Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor
On 11/20/17, 10:51 PM, "cctalk on behalf of Mattis Lind via cctalk" wrote: >> >> It looks like board 2 is for a Sun 3/50 workstation. Board 1 is some >> kind of micro-programmed processor based on AM29331 and AM29331. There >> are also some Analog Devices DSPs. >> >> AM29000 based processor with Analog Device DSPs >> http://www.chdickman.com/board1.jpg >> >> Sun 3/50 processor >> http://www.chdickman.com/board2.jpg > > >I think this is a 3/60 processor. Not 3/50. > > >> >> Can anyone identify them? >> >> -chuck It is labelled as a sun 3-60 270-1205-04
Re: Looking for AT&T 3B2 Networking diskettes
I believe the yahozna archive has them under misc/network. However disks 5 and 6 have a txt extension so I afraid someone might have ftp'd them in text mode and not binary. Worth taking a look. Here is a mirror: https://www.3b2archive.org/archive/yahozna/misc/network/ I believe Mowgli Assor also has a copy as I think he got his NI card working in his 300. I can give you his contact info off list. -Alan On 2017-11-21 23:03, Seth Morabito via cctalk wrote: Hi folks, I can't seem to find the "Networking Support Utilities" package for the 3B2 anywhere online. Unfortunately, this package is required in order to install TCP/IP (which I DO have) (Note that this is NOT the "Basic Networking Utilities" package -- that's UUCP, and I do have that) If anyone has diskette images squirreled away, please let me know! -Seth
Looking for AT&T 3B2 Networking diskettes
Hi folks, I can't seem to find the "Networking Support Utilities" package for the 3B2 anywhere online. Unfortunately, this package is required in order to install TCP/IP (which I DO have) (Note that this is NOT the "Basic Networking Utilities" package -- that's UUCP, and I do have that) If anyone has diskette images squirreled away, please let me know! -Seth -- Seth Morabito w...@loomcom.com
Re: DS12887 pcb substitute with battery
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, systems_glitch wrote: > Good stuff! I recently designed a module to build new DS1287 and DS12887 > modules from the bare DS1285 and DS12885 ICs: > > https://imgur.com/a/cgKm5 Nice! That wouldn't solve my problem though, given the apparent unavailability of DS1285 chips (in any packaging, whether surplus or used), compared with the ubiquity of used DS1287 and DS1287A ones, possibly because they were often socketed. Using my systems as a reference for the Linux port I want to avoid any deviation from their original specification so that software does not make use of it by chance. As to the DS12887 and DS12887A chips -- these are still manufactured and readily available, as someone mentioned a while ago, although a bit highly priced, so either reworking an old one or using your alternative does help cutting cost, which may especially matter if you need more than just a few. Maciej
RE: Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
A guy recently contacted me that had an 11/05 for sale, stating his first preference was it go to a museum and if that failed, he wanted to sell it. I sure hope he's not parting it out on ebay Please don’t email me about it... if the museum he's currently talking to doesn't take it, I'll post it as 'equipment available' here. Best, J
Re: Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
On 21.11.2017 19:25, william degnan via cctech wrote: "DEC PDP-11 Digital BA11-KE Mounting Box" https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEC-PDP-11-Digital-BA11-KE-Mounting-Box/28265372079 granted "all you need are the cards and the front panel" reminds me of the Guess who has all the boards, but no backplane & power supply... Jos, that is
Re: Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, william degnan via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > This looks to me like the power supply and backplane of a PDP 11/05, looks > to be in nice shape. Surprised no one grabbed this yet, esp someone with > an 11/05 that has issues with power supply. Someone might have the missing > parts. > > "DEC PDP-11 Digital BA11-KE Mounting Box" > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEC-PDP-11-Digital-BA11-KE- > Mounting-Box/28265372079 It looks to me like a standard Unibus expansion chassis (a BA11-KE, as the auction says) with a 9-slot DD11-D backplane and a pair of 4-slot backplanes (not sure what they are, they may also be DD11's, I'm not good at identifying them from the back ;)). It could potentially be for an 11/05, but only if that 9-slot backplane isn't a DD11-D and is instead the special backplane for the 11/05 CPU set... - Josh > > > granted "all you need are the cards and the front panel" reminds me of the > steve martin routine. "It's easy to be a millionaire, first get a million > dollars and then " > > Compare with > http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=622 > > b >
Re: Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Josh Dersch via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, william degnan via cctech < > cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > This looks to me like the power supply and backplane of a PDP 11/05, > looks > > to be in nice shape. Surprised no one grabbed this yet, esp someone with > > an 11/05 that has issues with power supply. Someone might have the > missing > > parts. > > > > "DEC PDP-11 Digital BA11-KE Mounting Box" > > > > https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEC-PDP-11-Digital-BA11-KE- > > Mounting-Box/28265372079 > > > > It looks to me like a standard Unibus expansion chassis (a BA11-KE, as the > auction says) with a 9-slot DD11-D backplane and a pair of 4-slot > backplanes (not sure what they are, they may also be DD11's, I'm not good > at identifying them from the back ;)). It could potentially be for an > 11/05, but only if that 9-slot backplane isn't a DD11-D and is instead the > special backplane for the 11/05 CPU set... > > - Josh > > > > Agreed, but just from what I had worked with it looks like it was from an 11/05 or possibly it was an expansion core memory box. Either way, you could use it for many things not just an 11/05. The "stock" 11/05 NC would have had a different box. It would have to have been for an 11/05 S model. b
Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
This looks to me like the power supply and backplane of a PDP 11/05, looks to be in nice shape. Surprised no one grabbed this yet, esp someone with an 11/05 that has issues with power supply. Someone might have the missing parts. "DEC PDP-11 Digital BA11-KE Mounting Box" https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEC-PDP-11-Digital-BA11-KE-Mounting-Box/28265372079 granted "all you need are the cards and the front panel" reminds me of the steve martin routine. "It's easy to be a millionaire, first get a million dollars and then " Compare with http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=622 b
Re: PC-Letter "WUI" War over User Interface 1-1988
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:36 AM, william degnan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Here is an interesting article from early 1988 (probably written in min > 1987) that compares and contrasts GUIs of the day. Interesting that they > do not mention OS/2 by name, by this point it would have been available, > given I used it in Jan 1987 when I was working at IBM. Also the XEROX > interface was not yet dead as the author makes it seem. If anyone used > Page Maker on a 1987/88 Xerox machine and compared that with "Windows OS/2" > machine trying to run the Page Maker on a PS/2 80 you'd probably agree. > > Basically I am unsure what planet the author was from, but you can decide > for yourself. Talks a little about HP's GUI product, Sun/AT&T, Apple > Finder, etc. Mentions NeXT is coming, Commodore is dead, ... opinionated. > > http://vintagecomputer.net/cisc367/PC-Letter_19880118.pdf > > Bill > Looks interesting. The title and the mention of OS/2* remind me of a book I once came across, called "Windows vs. OS/2: The GUI-OOUI war" : https://www.amazon.com/Windows-Vs-OS-Gui-Ooui-Interfaces/dp/0442017502 ** * I see OS/2 1.1 is mentioned in the article, but I haven't read it yet to see how it deals with it. ** It would have been better for the the subtitle to sound like "the ooey-gooey war", but alas. -- Eric Christopherson
Re: DR-DOS
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:15:00PM +0100, Liam Proven wrote: > On 21 November 2017 at 19:16, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > As of "things" mentioned above, my current understanding is, those may > > be both active code (virri, worrmms etc), as well as Darth Vader's > > hand reaching out from the inside of VM and manipulating bits of > > memory on hosting machine. Chances are, I worry too much about this, > > but I suppose Pentium does not make a good platform for running VMs, > > only a cheap one (although it used to look like a decent one, but > > today it is only cheap). > > A file-based virus could escape _if_ the VM had access to the host > filesystem. But mine don't, partly because it's moderately hard, > partly because it takes a _ton_ of RAM in DOS terms. > > I should devote more effort to it but it's not massively useful to me > so I've not. > > But it can't propagate if the host OS can't run DOS binaries. Aw, not this. This: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row_hammer ] Row hammer (also written as rowhammer) is an unintended side effect in dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) that causes memory cells to leak their charges and interact electrically between themselves, possibly altering the contents of nearby memory rows that were not addressed in the original memory access. This circumvention of the isolation between DRAM memory cells results from the high cell density in modern DRAM, and can be triggered by specially crafted memory access patterns that rapidly activate the same memory rows numerous times.[1][2][3] The row hammer effect has been used in some privilege escalation computer security exploits.[2][4][5] Different hardware-based techniques exist to prevent the row hammer effect from occurring, including required support in some processors and types of DRAM memory modules. (...) On March 9, 2015, Google's Project Zero revealed two working privilege escalation exploits based on the row hammer effect, establishing its exploitable nature on the x86-64 architecture. One of the revealed exploits targets the Google Native Client (NaCl) mechanism for running a limited subset of x86-64 machine instructions within a sandbox,[15]:27 exploiting the row hammer effect to escape from the sandbox and gain the ability to issue system calls directly. and [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine_escape ] In computer security, virtual machine escape is the process of breaking out of a virtual machine and interacting with the host operating system.[1] A virtual machine is a "completely isolated guest operating system installation within a normal host operating system".[2] In 2008, a vulnerability (CVE-2008-0923) in VMware discovered by Core Security Technologies made VM escape possible on VMWare Workstation 6.0.2 and 5.5.4.[3][4] A fully working exploit labeled Cloudburst was developed by Immunity Inc. for Immunity CANVAS (commercial penetration testing tool). And even more interestingly, this (is your PC a hypervisor dreaming that he is a PC or a real PC?): [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperjacking ] Hyperjacking is an attack in which a hacker takes malicious control over the hypervisor that creates the virtual environment within a virtual machine (VM) host.[1] The point of the attack is to target the operating system that is below that of the virtual machines so that the attacker's program can run and the applications on the VMs above it will be completely oblivious to its presence. And this has truly amused me: [ http://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/ ] Buried deep inside your computer's Intel chip is the MINIX operating system and a software stack, which includes networking and a web server. It's slow, hard to get at, and insecure as insecure can be. I have no idea how practical are those attacks (please bear in mind, MINIX inside your CPU is a feature, not a... uhm) in real life, but it does not matter as much as the fact they have been demonstrated (if I am to believe the net), and are going to be easier and easier to perform as time goes by. In some cases, it does not matter what is your machine host OS vs guest OS, but if guest OS had been carefully crafted with code meant to escape to outside (or influence it). Like, a floppy of DRDOS dropped online in 2016. Oh, a bit unrelated but I have read recently that in some (all?) cases it is possible to get hold of this MINIX stuff (and some more) by plugging in special USB dongle... This is nothing important compared to the above, but quite funny, so I included it here. Basically, the idea of the above snippets is, software running in isolated sandbox cannot be counted on staying isolated there. [...] > > whichever could run assembler without a > > flop, > > I don't understand that bit. "Flop", because my very old exper
Re: Interest in copies of the TEK 4052/4054 diagnostic ROM pack ?
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 11:18 AM, jos via cctalk wrote: Looking into fabricating a few (functional-only) copies of the Tektronix diagnostis rom pack Seems quite a few people have non-functional units... Any interest out there ? Jos Yes! I'm very interested in a few units. Bob
Re: Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
I agree with Josh upon closer inspection that the backplane may not be for an 11/05 I'd have to look it up. If so, you'd need a CPU backplane too. The power supply is part of the BA11-KE, at least you'd have that. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:04 PM, jos via cctalk wrote: > On 21.11.2017 19:25, william degnan via cctech wrote: > >> "DEC PDP-11 Digital BA11-KE Mounting Box" >> >> https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEC-PDP-11-Digital-BA11-KE-Mounting >> -Box/28265372079 >> >> granted "all you need are the cards and the front panel" reminds me of the >> > > Guess who has all the boards, but no backplane & power supply... > > Jos, that is >
Re: Slightly OT: Computer internals book recommendations
Huw Davies wrote: > Sounds like either > > Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach by David Patterson and John > Hennessy > > Computer Organization and Design: the Hardware/Software Interface by David > Patterson and John Hennessy > > I see there’s a MIPS edition of the second book. My copy of the second book > has Hennessy as the first author. Thanks. I had the Hennessy/Patterson books on my radar but wasn't sure they would meet the criteria (haven't been able to find previews of them). Sophie Haskins wrote: > I want to say that earlier editions of “Computer Systems: A Programmers > Perspective” had a bunch of discussions of buses etc in addition to > assembly, compilers, linking, etc. but the edition I have explicitly calls > out that they felt like it wasn’t important to have chapters on anymore :( Sophie also wrote: > I have the second edition (there appears to now be a third out!) but > re-reading the preface and "what's changed since the first edition" doesn't > seem to say what I remembered re: buses (namely, it says nothing at all). > It is possibly my professors were referring to a much earlier > course/textbook (or that I dreamed the whole thing!). CS: APP is still a > pretty useful book, but...not on this topic, it would seem. > > (in the second edition, the only reference to buses is on a page where they > note that as of its publishing, buses are much more complicated and much > less exposed to programmers than they once were) I have an inside scoop that a certain library is about to get rid of their 2003 printing (which is apparently 1st edition); I've had my eye on it for a while. It doesn't really go into any detail on buses, but still looks really useful. -- Eric Christopherson
Interest in copies of the TEK 4052/4054 diagnostic ROM pack ?
Looking into fabricating a few (functional-only) copies of the Tektronix diagnostis rom pack Seems quite a few people have non-functional units... Any interest out there ? Jos
Re: DR-DOS
On 21 November 2017 at 19:16, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > As of "things" mentioned above, my current understanding is, those may > be both active code (virri, worrmms etc), as well as Darth Vader's > hand reaching out from the inside of VM and manipulating bits of > memory on hosting machine. Chances are, I worry too much about this, > but I suppose Pentium does not make a good platform for running VMs, > only a cheap one (although it used to look like a decent one, but > today it is only cheap). A file-based virus could escape _if_ the VM had access to the host filesystem. But mine don't, partly because it's moderately hard, partly because it takes a _ton_ of RAM in DOS terms. I should devote more effort to it but it's not massively useful to me so I've not. But it can't propagate if the host OS can't run DOS binaries. > My current understanding is, emulators without JIT should be more > decent. They sometimes enable one to have a peek into running > "machine", which might be nice thing to have, too. And speedwise, they > should be much closer to the original ;-P I am trying to avoid emulators. This is the original native OS of x86 PC-compatible hardware. I want it to run on the metal. > Well, owing to lack of time, I am so far from creating anything like > "my own" that any actual problem with more interesting stuff just does > not come into my mind (and I have close to zero knowledge about > Desqview, which I regret because it looks great on those pictures out > there). Most probably I will go with some frankensteinish solution > involving Dosemu or Dosbox, DOSbox is an emulator, so I've not looked at it. Ditto Bochs. DOSemu works but it's not very stable. It's easy to crash it and lose your session. I don't think there's much chance of getting DESQview or anything ambitious like that running on it. > whichever could run assembler without a > flop, I don't understand that bit. > Emacs on native side for editing, Euw. ;-) > thus hybrid > multitasking. Well, yes, with host-based multitasking, you don't need in-VM multitasking. But on the metal, it could potentially be useful. Mostly, though, it's a toy and a tech demo. > FreeDOS, for me, is the advanced way to do it, but as > the developers keep improving it (prepackaged utils and stuff), so I > might actually go for it - laziness pays. As you prefer. It has a _very_ slow release cycle, though. > But the main reason for me > to go there would be to play with assembler, rather than with other > software. DOS assembler can be run on almost anything. MS-DOS, PC DOS, DR-DOS, FreeDOS, whatever. > There are also MenuetOS and KolibriOS, which look like nice "couldbe" > multiplexers for Dosbox, but I am not sure (would have to find time to > research) if there is any possibility to run DOS programs under their > control (and I could not find explicit answer in few minutes). They're not DOS-compatible, AFAIK. > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** -- Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053
Re: Almost PDP 11/05 on Ebay
On 21.11.2017 19:25, william degnan via cctech wrote: "DEC PDP-11 Digital BA11-KE Mounting Box" https://www.ebay.com/itm/DEC-PDP-11-Digital-BA11-KE-Mounting-Box/28265372079 granted "all you need are the cards and the front panel" reminds me of the Guess who has all the boards, but no backplane & power supply... Jos, that is
Re: DR-DOS
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 03:35:07PM +0100, Liam Proven wrote: > On 17 November 2017 at 19:02, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > Please excuse me if my remark is unnecessary, but if I read you right, > > you have: > > [...] > > "Things" can escape from VMs. I have plenty of Xen warnings and bug > > descriptions in my old mailboxes, chances are there will be more. > > It's possible. I'm not working on Windows systems, so I don't have > virus scanners in place. > > >> All I need to do now is work out how to make the hard disk bootable, > >> and I'm in business. > > > > Boot some other OS, (I am partial to GRML Linux, well packed with > > rescue stuff and more - https://grml.org/ ); + fdisk, mark bootable? > > Er, yes. Thanks. I _do_ know about managing DOS hard disks, thanks. :-) Ah. Please forgive me for making remote allusions :-) As of "things" mentioned above, my current understanding is, those may be both active code (virri, worrmms etc), as well as Darth Vader's hand reaching out from the inside of VM and manipulating bits of memory on hosting machine. Chances are, I worry too much about this, but I suppose Pentium does not make a good platform for running VMs, only a cheap one (although it used to look like a decent one, but today it is only cheap). My current understanding is, emulators without JIT should be more decent. They sometimes enable one to have a peek into running "machine", which might be nice thing to have, too. And speedwise, they should be much closer to the original ;-P [...] > FreeDOS is fine if you like it. For me, it is just a little too unlike > the "real thing" for comfort. And as I'm interested in playing with > some fairly extreme DOS stuff -- multitaskers (DESQview, etc.) and so > on -- I want the highest level of compatibility I can achieve. Well, owing to lack of time, I am so far from creating anything like "my own" that any actual problem with more interesting stuff just does not come into my mind (and I have close to zero knowledge about Desqview, which I regret because it looks great on those pictures out there). Most probably I will go with some frankensteinish solution involving Dosemu or Dosbox, whichever could run assembler without a flop, Emacs on native side for editing, thus hybrid multitasking. FreeDOS, for me, is the advanced way to do it, but as the developers keep improving it (prepackaged utils and stuff), so I might actually go for it - laziness pays. But the main reason for me to go there would be to play with assembler, rather than with other software. There are also MenuetOS and KolibriOS, which look like nice "couldbe" multiplexers for Dosbox, but I am not sure (would have to find time to research) if there is any possibility to run DOS programs under their control (and I could not find explicit answer in few minutes). -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
Re: Powering Sun 3/60 without a chassis was Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor
> I think this is a 3/60 processor. Not 3/50. I said 3/50 because that is what the silkscreen says. The silkscreen clearly says 3/60, you have a clear serial with a 5 right beside it to compare and any other marked component. I know nothing about Sun hardware. But an expert on Some Online schematics? :-)
Re: Powering Sun 3/60 without a chassis was Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor
On 11/21/2017 9:04 AM, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Mattis Lind wrote: I think this is a 3/60 processor. Not 3/50. I said 3/50 because that is what the silkscreen says. I found some picture online and the 3/50 was a different layout. It sure looks like a 3/60 The silkscreen reads "3/60" as clear as day... Looking at some online schematics it looks like the P3 96 pin DIN connector may only be for power. Is it possible to power this thing through that connector without a proper chassis? Don't see why not. You'll need to rig up the proper connection with some eurocard connectors, and provide a decent supply (I can't find any solid info, but I'd wager between 5 and 10A for +5v). - Josh I know nothing about Sun hardware. -chuck
Powering Sun 3/60 without a chassis was Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Mattis Lind wrote: > I think this is a 3/60 processor. Not 3/50. I said 3/50 because that is what the silkscreen says. I found some picture online and the 3/50 was a different layout. It sure looks like a 3/60 Looking at some online schematics it looks like the P3 96 pin DIN connector may only be for power. Is it possible to power this thing through that connector without a proper chassis? I know nothing about Sun hardware. -chuck
PC-Letter "WUI" War over User Interface 1-1988
Here is an interesting article from early 1988 (probably written in min 1987) that compares and contrasts GUIs of the day. Interesting that they do not mention OS/2 by name, by this point it would have been available, given I used it in Jan 1987 when I was working at IBM. Also the XEROX interface was not yet dead as the author makes it seem. If anyone used Page Maker on a 1987/88 Xerox machine and compared that with "Windows OS/2" machine trying to run the Page Maker on a PS/2 80 you'd probably agree. Basically I am unsure what planet the author was from, but you can decide for yourself. Talks a little about HP's GUI product, Sun/AT&T, Apple Finder, etc. Mentions NeXT is coming, Commodore is dead, ... opinionated. http://vintagecomputer.net/cisc367/PC-Letter_19880118.pdf Bill
Xerox 820
Any interest in a Xerox 820 board that never had it's construction completed? It's amazing the stuff I find digging through my boxes of junk. bill
Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor
On 11/21/17, 3:40 AM, "cctalk on behalf of Charles Dickman via cctalk" wrote: >It looks like board 2 is for a Sun 3/50 workstation. Board 1 is some >kind of micro-programmed processor based on AM29331 and AM29331. There >are also some Analog Devices DSPs. > >AM29000 based processor with Analog Device DSPs >http://www.chdickman.com/board1.jpg In the bottom right hand corner, above ³COMPONENT SIDE², there is some lettering that seems to read ³COMPUTER BEDFORD MA². Given the DSP¹s, the MITRE corporation comes to mind. This might have been part of some military or civil aviation signal processing system. Camiel
Re: LA30 parts and question
On 2017-11-19 6:03 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk wrote: > ... > Overall, I have been pretty amazed by the sheer number of machined parts, > castings, high quality bearings, etc. within this beast. Lots of stainless > steel throughout. Sure wouldn’t find anything built this way these days! I can only assume you're unaware of the Juicero. --T What a tank. > > cheers, > --FritzM. > > > >
Re: LA30 parts and question
> From: Fritz Mueller > Overall, I have been pretty amazed by the sheer number of machined > parts, castings, high quality bearings, etc. within this beast. Lots of > stainless steel throughout. Sure wouldn't find anything built this way > these days! What a tank. That's DEC for you - quality engineering (mostly :-). Reminds me of this Porsche/Lotus story: http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/nontech/chapman.html Alas, that kind of engineering turned into a liability when DEC tried to compete in the 'new world' of personal computers... :-( Noel
Signetics TWIN
Hi, do hardware manuals for the TWIN exist? And does any other TWIN system exist? It seems it is a completely forgotten and lost development system. Christian
