Re: Sync on Green RGB video

On 11/18/2017 01:21 PM, Aaron Jackson via cctech wrote: > You might be surprised how many LCD monitors support SoG. I have several > iiyama LCD panels which work fine with a 3100. > All of my NEC Multisync LCD ones do--some even have 5 BNC connectors for video input. --Chuck

Re: Sync on Green RGB video

I have a 3100 Vasstation but I have not used it yet.. I have only used my MicroVAX 3100. On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Aaron Jackson via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > You might be surprised how many LCD monitors support SoG. I have several > iiyama LCD panels which work fine with

Re: Sync on Green RGB video

I've had v good luck w/ old video inputs & the ASUS PB78Q - I've gotten video from: * DEC VAXstation 4000 VLC (3W3 -> 3 BNC -> VGA) * DEC 3000 AXP 300 (3W3 -> 3 BNC -> VGA) * Sun SPARCstation (13W3 -> VGA) * SGI Indy (13W3 -> VGA) * NeXTstation mono (DB19 -> VGA w/ a cable off ebay) Of these I'm

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On 11/20/2017 6:50 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Charles Anthony > a hybrid PDP-11 (16 bits) / PDP-15 (18 bits) on a shared bus (UNIBUS?) That's a UNICHANNEL-15: it allowed devices on the -11 to do DMA directly into the PDP-15's memory through the MX15-B Memory

Re: Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor

> > It looks like board 2 is for a Sun 3/50 workstation. Board 1 is some > kind of micro-programmed processor based on AM29331 and AM29331. There > are also some Analog Devices DSPs. > > AM29000 based processor with Analog Device DSPs > http://www.chdickman.com/board1.jpg > > Sun 3/50 processor >

Idle question: Color of tape coatings

While working on some old (again!) half-inch tapes, I note that some of the very old ones have an oxide coating about the color of milk chocolate. Newer ones are anywhere from dark chocolate to black. Reel construction is another aspect. The really old ones tend to be all clear plastic,

Re: DR-DOS

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > > On 11/20/2017 4:27 PM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 20 November 2017 at 18:57, jim stephens via cctalk > > wrote: > > > The archive.org snapshots may have had the blank images, but they also > > > seem > > > to have

Re: DR-DOS

On 11/20/2017 4:27 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 20 November 2017 at 18:57, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: The archive.org snapshots may have had the blank images, but they also seem to have grabbed the archived downloads as well. This is an arbitrary link to the

Sun 3/50 processor board and unknown processor

I was given two boards that were "spares for a PDP-11/40." The business that I got my PDP-11/40 from was cleaning out storage and found these two boards and gave them to me. It looks like board 2 is for a Sun 3/50 workstation. Board 1 is some kind of micro-programmed processor based on AM29331

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

> From: Charles Anthony > a hybrid PDP-11 (16 bits) / PDP-15 (18 bits) on a shared bus (UNIBUS?) That's a UNICHANNEL-15: it allowed devices on the -11 to do DMA directly into the PDP-15's memory through the MX15-B Memory Multiplexer. Odd factoid: this UNIBUS could run in 18-bit mode

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On Nov 20, 2017 7:41 AM, "Tapley, Mark via cctalk" wrote: Catching up late, sorry if this is an old question, but what did the Digital Group computers use? My recollection is that they offered cards with 6800, 6502, 8080, and Z-80 CPUs on the same bus, and that

Re: DR-DOS

On 20 November 2017 at 18:57, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > The archive.org snapshots may have had the blank images, but they also seem > to have grabbed the archived downloads as well. > > This is an arbitrary link to the 3/26/2016 snapshot. There are quite a few >

Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 38, Issue 16

Thanks Chunk. I am going to see if Manchester University library has any old documentation that might help. Cheers Peter On 17 November 2017 at 18:00, wrote: > Send cctalk mailing list submissions to > cctalk@classiccmp.org > > To subscribe or

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

Am 19.11.2017 um 16:08 schrieb emanuel stiebler via cctalk: On 2017-11-18 23:48, Jim Brain wrote: > Looking at the schematic for the ECB, I cannot find any description of > the signals BAI, BAO, IEI, and IEO.  Can anyone shed some light on the > function of these signals? Here again:

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:40 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > Creating a bus to accommodate any one cpu at a time is far more > straightforward and there are plenty of > examples than one that is running a mix of many cpus. > > Dim memory of U. of. WA School of Dentistry

Re: Looking for Silent 700 model 787 manual

On Monday (11/20/2017 at 09:40AM -0600), Jason T via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Chris Elmquist via cctalk > wrote: > > Yes indeed. I have several of those, model 745 as one example, and it > > is a DA15 for which I have the pinout and made a cable for

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On 11/20/2017 11:37 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > I did that back when with a S100 machine expanded with multiple > Z80s(local ram and MMU), global mmemory and 8085s and 8749s to have > intelligent peripherals and shared loading and tasks. An interesting > experiment and some elements still

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

> From: Allison >> I would seriously consider shared data/address lines, like on the QBUS. > QBUS is wrapped around a subset of PDP11 and the unique processors made > to fit it. I did say "like ... the QBUS", not "the QBUS"! I was just trying to make the point that the original

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On 11/20/2017 01:18 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 11/20/2017 05:40 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > >> Creating a bus to accommodate any one cpu at a time is far more >> straightforward and there are plenty of >> examples than one that is running a mix of many cpus. > Oddly enough, I'm in

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On 11/20/2017 05:40 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: > Creating a bus to accommodate any one cpu at a time is far more > straightforward and there are plenty of > examples than one that is running a mix of many cpus. Oddly enough, I'm in agreement. :) Today, it really makes little sense to have

Re: DR-DOS

On 11/20/2017 6:35 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On 17 November 2017 at 19:02, Tomasz Rola wrote: Please excuse me if my remark is unnecessary, but if I read you right, you have: 1. Downloaded "empty" disk image - which apparently boots enough to display two dots No.

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On Nov 19, 2017, at 11:54 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > So we agree on parallel standard buses, that STD bus is a strong > contender with varied processor base. Catching up late, sorry if this is an old question, but what did the Digital Group computers

Re: Looking for Silent 700 model 787 manual

On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Chris Elmquist via cctalk wrote: > Yes indeed. I have several of those, model 745 as one example, and it > is a DA15 for which I have the pinout and made a cable for hooking to > various old micros here. Is that posted/can you post that

Re: DR-DOS

On 17 November 2017 at 19:02, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > Please excuse me if my remark is unnecessary, but if I read you right, > you have: > > 1. Downloaded "empty" disk image - which apparently boots enough to > display two dots No. The original DR-DOS Enhancement Project website

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On 11/20/2017 01:52 AM, alan--- via cctalk wrote: > > If you ever look at how interrupts are implemented on STD bus, you'll > run in fear.  There are only two options, chain the slot to slot > interrupt line (assuming all slots are filled downstream of the CPU) > and share the one request signal -

Re: Ideas for a simple, but somewhat extendable computer bus

On 11/19/2017 10:51 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > On Nov 19, 2017 7:18 PM, "allison via cctalk" > wrote: > > The rest is the specific implementation.  What happens if the CPU is > 1802 or something else that does not match the 6500 or