I'm starting to put stuff up for sale again on the Vintage Computer & Gaming
Marketplace. New stuff I put up include the 13 1950-51 Radio-Electronics
magazines that have the Simon Relay computer series, Omnitronix RS-232 for
Vic-20/C64, and other such stuff. I plan on putting new stuff up daily.
http://marketplace.vintage-computer.com/
If something doesn't sell in two weeks, I usually just stick it in the store.
There are some interesting things up for sale by others as well.
Trying to ID some chips I pulled from various pieces of equipment.
I have a cpu? I pulled out of a modem ... Signetics
SC80C31BCPN40. This would appear to be an Intel 8031 based
cpu. But does it have an internal ROM/etc that would preclude
its reuse ?
I have 3 chips now in the trash pile... I believe they are OTP EPROMs
(and since used, are no good). MX 27C1000PC-70, ATMEL
AT27LV256A, and AtMel AT27C010-70JC.
Lastly I have what I think is EEPROM. SST PH29EE010-150-4CF.
I believe this to be a 1Mbit EEPROM.
Searching google for chip part numbers is paramount to useless
due to all the chip vendors advertising.... there has to be a better
way....
So, beyond looking for better ways to search for chip data/datasheets,
can anyone confirm the identification of the above chips ?
Is an 8031 cpu 'fun' to play with ? :-)
-- Curt
>
>Subject: Re: Orthogonality and contrivedness
> From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
> Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:57:30 -0800
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>On 4 Jan 2009 at 13:40, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>
> Try programming an 1802 for a while. You'll know you're really into
>> it when it seems "contrived" that all those other processors can
>> only use a single of their registers as a program counter :-).
>> Twisting my mind to switch to 1802 mode and back is a interesting
>> experience.
>
>Well, at least the PC on the 430 is a regular register, operable by
>any applicable instruction of the set. Doing a decimal add to the PC
>must certainly yield interesting results!
>
>I'd always considered the 1802 to be in a unique position in the
>70's, in that it was a (comparatively) low-power CMOS design. No
>doubt this was aided somewhat by its simple architecture. Was 1802
>RCA's one and only veture in the microprocessor world?
In the 70s CMOS was mostly RCAs game and calling card. They never
got the density very high till mid 70s.
There was 6100 (aka PDP-8 in cmos) and the 1800/1801 then the 1802
and 1804 and 1805 The 1800/01 was the base of the family and took
two chips to complee the processor. The 1802 was the first CPU from
RCA that took only one chip and the 04/05 added minor improvements and
brought rom on the chip.
If memeory serves RCA also had a mini that has a similar archetecture.
The odditiy of the cosmac is once you program with it enough it's
PHI SEX and GLO. Seriously it's fairly efficient once you get used
to it. If it were made with current processes, the number of clocks
per cycle dropped it would likely still have staying power.
>> The smaller PIC's make perfect sense once you realize they're
>> Harvard architecture. Bigger PIC's, I never really grokked.
>
>The Harvard architecture really falls down in uCs because of lack of
>space to store read-only constants. Small PICs have to resort to all
>sorts of oddball tricks to accommodate this for things such as lookup
>tables. (Use a "return from subroutine with immediate value"
>instruction). Upper PICs include instructions to access program
>memory and AFAIK, all AVRs have them. Which doesn't make them
>strictly Harvard architecture anymore. Had the ROM area included a
>space in data memory for constant storage, it might have done the
>trick. Yes, there's EEPROM, but it has a different purpose and is
>not easy to use.
Most all of the Harvard machines have a way to load a constant or
acccess a table in rom. Started with the TMS1000.
>The 430 drops the charade and adopts a Von Neumann architecture,
>relying on the read-only nature of ROM to enforce the separation
>between code and data.
>
>> To me it's perfectly obvious that the MSP430 is PDP-11 like, and
>> in some ways even more orthogonal than the -11. The CP1600 was
>> substantially less orthogonal, more Nova-like with some
>> of the registers obviously intended for index use.
Never tried that one.
>
>How many Nova programmers would have killed for 16 registers? To me,
>what distinguishes the CP1600 was its inefficient use of instruction
>memory (Yes, I know about the 10-bit ROM, but still...)
>
It was aimed at a rom based systems and back then rom was A)bulky,
B)expensive silicon.
ALlison
>Cheers,
>Chuck
>
>Subject: RE: RSTS/E question and media.
> From: "Paul Koning" <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:38:33 -0500
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
>
>> > ...you'd need a sync DDCMP interface (for a Q-bus system like that
>it
>> would
>> > be a DMV11). More to the point, it looks like the Micro-PDP11
>> support
>> > appeared in V8.0, and I suspect there may be some other small
>details
>> > specific to the 11/53 that are later still.
>>
>> Right, so I'd need to plumb the 11/53 into say an Alpha via a serial
>> connection. Sync... so I'd need to get a PCI sync card too, for the
>> latter.
>
>Or later yet (V10.x?) there's async DDCMP, I'm not sure how clearly
>accessible but I'm pretty sure it's in there.
>
> paul
DDCMP can run over sync or async lines it was commonly done async for slow
lines and sync for fast lines the division was around 19.2kbaud with the
sync cards favoring the faster than that rates.
I used to run DDCMP async at 2400baud though the Mill gandalf switch to a Vax
host in the the Mill. Worked ok in the days when 2400 was fast and 9600 was
fastest and expensive.
Allison
From: Andrew Back <andrew at smokebelch.org>
> Right, so I'd need to plumb the 11/53 into say an Alpha via a
> serial connection. Sync... so I'd need to get a PCI sync card
> too, for the latter. Ugh.
Is this something you could do with a low end Cisco (2500 class)
and the apropos IOS image (Enterprise, with support for DECNet)?
Sync serial is built in.
KJ
Couple of months ago, I offered up my classic VGA (ISA, PCI, AGP) card collection and Soundblaster (ISA, PCI) card collection(s). I had several take me up on my offer. I still have a lot left, if you have any interest, please email. Most went for shipping costs + small fee. Thanks. Bill KA3AIS
____________________________________________________________
Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL1131/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007
Chuck writes:
> I work with both PICs and AVRs (my current project uses an
> ATMega128), but both instruction sets seem to me to be more than a
> bit contrived. The AVR less so than the PIC, but still on the "odd"
> side of the ledger.
Try programming an 1802 for a while. You'll know you're really into
it when it seems "contrived" that all those other processors can
only use a single of their registers as a program counter :-).
Twisting my mind to switch to 1802 mode and back is a interesting
experience.
The smaller PIC's make perfect sense once you realize they're
Harvard architecture. Bigger PIC's, I never really grokked.
> I'm not a 430 evangelist (and suspect that it will never enjoy the
> popularity of the PIC or AVR, which is a shame). I'll work with any
> instruction set, but I know what I'd prefer to use.
>
> It's curious that the MSP430's instruction set is close to the GI
> CP1600, where the PIC is descended from the very different 1650.
To me it's perfectly obvious that the MSP430 is PDP-11 like, and
in some ways even more orthogonal than the -11. The CP1600 was
substantially less orthogonal, more Nova-like with some
of the registers obviously intended for index use.
Tim.
Hi there,
Am I the only person on the planet that still has one of these machines
? The perticular example I have has 4M of ram and a 70M disk, and is
running SysV unix. Acording to the documentation and the back of the
machine, it has a SCSI-1 interface however I have never been able to get
this working.
I think I heard somewhere that the SCSI required a later version of the
OS, I'm not sure exactly what version of unix I have, looking at my
/etc/issue, seems to be SysV R2.2, does anyone have a later version ?
Also I have heard that the source code for the OS was available, would
anyone have such a beast ?
Cheers.
Phill.
--
Phill Harvey-Smith, Programmer, Hardware hacker, and general eccentric !
"You can twist perceptions, but reality won't budge" -- Rush.
What IC is this, who, that I see
On bench's top, is resting?
Whom old timers greet with joy,
while others are sleeping?
This, this is the 4004
Whom collectors guard, make dealers sing:
Haste, haste to bring it laud,
The chip, the son of Intel!
etc...
