Bob,
Yeah. Please let us know they are available for downloads. I still need them.
Thanks,
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Robert Armstrong [mailto:b...@jfcl.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 5:44 PM
To: simh@trailing-edge.com
Cc: 'Tim Stark'
Subject: RE: [Simh] VAX 8200
I fired up
It's also fun if they install a tape into the tk50 drive with the info pamphlet
that they always shipped with them. It couldn't retract the tape, and you
couldn't pull the paper out because of the tight fit. Time to disassemble the
drive, again.
Sent from my Galaxy Tab® A
Original mes
On 2017-03-17 19:35, Gary Lee Phillips wrote:
Looking at what images I can find on the web, TU-80 seems correct. The
one we had was just generally flaky, I guess. It was 1600 bpi, 2400 foot
tapes, yes.
1600 bpi would definitely be the TU80 then.
The MicroVAX we added later came with a TK-50 t
On 2017-03-17 18:23, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Wilm Boerhout wrote:
Gary Lee Phillips schreef op 17-3-2017 om 16:54:
Ethan Dicks mailto:ethan.di...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That's earlier than is possible... the model was introduced in Jan,
1986. Don't know date of first s
I fired up the 8350 today and (amazingly!) it still works. Sadly some of my
disk drives are not so well off, but I was still able to boot it. I've imaged
the console RX50, which is an RT11 file system, and the two diagnostic floppies
("DIAG SUPER" and "UTIL"). Those last two are in Files-11
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Rich Alderson
wrote:
>> From: Ethan Dicks
>> 2400' tapes (1.5mil thickness) were standard but sometime later, thinner (1.0
>> mil?) 3600' tapes came out.
> At LOTS (the Stanford academic computing facility where I worked from
> 1984-91),
> we did nightly increme
> From: Ethan Dicks
> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:21:54 -0400
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Gary Lee Phillips
> wrote:
>> Looking at what images I can find on the web, TU-80 seems correct. The one
>> we had was just generally flaky, I guess. It was 1600 bpi, 2400 foot tapes,
>> yes.
> 2400
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Gary Lee Phillips wrote:
> Looking at what images I can find on the web, TU-80 seems correct. The one
> we had was just generally flaky, I guess. It was 1600 bpi, 2400 foot tapes,
> yes.
2400' tapes (1.5mil thickness) were standard but sometime later,
thinner (1.0
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017 01:01:51 -, Johnny Billquist
wrote:
On 2017-03-16 23:01, Hittner, David T [US] (MS) wrote:
What I started with, though, was managing 11/730s in the mid-80s and
was optimizing the order of files on the console tape to be in the
order they were requested, so a 30-min
Looking at what images I can find on the web, TU-80 seems correct. The one
we had was just generally flaky, I guess. It was 1600 bpi, 2400 foot tapes,
yes.
The MicroVAX we added later came with a TK-50 that never had any problems.
That came in when a second unrelated project was added that require
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> The tape drive was not TK50. It was standard reel to reel media, horizontal
>>> like an studio audio tape deck, with a cover that had to be lifted in order
>>> to use it. The disk drive was housed in the same cabinet in a drawer below
>>>
TSV05 or the unibus versions.
Sent from my Galaxy Tab® A
Original message From: Paul Koning
Date: 3/17/17 11:23 AM (GMT-07:00) To: Wilm Boerhout
Cc: simh@trailing-edge.com Subject: Re: [Simh] VAX 8200
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Wilm Boerhout wrote:
>
> Gary Lee Phil
On 17-Mar-17 13:23, Paul Koning wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Wilm Boerhout wrote:
>>
>> Gary Lee Phillips schreef op 17-3-2017 om 16:54:
>>> Ethan Dicks mailto:ethan.di...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
That's earlier than is possible... the model was introduced in Jan,
1986. Don't k
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Gary Lee Phillips wrote:
> ...
> In any case, the issue I had was that the particular drive on the 8200 would
> not read back tapes written even by itself. We used it only for backups from
> the hard drive. DEC support was called in several times to adjust, calib
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Wilm Boerhout wrote:
>
> Gary Lee Phillips schreef op 17-3-2017 om 16:54:
>> Ethan Dicks mailto:ethan.di...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> >That's earlier than is possible... the model was introduced in Jan,
>> >1986. Don't know date of first ship.
>>
>> Well I did sa
Paul Koning schreef op 17-3-2017 om 17:05:
[snip]
More in general, if drive B wont' read tapes written by drive A, the fault could be at
either end (or both). It could even be in the standard -- all too many standards, for
example a whole lot of modern network protocol standards, permit implem
Gary Lee Phillips schreef op 17-3-2017 om 16:54:
Ethan Dicks mailto:ethan.di...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>That's earlier than is possible... the model was introduced in Jan,
>1986. Don't know date of first ship.
Well I did say "around 1985 or so." After 30+ years, I'd say that was
a pretty close gu
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Paul Koning
wrote:
>
> FWIW, I just saw a comment that some IBM systems (early 360, perhaps) had
> a habit of inserting short gaps into the middle of tape records because of
> memory latency issues. Apparently IBM's drives could read such stuff but
> other peopl
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Gary Lee Phillips wrote:
>
> ...
> The tape drive was not TK50. It was standard reel to reel media, horizontal
> like an studio audio tape deck, with a cover that had to be lifted in order
> to use it. The disk drive was housed in the same cabinet in a drawer be
Ethan Dicks wrote:
>That's earlier than is possible... the model was introduced in Jan,
>1986. Don't know date of first ship.
Well I did say "around 1985 or so." After 30+ years, I'd say that was a
pretty close guess.
The tape drive was not TK50. It was standard reel to reel media, horizontal
20 matches
Mail list logo
