Re: VT100's

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Tony Duell via cctalk  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk
>  wrote:
> > I am building my own VT100 terminal (FPGA project), and it will be
> > laptop-shape :P
>
> Trend Data System (the company that made some very nice paper tape readers
> made/sold such a terminal many years ago. There were at least 2 versions,
> one
> did 5 bit ('Baudot', 'Murray' (although it's actually neither),
> ITA2..), the other was
> a VT100-a-like. The display was LCD which could be folded over the keyboard
> when not in use. It needed an external 12V supply (I don't think there was
> ever an internal battery version).
>
> It was very close to a real VT100, even the setup options were identical.
>
> -tony
>

TI made a clamshell portable VT220-compatible terminal with an LCD screen,
the Travelmate LT220.  It's very nice, the LCD is high-contrast (but no
backlight) and it even has a built in 2400bps modem.  I believe it can run
off of a battery as well.  It's very handy.

There's a picture of one near the bottom of this page:
http://ummr.altervista.org/sistemi_x86.htm

- Josh

PDP11/15

[Paul Anderson via cctalk]

If anyone has serious interest in one, please contact mo off list.. I can
bring it to VCFMW.

Thanks, Paul

Teletype mod 40 PSU

[Paul Anderson via cctalk]

I have a teletype 40PSU101 I can drop off at VCFMW or mail, but is is a bit
heavy.

If you have any interest, please contact me off list.

Thanks, Paul

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

had a  tectronix   terminal like this  also  had a  slide out  drawer  with 
many  small gold  plated  cards  looked  like the  earliest    tecx  made  
terminal  for graphics I had  ever  seen.   was  heavy  very heavy and very 
long  with  I still had  it...  it  was   back in the mid  80s  I  sold  it.

 
ed #  
 
 
In a message dated 9/7/2018 6:52:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 
On 09/07/2018 02:55 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

> That’s it! The terminal I had was definitely the one in this picture:
>
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt02/vt02_1.jpg
>
>
The display is actually a Tektronix 611 direct-view storage 
tube.

Jon

RE: HP 260

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

you need to plan a trip to grand canyon! ... odd enough I never saw one of 
these computers in az.  ed#

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

On Friday, September 7, 2018 Stan Sieler via cctalk  wrote:
Hi,
I have an HP 260 that I'd like to find a new home for.
I'm currently thinking of taking it to the ham radio / antique-computer
swapmeet
(ASVARO, held at Fry's Sunnyvale, CA, tomorrow morning).

Thought I'd mention it here in case someone was interested in it.

For those unfamiliar with it, it's small enough to fit in a Contico.
https://www.facebook.com/hp260hp250preservationProject has a photo (in a
cabinet
with a disk drive) on the far left.
www.hp260.net has some info about them.

Stan

(Cupertino, CA, USA)

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 09/07/2018 02:55 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

That’s it! The terminal I had was definitely the one in this picture:

http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt02/vt02_1.jpg


The display is actually a Tektronix 611 direct-view storage 
tube.


Jon

HP 260

[Stan Sieler via cctalk]

Hi,
I have an HP 260 that I'd like to find a new home for.
I'm currently thinking of taking it to the ham radio / antique-computer
swapmeet
(ASVARO, held at Fry's Sunnyvale, CA, tomorrow morning).

Thought I'd mention it here in case someone was interested in it.

For those unfamiliar with it, it's small enough to fit in a Contico.
https://www.facebook.com/hp260hp250preservationProject has a photo (in a
cabinet
with a disk drive) on the far left.
www.hp260.net has some info about them.

Stan

(Cupertino, CA, USA)

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Warner Losh  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:33 PM Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk 
> mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
> I also looked at the keyboards on my Symbolics machines, and where I’d like 
> to have the control key is the “rubout” key.  But given that there are no 
> fewer than 5 “shift” keys on the Symbolics keyboard (hyper, super, meta, 
> control, shift…I can’t recall at the moment if symbol is also a “shift” key), 
> it makes a bit of sense to have them all near each other.  ;-)
> 
> I think you forgot the "coke bottle" key :)
> 
> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/space-cadet-keyboard.html 
> 

Yea, I don’t have a space cadet keyboard.  I have new and old Symbolics 
keyboards.  The “new” one is the one pictured on the referenced link.

TTFN - Guy

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:33 PM Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I also looked at the keyboards on my Symbolics machines, and where I’d
> like to have the control key is the “rubout” key.  But given that there are
> no fewer than 5 “shift” keys on the Symbolics keyboard (hyper, super, meta,
> control, shift…I can’t recall at the moment if symbol is also a “shift”
> key), it makes a bit of sense to have them all near each other.  ;-)
>

I think you forgot the "coke bottle" key :)

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/space-cadet-keyboard.html

Warner

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Frank McConnell via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 7, 2018, at 12:00, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys
> 
> And CAPS LOCK in the home row to the left of the A key.  The VT220 made it 
> w-i-d-e.  Can we now fix the blame for the two of the three worst ideas in 
> computer keyboard design on d|i|g|i|t|a|l?  (#3 would be sending CONTROL to 
> live in the spacebar row and I think maybe we need to blame IBM for that.)
> 

No, there were terminals that had a (small) control key down near the space bar 
long before IBM did it with the PC.  I can’t recall which at the moment (but I 
recall having to deal with them in the mid-to-late 70’s).

I also looked at the keyboards on my Symbolics machines, and where I’d like to 
have the control key is the “rubout” key.  But given that there are no fewer 
than 5 “shift” keys on the Symbolics keyboard (hyper, super, meta, control, 
shift…I can’t recall at the moment if symbol is also a “shift” key), it makes a 
bit of sense to have them all near each other.  ;-)

TTFN - Guy

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM Frank McConnell via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 12:00, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> > interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys
>
> And CAPS LOCK in the home row to the left of the A key.  The VT220 made it
> w-i-d-e.  Can we now fix the blame for the two of the three worst ideas in
> computer keyboard design on d|i|g|i|t|a|l?  (#3 would be sending CONTROL to
> live in the spacebar row and I think maybe we need to blame IBM for that.)
>

Yes. I had an old DEC Rainbow... For years I used it as a terminal, but I
hacked things to swap the CAPS LOCK and CONTROL keys. But the control key
was still to the left of the CAPS LOCK key. It was the IBM PC keyboard that
moved the control key below the Shift key. Most other terminals before then
didn't do that :(

Warner

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Frank McConnell via cctalk]

On Sep 7, 2018, at 12:00, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys

And CAPS LOCK in the home row to the left of the A key.  The VT220 made it 
w-i-d-e.  Can we now fix the blame for the two of the three worst ideas in 
computer keyboard design on d|i|g|i|t|a|l?  (#3 would be sending CONTROL to 
live in the spacebar row and I think maybe we need to blame IBM for that.)

-Frank McConnell

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

That’s it! The terminal I had was definitely the one in this picture:

http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt02/vt02_1.jpg

--
Mark J. Blair 
http://www.nf6x.net

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
> under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal

Nice, working photos of a VT20.  I'd forgotten the oddball keys on the side.

In the VT71 picture, you can see the UDKs -- the blank keycaps in the top row.  
Above them are handwritten labels on that piece of cardboard, indicating what 
each one does (regular and shifted, two macros per key).  There are some 
obvious newspaper specific functions, like "Wire dir sports" or "head fit" 
(i.e., take the current story headline and report how wide it is, to see if it 
fits in the columns allowed for it).

The VT72 document has a description of the display controller, so if VT71/72 
software ever materializes that can be used to teach SIMH how to emulate the 
terminal.

paul

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Al Kossow

> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05

Those useable for the CHWiki (with credit, of course)?

Oddly enough, I just did the article on the VT05 about a week ago!

Noel

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys

On 9/7/18 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
> under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal
> 

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal


On 9/7/18 10:45 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
> Thanks for digging that up! I had never managed to google up any details 
> before. 
> 
> --
> Mark J. Blair 
> http://www.nf6x.net
> 

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

Thanks for digging that up! I had never managed to google up any details 
before. 

--
Mark J. Blair 
http://www.nf6x.net

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/7/18 10:00 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

> The VT02 was apparently a PDP-8 device
> 
> https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1185657/m2/1/high_res_d/6649931.pdf
> 

This was hard to find, because web searches turn up hundreds of hits from some 
dufus that mistyped VT02 instead of VT52
in a linux terminal emulation package.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/7/18 9:09 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

> The display was a fully enclosed standalone unit, not a bare chassis. It sat 
> on top of the bottom chassis of the terminal and then had another cover 
> fitted over it.
> 
> It had screen burn which indicated its use as part of a text terminal, but I 
> don't know if the character generation was originally performed in the bottom 
> chassis or by external equipment. The small DEC wire wrap backplane in the 
> bottom chassis didn't seem big enough to implement all of that with flip 
> chips. Maybe the backplane was just used for keyboard interface, and 
> character generation was done by equipment external to the terminal?
> 

The VT02 was apparently a PDP-8 device

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1185657/m2/1/high_res_d/6649931.pdf

Thus the  FY  1969 equipment  increment  was procured  from  DEC
and consisted  of one  KAIO Processor, one PDP-8 Computer  (4K memory),
4 VT02 Terminals, plus controllers, teleprinters, and  cables for  a total of
$167,042.  For  FY  1970, the  plan  called  for  additional  memory  
capability,
disk packs, and additional inputting terminals for a total  of $189,000.

The only thing we have in the archive apparently are four proof negatives, 
unless the
controller had a different name.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their point 
> plot display systems like the VC8E.

I am pretty sure that the display was a 611 in its vertical configuration:

http://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/611

The display was a fully enclosed standalone unit, not a bare chassis. It sat on 
top of the bottom chassis of the terminal and then had another cover fitted 
over it.

It had screen burn which indicated its use as part of a text terminal, but I 
don't know if the character generation was originally performed in the bottom 
chassis or by external equipment. The small DEC wire wrap backplane in the 
bottom chassis didn't seem big enough to implement all of that with flip chips. 
Maybe the backplane was just used for keyboard interface, and character 
generation was done by equipment external to the terminal?

-- 
Mark J. Blair 
http://www.nf6x.net/

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Norman Jaffe via cctalk]

Speaking of oddball terminals, does anyone have details on Cybernex APL-100 
terminals? 
I acquired one a couple of years ago and have had no luck locating 
documentation for them. 

From: "cctalk"  
To: "cctalk"  
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 8:41:23 AM 
Subject: Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's) 

On 9/6/2018 10:38 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: 
> A long time ago, I had the incomplete remnants of an oddball terminal which I 
> retrieved from a junk pile at a small, obscure school in Pasadena. I'll try 
> to describe it as best I can, based on old memory. I could have sworn that it 
> had a dataplate label identifying it as a DEC VT02, but that could be way off 
> the mark. 
> 
> It was built around a Tektronix vector storage display, oriented in portrait 
> mode. It had quite a bit of screen burn from its long life displaying text. I 
> don't recall the model number of the display, but I might recognize one if I 
> saw it. It was quite long, making the whole terminal quite long. It had X, Y 
> and Z BNC inputs, and it had a neat test mode that drew a spiral on the 
> screen. 
> 
> The display sat on top of a long chassis with a keyboard at one end, a small 
> Flip Chip backplane around the middle, and a power supply (probably linear, 
> IIRC) at the rear end. I don't think that the Flip Chip boards were still in 
> it when I got it, but it came along with a small box of spare Flip Chips. 
> 
> After setting the big Tektronix display on top of the lower chassis, there 
> was a long U-shaped sheet metal cover that sat over the top and covered the 
> display, making it look somewhat like a single device rather than a stack of 
> two things. The lower chassis and the top cover were painted approximately 
> white as I recall. 
> 
> I never did anything interesting with the display other than occasionally 
> driving it with signal generators, and I got rid of the whole pile a long, 
> long time ago. 
> 
> Does that old beast sound remotely familiar to anybody here? How hard should 
> I kick myself for not keeping it? 
> 
The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their 
point plot display systems like the VC8E. 


Bob 

-- 
Vintage computers and electronics 
www.dvq.com 
www.tekmuseum.com 
www.decmuseum.org 

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk]

On 9/6/2018 10:38 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

A long time ago, I had the incomplete remnants of an oddball terminal which I 
retrieved from a junk pile at a small, obscure school in Pasadena. I'll try to 
describe it as best I can, based on old memory. I could have sworn that it had 
a dataplate label identifying it as a DEC VT02, but that could be way off the 
mark.

It was built around a Tektronix vector storage display, oriented in portrait 
mode. It had quite a bit of screen burn from its long life displaying text. I 
don't recall the model number of the display, but I might recognize one if I 
saw it. It was quite long, making the whole terminal quite long. It had X, Y 
and Z BNC inputs, and it had a neat test mode that drew a spiral on the screen.

The display sat on top of a long chassis with a keyboard at one end, a small 
Flip Chip backplane around the middle, and a power supply (probably linear, 
IIRC) at the rear end. I don't think that the Flip Chip boards were still in it 
when I got it, but it came along with a small box of spare Flip Chips.

After setting the big Tektronix display on top of the lower chassis, there was 
a long U-shaped sheet metal cover that sat over the top and covered the 
display, making it look somewhat like a single device rather than a stack of 
two things. The lower chassis and the top cover were painted approximately 
white as I recall.

I never did anything interesting with the display other than occasionally 
driving it with signal generators, and I got rid of the whole pile a long, long 
time ago.

Does that old beast sound remotely familiar to anybody here? How hard should I 
kick myself for not keeping it?

The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their 
point plot display systems like the VC8E.



Bob

--
Vintage computers and electronics
www.dvq.com
www.tekmuseum.com
www.decmuseum.org

Re: LSSM - Large IBM haul

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Anders Nelson

> Their latest comments on Facebook mention they're about halfway there.

Yeah, but I was wanting to know how things had gone since that posting
(although I haven't looked to see if there's any update). As of last night,
they'd made significant progress past what was in the posting, but still had a
ways to go.

I've just sent in a chunk, so I think I have the standing to appeal for others
to help, too! :-) It's a really worthwhile cause - there aren't that many
System/370's left in the world! (I know, I know, not as cool at the /360, but
still important.)

Here's the URL again:

  https://www.facebook.com/503408869821526/posts/1084448565050884/

with the details of the appeal. (You don't need to be a FaceAche member
to read it; I'm not, and it came up OK for me.)

   Noel

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/6/18 2:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> If you bought a bought a machine from DEC, you probably needed DEC terminals
>> or clones of them to get the best from it.  However, the same probably 
>> applied
>> to other manufacturers.
> 
> DEC's keyboard editors didn't talk anything other than VT52 or VT100 protocols
> and you needed their keypad for KED to work.
> 
> Things like Curses and Termcap weren't a concept people groked at the time.

True.  DEC's approach was standards: as soon as the idea appeared, adopt it 
(ANSI escapes) throughout the product line, then all the software has only a 
single API it needs to understand.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Rick Murphy via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 9/6/2018 1:15 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:09 PM, allison via cctalk  wrote:
>>> Mostly about screen memory which back then was small and not cheap.
>> True.  Did the VT05 use core memory for that?  I vaguely remember it did.
> 
> The VT05 used a shift register bank for the screen memory. This caused delays 
> when scrolling as the content of the shift register had to be basically 
> shifted up, thus requiring fill characters after every linefeed.

Oh yes, VT05 fill, RSTS supports that (or at least in earlier versions).  
That's fill after LF rather than the fill after CR needed by older hard-copy 
terminals (including the much despised LA30s).

VT05 was 2400 baud max, if I remember right.  9600 was mind-boggling when I 
first saw it.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> From: Paul Koning
> 
>> inside are a whole pile of boards, all single-sided etch with many
>> hundreds of jumpers to compensate for not being two-sided. Not cheap,
>> presumably
> 
> If memory serves, didn't the VT52 also have single-sided boards with a whole
> bunch of jumper wires? Something relatively common, anyway, if not the VT52 -
> I clearly remember the masses of jumpers on something, and Tech Sq had scads
> of VT52's (to the point where VT100's were not that common when they did show
> up, we were already full up).
> 
> Presumably, with automated placing machines, the jumpers were cheaper than a
> large double-sided board (the VT52's boards were huge)? I'm assuming _someone_
> did the math (including the amortization of the placing machine, which would
> take longer to complete such a board).

I don't remember the VT52 board, but you may well be right.  The obvious 
advantage of single sided boards is that it avoids plated through holes.  I 
once did a two-sided board without plated through holes (at the U of Illinois 
-- the board shop didn't know how) but that wasn't reasonable technology for 
serious work because you have to solder both sides then.

The VT61/t stood out to me because it has so much stuff in it.  I forgot how 
many boards, but it was way more than the VT52 (which has just one, I think).  
No surprise, the VT61/t has local editing / forms processing capability with 
block mode transmission both ways.  In one Typeset-11 application you'd edit a 
screen full of text locally and send it back when done; in the other you'd fill 
in a classified ad order form and send that.  The VT71 also had local text 
editing but there it's a whole file, with local scrolling and search, line 
wrap, and macros ("User Defined Keys", UDK, tied to a row of blank keycaps that 
the customer would label).

paul

Re: VT100's

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk
 wrote:
> I am building my own VT100 terminal (FPGA project), and it will be
> laptop-shape :P

Trend Data System (the company that made some very nice paper tape readers
made/sold such a terminal many years ago. There were at least 2 versions, one
did 5 bit ('Baudot', 'Murray' (although it's actually neither),
ITA2..), the other was
a VT100-a-like. The display was LCD which could be folded over the keyboard
when not in use. It needed an external 12V supply (I don't think there was
ever an internal battery version).

It was very close to a real VT100, even the setup options were identical.

-tony

Re: VT100's

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Paul Koning

> inside are a whole pile of boards, all single-sided etch with many
> hundreds of jumpers to compensate for not being two-sided. Not cheap,
> presumably

If memory serves, didn't the VT52 also have single-sided boards with a whole
bunch of jumper wires? Something relatively common, anyway, if not the VT52 -
I clearly remember the masses of jumpers on something, and Tech Sq had scads
of VT52's (to the point where VT100's were not that common when they did show
up, we were already full up).

Presumably, with automated placing machines, the jumpers were cheaper than a
large double-sided board (the VT52's boards were huge)? I'm assuming _someone_
did the math (including the amortization of the placing machine, which would
take longer to complete such a board).

> From: Al Kossow

> The biggest hardware innovation was smooth vertical scrolling
> ...
> I've never liked the feature

IIRC, we generally turned it off because it couldn't keep up at 9600 baud.

Noel