8-bitters and multi-whatever
ajp166 at bellatlantic.net
Sun Sep 9 15:04:25 CDT 2007
>Subject: 8-bitters and multi-whatever
> From: "Roy J. Tellason" <rtellason at verizon.net>
> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:49:03 -0400
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
>So I was poking around at bitsavers after snagging those TI databooks, and
>stumbled across some files pertaining to TurboDOS. I'd read about that
>before, might even have some manual or other on it someplace, but I've
>never had the pleasure. I do have one box that was supposed to be a
>multi-user system, that being my TeleVideo 816, which had TurboDOS as an
>option but the one I have came with something called MMMOST, which I wasn't
>all that impressed with. A guy was talking about sending me a tape but that
>I remember hearing about one or two other packages that were similar (never
>mind MP/M, which I've also not messed with and don't get the impression I
>want to bother with really), but have never had the pleasure of running any
>A while back I *almost* got a hold of one of those "z80 network in a box"
>systems, it wasn't S-100 but something else I can't recall, I think that's
>the one I have the book on, but I never did snag it.
Multibus, very nice bus and expensive cards. I have a few multibus cards.
Intel used it in their MDS800 and a few otehrs as well.
>Unfortunately instead of RS232 Televideo has something else going there
>(RS422?), not easy to interface too, and they distribute their "network"
>out amongst what other Televideo boxes you have, which in my case is none.
>I guess with an S-100-based system you could always add more cards, and
>somehow or other make it work.
>And speaking of the networking aspect of it, do any of you guys know how they
>did it? I recall one time getting a glimpse of some system or other that was
>S-100 but also had a set of connectors at thet op of each card, which is
>what they used for their inter-processor linking rather than trying to push
>it through the bus. The reason for this is not apparent to me.
Many ways to do it, using a commmon port or a pool of common memory for
in box networking and serial ports as well. There were also ARCnet, pre
Ethernet and even Ethernet.
>I've also seen some "CP/M networking" stuff referred to that was supposed to
>work through serial ports, which pretty many machines had, althogh they
>appeared in at least one case to be using diodes to wire-OR RS232 signals,
>which doesn't strike me as too terribly robust. And what software support
>there was for this wasn't real apparent.
That was a poor mans networking. Basically the serial ports were used as
CD/CSMA bus and there was some protocal like Ethernet but slower and could
use the usually common async chips. I have such a net going for my CP/M crates
>I dunno, I've just got this fascination for assorted 8-bit parts talking to
>each other through some smallish number of wires, I guess it's easier to
>deal with than some of the big iron you guys handle regularly, which I can't
>afford to go get never mind housing. And I've seen multiple processors used
>in stuff already, as in some musical equipment that passed "event
>information" from one chip to the next with only a couple of pins, or the
>daisywheel printer that had _four_ 804x procesors in it for different
This is not a new thing.
>TurboDOS is neat, and has some good design aspects in it, but there's too
>much legacy stuff in there for being able to run CP/M software, stuff I'd
>leave out if it were me and too much emphasis on the same old Console /
>Printer / Disk Drives in the system, as opposed to something different or
>unique. I found the same thing to be the case when I looked at FORTH, too
>much of the usual stuff, and that was supposed to have been used in some
>control applications? I must've missed something there...
???? Whats the question or point?
More information about the cctech