Help SPN Create a Toolkit for Software Preservation Research

[Cynde Moya via cctalk]

The Software Preservation Network 
(SPN) Research Working Group is seeking volunteers to join our team for our 
next exciting project -- building a Research Toolkit using the Open Science 
Framework.


We aim to address gaps in the research landscape by developing a Research 
Toolkit, a set of templates that individuals can use to gather data about 
software preservation and curation in their local organization or community. 
The individuals will be encouraged to contribute their data back to the SPN 
Research Working Group, and the Working Group will analyze the data in 
aggregate and attempt to map the landscape of software preservation and 
curation over time.


The Research Working Group is looking for additional members. Expected time 
commitment would be approximately one hour per week for 3, 6, or 12 months. If 
you're interested in joining us, please fill out this quick form to let us 
know: https://goo.gl/forms/hrfh6ukcKGuxZP2I3


More info about SPN and the Research Working Group:

Preserving software is a prerequisite for preserving and providing access to 
digital cultural heritage and research, and software is increasingly considered 
a research product or artifact in itself. In support of the Software 
Preservation Network's (SPN) 
mission to preserve software through community engagement, infrastructure 
support, and knowledge generation, the SPN Research Working Group spearheads 
collaborative efforts to collect, analyze, and distribute information about 
software preservation. The Working Group facilitates research projects that 
bring individuals with diverse perspectives and interests together to document 
and analyze the landscape of software preservation and access. In the course of 
its work, the Working Group aims to explore frameworks for sustainable, 
transparent, community-based research and to advocate for innovative models of 
research that accelerates practice.


Thanks!

Cynde Moya

SPN Research Working Group


Cynde Moya, MLIS, Ph.D.
Collections Manager | Living Computers: Museum + Labs
206.342.2385
www.livingcomputers.org

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[John P. Willis via cctalk]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:




On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:07 PM, jim stephens via cctalk  
wrote:



On 8/30/2017 6:35 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:

I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.

The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly Sun 
Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any mention 
of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?

Zane

I worked for Sun in the early 90's for the former Interactive Unix group.  They 
were still based here in Los Angeles in the round building over looking the 405 
just south of the 90.  At the time there just a coupe of Summa Corp buildings 
on the last remaining Howard Hughes Summa corp asset there off the 405.  Now 
the Hughes Center shopping center long since sold off to developers.

They were the group inside Sun and did the port from the Solaris 2.4 source to 
PPC open platforms.  The effort I think was underwritten by IBM, but I might be 
wrong.  The entire effort was supported for maybe a year thru just shy of the 
2.5.  I don't know if it was ever released outside the building, much less any 
public release.

This I think was when the Apple effort was underway, I think under Jobs to 
allow the Mac system migrate to such hardware.

IIRC, the whole thing died more or less when Jobs pulled the plug on that, and 
screwed everyone over.  Very sad, as the open boot (Don't recall all the 
details) was pretty nice, and I'd have bought into it had such options been 
available.

I did some testing on that platform in a sealed room of some tools I had 
developed for the x86 testing.  The marketing department requested that my tool 
kit be made available to certify platforms for Solaris HCL listing.  None ever 
happened however.

Had no use for Jobs before, still no use for him to now.

Thanks
jim


Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to Apple 
until ’97.

Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at the 
FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 and AIX.  
I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.

Zane





Here's a document giving more details:

http://rabbs.com/uuasc/SOLARIS_PPC

--
JP Willis j...@chivanet.org Voice 575/520-9542 Fax 
575/449-4122
ChivaNet Internet Services, 425 S. Telshor Blvd., Ste. C202, Las Cruces, NM  
88011
Hardware, n.:  The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.   
(Borrowed)
--

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[John P. Willis via cctalk]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:


I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.

The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly Sun 
Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any mention 
of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?

Zane





Solaris supported PPC (IBM's PPC Reference Platform) only in Solaris 
2.5.1. It got stripped out in 2.6. But it was definitely a real thing.

I will check tomorrow to see if my copy of 2.5.1 media includes it.

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Alan Perry via cctalk]

I worked on Solaris when the PPC work was done. Solaris 2.5.1 was the 
release that included PPC support.


Here is a link to the Solaris 2.5.1 release notes, which describe some 
Solaris on PPC details - 
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19695-01/802-5366/802-5366.pdf


alan

On 8/30/17 6:35 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:

I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.

The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly Sun 
Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any mention 
of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?

Zane

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

> > It was more than likely x86 and the AIX would have been AIX PS/2 (which
> > I did a lot of work on at the time).
> 
> I think you___re right, especially as, IIRC, it was a laptop.

Doesn't rule out the PowerPC, because there were PowerPC ThinkPads.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- FOOLS! I WILL DESTROY YOU ALL! ASK ME HOW! -- "Girl Genius" 8/29/07 

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:31 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to 
>> Apple until ’97.
>> 
>> Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at the 
>> FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 and 
>> AIX.  I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.
> 
> It was more than likely x86 and the AIX would have been AIX PS/2 (which I did 
> a lot of work on at the time).

I think you’re right, especially as, IIRC, it was a laptop.

> The IBM Microkernel project (which I helped start) was the only way that OS/2 
> ran on PPC.  OS/2 was an OS personality on top of the microkernel and all of 
> its services.  We also had a UNIX running as a personality too.  My memory 
> has faded too much at this point and but I also believe that there was MVM 
> personality to allow DOS/Windows to run too.
> 
> TTFN - Guy

I remember reading about this, around ’95, I’m pretty sure it was in one of the 
Mac magazines.  I was on an Aircraft Carrier at the time, I had both a Pentium 
90 laptop running DOS/Windows, Windows 95, OS/2, and Linux, as well as an Apple 
PowerBook 520c running System 7.5 in my locker.  Needless to say, the idea of a 
single system that could run OS/2, UNIX, and System 7 was very appealing to me. 
 I’m pretty sure you’re right about there being a way to run DOS/Windows.  
Realistically at that time, everyone had a way to run DOS/Windows.

Zane

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:59 PM, jim stephens via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/30/2017 7:31 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to 
>>> Apple until ’97.
>>> 
>>> Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at 
>>> the FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 
>>> and AIX.  I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.
>> It was more than likely x86 and the AIX would have been AIX PS/2 (which I 
>> did a lot of work on at the time).
>> 
>> The IBM Microkernel project (which I helped start) was the only way that 
>> OS/2 ran on PPC.  OS/2 was an OS personality on top of the microkernel and 
>> all of its services.  We also had a UNIX running as a personality too.  My 
>> memory has faded too much at this point and but I also believe that there 
>> was MVM personality to allow DOS/Windows to run too.
>> 
>> TTFN - Guy
> Guy, I had a friend working on the OS2 project in Austin.  He worked up to 
> about 18 months before early retirement age, and then had a mad scramble to 
> keep from getting laid off when they killed the project.  He was lucky enough 
> to jump into the AIX group long enough to retire, but not all were that lucky.
> 
> Bill Tims, in case you knew him.  A closet USL Multician

No, I don’t recall him…but then again when the project there were 6 people who 
worked on it for about a year (I was one of the original 6 folks).  Then we 
went away for Thanksgiving one year and when we came back it was labelled an 
“IBM Strategic Project” and about 3 months after being labelled “strategic" we 
had 350 people on the project (the IBM way ‘natch) and more being added every 
month.  I spent most of my time after that running all over creation presenting 
what the project was and how all the pieces fit rather than doing what I was 
supposed to be doing (architecting the system and writing code). 

I still have all of the manuals.  Somewhere I have a set of CDROMs with the 
source (Framemaker) to the docs and the source code to the IBM Microkernel and 
services.  I don’t think I ever had the OS personalities other than potentially 
UNIX.

TTFN - Guy

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 8/30/2017 7:31 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:

On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk  
wrote:



Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to Apple 
until ’97.

Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at the 
FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 and AIX.  
I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.

It was more than likely x86 and the AIX would have been AIX PS/2 (which I did a 
lot of work on at the time).

The IBM Microkernel project (which I helped start) was the only way that OS/2 
ran on PPC.  OS/2 was an OS personality on top of the microkernel and all of 
its services.  We also had a UNIX running as a personality too.  My memory has 
faded too much at this point and but I also believe that there was MVM 
personality to allow DOS/Windows to run too.

TTFN - Guy
Guy, I had a friend working on the OS2 project in Austin.  He worked up 
to about 18 months before early retirement age, and then had a mad 
scramble to keep from getting laid off when they killed the project.  He 
was lucky enough to jump into the AIX group long enough to retire, but 
not all were that lucky.


Bill Tims, in case you knew him.  A closet USL Multician

thanks
Jim

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 8/30/2017 7:41 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg via cctalk wrote:

On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:30 PM, jim stephens via cctalk  
wrote:

IIRC Jobs killed the effort.  Been a long time ago to recall.  I don't think it 
died before he was involved.

We had the x86 Solaris, and the office was there at least thru Solaris 2.7 
days.  I also know the kernel lint had been done by 2.3 time at least, FWIW, 
which was pretty impressive.  Made you up your game for kernel mode modules.  
My unit had modules to run tests on all available cores and on some 
programmable block of memory to certify that the systems we were running on 
actually activated the cores and they were available to the system.

I don't think Sun was really interested in pushing the OS on anything other 
than Sparc.  I remember hitting the Sun booth at Interop (IIRC) in 1993 and 
pushing them hard for licensing and pricing for the then new 386 release.  I 
was looking for a campus-wide license (300+ 386 workstations) for a new 
university I was helping spin up.  Over the course of the conference (several 
days) I hit up at least four sales critters at the booth trying to get some 
hard info on licensing and pricing.  Not one of them gave a sweet flying fsck.

So I dumped a couple of $million into SGI Indy workstations and Challenge 
servers, instead.

--lyndon


noone said that Sun had clever salesmen.  The group I was in was 
obviously very interested, as they were still more or less Interactive 
running inside of Sun.


I do know that they didn't have a lot of enthusiasm for the platform on 
the PC due to  the need to support peripherals.  All of that work was 
done by very senior consultants out of our facility, and was not cheap.  
And the system needed a lot of work as it was a server which needed to 
support high performance operation.


Disk controller vendors had spotty records for support.  Adaptec didn't 
give a crap, which was sad as they had a lot of hardware. The work was 
done despite their cooperation, for example.


The Power version as i said was financed outside Sun, so had zero chance 
of success unless that company made it go.  And it did not.


thanks
Jim

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Paul Anderson via cctalk]

If you want a different box or boards, feel free to contact me off list.

Where are you located?

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Douglas Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 8/30/2017 5:53 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctech wrote:
>
>> On 30/08/2017 05:29, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>>
>>> I'll send along a picture of the rear of the back plane.  I'm getting
>>>  the impression I can't do what I want with the old cpu cards, M7270
>>> and M7264.
>>>
>>> I had really hoped to be able to put together a simple system to
>>> demonstrate the differences in processing power between the 11/2 cpu,
>>>  the 11/23 and the 11/73.
>>>
>>> They are all dual width cards and it would have been simple to swap
>>> them out.  I think to do it I would need 2 boxes, one with a 16 bit
>>> backplane and the other with a 22 bit backplane.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see why you couldn't do what you want with the BA11-M and a
>> little work, *providing* the Emulex UC07 controller works in an LSI-1103
>> system - and the manual (on Bitsavers) suggests it should.  Section 1.6.3
>> says "The UC07/08 is compatible with the Q-Bus used on all LSI-11 ...
>> series computers."
>>
>> First, you'd need to undo any backplane upgrade that made it 22-bit
>> instead of 18-bit.  BTW, there's no such thing as a 16-bit backplane, only
>> 18-bit and 22-bit.  BDAL17/18 are always bussed, to allow for the use of
>> parity, even in 16-bit-CPU systems such as an 11/03.
>>
>> The only reason you need to do this is that the KD11-H and KD11-F
>> processors put other signals on those lines, which the Emulex (and other
>> 22-bit devices) won't like and will interfere with.
>>
>> The soldering you mentioned is almost certainly the extra four bus lines
>> for the upgrade.  It will be on both the B and D fingers of the backplane,
>> because it's a serpentine backplane with Q-Bus on both sides.  Look for
>> wired connections between BC1, BD1, BE1, BF1 and between DC1, DD1, DE1,
>> DF1.  Check there no other extra connections; sometimes people added
>> connections for other signals - for example I have a backplane with the
>> SRUN signal on extra slots for diagnostics and faultfinding. Also check you
>> don't have an H9270-Q, which is inherently 22-bit, instead of an H9270.
>> I've never seen one, but presumably they exist.
>>
>> See http://www.dunnington.info/public/PDP-11/QBus_chassis for a little
>> more information.
>>
>> Next you'd need some sort of bootstrap.  What's in the custom EPROMs on
>> you MXV11-AC might do.  Or might not, depending on whether it uses any
>> 11/23 (KDF-11) specific instructions or diagnostics, and includes an MSCP
>> bootstrap.  The autoboot feature on the UC07 might do instead.  Or might
>> not.  You'd have to experiment.
>>
>> If you do keep the MXV11-AC, you've already got 32KB of memory that works
>> with any of your 11/03, 11/23, or 11/73 processors, and you have two
>> DLV11-compatible serial ports.  In fact the serial ports are virtually
>> identical to half of a DLV11-J.  Since RT11 rarely has any use for more
>> than two, you probably don't need any more.
>>
>> If you keep the MXV11-AC and re-enable the memory, you only want another
>> 32KB, and maybe not even that.  I can't remember if RT11 5.3 will run in
>> 32KB; it probably will, and I'm sure it would if suitably SYSGENned.  I do
>> remember RT11 5.6 either didn't or didn't unless it was seriously pared
>> down.  Don't use anything older than 5.3 because there are bugs in the MSCP
>> drivers that prevent it working with just about anything other than RQDX1/2
>> interfaces.
>>
>> Or you could probably use the MSV11-P.  It works in 18-bit systems, and
>> should still work in a 16-bit (CPU) system, but obviously you'd only be
>> using the bottom 64KB.  If you want "period" memory to match the 11/03, you
>> could find an MSV11-DC or -DD to use instead.  The -DC has 32KB to
>> supplement your MXV11-AC; the -DD has 64KB.  The -EC and ED versions are
>> the same boards but with parity circuitry added, which makes them less
>> common and more expensive, but they'd also do what you want.
>>
>> Hope this helps...
>>
>> Yes, it does help.  There are 3 issues that I am trying to resolve:
>
> 1. Running in 32kb of memory.   If I use the 32kb MXV11 can I run RT11
> V5.3?  I tried this in SIMH and set the Cpu to 11/03 and memory to 32kb and
> it did work.  The MXV11 has PROM and is set to boot  from it, but it is not
> a device boot.  This BA11-M was connected to a MicroVaxII and was set up to
> answer telephones for the Univ of Wisc.  I got this about 15 years ago and
> I think I looked what was coming across the console line and I remember DL
> showing up or something like that.  The MXV11-AC is devilishly tough to
> setup, all those wire wrap jumpers and I've misplaced my wire wrap tool.
>
> 2. Bootstrap. I transferred the RT11 V5.3 to a DEC 535MB SCSI disk and was
> able to boot it using an Alphatronix SCSI controller, it is a Viking QDO
> rebadged.  It only can see 

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Lyndon Nerenberg via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:30 PM, jim stephens via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> IIRC Jobs killed the effort.  Been a long time ago to recall.  I don't think 
> it died before he was involved.
> 
> We had the x86 Solaris, and the office was there at least thru Solaris 2.7 
> days.  I also know the kernel lint had been done by 2.3 time at least, FWIW, 
> which was pretty impressive.  Made you up your game for kernel mode modules.  
> My unit had modules to run tests on all available cores and on some 
> programmable block of memory to certify that the systems we were running on 
> actually activated the cores and they were available to the system.

I don't think Sun was really interested in pushing the OS on anything other 
than Sparc.  I remember hitting the Sun booth at Interop (IIRC) in 1993 and 
pushing them hard for licensing and pricing for the then new 386 release.  I 
was looking for a campus-wide license (300+ 386 workstations) for a new 
university I was helping spin up.  Over the course of the conference (several 
days) I hit up at least four sales critters at the booth trying to get some 
hard info on licensing and pricing.  Not one of them gave a sweet flying fsck.

So I dumped a couple of $million into SGI Indy workstations and Challenge 
servers, instead.

--lyndon

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to Apple 
> until ’97.
> 
> Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at the 
> FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 and AIX. 
>  I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.

It was more than likely x86 and the AIX would have been AIX PS/2 (which I did a 
lot of work on at the time).

The IBM Microkernel project (which I helped start) was the only way that OS/2 
ran on PPC.  OS/2 was an OS personality on top of the microkernel and all of 
its services.  We also had a UNIX running as a personality too.  My memory has 
faded too much at this point and but I also believe that there was MVM 
personality to allow DOS/Windows to run too.

TTFN - Guy

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 8/30/2017 7:14 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:

On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:07 PM, jim stephens via cctalk  
wrote:



On 8/30/2017 6:35 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:

I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.

The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly Sun 
Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any mention 
of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?

Zane

I worked for Sun in the early 90's for the former Interactive Unix group.  They 
were still based here in Los Angeles in the round building over looking the 405 
just south of the 90.  At the time there just a coupe of Summa Corp buildings 
on the last remaining Howard Hughes Summa corp asset there off the 405.  Now 
the Hughes Center shopping center long since sold off to developers.

They were the group inside Sun and did the port from the Solaris 2.4 source to 
PPC open platforms.  The effort I think was underwritten by IBM, but I might be 
wrong.  The entire effort was supported for maybe a year thru just shy of the 
2.5.  I don't know if it was ever released outside the building, much less any 
public release.

This I think was when the Apple effort was underway, I think under Jobs to 
allow the Mac system migrate to such hardware.

IIRC, the whole thing died more or less when Jobs pulled the plug on that, and 
screwed everyone over.  Very sad, as the open boot (Don't recall all the 
details) was pretty nice, and I'd have bought into it had such options been 
available.

I did some testing on that platform in a sealed room of some tools I had 
developed for the x86 testing.  The marketing department requested that my tool 
kit be made available to certify platforms for Solaris HCL listing.  None ever 
happened however.

Had no use for Jobs before, still no use for him to now.

Thanks
jim

Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to Apple 
until ’97.

Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at the 
FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 and AIX.  
I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.

Zane
IIRC Jobs killed the effort.  Been a long time ago to recall.  I don't 
think it died before he was involved.


We had the x86 Solaris, and the office was there at least thru Solaris 
2.7 days.  I also know the kernel lint had been done by 2.3 time at 
least, FWIW, which was pretty impressive.  Made you up your game for 
kernel mode modules.  My unit had modules to run tests on all available 
cores and on some programmable block of memory to certify that the 
systems we were running on actually activated the cores and they were 
available to the system.


thanks
Jim

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 7:07 PM, jim stephens via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/30/2017 6:35 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
>> I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
>> Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
>> Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.
>> 
>> The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
>> were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly 
>> Sun Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any 
>> mention of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?
>> 
>> Zane
> I worked for Sun in the early 90's for the former Interactive Unix group.  
> They were still based here in Los Angeles in the round building over looking 
> the 405 just south of the 90.  At the time there just a coupe of Summa Corp 
> buildings on the last remaining Howard Hughes Summa corp asset there off the 
> 405.  Now the Hughes Center shopping center long since sold off to developers.
> 
> They were the group inside Sun and did the port from the Solaris 2.4 source 
> to PPC open platforms.  The effort I think was underwritten by IBM, but I 
> might be wrong.  The entire effort was supported for maybe a year thru just 
> shy of the 2.5.  I don't know if it was ever released outside the building, 
> much less any public release.
> 
> This I think was when the Apple effort was underway, I think under Jobs to 
> allow the Mac system migrate to such hardware.
> 
> IIRC, the whole thing died more or less when Jobs pulled the plug on that, 
> and screwed everyone over.  Very sad, as the open boot (Don't recall all the 
> details) was pretty nice, and I'd have bought into it had such options been 
> available.
> 
> I did some testing on that platform in a sealed room of some tools I had 
> developed for the x86 testing.  The marketing department requested that my 
> tool kit be made available to certify platforms for Solaris HCL listing.  
> None ever happened however.
> 
> Had no use for Jobs before, still no use for him to now.
> 
> Thanks
> jim

Steve Jobs would have been at NeXT at that time, he didn’t come back to Apple 
until ’97.

Nearly 25 years later, my memory is pretty vague, however, around ’93 at the 
FOSE trade show in Washington DC, IBM had a system running both OS/2 and AIX.  
I want to say it was PPC, but it may have been x86.

Zane

Re: Solaris on PPC?

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 8/30/2017 6:35 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:

I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.

The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly Sun 
Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any mention 
of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?

Zane
I worked for Sun in the early 90's for the former Interactive Unix 
group.  They were still based here in Los Angeles in the round building 
over looking the 405 just south of the 90.  At the time there just a 
coupe of Summa Corp buildings on the last remaining Howard Hughes Summa 
corp asset there off the 405.  Now the Hughes Center shopping center 
long since sold off to developers.


They were the group inside Sun and did the port from the Solaris 2.4 
source to PPC open platforms.  The effort I think was underwritten by 
IBM, but I might be wrong.  The entire effort was supported for maybe a 
year thru just shy of the 2.5.  I don't know if it was ever released 
outside the building, much less any public release.


This I think was when the Apple effort was underway, I think under Jobs 
to allow the Mac system migrate to such hardware.


IIRC, the whole thing died more or less when Jobs pulled the plug on 
that, and screwed everyone over.  Very sad, as the open boot (Don't 
recall all the details) was pretty nice, and I'd have bought into it had 
such options been available.


I did some testing on that platform in a sealed room of some tools I had 
developed for the x86 testing.  The marketing department requested that 
my tool kit be made available to certify platforms for Solaris HCL 
listing.  None ever happened however.


Had no use for Jobs before, still no use for him to now.

Thanks
jim

Solaris on PPC?

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

I was looking up some data, and as a result was flipping through a copy of 
Computerworld from ’93.  In doing so, I was marveling at the amount of 
Diversity we had in the Computer World at the time, but that’s not the point.

The point is that I found a advertisement for the PPC 601 chip.  In it they 
were advertising it running the Macintosh OS, OS/2, AIX, and interestingly Sun 
Solaris.  I was aware of the first three, but I don’t ever remember any mention 
of Solaris running on PPC.  Did that ever get off the ground?

Zane

Re: HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

[Curious Marc via cctalk]

Thanks, I didn't know I could use the 7575 service manual for guidance on the 
Draftmaster. Congrats on your repair!

Marc

 

From: cctalk  on behalf of 
"cctalk@classiccmp.org" 
Reply-To: Philipp Pap , "cctalk@classiccmp.org" 

Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:21 AM
To: "cctalk@classiccmp.org" 
Subject: HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

 

Just for information:

 

My Draftmaster I did work for 1 hour, I did even manage to do a demo plot.

Then it died, right before my eyes the display got brighter and brighter and 
now - nothing when powering on, except a humming sound.

I think that I’m responsible for the dead, as the plotter stood in an attic for 
20 years, meanwhile power was raised from 220 to 230v (+-10%) 

in Europe.

I realized that the input power can be adjusted between 220 and 240v at the 
power inlet of the plotter (on the top 

there is a small stage for a screwdriver, then the cover opens and the rotating 
think can be taken out)!

 

Anyhow, had 41 and 83 Volts at the 42 and 85V test points, but always 0 Volts 
at the +5,-12,+12,+15V test points.

 

I’ve managed to repair the power supply by replacing VR4 and VR5 on the HP 
Draftmaster I HP7595 Power Supply PCA 7595-060121.

I put a scan and some pictures of the lower side of the power pca and uploaded 
it to http://www.digiwiz.at/penplotter/hp7595-60121_PowerSupply.pdf 
 

 

(I don’t know how long this file will be there, but it can be put on your page 
if it could help somebody.)

 

Looking at the service manual of the older 7575 plotter helped me a lot, there 
is much more information!

 

With nice greetings,

Philipp

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: DCC-116 E / DATA GENERAL NOVA 2/10 / Nixdorf 620 - Restoring and restarting

[Curious Marc via cctalk]

Awesome! Congratulations!
Marc

> From: Dominique Carlier 
> Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 
> Subject: Re: DCC-116 E / DATA GENERAL NOVA 2/10 / Nixdorf 620 - Restoring and 
> restarting
> YES! The monster booting again! :-)

Re: paging alexandre souza

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 8/30/2017 5:06 PM, Jay West via cctalk wrote:

Trying to reach alexander souza regarding his classiccmp hosted website, but
no response. Anyone know if he has a new email address or something?

  


J

I passed along this plea to contact you via his FB account.

https://www.facebook.com/alexandre.tabalabs

This seems to be his webpage

http://www.tabalabs.com.br/
thanks
Jim

paging alexandre souza

[Jay West via cctalk]

Trying to reach alexander souza regarding his classiccmp hosted website, but
no response. Anyone know if he has a new email address or something?

 

J

RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@linux-mips.org]
> Sent: 30 August 2017 19:30
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk
> Cc: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
> ; 'Tapley, Mark' 
> Subject: RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question
> 
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Rob Jarratt wrote:
> 
> > >  The purpose of the sleeve is mainly electrical insulation -- so
> > > that you
> > don't
> > > have a battery of large live components mounted next to each other
> > > posing
> > a
> > > risk of a short circuit if their surfaces accidentally touch.
> > > In the past some electrolytic caps were manufactured without a
> > > sleeve (especially axials), however I haven't come across such one for
> years.
> >
> >
> > There is a big red sticker saying that the heatsink is live, so I
> > guess this one is not insulated and may be straight to the
> > electrolyte. I will drill and drain I think.
> 
>  Well, that's a warning for the service engineer about the large heatsink
in the
> middle of the PSU, not the capacitors which are standard parts and have
> nothing to do with any heatsink.  Obviously (if anywhere) they had to
stick the
> label somewhere where it would be clearly visible, would not obstruct heat
> dissipation and would not risk the label itself crumbling with time under
heat
> (so not on the heatsink itself).
> 

Of course! Not thinking straight again.


>  Obviously you'll do whatever you wish, it's your PSU after all. :)
> 
>   Maciej

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[John Forecast via cctalk]

Al,
Would you be interested in Bridge Communications:

Ethernet System Product Line
Software Technical Reference Manual
Volumes 1, 2, 3

Dated July 1983

John.

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> Also, I'm interested in archiving any surviving documentation for the first 
> generation Ethernet
> stuff that I don't have up on bitsavers like Bridge and Ungerman-Bass. I have 
> some Interlan and Excelan
> manuals, but I've not turned up much from others. I have stayed away from 
> Cisco, though.
> 
> One of my background projects has been trying to collect enough parts to 
> bring up a Sytek broadband
> network, which IBM also sold as their first PC LAN.
> 
> On 8/30/17 8:56 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/29/17 1:46 PM, Henk Gooijen via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>>> Does anyone have more info about this (dusty) board:
>>> 
>>> http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-D8DB3FA35406/F7AD48D3-5450-4860-A0C9-23CB7277AC91.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> try dumping the eproms and see what the strings say
>> 
>> it looks like a Bridge PCB layout
>> 
>> their products were all 68K based
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Jerry Weiss via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> From: Jerry Weiss
> 
>> The processor will probably halt due to non-existent memory address.
> 
> No, it'll take a NXM trap (through 4); what happens then depends on what the
> trap handler is set to - if anything.
> 
>> However, a P entered in ODT will attempt to continue the bootstrap.
> 
> See above. I wouldn't bet on a 'P' doing anything useful.
> 
>> If you have and cannot disable the LTC, it may work intermittently,
>> depending on whether LTC interrupt occurs before he OS bootstrap loads.
>> Its just a matter of timing.
> 
> You could set the PS to 340 and the PC to the start of the bootstrap, and do
> a 'P' to start it running. (Using 'G' to start the bootstrap will clear the
> PS.)
> 
> But I guess you've still got the NXM trap to contend with. If the bootstrap
> doesn't set the trap handler up, you could manually key in the vector (at 4)
> and a real simple trap handler (e.g. just dismiss, with an RTI), and you also
> might have to set up the SP.
> 

I stand corrected on the NXM trap. However back in the day, we had a few LSI 
systems 
without an external LTC control that would not boot consistently.   The “P” 
trick worked,
perhaps owing to a double bus error…. (R6 not set up correctly).  We never got 
into the
details.

As I mentioned in my own followup, the UC07 uses Power On Option to recover via
the power trap.  This sets the PSW without an instruction, avoiding any code 
that would
have to select between a MTPS or MOV #340,@#PSW.  

The FRD bootstrap for the UC07 instructs the user to use ODT to set the PSW,but 
I don’t
see how code @200 would work on an LSI 11/1 or 11/03 unless that 04 vector is 
set up
and handles he recovery as Noel suggests.  

RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Rob Jarratt wrote:

> >  The purpose of the sleeve is mainly electrical insulation -- so that you
> don't
> > have a battery of large live components mounted next to each other posing
> a
> > risk of a short circuit if their surfaces accidentally touch.
> > In the past some electrolytic caps were manufactured without a sleeve
> > (especially axials), however I haven't come across such one for years.
> 
> 
> There is a big red sticker saying that the heatsink is live, so I guess this
> one is not insulated and may be straight to the electrolyte. I will drill
> and drain I think.

 Well, that's a warning for the service engineer about the large heatsink 
in the middle of the PSU, not the capacitors which are standard parts and 
have nothing to do with any heatsink.  Obviously (if anywhere) they had to 
stick the label somewhere where it would be clearly visible, would not 
obstruct heat dissipation and would not risk the label itself crumbling 
with time under heat (so not on the heatsink itself).

 Obviously you'll do whatever you wish, it's your PSU after all. :)

  Maciej

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 8/30/17 10:05 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote:

>> One of my background projects has been trying to collect enough parts to 
>> bring up a Sytek broadband
>> network, which IBM also sold as their first PC LAN.
> 
> Cool!  I worked on that (at IBM).  ;-)

the PC network tech ref has been up since Feb 
(6322916_PC_Network_Technical_Reference_Sep84.pdf)
which has the tech details

I finally found one of the 5178 frequency translator boxes on eBay a few months 
ago which you have
to have to flip the transmit and receive frequencies, and I have some of the 
Sytek serial-broadband
boxes as well though they may run on different tx/rx pairs.

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Pete Turnbull via cctalk]

On 30/08/2017 17:02, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:

On 8/30/2017 5:53 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctech wrote:

Hope this helps...


Yes, it does help.  There are 3 issues that I am trying to resolve:

1. Running in 32kb of memory.   If I use the 32kb MXV11 can I run RT11 
V5.3?


If it works in SIMH it should be just the same on real hardware - modulo 
any backplane bitness issues.


2. Bootstrap. I transferred the RT11 V5.3 to a DEC 535MB SCSI disk and 
was able to boot it using an Alphatronix SCSI controller, it is a Viking 
QDO rebadged.  When I say is was able to boot it, I 
connected it to a 11/53 CPU in a BA23 box just to test it out.


That has a J11 CPU, same as your 11/73, with the same registers.  So I'd 
be guided by others'  comments on booting the UC07.  You could of course 
program the MSCP bootstrap and whatever else you need for setup into a 
pair of EPROMs but that's perhaps not a good place to start.


3. 18 Bit addressing.  It appears that the H9270 backplane I have has 
been modified by DEC with wire wrap and soldered in connections.  I 
really, really don't want to undo any of that.  I may have to settle for 
just running an 11/23, 11/53 and 11/73 cpu in this box.


I doubt if it was done by DEC, unless some failed servoid did it as a 
favour for the previous owner when upgrading it for the 11/23.  It was a 
common user upgrade, though.


--
Pete
Pete Turnbull

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> Also, I'm interested in archiving any surviving documentation for the first 
> generation Ethernet
> stuff that I don't have up on bitsavers like Bridge and Ungerman-Bass. I have 
> some Interlan and Excelan
> manuals, but I've not turned up much from others. I have stayed away from 
> Cisco, though.
> 
> One of my background projects has been trying to collect enough parts to 
> bring up a Sytek broadband
> network, which IBM also sold as their first PC LAN.

Cool!  I worked on that (at IBM).  ;-)

TTFN - Guy

> 
> On 8/30/17 8:56 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/29/17 1:46 PM, Henk Gooijen via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>>> Does anyone have more info about this (dusty) board:
>>> 
>>> http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-D8DB3FA35406/F7AD48D3-5450-4860-A0C9-23CB7277AC91.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> try dumping the eproms and see what the strings say
>> 
>> it looks like a Bridge PCB layout
>> 
>> their products were all 68K based
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

Also, I'm interested in archiving any surviving documentation for the first 
generation Ethernet
stuff that I don't have up on bitsavers like Bridge and Ungerman-Bass. I have 
some Interlan and Excelan
manuals, but I've not turned up much from others. I have stayed away from 
Cisco, though.

One of my background projects has been trying to collect enough parts to bring 
up a Sytek broadband
network, which IBM also sold as their first PC LAN.

On 8/30/17 8:56 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/29/17 1:46 PM, Henk Gooijen via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> Does anyone have more info about this (dusty) board:
>>
>> http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-D8DB3FA35406/F7AD48D3-5450-4860-A0C9-23CB7277AC91.jpg
> 
> 
> try dumping the eproms and see what the strings say
> 
> it looks like a Bridge PCB layout
> 
> their products were all 68K based
> 
> 

RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@linux-mips.org]
> Sent: 30 August 2017 09:21
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk
> Cc: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
> ; 'Tapley, Mark' 
> Subject: RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question
> 
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Rob Jarratt wrote:
> 
> > I would just like to make doubly sure, before cutting into the outer
> > body of the caps, am I likely to hit any gotchas? Just how wet are
> > they inside, do I need to take any precautions with the electrolyte?
> 
>  I suggest that you cut the sleeve only first (with a utility knife,
scissors or
> whatever tool you find most convenient or at hand), in which case you
won't
> get to the electrolyte (except for any preexisting leaks of course), which
is only
> inside the aluminium can underneath.
> 
>  The purpose of the sleeve is mainly electrical insulation -- so that you
don't
> have a battery of large live components mounted next to each other posing
a
> risk of a short circuit if their surfaces accidentally touch.
> In the past some electrolytic caps were manufactured without a sleeve
> (especially axials), however I haven't come across such one for years.


There is a big red sticker saying that the heatsink is live, so I guess this
one is not insulated and may be straight to the electrolyte. I will drill
and drain I think.

Regards

Rob

> 
> > I found some LED holders/clips which do seem to fit the bill, although
> > I am not sure I see how you get the old LED out, unless you have to
> > break the thing.
> 
>  From experience these seem pretty much single use only and either of the
> 2 parts of the holder gets damaged while disassembling.
> 


OK, good to know that I haven't missed a trick.

Thanks

Rob

RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

In my case the cap is epoxied to the board so I can’t rock it :(

 

From: drlegendre . [mailto:drlegen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 30 August 2017 07:24
To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ; General 
Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Cc: dwight 
Subject: Re: PSU Input Rectifier Question

 

snap-cap removal goes like this: heat up the joints and solder-suck them clean 
as possible. Then hold on to the cap body, and attempt to rock it back & forth 
has you re-heat one pin and then the other(s). Once all the pins are broke 
free, you can extract it. 

 

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk  > wrote:

Good idea to drain them first, I will do that. Having never encountered
snap-ins before I don't know, but from the way you describe removal I
suspect they are snap-in, as the leads are quite tightly against the sides
of the holes and won't move even if I have heated them up. I hope that
cutting the tops off will eventually expose the individual pins so they will
be more easily removed.



Regards



Rob



From: dwight [mailto:dkel...@hotmail.com  ]
Sent: 29 August 2017 22:25
To: r...@jarratt.me.uk  ; Rob Jarratt 
 >; General
Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts  >
Subject: Re: PSU Input Rectifier Question



They would have electrolyte in them. It is mildly corrosive as it is mostly
a borate solution. You can drill a couple holes in the tops of the case and
drain them.

Since you say you've unsoldered the bases, are they wire or snap in. If snap
in, you must get the lead clear of any solder touching the edge of the hole
before you can think of any prying.

Dwight



  _

From: cctalk  
 > 
> on behalf of Rob Jarratt via cctalk
  
 > >
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 1:01:14 PM
To: 'Maciej W. Rozycki'; 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question





> -Original Message-
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@linux-mips.org 
>  ]
> Sent: 29 August 2017 01:06
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk   
>  > ; Rob Jarratt
  
 > >; 
General
> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts   

 > >
> Cc: 'Tapley, Mark'   
>  > >
> Subject: RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
>
> > Not really no. The base of the capacitors is actually touching the
> > board, so I can't get under it to cut anything anyway, which is why I
> > am thinking I would have to cut the tops off them. Even if I could cut
> > one of the leads, I can't solder a capacitor underneath as that is
> > where the board is mounted into the enclosure, there is only room for
> > the mounting standoffs on the underside.
>
>  If you need to replace the caps anyway, then I think just cutting through
the
> outer PET sleeve should do as chances are it's only the sleeve that's got
glued
> and not the leads or the closing cap.  Then you might be able to just pull
the
> inner aluminium can containing the capacitor itself from the sleeve and
with
> the component proper out of the way get rid of any remains from the PCB.
>

Thanks Maciej,

I would just like to make doubly sure, before cutting into the outer body of
the caps, am I likely to hit any gotchas? Just how wet are they inside, do I
need to take any precautions with the electrolyte?


>  NB the originals are just snap-in capacitors AFAIK, e.g. Chemi-Con KMH
series
> (I can't figure that out from your photos and luckily none of my H7878s
has
> failed so far, so I haven't made this a part list for this PSU for
myself), still
> manufactured, so modern replacements should do.  With the PCB hole
> diameter supposed to be 2mm by the manufacturer's spec I wouldn't be
> bothered with a small lead pitch variation, you can always bend the leads
> slightly as there's some space between the closing cap and the rim that
rests
> against the PCB.
>


I did wonder if there would be enough tolerance. I have never encountered
these snap-in ones before, I don't know what they are like. Sounds like I
can try some 

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Douglas Taylor via cctalk]

On 8/30/2017 5:53 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctech wrote:

On 30/08/2017 05:29, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:

I'll send along a picture of the rear of the back plane.  I'm getting
 the impression I can't do what I want with the old cpu cards, M7270
and M7264.

I had really hoped to be able to put together a simple system to 
demonstrate the differences in processing power between the 11/2 cpu,

 the 11/23 and the 11/73.

They are all dual width cards and it would have been simple to swap
them out.  I think to do it I would need 2 boxes, one with a 16 bit
backplane and the other with a 22 bit backplane.


I don't see why you couldn't do what you want with the BA11-M and a 
little work, *providing* the Emulex UC07 controller works in an 
LSI-1103 system - and the manual (on Bitsavers) suggests it should.  
Section 1.6.3 says "The UC07/08 is compatible with the Q-Bus used on 
all LSI-11 ... series computers."


First, you'd need to undo any backplane upgrade that made it 22-bit 
instead of 18-bit.  BTW, there's no such thing as a 16-bit backplane, 
only 18-bit and 22-bit.  BDAL17/18 are always bussed, to allow for the 
use of parity, even in 16-bit-CPU systems such as an 11/03.


The only reason you need to do this is that the KD11-H and KD11-F 
processors put other signals on those lines, which the Emulex (and 
other 22-bit devices) won't like and will interfere with.


The soldering you mentioned is almost certainly the extra four bus 
lines for the upgrade.  It will be on both the B and D fingers of the 
backplane, because it's a serpentine backplane with Q-Bus on both 
sides.  Look for wired connections between BC1, BD1, BE1, BF1 and 
between DC1, DD1, DE1, DF1.  Check there no other extra connections; 
sometimes people added connections for other signals - for example I 
have a backplane with the SRUN signal on extra slots for diagnostics 
and faultfinding. Also check you don't have an H9270-Q, which is 
inherently 22-bit, instead of an H9270.  I've never seen one, but 
presumably they exist.


See http://www.dunnington.info/public/PDP-11/QBus_chassis for a little 
more information.


Next you'd need some sort of bootstrap.  What's in the custom EPROMs 
on you MXV11-AC might do.  Or might not, depending on whether it uses 
any 11/23 (KDF-11) specific instructions or diagnostics, and includes 
an MSCP bootstrap.  The autoboot feature on the UC07 might do 
instead.  Or might not.  You'd have to experiment.


If you do keep the MXV11-AC, you've already got 32KB of memory that 
works with any of your 11/03, 11/23, or 11/73 processors, and you have 
two DLV11-compatible serial ports.  In fact the serial ports are 
virtually identical to half of a DLV11-J.  Since RT11 rarely has any 
use for more than two, you probably don't need any more.


If you keep the MXV11-AC and re-enable the memory, you only want 
another 32KB, and maybe not even that.  I can't remember if RT11 5.3 
will run in 32KB; it probably will, and I'm sure it would if suitably 
SYSGENned.  I do remember RT11 5.6 either didn't or didn't unless it 
was seriously pared down.  Don't use anything older than 5.3 because 
there are bugs in the MSCP drivers that prevent it working with just 
about anything other than RQDX1/2 interfaces.


Or you could probably use the MSV11-P.  It works in 18-bit systems, 
and should still work in a 16-bit (CPU) system, but obviously you'd 
only be using the bottom 64KB.  If you want "period" memory to match 
the 11/03, you could find an MSV11-DC or -DD to use instead.  The -DC 
has 32KB to supplement your MXV11-AC; the -DD has 64KB.  The -EC and 
ED versions are the same boards but with parity circuitry added, which 
makes them less common and more expensive, but they'd also do what you 
want.


Hope this helps...


Yes, it does help.  There are 3 issues that I am trying to resolve:

1. Running in 32kb of memory.   If I use the 32kb MXV11 can I run RT11 
V5.3?  I tried this in SIMH and set the Cpu to 11/03 and memory to 32kb 
and it did work.  The MXV11 has PROM and is set to boot  from it, but it 
is not a device boot.  This BA11-M was connected to a MicroVaxII and was 
set up to answer telephones for the Univ of Wisc.  I got this about 15 
years ago and I think I looked what was coming across the console line 
and I remember DL showing up or something like that.  The MXV11-AC is 
devilishly tough to setup, all those wire wrap jumpers and I've 
misplaced my wire wrap tool.


2. Bootstrap. I transferred the RT11 V5.3 to a DEC 535MB SCSI disk and 
was able to boot it using an Alphatronix SCSI controller, it is a Viking 
QDO rebadged.  It only can see 2 disks at a time, but auto configures on 
startup, unlike the UC07.  When I say is was able to boot it, I 
connected it to a 11/53 CPU in a BA23 box just to test it out.  The QDO 
doesn't have a native bootstrap so that's why I began thinking about the 
UC07.  The manual says it has an auto-boot for LSI-11 only, but the 
details were few. Someone else pointed out the 

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 8/29/17 1:46 PM, Henk Gooijen via cctalk wrote:

> Does anyone have more info about this (dusty) board:
> 
> http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-D8DB3FA35406/F7AD48D3-5450-4860-A0C9-23CB7277AC91.jpg


try dumping the eproms and see what the strings say

it looks like a Bridge PCB layout

their products were all 68K based

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Jerry Weiss

> The processor will probably halt due to non-existent memory address.

No, it'll take a NXM trap (through 4); what happens then depends on what the
trap handler is set to - if anything.

> However, a P entered in ODT will attempt to continue the bootstrap.

See above. I wouldn't bet on a 'P' doing anything useful.

> If you have and cannot disable the LTC, it may work intermittently,
> depending on whether LTC interrupt occurs before he OS bootstrap loads.
> Its just a matter of timing.

You could set the PS to 340 and the PC to the start of the bootstrap, and do
a 'P' to start it running. (Using 'G' to start the bootstrap will clear the
PS.)

But I guess you've still got the NXM trap to contend with. If the bootstrap
doesn't set the trap handler up, you could manually key in the vector (at 4)
and a real simple trap handler (e.g. just dismiss, with an RTI), and you also
might have to set up the SP.

Noel

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Jerry Weiss via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Jerry Weiss  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Next you'd need some sort of bootstrap.  What's in the custom EPROMs on you 
>> MXV11-AC might do.  Or might not, depending on whether it uses any 11/23 
>> (KDF-11) specific instructions or diagnostics, and includes an MSCP 
>> bootstrap.  The autoboot feature on the UC07 might do instead.  Or might 
>> not.  You'd have to experiment.
>> 
> 
> The autoboot on the UC07 uses the following instruction for the REV G 
> firmware.
> 
>   200:MOV #340,@#16
> 
> The memory mapped register (CSR 16) for the processor status word (PSW) 
> does not exist  on the LSI-11.  
> The purpose of this is to prevent interrupts during bootstraping from the LTC 
> and other devices.  The processor will probably halt due to non-existent 
> memory address.
> 
> However, a P entered in ODT will attempt to continue the bootstrap.  If you 
> have and cannot disable the LTC, it may work intermittently, depending on 
> whether LTC interrupt occurs before he OS bootstrap loads.   Its just a 
> matter of timing.


One clarification.

The UC07 can be configured to use Power Up Option 0 on the LSI 11 
(PC@24,PSW@26) too boot.  
This method probably avoids the problem with the manually invoked Bootstrap or 
FRD 
using an addressable PSW that some users reported.

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Jerry Weiss via cctalk]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 4:53 AM, Pete Turnbull via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 30/08/2017 05:29, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>> I'll send along a picture of the rear of the back plane.  I'm getting
>> the impression I can't do what I want with the old cpu cards, M7270
>> and M7264.
>> I had really hoped to be able to put together a simple system to demonstrate 
>> the differences in processing power between the 11/2 cpu,
>> the 11/23 and the 11/73.
>> They are all dual width cards and it would have been simple to swap
>> them out.  I think to do it I would need 2 boxes, one with a 16 bit
>> backplane and the other with a 22 bit backplane.
> 
> I don't see why you couldn't do what you want with the BA11-M and a little 
> work, *providing* the Emulex UC07 controller works in an LSI-1103 system - 
> and the manual (on Bitsavers) suggests it should.  Section 1.6.3 says "The 
> UC07/08 is compatible with the Q-Bus used on all LSI-11 ... series computers."
> 
> First, you'd need to undo any backplane upgrade that made it 22-bit instead 
> of 18-bit.  BTW, there's no such thing as a 16-bit backplane, only 18-bit and 
> 22-bit.  BDAL17/18 are always bussed, to allow for the use of parity, even in 
> 16-bit-CPU systems such as an 11/03.
> 
> The only reason you need to do this is that the KD11-H and KD11-F processors 
> put other signals on those lines, which the Emulex (and other 22-bit devices) 
> won't like and will interfere with.
> 
> The soldering you mentioned is almost certainly the extra four bus lines for 
> the upgrade.  It will be on both the B and D fingers of the backplane, 
> because it's a serpentine backplane with Q-Bus on both sides.  Look for wired 
> connections between BC1, BD1, BE1, BF1 and between DC1, DD1, DE1, DF1.  Check 
> there no other extra connections; sometimes people added connections for 
> other signals - for example I have a backplane with the SRUN signal on extra 
> slots for diagnostics and faultfinding. Also check you don't have an H9270-Q, 
> which is inherently 22-bit, instead of an H9270.  I've never seen one, but 
> presumably they exist.
> 
> See http://www.dunnington.info/public/PDP-11/QBus_chassis for a little more 
> information.

Agree with Pete here.  The UC07 manual includes jumper settings for an LSI 
11/2, so we can assume it was supported (UC0751001H).
Provided you have an 18 bit bus which means that BC1/DC1, 
BD1/DD1,BE1/DE1,BF1/DF1 are NOT bussed,  the LSI 11/2,11/03 and an UC07 should 
work together.   

> 
> Next you'd need some sort of bootstrap.  What's in the custom EPROMs on you 
> MXV11-AC might do.  Or might not, depending on whether it uses any 11/23 
> (KDF-11) specific instructions or diagnostics, and includes an MSCP 
> bootstrap.  The autoboot feature on the UC07 might do instead.  Or might not. 
>  You'd have to experiment.
> 

The autoboot on the UC07 uses the following instruction for the REV G firmware.

200:MOV #340,@#16

The memory mapped register (CSR 16) for the processor status word (PSW) 
does not exist  on the LSI-11.  
The purpose of this is to prevent interrupts during bootstraping from the LTC 
and other devices.  The processor will probably halt due to non-existent memory 
address.

However, a P entered in ODT will attempt to continue the bootstrap.  If you 
have and cannot disable the LTC, it may work intermittently, depending on 
whether LTC interrupt occurs before he OS bootstrap loads.   Its just a matter 
of timing.


Jerry

Re: HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

[Pete Turnbull via cctalk]

On 30/08/2017 11:44, Camiel Vanderhoeven via cctalk wrote:

I believe that is true for some countries, in other countries they did
increase the voltage. I know it happened in the Netherlands, because we
measured the voltages at our university¹s datacenter over that period.


We (I'm in the UK) measured ours at over 255V on more than one occasion :-(

--
Pete
Pete Turnbull

Re: HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

[Camiel Vanderhoeven via cctalk]

I believe that is true for some countries, in other countries they did
increase the voltage. I know it happened in the Netherlands, because we
measured the voltages at our university¹s datacenter over that period.

Camiel.


On 8/30/17, 11:54 AM, "cctalk on behalf of Peter Coghlan via cctalk"
 wrote:

>>
>> I think that I'm responsible for the dead, as the plotter stood in an
>>attic 
>> for 20 years, meanwhile power was raised from 220 to 230v (+-10%) in
>>Europe.
>>
>
>The distribution voltage had previously been specified as 220V in some
>European
>countries and 240V in others but the specification was then changed to
>230V
>in all the countries involved, with a wider tolerance applied.  This
>allows
>new equipment to be designed to a common standard which will work in any
>of
>the countries.  As far as I understand it, there has been no deliberate
>change
>in the actual distribution voltage in any individual European country and
>the
>power companies continue to do what they did before the 230V standard
>came in.
>
>Regards,
>Peter Coghlan.

Re: HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

[Peter Corlett via cctalk]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:21:40AM +0200, Philipp Pap via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> I think that I’m responsible for the dead, as the plotter stood in an attic
> for 20 years, meanwhile power was raised from 220 to 230v (+-10%) in Europe.

If it helps, the failure probably wasn't caused by the voltage being too high.

The EU voltage "harmonisation" was mostly a paper exercise. It is way too
expensive to rebuild the entire transmission infrastructure to adjust the
voltage, so the standard[0] just fiddled with the error bars and set it at 230v
+10% -6%. This covers both older 220v and 240v standards, and everybody can
proceed as before without changing anything.

The only real effect I observed is that dodgy British power distribution
companies can sweat their assets more and let the voltage sag further in the
extremeties of their network than they were previously allowed.

Your internal wiring can reduce the voltage further. I had one place where
there was over an ohm in the way, and firing up a 13A device brought the mains
down to about 210v. I shudder to think where the I^2R heat went.


[0] I think it's (BS) EN 50160, but I don't have the means to check right now.

Re: HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

[Peter Coghlan via cctalk]

>
> I think that I'm responsible for the dead, as the plotter stood in an attic 
> for 20 years, meanwhile power was raised from 220 to 230v (+-10%) in Europe.
>

The distribution voltage had previously been specified as 220V in some European
countries and 240V in others but the specification was then changed to 230V
in all the countries involved, with a wider tolerance applied.  This allows
new equipment to be designed to a common standard which will work in any of
the countries.  As far as I understand it, there has been no deliberate change
in the actual distribution voltage in any individual European country and the
power companies continue to do what they did before the 230V standard came in.

Regards,
Peter Coghlan.

Re: DEC ll/03 in 22 bit backplane

[Pete Turnbull via cctalk]

On 30/08/2017 05:29, Douglas Taylor via cctalk wrote:

I'll send along a picture of the rear of the back plane.  I'm getting
 the impression I can't do what I want with the old cpu cards, M7270
and M7264.

I had really hoped to be able to put together a simple system to 
demonstrate the differences in processing power between the 11/2 cpu,

 the 11/23 and the 11/73.

They are all dual width cards and it would have been simple to swap
them out.  I think to do it I would need 2 boxes, one with a 16 bit
backplane and the other with a 22 bit backplane.


I don't see why you couldn't do what you want with the BA11-M and a 
little work, *providing* the Emulex UC07 controller works in an LSI-1103 
system - and the manual (on Bitsavers) suggests it should.  Section 
1.6.3 says "The UC07/08 is compatible with the Q-Bus used on all LSI-11 
... series computers."


First, you'd need to undo any backplane upgrade that made it 22-bit 
instead of 18-bit.  BTW, there's no such thing as a 16-bit backplane, 
only 18-bit and 22-bit.  BDAL17/18 are always bussed, to allow for the 
use of parity, even in 16-bit-CPU systems such as an 11/03.


The only reason you need to do this is that the KD11-H and KD11-F 
processors put other signals on those lines, which the Emulex (and other 
22-bit devices) won't like and will interfere with.


The soldering you mentioned is almost certainly the extra four bus lines 
for the upgrade.  It will be on both the B and D fingers of the 
backplane, because it's a serpentine backplane with Q-Bus on both sides. 
 Look for wired connections between BC1, BD1, BE1, BF1 and between DC1, 
DD1, DE1, DF1.  Check there no other extra connections; sometimes people 
added connections for other signals - for example I have a backplane 
with the SRUN signal on extra slots for diagnostics and faultfinding. 
Also check you don't have an H9270-Q, which is inherently 22-bit, 
instead of an H9270.  I've never seen one, but presumably they exist.


See http://www.dunnington.info/public/PDP-11/QBus_chassis for a little 
more information.


Next you'd need some sort of bootstrap.  What's in the custom EPROMs on 
you MXV11-AC might do.  Or might not, depending on whether it uses any 
11/23 (KDF-11) specific instructions or diagnostics, and includes an 
MSCP bootstrap.  The autoboot feature on the UC07 might do instead.  Or 
might not.  You'd have to experiment.


If you do keep the MXV11-AC, you've already got 32KB of memory that 
works with any of your 11/03, 11/23, or 11/73 processors, and you have 
two DLV11-compatible serial ports.  In fact the serial ports are 
virtually identical to half of a DLV11-J.  Since RT11 rarely has any use 
for more than two, you probably don't need any more.


If you keep the MXV11-AC and re-enable the memory, you only want another 
32KB, and maybe not even that.  I can't remember if RT11 5.3 will run in 
32KB; it probably will, and I'm sure it would if suitably SYSGENned.  I 
do remember RT11 5.6 either didn't or didn't unless it was seriously 
pared down.  Don't use anything older than 5.3 because there are bugs in 
the MSCP drivers that prevent it working with just about anything other 
than RQDX1/2 interfaces.


Or you could probably use the MSV11-P.  It works in 18-bit systems, and 
should still work in a 16-bit (CPU) system, but obviously you'd only be 
using the bottom 64KB.  If you want "period" memory to match the 11/03, 
you could find an MSV11-DC or -DD to use instead.  The -DC has 32KB to 
supplement your MXV11-AC; the -DD has 64KB.  The -EC and ED versions are 
the same boards but with parity circuitry added, which makes them less 
common and more expensive, but they'd also do what you want.


Hope this helps...

--
Pete
Pete Turnbull

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Christian Corti via cctalk]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Mattis Lind wrote:
[...]

Does anyone have more info about this (dusty) board:

[...]

It says IECU. I wonder if that is some kind of product name? The copyright
in the etch is 1984 but the chips are mostly from 1985 or 1986.


Hmm, we have several Bridge CS/1 terminal servers. Maybe your board is an 
integraded terminal server to telnet into virtual serial ports or to 
connect to telnet ports via emulated serial lines. I'm thinking of 
something like a DZ11 on the host side and ethernet/telnet on the other 
side, all on one board. IECU may stand for "integrated ethernet 
communications unit".


Christian

HP Draftmaster I, Power Supply repair

[Philipp Pap via cctalk]

Just for information:

My Draftmaster I did work for 1 hour, I did even manage to do a demo plot.
Then it died, right before my eyes the display got brighter and brighter and 
now - nothing when powering on, except a humming sound.
I think that I’m responsible for the dead, as the plotter stood in an attic for 
20 years, meanwhile power was raised from 220 to 230v (+-10%) 
in Europe.
I realized that the input power can be adjusted between 220 and 240v at the 
power inlet of the plotter (on the top 
there is a small stage for a screwdriver, then the cover opens and the rotating 
think can be taken out)!

Anyhow, had 41 and 83 Volts at the 42 and 85V test points, but always 0 Volts 
at the +5,-12,+12,+15V test points.

I’ve managed to repair the power supply by replacing VR4 and VR5 on the HP 
Draftmaster I HP7595 Power Supply PCA 7595-060121.
I put a scan and some pictures of the lower side of the power pca and uploaded 
it to http://www.digiwiz.at/penplotter/hp7595-60121_PowerSupply.pdf 
 

(I don’t know how long this file will be there, but it can be put on your page 
if it could help somebody.)

Looking at the service manual of the older 7575 plotter helped me a lot, there 
is much more information!

With nice greetings,
Philipp

RE: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Paul Birkel via cctalk]

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Mattis Lind 
via cctalk
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:59 AM
To: Henk Gooijen; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

2017-08-29 22:46 GMT+02:00 Henk Gooijen via cctalk :

...

Here is a close up of the etch marking:

http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-D8DB3FA35406/1913E94E-C1CC-41C3-9F41-D80A1E869950.jpg
 

It says IECU. I wonder if that is some kind of product name? The copyright
in the etch is 1984 but the chips are mostly from 1985 or 1986.

-

Check out 
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord=html=ADA152953
 which has a lot of clues.

Unfortunately Volume II doesn't seem to be online, and would be even more 
helpful based on its TOC.

-

RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk]

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Rob Jarratt wrote:

> I would just like to make doubly sure, before cutting into the outer body of
> the caps, am I likely to hit any gotchas? Just how wet are they inside, do I
> need to take any precautions with the electrolyte?

 I suggest that you cut the sleeve only first (with a utility knife, 
scissors or whatever tool you find most convenient or at hand), in which 
case you won't get to the electrolyte (except for any preexisting leaks of 
course), which is only inside the aluminium can underneath.

 The purpose of the sleeve is mainly electrical insulation -- so that you 
don't have a battery of large live components mounted next to each other 
posing a risk of a short circuit if their surfaces accidentally touch.  
In the past some electrolytic caps were manufactured without a sleeve 
(especially axials), however I haven't come across such one for years.

> I found some LED holders/clips which do seem to fit the bill, although I am
> not sure I see how you get the old LED out, unless you have to break the
> thing.

 From experience these seem pretty much single use only and either of the 
2 parts of the holder gets damaged while disassembling.

  Maciej

Re: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?

[Mattis Lind via cctalk]

2017-08-29 22:46 GMT+02:00 Henk Gooijen via cctalk :

>
>
> Van: Mattis Lind via cctalk
> Verzonden: dinsdag 29 augustus 2017 20:29
> Aan: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts classiccmp.org>
> Onderwerp: Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet board?
>
> Does anyone have more info about this (dusty) board:
>
> http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-
> D8DB3FA35406/F7AD48D3-5450-4860-A0C9-23CB7277AC91.jpg
>
> Plenty of onboard memory just for packet buffering?
>
> /Mattis
>
>
> Never seen before.
> Is there an “M” nummber on the board or on a handle?
>

No M marking on the handle.



>
> As the DELUA uses the M68000 and this board apparently too,
> but with *two* headers (DELUA has one), a network bridge is
> plausible. Is “Bridge Communication Unibus Ethernet” in the etch?
>

Here is a close up of the etch marking:


http://forum.datormuseum.se/data/87681DD5-B816-494C-AA4C-D8DB3FA35406/1913E94E-C1CC-41C3-9F41-D80A1E869950.jpg


It says IECU. I wonder if that is some kind of product name? The copyright
in the etch is 1984 but the chips are mostly from 1985 or 1986.

Re: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 08/29/2017 11:24 PM, drlegendre . via cctalk wrote:
> snap-cap removal goes like this: heat up the joints and solder-suck
> them clean as possible. Then hold on to the cap body, and attempt to
> rock it back & forth has you re-heat one pin and then the other(s).
> Once all the pins are broke free, you can extract it.
That's pretty much the way I do it--but I first remove as much solder as
possible (sometimes wick works better in these cases than suction), then
I clip the protruding leads as close to the board as I can.

Big snap-ins soldered to heavy power traces or planes can be a challenge
to get heated sufficiently.  Use two irons if you have to.

--Chuck

Re: PSU Input Rectifier Question

[drlegendre . via cctalk]

snap-cap removal goes like this: heat up the joints and solder-suck them
clean as possible. Then hold on to the cap body, and attempt to rock it
back & forth has you re-heat one pin and then the other(s). Once all the
pins are broke free, you can extract it.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Good idea to drain them first, I will do that. Having never encountered
> snap-ins before I don't know, but from the way you describe removal I
> suspect they are snap-in, as the leads are quite tightly against the sides
> of the holes and won't move even if I have heated them up. I hope that
> cutting the tops off will eventually expose the individual pins so they
> will
> be more easily removed.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> From: dwight [mailto:dkel...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 29 August 2017 22:25
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ; General
> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
> Subject: Re: PSU Input Rectifier Question
>
>
>
> They would have electrolyte in them. It is mildly corrosive as it is mostly
> a borate solution. You can drill a couple holes in the tops of the case and
> drain them.
>
> Since you say you've unsoldered the bases, are they wire or snap in. If
> snap
> in, you must get the lead clear of any solder touching the edge of the hole
> before you can think of any prying.
>
> Dwight
>
>
>
>   _
>
> From: cctalk   > on behalf of Rob Jarratt via
> cctalk
>  >
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 1:01:14 PM
> To: 'Maciej W. Rozycki'; 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
> Subject: RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@linux-mips.org]
> > Sent: 29 August 2017 01:06
> > To: r...@jarratt.me.uk  ; Rob Jarratt
>  >;
> General
> > Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts   >
> > Cc: 'Tapley, Mark'  >
> > Subject: RE: PSU Input Rectifier Question
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > > Not really no. The base of the capacitors is actually touching the
> > > board, so I can't get under it to cut anything anyway, which is why I
> > > am thinking I would have to cut the tops off them. Even if I could cut
> > > one of the leads, I can't solder a capacitor underneath as that is
> > > where the board is mounted into the enclosure, there is only room for
> > > the mounting standoffs on the underside.
> >
> >  If you need to replace the caps anyway, then I think just cutting
> through
> the
> > outer PET sleeve should do as chances are it's only the sleeve that's got
> glued
> > and not the leads or the closing cap.  Then you might be able to just
> pull
> the
> > inner aluminium can containing the capacitor itself from the sleeve and
> with
> > the component proper out of the way get rid of any remains from the PCB.
> >
>
> Thanks Maciej,
>
> I would just like to make doubly sure, before cutting into the outer body
> of
> the caps, am I likely to hit any gotchas? Just how wet are they inside, do
> I
> need to take any precautions with the electrolyte?
>
>
> >  NB the originals are just snap-in capacitors AFAIK, e.g. Chemi-Con KMH
> series
> > (I can't figure that out from your photos and luckily none of my H7878s
> has
> > failed so far, so I haven't made this a part list for this PSU for
> myself), still
> > manufactured, so modern replacements should do.  With the PCB hole
> > diameter supposed to be 2mm by the manufacturer's spec I wouldn't be
> > bothered with a small lead pitch variation, you can always bend the leads
> > slightly as there's some space between the closing cap and the rim that
> rests
> > against the PCB.
> >
>
>
> I did wonder if there would be enough tolerance. I have never encountered
> these snap-in ones before, I don't know what they are like. Sounds like I
> can try some snap-ins, which widens the choice immeasurably.
>
>
> >  Also I would't be bothered about the LED holder getting damaged; it's a
> > standard piece, available online.  I can dig out the part numbers,
> separate for
> > individual pieces of the holder (you can match different kinds against
> each
> > other, depending on your needs), if that would help; I ordered a bunch a
> while
> > ago for my own use.
> >
>
> I found some LED holders/clips which do seem to fit the bill, although I am
> not sure I see how you get the old LED out, unless you have to break the
> thing.
>
> Regards
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>