On 2015-09-22 06:58, tony duell wrote:
HOWEVER, while the PDP-11 is still unable to perform an
LLF on an RX50 when an RQDX3 is present, it is possible
to perform an LLF on a floppy in an RX33. Does that still
seem compatible with your explanation?
Yes, that confused me too. The RQDX3 is clearl
> HOWEVER, while the PDP-11 is still unable to perform an
> LLF on an RX50 when an RQDX3 is present, it is possible
> to perform an LLF on a floppy in an RX33. Does that still
> seem compatible with your explanation?
Yes, that confused me too. The RQDX3 is clearly capable of
LLFing a floppy. So e
On 2015-09-22 03:09, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>Johnny Billquist wrote:
In any case, adding and correcting the extra code was quite
easy. The challenge was to also add support for a user buffer
being above the 1/4 MB boundary in a PDP-11 with all 4 MB
of memory when a Mapped RT-11 Monitor was use
On 2015-09-21 23:26, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>Jay Jaeger wrote:
On 9/21/2015 11:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
For RX50? On standard PDP11s, those used an MSCP controller, which
means the controller would have to do it. Did it? The only MSCP
controller I remember that did formatting was the UDA
On 2015-09-21 22:27, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-09-21 17:03, Paul Koning wrote:
And it would certainly be possible to write a driver that can handle both
controllers; it would start by determining which control
On 2015-09-21 19:20, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
I suppose you could on a Pro, since that had its own particularly disgusting
junk controller. But I haven't seen RX50 formatting there. My impression was
that they came factory formatted, wit
>Johnny Billquist wrote:
In any case, adding and correcting the extra code was quite
easy. The challenge was to also add support for a user buffer
being above the 1/4 MB boundary in a PDP-11 with all 4 MB
of memory when a Mapped RT-11 Monitor was used since
the controller supported only 18-bit
>tony duell wrote:
If it was possible to perform a LLF using the same RX50 drive on
the Rainbow, what was the reason why an LLF could not also be
It is. Remember the RX50 is just a drive, it does not include any of
the controller electronics.
performed on a PDP-11? There seems to be a numbe
>Jay Jaeger wrote:
On 9/21/2015 11:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
For RX50? On standard PDP11s, those used an MSCP controller, which means the
controller would have to do it. Did it? The only MSCP controller I remember
that did formatting was the UDA50.
I suppose you could on a Pro, since th
RD51, RD52, RD53, RD54, RD31, RD32, RX33 on an *** RQDX3 **
(There should be a "Fat Finger Day" ;) ).
JRJ
On 9/21/2015 3:22 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
> On 9/21/2015 11:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> For RX50? On standard PDP11s, those used an MSCP controller, which means
>> the controller would
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 3:49 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>
> >Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> >On 2015-09-21 17:03, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> And it would certainly be possible to write a driver that can handle both
>>> controllers; it would start by determining which controller it's dealing
>>> wi
On 9/21/2015 11:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> For RX50? On standard PDP11s, those used an MSCP controller, which means the
> controller would have to do it. Did it? The only MSCP controller I remember
> that did formatting was the UDA50.
>
> I suppose you could on a Pro, since that had its own
>
> and, of course, as a third type, Exatron Stringy-Floppy
> computer based, but NOT entirely usable.
Along with its inferior friend the Sinclair Microdrive
which was entirely NOT useable.
-tony
>Johnny Billquist wrote:
>On 2015-09-21 17:03, Paul Koning wrote:
And it would certainly be possible to write a driver that can handle
both controllers; it would start by determining which controller it's
dealing with, and then run the one or the other set of algorithms.
Since a boot block
and, of course, as a third type, Exatron Stringy-Floppy computer
based, but NOT entirely usable.
The department chair at one of the colleges attempted to convert an entire
TRS80 based student computer lab over to stringy floppy.
He was the same one who later had a lab full of TRS80 model 3s con
Holm Tiffe wrote:
[..]
..forgot to mention one interesting thing:
The E60 is that PDP11 clone on which Alexei Paschitnow wrote the original
of Tetris...
Regards,
Holm
--
Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe,
Freiberger Straße 42, 09600 Oberschöna, USt-Id: DE2537
On 09/21/2015 11:17 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
and, of course, as a third type, Exatron Stringy-Floppy computer
based, but NOT entirely usable.
I was hoping that nobody would mention that thing. Okay, I'll add the
TI Wafertape...
--Chuck
Ah, but when people with Valdocs wanted to change to another
word-processing system, as was likely to happen often in business, they
would contact, Chuck, me, or any of our colleagues in the disk format
conversion field.
The CP/M users might not have as frequent a conversion need, and/or might
> Why not; not much different conceptually after all
> from early systems using open-reel mag tape, or
> even punch(ed) cards.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, tony duell wrote:
I feel there are 2 distinct types of cassette system from the
user perspective.
The first is the sort used on 1980s home comput
On 09/21/2015 10:22 AM, tony duell wrote:
Have you ever read the technical manual for the QX10?
It appears there were 2 keyboards sold for it. One had Valdocs-specific
keys, the other (which seems more common over here, not that the QX10
is a common machine) doesn't and was used for a more stan
On 21/09/2015 17:43, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-09-21 18:29, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>Rod Smallwood wrote:
>On 21/09/2015 10:30, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
You bring up a VERY notable lack of support by DEC of that
situation!!!
>
> Not CP/M admittedly, but small contemporary
> Burroughs machines certainly used cassettes, both
> for program and data storage. I wrote several
> fairly complex diskless accounting systems using
> four cassette drives, one or two card readers and
> a line printer (in addition to the console
>
: Re: Multi-platform distribution format
(Was: Backups [was
On 09/20/2015 09:55 PM, tony duell wrote:
Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M
here. How many CP/M
systems used cassette for storage. Better
yet, how many
commerical/industrial CP/M systems used
cassettes for program
storage.
E
> > Valdocs influenced the perception and image of the machine.
>
> That. All the QX10 conversion jobs I've ever received have been for
> valdocs documents. Nothing, in the way of accounting, process conrol,
> etc. I can do accounting on many word processors, but they're still
> fundamentally w
Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Not that I care what Holm Tiffe smokes, but I can at least comment what
> you write, Tony. :-)
>
> On 2015-09-21 16:02, tony duell wrote:
> >
> >[Russian PDP11-a-like]
>
> All bets are off when we talk about clones, since they might be rather
> different in details...
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> ...
>> I suppose you could on a Pro, since that had its own particularly disgusting
>> junk controller. But I haven't seen RX50 formatting there. My impression
>> was that they came factory formatted, with the DEC-specific 10 sector pe
On 09/21/2015 08:54 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Valdocs influenced the perception and image of the machine.
That. All the QX10 conversion jobs I've ever received have been for
valdocs documents. Nothing, in the way of accounting, process conrol,
etc. I can do accounting on many word processors,
On 2015-09-21 18:34, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
On 9/21/2015 4:30 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Note that the RX50 was the same. DEC finally changed
their marketing policy with the RX33 dr
On 2015-09-21 18:29, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>Rod Smallwood wrote:
>On 21/09/2015 10:30, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
You bring up a VERY notable lack of support by DEC of that
situation!!
For both the DEC RX01 and the DEC RX02 8"
> If it was possible to perform a LLF using the same RX50 drive on
> the Rainbow, what was the reason why an LLF could not also be
It is. Remember the RX50 is just a drive, it does not include any of
the controller electronics.
> performed on a PDP-11? There seems to be a number of possibilitie
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>
> On 9/21/2015 4:30 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
>>> Note that the RX50 was the same. DEC finally changed
>>> their marketing policy with the RX33 drive which used the
>>>
>Rod Smallwood wrote:
>On 21/09/2015 10:30, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
You bring up a VERY notable lack of support by DEC of that
situation!!
For both the DEC RX01 and the DEC RX02 8" floppy drives,
while it might have been poss
On 2015-09-21 17:03, Paul Koning wrote:
On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
I've tried to boot an RX01 Floppy in RX02 mode, that failed on all disks
I've tried. Is an original RX02 able to boot (RT11) from an RX01 disk?
As far as I know, it can't. An RX02 can read/wri
On 9/21/2015 4:30 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>> >Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> Note that the RX50 was the same. DEC finally changed
>> their marketing policy with the RX33 drive which used the
>> same 3.5" HD floppy media as the PC. It was actually
>> possi
> Epson PX8?
That's a commercial or industrial system? Did it run an EDM setup,
turret lathe or vacuforming machine? Anyone keep their AR, AP, GL,
payroll and inventory on one? I doubt that one could run a PBX.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, tony duell wrote:
I guess it depends on what you call a 'com
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> ...
>>> I've tried to boot an RX01 Floppy in RX02 mode, that failed on all disks
>>> I've tried. Is an original RX02 able to boot (RT11) from an RX01 disk?
>>
>> As far as I know, it can't. An RX02 can read/write an RX01 disk, but the
Not that I care what Holm Tiffe smokes, but I can at least comment what
you write, Tony. :-)
On 2015-09-21 16:02, tony duell wrote:
[Russian PDP11-a-like]
All bets are off when we talk about clones, since they might be rather
different in details...
I've tried to boot an RX01 Floppy in R
[Russian PDP11-a-like]
>
> I've tried to boot an RX01 Floppy in RX02 mode, that failed on all disks
> I've tried. Is an original RX02 able to boot (RT11) from an RX01 disk?
As far as I know, it can't. An RX02 can read/write an RX01 disk, but the
software
interface to the controller is so diffe
>
> > Epson PX8?
>
> That's a commercial or industrial system? Did it run an EDM setup,
> turret lathe or vacuforming machine? Anyone keep their AR, AP, GL,
> payroll and inventory on one? I doubt that one could run a PBX.
I guess it depends on what you call a 'commercial' system. I certain
On 21/09/2015 10:30, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>Chuck Guzis wrote:
>On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote:
I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly
to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the
On 2015-09-21 02:11, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>Chuck Guzis wrote:
>On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote:
I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly
to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the
time. Even that ga
tony duell wrote:
> >
> > For both the DEC RX01 and the DEC RX02 8" floppy drives,
> > while it might have been possible that DEC engineers were unable
> > to initially figure out how to allow users to perform an LLF (Low
> > Level Format) on the 8" floppy drives, it seems certain that after
>
On 09/20/2015 09:55 PM, tony duell wrote:
Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M here. How many CP/M
systems used cassette for storage. Better yet, how many
commerical/industrial CP/M systems used cassettes for program
storage.
Epson PX8?
That's a commercial or industrial system? Did
On 09/20/2015 08:48 PM, ben wrote:
OS/9 was nice for the 6809 but all I had was 1 floppy with the COCO
II. Ben.
Before I got a (dual) floppy drive with my personal system, I used a
Techtran dual cassette drive. One side was read-write, the other was
read-only.It was intended as a substi
>
> Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M here. How many CP/M systems
> used cassette for storage. Better yet, how many commerical/industrial
> CP/M systems used cassettes for program storage.
Epson PX8?
-tony
>
> For both the DEC RX01 and the DEC RX02 8" floppy drives,
> while it might have been possible that DEC engineers were unable
> to initially figure out how to allow users to perform an LLF (Low
> Level Format) on the 8" floppy drives, it seems certain that after
> 3rd party manufactures figure
On 9/20/2015 9:12 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 09/20/2015 07:59 PM, ben wrote:
So did it matter? You ran Basic or played games from cassete. That
was for domestic systems, heaven help you lived out of USA for
computers.
Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M here. How many CP/M systems
used
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote:
So did it matter? You ran Basic or played games from cassete.
Sure. But, I was never happy with cassette for program nor data storage.
I bought an Expansion Interface the day that it became available, but I
never bought a drive from Radio Shack nor IBM. Bare
On 09/20/2015 07:59 PM, ben wrote:
So did it matter? You ran Basic or played games from cassete. That
was for domestic systems, heaven help you lived out of USA for
computers.
Gee, I thought we were talking about CP/M here. How many CP/M systems
used cassette for storage. Better yet, how ma
On 09/20/2015 03:46 PM, ben wrote:
On 9/20/2015 2:19 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
There were several reasons why there was never a STANDARD
5.25" CP/M
format. I once had the opportunity to ask Gary Kildall
what the
standard would be for 5.25". He replied, "8 inch single
sided single
density". I
On 9/20/2015 7:55 PM, Chuck Uzis wrote:
So it was still fragmented.
So did it matter? You ran Basic or played games from cassete.
That was for domestic systems, heaven help you lived out of USA
for computers.
--Chuck
Ben.
On 09/20/2015 05:32 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
But, I had thought that there should then be a SECOND standard for
5.25", for those machines without 8" support. Gary disagreed. Having
more than ONE "standard" makes it not completely a standard. Still,
a 5.25" "recommended" format, or a specific fami
single sided FM/SD 77 tracks, 26 sectors per track, 128 bytes per
sector 256,256 bytes (250.25K)
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
There was a good reason for that.
Many early disk controllers did not have a "write index to index" fucntion
that also enabled writing special (i.e. missing c
>Chuck Guzis wrote:
>On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote:
I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly
to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the
time. Even that gave a very small amount memory per track. Ben.
On 09/20/2015 03:03 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote:
I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly
to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the
time. Even that gave a very small amount memory per track. Ben.
single sided FM/SD 77 t
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015, ben wrote:
I was just digging in to old CP/M a bit and it was/is tied mostly
to the IBM 8" standard floppy and the floppy interface used at the
time. Even that gave a very small amount memory per track.
Ben.
single sided FM/SD 77 tracks, 26 sectors per track, 128 bytes per
On 9/20/2015 2:19 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
There were several reasons why there was never a STANDARD 5.25" CP/M
format. I once had the opportunity to ask Gary Kildall what the
standard would be for 5.25". He replied, "8 inch single sided single
density". I repeated, "Yes, but waht about 5.25"?
57 matches
Mail list logo
