manc-bb-1b-ae0-0.network.virginmedia.net

> [62.253

> .187.178]

>   7    34 ms    45 ms    35 ms  nrth-bb-1a-as3-0.network.virginmedia.net

> [213.10

> 5.64.21]

>   8    30 ms    29 ms    15 ms  nrth-tmr-1-ae1-0.network.virginmedia.net

> [213.10

> 5.159.30]

>   9    64 ms    54 ms    43 ms  fran-ic-1-as0-0.network.virginmedia.net

> [62.253.

> 185.81]

>  10    76 ms    51 ms    54 ms  te0-7-0-7.mpd22.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com

> [130.11

> 7.14.133]

>  11   144 ms   138 ms   120 ms  te0-2-0-6.mpd22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com

> [130.11

> 7.51.230]

>  12   138 ms   186 ms   155 ms  te0-0-0-4.mpd22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com

> [154.54

> .40.234]

>  13   137 ms   145 ms   155 ms  te0-1-0-0.ccr22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com

> [154.54

> .6.178]

>  14   184 ms   142 ms   141 ms  te3-2.ccr01.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com

> [154.54.27.

> 30]

>  15   173 ms   146 ms   158 ms

> vl3808.na41.b003211-0.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com [

> 38.20.47.170]

>  16   165 ms   165 ms   180 ms  38.104.146.10

>  17   163 ms   151 ms   146 ms  host42.datotel.com [208.82.151.42]

>  18   147 ms   151 ms   161 ms  stl-d1-g5-1.datotel.com [208.82.151.22]

>  19   151 ms   140 ms   155 ms  host50.datotel.com [208.75.82.50]

>  20   146 ms   163 ms   158 ms  209-145-130-66.accessus.net

> [209.145.130.66]

>  21   147 ms   160 ms   163 ms  louie.classiccmp.org [209.145.140.17]

> 

> Regards

> 

> Rob

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 3

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:30:07 -0700

> From: Ian King <IanK at vulcan.com>

> Subject: RE: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <FF6AB92D97A23A409701CDBF66F03FCD03DC3E70BE at 505fuji>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-

> > bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Tony Duell

> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:18 PM

> > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> > Subject: Re: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

> >

> > > > I'd like to hear more about what constitutes "cataloging", as I'm a

> > > > n00b in this respect.

> > >

> > > Just what it sounds like. :-)

> > >

> > > When an item comes into the collection, it is assigned an accession

> > > number; the standard is yyyy.nnn.mmm, where nnn represents order in

> > > which the item came in in year yyyy, and mmm is the individual number

> > > of each piece that makes up the item.  If a piece is made up of

> > > parts (say a tea set, for example) a letter can be suffixed to the

> > > piece number for each part to make it possible to keep them

> > associated

> > > even if physically apart.  Leading zeroes should be used in the item

> > > and piece numbers.

> >

> > What do you mean by 'item','piece' and 'part' here? I can understand an

> > item being made of several pieces, but why do you need a third level

> > here?

> >

> > In the case of a classic computer, what would you label? The casing?

> > The

> > individual PCBs/modules? How would you handle the case of taking 2

> > effectively identical machines acquired at differnet times and using

> > parts from bvth to make one working example, or would a museum never do

> > that? (If the latter, then I consider the policy to be broken!).

> >

> 

> Yes.  :-)

> 

> Seriously: we do encounter this situation.  When a machine comes in, it is

> catalogued as an entity.  If we find it necessary to remove a component

> from machine A to install in machine B, the component is separately

> catalogued with a note in the record stating that it was originally part

> of machine A.

> 

> I did this recently with a machine that came as a system containing an

> RK05 drive identified as non-functional.  We used the RK8-E from that

> machine with another PDP-8/e that also had RK05 drives but no RK8-E.

> 

> That would not be appropriate for a machine that is historically

> significant in its particular configuration (for example, our PDP-12), but

> that's a hard argument to make for the vast majority of PDP-8/e's.  And

> given the records we keep, we could restore the accession to its original

> configuration if needed.

> 

> It's always a judgement call when one must balance preservation and

> restoration.  -- Ian

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 4

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:03 -0400

> From: "MikeS" <dm561 at torfree.net>

> Subject: Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 45

> To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <C254F6585ED7493FB620AF800A7CA4F5 at vl420mt>

> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";

>     reply-type=original

> 

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:03:54 -0700

> From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>

> Subject: Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <4CC0808A.8010108 at bitsavers.org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> On 10/21/10 10:03 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

> >> For example, the GI GIMINI (CP1600)

> 

> > That would be fun to find. There was a version that I used in the late

> > 70's that had a DSD floppy disk interfaced to it. I think I still have

> > all of the software for it.

> ----

> And I've got some brochures and datasheets for the GIC8000 and GIMINI and

> the various cards and chips in them, so all we need is the computer ;-)

> 

> mike

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 5

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:53:10 +0100

> From: Dan Williams <williams.dan at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: Moving House - Need to downsize

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID:

>     <AANLkTinSeMiB8LqMnhemRO9Gkq56Ov5wGO6oZfeYtG0P at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 

> On 21 October 2010 20:12, Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at update.uu.se> wrote:

> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:12:03PM +0100, Dan Williams wrote:

> >> I'm sure these will be popular: ?I have 8x big heavy drive DSSI drive

> >> units. They have not been powered up for a few years. They have

> >> scsi-->dssi convertor cards in them. They currently have 1GB and 2GB

> >> full height drive units in them. But they can take up to 9GB.

> >> I also have cabling which I have to sort out mainly for SUN and DEC. I

> >> have all the cabling for the dssi drives and a lot of monitor and

> >> other cables for Vaxstation 3100's.

> >

> > I'm curious about that SCSI->DSSI converter. Is it used to run dssi

> > disks on a scsi controller or scsi disks on a dssi controller ?

> >

> > The latter would be interesting.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Pontus.

> >

> 

> It takes scsi disks on a dssi controller. It has a front panel and you

> can connect to the controller like a normal dssi disk. It is a

> liberator 220. I have the user manual for it if anyone is interested.

> 

> Dan

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 6

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:08:48 -0700

> From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>

> Subject: Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 45

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <4CC0B9F0.5000705 at bitsavers.org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> On 10/21/10 2:52 PM, MikeS wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:03:54 -0700

> > From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>

> > Subject: Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

> > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> > Message-ID: <4CC0808A.8010108 at bitsavers.org>

> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> >

> > On 10/21/10 10:03 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

> >>> For example, the GI GIMINI (CP1600)

> >

> >> That would be fun to find. There was a version that I used in the late

> >> 70's that had a DSD floppy disk interfaced to it. I think I still have

> >> all of the software for it.

> > ----

> > And I've got some brochures and datasheets for the GIC8000 and GIMINI

> and the various cards and chips in them, so all we need is the computer ;-

> )

> >

> 

> I uploaded the GIMINI manuals under generalInstruments on bitsavers a

> couple of weeks ago.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 7

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:14:26 -0400

> From: Dan Roganti <ragooman at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: the new manx is live

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID:

>     <AANLkTinTe5iYUGDnrsygRs+4XuFwxrGweoN+rEDL6fMg at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:

> 

> >

> > In article <AANLkTikFFFKKo=6Ba=6DjtK1hUkDUSciHp+WO-

> gfLNyM at mail.gmail.com<6DjtK1hUkDUSciHp%2BWO-gfLNyM at mail.gmail.com>

> > >,

> >     Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingox at gmail.com> writes:

> >

> > > Is it working ok for everyone else?

> >

> > Noone else has reported problems; manx is hosted on the same group of

> > machines that serves this mailing list and several other classic

> > computing sites graciously hosted by Jay.

> >

> >

> 

> very nice !

> 

> Can we always request to add addt'l companies ?

> SEL is on Bitsavers already but not listed on yours.

> 

> 

> =Dan

> --http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ragooman/

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 8

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:51:54 -0600

> From: Richard <legalize at xmission.com>

> Subject: Re: the new manx is live

> To: cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <E1P93zG-0005Jz-CS at shell.xmission.com>

> 

> 

> In article <AANLkTinTe5iYUGDnrsygRs+4XuFwxrGweoN+rEDL6fMg at mail.gmail.com>,

>     Dan Roganti <ragooman at gmail.com> writes:

> 

> > Can we always request to add addt'l companies ?

> > SEL is on Bitsavers already but not listed on yours.

> 

> This first round was just to reproduce the existing manx.

> 

> Next up is to add users and roles to provide for community additions.

> 

> Contributions of code are welcome.  The whole code base has been

> developed test-driven and is covered by unit tests.

> --

> "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download

>  <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

> 

>       Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 9

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:04:02 -0700

> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>

> Subject: Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 45

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <4CC06472.12811.1626E31 at cclist.sydex.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> 

> On 21 Oct 2010 at 15:08, Al Kossow wrote:

> 

> > I uploaded the GIMINI manuals under generalInstruments on bitsavers a

> > couple of weeks ago.

> 

> Well, I've got the CP1600 CPU sitting unused in my hellbox and the

> blue manual that gives the schematics for the system.  But no

> firmware listing for the monitor...

> 

> BTW, did anyone notice that there's a fellow on eBay offering the

> INS8900 (PACE in NMOS) NOS CPUs for about $16 the each?

> 

> --Chuck

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 10

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:04:06 -0700

> From: Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com>

> Subject: RE: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

> To: "'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID:

>     <CC28F43ED4708D489ABCF68D06D7F556040A5CCB91 at 505DENALI.corp.vnw.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 

> From: Tony Duell

> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:18 PM

> 

> >> When an item comes into the collection, it is assigned an accession

> >> number; the standard is yyyy.nnn.mmm, where nnn represents order in

> >> which the item came in in year yyyy, and mmm is the individual number

> >> of each piece that makes up the item.  If a piece is made up of

> >> parts (say a tea set, for example) a letter can be suffixed to the

> >> piece number for each part to make it possible to keep them associated

> >> even if physically apart.  Leading zeroes should be used in the item

> >> and piece numbers.

> 

> > What do you mean by 'item','piece' and 'part' here? I can understand an

> > item being made of several pieces, but why do you need a third level

> here?

> 

> I was trying not to re-use the same word for different levels.

> 

> You donate items to a museum, let's say for simplicity's sake a horse shoe

> and a tea service with 4 individually decorated cups and matching saucers,

> pot, sugar and creamer.

> 

> You do this in 2010.  That's the first field of the accession numbers.

> 

> The two items are the 75th and 76th donated to the museum this year.

> These numbers will be the second fields of the respective accession

> numbers.

> 

> The horse shoe will receive accession number 2010.075.001, and be marked

> as 2010.75.1

> 

> The tea pot will be 2010.076.001; the sugar, 2010.076.002; the creamer,

> 2010.076.003; the first cup-and-saucer pair, 2010.076.004A and

> 2010.076.004B;

> and so on.  The reason for pairing the cup and saucer will be the matching

> decoration on each pair.

> 

> You could also simply number each piece individually, but then you lose

> information.

> 

> > In the case of a classic computer, what would you label? The casing? The

> > individual PCBs/modules? How would you handle the case of taking 2

> > effectively identical machines acquired at differnet times and using

> > parts from bvth to make one working example, or would a museum never do

> > that? (If the latter, then I consider the policy to be broken!).

> 

> I'll start with the last comment.  The policy will depend on the purpose

> of the museum; no two museums have identical missions, though they may be

> very close.  A computer museum with a mission of making systems run will

> have a very different answer to your question than a museum dealing with

> the history of engineering laboratories, where the identical computers

> may have been used for very different purposes and be important to the

> understanding of how each lab achieved its goals.  (Not every museum tries

> to please everyone in the know about a topic--there are art museums which

> I find deadly dull, and art museums I love to visit over and over, for

> example.)  Neither policy is "broken", they simply differ.

> 

> Computers are more difficult to catalog than tea services.  My personal

> preference would be to replicate the manufacturer's bill of materials,

> assigning accession numbers at each level down to the circuit boards (or

> equivalent, in the case of large valve-based modules, but those don't

> crop up in the time frame in which we have specialized).  Since the

> catalog here was set up by someone else several years before I joined

> the team, I have to accommodate myself to what is in place--we're not in

> a position to re-catalog several thousand pieces my way.

> 

> We catalog the top-level items (CPU, disk drives, tape drives, printers,

> etc.) when they come in.  The low-level items (disk packs and cartridges,

> tapes, boards, etc.) are fuzzier:  Loose items, like spare boards, are

> catalogued when they come in, but boards installed in larger items only

> get catalogued when they are pulled for repair or replacement.

> 

> It takes discipline to catalog pieces when you would really rather be

> restoring a system to working condition, but without a catalog, you will

> very quickly lose all semblance of provenance, and your reason for being

> a museum.

> 

> 

> Rich Alderson

> Vintage Computing Sr. Server Engineer

> Vulcan, Inc.

> 505 5th Avenue S, Suite 900

> Seattle, WA 98104

> 

> mailto:RichA at vulcan.com

> mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org

> 

> http://www.PDPplanet.org/

> http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 11

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:09:31 -0400

> From: Charles Dickman <chd at chdickman.com>

> Subject: Re: HTL

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID:

>     <AANLkTimgJ80NcGDTXXwhRHZFDfbzy_reGtCe65juy5Ax at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:27 PM, William Donzelli

> <wdonzelli at gmail.com>wrote:

> 

> > Maybe a retarded question, but how static sensitive are HTL chips?

> >

> > Why do you ask?

> 

> I have quite a few HTL chips that I have no use for.

> 

> -chuck

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 12

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:23:11 -0700

> From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>

> Subject: Re: Cataloguing in a museum setting [was Re: nonsense...]

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <4CC0E77F.3000005 at bitsavers.org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> On 10/21/10 4:04 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:

> > The low-level items (disk packs and cartridges,

> > tapes, boards, etc.) are fuzzier

> 

> But necessary.

> 

> We're discovering that systems were accepted in Boston with no boards in

> them,

> for example, and there is nothing in the accession record that mentions

> that

> fact.

> 

> It's absolutely necessary to know if anything that should be in an

> accessioned

> artifact is missing, and the condition.

> 

> It is a huge amount of work to catalog a collection.

> 

> One of the requirements for museum accreditation is having a significant

> portion of your collection cataloged.

> 

> CHM has come a LONG way since I've been here. We have just under 75,000

> items

> visible in the on-line data base

> 

> http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/search/

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 13

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:37:58 -0700

> From: dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com>

> Subject: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <SNT129-W286E3F0A65E7EDCFA0F5C3A35E0 at phx.gbl>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> 

> 

> 

> Hi

>  I just got this use drive and I was wondering if it

> is working as expected.

>  When I plug in the tape, the head moves up and down

> but the tape drive motor doesn't move.

>  Is this normal?

> Dwight

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 14

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:50:44 -0700

> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>

> Subject: Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <4CC0B5B4.16151.2A10F67 at cclist.sydex.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> 

> On 21 Oct 2010 at 21:37, dwight elvey wrote:

> 

> >  I just got this use drive and I was wondering if it

> > is working as expected.

> >  When I plug in the tape, the head moves up and down

> > but the tape drive motor doesn't move.

> >  Is this normal?

> 

> My recollection of this drive is that the tape should be

> automatically positioned to BOT when inserted. (i.e., the drive

> should spin the tape a bit).

> 

> --Chuck

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 15

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:13:36 +0200

> From: Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at Update.UU.SE>

> Subject: Re: Moving House - Need to downsize

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <20101022051336.GA15674 at Update.UU.SE>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> 

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:53:10PM +0100, Dan Williams wrote:

> >

> > It takes scsi disks on a dssi controller. It has a front panel and you

> > can connect to the controller like a normal dssi disk. It is a

> > liberator 220. I have the user manual for it if anyone is interested.

> 

> It would be a lovely thing to have. I live in sweden and unless you find

> someone local and wouldn't mind shipping I wouldn't mind paying for it.

> Well, it depends on the size of course, how big is this thing?

> 

> /P

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 16

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:16:37 +0200

> From: Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at Update.UU.SE>

> Subject: Re: the new manx is live

> Cc: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <20101022051637.GB15674 at Update.UU.SE>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> 

> This is a semiuseful tool:

> 

> http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://manx.classiccmp.org/

> 

> Good work everyone! Manx is an awesome tool! Many thanks.

> 

> /Pontus

> 

> 

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 09:10:28AM +0200, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:

> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote:

> >

> > > Manx is an online catalog of computer documentation.

> > >

> > > The new manx is up for beta testing here: <http://manx.classiccmp.org>

> > >

> >

> > I seem to be having problems reaching the site.

> > Details:

> > root at kg-quiet# traceroute manx.classiccmp.org

> > traceroute to classiccmp.org (209.145.140.17), 64 hops max, 52 byte

> packets

> >  1  kg-omni1 (10.1.10.1)  0.228 ms  0.182 ms  0.158 ms

> >  2  kg-ruter (10.0.0.1)  77.819 ms  127.069 ms  86.825 ms

> >  3  1.80-203-92.nextgentel.com (80.203.92.1)  15.481 ms  14.011 ms

> 14.051

> > ms

> >  4  80-202-3-30.dd.nextgentel.com (80.202.3.30)  17.763 ms *  59.706 ms

> >  5  217-13-0-70.dd.nextgentel.com (217.13.0.70)  18.365 ms  14.260 ms

> > 14.759 ms

> >  6  oso-b3-link.telia.net (80.239.193.93)  15.088 ms  14.948 ms  14.765

> ms

> >  7  kbn-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.251.49)  34.331 ms  27.930 ms  28.293

> ms

> >  8  hbg-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.252.114)  78.106 ms  34.255 ms  34.479

> ms

> >  9  ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.247.142)  67.265 ms

> >     ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.245.123)  44.158 ms

> >     ffm-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.247.142)  50.006 ms

> > 10  ffm-b2-link.telia.net (80.91.249.103)  42.490 ms

> >     ffm-b2-link.telia.net (80.91.252.174)  41.347 ms

> >     ffm-b2-link.telia.net (80.91.249.103)  42.628 ms

> > 11  cogent-ic-135155-ffm-b2.c.telia.net (213.248.93.174)  51.872 ms

> 42.313

> > ms  40.571 ms

> > 12  te0-2-0-6.ccr22.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.36.81)  42.860 ms

> >     te0-2-0-6.mpd21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.245)  132.058 ms

> >     te0-4-0-0.mpd21.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.26.101)  147.305 ms

> > 13  te0-4-0-0.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.42.113)  140.836 ms

> >     te0-2-0-4.mpd21.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.226)  152.265 ms

> >     te0-2-0-6.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.241)  135.140 ms

> > 14  te0-1-0-4.ccr22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.206)  143.202 ms

> >     te0-2-0-4.ccr22.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.40.210)  157.894 ms

> > 147.097 ms

> > 15  te3-2.ccr01.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.30)  150.725 ms

> 150.014

> > ms  150.329 ms

> > 16  vl3808.na41.b003211-0.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.20.47.170)

> 167.084

> > ms  156.374 ms

> >     vl3508.na41.b003211-0.stl03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.20.47.166)

> 158.136

> > ms

> > 17  38.104.146.10 (38.104.146.10)  155.110 ms  155.902 ms  152.225 ms

> > 18  host42.datotel.com (208.82.151.42)  161.893 ms  179.548 ms  167.528

> ms

> > 19  stl-d1-g5-1.datotel.com (208.82.151.22)  157.149 ms  151.804 ms

> 151.915

> > ms

> > 20  * * *

> > 21  * * *

> > 22  * * *

> > 23  * * *

> > 24  * * *

> > 25  * * *

> > 26  * * *

> > 27  * * *

> > 28  * * *

> > 29  * * *

> > 30  * * *

> > 31  * host50.datotel.com (208.75.82.50)  156.517 ms !X *

> > 32  * * *

> > 33  * * *

> > 34  * * *

> > 35  * * *

> > 36  * * *

> > 37  * * *

> > 38  * * *

> > 39  * * *

> > 40  * * *

> > 41  * * *

> > 42  * * *

> > 43  * * *

> > 44  * * *

> > 45  * * *

> > 46  * * *

> > 47  * * *

> > 48  * * *

> > 49  * * *

> > 50  * * *

> > 51  * * *

> > 52  * * *

> > 53  * * *

> > 54  * * *

> > 55  * * *

> > 56  * * *

> > 57  * * *

> > 58  * * *

> > 59  * * *

> > 60  * * *

> > 61  * * *

> > 62  * * *

> > 63  * * *

> > 64  * * *

> > root at kg-quiet#

> >

> > Is it working ok for everyone else?

> > --

> > Regards,

> > Torfinn Ingolfsen

> > Oslo, Norway

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 17

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:57:55 -0500

> From: Nick Allen <nick.allen at comcast.net>

> Subject: Test Diablo Model 31 drive and disk pack on a PC (Operation

>     Alto  Restoration)

> To: cctech at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <4CC0E193.9070101 at comcast.net>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> Al and everyone else,

> 

>      I believe Al has had success interfacing a Diablo Model 31 with a

> PC computer (I assume so, since he uploaded the Alto diskpacks up to

> bitsavers.org).  Al, Can you (or anyone else) please provide the steps

> on how to do so?

> 

> If I can verify the disk drive is working, and the disk packs have valid

> data on them, this would be yet another step completed in getting the

> alto up and running =)

> 

> Thanks!

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 18

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:26:49 -0500

> From: Charlie Carothers <csquared3 at tx.rr.com>

> Subject: Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

> To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only <cctech at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <4CC10479.2020902 at tx.rr.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> On 10/18/2010 6:58 AM, Roger Holmes wrote:

> >> From: Christian Corti<cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>

> >>

> >> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, Roger Holmes wrote:

> >>> don't believe its true, I was told my machine is currently the oldest

> >>> original working computer. Not counting replicas or machines which

> don't

> >>> have stored programs. My machine was installed in 1962 (and designed

> in

> >>> the late 1950s).

> >>

> >> Then you've been told wrong.

> >> Several examples:

> >> - Our LGP-30 ser.no. 4, built 1958, still working with peripherals.

> Just

> >>    yesterday I've had a group of visitors. It's been designed around

> 1954.

> >> - The IBM 650 of the IBM Museum in Sindelfingen (working)

> >> - The Zuse Z22 ser.no. 13 in Karlsruhe, also built around 1958

> (apparently

> >>    still working, although the ZKM is not the right place for it IMHO)

> >> All are original first generation machines, and all of them are in

> >> southern Germany.

> >>

> >>> restored was first installed in 1964. Are there other? I'm not

> counting

> >>> the Zuse in Germany as its not a stored program machine, and anyway

> I'm

> >>> not sure if it is a replica or the original. It is surprising if it

> >>> survived the extensive bombing by the USAF and RAF during WW2 unless

> it

> >>> was stored in a bunker/cave/mine.

> >>

> >> What Zuse are you talking about? The Z3 has been destroyed, yes, and

> >> rebuilt by Zuse in 1962.

> >

> > Thank you, this is just the information I wanted.

> >

> > Is the Z3 stored program? Turing complete?

> >

> > If it is, then it would be useful to know when the rebuilt version

> became operational, though I'm not actually sure the actual month my

> machine went live either.

> >

> > Assuming for now that Z3 is not stored program, than my list so far is:

> >

> > 1958, LGP-30

> > 1958, Zuse Z22

> > Somewhere between 1954 and 1962, IBM 650

> > 1962 ICT 1301 serial no 6 (SO FAR the earliest surviving machine with

> random access program and data storage. i.e. Core and called Immediate

> Access Store by ICT).

> >

> > Thanks again.

> >

> > I expect the chaps in the states will tell me of several more when I

> catch up with my e-mails.

> >

> >

> >

> According to this:

> http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/650/650_ch1.html the first

> 650 was installed at a customer site in December, 1954.

> 

> I thought this was pretty interesting as well:

> http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_FT1.html

> It indicates the 701 was around in 1952.  I'm not sure if you want to

> limit your list to core memory or not.  It appears that the 701's

> internal memory consisted of a drum and a CRT.  In any case, I need to

> waste a lot more time exploring these pages. :-)

> Later,

> Charlie C.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 19

> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:23:44 -0700

> From: "r.stricklin" <bear at typewritten.org>

> Subject: Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts Only" <cctech at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <D428CDED-9195-48F5-B183-3CE5930788D1 at typewritten.org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

> 

> 

> On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:37 PM, dwight elvey wrote:

> 

> > When I plug in the tape, the head moves up and down

> > but the tape drive motor doesn't move.

> > Is this normal?

> 

> It could be, depending on firmware.

> 

> ok

> bear

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 20

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:53:46 +0200

> From: Jochen Kunz <jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

> Subject: Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <20101022085346.5c1f9ec0.jkunz at unixag-kl.fh-kl.de>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> 

> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:58:00 +0100

> Roger Holmes <roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk> wrote:

> 

> > 1962 ICT 1301 serial no 6 (SO FAR the earliest surviving machine

> > with random access program and data storage.

> Well. The drum of the Z22 is random access program and data storage,

> just with a bit lattency...

> 

> I don't know how and when the Z22 at the ZKM is operated now. When it

> moved to the ZKM there where weekly operating hours with demonstrations

> done by the former maintainers of the machine.

> --

> 

> 

> \end{Jochen}

> 

> \ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 21

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:03:10 +0200 (CEST)

> From: Christian Corti <cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>

> Subject: Re: Oldest original proper computer (stored program etc)

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010221057001.21272 at linuxserv.home>

> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

> 

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Jochen Kunz wrote:

> > Well. The drum of the Z22 is random access program and data storage,

> > just with a bit lattency...

> 

> Per definition, a magnetic drum is not random access. A random access

> storage is defined by the fact that addressing any arbitrary cell needs

> the same time.

> But the Z22 has a small amount of core memory, too, called

> "Schnellspeicher", i.e. "fast memory".

> 

> Christian

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 22

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:11:53 +0100

> From: Roger Holmes <roger.holmes at microspot.co.uk>

> Subject: RE: Oldest original working proper computer (stored program

>     etc)

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <C1C3379B-1DCB-412A-B3C3-43252EF6DC0E at microspot.co.uk>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> 

> > From: "Rod Smallwood" <rodsmallwood at btconnect.com>

> >

> >

> > And we have a winner!!

> >

> >

> > The Manchester computer of 1948 (Built 1946-1948)

> > It could store 1024 bits on a cathode-ray-tube, enough to demonstrate

> the

> > stored-program principle in working electronics, the first in the world

> to

> > do so

> >

> > Built under the direction of Alan Turing and A von Neumann

> > ?

> 

> 

> No, sorry the ORIGINAL Manchester Baby no longer exists. Fellow members of

> the Computer Conservation Society have built a replica, correct in almost

> every respect but it is only a few years old so does not qualify as oldest

> original working stored program computer. I still would like to make a

> list of the top ten not just the top one.

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 23

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:11:20 +1100

> From: Simon Fryer <fryers at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: lilith computer by wikipedia

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID:

>     <AANLkTinYKzyw+HKKc3FS9EAFdkrLis0n1NX-KnAO=rcx at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> 

> On 22/10/2010, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Yes, and made the mistake of buying one. Couldn't believe it when it

> >> actually arrived. I left an interesting review on Amazon.

> >

> > Do you happen to remember the title (or have a URL) for this? I wonder

> > how the authors of that/those wikipedia articles feel about this? I know

> > I'd be pretty annoyed if somedy did that with something I'd written.

> 

> ISBN 10: 1155452186

> ISBN 13: 978-1155452180

> Title: ICL Mainframe Computers: Leo, English Electric Kdf8, Elliott

> 803, Ict 1900, ICL 2900 Series, English Electric Kdf9, Ict 1301

> By: Books LLC

> 

> http://www.amazon.co.uk/ICL-Mainframe-Computers-English-

> Electric/dp/1155452186/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

> 

> >> Only upside, it is in a more convenient format for reading while on the

> >> toilet.

> >

> > And for other uses in that location?

> 

> The paper isn't really too soft. It might be okay in an emergency.

> 

> Simon

> 

> --

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> "Well, an engineer is not concerned with the truth; that is left to

> philosophers and theologians: the prime concern of an engineer is

> the utility of the final product."

> Lectures on the Electrical Properties of Materials, L.Solymar, D.Walsh

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 24

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 06:27:37 -0700

> From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>

> Subject: Re: Test Diablo Model 31 drive and disk pack on a PC

>     (Operation Alto   Restoration)

> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> Message-ID: <4CC19149.5030409 at bitsavers.org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> On 10/21/10 5:57 PM, Nick Allen wrote:

> > Al and everyone else,

> >

> > I believe Al has had success interfacing a Diablo Model 31 with a PC

> computer

> 

> I used a program that runs on the Alto and copies sectors across through a

> PC parallel port.

> 

> Could you take pictures of the labels on the packs? I normally supplied a

> couple of them

> with the machines that came from me, and could tell pretty quickly if they

> need to be copied.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 25

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:07:24 -0700

> From: dwight elvey <dkelvey at hotmail.com>

> Subject: RE: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive

> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <SNT129-W644821C0BBBE562CFC5863A35E0 at phx.gbl>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> > From: cclist at sydex.com

> > To: cctalk at classiccmp.org

> > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:50:44 -0700

> > Subject: Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive

> >

> > On 21 Oct 2010 at 21:37, dwight elvey wrote:

> >

> > > I just got this use drive and I was wondering if it

> > > is working as expected.

> > > When I plug in the tape, the head moves up and down

> > > but the tape drive motor doesn't move.

> > > Is this normal?

> >

> > My recollection of this drive is that the tape should be

> > automatically positioned to BOT when inserted. (i.e., the drive

> > should spin the tape a bit).

> >

> > --Chuck

> >

> >

> Thanks Chuck

>  I was afraid of that. That was my recollection

> of similar drives. Now I have to find out why the motor

> doesn't spin.

>  As I recalled, if the tape was accidentally loaded

> with the end of tape marker off the spool, it would

> unspool the hole thing and it would then be a 30

> minute job to spool it back on.

>  I'll have to look at the motor drive and see what is up.

> The fact that I see the head moving gives me confidence

> that it is most likely the motor drive circuit.

>  This is suppose to back up my Sparcbook. As you recall

> my 8mm drive didn't seem to work with it so I thought

> I'd try a drive that was inteneded.

> Dwight

> 

> Dwight

> 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 26

> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:13:34 -0400

> From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>

> Subject: Re: Viper 2150S scsi tape drive

> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts

>     <cctalk at classiccmp.org>

> Message-ID: <4CC19C0E.3060509 at neurotica.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

> 

> On 10/22/10 10:07 AM, dwight elvey wrote:

> >   This is suppose to back up my Sparcbook. As you recall

> > my 8mm drive didn't seem to work with it so I thought

> > I'd try a drive that was inteneded.

> 

>    8mm drives were sold with early SPARCstations and SPARCservers as

> well, FYI.  An 8mm drive will work fine if it's properly set up.

> 

>             -Dave

> 

> --

> Dave McGuire

> Port Charlotte, FL

> 

> 

> End of cctalk Digest, Vol 86, Issue 46

> **************************************




More information about the cctalk mailing list