email problems
Hi If you have sent me an off list email in the last couple of days and have not got a response. - Apologies It seems I am loosing some but not all inbound email - ISP trying to fix it Rod Smallwood
Re: Substituting DSHD for DSDD disks (or DS2D if you prefer)
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Chuck Guzis wrote: So did Intel on the MDS. I don't recall if there was any significant difference between Intel and HP MMFM encoding, however. The initial CRC value ($ vs. $) and the header (six vs. four bytes) are different, but the encoding was quite identical. The Intel header format was similar (or even the same) as the "standard" soft-sectored formats (i.e. with head and sector length bytes). The HP format knows only single-sided floppies with up to 32 sectors (0 to 31). The address mark bytes are different, too. Christian
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
On 26 January 2016 at 17:24, Mark J. Blair wrote: > That site looks a bit more challenging for an English-only speaker. :) Maybe > google translate can help me find my way around... yeah, much better now. > Thanks for the links! Yes, it certainly is. I live in the Czech Republic, but I don't speak Czech worth a damn -- but between that and rudimentary Cyrillic reading ability, I can handle a little very basic Russian. That site's still too much for me, but Google Chrome and Google Translate make it navigable. I don't normally recommend such things, but for decades-old releases of an OS, Bittorrent can be your friend, too. E.g. https://thepiratebay.se/search/ibm%20os%202/0/99/300 -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
On 27 January 2016 at 07:18, Mark J. Blair wrote: > That XDFCOPY.EXE from the BonusPak ISO also has the same issue under MS-DOS > 6.22 on the PS/2. However, I got an OS/2 prompt from the first two floppies > of the OS/2 Warp Connect 3.0 set (which are regular 1.44M floppies), and then > I can CD to the DOS 6.22 HD and use that XDFCOPY.EXE to write the images. Yay! > > This is like a text adventure. :-D Yes, it is a bit, isn't it? I actually bought OS/2 with my own money. I was always extremely averse to doing that. It was good for its time, but NT 3.x was technically superior, just lacking in the UI department. Win95 brought a better UI. NT 4 combined them and Windows 2000 brought them together -- NT with Plug&play, power management etc. I don't like to have to say it, but Windows was better than OS/2. And Windows drove the rest of the industry onwards, to better it. Which, now, with Ubuntu and RHEL and Mac OS X and iOS and Android, it has, I reckon. Today there is eComStation. I have review copies but I've never got it 100% working. I may need to dedicate a machine to it. :¬( I miss OS/2, just as something genuinely /different/ in the greater DOS family -- but really, NT was better in almost every way. Less flexible by far, but also far more polished and stable. (E.g. I could reliably kernel-trap an OS/2 machine with Fractint, one of my favourite apps.) But trying the modern version today brings the bad memories flooding back, I'm afraid... Of multi-thousand-line CONFIG.SYS files, of juggling drivers (PATA versus SATA today, for example), of patchy or missing hardware support etc. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
Re: BC11A paddle boards
> From: Guy Sotomayor > I was originally thinking twisted pair ribbon cable until I saw what > 100' spool of that would run and decided to try just the straight > "grey" ribbon cable for now. That should be fine; the DEC M9042 board (basically equivalent) used three H854 flat cables, see: http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/XD149.80 The DEC board makes every other conductor in the flat cable a ground; not quite as good as twisted pair, but close. > I probably will not be making a production run of these boards unless I > get a *lot* of interest (100 boards or so). If you want some, let me > know I would definitely be interested in some (how many exactly would depend on the price). Noel
RE: BC11A paddle boards
-Original Message- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 9:08 AM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: BC11A paddle boards > From: Guy Sotomayor > I was originally thinking twisted pair ribbon cable until I saw what > 100' spool of that would run and decided to try just the straight > "grey" ribbon cable for now. That should be fine; the DEC M9042 board (basically equivalent) used three H854 flat cables, see: http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/XD149.80 The DEC board makes every other conductor in the flat cable a ground; not quite as good as twisted pair, but close. > I probably will not be making a production run of these boards unless I > get a *lot* of interest (100 boards or so). If you want some, let me > know I would definitely be interested in some (how many exactly would depend on the price). Noel - Looks like the ribbon cables there are foam-separated-and-bundled, rather like a BC11 cables. What are folks using for foam-replacement when they rehabilitate existing BC11 cables? I also would be interested in some (how many pairs exactly would depend on the price, for me as well). -
RE: BC11A paddle boards
> > Considering DEC did something like this for the DWBUA, but with 4 > 30-pin cables (by necessity because of the BI backplane), is 2x60 pins DEC (also?) made a board that brought the Unibus out on 3 40-way cahles. The 11/730 I am restoring originally had a Unibus expansion cabinet, and the arrangement was a board in the Unibus Out slot of the CPU with 3 off 40 pin Berg connectors on it (and nothng else). Then 3 cables (40 pin socket on each end) to a bulkhead panel with 3 40 way headers on it. That took a special screened cable with 3 40 way ribbon cables inside to another identical bulkhead, then 3 more cables to another PCB (different M-number, so perhaps there were connection differences) in the Unibus In of the expansion cabinet. I have removed that from my 11/730 as I just want a single-cabinet system, but of course have kept all of it. Didn't we have a thread on this a few months back? > more cost-effective than 4x30? Mostly, I'm curious about how much > 60-pin ends cost and the difference in cost between 2 lengths of Practically, I would not want to use 60 way connectors and cable. They are not as easy to get as the 40 way ones. [I've never seen a 30 way IDC socket. 34 way are common of course.] -tony
Re: BC11A paddle boards
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:06 AM, tony duell wrote: > DEC (also?) made a board that brought the Unibus out on 3 40-way > cahles. I don't know that I've seen that exact one, but it sounds like something they would have done. > I have removed that from my 11/730 as I just want a single-cabinet system, > but of course have kept all of it. > Didn't we have a thread on this a few months back? Perhaps, but I don't remember if it was related toGuy's paddle boards or just general kicking around of "how do I get "new" BC11A cables?" >> more cost-effective than 4x30? Mostly, I'm curious about how much >> 60-pin ends cost and the difference in cost between 2 lengths of > > Practically, I would not want to use 60 way connectors and cable. They are > not as easy to get as the 40 way ones. I just did some pricing and 60-way cable is a touch pricey. Through cable surplus vendors, I saw one quote of $1.33/ft and from the same vendor, prices close to $0.30/ft for 28-34-way (you need twice as many feet, of course, but it's still half the cost. Not a big deal for one 10' run, but trying to cable up 4 RK05s, for example, it would start to add up). 3x 40-way wouldn't be too bad, if designing from scratch (I totally get the design goal of a simple double-sided paddle card to simplify the construction of that - I'm not complaining about Guy's design, just investigating costs for different methods. For just one pair of paddle cards and one set of cables, the differences aren't going to be enough to matter. Wanting/needing multiples for multiple systems or drives might start to tip the balance). > [I've never seen a 30 way IDC socket. 34 way are common of course.] I'd have to check the paddle card with my DWBUA, but I'm pretty sure the cables are 30-pin to 30-pin, not 30-pin to 34-pin (the VAXBI backplane is studded in 30-pin keyed connector spots (6 per backplane slot) and are the only way to get signals to/from BI options. We made a COMBOARD VAXBI (only sold a handful - too late in the game to matter) and took two 30-pin cables out to our I/O bulkhead dual EIA connector plate. The DWBUA has 4x 30-pin cables to get Unibus from the BI board to the paddle card in the DD11DK. They certainly aren't common. I only mentioned them because I've seen it done. 3x40-way is probably more sensible since 40-pin parts and cable were once incredibly common. -ethan
Re: Substituting DSHD for DSDD disks (or DS2D if you prefer)
On 01/26/2016 09:07 PM, Eric Smith wrote: On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: You've lost me there. Both HP and Intel were true MMFM; There's more to it than the basic channel code. IBM 3740 and Ohio Scientific 8-inch both use "true FM" for the channel code, but they aren't compatible. The HP 9895 M2FM and Intel M2FM may be the same channel code, but the address marks are different, etc. That's exactly what I was asking. But you implied that the RX02 was MMFM, which, in my experience is not the case. MFM is a (1,3) RLL code; MMFM is a (1,4) code. AFAIK, RX02 is a combination of (0,1) for headers and (1,3) for data. WHat the decoded clock and data bits actually mean is a separate issue. --Chuck
M. Minsky - AI & Classic Computing
I learned today of the passing of a true computing visionary, Marvin Minsky He of artificial intelligence fame. We in the classic computing fraternity, and computing in general, can enjoy our ‘hobby’ because of his work. Happy computing Murray :)
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
On 1/27/2016 8:42 AM, Liam Proven wrote: I actually bought OS/2 with my own money. I was always extremely averse to doing that. It was good for its time, but NT 3.x was technically superior, just lacking in the UI department. Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly (probably am), but wasn't NT a descendent of DEC VMS? - J.
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
> Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly (probably am), but wasn't > NT a descendent of DEC VMS? As I understand it - an important caveat here - Windows NT was to some extent a conceptual descendent of VMS, but that was more because the same person was instrumental in designing both than because there was an explicit inheritance relationship. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
> > > Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly (probably am), but wasn't > > NT a descendent of DEC VMS? > > As I understand it - an important caveat here - Windows NT was to some > extent a conceptual descendent of VMS, but that was more because the > same person was instrumental in designing both than because there was > an explicit inheritance relationship. > > That would be Dave Cutler. You can see his philosophy clearly in both systems. And he had little respect for Gordon Letwin and the OS/2 architecture, and open disdain for UNIX and its underlying stream-of-bytes, everything-is-a-file, everything-is-plaintext philosophy. IMO, NT offers a better kernel than OS/2, but nothing has ever matched the elegance and sheer power of the Workplace Shell as a graphical abstraction. Windows overall suffers from layers upon layers of ill-conceived backwards compatibility hacks and Microsoft's inability to settle on one API, as well as horrendously weak versioning of shared libraries (the Component Object Model is a nightmare). IUnknown, anyone?
Re: BC11A paddle boards
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > >>> >> >> Practically, I would not want to use 60 way connectors and cable. They are >> not as easy to get as the 40 way ones. > > I just did some pricing and 60-way cable is a touch pricey. Through > cable surplus vendors, I saw one quote of $1.33/ft and from the same > vendor, prices close to $0.30/ft for 28-34-way (you need twice as many > feet, of course, but it's still half the cost. Not a big deal for one > 10' run, but trying to cable up 4 RK05s, for example, it would start > to add up). 3x 40-way wouldn't be too bad, if designing from scratch > (I totally get the design goal of a simple double-sided paddle card to > simplify the construction of that - I'm not complaining about Guy's > design, just investigating costs for different methods. For just one > pair of paddle cards and one set of cables, the differences aren't > going to be enough to matter. Wanting/needing multiples for multiple > systems or drives might start to tip the balance). > I just ran some numbers (Digikey*, so YMMV) and here’s what I came up with: 60 pin connectors (PCB & cable ends): $46.60 4 PCB connectors 8 cable connectors 2 10’ 60 conductor cable: $42.12 40 pin connectors (PCB & cable ends): $50.46 6 PCB connectors 12 cable connectors 3 10’ 40 conductor cable: $45.30 I believe when I started these, I looked at both. Given that the 60 pin solution is marginally cheaper (going with new parts which if I’m selling that’s what I use) and results in fewer connectors (and was simpler to route). Note, that *if* I do end up selling the paddle boards, I’ll sell just the boards and the connectors on the boards. I will *not* be selling the cable itself (nor the cable connectors). As you can see from the above, any solution is going to be expensive. This does not include the boards (since the price for either solution is the same). I just wanted to illustrate the comparison between 60 and 40 pin cables. TTFN - Guy * - I used the same family of connectors for both (from 3M). The only difference was the total number of pins (60 vs 40). This wasn’t the most expensive solution either and was pretty close to the cheapest as I recall but I this is what I’m using for my “prototype” run and will probably investigate more fully if/when I do a production run (of course if folks want just the bare boards they’re free to “do their own thing”).
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly (probably am), but wasn't NT a descendent of DEC VMS? On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Mouse wrote: As I understand it - an important caveat here - Windows NT was to some extent a conceptual descendent of VMS, but that was more because the same person was instrumental in designing both than because there was an explicit inheritance relationship. Dave Cutler? It also, of course, used a lot of Gordon Letwin's OS/2 code.
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
On 1/27/2016 1:14 PM, John Willis wrote: Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly (probably am), but wasn't NT a descendent of DEC VMS? As I understand it - an important caveat here - Windows NT was to some extent a conceptual descendent of VMS, but that was more because the same person was instrumental in designing both than because there was an explicit inheritance relationship. That would be Dave Cutler. You can see his philosophy clearly in both systems. And he had little respect for Gordon Letwin and the OS/2 architecture, and open disdain for UNIX and its underlying stream-of-bytes, everything-is-a-file, everything-is-plaintext philosophy. IMO, NT offers a better kernel than OS/2, but nothing has ever matched the elegance and sheer power of the Workplace Shell as a graphical abstraction. In relation to that, here's something interesting: http://toastytech.com/guis/wps.html - J.
Re: BC11A paddle boards
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: >> On Jan 27, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> I just did some pricing and 60-way cable is a touch pricey. Through >> cable surplus vendors, I saw one quote of $1.33/ft... > > I just ran some numbers (Digikey*, so YMMV) and here’s what I came > up with... No arguments about the Digikey pricing. I'm not shocked it comes out that high. I get needing to price new parts from reliable vendors, but as a consumer of kit items, I frequently hit my own junk boxes (I have a lot of cable supplies) and definitely hit surplus vendors. In the "real world" for the last run of COMBOARDs, I got the cost down 25% by not ordering certain parts (RAM, CPU...) from Digikey/Mouser/Allied, etc. OK for a sunset build, but not for a new product. > Note, that *if* I do end up selling the paddle boards, I’ll sell just the > boards and the connectors on the boards. I will *not* be selling the > cable itself (nor the cable connectors). Sure. > As you can see from the above, any solution is going to be expensive. > This does not include the boards (since the price for either solution is > the same). I just wanted to illustrate the comparison between 60 and > 40 pin cables. I see the numbers from Digikey and, yeah... quite a bit for those endpoints, no matter which configuration. > ...this is what I’m using for my “prototype” run and will > probably investigate more fully if/when I do a production run (of course > if folks want just the bare boards they’re free to “do their own thing”). If you do bare boards (no connectors), I'd probably be interested in several sets. If you need to supply board connectors to keep your volume up, I'll probably still be interested but perhaps not quite as many sets. -ethan
Re: BC11A paddle boards
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > If you do bare boards (no connectors), I'd probably be interested in > several sets. If you need to supply board connectors to keep your > volume up, I'll probably still be interested but perhaps not quite as > many sets. > I offer parts kits as a convenience not as a requirement. The big costs are just getting the number of boards up. Of course when I start producing products that are SMD with pre-programmed parts (ie MEM11A), those will be fully assembled and tested just because I don’t want to handle the support issues and component choice variations as well as I’ll have the boards assembled before they get to me. TTFN - Guy
Re: BC11A paddle boards
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > >> On Jan 27, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> >> If you do bare boards (no connectors), I'd probably be interested in >> several sets. > > I offer parts kits as a convenience not as a requirement. The big costs > are just getting the number of boards up. Sure. I just didn't assume because some kits are priced around volume orders of PCB+parts and it screws with the inventory to sell bare boards. I'm usually happiest to buy bare board kits or board+weird parts. > Of course when I start producing products that are SMD with pre-programmed > parts (ie MEM11A), those will be fully assembled and tested just because I > don’t want to handle the support issues and component choice variations as > well as I’ll have the boards assembled before they get to me. Sure. I've been on the support end of selling through-hole kits, but I wouldn't want to have to support SMD kits. I have bought and assembled many kits with SMD parts and have enjoyed success, but not everyone's builds go smoothly (and even I've had to occasionally fix my own screwups). And I'm still interested in at least one MEM11A when it gets to that. I have this 11/20 that needs some stuffing. -ethan
Re: BC11A paddle boards
> On Jan 27, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > Sure. I've been on the support end of selling through-hole kits, but > I wouldn't want to have to support SMD kits. I have bought and > assembled many kits with SMD parts and have enjoyed success, but not > everyone's builds go smoothly (and even I've had to occasionally fix > my own screwups). > > And I'm still interested in at least one MEM11A when it gets to that. > I have this 11/20 that needs some stuffing. > My current plan re:MEM11A is that I’m going to build a prototype using an FPGA eval board that I already have. It has a 100pin Hirose connector on it that brings out a bunch of I/Os. The “prototype” board will contain all of the “other” components (FRAM, UARTs, Unibus I/F, etc) that don’t exist on the eval board. It will strictly be a bench setup. This is also why I did the paddle boards…I need a way to get from the prototype to the Unibus. ;-) BTW, I’ve been spending my evenings recently re-writing the simulator in C to get the functionality that I need to complete the rest of the testing and coding of the uCode. I’ve also started writing verilog for the various parts on the prototype board. I’m using CPLDs at present but it’s not clear that with the partitioning I have, that it’ll all fit (right now I have stuff partitioned into 3 CPLDs just for I/O count). I’m planning that most of what I do for the prototype board will translate over to the real board so I won’t have to end up re-writing a lot of code (either the J1 uCode or verilog) but I expect that there will be some differences mainly around how things are packaged between FPGA and CPLD(s). TTFN - Guy
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:14 PM, John Willis wrote: > everything-is-plaintext philosophy. IMO, NT offers a better kernel than > OS/2, > but nothing has ever matched the elegance and sheer power of the Workplace > Shell as a graphical abstraction. > Hmmm... agree to disagree I guess. I generally found the Workplace shell in OS/2 a bit cumbersome and maddening compared to a lot of the GUI alternatives.
Re: Substituting DSHD for DSDD disks (or DS2D if you prefer)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > That's exactly what I was asking. But you implied that the RX02 was MMFM, > which, in my experience is not the case. The double-density RX02 data fields are in a modifed MFM, which is what M2FM or MMFM stands for. It doesn't use the same encoding rules as are most commonly used for M2FM, though. DEC's M2FM uses the same encoding as MFM except for the case of a run of exactly four consecutive one bits. data: 00 MFM encoded: DCDCDCDCDCD 00101010100 DEC M2FM encoded: DCDCDCDCDCD 01000100010 DEC claimed that this was done because using normal MFM encoding, the data field could contain a pattern that matches a preample fllowed by an ID mark. I am dubious of that claim; I did an exhaustive search and was unable to find any sequence of data bits which, MFM-encoded, would match any of the RX02 mark patterns (standard 3740 patterns for index, ID, single-density data, and single-density deleted data, and non-standard patterns for double-density data and double-density deleted data).
Re: HP 9000/380 console? software? (was Re: HP 9000/382 Questions)
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Rik Bos wrote: > Basic 6.2 is also on the site and can be run from flop. I was only able to find a download for BASIC 6.2 for the "Measurement Coprocessor" for the AT bus, which required its own special version, not compatible with normal Series 200/300.
Re: Substituting DSHD for DSDD disks (or DS2D if you prefer)
On 01/27/2016 02:07 PM, Eric Smith wrote: The double-density RX02 data fields are in a modifed MFM, which is what M2FM or MMFM stands for. It doesn't use the same encoding rules as are most commonly used for M2FM, though. ...and that was exactly my objection. This becomes a case of the Monty Python "Basingstoke in Westphalia" and "our Cole Porter". The RX02 MFM (and I believe I touched on the rationale) may be "modified MFM", but it's not modified in the standard (1,4) RLL encoding that the rest of the world uses/used. I can conceivably change a couple of encodings for FM, but that doesn't make it MFM. For example, not allowing 4 consecutive clock and data 1 bits in a row (I could, for example, leave out a clock bit.). Come to think of it, that's exactly what standard IBM 3740 address marks do, but nobody calls that "MFM". If you insist that the 3740 format *defines* FM, then you're leaving out a lot of recording formats that use (0,1) RLL, but not 3740 conventions. Honestly, you DEC guys need to get out more. --Chuck
Re: M. Minsky - AI & Classic Computing
On 01/27/2016 11:24 AM, Murray McCullough wrote: I learned today of the passing of a true computing visionary, Marvin Minsky He of artificial intelligence fame. We in the classic computing fraternity, and computing in general, can enjoy our ‘hobby’ because of his work. Yup, sad day! Jon
HP 9845 Option ROMs
So in the past few weeks I've been playing with my latest aquisition, an HP 9845A that's been upgraded at some point to a 9845B. The filter caps for the PSU are in the mail still and I have yet to actually see the system turn on so I've been working on other projects in the meantime like cleaning the machine, troubleshooting faults in the floppy drives it came with and sourcing a food dehydrator to bake the tapes it unexpectedly came with. It's a fairly basic machine without the internal printer or second tape drive. Only the I/O, graphics and Mass Storage ROMs are installed and there's at least one other option ROM module not accounted for according to one of the manuals that came with. In fact it seems the option ROMs aren't common to begin with or at least they are not cheap on ebay. I seem to remember a few years ago someone out further West than I am who also had a 45 discussed some sort of ROM board that acted like the PRM-85 ROM board for the HP 85 and let you load whatever ROMs you wanted onto a modern EPROM and do away with HP's silly modules completely however my memory is fuzzy and I can't seem to find any mention of such a device on the internet. What I did find was the System ROM replacement board on hp9845.net but it doesn't mention the ability to add in images of the option ROMs he has available on his site. Anyone else heard of this mysterious adapter? -John
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
I finally managed to get OS/2 Warp Connect 3.0 installed after a few tries. I think that messing with the SCSI2SD settings fixed things. My best guess is that with the default settings the BIOS code could access the drive, but once OS/2 switched over to its own drivers part way through the install, the wheels came off. I tried enabling the touch display, and it kind of works. Calibration is way off; I saw something that looked like a calibration program flashing by during the driver installation, but I got frustrated doing things with a dodgy and uncalibrated screen before finding it. Switching between touch screen and mouse involved a reboot (at least the way I found to do it), and when I switched to the touch screen, the mouse quit working even though it's daisy chained through the monitor. There may be some better way to configure it that I haven't found yet. Anyway, now that it's working, I guess I can put it all on a shelf! :) -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
I tried the touch screen again. This time the mouse remained working, and it's kind of usable-ish after running the CALIBRAT.EXE utility. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: What to Do with a PS/2?
Vetusware is highly unreliable and tries to charge for accounts, which isn't worth it at all because most of the things I've gotten from there haven't worked. Try: https://winworldpc.com/library Their images are tested, I've used the OS/2 Warp 4 images to install on an old thinkpad 760. I'd also suggest you try some other OSes, Nextstep 3.3 should work (and may have network drivers), as well as Unixware, GEM (on top of DOS), and possibly even AT&T SVR4 or one of the later Xenix variants. If you do decide to go with OS/2, you should also be able to find native applications and development tools there too. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
