test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by bobsmithofd＠gmail.com

Back in 75-77 time frame, the KMC11 was packaged with DD11 backplane, a controller interface board or an SLU to implement version 2 of the DoD AUTODIN II. Philco Ford element then called Aeronuetronic Ford out ot Cali was the prime. DEC won the hardware portion bidding PDP11 systems using the KMC11 and SLUs ranging from Mode1 to Mode VI. I did the SLUs for Mode VI (ADCCP/SDLC et al) and Mode II (BiSync) out of the Comms 11 group. CSS Nashua did the Async system with I think 64 lines, or more, and labeled it DMX IIRC - my memory could be bad on the name.The COMM IOP concept was another alternative using the DZ/DU boards. Barney Loiter, if he is still around can probably remember who in CSS did the product. I think Frank Zareski, who had moved from Comms group to Semiconductor was involved with or the lead for the DUAL UART chips DEC invented (point for the record, the original UART was designed by DEC, Vince Bastiani was the project lead and designer, Gordon Bell was behind the project, and it may have been his idea.) On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 1:00 PM <cctalk-request at classiccmp.org> wrote: > > Send cctalk mailing list submissions to > cctalk at classiccmp.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cctalk-request at classiccmp.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cctalk-owner at classiccmp.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cctalk digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: simulation of an entire IBM S/360 Model 50 mainframe > (Curious Marc) > 2. What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's products? > (Chris Zach) > 3. Re: What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's > products? (Paul Koning) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:53:22 -0800 > From: Curious Marc <curiousmarc3 at gmail.com> > To: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>, "General Discussion: On-Topic and > Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: simulation of an entire IBM S/360 Model 50 mainframe > Message-ID: <E6C6C3FB-E0A0-4472-A485-3EA9E1102CEC at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Ah, it was you Liam. Ken is enamored with the new title you bestowed on him. He will now be officially called: Master Ken, Hardware Boffin. > :-) > Marc > > > On Jan 27, 2022, at 11:54 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > ?On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:20, Guy N. via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> > >> This might be old news to a lot of people here, but I noticed a fun > >> article on The Register today: > > > > Oh cool. Thanks for the link -- that's one of my stories. Glad to hear > > people enjoyed it. :-) > > > > -- > > Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven > > Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven at gmail.com > > Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven > > UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 00:28:30 -0500 > From: Chris Zach <cz at alembic.crystel.com> > To: CCTalk mailing list <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > Subject: What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's products? > Message-ID: <ba6ec80e-e099-4015-9d58-f33fb4e51c02 at alembic.crystel.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Old question: I'm looking through some old reports from 1977 about a > failed DEC project with the DMX11 multiplexer system and there is > reference to the following key items: > > 1) The DMX was designed to handle block mode devices. Fine. > 2) Character mode devices like the VT52's were supposed to use a "TCD" > product from DEC. > > The reason the project imploded was because apparently DEC stopped > supporting the TCD in RSX11/D in late 1976, so someone in CSS had the > great idea of agreeing to extend the microcode in the DMX11 to handle > both block AND character mode devices. This did.... not work well and it > sank the project. > > What I'm wondering is what was the TCD for PDP11's back then? I don't > see anything in my communications handbooks on this, and even the DMX11 > doesn't really appear, instead there is the COMM/IO/P type boards which > worked with a pile of DZ11's. From what I can glean from this > documentation it looks like the DMX11 worked in a similar fashion as the > requirement was the DMX11 system was a nine board solution (possibly 8 > DZ11's and one controller board). > > More odd it looks like the TCD *was* still supported in RSX11/M and > ultimately the decision was made to build the thing in M so it's weird > they continued to whack away at the DMX solution instead of going with > TCD's for async and proven DMX microcode for block devices. > > Any thoughts, or does this jog any memories? > > C > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:24:56 -0500 > From: Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> > To: Chris Zach <cz at alembic.crystel.com>, "cctalk at classiccmp.org" > <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's > products? > Message-ID: <7F4B4A3F-4114-4FF9-9D6C-28AA7E26E475 at comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:28 AM, Chris Zach via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > Old question: I'm looking through some old reports from 1977 about a failed DEC project with the DMX11 multiplexer system and there is reference to the following key items: > > > > 1) The DMX was designed to handle block mode devices. Fine. > > 2) Character mode devices like the VT52's were supposed to use a "TCD" product from DEC. > > > > The reason the project imploded was because apparently DEC stopped supporting the TCD in RSX11/D in late 1976, so someone in CSS had the great idea of agreeing to extend the microcode in the DMX11 to handle both block AND character mode devices. This did.... not work well and it sank the project. > > > > What I'm wondering is what was the TCD for PDP11's back then? I don't see anything in my communications handbooks on this, and even the DMX11 doesn't really appear, instead there is the COMM/IO/P type boards which worked with a pile of DZ11's. From what I can glean from this documentation it looks like the DMX11 worked in a similar fashion as the requirement was the DMX11 system was a nine board solution (possibly 8 DZ11's and one controller board). > > > > More odd it looks like the TCD *was* still supported in RSX11/M and ultimately the decision was made to build the thing in M so it's weird they continued to whack away at the DMX solution instead of going with TCD's for async and proven DMX microcode for block devices. > > > > Any thoughts, or does this jog any memories? > > Nothing comes to mind here; the name "DMX" does not ring any bells. It's a bit before my time, admittedly. > > DEC made some products that used block mode terminals: the moderately successful Typeset-11 with the VT-61/t forms and page editing terminal, and the VT-71 with embedded LSI-11 to do full file local editing. Both have some form of block transfer to the host, but as far as I can remember they used ordinary DH-11 terminal interfaces. DH-11 is unusual in that it has DMA in both directions, which is unhelpful for interactive use but great for block transfer. Typeset-11 also supported a specialized terminal made by Harris (the 2200), another local processor device, this one connected to the PDP-11 host with a DL-11/E, using half duplex multidrop BISYNC with modem signal handshakes. I kid you not... I have some scars debugging that protocol at 2 am in downtown Philadelphia. > > DEC also built yet another VT-51 variation, the VT-62, which was the terminal for the TRAX system. That was, I think, some sort of RSX derivative (-M+ perhaps, but I'm not sure), which made it to field test but was canceled before becoming an official product. Not sure why. > > paul > > > > > End of cctalk Digest, Vol 88, Issue 29 > **************************************

4 years

What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's products?

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Paul Koning > DH-11 is unusual in that it has DMA in both directions McNamara's DH11? (I don't know of another DECdevice of that name.) Per: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/unibus/EK-ODH11-OP-002_DH11_Asynchronous_1… it's DMA on output only; the input side has a FIFO that has to be emptied by the CPU. Noel PS: I am familiar with the term 'terminal concentrator' from the networking world, but as a generic term, not the name of a particular product. (Although Cisco's first boxes may have included a terminal concentrator, so named.) Noel

4 years

What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's products?

by cz＠alembic.crystel.com

Old question: I'm looking through some old reports from 1977 about a failed DEC project with the DMX11 multiplexer system and there is reference to the following key items: 1) The DMX was designed to handle block mode devices. Fine. 2) Character mode devices like the VT52's were supposed to use a "TCD" product from DEC. The reason the project imploded was because apparently DEC stopped supporting the TCD in RSX11/D in late 1976, so someone in CSS had the great idea of agreeing to extend the microcode in the DMX11 to handle both block AND character mode devices. This did.... not work well and it sank the project. What I'm wondering is what was the TCD for PDP11's back then? I don't see anything in my communications handbooks on this, and even the DMX11 doesn't really appear, instead there is the COMM/IO/P type boards which worked with a pile of DZ11's. From what I can glean from this documentation it looks like the DMX11 worked in a similar fashion as the requirement was the DMX11 system was a nine board solution (possibly 8 DZ11's and one controller board). More odd it looks like the TCD *was* still supported in RSX11/M and ultimately the decision was made to build the thing in M so it's weird they continued to whack away at the DMX solution instead of going with TCD's for async and proven DMX microcode for block devices. Any thoughts, or does this jog any memories? C

4 years

simulation of an entire IBM S/360 Model 50 mainframe

by decguy＠songdog.eskimo.com

This might be old news to a lot of people here, but I noticed a fun article on The Register today: Hardware boffin is building a simulation of an entire IBM S/360 Model 50 mainframe https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/ibm_s360_simulation/ The article has a handy link to a post on Ken Shirriff's blog: https://www.righto.com/2022/01/ibm360model50.html While I'm kind of a "DEC guy", I still have a certain nostalgic fondness for the IBM System/360, since that was my first in-depth exposure to computer programming.

4 years

Datum Front Panels

by wrcooke＠wrcooke.net

Some years ago I was on a mission to rack mount all my computer and test equipment. I found three front panels at a hamfest that I planned to use. I never did anything with them but still have them. These are from Datum systems, but they appear to be rather hard to find much information on. The short story is, if anyone needs them for something, let me know. I would hate to do away with them if someone needs them. Two of the panels are marked: Datum, inc Rotating Drum Memory 6008 Datum, inc Data Acquisition System 120 The last isn't marked. A picture is here: http://wrcooke.net/FrontPanels.jpg I will likely be moving in a few months and these are on the "get rid of" list. Thanks, Will

4 years

Question about DECtape formulation

by go＠aerodesic.com

I've always thought the physical tape wound on a DECtape spool was a fairly conventional 'sandwich' of mylar/oxide/mylar, but a recent 'test' makes me think there is something else involved. I have a number of tapes I'm cleaning (removing dust, etc.)? to make ready to read on a restored (apparently) Astrotype dual DECtape drive and I was 'dressing' the leaders of the tape (removing ragged bits from old use.)? After trimming a wee bit from several tapes (.5 to 1 inch) I did a test.? Taking the bits of tape, I exposed them to various concentrations of isopropanol/water (from about 25% to 99% iso) and found than in all cases, some of the data side of the tape came off on the wipe.? The remaining tape fragment appears intact - the brown oxide was still there but both sides were now the same color, rather than the data side being darker (as were all my tapes before the test.) Was there some kind of 'lubricating' coat on the data side?? It makes sense, but none of my DEC documents or Googling has any mention of lubrication, other than the "...hydro- dynamic lubrication, relying on the viscosity of air to entrain it with the tape and provide the flotation medium." found in an "ELECTROMECHANICAL COMPONENTS & SYSTEMS DESIGN" from November,? 1964. All of my tapes, including DECtape brand, Scotch brand and even a couple of old "Microtape" brand from DEC (before 'dectape' name change) have this feature, so this doesn't appear to be something that appeared recently (as in late in DECtape production or due to old-age in the tapes.) If someone has some detail information on the tape construction, I'd am curious to see it. Thanks,

4 years

2 microvax 3800's for sale

by lyokoboy0＠gmail.com

Hello, I had picked up these machines fresh out of high school. I actually worked a deal with the buyer to make payments out of my paycheck for a few weeks till they were paid in full. i have not had the time to focus and get them running. one machine i have had up to the cpu monitor, no internal disk drive. the second machine has some corrosion on the front panel board, where the battery leaked. it iminimal, and the bad battery is removed. open to offers. located in US Florida Looking to sell off excess stuff, i want to focus on my pdp11's and mainframes.

4 years

Searching for information reg. IBM 3979 (Expansion module for 3179G / 3192G coax (3270) terminal)

by romietoo9ibi＠xx.vu

Hi! I am the proud owner of a 3192G coax terminal. As I have recently learned, there is an expansion module for the terminal that allows you to attach a mouse and a IEEE-488 pen plotter to the terminal. Some information about it can be found at [1] and [2]. I am searching for people who are in possession of this expansion unit, out of interest how the PCB looks, etc. If you have one, please respond. -Alex [1] http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/3192/GA18-2590-1_IBM_3192-G_Color_Graphics_Dis… [2] http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/datapro/alphanumeric_terminals/Datapro_C25_IBM…

4 years

Old Micro Memory core board

by go＠ao-cs.com

Going through an old junk pile, I came across a couple of core boards: Micro Memory, Inc. PN 90360 8K*8 (MM-6800)? Date code 7725 I have two boards (s/n 202 and 203) so likely purchased in pairs. Anyone have any information on these?? They have 86 pin connectors so not S-100 though connector is about the same size. For years, these have sit on a shelf on my 'round tuit' list of bringing them up in one of my old S-100 boxes, so I've been cruising along thinking these were 100 pin connectors.? I got them out today so I could find the manual (I have used the MMI s-100 8kx8 boards in an old company project back in 1977 and those were about the same size and form.)? The core board is a daughter board on top of the board with the bus connector and is likely the same module from the S-100 board.? I'm guessing the 86 pin bus is a Motorola Exorciser bus - so I can probable figure it out from there, but I would like to find a manual. I think my company had an Exorciser development system in the late 70s.? These were obtained from a dumpster dive.? Pity I didn't get the rest of the box, if so. As usual, google wasn't extremely helpful with old pedestrian hardware searches. -Gary

4 years, 1 month

Question about DECtape formulation

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Gary Oliver > I've always thought the physical tape wound on a DECtape spool was a > fairly conventional 'sandwich' of mylar/oxide/mylar ... > Was there some kind of 'lubricating' coat on the data side? It makes > sense, but none of my DEC documents or Googling has any mention of > lubrication ... > If someone has some detail information on the tape construction, I'd am > curious to see it. Dunno if you know of this: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/dectape/3M_DECtape_Spec_Nov66.pdf but it doesn't mention any lubrication, just a "Protective Overlay" layer, over the "Coating" (which I assume is the oxide). I'm a bit surprised that "some of the data side of the tape came off on the wipe", though, unless the "various concentrations of isopropanol/water" dissolved the Protective Overlay. Noel

4 years, 1 month

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