[cctalk] Re: Decwriter III self test issue?

[W2HX via cctalk]

Yikes. Very sorry about that. I didn’t think anyone was interested anymore so I 
deleted it. I made a new video that combines the problem and the solution, but 
this video won't be published until March 5th. 
https://youtu.be/Z0DmeANmv0I

Again, that link won't work until March 5th. Sorry!

73 Eugene W2HX
My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
 

-Original Message-
From: Lee Courtney via cctalk  
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2024 5:03 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Cc: Lee Courtney 
Subject: [cctalk] Re: Decwriter III self test issue?

Video removed... :-( Was looking forward to seeing how I could apply your work 
to my Decwriter.

Lee

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 3:08 PM W2HX via cctalk 
wrote:

> I thought I'd send a follow up that I have fixed the decwriter (whew)...
> A little lube goes a long way! Vid below.
>
> https://youtu.be/mJH3GPIvBvs
>
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: W2HX via cctalk 
> Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 6:53 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts < 
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> Cc: W2HX 
> Subject: [cctalk] Decwriter III self test issue?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I recently acquired a very nice decwriter III and it seems in good nick.
> However, the self test "hangs" on the return direction of the second line.
> Here is a video on it:
> https://youtu.be/pj6rk5Dlnbk
>
> Anyone have any ideas where to look? In local mode, it appears to work 
> properly. I haven't tried any external serial connection yet.
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>

--
Lee Courtney
+1-650-704-3934 cell

[cctalk] Re: Decwriter III self test issue?

[Lee Courtney via cctalk]

Video removed... :-( Was looking forward to seeing how I could apply your
work to my Decwriter.

Lee

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 3:08 PM W2HX via cctalk 
wrote:

> I thought I'd send a follow up that I have fixed the decwriter (whew)...
> A little lube goes a long way! Vid below.
>
> https://youtu.be/mJH3GPIvBvs
>
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: W2HX via cctalk 
> Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 6:53 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> Cc: W2HX 
> Subject: [cctalk] Decwriter III self test issue?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I recently acquired a very nice decwriter III and it seems in good nick.
> However, the self test "hangs" on the return direction of the second line.
> Here is a video on it:
> https://youtu.be/pj6rk5Dlnbk
>
> Anyone have any ideas where to look? In local mode, it appears to work
> properly. I haven't tried any external serial connection yet.
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>

-- 
Lee Courtney
+1-650-704-3934 cell

[cctalk] Re: Decwriter III self test issue?

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

Good news.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024, 6:08 PM W2HX via cctalk  wrote:

> I thought I'd send a follow up that I have fixed the decwriter (whew)...
> A little lube goes a long way! Vid below.
>
> https://youtu.be/mJH3GPIvBvs
>
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: W2HX via cctalk 
> Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 6:53 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> Cc: W2HX 
> Subject: [cctalk] Decwriter III self test issue?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I recently acquired a very nice decwriter III and it seems in good nick.
> However, the self test "hangs" on the return direction of the second line.
> Here is a video on it:
> https://youtu.be/pj6rk5Dlnbk
>
> Anyone have any ideas where to look? In local mode, it appears to work
> properly. I haven't tried any external serial connection yet.
>
>
> 73 Eugene W2HX
> My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
>
>

[cctalk] Re: Decwriter III self test issue?

[W2HX via cctalk]

I thought I'd send a follow up that I have fixed the decwriter (whew)...
A little lube goes a long way! Vid below.

https://youtu.be/mJH3GPIvBvs



73 Eugene W2HX
My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos
 

-Original Message-
From: W2HX via cctalk  
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 6:53 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Cc: W2HX 
Subject: [cctalk] Decwriter III self test issue?

Hi all,

I recently acquired a very nice decwriter III and it seems in good nick. 
However, the self test "hangs" on the return direction of the second line. Here 
is a video on it:
https://youtu.be/pj6rk5Dlnbk

Anyone have any ideas where to look? In local mode, it appears to work 
properly. I haven't tried any external serial connection yet.


73 Eugene W2HX
My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos

[cctalk] Decwriter III self test issue?

[W2HX via cctalk]

Hi all,

I recently acquired a very nice decwriter III and it seems in good nick. 
However, the self test "hangs" on the return direction of the second line. Here 
is a video on it:
https://youtu.be/pj6rk5Dlnbk

Anyone have any ideas where to look? In local mode, it appears to work 
properly. I haven't tried any external serial connection yet.


73 Eugene W2HX
My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@w2hx/videos

[cctalk] Re: KIM-1 debug board RAM test: *zero* flashes

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

Answering my own question for posterity:

> However, test 1, the RAM test, should show long flashes of the green LED if 
> RAM
> is bad. I was prepared to see all long flashes which might implicate the
> buffers or address decoder, but instead it won't blink the LED at all in that
> or any of the other tests. The red LED remains lit and appropriately
> extinguishes when the RS button is down.
> 
> Again, the board works correctly and fully certifies the other two KIMs.
> 
> What would cause it to hang (?) in the RAM test on the defective one?

Dwight suggested something wrong with the address lines. That made sense, since
the continuity problems I had on the board were on the address lines (turned
out to be lifted traces). However, after spending a couple hours more with the
tester, the actual problem was two address lines that had an intermittent
short. I cleaned that up and everything passes.

The original fault, a bad 2nd bit from $280 to $2bf, was indeed a single RAM
chip gone bad in a single row. Now that it's replaced and the board is fixed,
the fault is gone. Buffers and address decoding check out just fine.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Not sun-worshippers: Son-worshippers! -- Uhura, Star Trek "Bread & Circuses"

[cctalk] KIM-1 debug board RAM test: *zero* flashes

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

I assembled Dwight Elvey's KIM-1 debug board (thank you, Gary!) and have now
certified two of my KIMs with it, so I'm very confident the harness operates
properly.

Unfortunately, the one I *want* to repair, my original KIM-1, won't start up at
all after replacing the 2102 RAM I was pretty sure was bad. I checked my
soldering and found a couple spots without continuity that should according to
the schematic, but fixing those didn't fix it. I also buzzed out the socket and
found no obvious shorts, and a second 2102 equivalent from a second
manufacturer has the same symptoms.

I connected the debug harness and test 0, the initial "dead board" test, does
show CPU accesses on the red LED and slowly flashes the green LED, so the CPU
at least is alive and can access the test EPROM.

However, test 1, the RAM test, should show long flashes of the green LED if RAM
is bad. I was prepared to see all long flashes which might implicate the
buffers or address decoder, but instead it won't blink the LED at all in that
or any of the other tests. The red LED remains lit and appropriately
extinguishes when the RS button is down.

Again, the board works correctly and fully certifies the other two KIMs.

What would cause it to hang (?) in the RAM test on the defective one?

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Roger Waters to moving crew: "Hey! Careful with those racks, Eugene!" --

[cctalk] Re: Test Message

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

I see it (and I observed the same thing - just rejoined after having
subscription problems stretching back to May, and didn't see any
traffic).

-ethan

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:09 PM Kevin McQuiggin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Pardon the test message, I have just re-subscribed to the list but have seen 
> no traffic on it for a couple of days.
>
> Kevin McQuiggin

[cctalk] Re: Test Message

[computerdoc via cctalk]

I see your test message!

On Fri, 2022-09-16 at 08:06 -0700, Kevin McQuiggin via cctalk wrote:
> Pardon the test message, I have just re-subscribed to the list but have seen 
> no traffic on it for a couple of days.
> 
> Kevin McQuiggin

[cctalk] Re: Test Message

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 5:09 PM Kevin McQuiggin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Pardon the test message, I have just re-subscribed to the list but have seen 
> no traffic on it for a couple of days.

QSL

-tony

[cctalk] Re: Test Message

[Sellam Abraham via cctalk]

0x06

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022, 9:09 AM Kevin McQuiggin via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Pardon the test message, I have just re-subscribed to the list but have
> seen no traffic on it for a couple of days.
>
> Kevin McQuiggin

[cctalk] Test Message

[Kevin McQuiggin via cctalk]

Pardon the test message, I have just re-subscribed to the list but have seen no 
traffic on it for a couple of days.

Kevin McQuiggin

[cctalk] Re: Attaching Test Clip to F-11 Chips on PDP 11/24 M7133 CPU

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 7/24/22 03:02, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:

I am trying to work out why my PDP 11/24 CPU is not working. To do so I want
to use my logic analyser on the F-11 chips. I have a regular 40-pin test
clip, but it doesn't make a good contact with the pins on the F-11 chips.
The test clips I have are made for regular DIP chips where the legs come out
horizontally from the side of the chip before turning 90 degrees and going
down into the board. On the F-11 chips the pins are pretty much stuck to the
side of the chip body and so the clip can't make a good contact.

  


Does anyone have any tips for attaching a test clip to the F-11 chips?

The test clips often have a "barrier" between the pins.  
These may prevent the clip from fully closing onto the chip 
body if the pins are flush, like a ceramic chip.  It may be 
necessary to carve away a bit of the barrier to make the 
clip close the contacts down onto the chip's pins.  The 
barrier is there to prevent the clip from sliding out of 
alignment with the pins, but it doesn't work on these 
ceramic packages.


Jon

[cctalk] Attaching Test Clip to F-11 Chips on PDP 11/24 M7133 CPU

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

I am trying to work out why my PDP 11/24 CPU is not working. To do so I want
to use my logic analyser on the F-11 chips. I have a regular 40-pin test
clip, but it doesn't make a good contact with the pins on the F-11 chips.
The test clips I have are made for regular DIP chips where the legs come out
horizontally from the side of the chip before turning 90 degrees and going
down into the board. On the F-11 chips the pins are pretty much stuck to the
side of the chip body and so the clip can't make a good contact.

 

Does anyone have any tips for attaching a test clip to the F-11 chips?

 

Thanks

 

Rob

Re: tape drives, oscilloscopes, and test equiment in Austin, TX

[jim stephens via cctalk]

If you scroll thru the other auctions, these aren't the only ones with 
interesting material.  There is a lot of other equipment and items.


I scrolled and saw meters and power supplies for instance.  The sad 
thing that this shows is how poor a choice of an agent this operation is 
in attracting bidders for good equipment.  It will probably be bought up 
by metals or scrappers for the bids if they stand.

thanks
Jim

On 7/14/2022 8:17 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:

On 7/14/22 2:37 AM, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote:

Closing this Friday the 15th (sorry for noticing this late).  At the
University of Texas in downtown Austin.

I have no association with the University, etc.

   https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110345


I'd pay the current bid of $11 for the tape drives if I was in person.

But, sadly, I can't find, much less arrange for an agent in state to 
assist me with this in the remaining time.


Nor do I want to pay 10 times the bid in shipping.


https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110400
   https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110404

There are a few other items that may be of interest.


Ya...  I'm not going to look at things I'll just end up wanting and 
not able to get.  Better for my (mental) health.  :-D



Note that these are all fine examples of the type of things I need
*less* of :-)


~chuckle~

Remember, one person's trash is another person's treasure.


(including, of course, a Tek 564 that I have been lugging around for
a few decades.  Does anyone want to give it a good home?  Fair warning:
it's *heavy*.)


~chuckle~

Re: tape drives, oscilloscopes, and test equiment in Austin, TX

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 7/14/22 2:37 AM, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote:

Closing this Friday the 15th (sorry for noticing this late).  At the
University of Texas in downtown Austin.

I have no association with the University, etc.

   https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110345


I'd pay the current bid of $11 for the tape drives if I was in person.

But, sadly, I can't find, much less arrange for an agent in state to 
assist me with this in the remaining time.


Nor do I want to pay 10 times the bid in shipping.


   https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110400
   https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110404

There are a few other items that may be of interest.


Ya...  I'm not going to look at things I'll just end up wanting and not 
able to get.  Better for my (mental) health.  :-D



Note that these are all fine examples of the type of things I need
*less* of :-)


~chuckle~

Remember, one person's trash is another person's treasure.


(including, of course, a Tek 564 that I have been lugging around for
a few decades.  Does anyone want to give it a good home?  Fair warning:
it's *heavy*.)


~chuckle~



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

tape drives, oscilloscopes, and test equiment in Austin, TX

[Mark Linimon via cctalk]

Closing this Friday the 15th (sorry for noticing this late).  At the
University of Texas in downtown Austin.

I have no association with the University, etc.

  https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110345
  https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110400
  https://swicoauctions.com/online/26/item/110404

There are a few other items that may be of interest.

Note that these are all fine examples of the type of things I need
*less* of :-)

(including, of course, a Tek 564 that I have been lugging around for
a few decades.  Does anyone want to give it a good home?  Fair warning:
it's *heavy*.)

mcl

Re: Short PDP-8 Memory Test...

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

Hi Mike,

I consider myself fortunate. I have a PDP-8/E, PDP-8/E with a PDP-8/M Front
Panel and a PDP-8/M. My PDP-8/E has an RK05 HDD, RX02 dual FDD and VC8E XY
with HP1311 XY Display, Extended Math, 32KW core, etc. 

I used to have a huge running PDP-12 with Dual TU56, TC08 w/TU55, Dual disk
RF08, 9-Trk tape, PTR/PTP which I donated to the CHM. It'll probably never see
the light of day :(

Best,
Lyle
--

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 20:31:41 -0500
Mike Katz  wrote:

> Another PDP-8E?  You are very lucky :)
> 
> On 4/6/2022 1:06 PM, Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:
> > I recently acquired another PDP-8/E and wanted to test basic CPU functions
> > and memory before I added peripherals. There are some available short
> > "memory tests" online, but most don't have have the flexibility to test
> > multiple data patterns by design.
> >
> > The test below does a classic checkerboard type test - and permits easy
> > modification of the data pattern used in testing.
> > ---
> > # Easy to enter, short memory test for PDP-8 systems
> > # prior to adding peripheral equipment.
> > # by Lyle Bickley
> > #
> > # Location 21 initially contains a zero. Therefore the
> > # memory test is  and  in alternate locations.
> > # Changing this location to 7070 will test 7070 and
> > # 0707 in alternate locations. Changing it to 5252 will
> > # test 5252 and 2525, etc.
> >
> >  7300 CLA CLL
> > 0001 1022 TAD 22
> > 0002 3023 DCA 23
> > 0003 7300 CLA CLL
> > 0004 1021 TAD 21
> > 0005 7040 CMA
> > 0006 3021 DCA 21
> > 0007 1021 TAD 21
> > 0010 3423 DCA I 23
> > 0011 1021 TAD 21
> > 0012 7041 CMA IAC
> > 0013 1423 TAD I 23
> > 0014 7440 SZA
> > 0015 7402 HLT (ERROR - AC SHOWS FAIL)
> > 0016 2023 ISZ 23
> > 0017 5003 JMP 3 (INC LOCATION AND LOOP)
> > 0020 5000 JMP 0 (START OVER)
> > 0021  (0=ALT  AND )
> > 0022 0025 (LOCATION TO START TEST - MAKE ODD)
> > 0023  (LOCATION BEING TESTED)
> > ---
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Lyle  
> 



-- 
73   NM6Y
Bickley Consulting West
https://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Re: Short PDP-8 Memory Test...

[Mike Katz via cctalk]

Another PDP-8E?  You are very lucky :)

On 4/6/2022 1:06 PM, Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:

I recently acquired another PDP-8/E and wanted to test basic CPU functions and
memory before I added peripherals. There are some available short "memory
tests" online, but most don't have have the flexibility to test multiple data
patterns by design.

The test below does a classic checkerboard type test - and permits easy
modification of the data pattern used in testing.
---
# Easy to enter, short memory test for PDP-8 systems
# prior to adding peripheral equipment.
# by Lyle Bickley
#
# Location 21 initially contains a zero. Therefore the
# memory test is  and  in alternate locations.
# Changing this location to 7070 will test 7070 and
# 0707 in alternate locations. Changing it to 5252 will
# test 5252 and 2525, etc.

 7300 CLA CLL
0001 1022 TAD 22
0002 3023 DCA 23
0003 7300 CLA CLL
0004 1021 TAD 21
0005 7040 CMA
0006 3021 DCA 21
0007 1021 TAD 21
0010 3423 DCA I 23
0011 1021 TAD 21
0012 7041 CMA IAC
0013 1423 TAD I 23
0014 7440 SZA
0015 7402 HLT (ERROR - AC SHOWS FAIL)
0016 2023 ISZ 23
0017 5003 JMP 3 (INC LOCATION AND LOOP)
0020 5000 JMP 0 (START OVER)
0021  (0=ALT  AND )
0022 0025 (LOCATION TO START TEST - MAKE ODD)
0023  (LOCATION BEING TESTED)
---

Cheers,
Lyle

Short PDP-8 Memory Address Test..

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

Continuing the debugging of my recently acquired PDP-8/E, I wrote an address
test that's easy to enter from the front panel:

---
# PDP8 Quick Address Test
# Pass 1: Loads locations 23- with their own address.
# Pass 2: Tests each location for the correct address. If
# it fails (address does not equal it's own address) then
# the diagnostic halts with the error location in 22. 
# The contents of that location displays the error.
# By Lyle Bickley
#
 7600 CLA
0001 1021 TAD 21
0002 3022 DCA 22
0003 1022 TAD 22
0004 3422 DCA I 22
0005 2022 ISZ 22
0006 5003 JMP 3
0007 1021 TAD 21
0010 3022 DCA 22
0011 1022 TAD 22
0012 7041 CMA IAC
0013 1422 TAD I 22
0014 7440 SZA
0015 7402 HLT (ERROR!)
0016 2022 ISZ 22
0017 5011 JMP 11
0020 5000 JMP 0 (START OVER)
0021 0023
0022 
---

Cheers,
Lyle
-- 
73   NM6Y
Bickley Consulting West
https://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Short PDP-8 Memory Test...

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

I recently acquired another PDP-8/E and wanted to test basic CPU functions and
memory before I added peripherals. There are some available short "memory
tests" online, but most don't have have the flexibility to test multiple data
patterns by design.

The test below does a classic checkerboard type test - and permits easy
modification of the data pattern used in testing.
---
# Easy to enter, short memory test for PDP-8 systems
# prior to adding peripheral equipment.
# by Lyle Bickley
#
# Location 21 initially contains a zero. Therefore the
# memory test is  and  in alternate locations.
# Changing this location to 7070 will test 7070 and
# 0707 in alternate locations. Changing it to 5252 will
# test 5252 and 2525, etc.

 7300 CLA CLL
0001 1022 TAD 22
0002 3023 DCA 23
0003 7300 CLA CLL
0004 1021 TAD 21
0005 7040 CMA
0006 3021 DCA 21
0007 1021 TAD 21
0010 3423 DCA I 23
0011 1021 TAD 21
0012 7041 CMA IAC
0013 1423 TAD I 23
0014 7440 SZA
0015 7402 HLT (ERROR - AC SHOWS FAIL)
0016 2023 ISZ 23
0017 5003 JMP 3 (INC LOCATION AND LOOP)
0020 5000 JMP 0 (START OVER)
0021  (0=ALT  AND )
0022 0025 (LOCATION TO START TEST - MAKE ODD)
0023  (LOCATION BEING TESTED)
---

Cheers,
Lyle
-- 
73   NM6Y
Bickley Consulting West
https://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Chris Zach via cctalk]

Well yeah sealed is relative but the more time you have the lid open the harder 
the filter needs to work.

Oddly enough the diablo 44 just pulled outside air thru a filter. Guess what 
did not last long

On March 17, 2022 11:26:14 AM EDT, Joshua Rice via cctalk 
 wrote:
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Bill Gunshannon via cctech" 
>To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
>Sent: Thursday, 17 Mar, 2022 At 14:32
>Subject: Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?
>On 3/17/22 09:33, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
>Modern disks still have a filtration system and airflow within the disk. 
>Air usually gets sucked from the edge then through the spindle and out 
>the center. In this case I think the spinning created a lower pressure 
>area where the heads were, resulting in the heads flying too low.
>I'll re-look at the RL02 but I believe air was not pulled in from 
>outside but recirculated from behind the heads under the unit to the 
>center spindle where it came out, into the center of the pack and across 
>the heads. Closed system when the lid was closed.
>No RL disk I ever had closed tight enough to be considered a Closed
>System with lid down.  :-)
>bill
>
>
>That's worth noting. I have one that's in dire need of restoration, with 
>a sizable chunk missing off the lid by the back hinges. Makes me less 
>worried about fixing it with tape and cereal boxes
>Cheers,
>Josh rice
>
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Joshua Rice via cctalk]

-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Gunshannon via cctech" 
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Sent: Thursday, 17 Mar, 2022 At 14:32
Subject: Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?
On 3/17/22 09:33, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
Modern disks still have a filtration system and airflow within the disk. 
Air usually gets sucked from the edge then through the spindle and out 
the center. In this case I think the spinning created a lower pressure 
area where the heads were, resulting in the heads flying too low.
I'll re-look at the RL02 but I believe air was not pulled in from 
outside but recirculated from behind the heads under the unit to the 
center spindle where it came out, into the center of the pack and across 
the heads. Closed system when the lid was closed.

No RL disk I ever had closed tight enough to be considered a Closed
System with lid down.  :-)
bill


That's worth noting. I have one that's in dire need of restoration, with 
a sizable chunk missing off the lid by the back hinges. Makes me less 
worried about fixing it with tape and cereal boxes

Cheers,
Josh rice

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 3/17/22 09:33, Chris Zach via cctalk wrote:
Modern disks still have a filtration system and airflow within the disk. 
Air usually gets sucked from the edge then through the spindle and out 
the center. In this case I think the spinning created a lower pressure 
area where the heads were, resulting in the heads flying too low.


I'll re-look at the RL02 but I believe air was not pulled in from 
outside but recirculated from behind the heads under the unit to the 
center spindle where it came out, into the center of the pack and across 
the heads. Closed system when the lid was closed.


No RL disk I ever had closed tight enough to be considered a Closed
System with lid down.  :-)

bill

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Chris Zach via cctalk]

Modern disks still have a filtration system and airflow within the disk. 
Air usually gets sucked from the edge then through the spindle and out 
the center. In this case I think the spinning created a lower pressure 
area where the heads were, resulting in the heads flying too low.


I'll re-look at the RL02 but I believe air was not pulled in from 
outside but recirculated from behind the heads under the unit to the 
center spindle where it came out, into the center of the pack and across 
the heads. Closed system when the lid was closed.


C


On 3/17/2022 9:27 AM, Paul Koning wrote:




On Mar 16, 2022, at 10:28 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk  
wrote:


I vividly recall a log by an operator who had a bad CDC 844 pack who
proceeded to destroy 5 drives and 3 additional packs. It was detailed
enough that it read like Gerard Hoffnung's "Bricklayer's Story".


When I was testing one of my RL02 drives I had a head skid on the disk. Problem 
was the air filter was so clogged there wasn't enough air to allow the heads to 
fly.


Huh?  The way I've always understood it is that heads fly from the air 
entrained by the disk surface as it spins, not from air blown through the drive 
via the air filters.  And clearly that is true for modern drives, since they 
are sealed.

paul

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 16, 2022, at 10:28 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> I vividly recall a log by an operator who had a bad CDC 844 pack who
>> proceeded to destroy 5 drives and 3 additional packs. It was detailed
>> enough that it read like Gerard Hoffnung's "Bricklayer's Story".
> 
> When I was testing one of my RL02 drives I had a head skid on the disk. 
> Problem was the air filter was so clogged there wasn't enough air to allow 
> the heads to fly.

Huh?  The way I've always understood it is that heads fly from the air 
entrained by the disk surface as it spins, not from air blown through the drive 
via the air filters.  And clearly that is true for modern drives, since they 
are sealed.

paul

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[John Foust via cctalk]

At 08:25 PM 3/16/2022, John Herron via cctalk wrote:
>I was visiting a new thrift store and saw a disk pack they had. I joked
>that mine are just fun display/conversation pieces.

Wait  you bought it, right?  Was it $2?

- John

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Chris Zach via cctalk]

I vividly recall a log by an operator who had a bad CDC 844 pack who
proceeded to destroy 5 drives and 3 additional packs. It was detailed
enough that it read like Gerard Hoffnung's "Bricklayer's Story".


When I was testing one of my RL02 drives I had a head skid on the disk. 
Problem was the air filter was so clogged there wasn't enough air to 
allow the heads to fly.


Replaced filter which allowed me to read the damaged pack with the worn 
down heads, then replaced the heads with a spare set. The heads 
themselves were worn to the point where they were angled


Disclaimer: This drive and pack came from a Solarex plant where they 
controlled the silicon wafer cutters. In other words silicon dust 
everywhere.


Oi.

Re: Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 3/16/22 18:25, John Herron via cctalk wrote:
> I was visiting a new thrift store and saw a disk pack they had. I joked
> that mine are just fun display/conversation pieces.
> 
> Do the giant drives suffer the same head crash issues that a bad zip disk
> can do or are these safe if someone actually wanted to see what was on them?

I vividly recall a log by an operator who had a bad CDC 844 pack who
proceeded to destroy 5 drives and 3 additional packs. It was detailed
enough that it read like Gerard Hoffnung's "Bricklayer's Story".

https://monologues.co.uk/Sketches/Bricklayers_Story.htm

Be careful.

Does anyone/museum test disk packs?

[John Herron via cctalk]

I was visiting a new thrift store and saw a disk pack they had. I joked
that mine are just fun display/conversation pieces.

Do the giant drives suffer the same head crash issues that a bad zip disk
can do or are these safe if someone actually wanted to see what was on them?

HP / Agilent 3065 In-Circuit Test System -

[Jesse Dougherty via cctalk]

Does anyone on this list know of a company or individual that does work 
(maintenance or anything) on these older 3065 test systems. The internal 
brain and drives are all HP 1000 stuff. A900 control unit and HP-IB 
drives. I have a user that needs help installing a drive and software on 
one. If anyone knows of anyone that can assist, let me know and I'll 
forward the info


Thanks

Jesse / Cypress Technology Inc

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Guy Sotomayor via cctalk]

On 3/15/21 7:23 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

 > From: Guy Sotomayor

 > the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and its inability
 > to switch back from protected mode)

Good to have that confirmed (for the 286; apparently it works in the 386).
The 386 loadall instruction was different (not really a surprise since 
the internal microarchitecture was different).  The 386 didn't need to 
do this "hack" because it had vm86 mode for tasks so that accomplished 
what everyone was really using LOADALL on the 286 for.


 > the other way to get back to real mode from protected mode is via a
 > triple-fault.

Any insight into why IBM didn't use that, but went with the (allegedly slow)
keyboard hack?
At this point I don't recall.  But I suspect it was allegedly simpler 
conceptually.


--
TTFN - Guy

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Guy Sotomayor

> the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and its inability
> to switch back from protected mode)

Good to have that confirmed (for the 286; apparently it works in the 386).

> the other way to get back to real mode from protected mode is via a
> triple-fault.

Any insight into why IBM didn't use that, but went with the (allegedly slow)
keyboard hack?

Noel

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 19:37, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> At the time I was fairly familiar with the LOADALL instruction.  I had
> modified PC/AT Xenix to use the LOADALL instruction to allow for running
> Xenix programs and multiple DOS programs simultaneously.

Incidentally, I believe that OS/2 1 was not the only 286 OS affected by this.

The development versions of DR's Concurrent DOS 286 could multitask
DOS apps in protect mode on pre-release 286s, but Intel "fixed" the
feature that permitted this in the first shipping version of the
80286, to DR's dismay and horror.

https://books.google.cz/books?id=2y4EMBAJ=PA17#v=onepage=false

AIUI the feature was later restored, but customer uncertainty,
together with suddenly-questionable compatibility with all the 286s
out there, killed CDOS 286.

I suspect this is instrumental in why DR took FlexOS and X/GEM down
the RTOS route instead... in which form it survived and a distant
descendant, formerly IBM 4690 OS, is still sold by Toshiba.

-- 
Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

> > I should also note, that the other way to get back to real mode from
> > protected mode is via a triple-fault.  What gets me (and I railed on
> > Intel when I worked there for a time) that it still existing in the
> > architecture even though they have a machine check architecture now
> > (which while at IBM pushed Intel to implement for the '386!).
> 
> (!)

 Well, software exists that relies on the triple-fault feature for reboots 
including current versions of Linux (you can trigger a triple-fault in the 
real mode too).  These days it is implemented by the southbridge catching 
the shutdown special cycle on PCI and asserting the reset pin to the CPU 
(the details might be slightly different for PCIe or HyperTransport).

 Back in the day I experimented with that stuff myself and all the weird 
ways to switch between modes with the x86, setting the IDTR in the real 
mode for interesting effects which would impress fellow students, etc.  I 
ended up writing this:  
as a result.  I wrote a simple resident VM86 monitor for DOS too, just to 
fiddle with processor features.

 Also resetting the CPU with the shutdown code of 0xa put at the location 
0xf of the RTC/NVRAM chip was the only way to get the family, model, and 
stepping ID in the EDX register for old processors that did not have the 
CPUID instruction (i.e. all 80386 and many 80486 implementations), unless 
the system BIOS clobbered it for no good reason in the short bypass code 
involved (sadly sometimes that did happen).  I just double-checked my old 
DOS assembly code to see if I got the details right!

 NB I didn't know LOADALL would not work for switching from the protected 
to the real mode and did not find out about the instruction until after I 
already lost access to any 80286 hardware, so I never experimented with it 
myself.

  Maciej

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 3/14/21 11:36 AM, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote:
> 

> I can say with a fair amount of certainty, that we at IBM knew of the
> existence of the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and
> its inability to switch back from protected mode) from the earliest days.
> 

ca. 1980, we were in search of a decent 16-bit processor for upward
migration.  Code base compatibility wasn't much of a concern--we were
resigned to the prospect that everything had to be recoded, so code
migration wasn't a concern.   We played a bit with the 8086, but
couldn't see a path forward in the immediate future.

So we in engineering decided that the best CPU was the Moto 68K and we
wrapped up a test board and started cutting some code for it.

Bill Davidow was on our BOD and when he got wind of our efforts, he
nearly went through the roof.  When we defended our decision by saying
that the 8086 was limited in possibilities, with the rumored iAPX432
nowhere near reality, so the 68K was the logical next step.  Zilog had
their Z800, but after looking at the cost of the MMU and the fact that
it, too was a segmented memory CPU and slower than the 68K, we never got
any farther than talking about it.  We did have an Onyx box for software
development in the lab, however.

Bill put us on the OEM pre-release steppings for both the 186 and the
286.  We got the 186 going long before the 286 (Intel, IIRC, had taken
on the job of writing the Xenix kernel for Microsoft).  Davidow's
stubbornness cost us months of product delay in getting a multi-user
system out the door.

We certainly were not advised about the LOADALL instruction at that
time.  Nor, I suspect would it have made much of a difference.  In our
system, the 186 did the I/O heavy lifting for the 286.

My impression was that the design for the 286 never envisioned the need
to switch back and forth between real and protected mode.  We never did.

--Chuck

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

In contrast, Apple chose to abandon compatability with all previously 
existing software


On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

When they stopped selling Apple II's when Lisa was released.


Yes, exactly.
I was referring to the switch to 68000 (Lisa and then Mac), rather than 
trying to kludge more address onto a 6502.
I assume that their 68000 wasn't fast enough to get acceptable 
performance with a 6502 emulator.


To their credit, they did continue to keep some models of 6502 Apple2's 
available even while selling some 68000 machines.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/14/21 1:42 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


In contrast, Apple chose to abandon compatability with all previously existing 
software


When they stopped selling Apple II's when Lisa was released.

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote:
There were many heated discussions in various task forces (this was of course 
IBM) about the next generation OS (to become OS/2) about the '286.?? First 
and foremost was how to be able to run DOS programs on the '286. Over very 
vocal opposition, management decided to use "mode switching" rather than any 
of the other techniques.?? It should be noted, that a significant portion of 
us advocated abandoning the '286 in favor of the '386 to solve this 
problem.?? The argument that management made against that approach assumed 
that OS/2 would be ready in 9 months and that the '386 would be late ('386 at 
the time was about 12-18 months away).?? It turned out that OS/2 took well 
over 18 months to develop.


The 80286 was an important step.  Getting 24 bits of address, instead of 
20 was significant.  It is too bad that they weren't able to set it aside 
until they got the next couple of steps (ala 80386) to be able to make 
better use of those address bits.


HIMEM.SYS (enabling A20 and using it to "overflow" past 1MB by 65K-16) 
became a ubiquitus kludge.


Gordon Letwin (the Microsoft author of OS/2) said that mode switching on 
80286 was "like turning off the car to change gears."

Even Bill Gates said that the 80286 was "BRAIN DEAD".

Segment:Offset had been developed as a kludge to be able to expand from 16 
bit address (64K), while maintaining almost full compatability.


Yes, a flat memory model IS the way to go.  But, they couldn't see a way 
to abandon Segment:Offset without abandoning compatability with all 
previously existing software.  Programs, such as Wordstar were ported from 
CP/M to PC in significantly less time than it took to re-edit their 
documentation!



In contrast, Apple chose to abandon compatability with all previously 
existing software, and did have a period of time with nothing but 
Mac-Write, Mac-Paint, Wac-Write, and Mac-Paint.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 19:37, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk
 wrote:

> There were many heated discussions in various task forces (this was of
> course IBM) about the next generation OS (to become OS/2) about the
> '286.  First and foremost was how to be able to run DOS programs on the
> '286. Over very vocal opposition, management decided to use "mode
> switching" rather than any of the other techniques.  It should be noted,
> that a significant portion of us advocated abandoning the '286 in favor
> of the '386 to solve this problem.  The argument that management made
> against that approach assumed that OS/2 would be ready in 9 months and
> that the '386 would be late ('386 at the time was about 12-18 months
> away).  It turned out that OS/2 took well over 18 months to develop.

I will say this, Guy, your posts never cease to amaze me and provide
valuable insight!

I was on the sidelines at the time -- at university, reading about
this stuff in the UK computer mags. From outside too it was very
obvious that OS/2 should target the 386. When I started work, I was in
tech support in an IBM value-added reseller -- that's where I learned
about IBMCACHE.SYS, which we talked of a few years back -- and I can
confirm that most PS/2 owners were not at all interested in OS/2. A
handful ran 3Com 3+Share or Netware 2 on PS/2 boxes as the server, but
most 286 PS/2s were workstations. Only the 386 Model 80 sold almost
exclusively as servers. I still have one myself.

> At the time I was fairly familiar with the LOADALL instruction.  I had
> modified PC/AT Xenix to use the LOADALL instruction to allow for running
> Xenix programs and multiple DOS programs simultaneously.  I gave
> multiple demos to various folks in management but to no avail.  They had
> decided that mode switching as *the* way that OS/2 was going to work.

:'(

> I should also note, that the other way to get back to real mode from
> protected mode is via a triple-fault.  What gets me (and I railed on
> Intel when I worked there for a time) that it still existing in the
> architecture even though they have a machine check architecture now
> (which while at IBM pushed Intel to implement for the '386!).

(!)



-- 
Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Guy Sotomayor via cctalk]

On 3/14/21 11:09 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk wrote:

On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.

[...]

The existence of LOADALL (used for in-circuit emulation, a predecessor
technique to modern JTAG debugging and the instruction the modern x86 RSM
instruction grew from) in the 80286 wasn't public information for a very
long time, and you won't find it in public Intel 80286 CPU documentation
even today. Even if IBM engineers knew of its existence at the time the
PC/AT was being designed, surely they have decided not to rely in their
design on something not guaranteed by the CPU manufacturer to exist.


I can say with a fair amount of certainty, that we at IBM knew of the 
existence of the LOADALL instructions including all of it's warts (and 
its inability to switch back from protected mode) from the earliest days.


There were many heated discussions in various task forces (this was of 
course IBM) about the next generation OS (to become OS/2) about the 
'286.  First and foremost was how to be able to run DOS programs on the 
'286. Over very vocal opposition, management decided to use "mode 
switching" rather than any of the other techniques.  It should be noted, 
that a significant portion of us advocated abandoning the '286 in favor 
of the '386 to solve this problem.  The argument that management made 
against that approach assumed that OS/2 would be ready in 9 months and 
that the '386 would be late ('386 at the time was about 12-18 months 
away).  It turned out that OS/2 took well over 18 months to develop.


At the time I was fairly familiar with the LOADALL instruction.  I had 
modified PC/AT Xenix to use the LOADALL instruction to allow for running 
Xenix programs and multiple DOS programs simultaneously.  I gave 
multiple demos to various folks in management but to no avail.  They had 
decided that mode switching as *the* way that OS/2 was going to work.


I should also note, that the other way to get back to real mode from 
protected mode is via a triple-fault.  What gets me (and I railed on 
Intel when I worked there for a time) that it still existing in the 
architecture even though they have a machine check architecture now 
(which while at IBM pushed Intel to implement for the '386!).



The Wikipedia page on LOADALL claims "The 80286 LOADALL instruction can not
be used to switch from protected back to real mode (it can't clear the PE
bit in the MSW). However, use of the LOADALL instruction can avoid the need
to switch to protected mode altogether."

I find that paragraph very persuasive. The author knows about LOADALL and
the desire to use it to avoid going into protected mode, and also explains
that there's a specific exception in its behaviour which prevents returning
to real mode. All of the other hacky uses of LOADALL would be unnecessary if
it could be used to switch modes at will. It just doesn't seem like
something that would be written if it was wrong.

Is Wikipedia incorrect and the 286 LOADALL *can* exit protected mode, and if
so, how?


--
TTFN - Guy

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Peter Corlett via cctalk]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
>>> The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
[...]
> The existence of LOADALL (used for in-circuit emulation, a predecessor
> technique to modern JTAG debugging and the instruction the modern x86 RSM
> instruction grew from) in the 80286 wasn't public information for a very
> long time, and you won't find it in public Intel 80286 CPU documentation
> even today. Even if IBM engineers knew of its existence at the time the
> PC/AT was being designed, surely they have decided not to rely in their
> design on something not guaranteed by the CPU manufacturer to exist.

The Wikipedia page on LOADALL claims "The 80286 LOADALL instruction can not
be used to switch from protected back to real mode (it can't clear the PE
bit in the MSW). However, use of the LOADALL instruction can avoid the need
to switch to protected mode altogether."

I find that paragraph very persuasive. The author knows about LOADALL and
the desire to use it to avoid going into protected mode, and also explains
that there's a specific exception in its behaviour which prevents returning
to real mode. All of the other hacky uses of LOADALL would be unnecessary if
it could be used to switch modes at will. It just doesn't seem like
something that would be written if it was wrong.

Is Wikipedia incorrect and the 286 LOADALL *can* exit protected mode, and if
so, how?

RE: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

I should update people on this as I have made progress today. I found two
broken tracks from the 8742 peripheral controller to the ASICs. One of the
ASICs sends a RESET to the 286. When I repaired that track suddenly the
protected mode test started to pass. Now I have other errors which are
almost certainly other bad tracks, although these errors are more
intermittent so it could be a track that is partially damaged.

Regards

Rob

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Jarratt 
> Sent: 06 March 2021 23:30
> To: 'Richard Pope' ; r...@jarratt.me.uk; 'General
> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' 
> Subject: RE: 80286 Protected Mode Test
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Pope 
> > Sent: 06 March 2021 23:20
> > To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ;
> > General
> > Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
> > Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
> >
> > Rob,
> >  There is probably hidden damage to the motherboard. The acid will
> follow
> > the traces inside the board and consume them. There is no way to stop
> > this kind of damage. Sorry for the bad news.
> 
> I should have said that I have found a few bad tracks and I have fixed
them
> by adding wires. Previously it would not even POST, but it does now. The
> CPU is physically distant from the battery damage. I am trying to
understand
> if this particular test could fail due to external factors or not so that
I can then
> investigate if there are other tracks I need to fix.
> 
> Incidentally, my repair wires are done very badly, are there any tips on
how
> to do this well? I have ordered some wire wrap wire because I believe that
is
> what I should be using, but I haven't got the wire yet.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Rob
> 
> > GOD Bless and Thanks,
> > rich!
> >
> > On 3/6/2021 4:59 PM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
> > > I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a
> > > "simple test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service
> > > manual I have that for this test the CPU is set in the protected
> > > mode, the machine status word is checked to see whether it indicates
> > > the protected mode and then exits protected mode. This test seems to
> > > be failing. Is there any possible explanation for this other than a
> > > failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any external reason? This board
> > > suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
> > > 80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send
> > > some text to the screen, so it basically works.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > >

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

> > The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.
> 
> Really? So why all the hullabaloo about Triple Faults:
> 
>   http://www.rcollins.org/Productivity/TripleFault.html
> 
> back in the day; and why did IBM set up the keyboard controller so it could
> send a RESET signal (so people could get out of protected mode)? Or is it
> that LOADALL (which was also undocumented early on, so maybe that's why the
> IBM thing) could be used to cause a triple fault?

 The existence of LOADALL (used for in-circuit emulation, a predecessor 
technique to modern JTAG debugging and the instruction the modern x86 RSM 
instruction grew from) in the 80286 wasn't public information for a very 
long time, and you won't find it in public Intel 80286 CPU documentation 
even today.  Even if IBM engineers knew of its existence at the time the 
PC/AT was being designed, surely they have decided not to rely in their 
design on something not guaranteed by the CPU manufacturer to exist.

 As to why they choose to add the keyboard controller hack I think the 
article referred gives a hypothesis that is as good as you can get: they 
were not clever enough.  Back in the day this wasn't the only fault they 
made and it was a harmless one anyway, because you didn't have to use the 
hack in your software if you knew the proper way.

 Much worse was the mess around the incorrect wiring of the FPU exception 
line (to IRQ #13 via additional glue logic rather than its dedicated CPU 
input), which could have been easily avoided while retaining PC/XT 
compatibility in a manner similar to how it was implemented in the BIOS 
for IRQ #13.  Consequently functionality of the exception was lost (the 
exception was supposed to be precise unlike obviously the external IRQ) 
and also if you were not careful enough in handling it, the machine would 
lock up hard and you'd have to hit the reset button.

 The mess with the FPU exception was actually one of the two reasons to 
drop 32-bit x86 Linux support for the original 80386 CPU several years ago 
(the other one was the lack of write protection in the kernel mode for 
user pages).  Support now starts from the 80486:

$ uname -mrsv
Linux 5.11.0+ #13 Mon Mar 8 00:14:59 CET 2021 i486
$ 

  Maciej

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Jim Stephens

> The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction.

Really? So why all the hullabaloo about Triple Faults:

  http://www.rcollins.org/Productivity/TripleFault.html

back in the day; and why did IBM set up the keyboard controller so it could
send a RESET signal (so people could get out of protected mode)? Or is it
that LOADALL (which was also undocumented early on, so maybe that's why the
IBM thing) could be used to cause a triple fault?

Noel

RE: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk  On Behalf Of Fred Cisin via
> cctalk
> Sent: 06 March 2021 23:17
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> 
> Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
> 
> A stupid idea:
> Could the test require, and be failing, access to memory above 1M?
> 

I think that is unlikely because the board comes with 1M onboard and I
believe the system is designed to work with just that memory. I can try it
though if I can find compatible 30-pin simms (I do have some somewhere).
Curious why you think it might require access to memory above 1M though? I
am currently working to the hypothesis that it needs the non-volatile memory
to work to remember that the reset was part of the POST. The NVR is provided
by the RTC element of the 82C206 chip. I may have to get the logic analyser
out to see if that is happening or not, but at the moment I still have an
intermittent problem getting the board to start at all, I think due to my
poor work on the repair wires for the damaged tracks.

Regards

Rob

> 
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
> 
> > I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a
> > "simple test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual
> > I have that for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the
> > machine status word is checked to see whether it indicates the
> > protected mode and then exits protected mode. This test seems to be
> > failing. Is there any possible explanation for this other than a
> > failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any external reason? This board
> > suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
> > 80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send some
> > text to the screen, so it basically works.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Rob

RE: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk  On Behalf Of Chuck Guzis via
> cctalk
> Sent: 07 March 2021 00:08
> To: Sean Conner via cctalk 
> Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
> 
> On 3/6/21 3:10 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote:
> 
> >   There might be damage to the keyboard controller that could cause
> > the issue.  Once the 80286 is in protected mode, there is no way to
> > get out of protected mode except via the RESET signal.  If I remember
> > correctly, you could program the keyboard controller to send a RESET
> > signal to get out of protected mode.  Also, the keyboard controller
> > also managed the state of address line A20, which is another important
> factor on PCs.
> 
> I'll add that, at least in the PC AT world, the switch to real mode is
> accomplished by writing a value into a reserved cell in CMOS (configuration
> memory--I wish they'd lose that 4-letter appellation--what, in a modern PC
> *isn't* CMOS?).  Upon executing the
> reset code, the BIOS checks for the "reason for shutdown".   If it was a
> switch to real mode, then all of the various hardware tests are bypassed, the
> register file is restored and execution continues.
> 
> What this means that if your CMOS (ugh!) memory isn't functioning, the
> switch to real mode won't work.

I wondered if that might be how it works after reading that you can only switch 
to real mode with a reset. I will follow this line of inquiry. Thanks for the 
suggestion!

> 
> --Chuck

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 3/6/2021 3:10 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote:

  Once the 80286 is in protected mode, there is no way to get out of
protected mode except via the RESET signal.
The 286 can exit protected mode with the LOADALL instruction. 
Microsoft's extended memory driver pissed off the world (Intel) when 
someone noticed it was addressing +1mb memory with no hint of the 
reset.  The rest of the world used a driver and memory buffer algorithm 
which optimized accessing > 1mb because of the horrible latency involved 
in what you are describing.


Another client and some friends I had were caught with their s**t 
stinking because they'd used it in their bios (Micro5 systems).


I suspect there's some sort of failure involved like that, but not sure 
how it could live to print the message in the case of going into 
protected mode but not getting back out.


As far as a defective 80286 I can't imagine it passing a lot of the bios 
test code at all if it was internally damaged.


Any POST card (port 80) handy?  Maybe some hints there?
thanks
Jim

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 3/6/21 3:10 PM, Sean Conner via cctalk wrote:

>   There might be damage to the keyboard controller that could cause the
> issue.  Once the 80286 is in protected mode, there is no way to get out of
> protected mode except via the RESET signal.  If I remember correctly, you
> could program the keyboard controller to send a RESET signal to get out of
> protected mode.  Also, the keyboard controller also managed the state of
> address line A20, which is another important factor on PCs.

I'll add that, at least in the PC AT world, the switch to real mode is
accomplished by writing a value into a reserved cell in CMOS
(configuration memory--I wish they'd lose that 4-letter
appellation--what, in a modern PC *isn't* CMOS?).  Upon executing the
reset code, the BIOS checks for the "reason for shutdown".   If it was a
switch to real mode, then all of the various hardware tests are
bypassed, the register file is restored and execution continues.

What this means that if your CMOS (ugh!) memory isn't functioning, the
switch to real mode won't work.

--Chuck

RE: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Pope 
> Sent: 06 March 2021 23:20
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ; General
> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
> Subject: Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test
> 
> Rob,
>  There is probably hidden damage to the motherboard. The acid will
follow
> the traces inside the board and consume them. There is no way to stop this
> kind of damage. Sorry for the bad news.

I should have said that I have found a few bad tracks and I have fixed them
by adding wires. Previously it would not even POST, but it does now. The CPU
is physically distant from the battery damage. I am trying to understand if
this particular test could fail due to external factors or not so that I can
then investigate if there are other tracks I need to fix.

Incidentally, my repair wires are done very badly, are there any tips on how
to do this well? I have ordered some wire wrap wire because I believe that
is what I should be using, but I haven't got the wire yet.

Thanks

Rob

> GOD Bless and Thanks,
> rich!
> 
> On 3/6/2021 4:59 PM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:
> > I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a
> > "simple test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual
> > I have that for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the
> > machine status word is checked to see whether it indicates the
> > protected mode and then exits protected mode. This test seems to be
> > failing. Is there any possible explanation for this other than a
> > failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any external reason? This board
> > suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
> > 80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send some
> > text to the screen, so it basically works.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Richard Pope via cctalk]

Rob,
There is probably hidden damage to the motherboard. The acid will 
follow the traces inside the board and consume them. There is no way to 
stop this kind of damage. Sorry for the bad news.

GOD Bless and Thanks,
rich!

On 3/6/2021 4:59 PM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:

I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the machine status word
is checked to see whether it indicates the protected mode and then exits
protected mode. This test seems to be failing. Is there any possible
explanation for this other than a failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any
external reason? This board suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send some text
to the screen, so it basically works.

  


Thanks

  


Rob

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

A stupid idea:
Could the test require, and be failing, access to memory above 1M?


On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:


I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the machine status word
is checked to see whether it indicates the protected mode and then exits
protected mode. This test seems to be failing. Is there any possible
explanation for this other than a failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any
external reason? This board suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send some text
to the screen, so it basically works.



Thanks



Rob

Re: 80286 Protected Mode Test

[Sean Conner via cctalk]

It was thus said that the Great Rob Jarratt via cctalk once stated:
> I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
> test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
> for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the machine status word
> is checked to see whether it indicates the protected mode and then exits
> protected mode. This test seems to be failing. Is there any possible
> explanation for this other than a failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any
> external reason? This board suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
> 80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send some text
> to the screen, so it basically works.

  There might be damage to the keyboard controller that could cause the
issue.  Once the 80286 is in protected mode, there is no way to get out of
protected mode except via the RESET signal.  If I remember correctly, you
could program the keyboard controller to send a RESET signal to get out of
protected mode.  Also, the keyboard controller also managed the state of
address line A20, which is another important factor on PCs.

  -spc

80286 Protected Mode Test

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

I have a DECstation 220 (Olivetti M250E) which is failing POST on a "simple
test of the 80286 protected mode". It says in a service manual I have that
for this test the CPU is set in the protected mode, the machine status word
is checked to see whether it indicates the protected mode and then exits
protected mode. This test seems to be failing. Is there any possible
explanation for this other than a failed 80286 CPU? Could there be any
external reason? This board suffered some battery leak damage. Clearly the
80286 is working well enough to execute this diagnostic and send some text
to the screen, so it basically works.

 

Thanks

 

Rob

test please ignore

[jwest--- via cctalk]

Test, please ignore.

Looking for Tektronix 4041 EZ-TEST DC-100 Tapes or software files, or other 4041 tapes

[Monty McGraw via cctalk]

I have been recovering a set of Tektronix 4041 tapes that I received from
Stan Griffiths in 2000 in a box with Tektronix 4051 tapes.  The 4041
tapes included EZ-TEST Volume 1 and Volume 2, but the first file on EZ-TEST
Volume 1 tape was damaged due to the original drive belt removing the oxide
from the beginning of the tape when I replaced the belt :(

I have been posting all the tapes I have recovered to my github repository
for Tektronix 4041 located at:
https://github.com/mmcgraw74/Tektronix-4041-GPIB-Controller

Does anyone have the EZ-TEST Volume 1 DC-100 tape?

Thanks,
Monty

Re: RK11-D "diskless" test ZRKJE0???

[Jerry Weiss via cctalk]

On 7/9/20 7:02 PM, Robert Armstrong via cctech wrote:
  I have an 11/04 with an RK11-D.  I have a couple of RK05s, but I 
wanted to test the controller before I start working on the drives.  
The PDP11 Diagnostic Handbook says that ZRKJ?? "checks only the 
drive-independent logic of the RK11 controller. no drive is 
needed..."  I assumed that meant it was a diskless test, but now I'm 
not sure that's true.  Can anyone confirm or deny this? Does anyone 
have a listing of ZRKJE0?


See 
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/microfiche/ftp.j-hoppe.de/bw/gh/EP-DZRKJ-E-DL-A__RK11-05F-J__RK11_BASE_LOGIC_TEST_1__MD-11-DZRKJ-E__(C)75-77.pdf




  I'm starting to wonder if this diagnostic really works w/o a drive 
attached, or if these errors are expected.



Yes.. it only requires the controller.  See the notes in the listing.


   Jerry

Re: RK11-D "diskless" test ZRKJE0???

[Nigel Johnson via cctalk]

The error signal was wire-or'ed through up to four drives, so it must be
terminated somewhere - IIRC there was a Unibus terminator in the last
drive, but it has been 45 years since I worked on them, the little grey
cells are fading _\:-)

cheers, Nigel

Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype:  TILBURY2591 nw.john...@ieee.org



On 09/07/2020 20:02, Robert Armstrong via cctech wrote:
>   I have an 11/04 with an RK11-D.  I have a couple of RK05s, but I
> wanted to test the controller before I start working on the drives. 
> The PDP11 Diagnostic Handbook says that ZRKJ?? "checks only the
> drive-independent logic of the RK11 controller. no drive is
> needed..."  I assumed that meant it was a diskless test, but now I'm
> not sure that's true.  Can anyone confirm or deny this? Does anyone
> have a listing of ZRKJE0?
>
>   My RK11-D has the BC11 drive cable plugged into the backplane, but
> the free end of the cable is just lying on the floor.  No drive is
> connected.  The test fails with
>
>     RK11 LOGIC TEST I
>     MAINDEC-11-DZRKJ-E
>
>     REGISTER NOT CLEARED
>       PC   REGADD    RECVD
>     002560  177402  10
>
>  177402 is the RKER register and bit 15 is DRE - "Drive Error".
> According to the manual this bit is set when the AC power to the drive
> is lost, which given that I don't have a drive at all, doesn't sound
> unreasonable.  Continuing ZRKJ?? also gives
>
>     REGISTER NOT CLEARED
>       PC   REGADD    RECVD
>     002560  177404  140200
>
>     RKCS ERROR
>       PC    WROTE   READ
>     002636  02  140202
>
> 177404 is the RKCS register and the first two bits are ERROR and HARD
> ERROR.  These are both set by the DRE bit in RKER and aren't really a
> surprise.
>
>   I'm starting to wonder if this diagnostic really works w/o a drive
> attached, or if these errors are expected.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>

RK11-D "diskless" test ZRKJE0???

[Robert Armstrong via cctalk]

  I have an 11/04 with an RK11-D.  I have a couple of RK05s, but I 
wanted to test the controller before I start working on the drives.  The 
PDP11 Diagnostic Handbook says that ZRKJ?? "checks only the 
drive-independent logic of the RK11 controller. no drive is needed..."  
I assumed that meant it was a diskless test, but now I'm not sure that's 
true.  Can anyone confirm or deny this? Does anyone have a listing of 
ZRKJE0?


  My RK11-D has the BC11 drive cable plugged into the backplane, but 
the free end of the cable is just lying on the floor.  No drive is 
connected.  The test fails with


    RK11 LOGIC TEST I
    MAINDEC-11-DZRKJ-E

    REGISTER NOT CLEARED
      PC   REGADD    RECVD
    002560  177402  10

 177402 is the RKER register and bit 15 is DRE - "Drive Error". 
According to the manual this bit is set when the AC power to the drive 
is lost, which given that I don't have a drive at all, doesn't sound 
unreasonable.  Continuing ZRKJ?? also gives


    REGISTER NOT CLEARED
      PC   REGADD    RECVD
    002560  177404  140200

    RKCS ERROR
      PC    WROTE   READ
    002636  02  140202

177404 is the RKCS register and the first two bits are ERROR and HARD 
ERROR.  These are both set by the DRE bit in RKER and aren't really a 
surprise.


  I'm starting to wonder if this diagnostic really works w/o a drive 
attached, or if these errors are expected.


Thanks,

Bob

Re: RK11-D "diskless" test ZRKJE0???

[Fritz Mueller via cctalk]

> On Jul 9, 2020, at 5:02 PM, Robert Armstrong via cctech 
>  wrote:
> I have an 11/04 with an RK11-D.  I have a couple of RK05s, but I wanted to 
> test the controller before I start working on the drives.  The PDP11 
> Diagnostic Handbook says that ZRKJ?? "checks only the drive-independent logic 
> of the RK11 controller. no drive is needed..."  I assumed that meant it was a 
> diskless test, but now I'm not sure that's true.  Can anyone confirm or deny 
> this?

Hi Robert,

My experience with an RK11-C on a PDP-11/45 is that the drive-independent 
diagnostic does in fact work with no drives attached. For the RK11-C at least, 
it does clever things with maintenance-mode to simulate signaling that would 
source from the drive where necessary.

I know there are some differences between the RK11-C and the RK11-D -- if some 
of these are related to maintenance mode, it could also be that you need to 
verify that the version of the diagnostic you are running is RK11-D (and not 
just RK11-C) aware?

Another possibility is that you should pull the BC11 and add another terminator 
rather than leaving it dangling?

--FritzM.

DECstation 220 Diagnostic "Test for Shutdown return"

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

According to a manual a friend has, the DECstation 220 outputs a diagnostic
code on the parallel port. If I have interpreted it correctly the code being
output by my machine is "Test for shutdown return". Does anyone know what
that might mean?

 

Regards

 

Rob

OSI floppy test program

[David Gesswein via cctalk]

I and others were having some problems with our floppy drives. Since I couldn't 
find a diagnostic program for the Ohio Scientific I wrote one.

http://www.pdp8online.com/osi/osi-floppy-test.shtml

With some floppy testing info here
http://www.pdp8online.com/osi/floppy-repair.shtml

If you try it let me know how it goes.

Re: test

[Alexandre Souza via cctalk]

Test failed. Please call Jim West on Support Desk

---8<---Corte aqui---8<---
http://www.tabajara-labs.blogspot.com
http://www.tabalabs.com.br
---8<---Corte aqui---8<---


Em seg., 10 de fev. de 2020 às 20:08, jwest--- via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> escreveu:

> test
>
>

test

[jwest--- via cctalk]

test

another test

[jwest--- via cctalk]

Re: Vintage HP test gear and other stuff at Anchor Electronics...

[Robert Rosenbloom via cctalk]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 29, 2020, at 2:23 PM, Lyle Bickley via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I sent the same message to the Bay Area Classic list and CCTALK. Folks from
> the Bay Area got photos. Don't know what happened to CCTALK...

I don’t think CCTALK allows attachments.

Bob

> 
> Lyle
> --
>> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 13:51:06 -0500
>> Dan Veeneman  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lyle,
>> 
>> At least on the message I received from the list there were no attached
>> photographs.
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1/28/2020 7:02 PM, Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:
>>> I was browsing around in the back of Anchor Electronics a couple of days
>>> ago and came across some clean (but dusty) vintage HP test gear - and
>>> several very cool large variable resistors. I've attached some pictures of
>>> both.
>>> 
>>> BTW: Those of us in Silicon Valley are fans of Anchor - because they carry
>>> lots of IC's, parts, connectors, etc. Their catalog can be downloaded here:
>>> https://anchor-electronics.com/
>>> 
>>> If you're interested in the HP test gear or large variable resistors
>>> contact Alicia - for parts, contact any staff member.
>>> 
>>> Note: I receive NO financial benefit from this email and my only
>>> relationship with Anchor is as a long time customer. Phone: (408)727-3693
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Lyle  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 73   NM6Y
> Bickley Consulting West Inc.
> https://bickleywest.com
> 
> "Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Re: Vintage HP test gear and other stuff at Anchor Electronics...

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

Hi Dan,

I sent the same message to the Bay Area Classic list and CCTALK. Folks from
the Bay Area got photos. Don't know what happened to CCTALK...

Lyle
--
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 13:51:06 -0500
Dan Veeneman  wrote:

> Hi Lyle,
> 
> At least on the message I received from the list there were no attached
> photographs.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> On 1/28/2020 7:02 PM, Lyle Bickley via cctalk wrote:
> > I was browsing around in the back of Anchor Electronics a couple of days
> > ago and came across some clean (but dusty) vintage HP test gear - and
> > several very cool large variable resistors. I've attached some pictures of
> > both.
> >
> > BTW: Those of us in Silicon Valley are fans of Anchor - because they carry
> > lots of IC's, parts, connectors, etc. Their catalog can be downloaded here:
> > https://anchor-electronics.com/
> >
> > If you're interested in the HP test gear or large variable resistors
> > contact Alicia - for parts, contact any staff member.
> >
> > Note: I receive NO financial benefit from this email and my only
> > relationship with Anchor is as a long time customer. Phone: (408)727-3693
> >
> > Best,
> > Lyle  



-- 
73   NM6Y
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
https://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Vintage HP test gear and other stuff at Anchor Electronics...

[Lyle Bickley via cctalk]

I was browsing around in the back of Anchor Electronics a couple of days ago
and came across some clean (but dusty) vintage HP test gear - and several very
cool large variable resistors. I've attached some pictures of both.

BTW: Those of us in Silicon Valley are fans of Anchor - because they carry
lots of IC's, parts, connectors, etc. Their catalog can be downloaded here:
https://anchor-electronics.com/

If you're interested in the HP test gear or large variable resistors contact
Alicia - for parts, contact any staff member.

Note: I receive NO financial benefit from this email and my only relationship
with Anchor is as a long time customer. Phone: (408)727-3693

Best,
Lyle
-- 
73   NM6Y
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
https://bickleywest.com

"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"

Re: test test

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 01/25/2020 10:48 AM, jwest--- via cctalk wrote:

test



Glad to see you got it back running!

Thanks,

Jon

test test

[jwest--- via cctalk]

test

Re: Test message

[Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk]

I received your post, but mercifully I haven't received any of the
pointless replies to your post.


On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:30 AM Mike Ross via cctalk 
wrote:

> I was banned for ages, I've been told I'm not any more; test post;
> disregard.
>
> Mike
>

Re: Test message

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On 9/13/19 1:44 PM, Senile Old Man via cctalk wrote:

Uninstall and reinstall the OS.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

Nice to see this list continues to circle the bowl.


Sorry.
I didn't mean to offend or annoy.  Just joining in on ridicule of "modern 
tech support".



There are serious fundamental flaws in the design of an OS that is large 
enough to be able to have self-check code, but still needs to be 
re-installed periodically.



I particularly didn't want to annoy YOU.  I am impressed with your 
projects.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: Test message

[Nigel Johnson via cctalk]

I have to say I am receiving you 5 by 9 in Toronto :-)

(OK I will go away now and get my tin hat )

cheers,

NIgel


On 13/09/2019 19:01, ben via cctalk wrote:

On 9/13/2019 3:00 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:



On 9/13/19 1:44 PM, Senile Old Man via cctalk wrote:


Uninstall and reinstall the OS.


Nice to see this list continues to circle the bowl.


Bare metal machines don't need a OS. Just liner notes
on the drum in felt pen. Bad sector. Core dump from last month.
Boot from here on tuesdays.Reads backwards to emulate tape.
Oil here. WD40 there. Grease Now.






 


--
Nigel Johnson
MSc., MIEEE
VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU

Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!


You can reach me by voice on Skype:  TILBURY2591

If time travel ever will be possible, it already is. Ask me again yesterday

This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me 
to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number 
of system administrators along the way.
   Nigel Johnson 


Please consider the environment when deciding if you really need to print this message

Re: Test message

[ben via cctalk]

On 9/13/2019 3:00 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:



On 9/13/19 1:44 PM, Senile Old Man via cctalk wrote:


Uninstall and reinstall the OS.


Nice to see this list continues to circle the bowl.


Bare metal machines don't need a OS. Just liner notes
on the drum in felt pen. Bad sector. Core dump from last month.
Boot from here on tuesdays.Reads backwards to emulate tape.
Oil here. WD40 there. Grease Now.

Re: Test message

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/13/19 1:44 PM, Senile Old Man via cctalk wrote:

> Uninstall and reinstall the OS.

Nice to see this list continues to circle the bowl.

Re: Test message

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Sorry, we did not receive your message. Have you tried turning it off and 
back on again?
:) 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Uninstall and reinstall the OS.

Are you still using an operating system that is MORE THAN 6 MONTHS old??

Upgrade your hardware to current.


and go into settings to stop avast from hijacking your signature.

Re: Test message

[Charles via cctalk]

Sorry, we did not receive your message. Have you tried turning it off and 
back on again?
:) 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Test message

[John Many Jars via cctalk]

601

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 00:33, Alexandre Souza via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Test failed
> Please call service
>
> Enviado do meu Tele-Movel
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 20:30 Mike Ross via cctalk 
> wrote:
>
> > I was banned for ages, I've been told I'm not any more; test post;
> > disregard.
> >
> > Mike
> >
>


-- 
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems:  "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -- Jonathan Swift

Re: Test message

[Alexandre Souza via cctalk]

Test failed
Please call service

Enviado do meu Tele-Movel

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 20:30 Mike Ross via cctalk 
wrote:

> I was banned for ages, I've been told I'm not any more; test post;
> disregard.
>
> Mike
>

Test message

[Mike Ross via cctalk]

I was banned for ages, I've been told I'm not any more; test post;
disregard.

Mike

Re: test

[Alexandre Souza via cctalk]

Test faild. Please call support.

---8<---Corte aqui---8<---
http://www.tabajara-labs.blogspot.com
http://www.tabalabs.com.br
---8<---Corte aqui---8<---


Em sex, 30 de ago de 2019 às 21:21, steve shumaker via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> escreveu:

> Apologies for the question marks in the previous post  - Thunderbird
> reverts occasionally.  test   It should be fixed now.
>
>
> Steve
>
>

test

[steve shumaker via cctalk]

Apologies for the question marks in the previous post  - Thunderbird 
reverts occasionally.  test   It should be fixed now.



Steve

RE: Test

[Dave Wade via cctalk]

Yes, silly conversation with a department...

A. Can we have Google Earth installed. It would be really useful in our job
B. Yes if you pay, there is a fee for commercial use. 
A. What if we won't use it for commercial purposes...
B. We won't install software for specifically for personal use, only business 
use 

Same department later had to pay up historical licences when caught using some 
different free-for-personal use software for business.
An employee they dismissed reported them to the software provider

What fun, what joy...

Dave
p.s. yes the free version of google earth can now be used commercially


> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk  On Behalf Of Ray Jewhurst via
> cctalk
> Sent: 11 August 2019 18:27
> To: Fred Cisin ; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-
> Topic Posts 
> Subject: Re: Test
> 
> Everybody forgot one. Have you installed unauthorized software? That is
> prohibited. This conversation brings me back to my help desk days!
> 
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 1:04 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk 
> wrote:
> 
> > >> Test error. Please call helpdesk. 555-1212
> > > Have you tried turning it off and on again?
> >
> > If that doesn't work, reinstall the operating system.
> >
> >
> > We've never heard of anybody having that problem.
> >
> > Have you applied all of the latest patches and upgrades?
> >
> >
> > What did you expect?  You cn't expect it to work with some other brnd
> > of cables!
> >
> > You have HOW MUCH memory and disk space? running how fast?
> > I'm amazed that it can even run in something so old.  They haven't
> > made machines like that since MARCH!
> > You need to get an up to date machine!
> >

Re: Test

[Ray Jewhurst via cctalk]

Everybody forgot one. Have you installed unauthorized software? That is
prohibited. This conversation brings me back to my help desk days!

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 1:04 PM Fred Cisin via cctalk 
wrote:

> >> Test error. Please call helpdesk. 555-1212
> > Have you tried turning it off and on again?
>
> If that doesn't work, reinstall the operating system.
>
>
> We've never heard of anybody having that problem.
>
> Have you applied all of the latest patches and upgrades?
>
>
> What did you expect?  You cn't expect it to work with some other brnd of
> cables!
>
> You have HOW MUCH memory and disk space? running how fast?
> I'm amazed that it can even run in something so old.  They haven't made
> machines like that since MARCH!
> You need to get an up to date machine!
>

Re: Test

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Test error. Please call helpdesk. 555-1212

Have you tried turning it off and on again?


If that doesn't work, reinstall the operating system.


We've never heard of anybody having that problem.

Have you applied all of the latest patches and upgrades?


What did you expect?  You cn't expect it to work with some other brnd of 
cables!


You have HOW MUCH memory and disk space? running how fast?
I'm amazed that it can even run in something so old.  They haven't made 
machines like that since MARCH!

You need to get an up to date machine!

Re: Test

[U'll Be King Of The Stars via cctalk]

On 11 August 2019 15:26:01 BST, Joshua Rice via cctalk  
wrote:
>
>> On Aug 11, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Alexandre Souza via cctalk
> wrote:
>> 
>> Test error. Please call helpdesk. 555-1212
>
>Have you tried turning it off and on again?

Argh, you beat me to it!

This joke never gets old.  It only gets funnier and funnier each time.

Re: List fault analysis (Was: Test)

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Charles Morris

> my last couple of posts don't seem to be showing up?

I see several posts from you.

To check suspected failures, look in the archive:

  http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/

because just because you're not getting a personal email copy, doesn't mean
it didn't go out to the list.

E.g. you may have the 'Receive your own posts to the list?' option in your
CCTalk subscription disabled.

Noel

Re: Test

[Alexandre Souza via cctalk]

Test error. Please call helpdesk. 555-1212

Enviado do meu Tele-Movel

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019, 10:54 Charles via cctalk 
wrote:

> Testing 1,2,3... my last couple of posts don't seem to be showing up?
> -Charles
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>

Re: Test

[Joshua Rice via cctalk]

> On Aug 11, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Alexandre Souza via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> Test error. Please call helpdesk. 555-1212

Have you tried turning it off and on again?

Test

[Charles via cctalk]

Testing 1,2,3... my last couple of posts don't seem to be showing up?
-Charles


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Old test equip for sale

[Electronics Plus via cctalk]

https://www.elecshopper.com/tools/b-k-1077b-television-analyst.html

https://www.elecshopper.com/tools/heathkit-it-18-transistor-checker.html

https://www.elecshopper.com/tools/home-brew-dc-milliamp-box.html

https://www.elecshopper.com/tools/micronta-digital-multimeter.html

 

Cindy Croxton

Electronics Plus

1613 Water Street

Kerrville, TX 78028

830-370-3239 cell

sa...@elecplus.com

 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Phil Budne via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> Have you looked at http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/ieee/ ?
> Which says:
>
> "All C programs can also be compiled with old-style Kernighan and
> Ritchie C. However, inasmuch as I now have access to only one such
> old compiler, with more than 35 others supporting 1989 Standard C,
> I no longer attempt to retain K compatibility in new code.
>
> If you run into trouble, perhaps Nelson has older versions stashed away?
>

Can't you just run unprotoize on it?

Warner

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Seth Morabito via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, at 9:28 AM, Seth Morabito via cctalk wrote:

> I will definitely dig around in here. Moreover, I'll try to get it 
> compiled on the 3B2 emulator in its entirety so I can attempt to pass 
> verification. 

Unfortunately there is no obvious way to build the SVVS sources from the tape. 
No makefiles or build scripts that I could find after searching a bit. There 
clearly is support for  build and install system of some kind, because there 
are lots of definition files scattered around that would instruct a build 
system how to compile, but the build system itself is missing and/or 
undocumented, and the interpolated variable values (such as %COMP% and %OPTS% 
and so forth) are not obvious. I suspect the official SVVS documentation would 
reveal all, but I can't find it. Drat!

Nevertheless, there ARE useful bits of code in there that I can extract and 
build by hand, so I'm still very happy to have it.

-Seth
-- 
  Seth Morabito
  Poulsbo, WA
  w...@loomcom.com

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Seth Morabito via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Phil Budne wrote:
> Have you looked at http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/ieee/ ?
> Which says:
> 
> "All C programs can also be compiled with old-style Kernighan and
> Ritchie C. However, inasmuch as I now have access to only one such
> old compiler, with more than 35 others supporting 1989 Standard C,
> I no longer attempt to retain K compatibility in new code.
> 
> If you run into trouble, perhaps Nelson has older versions stashed away?


Great find, somehow I had missed this page in my searches. I'll add this to the 
growing arsenal, thank you!

-Seth
-- 
  Seth Morabito
  Poulsbo, WA
  w...@loomcom.com

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Phil Budne via cctalk]

Have you looked at http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/ieee/ ?
Which says:

"All C programs can also be compiled with old-style Kernighan and
Ritchie C. However, inasmuch as I now have access to only one such
old compiler, with more than 35 others supporting 1989 Standard C,
I no longer attempt to retain K compatibility in new code.

If you run into trouble, perhaps Nelson has older versions stashed away?

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Seth Morabito via cctalk]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, at 9:15 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> is there anything in
> http://bitsavers.org/bits/ATT/SysV_r3.0_SV_Ver_Suite_Source_Tape_1987 ?

Wow wow wow, thanks for pointing this out (and for dumping the tape) Al. That's 
a great find, I wasn't aware it was on BitSavers!

I will definitely dig around in here. Moreover, I'll try to get it compiled on 
the 3B2 emulator in its entirety so I can attempt to pass verification. I say 
this a bit naively -- I don't know how much of SVVS is supposed to verify 
hardware directly, if at all.

-Seth
-- 
  Seth Morabito
  Poulsbo, WA
  w...@loomcom.com

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 6/11/19 5:50 PM, Seth Morabito via cctalk wrote:
> One of the projects I've been working on recently is adding floating point 
> accelerator emulation to the SIMH 3B2/400 emulator. I _think_ I've done 
> reasonably well, in that the simulator passes all of the accelerator 
> diagnostics that AT wrote for their own product, but frankly these tests 
> are rather cursory and don't validate much.
> 
> I'd like to compile a set of IEEE-754 tests on the 3B2. Unfortunately, the 
> only compiler I have ready access to on the 3B2 is AT's pre-ANSI C 
> compiler, so not a lot of modern C is going to work.
> 
> Does anyone know of a period-appropriate set of IEEE-754 tests that could be 
> compiled on SVR3?
> 
> -Seth
> 

is there anything in
http://bitsavers.org/bits/ATT/SysV_r3.0_SV_Ver_Suite_Source_Tape_1987 ?

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Tor Arntsen via cctalk]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 09:55, emanuel stiebler via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> On 2019-06-11 20:50, Seth Morabito via cctalk wrote:
[..]
> > I'd like to compile a set of IEEE-754 tests on the 3B2. Unfortunately, the 
> > only compiler I have ready access to on the 3B2 is AT's pre-ANSI C 
> > compiler, so not a lot of modern C is going to work.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a period-appropriate set of IEEE-754 tests that could 
> > be compiled on SVR3?
> >
>
> http://www.jhauser.us/arithmetic/SoftFloat.html

I took a quick look - the source is written in ANSI C (including the
oldest versions there), so that looks like it won't work for Seth.

Re: In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[emanuel stiebler via cctalk]

On 2019-06-11 20:50, Seth Morabito via cctalk wrote:
> One of the projects I've been working on recently is adding floating point 
> accelerator emulation to the SIMH 3B2/400 emulator. I _think_ I've done 
> reasonably well, in that the simulator passes all of the accelerator 
> diagnostics that AT wrote for their own product, but frankly these tests 
> are rather cursory and don't validate much.
> 
> I'd like to compile a set of IEEE-754 tests on the 3B2. Unfortunately, the 
> only compiler I have ready access to on the 3B2 is AT's pre-ANSI C 
> compiler, so not a lot of modern C is going to work.
> 
> Does anyone know of a period-appropriate set of IEEE-754 tests that could be 
> compiled on SVR3?
> 

http://www.jhauser.us/arithmetic/SoftFloat.html

?

In search of an ancient IEEE-754 floating point test suite

[Seth Morabito via cctalk]

One of the projects I've been working on recently is adding floating point 
accelerator emulation to the SIMH 3B2/400 emulator. I _think_ I've done 
reasonably well, in that the simulator passes all of the accelerator 
diagnostics that AT wrote for their own product, but frankly these tests are 
rather cursory and don't validate much.

I'd like to compile a set of IEEE-754 tests on the 3B2. Unfortunately, the only 
compiler I have ready access to on the 3B2 is AT's pre-ANSI C compiler, so 
not a lot of modern C is going to work.

Does anyone know of a period-appropriate set of IEEE-754 tests that could be 
compiled on SVR3?

-Seth
-- 
  Seth Morabito
  Poulsbo, WA
  w...@loomcom.com