It was many many hundreds of pounds. £499 comes to mind but that might be
wishful thinking!
There was various bits of publicity on the thing and Acorn had a shop in
Covent Garden and about once a month I'd go down and ask them. I think they
must have said yes one day!
On 27 April 2016 at 23:18,
On 04/26/2016 01:33 PM, Guy Dawson wrote:
I bought a 32016 Cambridge Coprocessor back in the day. It's in my loft.
Oh, so it was you! ;-) I'll try and file that away in my brain so I
remember it in future... do you happen to remember how much it cost? (And
were they advertized for sale some
I bought a 32016 Cambridge Coprocessor back in the day. It's in my loft.
On 25 April 2016 at 23:49, Jules Richardson
wrote:
> On 04/25/2016 10:02 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
>> I meant to develop this point slightly, and did in a blog post, here:
>>
>> http://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/48593.htm
On 04/25/2016 10:02 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
I meant to develop this point slightly, and did in a blog post, here:
http://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/48593.html
But in the meantime, it kept the 6502-based, resolutely-8-bit BBC
Micro line alive with updates and new models, including ROM-based
te
On 25 April 2016 at 17:24, Adrian Graham wrote:
> On 25 April 2016 at 16:02, Liam Proven wrote:
>
>> The Communicator is a *far* more interesting beast, with no 6502 or
>> copro -- it's a native 16-bit machine in the BBC family. Remarkable.
>>
>
> I haven't seen a Communicator since 2006 when I e
On 25 April 2016 at 16:02, Liam Proven wrote:
> The Communicator is a *far* more interesting beast, with no 6502 or
> copro -- it's a native 16-bit machine in the BBC family. Remarkable.
>
I haven't seen a Communicator since 2006 when I exhibited some machines at
the Wakefield RiscOS show -
http
On 25 April 2016 at 15:47, Liam Proven wrote:
> Acorn looked at the 16-bit machines in the mid-80s, mostly powered by
> Motorola 68000s of course, and decided they weren't good enough and
> that the tiny UK company could do better. So it did.
I meant to develop this point slightly, and did in a
On 22 April 2016 at 19:51, Swift Griggs wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
>> GEM ran on MS-DOS, DR's own DOS+ (a forerunner of the later DR-DOS)
>
> It still runs under FreeDOS, too. I've puttered around with it several
> times in that environment.
Yes indeed. In fact the first tim
On 04/20/2016 10:32 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
On 20/04/2016 16:00, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-04-20 10:27 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
It did indeed - I have one. Also a couple of 6502 CoPros, a 65C102, a
32016 and a pair of Z80s, which were nice in their day.
Nice collection. I'd forgotten about
On 04/21/2016 09:51 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
On 04/21/2016 07:04 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
On 04/20/2016 10:00 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
Nice collection. I'd forgotten about the 32016! What software ran on these
respective processors?
OS-wise the 32016 ran something called Panos, with Pandora as th
On 04/22/2016 11:59 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
The only BBC copro that could run GEM, AFAIAA, was the BBC Master 512
with the Intel 80186.
And the '286 copro for the ABC3xx machines, I expect; the '186 which ended
up in the M512 was essentially a cost-reduced version of that board (slower
CPU and
On 22/04/2016 17:59, Liam Proven wrote:
On 20 April 2016 at 17:32, Pete Turnbull wrote:
The Z80 CoPro ran CP/M - real licensed CP/M 2.2, not the bastardised
often-not-compatible "CPN" lookalike offered by Torch, and came with GEM and
various office software.
GEM's graphics API, the VDI, was
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> GEM ran on MS-DOS, DR's own DOS+ (a forerunner of the later DR-DOS)
It still runs under FreeDOS, too. I've puttered around with it several
times in that environment.
> ... and on the Atari ST's TOS, derived in part from CP/M-68K.
Ah ha! I always wondere
On 20 April 2016 at 17:32, Pete Turnbull wrote:
> The Z80 CoPro ran CP/M - real licensed CP/M 2.2, not the bastardised
> often-not-compatible "CPN" lookalike offered by Torch, and came with GEM and
> various office software.
Hang on. I think you're conflating 2 different coprocessors and their
so
.
From: cctalk on behalf of Michael Holley
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:57 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: High performance coprocessor boards of the 80s and 90s - was Re:
SGI ONYX
I worked for the FutureNet division o
Steve Ciarcia (BYTE) had a Z8000-based PC coprocessor ("Trump Card"?) which
main purpose was (I think) to run BASIC programs faster.
Another of those things that I wanted in the early 80s, along with a PC to
use it with.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> Would the Palantir
I worked for the FutureNet division of Data I/O in the late 1980s. One
disastrous product was a UNIX based coprocessor system that plugged into an IBM
PC/AT. The idea was to run circuit board layout software and simulation on a
PC. This would be less expensive than the Daisy, Mentor, or Valid wo
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:08:56 -0400
> From: Toby Thain
> Subject: Re: High performance coprocessor boards of the 80s and 90s -
> was Re: SGI ONYX
>
> On 2016-04-20 8:02 PM, Michael Thompson wrote:
> >
> > I have a quad-860 VME board for Sun systems
On 2016-04-21 7:29 PM, Dave Wade wrote:
-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Guy
Sotomayor
Sent: 21 April 2016 22:39
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: High performance coprocessor boards of the 80s and 90s
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain that.
>
That’s why we’re here! ;-)
Thanks for listening!
TTFN - Guy
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Guy
> Sotomayor
> Sent: 21 April 2016 22:39
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: High performance coprocessor boards of the 80s and 90s -
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
> 3270 terminals are what are termed CUT terminals (can?t remember what the
> acronym means) but were connected to a controller via coax.
Ah okay. Someone told me that the voltage on those was enough to feel/shock
you. Was that true, or just a myth ?
> T
On 2016-04-21 6:53 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Paul Berger wrote:
No the 3270 PC and 3270 AT where a special configuration for 3270 terminal
emulation it conatined a special keyboard with more keys that the normal
keyboard and connected to a special adapter card in the system.
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Paul Berger wrote:
>> No the 3270 PC and 3270 AT where a special configuration for 3270 terminal
>> emulation it conatined a special keyboard with more keys that the normal
>> keyboard and connected to a special adapter
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Paul Berger wrote:
>
>
>
> There was definitely a XT/370 and likely an AT/370 as well the processor on
> the the 370 card in these machines was rumoured to be a modified Motorola 68K
> with special microcode to execute 370 instructions. These machines ran a
>
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Paul Berger wrote:
> No the 3270 PC and 3270 AT where a special configuration for 3270 terminal
> emulation it conatined a special keyboard with more keys that the normal
> keyboard and connected to a special adapter card in the system.
I never understood the dynamics of 3720
On 2016-04-21 6:35 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Ali wrote:
Actually, the first one was called XT/370 because it plugged into an
XT!
Then came AT/370. Those were obviously ISA boards. Then came some
variants that were microchannel. The final iterations were PCI bas
>
> I think you're thinking of the 3270 PC and 3270 AT, which was pretty
> much what you described here...
>
> - Josh
Josh,
So I am. Thanks for the clarification. BTW: for those wanting more info on the
AT/370 here is a good link to some IBM brochures -
http://typewritten.org/Articles/IBM/g
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Ali wrote:
>
>>> Actually, the first one was called XT/370 because it plugged into an
>>> XT!
>>> Then came AT/370. Those were obviously ISA boards. Then came some
>>> variants that were microchannel. The
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Ali wrote:
> > Actually, the first one was called XT/370 because it plugged into an
> > XT!
> > Then came AT/370. Those were obviously ISA boards. Then came some
> > variants that were microchannel. The final iterations were PCI based.
> >
>
> Guy,
>
> I am not
> Actually, the first one was called XT/370 because it plugged into an
> XT!
> Then came AT/370. Those were obviously ISA boards. Then came some
> variants that were microchannel. The final iterations were PCI based.
>
Guy,
I am not sure about the other systems but my understanding of the XT/
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
>> Let?s not also forget the various 370 and 390 co-processor boards that
>> could be put into PC?s at various times to allow one to turn the PC into a
>> small mainframe capable of running mainfr
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Noel Chiappa
wrote:
> > From: Josh Dersch
>
> > It's actually a SCSI device the size of a refrigerator.
>
> Given all the largish machines you have, you must have either i) a
> warehouse,
> or ii) a very large basement and a tolerant SO! :-)
>
> No
> From: Josh Dersch
> It's actually a SCSI device the size of a refrigerator.
Given all the largish machines you have, you must have either i) a warehouse,
or ii) a very large basement and a tolerant SO! :-)
Noel
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Guy Sotomayor wrote:
> Let?s not also forget the various 370 and 390 co-processor boards that
> could be put into PC?s at various times to allow one to turn the PC into a
> small mainframe capable of running mainframe software (including the OS).
I can't forget because I neve
There was also an 80286 coprocessor board for various VAXen.
Let’s not also forget the various 370 and 390 co-processor boards that could be
put into PC’s at various times to allow one to turn the PC into a small
mainframe
capable of running mainframe software (including the OS).
TTFN - Guy
> O
Would the Palantir 68K ISA OCR boards be considered as high-performance?
There was also, IIRC, a NSC 32016 board made by someone.
--Chuck
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Toby Thain
wrote:
> On 2016-04-20 11:10 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Ok, this one's from the 70s, and it's a large, external unit rather than
>> a single board, but I have a Floating Point Systems AP-120B, essentially
>> an array processor for fast floating
I used to have this thing called a MasPar MP-2. It hung from a Decstation
5000 IIRC. Had the whole system, but the PSU in the MasPar box went bad.
Sold it to someone in Florida IIRC.
--
Ethan O'Toole
On 04/21/2016 07:04 AM, Jules Richardson wrote:
On 04/20/2016 10:00 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
Nice collection. I'd forgotten about the 32016! What
software ran on these
respective processors?
OS-wise the 32016 ran something called Panos, with Pandora
as the firmware - mostly written in Modula-2.
On 21 April 2016 at 13:04, Jules Richardson
wrote:
> OS-wise the 32016 ran something called Panos, with Pandora as the firmware
> - mostly written in Modula-2. Acorn (working with Logica) attempted a
> Xenix port, and some documentation references Xenix as being available, but
> I don't think it
On 04/20/2016 10:00 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
Nice collection. I'd forgotten about the 32016! What software ran on these
respective processors?
OS-wise the 32016 ran something called Panos, with Pandora as the firmware
- mostly written in Modula-2. Acorn (working with Logica) attempted a
Xenix p
On 04/20/2016 08:57 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
Also going to mention the BBC Tube coprocessor here. Which had an ARM
version, iirc.
Yes, from Acorn: ARM, 32016, 6502, 65C102, Z80, 80186 and 80286.
Torch did a couple of different Z80 boards too, and a couple of different
Z80/68000 combo boards.
C
On 2016-04-20 8:02 PM, Michael Thompson wrote:
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:12:36 +0200
From: Jonathan Katz
Subject: Re: Seeking immediate rescue of full-rack SGI ONYX near
Northbrook, IL
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
Intel's effort at RISC. Didn't go so well for
On 21 April 2016 at 05:10, Josh Dersch wrote:
> Ok, this one's from the 70s, and it's a large, external unit rather than a
> single board, but I have a Floating Point Systems AP-120B, essentially an
> array processor for fast floating point operations. There's a bit of
> information here:
>
> http
On 2016-04-20 11:10 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
...
Ok, this one's from the 70s, and it's a large, external unit rather than
a single board, but I have a Floating Point Systems AP-120B, essentially
an array processor for fast floating point operations. There's a bit of
information here:
https://en.wi
On 4/20/16 6:57 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-04-20 5:12 AM, Jonathan Katz wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
Intel's effort at RISC. Didn't go so well for them, but did inspire
the name of Windows NT and was the original host platform for the
then-new OS.
The i860
erformance coprocessor boards of the 80s and 90s - was Re:
SGI ONYX
> >> I'm changing the subject because the subject of RISC coprocessor
> >> boards has already been interesting to me; I owned the NuBus Levco
> >> Translink II (for Mac II family) with four TRAM slots for
&g
> >> I'm changing the subject because the subject of RISC coprocessor
> >> boards has already been interesting to me; I owned the NuBus Levco
> >> Translink II (for Mac II family) with four TRAM slots for
> transputers.
> >>
I never had much run in with these kinds of boards as they were geared
to
On 2016-04-20 11:32 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
On 20/04/2016 16:00, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-04-20 10:27 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
It did indeed - I have one. Also a couple of 6502 CoPros, a 65C102, a
32016 and a pair of Z80s, which were nice in their day.
Nice collection. I'd forgotten about
On 20/04/2016 16:00, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-04-20 10:27 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
It did indeed - I have one. Also a couple of 6502 CoPros, a 65C102, a
32016 and a pair of Z80s, which were nice in their day.
Nice collection. I'd forgotten about the 32016! What software ran on
these respecti
On 04/20/2016 10:00 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2016-04-20 10:27 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
On 20/04/2016 14:57, Toby Thain wrote:
I'm changing the subject because the subject of RISC
coprocessor boards
has already been interesting to me; I owned the NuBus
Levco Translink II
(for Mac II family) w
On 2016-04-20 10:27 AM, Pete Turnbull wrote:
On 20/04/2016 14:57, Toby Thain wrote:
I'm changing the subject because the subject of RISC coprocessor boards
has already been interesting to me; I owned the NuBus Levco Translink II
(for Mac II family) with four TRAM slots for transputers.
Also go
On 20/04/2016 14:57, Toby Thain wrote:
I'm changing the subject because the subject of RISC coprocessor boards
has already been interesting to me; I owned the NuBus Levco Translink II
(for Mac II family) with four TRAM slots for transputers.
Also going to mention the BBC Tube coprocessor here.
54 matches
Mail list logo
