Online ticketing is open for VCF East
http://vcfed.org/wp/festivals/vintage-computer-festival-east/tickets/ Note: Your paypal email confirmation is your ticket. A record of your purchase will be at the door when you arrive at VCF East. Evan Koblentz, director Vintage Computer Federation a 501(c)3 educational non-profit e...@vcfed.org (646) 546- www.vcfed.org facebook.com/vcfederation twitter.com/vcfederation
Re: Speed now & then
On 4/16/2018 9:48 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Back in the day, I often fantasized at what I would do if I had a processor 10 times faster than the 70s supercomputer I was using. Little did I suspect that I'd be using the processing power 40-some years later to watch TV. On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: And most likely the same TV from the 1970's and MOVIES from the 80's. YES LUKE I AM YOUR FATHER. How ever today it waiting for some server to to send megabytes of data a second not how many numbers you can crunch. Twilight Zone, The Prisoner, Outer Limits, One Step Beyond, Doctor Who, . . . in MP4 form, thousands of movies and TV episodes will fit on a 2TB drive. I am anxiously awaiting higher capacity thin 2.5" SATA. (yes, the 2TB drive is getting full) High speed is handy for Handbrake. "Hyperland"! (1990 (PRE WWW) Douglas Adams, Ted Nelson, Tom Baker about the future of the internet. I have created a subtitles/captions SRT file for it!)
Re: Speed now & then
On 4/16/2018 9:48 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Back in the day, I often fantasized at what I would do if I had a processor 10 times faster than the 70s supercomputer I was using. Little did I suspect that I'd be using the processing power 40-some years later to watch TV. --Chuck And most likely the same TV from the 1970's and MOVIES from the 80's. YES LUKE I AM YOUR FATHER. How ever today it waiting for some server to to send megabytes of data a second not how many numbers you can crunch.
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On 17/04/2018 14:25, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: Bill Gunshannon wrote: Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to masochism. ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. I think you are confused maybe. Wasn't it sadism? Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -- Pete Pete Turnbull
Re: Jobs, McGowan and Olsen
On 11 August 2014 at 00:37, Jason T wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, MikeS wrote: > >> - 'Digital Man/Digital World': Ken Olsen/DEC's growth and ultimate decline. >> (No doubt everyone here except myself had already seen this one ;-) > > Now streaming for free off of WFYI's site: > > http://video.wfyi.org/video/2282149336/ *Finally* got round to watching this. Rather moving, and makes me glad I own a little bit of DEC kit even now. Thanks for sharing it! -- Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
OTOH, Micropro had 8080 originated Wordstar running on the 5150 in weeks. It took them longer to edit the manuals than to port the code. Likewise Supercalc, etc. On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Warner Losh wrote: Part of that too was because MS-DOS provided CP/M programming interfaces, so in many ways it was CP/M with a bag on the side... Certainly. But, Q-DOS didn't have much of a bag. It was mostly a rewritten copy of CP/M with a different data structure for disk directory. LATER, starting with MS-DOS 2.00, there was a major bag of sub-directories and "unix style" file handling (file handles V File-Control-Block) And much later, for "long filenames" (Win95), MICROS~1 used a kludge bag, keeping the old 8.3 Directory structure and using "excess" directory entries for storage of the long nicknames. HINT: do NOT use "long filenames" for anything in the root directory. WINDOWS itself started as a bag hanging off of the side. Originally, MS-DOS clearly documented what was needed for a replacement command processor. (Was it 2.11? or 3.00? when IBM removed the appendix from the PC-DOS manual, and started marketing it as "PC-DOS Technical Reference Manual" (still with "appendix" page numbering)) I always found it amusing that many programs (even FORMAT!) would fail with the wrong error message if their internal DMA buffers happened to straddle a 64K block boundary. THAT was a direct result of failure to adequately integrate, or at least ERROR-CHECK!, the segment-offset kludge bag. Different device drivers and TSRs could affect at 16 byte intervals where the segment of a program ended up loading. It was NOT hard to normalize the Segment:Offset address and MOVE the buffer to another location if it happened to be straddling. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, allison via cctalk wrote: > >> Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. >> It was and still is irrational. >> > > OTOH, Micropro had 8080 originated Wordstar running on the 5150 in weeks. > It took them longer to edit the manuals than to port the code. > Likewise Supercalc, etc. > Part of that too was because MS-DOS provided CP/M programming interfaces, so in many ways it was CP/M with a bag on the side... Warner
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, allison via cctalk wrote: Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. It was and still is irrational. In the days of assembly language and hand edited machine code, An 8080 with a bag on the side made it extremely quick and easy to port legacy (8080) code. An 80286 can run almost all 8086 code without further modifications. Each generation of the intel processors was easy to adopt with legacy code. LATER, the code can be rewritten to take advantage of new "features". The alternative, to start from scratch and design it correctly, means that instead of porting legacy code, everything needs to be written from scratch. For example, in the 68000, you have a processor that is NOT hampered by being a 6800/6809 with a bag on the side. And it took a while before commercial applications were ready. Consider spreadsheets on the Mac. Good ones became available, but it took a while. OTOH, Micropro had 8080 originated Wordstar running on the 5150 in weeks. It took them longer to edit the manuals than to port the code. Likewise Supercalc, etc. There are trade-offs between redesign with integrated features to do it right, VS add-on kludge bags to have maximum compatability. These days, with most stuff written in compiled high-level languages, it becomes "merely" developing the new compiler. 'course the result of compiled high-level language is not comparable to assembly/machine coding. It requires "Moore's Law" to compensate for the slower final result. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:12 AM, allison via cctalk > > wrote: > > > Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. > > It was and still is irrational. > > > > With the 386 architecture (32-bit), they actually cleaned it up quite a > bit. I won't go nearly so far as to say that 386 is elegant, but when > running in 32-bit mode with flat addressing it's nowhere near as awful as > 16-bit 8086 and 286. AMD did a pretty good job of further extending that > to 64-bit. However, it does keep accumulating ever more bags on the side. > Disassembly still isn't 'simple' or 'easy' on x86 as it is on other RISC since the instruction stream can start/stop anywhere. MIPS and Sparc, for example, are both are word based. > I hope RISC-V eventually drives a stake through it. > I have hopes that my 11-year-old son will never have to deal with the horrors that are x86 when he's my age... Maybe it will be gone by then :) Warner
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On 04/17/2018 02:21 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > How many started coding for a machine writing machine code? > > I recall that the IBM 1620 SPS coding forms had two sides--one for > coding assembly (SPS); the other labeled "IBM 1620 Absolute Coding > System". Basically a form with the first 5 positions reserved for the > address, 2 positions for the opcode and 5 positions each for the P and Q > addresses. > > You could enter the code from the form right into the console typewriter > or punch it on a keypunch. If you were a real hard-case, you didn't > bother with coding forms, you sat down at the typewriter and did > everything from memory, mentally keeping track of storage addresses and > what referenced them. > > Do this for a while and disassembly is easy. After all, you'll have all > of the instructions and their opcodes committed to memory. > > I believe that I can still do this for 8080 code, in spite of my > deteriorating wetware. > Well, the first programming I learned was Autocoder on the IBM 1401. Our instructor gave us a simple project (80/80 Print). Had us write it in Autocoder and verify that it worked. Then we had to optimize it to reduce it to fit on a single punched card. That was done by tweaking the machine code output by the Autocoder "compiler". I still have mine around here somewhere. bill
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:12 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. > It was and still is irrational. > With the 386 architecture (32-bit), they actually cleaned it up quite a bit. I won't go nearly so far as to say that 386 is elegant, but when running in 32-bit mode with flat addressing it's nowhere near as awful as 16-bit 8086 and 286. AMD did a pretty good job of further extending that to 64-bit. However, it does keep accumulating ever more bags on the side. I hope RISC-V eventually drives a stake through it.
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Richard Sheppard via cctalk wrote: >> Lastly, I wonder if there might be some kind of checksum check to prevent >> tampering. Is there a common way this is handled in 8085 world? Or is it >> entirely programmer dependent? > > One approach that be doable for you is if you have a good ROM with a > known checksum, make your changes then calculate the difference between the > new and the original checksum and make another change somewhere innocuous to > bring the checksum back to the original value. "Innocuous" may be the trick - > perhaps some text string you don't care about, copyright notice etc. or maybe > there is an empty area in the EPROM you could stick a byte. > > Richard Sheppard A while ago someone asked about dumping contents of the firmware EPROMs from a DECserver 200 where the pair of EPROMs were soldered in place. I used a method of doing that which didn't require desoldering the EPROMs to read them on a device programmer. I wanted to verify the correctness of what I managed to dump and by disassembling and inspecting sections of the firmware I found that the firmware was running a standard CRC32 checksum on itself during its initialization. I was able to run the CRC32 algorithm on what I dumped and verified that it match the checksum that was stored in the EPROM data, and that was sufficient to convince myself that the dump was correct. But the interesting part of all of that is when I looked further at the disassembled firmware it appeared that after it calculated the CRC32 checksum and compared it against the expected result, it completely ignored whether or not the checksum actually matched the expected result. Seemed odd. Later I acquired another DECserver 200 with the same firmware version in socketed EPROMs. Just for curiosity sometime I should try altering the checksum and verify that it really doesn't matter.
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
How many started coding for a machine writing machine code? I recall that the IBM 1620 SPS coding forms had two sides--one for coding assembly (SPS); the other labeled "IBM 1620 Absolute Coding System". Basically a form with the first 5 positions reserved for the address, 2 positions for the opcode and 5 positions each for the P and Q addresses. You could enter the code from the form right into the console typewriter or punch it on a keypunch. If you were a real hard-case, you didn't bother with coding forms, you sat down at the typewriter and did everything from memory, mentally keeping track of storage addresses and what referenced them. Do this for a while and disassembly is easy. After all, you'll have all of the instructions and their opcodes committed to memory. I believe that I can still do this for 8080 code, in spite of my deteriorating wetware. --Chuck
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
> Lastly, I wonder if there might be some kind of checksum check to prevent > tampering. Is there a common way this is handled in 8085 world? Or is it > entirely programmer dependent? One approach that be doable for you is if you have a good ROM with a known checksum, make your changes then calculate the difference between the new and the original checksum and make another change somewhere innocuous to bring the checksum back to the original value. "Innocuous" may be the trick - perhaps some text string you don't care about, copyright notice etc. or maybe there is an empty area in the EPROM you could stick a byte. Richard Sheppard
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Tapley, Mark via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Apr 17, 2018, at 8:25 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk > wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < > > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > >> > >>> Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to > >>> masochism. > >> > >> ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. > >> > > > > I think you are confused maybe. Wasn't it sadism? > > > > Warner > > …? weren’t we talking about disasm? Maybe you got spell-checked, Warner? > I think I have a name for the disassembler I coincidentally am working on for the Venix stuff :) Warner
RE: LCM 8/e System Photo makes ZDNet
I recognize that PDP-8/e, it's the one that is working, for visitors to use, at Living Computers: Museum + Labs! http://www.livingcomputers.org -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Paul Birkel via cctalk Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 7:27 AM To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' Subject: LCM 8/e System Photo makes ZDNet https://www.zdnet.com/article/from-paper-tape-to-the-altair-8800-the-story-o f-my-first-computers/ Noel will appreciate the blinky-lights controller panel top-dead-center :->. paul
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On 04/17/2018 11:07 AM, Brian L. Stuart via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 4/17/18, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk >> wrote: >>> Disassembly is never lots of fun, >> Some of us might disagree. >> But then, some of us might be masochists. > I was just thinking the same thing. This whole discussion > has taken me back to fond memories of writing a 68000 > disassembler in AWK (long story). > > While I never had to write a disassembler I have written quite a bit of assembler code and have done a number of disassemblies. (Still do once in a while but most of what I do today is for fun.) My first was PDP-11 followed by Z-80\8080, M68K and M6809. I have even done some VAX. I have worked with x86, not from scratch but maintenance. Of all of them the last was the worst and I would never do it for fun. Oh, I forgot one. Sparc. bill
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On 04/17/2018 10:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > On 04/17/2018 09:25 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >> >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to masochism. >>> ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. >>> >> I think you are confused maybe. Wasn't it sadism? >> >> > Sadism on Intel's part but masochism on the part of those who willingly > accepted it. > Not sure where that leaves the rest of us. Linux on ARM or NETBSD on VAX... in recovery, or maybe PDP-8 or PDP 11? The old RCA CDP1802 keeps dragging me back. I seriously stopped messing with intel with 8080/8085 jumping to Z80 and 8048/8051 for the single chips and then going off to PIC and Atmega. Looked at 8086 and decided it was a 8080 with a bag on the side. It was and still is irrational. Disassembly for 8085 is dirt simple as the opcodes are easily classified and decoded. Its easy enough to do in a word processor, find and replace. Allison > bill >
Re: LCM 8/e System Photo makes ZDNet
Beauty in engineering. DEC and Data General man, simply artwork. -- Anders Nelson +1 (517) 775-6129 www.erogear.com On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > From: Paul Birkel > > > the blinky-lights controller panel top-dead-center :->. > > Yeah, that's a TC08. > > I actually have one of those inlays, it's the only original inlay I have. > It > was the model for the large run of blank inlays (black backing with the > holes > on the back, but nothing on the front) I just had made. At the moment, it's > sitting in my indicator panel stand with little bits of tape stuck to it: > > http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/QSIC/jpg/PanelMounting.jpg > http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/QSIC/jpg/DasBlinken2F.jpg > > so it can be an inlay for the RKV12. If anyone needs a TC08 inlay, I'd be > happy to trade it for any other inlay (as long as I have one original for > engineering purposes). > > > Sigh, need to get back to the inlays and take the next step with them! > > Dave B and I got derailed trying to find/fix a flaky on the QSIC - on my > prototype, it would occasionally get NXM's running the RK random exerciser > I > wrote. I was trying to figure out what the problem was, and I got tired of > the prototype sticking out in my way: > > http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/jpg/tmp/JNCQSIC.jpg > > (with the FPGA daughter-board on top, even with short cables, it has to be > on > an extender), so I rotated the QBUS chassis 90 degrees so the QSIC was on > top, and took the opportunity to re-order the boards. Bad mistake! Now the > problem has gone away and I can't re-create it! > > Noel >
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, 4/17/18, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: >> Disassembly is never lots of fun, > > Some of us might disagree. > But then, some of us might be masochists. I was just thinking the same thing. This whole discussion has taken me back to fond memories of writing a 68000 disassembler in AWK (long story). BLS
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On 04/17/2018 09:25 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>> Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to >>> masochism. >> ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. >> > I think you are confused maybe. Wasn't it sadism? > > Sadism on Intel's part but masochism on the part of those who willingly accepted it. Not sure where that leaves the rest of us. bill
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
Doing disassembly is about a process of refining. Some expect the disassembler to figure out where the gobs of data bytes are. Most such disassembler do a poor job on one or another program. The ones that actually work best are those that allow you ( a human ) to look at the result and allow you to see list of suspected pointers. Also, those that high light sections of code that don't make much sense. These features allow one to feedback to the assembler meaning full labels for what the code does. Although, one might think this type of disassembler is more complicated, it is often the simpler ones that are the easiest to use. I recommend that you write your own disassembler. The 8085 has a simple code. Make it so you can post process notes made into the early listings and have them copied to the new listing. It need to be able to start and stop disassembling and putting in fields of data bytes. It is always useful to be able to define these data bytes in some regular format, such as ASCII strings, address tables or possible offsets. The ability to carry forward such information makes the process of dissecting a program so much easier. If it is a disassembler that you wrote, you can add features that may be specific to the code you are disassembling. An example of this is one I recently wrote to understand Forth code. I'm looking at a Forth written for the 6502 but turnkeyed for a specific purpose that is no longer useful. It had its complete dictionary intact that I'm making a new boot section to allow me to access the interpreter and compiler. One can optimize C code as well. It tends to have regular groups of instructions as well. You as a human with a brain can do better at understanding things than any program. Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Bill Gunshannon via cctalk Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 6:07:21 AM To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: Re: 8085 Dissasembly? On 04/17/2018 08:04 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Eric Smith > > > But then, some of us might be masochists. > > I think pretty much by definition if you're into vintage computers, you have > to be a masochist... :-) > > Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to masochism. bill
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Apr 17, 2018, at 8:25 AM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>> Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to >>> masochism. >> >> ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. >> > > I think you are confused maybe. Wasn't it sadism? > > Warner …? weren’t we talking about disasm? Maybe you got spell-checked, Warner? :-)
Re: Help on a 1998 Award BIOS chip
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Curious Marc via cctalk wrote: On Apr 16, 2018, at 6:31 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 04/16/2018 06:11 PM, CuriousMarc via cctalk wrote: And lifting the sticker reveals the BIOS chip is just a W29C020P-12, a regular 256k x 8 Flash memory, 5V chip. Duh. Mystery solved. Of course way newer and with many more address lines than my DataIO 29B can read and program. Time has come to buy a small, modern, cheap, infinitely capable Chinesium EEPROM programmer. Read: the kind of practical, affordable, sensical and useful equipment I usually steer away from. Ebay here I come. Or make a programmer with an Arduino, since it's 5V. Hmmm, you don't happen to be a subscriber to AvE's Youtube channel, perhaps? --Chuck Why... Would that be good or would that be bad? Keep your disk in a vice! :-) Marc Just make sure that the programmer you get chooches properly. ;) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > > Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to > > masochism. > > ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. > I think you are confused maybe. Wasn't it sadism? Warner
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
Bill Gunshannon wrote: > Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to > masochism. ... or masochism led to the x86 architecture. > bill --Johnny
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
On 04/17/2018 08:04 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > From: Eric Smith > > > But then, some of us might be masochists. > > I think pretty much by definition if you're into vintage computers, you have > to be a masochist... :-) > > Many of us think that the advent of the x86 architecture is what led to masochism. bill
Re: 8085 Dissasembly?
> From: Eric Smith > But then, some of us might be masochists. I think pretty much by definition if you're into vintage computers, you have to be a masochist... :-) Noel
RE: Scanned paperback book "RSX A User's Guide"
Mark - if you don't find another good spot for it, I'd be happy to host it for free. Perhaps rsx.classiccmp.org or such. Best, J
