Re: tu58fs - PDP-11 file sharing with TU58 tape emulator

[Torfinn Ingolfsen]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Jörg Hoppe  wrote:
>
> If you like to have a look (and play beta tester):
>
> Docs on http://retrocmp.com/tools/tu58fs
> C sources and makefile on https://github.com/j-hoppe/tu58fs

FWIW, It doesn't compile on FreeBSD (yes, I do not know if it is supposed to)
tingo@kg-core1$ gmake
cc -I. -c -UWINCOMM  -ggdb3 -O0 -m64 main.c -o freebsd-amd64/main.o
cc -I. -c -UWINCOMM  -ggdb3 -O0 -m64 getopt2.c -o freebsd-amd64/getopt2.o
getopt2.c:228:20: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
~~^
getopt2.c:228:20: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
silence this warning
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
  ^
(  )
getopt2.c:228:20: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
equality comparison
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
  ^
  ==
getopt2.c:364:21: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
~~^
getopt2.c:364:21: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
silence this warning
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
  ^
(  )
getopt2.c:364:21: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
equality comparison
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
  ^
  ==
getopt2.c:439:20: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
~~^
getopt2.c:439:20: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
silence this warning
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
  ^
(  )
getopt2.c:439:20: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
equality comparison
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++)
  ^
  ==
getopt2.c:646:16: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
for (i = 0; s = odesc->fix_args[i]; i++) {
~~^~~~
getopt2.c:646:16: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
silence this warning
for (i = 0; s = odesc->fix_args[i]; i++) {
  ^
( )
getopt2.c:646:16: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
equality comparison
for (i = 0; s = odesc->fix_args[i]; i++) {
  ^
  ==
getopt2.c:651:16: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
for (i = 0; s = odesc->var_args[i]; i++) {
~~^~~~
getopt2.c:651:16: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
silence this warning
for (i = 0; s = odesc->var_args[i]; i++) {
  ^
( )
getopt2.c:651:16: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
equality comparison
for (i = 0; s = odesc->var_args[i]; i++) {
  ^
  ==
getopt2.c:751:20: warning: using the result of an assignment as a
condition without parentheses [-Wparentheses]
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++) {
~~^
getopt2.c:751:20: note: place parentheses around the assignment to
silence this warning
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++) {
  ^
(  )
getopt2.c:751:20: note: use '==' to turn this assignment into an
equality comparison
for (i = 0; odesc = _this->option_descrs[i]; i++) {
  ^
  ==
getopt2.c:754:26: warning: the value of the size argument in 'strncat'
is too large, might lead to a buffer overflow [-Wstrncat-size]
strncat(linebuff, " ", sizeof(linebuff));
   ^~~~
getopt2.c:754:26: note: change the argument to be the free space in
the destination buffer minus the terminating null byte
strncat(linebuff, " ", sizeof(linebuff));
   ^~~~
   sizeof(linebuff) - strlen(linebuff) - 1
getopt2.c:760:26: warning: the value of the size argument in 'strncat'
is too large, might 

Re: Transformer part ID please

[Tony Duell]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Adrian Graham
 wrote:
> On 23/01/2017 21:38, "Tony Duell"  wrote:

>> Oh... The trace isn't open-circuit, is it? Check it with the
>> multimeter. Given the
>> corrosion damage to the tape drive I could well believe PCB problems of a
>> similar nature.
>
> I've measured resistance from all points to all points, there's 9:
>
> 74LS373 (output, new socket checked for solder bridges, new chip)
> 4x 2764 EPROM (new chips, no new sockets yet)
> MC3242A (new chip, no new socket yet, this one had bad verdigris)
> 74LS139
> 74LS21
> 74LS365
>
> and it's 0.6ohm max.

Are you telling me that if you put 2 logic analyser inputs on 2 points on the
same trace (which tests as continuous with an ohmmeter) that said 2 LA
channels don't show the same thing? If so, the LA needs repairing!

Given the problems I've had with even clean old sockets, I would have
replaced those. Corroded sockets must be worse. And I can't believe
they used turned-pin sockets in something like this.

-tony

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Chuck Guzis]

On 01/23/2017 09:42 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 07:45 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> 
> This blog seems to indicate that there is NO 7074, but an emulator 
> running on 370 hardware.
>> http://nikhilism.com/post/2016/systems-we-love/
> 
> This makes a lot more sense, some of these microcode emulations were 
> still available of fairly late machines.  Also, it probably would not
> be real hard to write a decent emulator for the 7074 and run it on
> modern hardware.  Once you are using emulation, why not keep the host
> hardware current?
> 
> Too bad the excerpts from the original talk are totally scrambled.

It wouldn't surprise me if the IBM S/370 isn't being emulated as well.
It wouldn't be the first time for "nested" emulation.

Is there a "recursive" emulator setup wherein one machine emulates
another one...where the final emulation is for the original hardware?

--Chuck

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Chuck Guzis]

Bob Bener has written a short squib about how the 7070 came into being:

http://www.bobbemer.com/BIRTH.HTM

Funny, in a tragic way.

--Chuck

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Jon Elson]

On 01/23/2017 07:45 PM, Jon Elson wrote:

This blog seems to indicate that there is NO 7074, but an 
emulator running on 370 hardware.

http://nikhilism.com/post/2016/systems-we-love/


This makes a lot more sense, some of these microcode 
emulations were still available of fairly late machines.  
Also, it probably would not be real hard to write a decent 
emulator for the 7074 and run it on modern hardware.  Once 
you are using emulation, why not keep the host hardware current?


Too bad the excerpts from the original talk are totally 
scrambled.


Jon

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Chuck Guzis]

On 01/23/2017 09:21 PM, Jon Elson wrote:

> Oh, and the picture in the article is CLEARLY a posed IBM sales
> brochure photo, and not from the recent operation at the unnamed
> government agency.

The photo's from Wikipedia, and is a photo of the system at the
Deutsches Museum in Munich, which is a place in which to spend several
days wandering about.  It's a marvelous collection of everything:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140820132312-15475825-ibm-vintage-machinery-in-munich-deutsches-museum

--Chuck

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Jon Elson]

On 01/23/2017 09:04 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

On 01/23/2017 05:45 PM, Jon Elson wrote:


WOW  That is QUITE amazing!  And, I can't possibly imagine why
anyone in their right mind would do this! Seems an emulator on a PC
would be faster, and way more reliable, not to mention taking up MUCH
less space, power and cooling.  How reliable can a 60 year old
machine possibly be? Where do you get parts?  There have to be a
whole lot of special parts that are deteriorating, like the plastic
parts on the console.  Even the PC boards (IBM SMS cards) are pretty
fragile, easily damaged during rework, and some of them dissipate a
lot of power, causing slow thermal degradation.

Are we SURE this isn't a preview of the April 1st edition?

I wondered about this too.  Even the USAF eventually replaced the 7080s
with S/370 running emulation.  Keeping a 7074 running (if my memories of
keeping a 7094 going are accureate) would be quite some task.


Yes!  There's all sorts of little things that would drive 
you nuts. Things like cooling fans, power supply capacitors, 
cable routing hardware (clamps, ties, etc.)  that they no 
longer make.  it would be a constant job of finding suitable 
replacements for unavailable parts.  The 7000 series had 
"pages" that made up a "book" with tons of old wiring that 
flexed every time you opened up the pages to access the 
circuit cards.  I just CAN'T believe somebody is actually 
keeping such a machine in daily service.  (On the other 
hand, CHM does have a working 1401, that also requires 
folding out racks of boards to access the cards, flexing 
similar cables.)


Wikipedia says the 7070 had 14,000 SMS circuit cards, with 
30,000 transistors and 22,000 diodes.  Having worked on some 
much more recent gear with Germanium transistors, I saw 
about 10% of them were bad.  I didn't run that gear long 
once I fixed it, I sold it on eBay before any more went 
out.  But, I can't imagine that a machine with that many 
components could keep running awfully long between failures.


As for the 1-6 ms response time, that is totally bogus.  The 
article is complete gibberish, talking about a vast library 
of mag tape and ms response time in the same sentence.  
Maybe the 7074 prepares data weekly for some other (newer) 
system that is actually connected online.  And, of course, 
to connect anything to the 7074, you'd have to build custom 
hardware.  RS-232 had not even been invented when the 
7000-series came out.  They did have a 1414 unit that 
apparently was some kind of comm adapter, but I'll bet it 
took milliseconds to send one character.


Oh, and the picture in the article is CLEARLY a posed IBM 
sales brochure photo, and not from the recent operation at 
the unnamed government agency.


Jon

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Chuck Guzis]

On 01/23/2017 05:45 PM, Jon Elson wrote:

> WOW  That is QUITE amazing!  And, I can't possibly imagine why 
> anyone in their right mind would do this! Seems an emulator on a PC
> would be faster, and way more reliable, not to mention taking up MUCH
> less space, power and cooling.  How reliable can a 60 year old
> machine possibly be? Where do you get parts?  There have to be a
> whole lot of special parts that are deteriorating, like the plastic
> parts on the console.  Even the PC boards (IBM SMS cards) are pretty
> fragile, easily damaged during rework, and some of them dissipate a
> lot of power, causing slow thermal degradation.
> 
> Are we SURE this isn't a preview of the April 1st edition?

I wondered about this too.  Even the USAF eventually replaced the 7080s
with S/370 running emulation.  Keeping a 7074 running (if my memories of
keeping a 7094 going are accureate) would be quite some task.

--Chuck

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Jon Elson]

On 01/23/2017 01:00 PM, Steven Maresca wrote:

Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a colleague,
regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware, ultimately feeding
a modern webapp stack:
http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/

This comes from a conference which occurred last month titled "Systems we
love" :
http://thenewstack.io/systems-we-love/
http://systemswe.love/

Cheers,
Steve

WOW  That is QUITE amazing!  And, I can't possibly 
imagine why anyone in their right mind would do this!
Seems an emulator on a PC would be faster, and way more 
reliable, not to mention taking up MUCH less space,
power and cooling.  How reliable can a 60 year old machine 
possibly be?  Where do you get parts?  There have to be a 
whole lot of special parts that are deteriorating, like the 
plastic parts on the console.  Even the PC boards (IBM SMS 
cards) are pretty fragile, easily damaged during rework, and 
some of them dissipate a lot of power, causing slow thermal 
degradation.


Are we SURE this isn't a preview of the April 1st edition?

Jon

Re: Parallel computation

[Paul Koning]

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Toby Thain  wrote:
> 
> On 2017-01-23 6:55 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> It's just that I bridle a bit when hearing the young 'uns refer to any
>>> physically large machine as a "supercomputer".
>>> 
>>> It's the same feeling that I get when I see press releases today that
>>> relate that David Gelernter single-handedly developed the parallel
>>> computation.  He's not old enough; at 61, he was still in high school
>>> during the ILLIAC IV era.
>> 
>> Even earlier...
>> 
>> From what I've read, ENIAC supported parallel computing, but in practice it 
>> wasn't used because it was too hard to get the code right.  At least, that's 
>> what a computer design course from 1948 states.
>> 
> 
> Has this been scanned anywhere?

Yes, it's on the CWI website in Amsterdam.  The trouble for most readers is 
that it's in Dutch.  I'm working on translating it.  Report CR3, Principles of 
electronic computers, course Feb 1948, by A. van Wijngaarden.

His comments on ENIAC should be able to be confirmed (or refuted) from ENIAC 
documentation.

paul

Re: Transformer part ID please

[Adrian Graham]

On 23/01/2017 21:38, "Tony Duell"  wrote:

> I normally trace connections using my DMM, but of course you have to know
> what will fool it (i.e. low resistance components). I find I have to desolder
> relays, switches, inductors, transformers, low value resistors, etc before
> starting to trace the circuit.

There's been a lot of that here too.

>> should go high at the same time as long as it's part of the same trace, so
>> the LS373 to MC3242A to pin 3 on all four ROMs should pulse together and
>> they don't. If there's a short they should all get it.
> 
> Oh... The trace isn't open-circuit, is it? Check it with the
> multimeter. Given the
> corrosion damage to the tape drive I could well believe PCB problems of a
> similar nature.

I've measured resistance from all points to all points, there's 9:

74LS373 (output, new socket checked for solder bridges, new chip)
4x 2764 EPROM (new chips, no new sockets yet)
MC3242A (new chip, no new socket yet, this one had bad verdigris)
74LS139
74LS21
74LS365

and it's 0.6ohm max.

I picked A7 because it and its multiplexed D7 are special cases and go to
quite a few locations. D0-D6's input to the teletext chip from the CPU is
via a 74LS240, D7's input is based on ALE/A6/A7 and a few other things
involving clocks that aren't yet present (lack of SOD and IO/M) so I'm
fairly sure the teletext chip isn't getting a full byte.

Both my analysers are cheap chinese clones, I suspect I need something
beefier.

-- 
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?

David Gelernter - was Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Toby Thain]

On 2017-01-23 6:52 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

On 01/23/2017 12:25 PM, Paul Koning wrote:



On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:

On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:

Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a
colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java
middleware, ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack:
http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/


The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal
machine really bear that title?


I suppose it could. ...


The 7070/74 was just a member of the 7000 line.  The 7030 STRETCH and
even the 7090/94 were both binary and far faster.

It's just that I bridle a bit when hearing the young 'uns refer to any
physically large machine as a "supercomputer".

It's the same feeling that I get when I see press releases today that
relate that David Gelernter single-handedly developed the parallel
computation.  He's not old enough; at 61, he was still in high school
during the ILLIAC IV era.


Gelernter's profile may have been boosted by a Scientific American 
special issue on Advanced Computing (1987). It featured his experimental 
Linda system. It's certainly I first heard of him -- I think it was this 
article:


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/programming-for-advanced-computing/

And stuff like this wouldn't have hurt either (found just now while 
googling the above citation):


http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/19/business/david-gelernter-s-romance-with-linda.html?pagewanted=all

And, well... in more recent news...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/18/david-gelernter-fiercely-anti-intellectual-computer-scientist-is-being-eyed-for-trumps-science-adviser/

--Toby




Now, get off of my lawn!

--Chuck

Re: Parallel computation

[Toby Thain]

On 2017-01-23 6:55 PM, Paul Koning wrote:



On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:

...
It's just that I bridle a bit when hearing the young 'uns refer to any
physically large machine as a "supercomputer".

It's the same feeling that I get when I see press releases today that
relate that David Gelernter single-handedly developed the parallel
computation.  He's not old enough; at 61, he was still in high school
during the ILLIAC IV era.


Even earlier...

From what I've read, ENIAC supported parallel computing, but in practice it 
wasn't used because it was too hard to get the code right.  At least, that's 
what a computer design course from 1948 states.



Has this been scanned anywhere?

--Toby



paul

RE: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[oharamj]

Oh, no.  Of course not.  Perish the thought.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Toby Thain
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:45 PM
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

On 2017-01-23 5:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:
>> Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a
>> colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware,
>> ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack:
>> http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/
>
> The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal machine
> really bear that title?
>
> The USAF used 7080s well into the 1980s--another decimal system.  One of
> the the reasons for doing so was a system implemented in 7080 COBOL with
> miles and miles of undocumented Autocoder patches.No one person had
> a full grasp of the resulting system and its nuances.

Thank God this could not happen today!
--T

>
> --Chuck
>
>

Books available

[nospam212-cctalk]

Clearing out a bunch of stuff I have decided I no longer need around. There may 
not be any interest here but thought I'd check first. I have several books 
available for the cost of shipping if anyone is interested, otherwise they'll 
go to my local book reseller this coming weekend.  All are in pretty much like 
new condition.
Inside Visual C++ Version 4 - David KruglinskiVisual C++ 4 Unleashed - Viktor 
TothEssential Visual C++ 4 - Mickey WilliamsWeb Client Programming with Perl - 
Clinton WongGIMP for Linux Bible - Stephanie Bryant & Tillman HodgsonMangaging 
the WIndows NT Registry - Paul RobichauxDeveloping CGI Applications with Perl - 
John Deep & Peter HolfelderSendmail 2nd Edition - Bryan CostalesCore PHP 
Programming - Leon Atkinson
Also have a Partition Magic 7.0 User guide and Adobe Photoshop 5.5 for 
Photographers in this stack if anyone is interested.
David Williamshttp://www.trailingedge.com/

Re: Transformer part ID please

[Tony Duell]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Adrian Graham
 wrote:
> On 23/01/2017 19:07, "Tony Duell"  wrote:
>
>>> I didn't think of a 555 in that scenario but that makes sense. I've marked
>>> it as such for now, cheers!
>>
>> Is there another capacitor from the 2/6 junction to chassis? Any other
>> components
>> around? It might be one of the special SMPSU ICs, but it doesn't
>> instantly ring a
>> bell with me.
>
> Yes, just found it after some leg cleaning. This board is a big fan of
> running small traces under other components. Looks like it's a 68pF ceramic
> type.

Sounds reasonable...

I normally trace connections using my DMM, but of course you have to know
what will fool it (i.e. low resistance components). I find I have to desolder
relays, switches, inductors, transformers, low value resistors, etc before
starting to trace the circuit.

>
>>> Tonight it's 'address pins and why I get inconsistent results on a logic
>>> analyser while looking at everything that touches A7' :)
>>
>> Short from A7 to another pin? Failed address latch?
>
> I've been looking for shorts but I'd have thought that anything that's A7
> should go high at the same time as long as it's part of the same trace, so
> the LS373 to MC3242A to pin 3 on all four ROMs should pulse together and
> they don't. If there's a short they should all get it.

Oh... The trace isn't open-circuit, is it? Check it with the
multimeter. Given the
corrosion damage to the tape drive I could well believe PCB problems of a
similar nature.

-tony

Re: Transformer part ID please

[Adrian Graham]

On 23/01/2017 19:07, "Tony Duell"  wrote:

>> I didn't think of a 555 in that scenario but that makes sense. I've marked
>> it as such for now, cheers!
> 
> Is there another capacitor from the 2/6 junction to chassis? Any other
> components
> around? It might be one of the special SMPSU ICs, but it doesn't
> instantly ring a
> bell with me.

Yes, just found it after some leg cleaning. This board is a big fan of
running small traces under other components. Looks like it's a 68pF ceramic
type.

>> Tonight it's 'address pins and why I get inconsistent results on a logic
>> analyser while looking at everything that touches A7' :)
> 
> Short from A7 to another pin? Failed address latch?

I've been looking for shorts but I'd have thought that anything that's A7
should go high at the same time as long as it's part of the same trace, so
the LS373 to MC3242A to pin 3 on all four ROMs should pulse together and
they don't. If there's a short they should all get it.

Since this is an 8085A powered machine it runs internally at 3MHz so I
should be able to sample it at over 12MS/s. Another collector friend is
loaning me an analyser that can be externally clocked but it's still USB
connected like both of mine are. I'm pondering an HP/Agilent 1663A that's on
ebay for 'offers'...

-- 
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?

Parallel computation (was: IBM 7074 and then some)

[Paul Koning]

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
> 
> ...
> It's just that I bridle a bit when hearing the young 'uns refer to any
> physically large machine as a "supercomputer".
> 
> It's the same feeling that I get when I see press releases today that
> relate that David Gelernter single-handedly developed the parallel
> computation.  He's not old enough; at 61, he was still in high school
> during the ILLIAC IV era.

Even earlier...

From what I've read, ENIAC supported parallel computing, but in practice it 
wasn't used because it was too hard to get the code right.  At least, that's 
what a computer design course from 1948 states.

paul

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Charles Anthony]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Mouse  wrote:

> >> The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal
> >> machine really bear that title?
> > I suppose it could.  I would apply the term to a computer that's the
> fastest$
>
> Consider Babbage's Analytical Engine.  It was decimal and it was, not
> so much by intrinsic merit as by lack of competition, the fastest
> machine of its day.
>
> Admittedly, it ended up being little but vapourware until modern times.
> But applying "supercomputer" to vapourware machines is a longstanding
> tradition (though perhaps not one dating back quite to Babbage's day).
>
>
"The Holy Roman Empire, which was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire"

-- Charles

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Mouse]

>> The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal
>> machine really bear that title?
> I suppose it could.  I would apply the term to a computer that's the fastest$

Consider Babbage's Analytical Engine.  It was decimal and it was, not
so much by intrinsic merit as by lack of competition, the fastest
machine of its day.

Admittedly, it ended up being little but vapourware until modern times.
But applying "supercomputer" to vapourware machines is a longstanding
tradition (though perhaps not one dating back quite to Babbage's day).

/~\ 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: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Paul Koning]

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
> 
> On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:
>> Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a
>> colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware,
>> ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack: 
>> http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/
> 
> The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal machine
> really bear that title?

I suppose it could.  I would apply the term to a computer that's the fastest 
out there by a fair margin, and uses innovative or distinctive bits of 
architecture to make it so.  A CDC 6600 clearly qualifies on that basis, as do 
the Cray 1 and the ILLIAC IV.  I've heard the IBM Stretch mentioned as well, I 
don't know it enough to comment.  It seems hard to imagine that a decimal 
machine could overcome the inherent disadvantages of being decimal so 
successfully that it can reach supercomputer status, but in theory I suppose it 
might be possible.

paul

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Toby Thain]

On 2017-01-23 5:16 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:

Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a
colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware,
ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack:
http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/


The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal machine
really bear that title?

The USAF used 7080s well into the 1980s--another decimal system.  One of
the the reasons for doing so was a system implemented in 7080 COBOL with
miles and miles of undocumented Autocoder patches.No one person had
a full grasp of the resulting system and its nuances.


Thank God this could not happen today!
--T



--Chuck

Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery

[Chuck Guzis]

On 01/23/2017 09:04 AM, Jon Elson wrote:

> Well, it doesn't really matter.  If you can find one of the "really
> old" ones, the battery can be replaced and you are good for 5 years
> or so. There must be TONS of these old clock/RAM chips out there, and
> somebody must have saved a few.


Probably being sold on eBay as NOS. ;)

Reminiscent of the time when I ran across a seller offering a deal on
some bipolar PROMs.  When I asked about the history of the parts, he
said that they were pulls, but he'd checked them out and they worked fine.

Okay...

--Chuck

Re: IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Chuck Guzis]

On 01/23/2017 11:00 AM, Steven Maresca wrote:
> Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a
> colleague, regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware,
> ultimately feeding a modern webapp stack: 
> http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/

The 7074 was referred to as a "supercomputer".  Can any decimal machine
really bear that title?

The USAF used 7080s well into the 1980s--another decimal system.  One of
the the reasons for doing so was a system implemented in 7080 COBOL with
miles and miles of undocumented Autocoder patches.No one person had
a full grasp of the resulting system and its nuances.

--Chuck

Re: Transformer part ID please

[Tony Duell]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Adrian Graham
 wrote:
> On 22/01/2017 20:10, "Tony Duell"  wrote:
>
>>> That looks like an opamp to me, with bias pins connected to GND?
>>
>> Does it? It looks like a 555 timer to me at first glance. I would have
>> expected another
>> capacitor from pins 2/6 to ground though.
>>
>> 1 Ground
>> 2 Trigger (linked to threshold, and to output via a timing resistor)
>> 3 Output (driving the MOSFET)
>> 4 Reset/ (pulled high via a resistor)
>> 5 Control Voltage (decoupled to ground)
>> 6 Threshold (see 2)
>> 7 Discharge (not used here)
>> 8 Vcc
>
> I didn't think of a 555 in that scenario but that makes sense. I've marked
> it as such for now, cheers!

Is there another capacitor from the 2/6 junction to chassis? Any other
components
around? It might be one of the special SMPSU ICs, but it doesn't
instantly ring a
bell with me.


>
> Tonight it's 'address pins and why I get inconsistent results on a logic
> analyser while looking at everything that touches A7' :)

Short from A7 to another pin? Failed address latch?

-tony

IBM 7074 and then some: "Systems we love" conference

[Steven Maresca]

Just wanted to share an excerpted story just sent to me by a colleague,
regarding an IBM 7074 supplying data to Java middleware, ultimately feeding
a modern webapp stack:
http://thenewstack.io/happens-use-java-1960-ibm-mainframe/

This comes from a conference which occurred last month titled "Systems we
love" :
http://thenewstack.io/systems-we-love/
http://systemswe.love/

Cheers,
Steve

Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery

[Jon Elson]

On 01/23/2017 04:57 AM, allison wrote:

On 01/22/2017 02:46 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:

On 01/22/2017 10:57 AM, allison wrote:

I don't know about most people but this solution has been around for
decades.

I locate the battery on the failed part with a small magnet, then
grind the epoxy down to it then pick it out with a sharp pointed
tool.  Once I expose the connection point I older two wires then
epoxy a small coin-cell holder in that spot and it s done.  I've done
this more times than I care to count and its effective and the
replacement battery some over 10 years old now have not failed.  But
just in case I have a bag of NOS replacements (and pulls from
socketed boards) all with dead batteries from age.  There is no magic
to this.

It's worth noting that the original post was about fabricating a
replacement using the DS12885A RTC chip.  However, most old PCs used the
DS1285 RTC (inside of a DS1287  module).  The DS12885A is supposed to be
drop-in compatible with the DS1285, but apparently, in some cases is not.

So there's logic in reworking the old DS1287 modules, as the DS1285 chip
is long out of production--you'll most likely have to be content with
pulls or the occasional NOS lot.

--Chuck

I haven't seen that version for a while.  The later are fully versions
are epoxy filled.
Same for the MT48T part, same fix.

The problem with NOS parts is manufacture date.  Some are really old.


Well, it doesn't really matter.  If you can find one of the 
"really old" ones, the battery can be replaced and you are 
good for 5 years or so.  There must be TONS of these old 
clock/RAM chips out there, and somebody must have saved a few.


Jon

Re: Transformer part ID please

[Adrian Graham]

On 22/01/2017 20:10, "Tony Duell"  wrote:

>> That looks like an opamp to me, with bias pins connected to GND?
> 
> Does it? It looks like a 555 timer to me at first glance. I would have
> expected another
> capacitor from pins 2/6 to ground though.
> 
> 1 Ground
> 2 Trigger (linked to threshold, and to output via a timing resistor)
> 3 Output (driving the MOSFET)
> 4 Reset/ (pulled high via a resistor)
> 5 Control Voltage (decoupled to ground)
> 6 Threshold (see 2)
> 7 Discharge (not used here)
> 8 Vcc

I didn't think of a 555 in that scenario but that makes sense. I've marked
it as such for now, cheers!

Tonight it's 'address pins and why I get inconsistent results on a logic
analyser while looking at everything that touches A7' :)

-- 
Adrian/Witchy
Binary Dinosaurs creator/curator
Www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk - the UK's biggest private home computer
collection?

Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

[Chuck Guzis]

On 01/23/2017 09:36 AM, Josh Dersch wrote:
> Just to be sure -- the PC keyboard you're using is an actual PC/XT 
> compatible keyboard, not an AT, correct?  The PC/XT used a different 
> protocol and is incompatible with later keyboards...

That occurred to me also--it seems so obvious that I passed mention of it.

But PC 5150/5160-type keyboards use a very different protocol from 5170
and later keyboards--and they're not interchangeable.   Some early
AT-style keyboards can be configured for either mode (e.g. the
Keytroics/Honeywell KB101), but if you're going to use a AT or PS/2
style keyboard with an XT-class machine, you'll need a converter.

--Chuck

Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

[Josh Dersch]

Just to be sure -- the PC keyboard you're using is an actual PC/XT 
compatible keyboard, not an AT, correct?  The PC/XT used a different 
protocol and is incompatible with later keyboards...


- Josh

On 1/23/17 8:53 AM, Randy Dawson wrote:

Hi William,

I did use the original kybd to trace out the clock and data, most of the keys 
work, and I have good scope shots.  I am on it again today, because it sure 
seems like it should work, using a PC keyboard.


I did not take scope shots on the first test, thinking it should just work.


Hopefully its just a signal inversion, I cant imagine the protocol is that 
different.  Each keypress looked like a byte of data, 8 cycles on the clock 
line with corresponding bits on data line.


Randy



From: cctalk  on behalf of william degnan 

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:29 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

Easier to fix the foam.  But a tip to replace the keyboard...use the Compaq
keyboard bare by pressing fingers directly on the board, verify that works
that way (it should).  Record the signals' wire path, match the replacement
keyboard wiring.
B

On Jan 23, 2017 12:45 AM, "Randy Dawson"  wrote:

This is the original Compaq I IBM PC clone, 8088



From: cctalk  on behalf of Fred Cisin <

ci...@xenosoft.com>

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:42 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Randy Dawson wrote:

I have luggable with the famous Keytronics foam kepad rot.

WHAT model Compaq?

8088? 80286?

Re: Altair

[Andy Cloud]

Haha! Let me know and we'll crack a deal :)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Brad H <
vintagecompu...@bettercomputing.net> wrote:

> Yes.  That remains an item on my hit list.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Sellam
> Ismail
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:21 AM
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Altair
>
> Hi Brad.
>
> I saw your message on the ClassicCmp mailing list about desiring an Altair.
> Are you still interested in one?
>
> Sellam
>
>

Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

[Randy Dawson]

Hi William,

I did use the original kybd to trace out the clock and data, most of the keys 
work, and I have good scope shots.  I am on it again today, because it sure 
seems like it should work, using a PC keyboard.


I did not take scope shots on the first test, thinking it should just work.


Hopefully its just a signal inversion, I cant imagine the protocol is that 
different.  Each keypress looked like a byte of data, 8 cycles on the clock 
line with corresponding bits on data line.


Randy



From: cctalk  on behalf of william degnan 

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:29 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

Easier to fix the foam.  But a tip to replace the keyboard...use the Compaq
keyboard bare by pressing fingers directly on the board, verify that works
that way (it should).  Record the signals' wire path, match the replacement
keyboard wiring.
B

On Jan 23, 2017 12:45 AM, "Randy Dawson"  wrote:
>
> This is the original Compaq I IBM PC clone, 8088
>
>
> 
> From: cctalk  on behalf of Fred Cisin <
ci...@xenosoft.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:42 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Randy Dawson wrote:
> > I have luggable with the famous Keytronics foam kepad rot.
>
> WHAT model Compaq?
>
> 8088? 80286?
>

WTB: Display for my VAXStations

[Ulrich Tagge]

Hi Folks,

I search for a working original DEC Display for my VAXStation (4000/90 & 
4000/60) like the VRT16 or VRT19.


Anyone here, who is interested to let one go, to have more free space? ;-)

Please only offers from Germany in the near (200km) of Frankfurt am 
Main, as shipping would not be an option.


Many Greetings
Ulrich

Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)

[william degnan]

Easier to fix the foam.  But a tip to replace the keyboard...use the Compaq
keyboard bare by pressing fingers directly on the board, verify that works
that way (it should).  Record the signals' wire path, match the replacement
keyboard wiring.
B

On Jan 23, 2017 12:45 AM, "Randy Dawson"  wrote:
>
> This is the original Compaq I IBM PC clone, 8088
>
>
> 
> From: cctalk  on behalf of Fred Cisin <
ci...@xenosoft.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 9:42 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Attempt at Compaq keybord swap with a PC keyboard (failed)
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Randy Dawson wrote:
> > I have luggable with the famous Keytronics foam kepad rot.
>
> WHAT model Compaq?
>
> 8088? 80286?
>

Re: A new life for my LA180.

[william degnan]

My rt11 sends printer output to a lpt.txt.  I have not done much more
regarding printing than that.  I have an LA180 with serial for my actual
pdp8e.
B

Bill Degnan
twitter: billdeg
vintagecomputer.net

Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery

[allison]

On 01/22/2017 02:46 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 01/22/2017 10:57 AM, allison wrote:
>> I don't know about most people but this solution has been around for 
>> decades.
>>
>> I locate the battery on the failed part with a small magnet, then
>> grind the epoxy down to it then pick it out with a sharp pointed
>> tool.  Once I expose the connection point I older two wires then
>> epoxy a small coin-cell holder in that spot and it s done.  I've done
>> this more times than I care to count and its effective and the
>> replacement battery some over 10 years old now have not failed.  But
>> just in case I have a bag of NOS replacements (and pulls from
>> socketed boards) all with dead batteries from age.  There is no magic
>> to this.
> It's worth noting that the original post was about fabricating a
> replacement using the DS12885A RTC chip.  However, most old PCs used the
> DS1285 RTC (inside of a DS1287  module).  The DS12885A is supposed to be
> drop-in compatible with the DS1285, but apparently, in some cases is not.
>
> So there's logic in reworking the old DS1287 modules, as the DS1285 chip
> is long out of production--you'll most likely have to be content with
> pulls or the occasional NOS lot.
>
> --Chuck

I haven't seen that version for a while.  The later are fully versions
are epoxy filled.
Same for the MT48T part, same fix.

The problem with NOS parts is manufacture date.  Some are really old.

Allison
>