test-drb April 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

170 participants
1190 discussions

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

>> attitude is part of a larger problem. Personally, I do not like to damage >> anything, but once in a while, I like to have some fun. If I didn't do > > You know, I like to have fun as well. But my fun consists of taking a > pile of parts 'beyond economic repair' and getting them working again. Or > taking a few bits of scrap metal and learning to machine them. Or > designing Yet Another Useless Interface. In other words creating something. Hear, hear! > I really don't understand this love of breaking things. Nor do I, even though I occasionally experience it. But I try to suppress my love of braking things on the rare occasions when it does appear, because creating things is so much more fun. Philip.

27 years

stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies)

by edick＠idcomm.com

No, I have no personal conflict with an Apple employee. The problem to which I refer was all to common back in the '70's. Perhaps it was because of the way in which the various program vendors wrote their software, but I'd bet it's because they weren't left much choice. The detail to which I refer is the absence of a message like the infamous IBM-PC's ". . . Abort, Retry, Fail . . ." message. Once the Apple encountered a read error of some type, it seemed that it couldn't recover without a restart. I don't know the details, but I saw it every day that I was in the same room with an Apple that was not idle. It seemed that the only way to avoid this type of problem was to avoid the Apple, so, with one notable exception, that was what I did. These things are based on perceptions, though, not necessarily a sound and rigorous evaluation of the facts. I once worked in a room with over a dozen MAC's though, and was the only one with both a MAC and a PC/AT. We constantly had "trouble" with the MAC's while I continued to chug along with my PC/AT running DOS. My work was always ahead of schedule if I could stick to the PC. Now, when I ran the MAC, e.g. using EXCEL, or McDRAW, which provided functions not so readily available to the PC, I didn't have as much trouble as some of the more common programs used by the others, e.g. WORD or MacWrite. I did my writing in WordStar which I knew quite well, having used it since pre-release 0.7 (WordMaster). I imagine that quite a bit of the trouble was due to the newness of the network scheme used to share the two laser printers. I'd point out almost daily, that my PC/AT with a laser printer and a substantial hard disk, plus a COLOR display, which none of the MAC's there had, cost less than one of these MAC's alone. The bias I held against Apple products was based on the perception that lots of features and performance were sacrificed in favor of the rather lame color display, which I then felt was useful for games and other forms of entertainment, which I felt were out of place in the office. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 3:19 AM Subject: Re: stepping machanism of Apple Disk ][ drive (was Re: Heatkit 51/4 floppies) >On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote: > >> My contempt for Apple begins and ends with their total disregard for the >> value of your data. If you wrote to their floppies, especially if your >> computer was in the "front room" of a business, exposed to whatever dust was >> carried in by customers and wind, etc, from the parking lot, (I had a client >> years ago, whose mail-order business was operated with the "help" of an >> Apple-II with two controllers and three drives in just such a location.) >> you'd frequently observe the computer locking up because it had come to a >> bit it couldn't read. The reason was probably contamination of media or >> drives, but the only recovery was the reset. Your data, meanwhile, and >> perhaps your customer calling long distance, were gone by now. They >> designed the MAC with no memory parity assuming that you'd not mind if your >> data was corrupted without your knowledge, and though the disk handling was >> a bit more mature than the Apple-II "I give up . . . and die" it wasn't much >> better. > >This sounds like poorly written software to me. The only time I've ever >had my Apple ][ lock up because some data couldn't be read from the disk >was because the software told the Apple to lock up. I think your bias is >totally unfounded, or at least founded upon a predisposition to hating the >Apple ][ for some odd reason. Did an Apple employee fart near you or spit >on your car at some point in your life or something? > >Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out. > > Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0 > See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! > [Last web site update: 04/03/99] >

27 years

Software collectors list

by PB14＠leicester.ac.uk

On 12 Apr 99 at 21:36, Mike Ford wrote: > I have been thinking about and looking for a list like this one, except > instead of hardware collecting, it would be about collecting software. I > haven't found any existing list, so I am getting motivated to start a list > on one of the various services that will host a list for free (free free > ideally, but I don't have a problem with an ad supported list server > either). I have a fair amount of feedback that such a list would be > desirable, so other than a charter which I am still thinking on, two basic > questions need answering in the next few days so I can get going. It's a while since anyone last posted the charter for this list, but I'm sure that it doesn't discourage discussion of >10year software. I though Classiccmp was about the entire "classic computing experience" not just the hardware nitty gritty anyway? Phil ************************************************************** Phil Beesley -- Computer Officer -- Distributed Systems Suppport University of Leicester Tel (0)116 252-2231 E-Mail pb14(a)le.ac.uk

27 years

30 pin simms, not so hard to find.

by edick＠idcomm.com

What it amounts to is soldering the "front" of the SIMM to one edge of the pins and soldering the reverse side to the other. if the edge of the SIMM is appropriately close to the pin-strip, it makes a very solid connection, with the loading stresses well distributed. It doesn't stagger anything. These screw-machine single-pin sockets come in plastic strips which keep them aligned. The way I accomplish this sort of thing is plug them into a board which fits their barrel and proceed to solder the connections, end pins first, on each side of the SIMM until the job is finished. It's a lot of work, and not always worth it. I once soldered 4 4MB SIMMs into this arrangement, only to learn that the motherboard I was using wouldn't deal with the 4 MB parts. . . . too bad . . . Dick -----Original Message----- From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:41 AM Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find. >At 09:23 AM 4/16/1999 -0600, you wrote: >>BTW, it's important that they be soldered on both sides. That's what makes >>the job difficult. > >How in the world do you do that? Wouldn't they become staggered? > >---------------------------------------- > Tired of Micro$oft??? > > Move up to a REAL OS... >######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ # >#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /## >####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /### >###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |#### >##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|#### ># ###### > ("LINUX" for those of you > without fixed-width fonts) >---------------------------------------- >Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com > >Slackware Mailing List: >http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html

27 years

30 pin simms, not so hard to find.

by ethan_dicks＠yahoo.com

--- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote: > Actually, there was a DIPP package for many of the DRAMs. It was a > single-in-line-looking version of the DIP, except that all the pins were on > one side and they were staggered in their alignment. I have several classic machines that use them, the Amiga 3000 included. > These were most often referred to as ZIP's, though I don't know why. Zigzag Inline Package > The package was somewhat popular for about 5 years, after which it fell > into disuse. They were more fragile than DIP DRAMs (I've broken several pins off over the years), but they did provide much better RAM density over DIPs. If you wanted 4Mb of RAM with 256K parts or 16Mb of RAM with 1Mb parts, the board space for DIPs was enormous. What really killed ZIPs wasn't just the fragile nature of the pins, it was the rise of SIPPs then SIMMs, once the custom sockets became available. You get ZIP-like memory density with very few customer-acccessible interconnects to go wrong. I have a pile of 1Mx1 ZIPs that I don't need (I got a bag of mixed chips and pulled all the 256Kx4's for my A3000). Does anyone out there need some 70 or 80ns 1Mx1 ZIPs? I also have a few *massive* ZIPs that I think are video memory of some kind. I'll have to look up the part number. -ethan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

27 years

30 pin simms, not so hard to find.

by edick＠idcomm.com

BTW, it's important that they be soldered on both sides. That's what makes the job difficult. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:13 AM Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find. >You can solder a SIMM to a 30-pin row of screw-machine socket pins (not >easy, but it works) and end up with connections much superior to what you >normally get with SIPPs. They will not bend as easily and you'll have much >less trouble with the beasties than with normal SIPPs, especially the ones >which have once had a bent pin, because those continue to want to bend. > >Dick >-----Original Message----- >From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net> >To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers ><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> >Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:57 AM >Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find. > > >> >>>>Have you got any 1Mb DIPPs?? >>> >>>I have seen SIPPs, but have none of either. What exactly is a DIPP? >> >>A DIPP is another name for SIPP by morons (Like myself) who momentarily >>forgot that SIPP was the correct name. >> >>Anyone have any small 1Mb SIPPs? >> >>---------------------------------------- >> Tired of Micro$oft??? >> >> Move up to a REAL OS... >>######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ # >>#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /## >>####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /### >>###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |#### >>##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|#### >># ###### >> ("LINUX" for those of you >> without fixed-width fonts) >>---------------------------------------- >>Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com >> >>Slackware Mailing List: >>http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html >

27 years

30 pin simms, not so hard to find.

by clintw＠colorado.cirrus.com

> > Actually, there was a DIPP package for many of the DRAMs. It was a > single-in-line-looking version of the DIP, except that all the pins were on > one side and they were staggered in their alignment. These were most often > referred to as ZIP's, though I don't know why. The package was somewhat > popular for about 5 years, after which it fell into disuse. > > Dick ZIP == ZigZag Inline Package

27 years

30 pin simms, not so hard to find.

by edick＠idcomm.com

Actually, there was a DIPP package for many of the DRAMs. It was a single-in-line-looking version of the DIP, except that all the pins were on one side and they were staggered in their alignment. These were most often referred to as ZIP's, though I don't know why. The package was somewhat popular for about 5 years, after which it fell into disuse. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Roberts <geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 8:53 AM Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net> >To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers ><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> >Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 10:19 PM >Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find. > > >> >> >>Have you got any 1Mb DIPPs?? >> > >> >I have seen SIPPs, but have none of either. What exactly is a DIPP? >> >> A DIPP is another name for SIPP by morons (Like myself) who momentarily >> forgot that SIPP was the correct name. >> >> Anyone have any small 1Mb SIPPs? > >Yes I have quite a few ex 386SX-20 Diskless workstations circa 1993. >Er small? Was there more than one size. >These are the same size as the equivalent simm, and can be converted to same >by CAREFULLY removing the pins and the solder. (Not easy, but I have done >it and made it work on occasion - though only when desperate it's a real >PITA) > >Cheers > >Geoff Roberts > >

27 years

Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward?

by edick＠idcomm.com

Oddly enough, though it hasn't been my stock-in-trade for about 15 years, I still have the manual for the original WD-1000 controller. I may, in fact, even have one of the boards around somewhere. I certainly have a couple of the ones used in the TVI TS-806-20's I have sitting in the driveway (under 4" of snow, at the moment). Dick -----Original Message----- From: Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com> >To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers ><classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> >Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 1:45 AM >Subject: Re: Will The Grand Master Of Disk Controllers step foreward? > > >>> Specifically the WD-1000-5 disk controller. These are the ones that >>[...] >>> If you are intimately familiar with this legendary interface, I would >>> like to hear from you. I need to figure out how to modify it for 8" >>> harddrives. >> >>Regrettably I no longer have the manual or schematics for these, so a lot >>of this is from memory. >> >>The WD1000-5 was the WD1000 repackaged on an 8" * 5.75" board, to match the >>form factor of 5.25" drives. > > >There's more to the difference than that. For one thing, the WD1000 series >used the WD1100 chipset and an 8X300 microcontroller to run the whole thing, >while the WD1000-05 and -08, as well as the later models, used the WD1010 >chip along with other combinations of the 40-pin support chipset of which >WD1014, which was, in at least one incarnation, an 8041. > >>The original WD1000 and WD1001 had both 34 and 50 pin drive control >>connectors. I'm guessing that the WD1000-5 left the 50 pin connector out. >>However, you only need to scramble the pins appropriately, as the actual >>signals are the same. All odd pins are ground on both connectors; the >others >>should map thusly: >> >> 34-pin 50-pin signal >> >> 2 2 *RWC reduced write current >> 4 4 *HS2 head select 2 >> 6 40 *WG write gate >> 8 8 *SC seek complete >> 10 42 *TK0 track 0 >> 12 44 *WF write fault >> 14 14 *HS0 head select 0 >> 16 NC >> 18 18 *HS1 head select 1 >> 20 20 *IDX index >> 22 22 *RDY ready >> 24 36 *STEP >> 26 26 *DS1 drive select 1 >> 28 28 *DS2 drive select 2 >> 30 30 *DS3 drive select 3 >> 32 32 *DS4 drive select 4 >> 34 34 *DIR step direction (in when asserted) > > >This should look pretty much like 8" floppy disks. An early controller I >built used an FDC chip to drive these control signals, as the 8" Winchesters >had the same maximal step rate back then as the 8" double-headed FDD's. >That's overkill, and the FDC expects to see things from the data stream >which close the loop, and it won't see them. Open-loop, e.g. simple >head-positioning command operation is possible, at least to see if the >drive's mechanical functions are working. An enterprising approach would be >to operate the drive with a pair of small single-chippers one fairly slow >one to handle the head positioning, and the other a fairly quick one to >modulate the data, e.g. with ERLL code as was used in the PERSTOR >controllers. > >>The radial data connectors are the same for both drive sizes. > > >Yes except that some drives extracted clock locally and sent it on the data >cable as well. For that reason, it would be advisable to stick with the >4.34 MHz data rate. Keep in mind, also, that while the wide cable is driven >with open collectors, the data cable is intended to be driven with >differential drivers/receivers of the MC3486/87 or 26LS31/32 type. > >>The bigger problem is that 8-inch drives used a data rate of 4.34 Mbps >rather >>than 5 Mbps. I seem to recall that the WD1000 had a jumper setting for >this. >>If they removed the 50-pin drive control connector, they probably also >removed >>the jumper and supporting circuitry. > > >Western Digital was somewhat confused about how they should number their >controller models back in those days, and the scheme got muddled, but as I >recall, and I have some controllers to prove it, the data rate was fixed on >the board at the factory, in some cases, particularly the larger WD1000 >boards with the WD1100 chips + 8X300 on board, had a discrete VCO as opposed >to the 74S124 or the LS624 they later used. These VCO's had to be tuned >quite carefully and a procedure was included in the instruction manual. >There were jumpers for accomplishing this tuning operation on nearly every >type of board in this entire family, but one needed both a crystal and a >retuned VCO for the PLL, not to mention changing the passive components in >the integrator (LPF) of the clock extraction circuitry. The process of >setting the VCO center frequency was not terribly difficult, but one had to >know which jumpers to remove at which stage of the operation because there >were inputs to the circuit which had to be active and other which had to be >passive at different stages of the operation. > >>> Also, does anyone have docs for the Quantum Q-2040 8" >>> Winchester? I dunno what kind of power to feed it (24v sounds correct, >>> but I seem to recall it used 110vac also!), and so on. >> >>No data here, but almost certainly not 110 VAC. Probably 24V AC and 5V DC. > > >The power connections are precisely what is used with an 8" FDD, including a >110 VAC supply for the spindle motor. Don't forget that some 8" drives had >to be fed a negative 5V supply while others could swallow either -12 Vdc >or -5, depending on a jumper because they had on-board regulation. You have >to look for the regulator and ensure it has the jumper which bypassed it in >the correct position. > >>You *might* be able to get a Q2040 to run at 5 Mbps, but I've never >personally seen it done. > >We, meaning my people and I, tried this several times and never got it to >work reliably with Shugart drives. They did some signal processing on the >data, and included clock on the cable, so you might be able to skip the VCO >retuning if you can find the "right" place to inject this conditioned clock >in the data/clock recovery circuit. I'd be surprised to find the Quantum >drives did things much differently, as they had to be compatible with the >Shugarts, and some controllers, e.g. Intel's, relied on the drives or other >external circuitry to extract clock. >

27 years

30 pin simms, not so hard to find.

by edick＠idcomm.com

You can solder a SIMM to a 30-pin row of screw-machine socket pins (not easy, but it works) and end up with connections much superior to what you normally get with SIPPs. They will not bend as easily and you'll have much less trouble with the beasties than with normal SIPPs, espacially the ones which have once had a bent pin, because those continue to want to bend. Dick -----Original Message----- From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 6:57 AM Subject: Re: 30 pin simms, not so hard to find. > >>>Have you got any 1Mb DIPPs?? >> >>I have seen SIPPs, but have none of either. What exactly is a DIPP? > >A DIPP is another name for SIPP by morons (Like myself) who momentarily >forgot that SIPP was the correct name. > >Anyone have any small 1Mb SIPPs? > >---------------------------------------- > Tired of Micro$oft??? > > Move up to a REAL OS... >######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ # >#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /## >####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /### >###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |#### >##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|#### ># ###### > ("LINUX" for those of you > without fixed-width fonts) >---------------------------------------- >Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com > >Slackware Mailing List: >http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html

27 years

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb April 1999