> Nope, xt286 was a way to put a cheap system of slightly higher
performance
> out there using slower parts.
...as with the 8088 vs 8086 and 386SX vs DX
> I saw a package of Win 2.0 in a surplus store here if anyone really
wants
> it I'll pick it up. No docs just the set of disks.
I'd love it, if it's super cheap. Thanks.
manney(a)nwohio.com
(Sharp PC-7100)
> Notice how the handle can slide towards the back so it's off-center?
> Notice the little metal inserts along the top edge of the back? There's
a
> printer (I've only got one) that attaches to the back for portability.
Didn't the IBM Portable (or convertible...whatever) do that?
> Speaking of polygonical manholes, does anyone know where to get a copy of
> turtle logo for older macs? Or, perhaps even better, a cartridge version
> for one of the 6502 machines (Atari, c64, etc.)? (This is for my niece
who
> is probably about ready to at least watch logo pgms.)
>
> At 01:06 PM 1/29/98 GMT, you wrote:
> >indeed round because they then won't fall down the hole if you drop
> >them. But other shapes share this property - triangular manholes are
>
> You may have triangular manholes (and, I assume, covers), but I disagree
> with the statement that they won't fall in. (Mind you, they may not be
> *likely* to, but that doesn't mean they won't.)
>
> Consider any regular (is that the right term?) polygon (i.e., all sides,
> angles are equal).
>
> For an odd number of sides: imagine a line from an angle to the midpoint
of
> the opposite side. Imagine a second line, from that same angle to either
> end of the opposite side. You've just created a right triangle
(imaginary
> lines, half the opposite side) wherein the first imaginary line *must* be
> shorter than your second line. Put your first line parallel to the
ground,
> line up the manhole vertically above the corresponding second line on the
> manhole, and drop.
>
> For an even number of sides: Do the same thing, only the reverse
(opposite
> angle and connected side, etc.)
>
> Oh, make sure there's no one down below before dropping *please*
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- O-
>
> Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad
> roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know."
> Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
> San Francisco, California http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/
>
<snip>
However - we better watch our step as this is
> a clip from email I received from the Sam Ismail about information like
> this
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Once again, you've perpetuated off-topic non-sense thus
<snip>
'Scuse me, but...
No matter what the private differences...no matter the language
used...perhaps private e-mail should stay private. I am uncomfortable at
your sharing Sam's private opinions with everyone.
Perhaps I'm defending Sam's feeling needlessly (Not meaning to do that, as
Sam can do it himself without my unsolicited help), but defending my
interests as well -- I, too send private e-mail to list members.
If the discussion on this listserv continues to degenerate to that level --
and with the constant name-calling -- I, for one, will not feel that my
interests are well-served by subscribing.
manney(a)nwohio.com
On my web site, I express my hopes to develop software to help rescue
old cassette data by digitizing the tapes. I'm still hunting for
specifications of the old formats.
I just got a box full of Altair-era cassettes on loan. I plan to
digitize them now and rescue the data later.
- John
Jefferson Computer Museum <http://www.threedee.com/jcm>
>Anyone here ever study
>moon shining? Fasinating subject (except to Sam of course).
Shore! And I can even tie these threads together in a relevant fashion.
At a regular auction I'd once visit, I could pick up computer and
video equipment for a song, and once I got a handmade, Prohibition-era
copper still for $50, and met the guy whose grandfather made it. :-)
- John
If I remember correctly, IBM released the XT 286 when the second generation
PC/AT (with a faster clock - wasn't it 8 MHz?) came out. It was my
impression then that the XT286 was an XT case with the older original AT
motherboard inside.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Allison <mallison(a)konnections.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Development, round II
>Tony:
>
>I just seem to remember _something_ about the XT286 that made me avoid
>it for true 286 stuff. Maybe it was the memory. Most after market AT
>boards had room for a meg or two. Maybe it was the 640...
>
>-Mike
>
>Tony Duell wrote:
>
>> I've not got the XT-286 techref to hand, so I can't look at the
>> schematics. But I seem to remember that it's _very_ similar to the PC/AT
>> - it's a lot closer to that machine than to the XT. There are 2 DMA
>> controllers, 2 interrupt controllers, the 8042 keyboard controller (so it
>> takes an AT keyboard), etc. My thoughts when I looked at the schematics
>> were that it was a repackaged AT. Of course they could have missed out
>> the extra reset logic, but I doubt it.
>>
>> It does use a non-standard motherboard, though. The memory is a little
>> odd - 128K in DIPs (4 off 64K*4, 2 off 64K*1 for the parrity) and 2 256K
>> SIMMs for a total of 640K.
>>
>> >
>> > I guess....
>> >
>> > -Mike
>>
>> -tony
>
> > Sun SPAREprinter model QA-6, anyone know how to do a self
> > print test on this unit I can not find any buttons or anything;
>
> It will not do much unless you have it connected to a SPARCstation
> running NeWSprint. The SPARCstation also requires a special S-bus card to
> interface to the printer.
>
> In other words, you have either a worthless printer, or a good excuse to
> go get yourself a SPARCstation.
Oh, come off it! Surely there must be some way of finding out the
protocol and building an interface and/or writing drivers for another
machine!
Which reminds me - I have a couple of Diablo 630 printers with ECS
daisywheels which have strange edge connectors on the back. I am told
this is a Qume Sprint 3 interface - has anyone got a technical spec.?
Philip.
> I looked in my never used copy of os2 version 1.3 standard edition and found
> no mention of rexx so maybe it arrived in version 2.x but i'm not opening my
> shrinkwrapped version to find out! minimum requirements for 1.3 are a 286,
> 2meg, and 12 meg of hdd space.
Worth a try then. But am I right in thinking that the AT doesn't
implement all the 286 modes properly? I'm sure the XT286 doesn't.
