On Saturday, April 17, 1999 7:43 PM, Christian Fandt [SMTP:cfandt@netsync.net] wrote:
> Upon the date 12:02 AM 4/17/99 -0700, Bruce Lane said something like:
>
> >
> > HOWEVER -- Am I the only one getting -really- fed up with all the 'OT:'
> >and 'Re: OT' subject lines and off-topic messages?
>
Ditto!
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
On Apr 17, 22:32, Bill Yakowenko wrote:
> Subject: shipping floppy disk drives
> I'll be shipping a few floppy disk drives soon, and want to minimize
> the shipping damage to them. So, is it better to ship them with the
> drive door open or closed? And with or without a floppy inserted?
If they're single-sided, it doesn't matter much. If double-sided, then
open with no disk is fine, so long as the mechanism can't be jolted into
letting the upper head hit the lower one. This is pretty well true of most
3.5" drives, and they're usually shipped like that. On some 5.25" drives,
though, the door or lever could be moved, so inserting a floppy and closing
the door may be better. I'd suggest putting it in back-to-front (or use a
sheet of thick card with a hole in the middle) to improve the cushioning
effect.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
On Apr 17, 13:57, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> Subject: Re: Apple HAL XEBEC controller
> On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Pete Turnbull wrote:
>
> > Does it need any other software (like a formatting disk)? The on-board
4K
> > EPROM contains only the strings "(C) HAL COMPUTERS LTD 1983", "A/XHAL
> > SHARED RESOURCE WINCHESTER SYSTEM", "NOT CONNECTED", and "SRS ERROR",
so I
> > guess there would have been a floppy with it, originally.
>
> What in these strings leads you to believe it would have been connected
to
> a floppy? It was strictly a hard drive interface.
Erm, nothing, Sellam. I *didn't* suggest it could *connect* to a floppy
drive; I think there may have been a supplementary floppy disk containing
(at least) a formatter, since those are the *only* strings in the ROM. It
looks like it's just boot/driver code, so I think there must be some other
way to format the (winchester) drive.
I know you have a lot of Apple ][ stuff. Anything like this? Do you have
a pinout for any contemporary Apple ][ SASI/SCSI interface?
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote:
> see below, please.
>
> Dick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ethan Dicks <ethan_dicks(a)yahoo.com>
> >> 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate.
> >
> >Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk.
>
>
> Nope, it's not! the right rate for 8" Winchesters is 4.34 MHz!
Damn! Typo. I *know* that the 8" disk transfer rate is below 5Mhz. The
recent coverage of the WD-1001's were quite explicit in that regard.
-ethan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>Ooh! A machine code competition. I'm in! I'll do the 6502 and whoop
>EVERYONE'S ass!
>
Wait just a minute.....
Since we have been discussing various "ethnic" pronunciations, I am
compelled to point out that this statement may be interpeted differently
than intended.
As a born\bred survivor of the land of redneck, pickup truck, and chewing
tobacco, I assert that a "whoop" is a loud yelling type of activity. The
execution of which on someone's posterior will bring a certain confusion to
your enemy ( he will think you are a fruit ), but will not render him
defeated.
I laughed so hard at this mental image it made me hurt. :)
Try "whup" next time, as in "opening a can of whup-ass".
My 2 centavos from the Republic of Texas.
BTW, my money's on Tony.
jax(a)tvec.net
Kindly give the comments interleaved with your quoted message below a look.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: z80 timing... 6502 timing
>On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Mike Ford wrote:
>
>> >Ooh! A machine code competition. I'm in! I'll do the 6502 and whoop
>> >EVERYONE'S ass!
>
Rules are a problem, aren't they?
>
>> And then you woke up. First what are the rules, 6502 or 65C02, code in
Rom
>> or Ram, what is the code supposed to do?
>
Well . . . There's the problem . . . first of all, the code's got to be
executable on something everyone has got available, or it's got to be
simulated on a simulator everyone has available, else there'll be a limit on
interest right away . . . Then, shouldn't there be some consideration of
the coding/debugging time involved? I'd lean in favor of a PC-compatible
simulator. That makes the computation of actual execution time
straightforward. . .
and, of course, it's got to run the code on a "real" processor, not just a
putative "we could build . . ." sort of thing, right? . . . well, maybe . .
. Then there's the question about WHICH 6502 to use. Given a listing, it's
easy enough to compute how long it takes the code to run, but which
instruction set? What about undocumented features? Both these processors
were famous for those. Of course, there doesn't have to be a limitation,
i.e. one could consider ALL available cores.
I'd propose it be a significant problem, but one which is well-defined, i.e.
algorithms are published, hence the problem solution is well-defined, and
I'd propose further that the same algorithm be used so we compare "apples
with apples."
As for the processor core, well, it's also got to be one everybody's got
available, yet it wants to be one which WAS available in 1982. That might
include the Synertek, MOS, and MAYBE the Rockwell core. We can't just say
65C02, because it was buillt in several conflicting versions. What about
the Z-80 core? Whose? Which one? Speed, of course, should be "limited" to
whatever was available in 1982. That certainly includes the Synertek (MOS
Technology-comptible)"4MHz" 6502C (always worked fine at 5 MHz by then), as
well as the Zilog Z-80B (6-MHz). Was the 8MHz part out in 1982?
>
>> My vote goes for something with some graphical element so we can "see"
what
>> is happening. (spinning ball, etc.)
Whereas this might be "cute" it is very limiting, in that it has to be a
graphics-capable environment available with both processors. It should not
"fall" conveniently for either processor, so the graphics array should be
large, and, AFAIK there's no such system for either processor. What should
be done, here? Should we build a board? How do we measure how fast it's
going? Remember, the hardware environment has to be more or less the same
for both processors.
>BRING IT ON, MO FO!
>
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 04/03/99]
>
see below, please.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Ethan Dicks <ethan_dicks(a)yahoo.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 17, 1999 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Ancient disk controllers
>
>
>--- Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > The final connector, J6 is 50 pins.
>> >
>> Which pins are used on the 50 pin connector? Could it be pinned out as a
>> SCSI port. Or is it possibly some custom host interface?
>
>It could be a custom host interface. Among other anomalies, I don't see
>any terminating resistors.
>
>> For example I
>> have here the data sheet for the WD1001 controller. It uses essentially
>> the chipset you mentioned. It has a 50 pin host connector, but it sure
>> ain't SCSI.
>
>Can you scan that data sheet or send me a photocopy? I'd pay for
>copying/mailing.
>
>> 20MHz/4 = 5MHz = standard ST506 data rate.
>
>Right. It's the right rate for an 8" disk.
Nope, it's not! the right rate for 8" Winchesters is 4.34 MHz!
>> 8MHz is a common enough clock for the 8x300 series of CPUs as well.
That's true enough.
>OK.
>
>> What bothers me, if this _is_ a SCSI controller is that there seems to be
>> no way of setting the device address.
>
>No place that I can see.
>
>> My guess is that it's a sort-of WD1001 clone.
It predated the WD1001 by some time.
>OK. That makes sense. In fact, when I read the recent debates of
>WD1001's, I thought of this board. I didn't think I could find it
>as fast as I did. It could have been packed a lot deeper than it
>was.
>
>Thanks for the insights.
>
>-ethan
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
... to follow up to one's own posts, but I've done a little
more research and I suspect that the Megalink boards are some
sort of network board. I had originally been informed that they
were some sort of video capture board...
Anyway, now all I need to do is get some programming info about
them.
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Ethan Dicks wrote:
>
> I am attempting to back up some floppies from a project I did a few years ago.
> The sets of 3.5" 1.44Mb IBM floppies have been stored in a box, in a cool and
> dry room. Out of one set of 12 and one set of 15 disks, I have four disks
> that have read errors that DOS won't get past, bad sectors and the like.
One program I have used with a great deal of success is Spinrite.
I have a few more boards which need identification. Again, the
scans can be found at
ftp://ftp.std.com/ftp/pub/mbg/scans/computrol_30-0096_7.jpg
it is a two-board set. There is an over-the-top connecting cable
and a thin cable with a bnc connector on the end.
One board is labelled 'Memory Map Megalink 1' and 'dma bus' and
the other is labelled 'Memory Map Megalink 2' and 'datacom'.
They're qbus boards, but with no switches for setting addresses
and/or vectors.
Can anyone identify the pair of boards?
Thanks in advance...
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
