Searching \ for 'IBM' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=ibm
Search entire site for: 'IBM'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'VT52 / VT100 IBM/PC Keyboard control sequences'
1995\06\28@024304 by Vincent Himpe

flavicon
face
From:   NAME: Vincent Himpe <DE_HIMPE@AM@WODAN>
To:     "spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu"TakeThisOuTspamoberonTakeThisOuTspammrgate

Hi.

Im programming a system that needs to interface with a VT100 or VT52 compatible
terminal.

Now i wonder what the command set of these terminals is. what do you have to
send to the terminal to move the cursor , clear the screen etc. ...
And what does the terminal send if you press the arrow keys etc ...

I have no access yet to such a terminal.

Second question ( a tough one i guess )

What does an IBM AT ! keyboard transmit when you press a key ?
I monitored this on a scope and it looks like a synchronous 11 bit signal.
Anyone who has a list of the codes emitted for all keys in a 101 or 102 key
keyboard ? (i'm not talking about the scancodes here. Because they are generated
inside the PC by the keyboard controller on the motherboard.)

I figuered out that each key has 2 codes. One of the bits seems to indicate Key
pressed or Key released. There also seems to be something like parity control.

The target application is a small process controller that can either interface
to a VT52 terminal. Or interface to an IBM-PC (AT !) keyboard and LCD display.

Regards
Vincent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    __
    \/         Vincent Himpe                     Customer Design Center Lab.
-------------
A L C A T E L   Tel + 32 2 728 1952                             /////
M I E T E C    Fax + 32 2 726 4215                             0  *)
B R U S S E L   E-mail  .....vi_himpeKILLspamspam@spam@mietec.be    (Work)             /
                       vincent.himpespamKILLspamping.be (Home)            \__/
               http://www.ping.be/~ping0751
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'VT52 / VT100 / IBM/PC Keyboard control sequences'
1995\06\28@035605 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
> Im programming a system that needs to interface with a VT100 or
> VT52 compatible terminal.
>
> Now i wonder what the command set of these terminals is. what do you have to
> send to the terminal to move the cursor , clear the screen etc. ...
> And what does the terminal send if you press the arrow keys etc ...

The VT52 was the last (main stream) terminal that DEC built using
the concept of the Escape character, <ESC>, introducing a sequence
with unique terminators and encoding that varied with each pattern.
Commonly available documentation used to be had in the Heathkit
H-19, H-89, and H-29 manual sets.  I think enough years have finally
passed that the VT100 has essentially made it obsolete (at least for
any new designs).

Basically, each VT100 sequence starts with a <CSI> character (for
Control Sequence Introducer).  This is an 8-bit C1 control character.
It maps, in a 7-bit environement, into <ESC>[ (Escape followed by a
left square bracket).  The sequence terminators fall in a specific
range of the ASCII character set.  Other portions of the set are
used to build parameters and seperate fields.  It's a very nice, rich
terminal control system.  Even sketchy details of all the sequences
would take dozens of pages.

Both of these terminals were designed and built by Digital Equipment
Corporation (DEC).  They kind of became defacto standards in the world
of ASCII async comm terminals.  DEC (now preferring the Digital moniker)
has continued to evolve these terminals into the current VT520 series.
The new ones are, basically, upward compatible.

You can get manuals from DEC.  They used to supply them with their
terminals.  Now they're seperately available items which have gotten
pricey.  You'd probably want the Programmer's Reference manual.

The VT100 sequence spawned, or agreed with, the early ANSI standard
for terminal control.  I don't know which came first, but I suspect
the DEC product preceded the standard.  Maybe they were developed
simultaneously since DEC has representatives on the X3 committees.

For full reference, you want copies of the X3.4, X3.41, and X3.64
standards.  They're available from the American National Standards
Institute, Inc; 1430 Broadway Avenue; New York, New York 10018.  They
are not cheap.  ANSI usually requires prepayment from small companies

You might get enough information to control a VT100 terminal from
documentation of the PC's ANSI.SYS driver (if you have anything
describing what it recognizes).


> I have no access yet to such a terminal.

There's a terminal emulator called Kermit.  It's available from Columbia
University (ftp to watsun.cc.columbia.edu, cd kermit).  It will support
both VT52 and VT100 terminal types on PC, Macs, Amigas, and lots of other
machines (big & small).  Source is available, so if you can't get the
terminal reference manuals, you should be able to sweat out the sequences
from that.


> Second question ( a tough one i guess )
>
> What does an IBM AT ! keyboard transmit when you press a key ?
> I monitored this on a scope and it looks like a synchronous 11 bit signal.
> Anyone who has a list of the codes emitted for all keys in a 101 or 102
> key keyboard ?

I'd recommend the "IBM Technical Reference, Personal Computer AT".
It includes the description of the interface as published by IBM.
Was running about $80-100(US) but may be hard to find.

You can also check "PC Keyboard Design" by Gary J Konzak.  It's
$249(US) and includes a diskette with royalty-free source code.
Gary also wrote the "PC 8042 Keyboard Controller" book; $199(US).

These books are available, along with lots of other PC reference
works, from:

       Annabooks
       11848 Bernardo Plaza Court, Suite 110
       San Diego, CA 92128-2417
       voice: 800-462-1042 or 619-673-0870
       facsimile: 619-673-1432

Some of their stuff isn't cheap, but if you need the information...


For less cost, you might want to check out the Ed Nisley's Firmware
Furnace column in the #59 June 1995 issue of Circuit Cellar Ink magazine.
It's entitled "How the PC Keyboard Got its Bits".  It might answer all
your current questions.
                                               Lee Jones

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Computer Communications             .....leeKILLspamspam.....frumble.claremont.edu
509 Black Hills Dr, Claremont, CA 91711         voice: 909-621-9008
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'IBM keyboard'
1995\06\28@105248 by divanov

flavicon
face
> There is a bit of a trick involved with what you're doing - the clock and
> data line at each end are driven with open collector outputs, if you want to
> use an IBM keyboard without the IBM, you will have to emulate the PC's
> keyboard controller.  You may want to verify this - its all a little fuzzy
> for me.  The emulation won't be too difficult, but will take a little
> checking into, it probably all boils down to just a couple of things.

The PC sets the Caps Lock LED (and the rest) on/off and also issues
initialization strings, and others. They are all listed in the IBM
technical reference. One does not really need them in simplier
applications. Actually, I can REALLY recommend the Philips
Microcontroller Application Notes -- one of them is a IBM keyboard to
I2C converter using a 8051. It has all the data you need, scan codes, controller
codes, alles... If you need copies of the IBM tech reference, or the
exact number of the Philips app note, e-mail me, and I'll try to organize someth
ing.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Richard

1995\06\28@145029 by Clark I. C. Design

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

       The deal about the code being an 11-bit code is correct, I
believe (my memory is a little fuzzy on that).  The keyboard will send
out a byte synchronously (it provides the clock) corresponding to the key
pressed, and then a F0, and then the same key.  Some keys on the AT
keyboard send out SEVERAL codes, and so it can get kind of hairy decoding
them.  XT keyboards are nicer, and send only one byte per key.  I wrote
down all the actual codes, if anyone is interested.  I also have code
which will receive and send data for the 8051 and 68000 (the 68000 code
uses two pins on a 68230).  The nice thing about the code is that it
doesn't require the use of a real serial port to work.


Larry Battraw
(@spam@larryKILLspamspamcicdphx.com)

1995\06\28@231912 by Peter Homann

picon face
> What does an IBM AT ! keyboard transmit when you press a key ?
> I monitored this on a scope and it looks like a synchronous 11 bit signal.
> Anyone who has a list of the codes emitted for all keys in a 101 or 102 key
> keyboard ? (i'm not talking about the scancodes here. Because they are
> generated
> inside the PC by the keyboard controller on the motherboard.)
>
> I figuered out that each key has 2 codes. One of the bits seems to indicate
> Key
> pressed or Key released. There also seems to be something like parity
> control.
>
> The target application is a small process controller that can either
> interface
> to a VT52 terminal. Or interface to an IBM-PC (AT !) keyboard and LCD
> display.
>

In the Philips Semiconductors book "Application Notes for 80C51-Based
8-Bit Microcontrollers" there is an application note AN434 "Connecting
a PC keyboard to the I2C-bus".

It  has a description of what comes out of it, how to connect to it
as well as a software listing.

Regards

Peter
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Peter Homann                                email: KILLspampeterhKILLspamspamadacel.com.au
Adacel Pty Ltd                              Work : (03) 596-2991
250 Bay St, Brighton 3186, VIC, AUSTRALIA   Fax  : (03) 596-2960


'Placing blame on IBM (RA4 inversion)'
1996\12\21@184217 by Marv
flavicon
face
As part of several comments on the PIC 16C84 RA4 pin the following appeared:

 "Now if only IBM had kept all the input pins on the printer ports the same
polarity, I'd be walking on Cloud 9. Wake me up when the ride is over!"

 Do not blame IBM for that one.  That was Centronics' doing... and they are
long since gone.

And later in the fray:

 "... **BUT** some parallel ports, most notably Toshiba laptops, do NOT
support this."

 Blame Toshiba for that one! Try using Interlink (formerly Laplink) with
one of those Turkey's and look like a fool.

 Even a bad standard, is preferable to no standard.

Happy Holidays,
 Marv

1996\12\22@054312 by John Payson

picon face
>
> As part of several comments on the PIC 16C84 RA4 pin the following appeared:
>
>   "... **BUT** some parallel ports, most notably Toshiba laptops, do NOT
> support this."
>
>   Blame Toshiba for that one! Try using Interlink (formerly Laplink) with
> one of those Turkey's and look like a fool.

Do you (or does anyone) have any idea whether that wierdness is only a
problem with Toshiba laptops, or if it is more widespread?  I have no
real qualm with the /Strobe wire not being open-collector (if it's open
collector it will pose a bottleneck when trying to send data quickly to
a printer).  My qualm is that the other control outputs, even though they
are open-collector, can't be read back; a read to the control port will
show the latched value rather than what's actually on the pin!

[btw, even for the strobe wire, they should have done something analagous
to the 87C51 pullup design: make it so that when the pin has a low->high
transition it will be pulled up hard, briefly, and so that it's pulled up
weakly the rest of the time.]

1996\12\22@102657 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, John Payson wrote:
> Do you (or does anyone) have any idea whether that wierdness is only a
> problem with Toshiba laptops, or if it is more widespread?  I have no
> real qualm with the /Strobe wire not being open-collector (if it's open
> collector it will pose a bottleneck when trying to send data quickly to

This proves not to be the case.  That interface was designed in the early
days of TTL, and is designed to have a pull-up that is by modern standards
an awfully small value - I recall 220 ohms or 330 ohms as being common for
plain-old-TTL pullups.  And in fact, the Centronics interface was spec'd
with setup and strobe (minimum) pulse width on the order of a couple
microseconds not for the sake of the logic gates but to allow for a
reasonably long cable.

> [btw, even for the strobe wire, they should have done something analagous
> to the 87C51 pullup design: make it so that when the pin has a low->high
> transition it will be pulled up hard, briefly, and so that it's pulled up
> weakly the rest of the time.]

That would have been interesting, but I'm afraid you're forgetting how old
the design is.  They used an earlier design paradigm's "hard" pull-up
rather than one that hadn't been invented yet.  :-)

1996\12\22@145249 by Bob Blick

flavicon
face
>>   Blame Toshiba for that one! Try using Interlink (formerly Laplink) with
>> one of those Turkey's and look like a fool.
>
>Do you (or does anyone) have any idea whether that wierdness is only a
>problem with Toshiba laptops, or if it is more widespread?  I have no

I think it might be one or two models that gave toshiba such a bad name. I
have a T2400 that has always acted just like a real computer, even with me
bit-banging the printer ports in Basic and assembly.

If you want to start a cursing-fest, mention the Compaq Contura Aero, that
one has some "special" things going on with its parallel port.

Cheers, Bob

1996\12\22@172209 by John Payson

picon face
> On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, John Payson wrote:
> > Do you (or does anyone) have any idea whether that wierdness is only a
> > problem with Toshiba laptops, or if it is more widespread?  I have no
> > real qualm with the /Strobe wire not being open-collector (if it's open
> > collector it will pose a bottleneck when trying to send data quickly to
>
> This proves not to be the case.  That interface was designed in the early
> days of TTL, and is designed to have a pull-up that is by modern standards
> an awfully small value - I recall 220 ohms or 330 ohms as being common for
> plain-old-TTL pullups.  And in fact, the Centronics interface was spec'd
> with setup and strobe (minimum) pulse width on the order of a couple
> microseconds not for the sake of the logic gates but to allow for a
> reasonably long cable.

220 ohms pullup... with 4.4 volts across it (pulling down to 0.6volts) that's
20 mils.  Plausible I guess, but even so a PIC should be able to sink that
with no problem.  On the Toshiba, though, the pullup on that thing was REAL
STIFF--even a PIC output couldn't pull it very far (now THAT's stiff).

> > [btw, even for the strobe wire, they should have done something analagous
> > to the 87C51 pullup design: make it so that when the pin has a low->high
> > transition it will be pulled up hard, briefly, and so that it's pulled up
> > weakly the rest of the time.]
>
> That would have been interesting, but I'm afraid you're forgetting how old
> the design is.  They used an earlier design paradigm's "hard" pull-up
> rather than one that hadn't been invented yet.  :-)

The Toshiba's pullup on the strobe wire is, at least from my perception, even
stiffer than a 220 ohm resistor; as for changing paradigm, there really aren't
any definitive electrical specifications for the old parallel port and design-
ing a circuit so that a rising edge on "strobe" would switch a 50 ohm pullup
for 2us followed by leaving on a 4.7K (or even 330ohm) pullup would have been
quite in line with the specifications.

Oh well...

1996\12\22@231732 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, John Payson wrote:

> 220 ohms pullup... with 4.4 volts across it (pulling down to 0.6volts) that's
> 20 mils.  Plausible I guess, but even so a PIC should be able to sink that
> with no problem.  On the Toshiba, though, the pullup on that thing was REAL
> STIFF--even a PIC output couldn't pull it very far (now THAT's stiff).

Oops - I wasn't talking about the Toshiba, about the quirks of which I am
quite happy not to have to know <grin>; rather I was addressing the
issue of switching speed with a pullup.  For a moderate length of
twisted-pair wiring, which was what the old Centronics spec called for,
the use of pull-up instead of some active current source was not even
close to being the limiting factor.

> The Toshiba's pullup on the strobe wire is, at least from my perception, even
> stiffer than a 220 ohm resistor; as for changing paradigm, there really aren't
> any definitive electrical specifications for the old parallel port and design-
> ing a circuit so that a rising edge on "strobe" would switch a 50 ohm pullup
> for 2us followed by leaving on a 4.7K (or even 330ohm) pullup would have been
> quite in line with the specifications.

There may not be any electrical specifications for the IBM parallel port,
but that's because they were (nominally, at least) designing to the
relatively ancient Centronics interface.  I have no idea if there was ever
a formal standard sanctioned by a national standards body, but there
certainly were published specs for that interface.  Granted that no one
has likely felt the need to publish them in the last fifteen or twenty
years...

And yeah, it was an earlier paradigm.  Think for a moment how much
additional circuitry it takes to add that dynamic pullup when you're
building it out of SSI TTL gates and discrete components.  Back then, if
you needed X mA of pullup you simply designed that in as a static load, as
they did.  It would be unfair to say that they didn't care how much power
it took; rather it was just that this wasn't an unusual expenditure of
power for the time.

Not that I would want to go back to those design rules... pocket
calculators that could heat good-sized rooms and such.  :-(  :-)

1996\12\23@033420 by John Payson

picon face
> On Sun, 22 Dec 1996, John Payson wrote:
> > 220 ohms pullup... with 4.4 volts across it (pulling down to 0.6volts)
that's
> > 20 mils.  Plausible I guess, but even so a PIC should be able to sink that
> > with no problem.  On the Toshiba, though, the pullup on that thing was REAL
> > STIFF--even a PIC output couldn't pull it very far (now THAT's stiff).
>
> Oops - I wasn't talking about the Toshiba, about the quirks of which I am
> quite happy not to have to know <grin>; rather I was addressing the
> issue of switching speed with a pullup.  For a moderate length of
> twisted-pair wiring, which was what the old Centronics spec called for,
> the use of pull-up instead of some active current source was not even
> close to being the limiting factor.

When Centronics designed the interface which would become the standard, not
only was the pull-up speed not the limiting factor, but communications PERIOD
was not a limiting factor.  Simply put--on the printers of the time, a data
transfer rate of 1,000 bytes/second was more than adequate (even a typical
dot matrix printer outputting graphics could only print about 500 columns of
dots per second).  Actually, being limitted to 1,000 bytes/second as some
computers were did pose something of a limitation since many printers of the
time could not simultaneously print and receive data; even a small (2K or so)
buffer between the computer and printer could improve graphics throughput
quite noticeably.

[slight editing of my >> quoted text to improve line lengths]
{Quote hidden}

Certainly there were specifications for the Centronics interface, but since
sending a thousand or so bytes of data down a cable isn't particularly hard
many parameters either were not specified rigidly or else were often imple-
mented contrary to the specification.

> And yeah, it was an earlier paradigm.  Think for a moment how much
> additional circuitry it takes to add that dynamic pullup when you're
> building it out of SSI TTL gates and discrete components.  Back then, if
> you needed X mA of pullup you simply designed that in as a static load, as
> they did.  It would be unfair to say that they didn't care how much power
> it took; rather it was just that this wasn't an unusual expenditure of
> power for the time.

My point was that the Toshiba laptop has substituted for the older paradigm
(put a fairly stiff pullup on the strobe wire) a new paradigm (put a really
incredibly solid active pullup on the strobe wire) which was a departure
from the old one but which may have been desired to improve transfer speeds
(220 ohms is fine for sending 1,000 bytes/second or even 25,000 bytes/second
but may not be good enough when sending 1,000,000 bytes/second).  My point
was simply that it would have been less of a departure from the old paradigm
of they'd made it so that the pullup was mega-stiff only briefly when the
line made a transition and was otherwise only moderately stiff.

> Not that I would want to go back to those design rules... pocket
> calculators that could heat good-sized rooms and such.  :-(  :-)

Heh... though some of the equipment then was pretty impressive.  For example,
there are times when I have a lot of source code to print out and I'm waiting
for the HP LJ/4p's to print (4ppm) when I've wished I had one of those nice
old fashioned chain printers next-door (I don't think I'd want one in _MY_
office...)

1996\12\23@085000 by timetech

flavicon
face
Marv wrote:

>   "... **BUT** some parallel ports, most notably Toshiba laptops, do NOT
> support this."
>
>   Blame Toshiba for that one! Try using Interlink (formerly Laplink) with
> one of those Turkey's and look like a fool.

Hmmm? I did a quick check of my 3600CT & 650CT, and Laplink still works,
as it does on every other Toshiba machine I have access to. In fact, my
only purchase of Laplink is by buying it preinstalled on a Toshiba
portable...

-- Tom Rogers

1996\12\23@085003 by timetech

flavicon
face
The standard of the time was to use open collector drivers for ttl level
signals. The pull up at the far end was typically between 220 and 1000
ohms. There was a world of machines that used this basic topology in
everything from external connections to fast backplane busses. There
were several terminating schemes for bidirectional busses, including
split termination with a 220/330 combination.

The IBM pc design team (the Boca Raton group) apparently misunderstood
the use of open collector logic. They chose totem pole active high drive
as their standard for irq lines, despite the fact that the universal
method was/is to use active low open collector lines. This fact alone
has caused a lot more problems in pc use than the printer port
definition.

-- Tom Rogers

1996\12\23@101014 by Michael Mullen

picon face
I think the choice of the IBM printer port were determined by costs.
I just checked the PC (not XT) reference manual, and the mochrome/
printer adapter card uses a single 7405 for all the device control lines.
These lines come from a latch which is cleared by master reset.
Might have cost another chip to change it.

A more interesting question is why the port was not made bidirectional.
All the gates are there, and if an unused latched output had been
connected to the output enable on the driver -- a no-cost change --
we would have had an 8 bit bidirectional port with control lines.  Slow
(because of the caps on the data lines) but much better than what
we have been stuck with since then.

Mike Mullen

1996\12\23@151028 by Martin J. Maney

flavicon
face
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, John Payson wrote:

> was simply that it would have been less of a departure from the old paradigm
> of they'd made it so that the pullup was mega-stiff only briefly when the
> line made a transition and was otherwise only moderately stiff.

Somehow out of all that I had gotten the impression you were wishing that
they'd specified that sort of drive 'way back when - no wonder this whole
conversation has been confusing to me!

> Heh... though some of the equipment then was pretty impressive.  For example,
> there are times when I have a lot of source code to print out and I'm waiting
> for the HP LJ/4p's to print (4ppm) when I've wished I had one of those nice
> old fashioned chain printers next-door (I don't think I'd want one in _MY_
> office...)

<shudder>  Next door is too close.  Third building over is about right,
and by then it has to be a pretty large printout for this to be a win
unless you consider the other benefits of getting up and walking away
from the 'puter once in a while.

Hey, Merry Christmas, all!

1996\12\23@201452 by John Payson

picon face
> I think the choice of the IBM printer port were determined by costs.
> I just checked the PC (not XT) reference manual, and the mochrome/
> printer adapter card uses a single 7405 for all the device control lines.
> These lines come from a latch which is cleared by master reset.
> Might have cost another chip to change it.
>
> A more interesting question is why the port was not made bidirectional.
> All the gates are there, and if an unused latched output had been
> connected to the output enable on the driver -- a no-cost change --
> we would have had an 8 bit bidirectional port with control lines.  Slow
> (because of the caps on the data lines) but much better than what
> we have been stuck with since then.

Actually, if the control lines are used bidirectionally the current printer
port design really isn't all that bad; in fact, in some cases it may be
better to use the port as two eight-bit paths and one control line than to
use the data bits bidirectionally.  Unfortunately, the control signals are
not bidirectional on the Toshiba Satellites and I'm a bit concerned about
whether they may have that problem on other machines as well.


'Unsubscribme please.'
1997\10\02@154535 by Gustavo Fabian Paredes
picon face
Unsubscribme at the PICLIST please.Thank you




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

'Unsubscribme please.[OT]'
1997\10\03@093923 by Mike Smith

flavicon
face
If at first you don't succeed, blind repetition doesn't work!! <sigh>

Try sending to:

<RemoveMELISTSERVTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu>

and in the body put :
signoff PICLIST

****************************************************************************
************************
****************************************************************************
************************
**NEXT TIME KEEP THE MAIL THAT TELLS YOU THIS, WHEN YOU JOIN A LIST!!! **
****************************************************************************
************************
****************************************************************************
************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Gustavo Fabian Paredes <spamBeGonetatucaspamBeGonespamHOTMAIL.COM>
To: TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU <RemoveMEPICLISTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Friday, 3 October 1997 5:16
Subject: Unsubscribme please.


>Unsubscribme at the PICLIST please.Thank you


>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Tanstaafl.  You catch their advertising.

MikeS
<mikesmith_ozEraseMEspam.....relaymail.net>

'(IBM and microchannel bus) Entirely [OT]'
1997\10\11@101437 by paulb

flavicon
face
Kevin J. Slater wrote:

> The Microchannel bus was (and still is in many respects) far superior
> to the competition.

Quite likely.  Uses proper connectors doesn't it?  Probably arguable
and I for one have no idea on this.  But here's the point:

> But IBM  was stupid, they though superior technology wins on its own
> merit.

 Hey, hang on, did you REALLY mean to say that?  Isn't this an oxymoron
or something?  Have you perchance been out playing all-day tennis comps
in the Mojave again?  Are we not speaking of the same company that
"designed" the PC in the first place?  How do you propose to reconcile
that statement?

> In the US at least, it doesn't; you need to be able to market the
> product as well.

 I thought that superior technology (Beta, UNIX, 68xxx, Mac, etc.) was
then and remains generally held to be entirely irrelevant in comparison
with marketing?

> Lesson to learn - if you want an architecture to take hold, put it out
> there for all to use. i.e. SIMMSTICK, etc.

 I like it, but it won't take over the PC market.

 Cheers,
       Paul B.         (:-^)   (Tongue-in-cheek, AFAIK)


'James Kelly/Australia/IBM is out of the office.'
1997\12\19@171927 by d23m0004
flavicon
face
I am out of the office from 19-12-97, returning 29-12-97.  You will receive
only this notification of my absence prior to my return, at which time I will
respond.


'Bo Boegvald Hansen/Denmark/IBM is out of the offic'
1998\06\25@004327 by D17ML202/17/M/IBM
flavicon
face
I am out of the office from 24-06-98, returning 29-06-98.  You will receive
only this notification of my absence prior to my return, at which time I will
respond.
            Best Regards
         Bo Boegvald Hansen


'IBM KYBD+JOYSTICK'
1998\07\04@050836 by darknite
flavicon
face
Does anybody have any ideas on how I could connect an C64/Atari
joystick to insert keystrokes into the IBM keyboard I/O?

I was thinking of putting a PIC in series with the keyboard and the
motherboard.

/-------\                        /--------\
| KYBRD |-------->| PIC |------->|COMPUTER|
\-------/            |           \--------/
                    |
                |JOYSTICK|
Matt.

1998\07\04@171346 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Don't know how to do it all but these should help somewhat;  the
resources I've found in my searches on my current project are:

 Steve's PC Keyboard Info at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/steve_lawther/keybinfo.htm, has
good links & info

 PIC Page, at http://www.arne.si/~mauricio/PIC.HTM, has software for
emulating both the AT Keyboard & the AT end of things, this might be
really handy for you!

 Fil's FAQ-Link-In Corner has the PC Keyboard FAQ v 1.00 at
http://www.arne.si/~mauricio/Kbdfaq.htm (May be a newer version out
there?)

 Interfacing the PC's keyboard, at
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Bay/8302/keybrd.htm, Motorola
68HC705 code on there for some of this, links to his Interfacing the PC
page (up one level - good links on other pieces of the puzzle.)

 Omar Jenkins is working on a one-handed chording keyboard, at
http://www.mbhs.edu/~ojenkins/wearable/fiddler.html

 Tim & I are working on a one-handed chording keyboard, I'll post my
question on a separate post <G>  And we'll have a web page up soon as
Tim gets to it (I'm behind on my part, so I'm not griping!)  We'll
publish & GPL (or something close to that) our design once we get there,
we just changed from a 16F84 to a 16C66 PIC design so I'm re-doing some
design work here <G>

 (And the girlfriend gets seizures from fireworks, it's Independence
day, so I get to listen hard for problems from M-80's going off, she's
doing OK though mostly!  She loves fireworks, -GO FIGURE- <VBG>, so do
I)

 Mark, EraseMEmwillisspamnwlink.com

Matthew R Brown wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1998\07\04@174051 by Eric Naus

picon face
Thrustmaster joysticks do just that.

The thrustmaster goes between the keyboard and the computer.

That way each key on the joystick can be programmed to represent a key or

set of keystrokes that would have been typed on the key board.

I don't know if this gives you any ideas or not.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Bye for now

Eric

1998\07\04@193938 by Timothy D. Gray

flavicon
face
Thrustmaster WCS does that, the joystick does not. the joystick has
standard analog 100K pots and 4 buttons. the other buttons are matrixed on
the 4 button inputs. now the add-on  WCS (Weapon throttle) plugs into the
keyboard and allows re-programming of buttons on the joystick and it's
buttons. The use a special group of PIC's and PAL's with eeproms to
perform these functions and allow uploading from the keymap tables.

On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Eric Naus wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\07\06@064545 by Caisson

flavicon
face
> Van: Matthew R Brown <RemoveMEdarkniteEraseMEspamEraseMEglobal.co.za>
> Aan: RemoveMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Onderwerp: IBM KYBD+JOYSTICK
> Datum: zaterdag 4 juli 1998 10:57
>
> Does anybody have any ideas on how I could connect an C64/Atari
> joystick to insert keystrokes into the IBM keyboard I/O?
>
> I was thinking of putting a PIC in series with the keyboard and the
> motherboard.
>
> /-------\                        /--------\
> | KYBRD |-------->| PIC |------->|COMPUTER|
> \-------/            |           \--------/
>                      |
>                  |JOYSTICK|
> Matt.

Hey Matt !  You can't do this !  That's _my_ idea ;-)

Yes, I'm slowly gathering information about the Keyboard protocol.  But the
fact that I want the keyboard _and_ the joystick functioning together
(_and_ using a handy,but slow PIC, the 16C84) keeps me thinking ....

Greetz,
 Rudy Wieser


'RE : 75805312@IT.IBM.COM'
1998\08\13@195004 by Claudio Rachiele IW0DZG
flavicon
face
I don't know what happen.
I don't send nothing to the list.
I don't have set autoanswer for vacation.
Maybe same malfuction to my company mail system.
Let me investigate.
Sorry for now.


                      Claudio Rachiele IW0DZG

1998\08\13@195757 by Ryan Pogge

flavicon
face
OK,
no problem.


-----Original Message-----
From: Claudio Rachiele IW0DZG <RemoveME75805312TakeThisOuTspamspamIT.IBM.COM>
To: EraseMEPICLISTspamspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU <RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 7:53 PM
Subject: RE : 75805312STOPspamspamspam_OUTIT.IBM.COM



I don't know what happen.
I don't send nothing to the list.
I don't have set autoanswer for vacation.
Maybe same malfuction to my company mail system.
Let me investigate.
Sorry for now.


                      Claudio Rachiele IW0DZG

'Oldie question: IBM-709?'
1998\08\31@203449 by Mel Evans

picon face
   I recently heard someone say: "The PIC 16C54 has the same performance,
speed- and memory-wise, as the IBM-709".  The UNIVAC, maybe, but the IBM-709?
   OK, you oldtimers, here's a more general question:
       "The PIC 16C54 has the same performance, speed- and memory-wise, as
the IBM-x or the PDP-y."
   What are the values of x and y?
-- Mel Evans    spamBeGonemevans1027STOPspamspamEraseMEaol.com

1998\08\31@210849 by Clyde Smith-Stubbs

flavicon
face
On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 08:31:37PM -0400, Mel Evans wrote:
>         "The PIC 16C54 has the same performance, speed- and memory-wise, as
> the IBM-x or the PDP-y."
>     What are the values of x and y?

The PDP-8 is close, though it was slower, and had more memory (1K-4K). And all
its memory was readable and writable.

--
Clyde Smith-Stubbs               |            HI-TECH Software
Email: KILLspamclydespamBeGonespamhtsoft.com          |          Phone            Fax
WWW:   http://www.htsoft.com/    | USA: (408) 490 2885  (408) 490 2885
PGP:   finger EraseMEclydespamEraseMEhtsoft.com   | AUS: +61 7 3354 2411 +61 7 3354 2422
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI-TECH C: compiling the real world.

1998\08\31@211023 by goflo

flavicon
face
Suggest you direct your inquiry to
@spam@otlist@spam@spamspam_OUTbellsouth.net
where you may discuss the matter with the design teams
of the devices you mention...

Regards, Jack

Mel Evans wrote:
>
>     I recently heard someone say: "The PIC 16C54 has the same performance,
> speed- and memory-wise, as the IBM-709".  The UNIVAC, maybe, but the IBM-709?
>     OK, you oldtimers, here's a more general question:
>         "The PIC 16C54 has the same performance, speed- and memory-wise, as
> the IBM-x or the PDP-y."
>     What are the values of x and y?

1998\08\31@215000 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
It's really hard to compare von Neuman architectures with Harvard
architectures, or even ram-based with rom-based architectures.

BillW

1998\08\31@220915 by goflo

flavicon
face
No ROM?

Regards, Jack

Clyde Smith-Stubbs wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 1998 at 08:31:37PM -0400, Mel Evans wrote:
> >         "The PIC 16C54 has the same performance, speed- and memory-wise, as
> > the IBM-x or the PDP-y."
> >     What are the values of x and y?
>
> The PDP-8 is close, though it was slower, and had more memory (1K-4K). And all
> its memory was readable and writable.


'Oldie question: IBM-709?'
1998\09\01@013433 by Russell McMahon
picon face
>From dim and distant recall a 16C54 would give a PDP-8 quite a good
fight but the PDP had larger memory size capabilities (if you had
LOTS of money) and had awesome peripherals (paper and mag tape (to
load boot strap program from :-)) , vector graphics display, ASR33
console etc) . PDP8 could do unlimited subroutine nesting by storing
the return addresses in RAM at the start of each subroutine. (All
memory was non-volatile core so program memory was writeable). PDP 8
genuinely only had 8 instructions but had some very useful addressing
modes which allowed more powerful addressing than PIC.  The add
instruction was named TAD so you would ALWAYS remember that it was a
2's complement add - to subtract you, of course, COMPLEMENT and then
TAD. PDP8 went through quite a lot of evolution so it would depend on
the actual sub model.

One advantage that the PDP8 had over a 16C54 was that you could open
the door and walk inside it to fix it :-). We had one with an analog
addition of some sort in the engineering school in the early 1970's -
it played "Space War" (vector graphics on a Tektronix raster display,
2 ships, one moon, fired bombs with own dynamics, had gravity
even!) - you could do this with a 16C54 too.

IBM - dunno. In 1968 the university ran to an IBM BCD mini which had
to do a Fortran compile and run in 2 loads as there was not enough
memory to hold all the compiler in memory at once. You'd be pushed to
do a Fortran compiler on a 16C54 :-)



{Original Message removed}

1998\09\12@085940 by paulb

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote (OK, so I«m slow in replying!):

> PDP8 could do unlimited subroutine nesting by storing the return
> addresses in RAM at the start of each subroutine.

 My first thought on that was "but what about recursive calls?".  Of
course, recursive calls are pretty uncommonly used, and *never* if the
stack depth is constrained as it most certainly is with PICs.

 Then I tend to consider; what about a utility subroutine which may
also be used within an interrupt?  That«s probably rare too.  OK then,
it«s a neat trick, FWIW.  The RETs must have been hard«coded indirect
jumps though.  (OK, I *do* have the book, I even have the FOCAL manual,
but where?)

 I«m still on the hunt for a (working) specimen too.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1998\09\12@140612 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   > PDP8 could do unlimited subroutine nesting by storing the return
   > addresses in RAM at the start of each subroutine.

     My first thought on that was "but what about recursive calls?".  Of
   course, recursive calls are pretty uncommonly used, and *never* if the
   stack depth is constrained as it most certainly is with PICs.

Yep. Stacks are a moderately recent invention, so to speak.  You could
check out the instruction set of DEC's PDP-10 processor familly, which
has half a dozen or so different instructions for calling subroutines.

       JSR foo         Save the PC at foo, run at foo+1
       JSP r,foo       save PC in register R, run at foo
       JSA r,foo       Save register r at foo, save PC in r, run at foo+1
       PUSHJ r,foo     use register r as a stack pointer, push the current
                       pc, run at foo.
       JRA r,foo       (return for JSA)
       POPJ r,         (return for PUSHJ)
       JRST            general purpose jump (Jump & ReStore Flags)


IIRC, the fortran 4 compiler used JSA pretty much up until the End of life
of the product line.

Ah, those were the days.  People weren't so positive that the "right"
architecture was etched it stone, so there was always something new and
weird in a processors instruction set.  Nowdays ya got yer 86 like
arhcitectures, and your RISC architectures (which are a rebellion against
the "always something new and weird" part that compiler writers really
didn't like.)

BillW


'Funniest Y2K Joke; 640K limits and MS/IBM'
1999\01\12@132325 by John Payson
flavicon
face
> >I can still hear someone say "640 Kb should be enough for anyone" ... :-)
>
> Bill Gates said that, believe it or not.

|Really, did he?

Supposedly, though I suspect the quote is apocryphal.

|That's funny, because the so called "640 k barrier" was IBM's
|invention, by placing the video buffers at 640K in the 1MB memory
|space of the 8086/88, in the original IBM PC design.

Microsoft and Bill Gates were actually quite involved in the design
of the original PC.  Remember that they not only provided the DOS for
the machine, but more importantly (at the time) they also wrote the
BASIC interpreter (which was still in the ROMs of many IBM machines
built long after it was essentially obsolete!).  I have no idea what,
if anything, Microsoft contributed to the memory map (which isn't all
THAT bad, really) or the I/O map (which is TERRIBLE!) but supposedly
the character set (including that funny character 158 which nobody can
identify) was Bill Gates' creation.

|MSDOS could use the full 1M quite well, from the very beginning.
|There existed MSDOS PCs which where not IBM PC compatible,
|which accessed the video buffers by a banking scheme, and so
|could use the full 1MB minus epsilon. I used one myself (made by
|Nixdorf/Germany - now part of Siemens-Nixdorf, SNI), which was
|built that way.

Pushing the memory up to 736K on CGA-based machines (or 704K on mono-
chrome machines) was not a problem; the area starting at $A0000 was
labeled as "reserved for future expansion".  IBM didn't actually use
that area until the advent of the EGA card (which was an incredibly
bizarre and awful hack, IMHO), but all subsequent display cards have
needed that area for compatibility with EGA/VGA.

In fairness to IBM and Microsoft, however, I don't think that having
the barrier at 640K was any better or worse than having it at, e.g.,
512K or 768K.  The fundamental difficulty was that software which had
been designed to fit (barely) in a 640K system without too much other
junk (e.g. network drivers, etc.) had trouble in more complex setups.
Had the original barrier been at 768K, programs would have been big-
ger and the exact same problem would have arisen.

In some ways, it may even be said that having the "640K" barrier was
a good thing.  Since there are unused addresses above that spot, it
is possible to cram in drivers and such without taking memory from
the bottom 640K.  Thus programs that expect 640K can get it.  Had the
original barrier been at, e.g. 896K ($E0000) then a lot of software
would probably have required 800+K of available RAM and there'd be
nowhere to put the drivers.

Of course, back in the days of DesqView (before Windows really took
off) I found it oddly ironic that while I spent $100 to buy 4MB of
RAM, people all over were spending hundreds of dollars in time and
software to gain a few dozen K here and there of "DOS" memory.  Boy
that was awhile ago...

1999\01\12@173437 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
At 12:24 01/12/99 -0600, John Payson wrote:
>the character set (including that funny character 158 which nobody can
>identify) was Bill Gates' creation.

in my character table for the extended ASCII ("OEM") set -- i guess that's
what you're talking about -- this is the symbol for spanish pesetas (a
capital P with a small t attached to it).

>In fairness to IBM and Microsoft, however, I don't think that having
>the barrier at 640K was any better or worse than having it at, e.g.,
>512K or 768K.

why having a barrier at all? put all the operating system and its drivers
before the code, and the apps have no end limit. but of course, no .com
programs then...

ge

1999\01\13@032651 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
John Payson wrote:
{Quote hidden}

 As I see it, it's that assumption that having a barrier at ALL was
necessary/OK, that's a stupid assumption that didn't need to be made at
all...

 If they'd not done a "Dumb", we could have a memory map without any
barrier, like this (Just a quick idea, using 16 Mb as an arbitrary
number):

 0 to 16 Mb could be device space, memory map space, BIOS Rom space,
and so on (By now, IBM Basic would take a full meg of it, right?)  Give
each slot in your machine up to a full megabyte of IO space if it needs
it, tell it it's ROM IO Base at bootup time.  No address contention, had
they done that.

 From 16 Mb upwards could be linear RAM, up to 32 bits unsigned
addressing.  No dang 640k limit.  I could be running QEdit with 64 Mb of
Ram, not 600k, available <G>

 SO many things I do would be so much easier had this been done!

 The 16 Mb barrier here is just arbitrary (Could be at 7FFFFFFF giving
you 31 bits of address space before & 31 bits of RAM space from 80000000
to FFFFFFFF, just as easily.)  It's not excessively limiting, unlike the
640k barrier <G>  But then, we could have an interrupt controller per
slot, truly shared interrupts, and so on, had things been done "my way";
dream on, huh?  <G>

 Mark, spamBeGonemwillisspamKILLspamnwlink.com

1999\01\13@040625 by Tjaart van der Walt

flavicon
face
Many Piclisters wrote :

> > > Bill Gates said that, believe it or not.
> >
> > |Really, did he?
> > blah blah ilovebillihatebillilovebillilovebill blah blah

I think we can safely call it OT now. Can we add [OT]
in the subject?

--
Friendly Regards          /"\
                         \ /
Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
.....tjaartspam_OUTspamwasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                WASP International                |
|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development|
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Mobile : TakeThisOuTtjaart.....spamTakeThisOuTsms.wasp.co.za  (160 text chars) |
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686  Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973|
|          WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E          |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1999\01\13@040845 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face
       <huge snip>

{Quote hidden}

This topic seems to arise on every technical mailing list/newsgroup from
time to time!

The 8086 can address only 1 MB without the cunning paging arangements such
as LIM (Lotus Intel Memory...or something).  Also IIRC there is only 64K IO
space.

640K was an outrageous amount of memory at the time.  I still have an XT
clone motherboard with only 64K!!  GUI interfaces were not around for the pc
back then, at least not ones using hi-res graphics, so an awfull lot of
functionality could be packed into 640K.

Another design flaw was the decision to use edge triggered interupts instead
of level triggered, which menat that interupts could not be shared.

As always, hindsight is a wonderfull thing!

Regards

Mike Rigby-Jones

1999\01\13@053446 by Wolfgang Strobl

flavicon
face
On 12 Jan 99, 14:32  Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> why having a barrier at all? put all the operating system and its drivers
> before the code, and the apps have no end limit. but of course, no .com
> programs then...

You didn't get the point. The 8086/86 processory has an 1M adress
space, only. Whether you put the operating system at the top or at
the bottom doesn't matter at all. But if you declare the space above
640K as I/O space for memory mapped I/O, and place the real
video buffers there (like IBM did), this reduces the size of the
largest possible piece of contiguous memory an application could
aquire from the OS to 640K minus the size of the operating
system.  That's the (in)famous "640 MB" barrier. Without paging
hardware (the 8088 had none), the OS can't do anything about it.

.Com files are an entierely different matter. These where (and still
are) an carryover from CP/M times. These are handled by setting
all segment register to the load point, and loading the program at
offset 100(hex). In that mode (called "small memory model" at that
time) a program only sees 16 bit adresses and a 64K memory
space (its location within the 1M memory space of the 8088 is
irrelevant). The whole model and interface amazingly resembles the
old CP/M API. You even could call the OS services (i.e. open a file)
by fiddling with the standard FCB (at 5A, or 5f) and doing a call to
location 5, and terminate by junping to location zero, instead of
using the official DOS interrupt 21h.

Actually, all one had to do in order to port a CP/M program written
for the 8080 to MSDOS was running it through a trivial translator
which did a one to one replacement of instructions, because
MSDOS not only contained the whole CP/M API, but the actuall
software interface (the calling method), too! I've done it.

This little trick was one of the reasons for the success of MSDOS:
it immediately started with lots of applications, which had been
developed (and tested by the user community) on CP/M. Microsoft
successfully repeated that trick with Windows. Nobody used
Windows 2 because of the many real mode, ie "640K barrier"
limits, but Windows 3, which ran in protected mode and could use
16M was an immediate success. Few people knew that most well
written real mode Windows 2 programs actually where bimodal
from the very beginning, and could as easily run in protected mode,
undistinguable from other native protected mode apps, after
changing a single flag in the program header, without the developer
having to do anything.  But developers knew. ;-).

Well, this is getting off-topic, so I'll stop right here.

--
     o      (     .....Wolfgang.StroblspamRemoveMEgmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
    /\        *   GMD mbH                       #include
  _`\ `_<===      Schloss Birlinghoven,         <std.disclaimer>
__(_)/_(_)___.-._  53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany ________________

'Funniest Y2K Joke; 640K limits and MS/IBM and [OT]'
1999\01\13@061609 by Tjaart van der Walt

flavicon
face
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 99, 14:32  Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>
> > why having a barrier at all? put all the operating system and its drivers
> > before the code, and the apps have no end limit. but of course, no .com
> > programs then...
>
> You didn't get the point.

Would you guys mind terribly to move it private?
Or at least use '[OT]' in the subject line.

You only need one guy mention 'PC' or 'Windows' to
start an endless thread.

--
(Still) Friendly Regards  /"\
                         \ /
Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
RemoveMEtjaartspamspamBeGonewasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                WASP International                |
|R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development|
|--------------------------------------------------|
| Mobile : spamBeGonetjaart@spam@spamspam_OUTsms.wasp.co.za  (160 text chars) |
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|Voice: +27-(0)11-622-8686  Fax: +27-(0)11-622-8973|
|          WGS-84 : 26¡10.52'S 28¡06.19'E          |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1999\01\13@062221 by paulb

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> At 12:24 01/12/99 -0600, John Payson wrote:
>> the character set (including that funny character 158 which nobody
>> can identify) was Bill Gates' creation.

> in my character table for the extended ASCII ("OEM") set -- i guess
> that's what you're talking about -- this is the symbol for spanish
> pesetas (a capital P with a small t attached to it).

 Well, that's it.  It *is* identified.  Simple, wasn't it?  (*I* knew
it was *some* sort of currency!)
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\01\13@111318 by Dan Larson

flavicon
face
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:49:53 -0800, Mark Willis wrote:

>John Payson wrote:
>
>  As I see it, it's that assumption that having a barrier at ALL was
>necessary/OK, that's a stupid assumption that didn't need to be made at
>all...
>
>  If they'd not done a "Dumb", we could have a memory map without any
>barrier, like this (Just a quick idea, using 16 Mb as an arbitrary
>number):
>

Total address space was limited on the original PC's because
only 20 address lines were brought out to the 8-bit ISA bus
giving a physical barrier of 1MB.  Later 16-bit machines added
4 more address lines for a total of 16MB of usable address
space, but by then it was too late to change the memory map
without screwing everyone up, Hence, the birth of XMS, EMS, and
DPMI memory interfaces for software to access the extra RAM.

{Quote hidden}

Dan

'[OT] Re: Funniest Y2K Joke; 640K limits and MS/IBM'
1999\01\13@193235 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
{Quote hidden}

 My point being that Intel (as usual) made some DUMB choices in there -
they *chose* to only create/bring out 20 address lines from the 808x
chips, and to only make the chip capable of accessing 1 Mb of memory
(*I* for one didn't hold a gun to their head.)  They could have chosen
that but come up with an intelligent scheme designed for the easily
predictable future expansion...  Back in the late 1970's, a home PC was
an outrageously rare thing - So?  That didn't mean they weren't fun to
play with <G>  Intel just didn't think ahead any further than next
quarters' profit margins IMHO.  Intel could have thought ahead to what
could be in the future, towards when people might want 4 Mb or more RAM
on their computers (Back in the late '70's, S100 systems, 32k was normal
- now 640k for the original PC - so it's pretty easy to predict that
another 10 years would logically mean about 16 Mb or so for maximum RAM
numbers, easily enough, right?  And that Intel might make a new CPU by
then <G>  Easily predictable, IF we pay attention to the history of
computer technology at all, that is <G>)  Anyone who watched 8" floppies
grow to where they held not ~60kB per disk but rather 1.2Mb per disk,
would know that the rate of growth in any kind of computer storage
usually is quite high <G>  Motorola's earlier processors were designed
smarter in some ways than Intel (I've always sorta wished I had Dos for
a 68030.  No segmentation <G>)

 I DO agree that hindsight's easier than foresight, but let's see how
it would be if Intel ran Microchip.  </Facetious ON>

 If Intel ran Microchip:

 Every time a new PIC part came out, you'd have to ship your Picstart
Plus to Intelchip so new hardware with the capability to program that
new chip could be installed.  And pay for that "privilege" - of course!
(Free Firmware upgrades are nice, aren't they?  And at least no hardware
upgrades are necessary, for most new parts.)

 Every time additional memory space was added to an existing part, you
would need to learn some new addressing scheme - so a 16C62 program
ported to a 16C63 or 16C66 would require massive re-writes if it grew
much at all, plus the addition of a proprietary and expensive memory
management library that had to be licensed at considerable expense from
someone.  (Paging's a MINOR annoyance, by comparison, to this!)  And
newer parts would not (of course!) ever be pin-compatible with previous
parts - all such "features" installed for your safety, of course.

 Opcodes would be picked out by rolling 26-sided dice (I always liked
Zilog's opcodes better than Intel's, back in the Z80 days.  Sigh <G>)

 And finally, any new PIC chip would have initially cost $500 or more,
until a competitor came on the market, then and only then have been
reduced in price <G>  (Pricing could be lower, but it's not THAT bad, on
PICs.)

   </Facetious OFF>  (OK, so I'm not Intel's biggest fan, I'll admit
it.)

 Mark, RemoveMEmwillisEraseMEspamspam_OUTnwlink.com


'Read/write to PIC from IBM PC parallel port'
1999\10\04@084721 by Glenn Pure
picon face
A week or so ago, I posted about problems writing to a PIC16C84 reliably
from a PC parallel port. I solved the problem (largely). It was a timing
problem as suspected. I wasn't letting the PIC wait long enough after it
had finished writing a byte to the EEPROM memory to allow the PC to catch
up (more a problem of the PC occasionally off doing other things rather
than a slow PC).

Anyway, I am happy to make available the assembly code for the PIC16C84 and
the C software (including project files etc, for the Borland C version 4.02
compiler). The C software is written for Windows 3.1 and above (but will
not run under NT).

Please advise direct by email the best way to make this available to the
PIClist (post it on my web page?) - assuming there is interest. The code is
'generic' and can should be useable for other PICs and other I/O line
configurations.

Note that I have unsubscribed from this mail list, but more as a tool to
better manage my inbox. Hence, I won't see any posts to the list.

Appreciate advice on making the assembler and PC software available to you
all.

Cheers
Glenn


'[OT] Y2K First Aid Offer on IBM Mainframes'
1999\12\31@023125 by Dr. Imre Bartfai
flavicon
face
Hi,
xcus of [OT] - it is marked so!

If somebody on the list experiences a demand on the topic: I am an expert
on the following areas: MVS/ESA, JCL, COBOL, Assembler (Hi-Level), PL/I,
DB2 (beneath PIC, of course). I am ready to help for a short range (1-2
month) on the usual commercial basis ($99/hr and up + cif + visa +
waiver).

Regards, and happy new Y2K
Imre


'[PICLIST] To day the PC-IBM have just 19 years old'
2000\08\11@025012 by Leo
picon face
Hi friends PICer.

I know this is just a little OT but I would like spend some word about the
IBM PC bird date. That little computer that have changed the world!

The 11 August of 1981 the IBM (at that time I 'm working at IBM) formerly
was announcing the IBM Personal Computer based on a new and more powered 16
bit internal structure and 8 bit external I/O bus microprocessor from the
INTEL, the 8088. This microprocessor is working at the incredible fast speed
of 4.77 Mhz.
Is mass memory was a tape cassette "stereo 7" and was introduced the new
little floppy disk of 5,1/4 inch at the incredible capacity of 120 Kbytes.
The Main memory is 16 Kilobytes as base confiburation expandable at the
incredible amountoof 544 Kilobytes.
This incredible powerd machine have build in the BASICA interpreter.
Was also inroduced the IBM PCDOS (builded from a very little company called
Microsoft)

That just 19 years ago. ;-)

What will happen in 2019??

And our PIC??

Ciao

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


'[OT]: IBM 6091-019 19'' Monitor with a SVGA card?'
2000\09\27@115148 by netquake
flavicon
face
Hello.

Sorry to have to ask this on the list but PICLIST
members are by far the best collection of 'brains'
out there!

I want to connect an old 19'' IBM monitor (originally used
in an old IBM server) to a standard SVGA card in a PC under
Linux and this monitor seems so *not* standard that I'm afraid
to damage it in the operation. The plug seems to be compatible
with standard VGA (same pin distribution). From the back I can
see several small wires (different colors) that join into a
standard monitor wire, that ends in the standard plug.
I believe I can connect it to 220V AC 50/60hz (which is what
we have here) but I'll have to check that again.

Any hint is welcome!

Thank you very much.

German.


P.D: Monitor specs follow:

Record 629 of 2017 IBM 6091-019 Specifications

Griffin Technology
Monitors Database

Monitor Specifications

Screen Attributes
19" Aperture grill
17.75 " viewable image
.31 mm dot pitch

Input Signal
Video Signal : Analog
H Frequency : 63.36/81.32
V Frequency : 60/67/77 Hz
Sync Signal : Green

Compatibility
Mac Adapter : None
PC Adapter :

Input Connector
3 or 5 BNC

Maximum Resolution
Maximum : 1024x1024 & 1280x1024
Macintosh :
Flicker free :

Power Use
Power Supply :
Consumption : max.

Video Bandwidth
100 Mhz

User Controls
Analog controls
BR, CT, CV, VE

Plug and Play

Dimensions and Weight
Height : 14.6
Width : 15.5
Depth : 14
Weight :

Regulatory Compliance
EMS EMI :
Safety :
X-Ray :
Radiation :

Power Saving
------------------------------------
netQ <@spam@netquakeRemoveMEspamEraseMEinnocent.com>
http://virtuaweb.com/picprog
"Home of amateur PIC programmers..."

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQCNAzV38BkAAAEEALfWv9j3f+tZ+z2IW+2o9Ebx4bUGnHjHPqIe0a6yVKawaeV/
Y4I6L2/A0ddbVMG8+qJ0MvHNkr3DzYkpW+hTl9zAzXkKBdZ3GA5bbvot7entl/O2
YDtRWUV730koxBo5iFFUbJH5kbmkox+h3znj34zPnZNWzNaqOAwol3wABfBNAAUT
tBxOZXRRIDxuZXRxdWFrZUBpbm5vY2VudC5jb20+
=0bVU
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
use EraseMElistservspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu?body=SET%20PICList%20DIGEST


2000\09\27@131428 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I hate to tell you this, but this monitor is completely useless.  You should
send it to me immediately...

According to the specs, it looks like it's a regular VGA or SVGA monitor.  I
wouldn't worry too much about the pinout, as VGA is the only widespread use of
the 15pin high density sub-D connector.

The data below indicates that it has BNC inputs.  on the back of the monitor you
should see these, and the cable you have probably plugs into them.  There will
be 5 (RGB, H and V).  Some monitors also have the normal 15-pin connector on
them as well.  If this is the case then you can be 95% certian it is a normal
SVGA monitor.

-Adam

"netq (aka German)" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
use listservspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu?body=SET%20PICList%20DIGEST


2000\09\27@134006 by dal wheeler

flavicon
face
It sounds like it might be a fixed freq. monitor.  You either need to get a
video card that has its bios re-written to only use the approved frequency
combinations or use a particular resolution all the time.  Because you are
using linux, you can do this *somewhat* easily.  I say somewhat because I
really had to play around with mine to get 'em to use some old sun
workstation monitors that were given to me.  Here's a couple of web-sites
below.  Also, it looks like you have a sync-on-green monitor so you'll have
to either make your own sync circuit or get a video card chipset that
supports it.  I think some of the older matrox cards will do this.  I've got
mine working on some old s3 virge cards.  Check out these sites:

historia.et.tudelft.nl/~marcj/fixed_freq/
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/ffmon.htm
skyscraper.fortunecity.com/scanner/656/comp/fixedfreqpc.html
http://www.thestuff.net/howto/monitor/

Good luck!

{Original Message removed}

2000\09\29@110124 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
You will likely be able to use the monitor under X11 assuming that you
have a video card that can output sync on green. If you don't then you can
make a small adapter box for this. I think that there is a schematic
somewhere on the web. It is a 2-transistor affair usually. This assumes
that the monitor is non-interlaced or that the video card can do
interlaced video. Your specs don't say anything about interlacing so
it probably is 'straight'.

I don't think that the monitor will work in text mode though. Or rather,
it might, if you select one of the advanced graphics modes using BIOS int
0x10h in a hacked up Linux kernel (which you get to patch yourself). It
might be possible to select some viewable text mode using the custom
'lines per screen' settings for the kernel boot parameters.

Unless you have done this before, you are looking at a major project here
imho.

good luck,

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
"[PIC]:" PIC only "[EE]:" engineering "[OT]:" off topic "[AD]:" ad's



'[EE]:writing data to IBM PC parallel port to drive'
2000\12\28@160244 by Pramod Kotwal
flavicon
face
This is about using an IBM PC parallel port to drive a bipolar stepper
motor. So I hope it not too far off topic here.

I would like to use C to to send the appropriate signal to the data port
bits on the parallel port. P.H. Anderson gives a very nice and clear
explanation of how to do it .

The problem I have is in defining the delay between two subsequent commands
to write the bit to the port. This time interval will define how fast the
motor will turn.

The command to wrie data to the port is
outportb(port address, data).

The interval between writing data is controlled by the
delay(time) command.
This command seems to read time in milliseconds.

If this correct, the shortest delay I can specify is 1 millisecond between
steps. This would mean that on stepper motor with 200 steps per revolution I
can, at best get 5 rpm.

This does not make sense to me. Where am I going wrong ?

I will appreciate help.
Pramod Kotwal

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\28@161954 by John De Villiers

flavicon
face
dont use delay - its too slow

I think the trick was to do a port read ( one of the status bits or
something equially arbitary ). Those take 1 microsecond

The fastest i was able to go was about 50 us before the stepper started
skipping beats. It also depends if youre half stepping or full stepping. I
also suggest you use a tranny of some sort as the pc par port can let out
its smoke if you draw too much from it. I used normal TIP31's as i had a
whole box full of them.

I found full stepping, but with 2 coils energized ( half step position, but
full step increments ) gave me the best torque.

John

{Original Message removed}

2000\12\28@164141 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

    Nowhere, that is about the best you will get using the delay routine.
Solution? Don't use the delay routine! As a small good side to this is I
have found that the delay routine isn't very good, multitasking environments
seem to really screw it up. How important is the accuracy of how fast you
need to go? If it isn't too critical you can use a simple FOR loop as a
delay. Stick an inp to nowhere in the loop (since inp's can't be cached they
almost always take an equal amount of time to execute) and run through the
loop a bunch of times. Unfortunately this is highly machine dependant. If
you do indeed need good accuracy or machine independence you'll have to do
it another way. Interrupts would probably be the solution using the timer in
every PC. Unfortunately this is MUCH more complicated to accomplish well.
TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2000\12\28@164437 by Pramod Kotwal

flavicon
face
Hi John,

Thanks for the tip.

If I understand you correctly, if I make a loop and read from a status port
n times before writing the next step I should get an interval of n
microseconds.

Neat.

I am not planning to use the port to drive the coils directly. Thanks for
the warning.
Pramod

----- Original Message -----
From: "John De Villiers" <RemoveMEbbj@spam@spamspamBeGonePLZ.CO.ZA>
To: <.....PICLIST@spam@spamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [EE]:writing data to IBM PC parallel port to drive stepper


{Quote hidden}

but
> full step increments ) gave me the best torque.
>
> John
>
> {Original Message removed}

2000\12\29@011523 by Roman Black

flavicon
face
Pramod Kotwal wrote:
>
> This is about using an IBM PC parallel port to drive a bipolar stepper
> motor. So I hope it not too far off topic here.
> The problem I have is in defining the delay between two subsequent commands
> to write the bit to the port. This time interval will define how fast the
> motor will turn.
>
> The command to wrie data to the port is
> outportb(port address, data).
>
> The interval between writing data is controlled by the
> delay(time) command.
> This command seems to read time in milliseconds.

You can use high res timinbg quite painlessly with the
PC, you sense the PIT timer chip and get a count in
microseconds, (actually 1.194MHz going from my memory)
and you can then loop and sense this count and time
things quite accurately. I did 3 years as a games
graphics engine programmer, had to time everything by
vertical retrace for screen draws.
:o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\29@015434 by Nigel Goodwin

flavicon
face
In message <003d01c07110$8cbebde0$.....6501a8c0RemoveMEspamprospeed.net>, Pramod Kotwal
<.....pramodkotwalSTOPspamspam@spam@NITRON.NU> writes
>The interval between writing data is controlled by the
>delay(time) command.
>This command seems to read time in milliseconds.
>
>If this correct, the shortest delay I can specify is 1 millisecond between
>steps. This would mean that on stepper motor with 200 steps per revolution I
>can, at best get 5 rpm.
>
>This does not make sense to me. Where am I going wrong ?

Only in that the speed would be 5 revs per SECOND - not per minute!,
giving a maximum speed of 300rpm. Given that this is the PICList, why
not use a PIC to interface between the serial port and the stepper
motor, you could than send commands to the PIC via the serial port, and
the PIC can do all the fast timing required?.
--

Nigel.

       /--------------------------------------------------------------\
       | Nigel Goodwin   | Internet : nigelgEraseMEspam@spam@lpilsley.co.uk           |
       | Lower Pilsley   | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.co.uk       |
       | Chesterfield    | Official site for Shin Ki and New Spirit   |
       | England         |                 Ju Jitsu                   |
       \--------------------------------------------------------------/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\29@101237 by Pramod Kotwal

flavicon
face
Hi,

I realized that I would be getting 300 rpm after I had already sent the mail
to the PIClist. Thanks anyway.

I did learn about the trick of timing by reading data, so my request did
help me.

Using a PIC to do the timing is certainly an option that I am studyinng now.
I does have several advantages beyond the timing routines. So you might see
me here later if I run into difficulties.

Thanks for the pointers etc.
Pramod Kotwal

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2000\12\29@230415 by Daniel Jircik

flavicon
face
I have a  BUNCH of stuff i wrote in QBASIC a few years back, and it can use an
analog joystivk (db15 game) works great. If you would like them, will send to
you off list.
Daniel Jircik
RemoveMEpannomatspamspamBeGoneswbell.net

Herbert Graf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics



'[OT]: IBM PC chip'
2001\04\21@220913 by Robert A. LaBudde
flavicon
face
At 05:46 PM 4/21/01 -0600, Neil wrote:
> > another interesting bit of trivia is that when IBM built the first "PC",
>for
> > the first time they chose off the shelf parts instead of proprietary IBM
> > stuff. Zilog was in the hunt for the Z80 processor, but they were late to
> > develop one with the 16 bit bus, so Intel got the nod.  If Zilog had won
> > out, they would be the 800 pound gorilla!
>
>I think you mean the 68000. That was the original chip that IBM wanted to
>have in the XT/PC machines, but Motorola wasn't interested in lowering
>their prices and Intel was.
>
>Never did hear the Zilog spin on it.

I was involved in getting the first quotes for the IBM PC. At the time
(1979?) I was a technical consultant with IBM and had been teaching
microprocessor/computer courses at Old Dominion University.

I was asked to price a cost to IBM for a "state-of-the-art" off-the-shelf
microcomputer system. The requirements were:

1. Use CP/M as operating system (this limited the choices to 80xx compatibles).
2. Run Visicalc. (This was the hot business product of its day as the first
microcomputer spreadsheet program.)
3. Use Microsoft BASIC.

I called Microsoft and got a quote of $25,000 for their BASIC and $50,000
for a priorietary BASIC, one-time license fees.

I suggested the 8086, since the microcomputer world was moving to 16 bits
at that time.

In the end, they choose the 8088 for price.

Microsoft was in a battle with Digital Research at that time over CBASIC, a
compiled form of a structured BASIC, which was "eating their lunch" in the
commercial market. Microsoft apparently balked at joining with their
competitor, and said they wanted to supply the operating system as well, or
wouldn't sell their BASIC to IBM.

So Microsoft acquired the rights to a CP/M-clone for the 8086 from Seattle
Computer Systems for $250k and resold the software to IBM as PC-DOS 1.0.
Later they sued Seattle Computer Systems for infringement (they retained a
right for self-use), which helped put them out of business.

Digital Research ended up with 2nd prize: CP/M-86 was sold as an "extra"
for the IBM PC for $200. Not many people bought it. A couple of years
later, Gary Killdahl (president and owner of Digital Research and inventor
of CP/M) committed suicide after his company went bankrupt.

IBM intended to stay safely in the middle of the road. They wanted 80xx
compatibility. The Z80 was in widespread use on microcomputers, but the
16-bit version was a couple of years away and not Intel-compatible. I doubt
if it was ever considered seriously. Also Zilog was a very small company.

I never heard mention of a 68000-based PC, although such an Apple-clone
would have been a possibility. But CP/M was middle of the road where IBM
wanted to be.

Within a year or two after I sent in my report, the IBM PC was released.
This shows how fast these things could happen. There may have multiple
groups within IBM working on parts of this project.

Interestingly, in 1980 I offered to create a PC from off-the-shelf parts
for Burroughs Corporation (now part of UniSys) for $500k total cost. They
turned this down, claiming they had their own product in the works. It
didn't appear until two years later, cost $10k+ and was a flop. Although
they "owned" the small business market in 1980 with their bookkeeping
machines, within a few years they were forced completely from it due to the
IBM PC and accounting software. Ditto for Litton. NCR (National Cash
Register) did a little better, eventually being bought by ATT for their
8086-based PC system and then being closed down.

================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  e-mail: spamBeGoneralKILLspamspam@spam@lcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.            URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive                     Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239            Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\21@223226 by Neil Bradley

flavicon
face
Good history perspective - thanks!

> So Microsoft acquired the rights to a CP/M-clone for the 8086 from Seattle
> Computer Systems for $250k

Sorta right - Microsoft was asked to do an OS and was pointed to DR since
they didn't do OSes. Gary's wife wouldn't sign the nondisclosure
agreements (Gary was flying his plane at the time) and shooed IBM
away. They went back to MS and said "Do an OS for us.", so MS scrambled
and bought QDOS from Seattle Computing for $60K. This information came
straight from the head of the guy who coordinated the entire IBM PC
project and was directly involved in all those talks (Forgot his name...).

> Within a year or two after I sent in my report, the IBM PC was released.
> This shows how fast these things could happen. There may have multiple
> groups within IBM working on parts of this project.

And at that time, that was amazing. IBM Was known as the company that
would take 9 months to ship an empty box.

-->Neil

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Bradley            Play a song wrong once and it's a mistake.
Synthcom Systems, Inc.  Play a song wrong twice and it's Jazz.
ICQ #29402898

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spammitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\22@002951 by myke predko

flavicon
face
A few corrections:


> At 05:46 PM 4/21/01 -0600, Neil wrote:
> > > another interesting bit of trivia is that when IBM built the first
"PC",
> >for
> > > the first time they chose off the shelf parts instead of proprietary
IBM
> > > stuff.
 :

The "original" IBM PC was the IBM 5240 in 1974 and used all proprietary
logic.  It had one of the really nice IBM electroluminescent displays
(readable in direct sunlight) and was programmed in APL.  We had a few in
plant in Toronto.  The 5240 was dropped when the 5150 (the original PC) came
out.  It never sold very well but did have a very loyal and enthusastic
following within IBM, but did make the cover of one of the popular
science/engineering magazines when it first came out and this article coined
the term "Personal Computer".

> >I think you mean the 68000. That was the original chip that IBM wanted to
> >have in the XT/PC machines, but Motorola wasn't interested in lowering
> >their prices and Intel was.
 :

No.  The IBM PC was originally designed for the 8085 which has an eight bit
multiplexed data bus.  The design was "upgraded" at the 11th hour with the
8088 which also had an 8 bit multiplexed bus that had the same bus timing as
the the 8085.  Other than adding a support chip (the 8282) and the upper 4
bit support (including the DMA page register), IBM didn't change the design
significantly.

If you can find an original copy of the "IBM PC Technical Reference" which
included the original motherboard schematics and the BIOS/POST listings you
can see comments indicating where the BIOS and POST code was changed from
8085 to 8086 instructions.  You will also see in the schematics how the
memory space was drawn, expecting the 8085's memory space to be segregated
into four parts; 32K for DRAM, 16K for VRAM, 8K for POST/BIOS and 8K for
expansion cards.  Depending on how old you are, you probably remember the
confusion regarding the first PC motherboard and its maximum DRAM memory
space (576K with some applications and adapters extending it up to 756K, not
the 640K we came to know and love).

> In the end, they choose the 8088 for price.
 :

At the time (I remember this quite well because I was working on 3180
("Puma") which ended up using an 8085) Intel was a *lot* more expensive than
other vendors.  Intel's response to concerns about their pricing was that it
didn't matter what the price of a chip was initially; with competition,
improved manufacturing yields, etc. within 18 months of manufacturing it
would cost $5.  I seem to remember being told that Intel had gained a lot of
credibility with IBM on the $5 a chip theory with the 8048/8748.

In 1980, the 8088 was a *lot* more expensive than the 68K.  It was also a
quite a bit more expensive than the 8086 (the 8088 has more silicon on it
and took a lot longer to get working).  I believe the costs in 1980 for the
8088 was on the order of $80/chip in 100K quantities.  I think the 68K was
around $50 and the 8086 was $60 for similar quantities.  When I was involved
with the PS/2 in 1987, the 8086 was being sold for under $4.00 a piece and
the quality of the chip was just about perfect (in 700K PS/2 Model 25/Model
30 motherboards that we built, we only returned 1 defective 8086 and 1
defective 80286 to Intel).

> I never heard mention of a 68000-based PC, although such an Apple-clone
> would have been a possibility. But CP/M was middle of the road where IBM
> wanted to be.

IBM did release a 68K based PC around 1985-1986 to hedge their bets with the
PC/AT.  I think the part number was 7100 or 7500.  It really followed IBM
tradition and was incredibly expensive for the performance, the operating
system was based on the S/34 and it was closed architecture.  I seem to
remember it lingering in the catalogs for a couple of years and then just
disappearing.  I was responsible for testing Token-Ring cards for the
product so I remember it quite well.

> Within a year or two after I sent in my report, the IBM PC was released.
> This shows how fast these things could happen. There may have multiple
> groups within IBM working on parts of this project.

The amazing thing was, it was a team of 18 people working all by themselves
as one of the first internal "IBUs" (Internal Business Units).  The team
consisted of one leader (the guy two died in the plane crash in 1987 -
sorry, I can't remember his name), three or four circuit designers, two PCB
layout technicians, one mechanical designer, and the rest being purchasing
and contracts.  They were really organized as an independant company that
had been given some seed money.  This was the only IBU that ever seemed to
get creating anything radically different in IBM.

The PC was a result of the team getting along really well and having a very
focused and well defined plan for what they were doing.  I do know that
going from the 8085 to the 8088 was an incredible risk for the team and they
were criticized by the technical community (the PC development effort was
quite well known in the small systems design/manufacturing groups of IBM)
because there weren't any popular PCs running with more than 8 bit MCUs and
the feeling was that the 16 bit 8086 processor core (in the 8088) would
intimidate the average Apple ][ user/programmer.  I always thought that the
very focused way IBM defines products when approving product plans was the
reason for the success of the project (although it nearly prevented the
change from the 8085 to the 8088) - the term "feature creep" wasn't close to
being coined then.

I was always sorry that nobody ever wrote a book about their experiences on
that team because no matter what, they created something that changed the
world and did it in a startlingly short amount of time, going against a
*lot* of established practices and conventions.  I think there was a lot to
learn from the project and afterward there were a lot of companies (IBM
included) that tried to repeat the success of the IBU and couldn't.

myke

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@011205 by Robert A. LaBudde

flavicon
face
At 11:57 PM 4/21/01 -0400, Myke wrote:
>The "original" IBM PC was the IBM 5240 in 1974 and used all proprietary
>logic.  It had one of the really nice IBM electroluminescent displays
>(readable in direct sunlight) and was programmed in APL.  We had a few in

This sounds like the IBM 5100 desktop computer. It was "portable" with a
special leather carrying case, but weighed 55 lbs. You could drag it about
100 ft before collapsing. It had a 16 x 64 screen and a 3M tape drive. You
could get either an APL or BASIC version, or one with both. It was based on
a proprietary IBM 8-bit microprocessor. This was the product that first
brought be into contact with IBM as a technical consultant. I finalized
some software and documentation on a prototype in the Rochester, MN, factory.

The 5100 was intended to break into the scientific-engineering market of HP
at  the time. It was a flop at the time, because IBM sales reps could only
sell accountants and not engineers.

The 5100 was replaced by the 5110 and then 5120 versions. The 5120 had 8"
diskette drives and used 8085 microprocessors in some of its parts. At this
point in the game (1978?), IBM had a cross-licensing agreement with Intel
and  several major supply contracts. This was part of the reason for a
commitment to Intel parts in the IBM PC.

>plant in Toronto.  The 5240 was dropped when the 5150 (the original PC) came

You will note the transition from 5100->5110->5120->...->5150. It makes you
wonder what the 5130 and 5140 numbers corresponded to.

The 5240 number may have been the Canadian version of a 51xx part number.

>No.  The IBM PC was originally designed for the 8085 which has an eight bit
>multiplexed data bus.  The design was "upgraded" at the 11th hour with the
>8088 which also had an 8 bit multiplexed bus that had the same bus timing as
>the the 8085.  Other than adding a support chip (the 8282) and the upper 4
>bit support (including the DMA page register), IBM didn't change the design
>significantly.

This matches my recollection as well. IBM used the 8085 for a variety of
peripherals and was very familiar with it. I did, however, recommend the
8086 as essential to a state-of-the-art product. The biggest problem with
microcomputers of the time was the 64kB memory limit. It was causing a lot
of problems as color screen cards were being invented.

>At the time (I remember this quite well because I was working on 3180
>("Puma") which ended up using an 8085) Intel was a *lot* more expensive than
>other vendors.  Intel's response to concerns about their pricing was that it
>didn't matter what the price of a chip was initially; with competition,
>improved manufacturing yields, etc. within 18 months of manufacturing it
>would cost $5.  I seem to remember being told that Intel had gained a lot of
>credibility with IBM on the $5 a chip theory with the 8048/8748.

Remember that IBM had the right to produce Intel chips in-house, so this
gave them control of cost.

>IBM did release a 68K based PC around 1985-1986 to hedge their bets with the
>PC/AT.  I think the part number was 7100 or 7500.  It really followed IBM
>tradition and was incredibly expensive for the performance, the operating
>system was based on the S/34 and it was closed architecture.  I seem to
>remember it lingering in the catalogs for a couple of years and then just
>disappearing.  I was responsible for testing Token-Ring cards for the
>product so I remember it quite well.

This was a product in a different line, the DEC "killer". There were
several products in this category, starting with the Series/1 system. It
developed into the current AIX (aka UNIX) based products of today.

>I was always sorry that nobody ever wrote a book about their experiences on
>that team because no matter what, they created something that changed the
>world and did it in a startlingly short amount of time, going against a
>*lot* of established practices and conventions.  I think there was a lot to
>learn from the project and afterward there were a lot of companies (IBM
>included) that tried to repeat the success of the IBU and couldn't.

Making the IBM PC was as easy as falling off a log: all you had to do was
give up on prior policy and just use off the shelf parts with an open
architecture. This was the Apple II model of the time. It was unusual for
IBM to give such a free hand to a development group, but my recollection
was that this market wasn't expected to amount to much, but was just going
to get their hands wet.

IBM was always paranoid about cross-product competition, and this kind of
"channel conflict" was always a problem with them. It was the price of
being a monopoly. So they crippled the low-end products to force customers
to move to high-end products.

In 1981, an IBM PC was 10x faster than the IBM S/34 minicomputer, expanded
to 2x the memory and was 1/20 the cost. It was a direct threat to the IBM
low and midrange product lines.


================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  e-mail: RemoveMEralEraseMEspamKILLspamlcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.            URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive                     Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239            Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@020619 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, myke predko wrote:

> A few corrections:
>
> The "original" IBM PC was the IBM 5240 in 1974 and used all proprietary
> logic.  It had one of the really nice IBM electroluminescent displays
> (readable in direct sunlight) and was programmed in APL.  We had a few in
> plant in Toronto.  The 5240 was dropped when the 5150 (the original PC) came
> out.  It never sold very well but did have a very loyal and enthusastic
> following within IBM, but did make the cover of one of the popular
> science/engineering magazines when it first came out and this article coined
> the term "Personal Computer".

Myke, maybe you'll remember what I have forgotten.  I used to take field
service calls on one back in the early to mid-80s.  I think it was 8085
based, used what I believe was something *very* close to the PC bus --
same connectors and similar layout.  It was available in two versions,
"Data Processing" and "Word Processing".  The WP version ran OS/6 software
from ROM, the DP version ran BASIC.  It looked to me at the time like it
had been the test bed for PC technology.  My customers were havig one hell
of a time finding software support, as IBM had pretty much orphaned the
product and didn't seem to want to admit it existed.  Do you remember this
animal?  Some salesdroid in the Cleveland area sold a bunch of them, I've
never seen them anywhere else but a few small manufacturers and one
synagogue there.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@102716 by Robert A. LaBudde

flavicon
face
At 01:04 AM 4/22/01 -0500, Dale wrote:
>Myke, maybe you'll remember what I have forgotten.  I used to take field
>service calls on one back in the early to mid-80s.  I think it was 8085
>based, used what I believe was something *very* close to the PC bus --
>same connectors and similar layout.  It was available in two versions,
>"Data Processing" and "Word Processing".  The WP version ran OS/6 software
>from ROM, the DP version ran BASIC.  It looked to me at the time like it
>had been the test bed for PC technology.  My customers were havig one hell
>of a time finding software support, as IBM had pretty much orphaned the
>product and didn't seem to want to admit it existed.  Do you remember this
>animal?  Some salesdroid in the Cleveland area sold a bunch of them, I've
>never seen them anywhere else but a few small manufacturers and one
>synagogue there.

There was an IBM word processing computer powered by the 8085 in this time
frame. Actually, it was reasonably popular and predated the IBM PC. I can't
recollect the name. Wang also had a competing system at the time.


================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  e-mail: spamBeGoneralspam_OUTspamRemoveMElcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.            URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive                     Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239            Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causas scire"
================================================================

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@115954 by myke predko

flavicon
face
A couple of updates.

> This sounds like the IBM 5100 desktop computer. It was "portable" with a
> special leather carrying case, but weighed 55 lbs. You could drag it about
> 100 ft before collapsing. It had a 16 x 64 screen and a 3M tape drive. You
> could get either an APL or BASIC version, or one with both. It was based
on
> a proprietary IBM 8-bit microprocessor. This was the product that first
> brought be into contact with IBM as a technical consultant. I finalized
> some software and documentation on a prototype in the Rochester, MN,
> factory.

That sounds like the same beast.  I don't remember ever seeing it carried
(it was always on a truck).  I never saw a BASIC version - I wonder if that
was 5100 and the APL version was 5200.

> At 01:04 AM 4/22/01 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >Myke, maybe you'll remember what I have forgotten.  I used to take field
> >service calls on one back in the early to mid-80s.  I think it was 8085
> >based, used what I believe was something *very* close to the PC bus --
> >same connectors and similar layout.  It was available in two versions,
> >"Data Processing" and "Word Processing".  The WP version ran OS/6
software
> >from ROM, the DP version ran BASIC.  It looked to me at the time like it
> >had been the test bed for PC technology.  My customers were havig one
hell
> >of a time finding software support, as IBM had pretty much orphaned the
> >product and didn't seem to want to admit it existed.  Do you remember
this
> >animal?  Some salesdroid in the Cleveland area sold a bunch of them, I've
> >never seen them anywhere else but a few small manufacturers and one
> >synagogue there.
>
> There was an IBM word processing computer powered by the 8085 in this time
> frame. Actually, it was reasonably popular and predated the IBM PC. I
can't
> recollect the name. Wang also had a competing system at the time.

Wasn't it called the "DisplayWriter"?  Sorry I can't remember the model
number.  I seem to remember that it had an 8086 in it, not an 8085.  I also
remember that the display was turned 90 degrees ("Portrait" for Windows
users) so you could also see the entire page and used 8" Floppies.  It was a
strange beast and I remember it being pushed mostly by the typewriter
marketeers.

The word processing software ("DisplayWrite") was ported to PC-DOS by IBM
and was reasonably successful.  I also think that the software port killed
the DisplayWriter because there was no reason to buy the much more (closed
design and software) expensive word processor.

myke

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@122728 by Douglas Wood

picon face
Did you know that Adam and Eve had the first computers? Yeah... Eve had an
Apple and Adam had a Wang! ;-)

Douglas Wood
Software Engineer
.....dbwoodspamRemoveMEkc.rr.com

Home of the EPICIS Development System for the PIC and SX
http://epicis.piclist.com

{Original Message removed}

2001\04\22@124634 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 11:31 AM 4/22/01 -0500, Douglas Wood wrote:
>Did you know that Adam and Eve had the first computers? Yeah... Eve had an
>Apple and Adam had a Wang! ;-)

Look at all the trouble they got into in interfacing too!  Some things
never change.
--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@144038 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Robert A. LaBudde wrote:

> At 01:04 AM 4/22/01 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >Myke, maybe you'll remember what I have forgotten.  I used to take field
> >service calls on one back in the early to mid-80s.  I think it was 8085
> >based, used what I believe was something *very* close to the PC bus --
> >same connectors and similar layout.  It was available in two versions,
> >"Data Processing" and "Word Processing".  The WP version ran OS/6 software
> >from ROM, the DP version ran BASIC.  It looked to me at the time like it
> >had been the test bed for PC technology.  My customers were havig one hell
> >of a time finding software support, as IBM had pretty much orphaned the
> >product and didn't seem to want to admit it existed.  Do you remember this
> >animal?  Some salesdroid in the Cleveland area sold a bunch of them, I've
> >never seen them anywhere else but a few small manufacturers and one
> >synagogue there.
>
> There was an IBM word processing computer powered by the 8085 in this time
> frame. Actually, it was reasonably popular and predated the IBM PC. I can't
> recollect the name. Wang also had a competing system at the time.

Yes, I was unclear -- the ones I was working on in '85 or so dated back to
the late 70s, well before the PC.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@144449 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, myke predko wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Nope, I remember the DisplayWriter, which was (I think) a direct
descendent of / replacement for the OS/6.  This was a different box.  I
mostly worked on big iron and only occasionally took calls on Series/1 and
smaller systems.  I was working for a small 3rd party maintainer at the
time, then later for Sorbus.

> The word processing software ("DisplayWrite") was ported to PC-DOS by IBM
> and was reasonably successful.  I also think that the software port killed
> the DisplayWriter because there was no reason to buy the much more (closed
> design and software) expensive word processor.

Yup.  I think the later DW systems were built in a worked-over 5251
cabinet, weighed a ton.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@144701 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
And one of the two must have originated that joke, it's about that old...
;-)

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Douglas Wood wrote:

> Did you know that Adam and Eve had the first computers? Yeah... Eve had an
> Apple and Adam had a Wang! ;-)
>
> Douglas Wood
> Software Engineer
> dbwoodspam@spam@kc.rr.com
>
> Home of the EPICIS Development System for the PIC and SX
> http://epicis.piclist.com
>
> {Original Message removed}

2001\04\22@145735 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
>> Wasn't it called the "DisplayWriter"?  Sorry I can't remember the model
>> number.  I seem to remember that it had an 8086 in it, not an 8085.  I also
>> remember that the display was turned 90 degrees ("Portrait" for Windows
>> users) so you could also see the entire page and used 8" Floppies.  It was a
>> strange beast and I remember it being pushed mostly by the typewriter
>> marketeers.
>
>Nope, I remember the DisplayWriter, which was (I think) a direct
>descendent of / replacement for the OS/6.  This was a different box.  I
>mostly worked on big iron and only occasionally took calls on Series/1 and
>smaller systems.  I was working for a small 3rd party maintainer at the
>time, then later for Sorbus.
>

8086 according to:

http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/displayw.html

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\22@150603 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
BTW, links to 2 dozen computer museums/etc:

userhttp://www.sfsu.edu/~hl/mmm.html

Go to bottom of page.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\04\23@070444 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Wasn't it called the "DisplayWriter"?  Sorry I can't remember the model
>number.  I seem to remember that it had an 8086 in it, not an 8085.  I also
>remember that the display was turned 90 degrees ("Portrait" for Windows
>users) so you could also see the entire page and used 8" Floppies.  It was
a
>strange beast and I remember it being pushed mostly by the typewriter
>marketeers.

>The word processing software ("DisplayWrite") was ported to PC-DOS by IBM
>and was reasonably successful.  I also think that the software port killed
>the DisplayWriter because there was no reason to buy the much more (closed
>design and software) expensive word processor.

I seem to recall hearing that it was experience with this machine that led
to the development of the PC. The article I saw also reckoned that it was
possible to port PC-DOS to this machine, but because the PC hardware was so
much cheaper it was never done commercially.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2001\04\26@082836 by Steve Nordhauser

picon face
I'm a day or two behind on my digests, so excuse me if I'm late to the subject
but, I can add to the history lesson a bit.
I had one of the first IBM PCs, it came with 64K of memory, upgradable to
256K on the motherboard.  I fully loaded it to 640K with an add-on.  No hard
drive but I did add an external pair of floppies so that I had 340Kx4 of mass storage.
With a Princeton Graphics CGA monitor, OS and Dbase III, it cost about $4300.
I had this around 1980-81ish. Oh, it had a cassette port in the back.  And for you
kids out there, that was not for music - it was for data storage.

At the same time at my company, the secrataries wanted all new IBM Selectric
typewriters at about $2K each.  Instead we bought Morrow computers - Z80
based with CP/M and a nice text based menu system.  They came with piles of
software - OS, Wordstar, Dbase, Visicalc.  With a daisy wheel printer, they were
$2K.  These were great machines - never a problem.  The joke was that if you
bought the software, the computer was free.  My understanding was that Morrow
pre-announced that they were working on a PC clone.  Sales dropped to zero
because everyone wanted the clone.  Should be a 'classic' for business schools to
study.

Class dismissed.
Steve Nordhauser

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspamSTOPspammitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\26@151335 by Alexandre Domingos F. Souza

flavicon
face
>$2K.  These were great machines - never a problem.  The joke was that if you
>bought the software, the computer was free.  My understanding was that Morrow
>pre-announced that they were working on a PC clone.  Sales dropped to zero
>because everyone wanted the clone.  Should be a 'classic' for business schools to
>study.

       The same happened to Osborne, with his "model one" portable. When anounced "model two", there was a warehouse full of "model one" computers! :oD So it got no sales anymore, everyone was waiting for the "model two". And Osborne broke :oP

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\26@152954 by David VanHorn

flavicon
face
>
>         The same happened to Osborne, with his "model one" portable. When
> anounced "model two", there was a warehouse full of "model one"
> computers! :oD So it got no sales anymore, everyone was waiting for the
> "model two". And Osborne broke :oP

Almost happened to Verifone as well.
Sales staff leaked word of the new "ZON" terminals, and sales of the
existing product plummeted.
Pressure to get the new terminals out was unbeleivable, but we did make it
happen, and survived.

Rule 1:  Never let engineering staff talk to sales.


--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org
Where's dave? http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?kc6ete-9

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2001\04\26@153618 by John Pfaff

flavicon
face
As many other companies have, Wabco let out the word of the EPIC 3102 before
it was ready, and sales of the 3101 went down the hole.  As a result, the
3102 was rushed into production with a design that wasn't supposed to go out
the door.  Many of the pieces were prototypes and could have been greatly
improved.  There were all kinds of problems with it.

- John

{Original Message removed}

2001\04\26@215843 by Bill Westfield

face picon face
Heh.  All you really need to do is get a reputation for your "new products"
shipping BEFORE they're quite ready for mass consumption.  Then you can
ship your old products while people are waiting to see if the new one has
enough merit to justify the risk...

Then there's the "no new product ever fits exactly the same niche as any
existin product, even though as many as a half dozen products may overlap
some portion of each niche..."

:-)
BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu



'[OT]: IBM patent search site'
2001\06\01@132545 by goflo
flavicon
face
Anyone know what happened to
http://www.englib.cornell.edu/instruction/chemengr462/ibm1.html  ?

The page is still there, but the search engine does'nt work.

regards, Jack

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2001\06\01@133628 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
John Gardner wrote:
>Anyone know what happened to
>http://www.englib.cornell.edu/instruction/chemengr462/ibm1.html  ?
>
>The page is still there, but the search engine does'nt work.
>

Jack, I used to have the IBM patent site linked here, but it now
redirects you:

http://www.patents.ibm.com/

Also try:   http://patents.uspto.gov/

best regards,
- dan michaels
http://www.oricomtech.com
========================

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads



'[OT]: Trouble with IBM 750C :o)'
2002\04\20@110320 by Alexandre Domingos F. Souza
flavicon
face
       Hi there everyone!

       I have an IBM 750C notebook working propperly. I changed the HD from 340 to 1.7gb and system cannot recognize it. Does anyone know how to make the 750C BIOS see the new HD?

       Thanks!


---8<---Corte aqui---8<----

Alexandre Souza
taitospamspamterra.com.br
http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/pinball/

---8<---Corte aqui---8<----

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservspam_OUTspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\04\20@112427 by Howard McGinnis

flavicon
face
I've got a couple, but the one that has the 2 Gb drive was done a long time
ago. I think that if you turn it off, then hold the F1 key and power it up,
it will go into setup mode. My doc's are in the office, but I think they're
also on the web at http://www.ibm.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspam_OUTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\04\20@115712 by Jon Baker

flavicon
face
You need a more recent bios to use a drive larger than 340Mb.

ftp://ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/pccbbs/mobiles/sytps143.exe

{Original Message removed}


'[OT]: IBM Thinkpad errors...'
2002\06\13@170415 by Pic Dude
flavicon
face
Getting power-up error 0163 and 0173 on an IBM Thinkpad 600x.
Started happening today when I rebooted -- it pops these
numbers up, beeps a couple times and jumps into the BIOS
date/time-setting screen.  When I click okay, it boots up
normally.

IBM's support website tells me that 163 =
   1. Set time and date
   2. System board

And 173 =
   1. Select OK in the error screen; then set the time and date.
   2. Backup battery.
   3. System board.

With fingers crossed, and noticing that everything else seems to
work the same, I'm hoping it is just the backup battery.  I've
had this machine for just over a year, and I had got it used, so
it seems like s reasonable conclusion.

Any idea how to go about checking this?  Do I have to pop the
system out to test the battery, or is this something that I
should have a dealer handle for me?

Thanks,
-Neil.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.



'[EE]: IBM Microdrives'
2002\11\06@064447 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
Presumably well known to many already.
1 GB (and smaller) hard Drives with PCMCIA/USB adaptors

       http://www.d-store.com/d-store/microtech/ibm_micro_drives.htm

What I didn't realise was that many cameras able to accept them directly
using "CF+" format - such as all these

   http://ssddom01.storage.ibm.com/hddt/situdtest.nsf/vwWebGeneral?Openview

Prize / size / weight comparisons with Flash are interesting.
IBM claim, of course, advantages over Flash.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\11\07@043118 by Amaury Jacquot

flavicon
face
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:40:24AM +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:
> Presumably well known to many already.
> 1 GB (and smaller) hard Drives with PCMCIA/USB adaptors
>
>         http://www.d-store.com/d-store/microtech/ibm_micro_drives.htm
>
> What I didn't realise was that many cameras able to accept them directly
> using "CF+" format - such as all these
>
>     http://ssddom01.storage.ibm.com/hddt/situdtest.nsf/vwWebGeneral?Openview
>
> Prize / size / weight comparisons with Flash are interesting.
> IBM claim, of course, advantages over Flash.

I have insider info about these...

I heard that pixie-dust tech will be applied and that they will soon be
able to store 3Gig (theoretically at the end of this year, or early next
year, think holyday season) and 6Gig at the end of next year

Sincerely

Amaury

>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email listservspamBeGonespam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam.....mitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\07@142308 by nson Scott (AC/ESC4)

flavicon
face
source=
I have been considering trying to use a microdrive (or just regular CF) for
a data logging project I am putting together.  Has anyone interfaced a PIC
to one of these devices?  Any info would be appreciated.
Scott




---

www.piclist.com/member/Scott_Amenson-us-
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\07@154738 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> source=
> I have been considering trying to use a microdrive (or just
> regular CF) for
> a data logging project I am putting together.  Has anyone interfaced a PIC
> to one of these devices?  Any info would be appreciated.

       Look into IDE interfacing, CF cards have an IDE mode that makes them look
like a regular hard drive. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu


2002\11\07@163137 by Mark Samuels

flavicon
face
see...

http://www.chipcenter.com/circuitcellar/february01/c0201ms1.htm


At 02:21 PM 11/7/02 -0500, you wrote:
>source=
>I have been considering trying to use a microdrive (or just regular CF) for
>a data logging project I am putting together.  Has anyone interfaced a PIC
>to one of these devices?  Any info would be appreciated.
>Scott

-------------------------------------------
Mark Samuels
ARMA Design
Tel:(858) 373-1320
Fax:(858) 373-1325
Email: KILLspammarkspamspamBeGonearmanet.com
Web: http://www.armanet.com



The information contained in this electronic message is private and may
contain privileged, confidential or inside information.  Any distribution,
copying or forwarding or use of this communication by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
piclist-unsubscribe-requestspamspammitvma.mit.edu



'[OT]: Ancient IBM & Apples (was: Santa Sense )'
2002\12\17@220409 by Dale Botkin
flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:

> And I suppose you could compare IBM clones and Macs in that
> way. The IBM platform was made available to any manufacturer.

Well, no more than the Apple ][ was.  Which is to say, schematics and BIOS
listings were freely available, and cloners could and did clone function for
function.  In those days nearly EVERY computer came with complete
schematics; the first one I remember NOT having this was an Apple product in
fact.  Even IBM Mainframes of that era came complete with full
documentation, a rack of diagrams and even microcode listings, all of which
were actually useful right up through the 303X line.

> The result was a large base of users and s/w, even though Apple
> h/w was often superior (at a price). Then Windows and it's many
> squillions of users came along and Apple took another beating

Apple had a running start and thousands upon thousands of users and an
immense base of software.  What I recall being so attractive about the IBM
was that the platform had room for growth with software compatability (48K
on a good day with Apple, 128K and up on IBM), good docs, the IBM name and
more importantly legions of IBM salesdroids pushing business applications.
To my knowledge no one ever built a 3270 of 5250 adapter for any Apple
product (I could well be wrong).  Point is, in the business world "computer"
and "IBM" were pretty much synonymous, and most businesses did not consider
small computers a viable tool for anything until IBM introduced something
they could get that warm fuzzy feeling about.

The larger capacity of the IBM also made it better able to handle massive
spreadsheets, which made it actually useful in a business setting.  I
remember this particular period well, and was a true Apple fan at the time.
I did all of my programming on borrowed Apples (I was far too poor to afford
one myself as a junior NCO with kids).  The IBM was pricey, but so was an
Apple ][+ or ][e.  Apple's attempts to gain market share with business
systems were, to be kind, non-starters (Apple /// and Lisa).  By the time
the Mac was introduced the battle was pretty much over.

As for Apple hardware being superior...  well, I don't remember any that
was.  Floppy drives were glitchy, about the only thing going for it was a
color display that the IBM lacked at first.

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespamRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu>

2002\12\17@224750 by Jinx

face picon face
> As for Apple hardware being superior...  well, I don't remember
> any that was.  Floppy drives were glitchy, about the only thing
> going for it was a color display that the IBM lacked at first

That was just a feeling I had. I remember once shopping around
and finding the price difference between a Quadra and a PC
quite marked. The Quadra seemed to be aimed at "professionals",
particularly in the DTP caper, and I naturally assumed the higher
(2-3X) price was because it was a much gruntier machine. Also
I believe Apple invented / developed / commercialised some
concepts (eg GUIs, FireWire) that gave me the impression they
were a cut above PCs

I hadn't realised just how many models Apple have until I looked
it up. I've never used a modern one, although back in the good old
days when the battle in schools was between Commodore, BBC
and Apple I did play around with them a little

http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=tam&page=timeline&subpage=pers

I saw Pirates Of Silicon Valley a couple of years ago, and have to
say Jobs and Gates did not imbue me with the warm fuzzies

http://alt.tnt.tv/movies/tntoriginals/pirates/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
KILLspampiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu>

2002\12\17@233017 by Sean Alcorn - PIC Stuff

flavicon
face
>> As for Apple hardware being superior...  well, I don't remember
>> any that was.  Floppy drives were glitchy, about the only thing
>> going for it was a color display that the IBM lacked at first

I bought my first "IBM clone" in 1982 (I think it was - still got the
cheque butt somewhere). I taught myself how to use AutoCAD 2 point
something on that old dual floppy machine, then started and built my
own business 10 years later using the good old PC. Of course, buying a
new one every year in order to run the latest version of the CPU
intensive applications I was running.

In all that time, I was  always in awe of what I saw as superior Apple
products. With the introduction of the iMac, I purchased my first
Apple, and I was converted. I have since bought 7 Apples for my
business, and just replaced my own 3 year old iMac. I had finally seen
the light! :-)

I now only have one PC in my business, and that is for engineering
applications. Everything else is done on my beloved Apples! :-)

Regards,

Sean

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu>

2002\12\18@030550 by Mike Morris

flavicon
face
At 09:03 PM 12/17/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Jinx wrote:
>
><snip>
>To my knowledge no one ever built a 3270 of 5250 adapter for any Apple
>product (I could well be wrong).  Point is, in the business world "computer"
>and "IBM" were pretty much synonymous, and most businesses did not consider
>small computers a viable tool for anything until IBM introduced something
>they could get that warm fuzzy feeling about.

Actually, there were a few 3270 Nubus boards for the 'new' Mac II's and Mac
SE/030. If memory serves, one was made by a company called Avatar, and
another by Attachmate. About the time the Mac II came out, developers were
realizing that although Apple dominated the educational market, it was
quickly losing ground in the business world, and connectivity to the world
of Big Blue was vital.

- Mike

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


'[EE] IBM puts its PC business up for sale'
2004\12\03@072029 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/technology/03ibm.html?th=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1102075594-jcL7ICmGKTtcO9lu3f7GUQ

____________________________________________

2004\12\03@075522 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 01:12 AM 12/4/2004 +1300, you wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/technology/03ibm.html?th=&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1102075594-jcL7ICmGKTtcO9lu3f7GUQ

The "Untied States" ? ;-)

"To trim costs, I.B.M. has steadily retreated from the manufacture of its
PC's.
In January 2002, it sold its desktop PC manufacturing operations in the
Untied States and Europe to Sanmina-SCI, based in San Jose, Calif."

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamBeGonespamspamBeGoneinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com




____________________________________________

2004\12\03@080908 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
I wonder if they'll use ebay?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspammit.edu [spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspammit.edu]On Behalf
> Of Russell McMahon
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 23:13
> To: PIC List
> Subject: [EE] IBM puts its PC business up for sale
>
>
> www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/technology/03ibm.html?th=&adxnnl
> =1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1102075594-jcL7ICmGKTtcO9lu3f7GUQ
>
> ______________________________________________


'[EE] IBM laptop anti-drop protection.'
2005\03\05@103613 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
I see IBM advertising that their Thinkpads have "drop sensing" which
parks the drive when the laptop senses that it has been dropped. May
have had this for years for all I know.

I assume that sensing is done with several accelerometers - an XYZ
cluster would be needed to work in all orientations. When the vector
sum of acceleration falls to near zero it's time to shut down.

They say that head parking time is 500 mS. For a straight clean drop
that's a 1.25m fall :-(. Too far. To get distance down to 600 mm you
need about 350 mS parking.

Has anyone encountered this system yet? Any idea of how it works in
practice and how effective it is? It should really scream when dropped
and before impact to instil user confidence :-).


       RM

2005\03\05@115108 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Recently someone interfaced to the sensors in an Apple laptop
(slashdot discussion yesterday) and it appears that there are two
gyros and one accelerometer.

The gyros sense rotation of the laptop side to side and front to back
(don't care about spinning the laptop in a circle).  The accelerometer
is in the Z (down) direction as the laptop sits on a table.

I suspect that when a laptop falls the rotation takes more than a few
hundred mS as the unit slides off the surface (hand, table, armrest,
etc).  There should be plenty of time to stop the heads if you sense a
change in angle of more than 10 degrees or so in a short period of
time.

Discussions about it seem to indicate that it's very agressive, and
will park the heads when the user picks the laptop up from a table,
some indicate that if they hit the table next to the laptop hard then
it parks the heads.  They change the sensitivity so they get better
performance since it seems to be parking the heads when they
shouldn't.

But I suspect the roll rate is more easily detected first rather than
0g.  Further, laptop hard drives designed for this should be able to
park their heads significantly faster than 500mS.  All you have to do
is rail the servo with a transister.  The head is tiny and light
enough, and the servo powerful enough (it has to be for fast access
times) that it should be much faster than 1/2 a second.  I imagine you
could test this with an old bad HD by hooking an appropiately
amplified square wave to the servo mechanism and slamming the head
from side to side - increase the frequency until it no longer touches
both limits.  I'd be surprised if it couldn't manage greater than
10Hz.

Might be easier than that, though.  The maximum seek time is the time
it takes to travel from the edge of the platter to the center and
rotate the disk one full revolution.  Average seek time is typically
computed as 1/2 the maximum time.  Most drives are rated for around
10mS for the average seek time (12mS is common).  Parking the head
should not be much longer than twice that.  In most cases, the parking
head time includes spinning down the platters.  For this purpose
parking the head meerely means driving the head to the inner, unused,
tracks and keeping it there in case it falls to the platter during a
hard hit or during spin down.

-Adam

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 04:36:11 +1300, Russell McMahon
<RemoveMEapptechspamspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\03\05@121346 by Jack Krause

flavicon
face
I wonder if perhaps ALL computers equipped with relatively modern hard
drives have this 'drop sensor'.

Since the drive platter has mass and is spinning rapidly, any angular change
of the hard drive housing will result in a torque 'bump' reflected back to
the spindle motor. The more rapid the the angular change, the bigger the
'bump'.  If, therefore, one monitored the instantaneous current to the rotor
motor, one could sense a drop of the computer itself.  There is actually an
appreciable torque anomaly generated by radial acceleration.  The effect
from axial acceleration is much less pronounced, but is there nonetheless.
I wonder...

On the other hand, the two-axis accelerometers available today (ADXLxxx et
al) are pretty cheap - probably a buck at OEM quantities.  They are
super-simple to implement, especially for an application like this.  And I
think one could assume that in a drop there'd be enough acceleratio in two
(of the three) axes that 2-axis sensing would be adequate.

Head transit-time from even the outside of the platter to park on a 2.5 inch
drive is well under 100 mS, so it would seem physically possible to park the
drive during a 4 foot fall.  It'd just be a matter of getting the park
instruction to the drive in time.

Bill K.



{Original Message removed}

2005\03\05@141730 by Peter L. Peres

picon face

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, M. Adam Davis wrote:

> But I suspect the roll rate is more easily detected first rather than
> 0g.  Further, laptop hard drives designed for this should be able to
> park their heads significantly faster than 500mS.  All you have to do
> is rail the servo with a transister.  The head is tiny and light
> enough, and the servo powerful enough (it has to be for fast access
> times) that it should be much faster than 1/2 a second.  I imagine you
> could test this with an old bad HD by hooking an appropiately
> amplified square wave to the servo mechanism and slamming the head
> from side to side - increase the frequency until it no longer touches
> both limits.  I'd be surprised if it couldn't manage greater than
> 10Hz.

A reasonably modern laptop drive does about 30 full head strokes per
second. I measured this (with a dead drive) because I wanted to use the
head servo for other purposes. It moves so fast it's a blur. I measured
with the drive open and spinning and while injecting a sine wave from a
signal generator into the head servo. I increased the frequency until
the (almost full stroke - to avoid the latch - see below) amplitude
started to decrease.

{Quote hidden}

Most laptop drives have a mechanical and/or magnetic latch that catches
the head assembly when it it in the parking position. It retains it
there without power, and is supposed to withstand 20+g shocks while so
parked.

Peter

'[EE] Abbreviations of units, was IBM laptop anti-d'
2005\03\05@233744 by Brent Brown

picon face
> They say that head parking time is 500 mS. For a straight clean drop
> that's a 1.25m fall :-(. Too far. To get distance down to 600 mm you
> need about 350 mS parking.

That may be so, but mS stands for milli-Siemens (conductance, 1/Ohms)
which wont help at all with dropping or parking ;-)

For some reason mS looks nicer, but ms is correct (milli seconds). I've seen
this often on the PIClist, and occasionally in Microchip (and others) literature.
I don't wish to sound grumpy, but find it personally frustrating that
capitalisation of units is so often mixed up.  "mS" is unlikely to cause any real
confusion as the context usually makes it obvious, but bad habits will get
passed on. And what would happen if one of us PIClisters buys a PC with a
3000mHz processor, (or 256mB of RAM) only to take it home and find that it
takes 1900 years to boot Windows?

Without being pedantic, we should try to set a good example on the PIClist,
as the posts are useful teaching resources and we don't want to teach bad
habits.

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, Hamilton 2001, New Zealand
Ph/fax: +64 7 849 0069
Mobile/txt: 025 334 069
eMail:  TakeThisOuTbrent.brownspamspamRemoveMEclear.net.nz


2005\03\06@000312 by Bob Blick

face picon face
On 6 Mar 2005 at 17:37, Brent Brown wrote:
> And what would happen if one of us PIClisters buys a PC with a
> 3000mHz processor, (or 256mB of RAM) only to take it home and find that it
> takes 1900 years to boot Windows?

256 mebioctets of RAM would be much better!

-Bob

'[EE] IBM laptop anti-drop protection.'
2005\03\07@034256 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Mar 5, 2005, at 8:51 AM, M. Adam Davis wrote:

> Recently someone interfaced to the sensors in an Apple laptop
> (slashdot discussion yesterday)

Discussion of the Apple system here:

http://www.kernelthread.com/software/ams/

BillW

2005\03\07@063303 by Vic Fraenckel

flavicon
face
Go here:
http://www.kionix.com/App-Notes/app-notes.htm

and read this app note
Using the Kionix KXM52-1050 Tri-Axis Accelerometer for Hard Drive Shock
Protection

HTH

Vic Fraenckel
________________________________________________________

Victor Fraenckel - The Windman
victorf ATSIGN windreader DOTcom
KC2GUI

     Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite
                              Read the WIND

"Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"
-Count Oxenstierna (ca 1620) to the young King Gustavus Adolphus

"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough
men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
-George Orwell

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




'[EE] Bargain IBM Model 30 PC'
2005\04\27@093124 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
IBM model 30 PC only $US585!!!

       http://www.abcresellers.bigstep.com/item.jhtml?UCIDs=1068993%7C1172812&PRID=1225577

Or even cheaper here (plus NZ freight)

       http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Vintage/auction-26255923.htm

Or I could rat a few junk shops for you to see if there are any left
:-)

I've got an original IBM PC here - an entirely different story.


       RM

'[EE] Bargain IBM Model 30 PC; Isn't Marketing Amaz'
2005\04\27@113457 by Martin McCormick

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon writes:
>IBM model 30 PC only $US585!!!

       Unless I am totally confused, that's about $580 more than they
usually go for at swap meets, etc here.

       That reminds me of the twelve spent 40-W fluorescent tubes I need
to put out for the garbage collectors.  Maybe I should advertise them
on Ebay as having been preconditioned over the last ten years to
operate on the 240-volt electrical network used in much of the world
('cause they quit working on our 120-volt electrical system).

       I can imagine someone using a IBM Model 30 exactly the same
way I use our old 1987-vintage IBM PC/XT.  I have DOS and Kermit on it
and use it as a serial terminal.  When its time comes one day, that will
be that.  It's probably worth maybe $10 or $15 for the power supply, but
as long as the mother board still functions, it makes a pretty good
driver for my X10 controller or other incidental small tasks that need
a serial port and terminal software.  The hard drive still works so
one can even use it as a data logger if necessary, but something that
old is not worth much to most people.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK
OSU Information Technology Division Network Operations Group

2005\04\27@143628 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Thanks for the tip...
I have a long list of old computers that I was planning to send to the
landfill. I will run them on EBAY first. I bet they still wind up in the
landfill!

Included is an "original PC" and a TRS80-2.
The difference in junk and collectable is in the eye of the beholder and
this one has changed...

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\27@172912 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Included is an "original PC" and a TRS80-2.

Both those will definitely find a home elsewhere - even if only at a
"buyer pays freight" cost. Too sad to let them die. I would think the
original PC was worth at least a modest amount to a collector.

A model 30 is another story. Although the Model 30-286 (!) was a
surpassingly good PC in its day.


       RM





2005\04\27@222100 by R. I. Nelson

picon face
part 0 44 bytes
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
part 1 1407 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed (decoded 7bit)

A few Years ago I sold my commodore PET 8K, still working, for $600 to a
collector.  I only paid $450 for it when I bought it used.

Bob

John Ferrell wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2005\04\27@223512 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 09:20 PM 4/27/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>A few Years ago I sold my commodore PET 8K, still working, for $600 to a
>collector.  I only paid $450 for it when I bought it used.
>
>Bob

That's interesting. I have a Commodore PET  (metal case with the original
chiclet keyboard).
I think it was around C$1700 in 1979 or so. Any idea what that would be
worth (not that it's for sale,
just curious). It worked the last time I played with it.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
KILLspamspeffspamspamspam_OUTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com




2005\04\27@224304 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
R. I. Nelson wrote:

> A few Years ago I sold my commodore PET 8K, still working, for $600 to a
> collector.  I only paid $450 for it when I bought it used.
>
> Bob

I tried to order a Pet into Australia in 1977 it would have been, but because of
the 110/240-50/60hz power differences, they wouldn't ship it.

Had to settle for the first trash-80 shipped into OZ in March 78.
Still got it, but if you can imagine a zif socket coming out of the keyboard,
64K rams and other chips piggy backed all over, and a daughter board with roms
and ZIF's shooting out to one side, I doubt if anybody but me could love it. :-)

Don...


--
Don McKenzie
E-Mail Contact Page:       http://www.e-dotcom.com/ecp.php?un=Dontronics

RS-232 to VGA. Many resolutions http://www.dontronics.com/micro-vga.html
USB to RS232 Converter that works http://www.dontronics.com/usb_232.html




2005\04\28@074853 by R. I. Nelson

picon face
part 0 44 bytes
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
part 1 1595 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed (decoded 7bit)



Spehro Pefhany wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I listed mine on EBAY with A $500 reserve after I saw another one sell
for that amount.  They have one on now

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74945&item=5189366945&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
<http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74945&item=5189366945&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW>

Another big seller was the first osborne CPM machines.

I still have my Panasonnic SR. partner with my first brand ne seagate
ST238R 30 meg Hard drive I bought for $305.00 new  w/o the controller card.
It seems that computers (and other electronics) are the only things
wher you can buy more (preformance wise) for less money as time goes on.

Bob


part 2 391 bytes content-type:text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
(decoded 7bit)

begin:vcard
fn:Robert I. Nelson
n:Nelson;Robert I.
org:RIN Designs
adr:;;P.O. BOX 373;RIPON;WI;54971;USA
email;internet:EraseMErindesignsSTOPspamspamRemoveMEcharter.net
tel;work:1-(920)-229-7152
tel;home:1-(920)-748-7443
note;quoted-printable:Custom design and building of small electro mechanical devices.=0D=0A=
       AUTOCAD work ver2002
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard



part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2005\04\28@075818 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:07:14 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> IBM model 30 PC only $US585!!!

Good grief!  They weren't any good even when they were new - the runt of the PS/2 range, they were hardly any
more powerful than the AT that they replaced, and they only had a 720k floppy drive, against the AT's 1.2M.

>         http://www.abcresellers.bigstep.com/item.jhtml?UCIDs=1068993%7C1172812&PRID=1225577

I like the comment at the end of that page:

 "Please call if you need help."

Presumably if you are considering buying one, this applies!  :-)))

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\04\28@082718 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Another big seller was the first osborne CPM machines.

I have one. I'm not selling it but I'd be interested in knowing what
they go for.
Has DB2 AFAIK. And probably Word Star and Visi Calc.
:-)


       RM

2005\04\28@094340 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 06:48 AM 4/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:

>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74945&item=5189366945&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
><http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=74945&item=5189366945&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW>

It doesn't work. Ha.

>Another big seller was the first osborne CPM machines.
>I still have my Panasonnic SR. partner with my first brand ne seagate
>ST238R 30 meg Hard drive I bought for $305.00 new  w/o the controller card.
>It seems that computers (and other electronics) are the only things wher
>you can buy more (preformance wise) for less money as time goes on.
>
>Bob

I had a CPM Cromemco with the original 20A linear power supply, rack mount,
but got rid of it (just too big and heavy).

I think the real collectable from that genre is the IMSAI one with the
switches on the front.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
spam_OUTspeffRemoveMEspamEraseMEinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com





'[EE]: where could I find a datasheet for an IBM ph'
2006\01\10@152733 by Gus Salavatore Calabrese
face picon face
these numbers were on it.
IBM31T38JS
IBM P/N 0000008H4583

It is an infrared transmitter and rcvr
8 pin SIP

Thanks

AGSC


'[ot] IBM chip 250 times faster'
2006\06\21@023306 by Roy
flavicon
face
www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=55181&rubrik1=High%20Tech&rubrik2=
Hardware&rubrik3=Processors&sort=1&start=1

New Chip 250 Times Faster
Students from Korea University and Georgia Tech, as well as researchers
from IBM have developed a silicon-based chip setting a new speed record,
capable of running at 500GHz cooled with liquid helium and 350GHz at
room temperature.    
Professor John Cressler of Georgia Tech, who participated in the
research, said the chips use a blend of germanium and silicon, which are
capable of being produced commercially using already-existing chip
manufacturing technology.  
He says simulations show that the new technology could approach speeds
at room temperature approaching 1THz. He adds that the research
"redefines the upper bounds of what is possible using silicon-germanium
nanotechnology techniques."

_______________________________________

Feel the power of the dark side!  
Atmel AVR

Roy Hopkins
Tauranga
New Zealand
_______________________________________


'[EE] IBM trackpoint modules'
2006\06\23@034015 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
Does anyone know what the pinout of an IBM laptop "tackpoint"
(aka "force stick", aka "pointing stick") module looks like?
I came across a moderate quantity of "broken" laptop keyboards
(missing keys, etc), for which the apparent remedy is "discard
and replace")  I'd like to be able to use them ... elsewhere.
I was assuming the moderately extensive electronics would provide
a mouse-like interface, but the (flex) connector has 10 wires
(two are obviously power, so that's a start.)  10 wires is too
many for a standard mouse interface, although from some controller
chip docs I've found, they could be things like button inputs...

Thanks
Bill W

2006\06\23@044309 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On 6/23/06, William Chops Westfield <TakeThisOuTwestfwRemoveMEspam@spam@mac.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know what the pinout of an IBM laptop "tackpoint"
> (aka "force stick", aka "pointing stick") module looks like?
> I came across a moderate quantity of "broken" laptop keyboards
> (missing keys, etc), for which the apparent remedy is "discard
> and replace")  I'd like to be able to use them ... elsewhere.
> I was assuming the moderately extensive electronics would provide
> a mouse-like interface, but the (flex) connector has 10 wires
> (two are obviously power, so that's a start.)  10 wires is too
> many for a standard mouse interface, although from some controller
> chip docs I've found, they could be things like button inputs...
>
> Thanks
> Bill W

General description: wwwcssrv.almaden.ibm.com/trackpoint/download.html
Circuit diagram (find the datasheet for the controller your keyboard
uses): http://www.ortodoxism.ro/datasheets/philips/TPM754A.pdf

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
 - fortune cookie


'[OT] IBM Laptop password'
2007\02\20@040731 by Tamas Rudnai
face picon face
Hi Everyone,

I have a T42p model, and a year ago I set a supervisor password that I could
not remember for. I know what you think, I was stupid. Right, so I would
like to get rid of it. If I enter to the setup in user mode I can see that
the IBM security chip is disabled, so I was just wondering if there is any
way to unlock it without replacing the security chip? If not is that
possible for that model to just replacing the chip and if yes where can I
buy one?

Thanks
Tamas

2007\02\20@104534 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
To answering to my question.

Finally I found the proper answer: little soldering and a magic descrambler
tool - hmm, I hope I will not ruin my laptop :-)

sodoityourself.com/hacking-ibm-thinkpad-bios-password/
http://www.passwordmethod.com/index1.php
http://www.allservice.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52

Tamas



On 2/20/07, Tamas Rudnai <EraseMEtamas.rudnaiRemoveMEspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
unPIC -- The PIC Disassembler
http://unpic.sourceforge.net

2007\02\20@104952 by Cris Wilson

flavicon
face
At 04:07 AM 2/20/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>I have a T42p model, and a year ago I set a supervisor password that I could
>not remember for. I know what you think, I was stupid. Right, so I would
>like to get rid of it. If I enter to the setup in user mode I can see that
>the IBM security chip is disabled, so I was just wondering if there is any
>way to unlock it without replacing the security chip? If not is that
>possible for that model to just replacing the chip and if yes where can I
>buy one?

The security chip in question is an Atmel 24RF08.
Replacing the chip would be a pain and I'm not sure that the laptop would
start up at all if you did so - there is more in that security chip than just
your password.

To retrieve your password you will have to build an interface to the chip,
read the chip's contents to another computer, and then retrieve your password
from the contents. Luckily the password is unencrypted on the chip and it is
stored at memory address 0×330.

There are two types on interfaces you can build to connect with the chip.
You can use a radio transmission interface or you can hardwire to the chip.

Hardwiring to the chip costs about $7 (US) in
parts to build the interface which
is a couple of resistors and diodes. The downside is that you have to make 2
solder connections to the motherboard (Silver conductive epoxy will work
instead of solder if you have it on hand). There are pretty good details on
how to build the interface, read the chip, and recovery the password at
sodoityourself.com/hacking-ibm-thinkpad-bios-password/
I used that interface on about 10 laptops successfully before going to the RF
interface.

The radio transmission interface costs about $300 (US) in parts to build. It
took me about 2 weeks to get all the parts for it and another week to debug
it with a laptop that I knew the password on. This solution is great when you
have to reset a lot of laptops, but the RF interface picks up noise unless you
hold it in exactly the right place. I can't find the webpage that tells you how
to build the circuit at the moment (it's on
Atmel's site) and I haven't taken the
time to document the one I built -  I'll get to it one day.

One last note, IBM's bios update utility is known to scramble the supervisor
password and in some cases it will turn on the supervisor password when it
wasn't on before. IBM won't admit the problem, but I have about 50 laptops that
I had to hack into after a bios update. One out
of 300 laptops is a fluke - 50 out
out of 300 is a problem.

Good luck.

_____________________________________________________________
Cris Wilson
Information Resource Consultant
College of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities
Clemson University
spamcris.....spamspamclemson.edu
To report problems email: aah_computersspam_OUTspam@spam@clemson.edu




                               

2007\02\20@112101 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Thanks very much for the detailed description, Cris.

I think I need only a wiering and hopefully I would not need it anymore. I
am afraid of doing this as if I do the smallest mistake the whole laptop is
in a mess. But what can I do? Probably that RF chip is less dangerous but
for 300 quid...

The scrambling you have mentioned occurs only if you do not have
administrator password set or it locks your BIOS even if you have one? Not
sure if I have done the upgrade, but it might be the case as I've tried
every possible password combinations I could remember using in the last
couple of years.

Thanks
Tamas




On 2/20/07, Cris Wilson <.....crisspamspam.....clemson.edu> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2007\02\20@115038 by Cris Wilson

flavicon
face
Those two connections to the motherboard are can be tedious if you've
never done SMT work before. I used wire wrap wire that I had pre-tinned
when I made the connections and it worked fine. The conductive epoxy
works well if you have something to the hold the wire for you until it dries.
And it never hurts to practice on some piece of scrap junk before you try
it on a mobo.

The scrambling can happen whether you have an administrator password
or not.

At 11:20 AM 2/20/2007, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> > --

2007\02\20@120346 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I have done quite a few SOT23-6 (10F202) soldering using a 1mm tip iron.
That one is smaller than that Atmel chip so I suppose I will have no problem
on soldering a wire to that.

Thanks again,
Tamas


On 2/20/07, Cris Wilson <TakeThisOuTcrisspamclemson.edu> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

'[pic] [OT] IBM Laptop password'
2007\02\21@030349 by Clint Sharp

picon face
In message <492f1420702200107v76b5e155k1875e1a377ee6d65STOPspamspammail.gmail.com>,
Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaiSTOPspamspamKILLspamgmail.com> writes
> If I enter to the setup in user mode I can see that
>the IBM security chip is disabled, so I was just wondering if there is any
>way to unlock it without replacing the security chip?
http://www.ja.axxs.net/unlock/
--
Clint Sharp

2007\02\21@151918 by Cris Wilson

flavicon
face

> In message <@spam@492f1420702200107v76b5e155k1875e1a377ee6d65.....spamspammail.gmail.com>,> > Tamas Rudnai <spamtamas.rudnai.....spam.....gmail.com> writes
>> If I enter to the setup in user mode I can see that
>>the IBM security chip is disabled, so I was just wondering if there is
>> any
>>way to unlock it without replacing the security chip?
> http://www.ja.axxs.net/unlock/
> --
> Clint Sharp

The "IBM security chip" is not the chip that controls the laptop password.
The "IBM security chip" encrypts the hard drive so that it will only
work with that laptop's unique machine ID. They came up with this idea
so that if someone steals just your laptop hard drive, they can't just
throw it in another laptop and get to your data.
The good part is that your data is protected during hard drive theft.
The bad part is that if your mobo blows you can't get to your data.
At least in theory.
You can short the security chip on the hard drive board and then get
access to it again.
--
Cris Wilson
Information Resource Consultant
College of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities
Clemson University
cris.....spamclemson.edu
Report problems to: KILLspamaah_computersspam_OUTspamclemson.edu


2007\02\21@180302 by Clint Sharp

picon face
In message <spam_OUT1110.130.127.59.162.1172089154.squirrelspamTakeThisOuTwm.clemson.edu>,
Cris Wilson <.....cris.....spamRemoveMEclemson.edu> writes
>The "IBM security chip" is not the chip that controls the laptop password.
Errmm, it is. Atmel 24RF08 on Tamas's machine. Easy to read and the
password is stored as keyboard scan codes.
>The "IBM security chip" encrypts the hard drive so that it will only
>work with that laptop's unique machine ID.
No. At least not on the t42P or any consumer IBM machine I've worked on
so far. The security chip (it can be fitted to IBM desktops as well) is
non volatile password/serial number storage and can be configured as an
RFID tracking tag in the full implementation (just needs an optional
antenna installing)
> They came up with this idea
>so that if someone steals just your laptop hard drive, they can't just
>throw it in another laptop and get to your data.
Again, nice idea but not right. It's not encrypted, its password
protected and  that can be defeated.
>The good part is that your data is protected during hard drive theft.
Depends how much the thief wants your data, usually not at all as the
machine is easy drug/drink/whatever money. If the thief does want your
data, you better have real encryption on the drive or it's compromised.
>The bad part is that if your mobo blows you can't get to your data.
Umm, no. not true. Plonk the drive in another IBM machine, give it the
password and there's your data.
>At least in theory.
>You can short the security chip on the hard drive board and then get
>access to it again.
Umm, again, not true. The lock password for hard drives is stored on the
platters in a non user accessible area, it can be defeated in a couple
of ways but 'You can short the security chip' is bunkum. There is no
security chip on any hard drive I've ever seen (been repairing to
component level on PCs since the 4.77Mhz PC, over 20 years) in a
consumer product. There are 'secure' drives out there but I'd have to
kill you.
>--
>Cris Wilson
>Information Resource Consultant
I'd go and consult some information resources, google for hard drive
password, data recovery and IBM to get a clearer picture.
>College of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities
>Clemson University
>spam_OUTcrisTakeThisOuTspamEraseMEclemson.edu
>Report problems to: EraseMEaah_computersspamBeGonespamKILLspamclemson.edu
>
>

--
Clint Sharp

'[OT] IBM Laptop password'
2007\02\21@225503 by Cris Wilson

flavicon
face

> In message <RemoveME1110.130.127.59.162.1172089154.squirrelspamBeGonespamspamwm.clemson.edu>,> > Cris Wilson <@spam@crisspamspamclemson.edu> writes
>>The "IBM security chip" is not the chip that controls the laptop
>> password.
> Errmm, it is. Atmel 24RF08 on Tamas's machine. Easy to read and the
> password is stored as keyboard scan codes.

On the IBM T42 the administrator bios password is stored in an Atmel 24rf08.
The "IBM security chip" is a National chip - there is one on the motherboard
and there is one on the ibm travelstar harddrive board

>>The "IBM security chip" encrypts the hard drive so that it will only
>>work with that laptop's unique machine ID.
> No. At least not on the t42P or any consumer IBM machine I've worked on
> so far. The security chip (it can be fitted to IBM desktops as well) is
> non volatile password/serial number storage and can be configured as an
> RFID tracking tag in the full implementation (just needs an optional
> antenna installing)

OK, if you want to get technical, the security chips store the
encryption keys and security certificates. The two chips have to
agree with each other or the hard drive won't even spin up. I had
to fix one last week that an idiot spilt a cup of coffee into.

>>You can short the security chip on the hard drive board and then get
>>access to it again.
> Umm, again, not true. The lock password for hard drives is stored on the
> platters in a non user accessible area, it can be defeated in a couple
> of ways but 'You can short the security chip' is bunkum.

You have to short the chip so that the drive will spin up and then
you can use a stardard track/sector reader to pull the encryption
key from the drive. You must then set the encryption key on another
computer to the key you just pulled. You can then insert and use the
drive.

> There is no
> security chip on any hard drive I've ever seen

Well, take a look at an IBM Travelstar Model IC25n030atda04-0

--
Cris Wilson
Information Resource Consultant
College of Architecture, Arts, and Humanities
Clemson University
TakeThisOuTcrisKILLspamspam@spam@clemson.edu
Report problems to: .....aah_computersRemoveMEspamclemson.edu



'[OT] IBM OS/2, so great?'
2008\02\04@214627 by Xiaofan Chen
face picon face
www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3725526

I read some good things about OS/2 in PIClist. However if I
read the above article, I can not believe that IBM is such
an irresponsible company. No wonder that IBM Lotus Notes
is one of the worst software I have used by a large company.

Xiaofan

2008\02\05@034358 by Rob Hamerling

picon face

Hi Xiaofan,

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3725526

Although I signed the petition getting OS/2 open sourced, it was to my
opinion not very realistic. But the petition helped to get the attention
of people thinking it is dead for more than 10 years. It depends how you
define 'dead' for a product. I'm still using it as my primary OS for
modern hardware (dual processor, dual screen) and modern applications
(Firefox, etc).
And (to get it a little on topic here) with the Watcom Open C/C++
compiler I can build under OS/2 also the Linux and W32 versions of my
originally OS/2 applications like XWisp2 for Wisp628/648. XWisp2
compiles also under GCC, but then I would have to install and run three
versions of GCC on three platforms....  Even with Virtual PC (also a so
called 'dead' OS/2 product) this is not comfortable, but it allows me to
test the other XWisp2 versions without rebooting.

> I read some good things about OS/2 in PIClist.

I do my best ;-) but it's the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Regards, Rob.

--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)

2008\02\05@045331 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3725526
>
> Although I signed the petition getting OS/2 open sourced,
> it was to my
> opinion not very realistic. But the petition helped to get
> the attention
> of people thinking it is dead for more than 10 years. It
> depends how you
> define 'dead' for a product. I'm still using it as my
> primary OS for
> modern hardware (dual processor, dual screen) and modern
> applications
> (Firefox, etc).

   I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
   Alive as you or me
   Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
   "I never died," says he
   "I never died," says he
   ...

Seems at least a wee bit apposite :-)

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hill

       http://struggle.ws/songs/usa/joehilldream.html


> I do my best ;-) but it's the voice of one crying in the
> wilderness.
> Regards, Rob.

Rob Hill ? :-)



           Russell


2008\02\05@051651 by Jack Hesketh

picon face
Hi ya Rob,
after reading your ''voice in the wilderness'' article I too have used Linux
Red Hat for a while and found the KDE just fine  after all wasn't it (cowboy
boots) Mr. Microsoft himself who chose to have a boot screen very similar to
Linux (Did he steal the Idea) mmm I wonder ...I support you with your choice
of OS there is nothing wrong in it neither are you alone, there are just
like us many users who have given the ''Windows'' OS the thumbs down and
went back to using a safe OS.

Regards
Jack Hesketh

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Hamerling" <KILLspamrobhamerlingspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:43 AM
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Subject: Re: [OT] IBM OS/2, so great?

{Quote hidden}

> --

2008\02\05@072016 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
OS/2 was so stable, Warp3 was so cool. I remember I was using that for
MS-DOS development - when my app crashed just opened another DOS box..
accelerated my work like... like warp... And that was 3 years before Win95.
I'm still thinking how big mistake IBM made not to put a big marketing
behind it. In Germany a just before or a year so Win95 was on the shelf,
they just made some ads and they got many-many customers straight away.
Instead of "just some ads" if they were putting as much marketing force as
MS did with Win95, OS/2 would have been THE desktop OS nowadays - I really
believe in that. They could even use the infamous blue screen presentation
from Bill Gates when introduced 95. IBM did not care, and only god knows how
big  the mistake they did.

BTW, I'd also greet Next for Intel and BeOS to become opensource...

Tamas



On Feb 5, 2008 8:43 AM, Rob Hamerling <RemoveMErobhamerlingspamspamSTOPspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\05@123515 by Jeff Latta

picon face
It was a good OS.  It had a weakness in its design, relating to single
input queue, that could cause it to hang.  But its Workplace Shell
desktop was great.  IBM's System Object Model was technically advanced
although I don't know of any program, other than the Workplace Shell,
that really used it.  It had a scripting language (REXX) and a defined
API so REXX could be used to integrate different applications, provided
they supported the API.  The structure was there to automate business
functions.  Unfortunately very few applications where ever written that
really incorporated these technologies properly.  Without superior
applications it merely became a better Windows than Windows, which was
one of its marketing slogans due to the fact that Windows 3.1 programs
could run in a protected session and not bring down the whole OS when
they misbehaved.  I remember there was always a cloud of uncertainty
hanging over OS/2 regarding IBM's commitment to it.  Publicly they
always maintained they were committed to the product but there seemed to
be a lack of support for developers and then they came out with a
migration strategy for their customers which confirmed the suspicions
and it died a slow death.  But I guess it's not quite dead yet.  It's
kind of a sad story for technically inclined people who saw the vision
for what could be done with the technology.

--Jeff

Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3725526
>
> I read some good things about OS/2 in PIClist. However if I
> read the above article, I can not believe that IBM is such
> an irresponsible company. No wonder that IBM Lotus Notes
> is one of the worst software I have used by a large company.
>
> Xiaofan
>  

2008\02\05@171459 by David Meiklejohn

face
flavicon
face
> It had a scripting language (REXX) and a defined
> API so REXX could be used to integrate different applications, provided
> they supported the API.  The structure was there to automate business
> functions.  Unfortunately very few applications where ever written that
> really incorporated these technologies properly.

Sounds like AmigaOS in its later days - AREXX instead of REXX, but the
same idea.  Many applications supported AREXX "ports" (the API), and
people came up with some clever automation and integration scripts - but
it was not enough for the platform to be taken seriously by the
mainstream.


- David Meiklejohn

2008\02\05@200730 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
David Meiklejohn wrote:
>> It had a scripting language (REXX) and a defined
>> API so REXX could be used to integrate different applications, provided
>> they supported the API.  The structure was there to automate business
>> functions.  Unfortunately very few applications where ever written that
>> really incorporated these technologies properly.
>
> Sounds like AmigaOS in its later days - AREXX instead of REXX, but the
> same idea.  Many applications supported AREXX "ports" (the API), and
> people came up with some clever automation and integration scripts - but
> it was not enough for the platform to be taken seriously by the
> mainstream.

And various others in their "later days".

What I'm starting to realize is that "later days" means the thing is so
useful and stable that the software company producing it can't SELL it,
so they kill it and start the cycle over again...

Nate

2008\02\12@213405 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Russell - cool.  I followed the links and learned something about
(US)American History I didn't know.  Thanks!!!
Carey


'[OT] IBM OS/2, so great?'
2008\03\23@161542 by Howard Winter
face
flavicon
picon face
Xiaofan,

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:46:02 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3725526

This is a *dreadful* article, with some factual errors, typing mistakes, perpetuated myths, and so on.

I have to declare an Interest: I am the UK reseller of eComStation - the "successor" to OS/2 produced by Serenity Systems.  It is basically OS/2, licenced from IBM,
updated with drivers for new hardware, and other software added on to make it a basically-usable system, not just the bare operating system (as it was when IBM
sold OS/2), so such things as email and web-browsing are included in the form of Thunderbird and FireFox.  Because Windows comes with IE and Outlook Express,
people assume these days that an operating system includes these, but it's actually a fairly recent thing.

> I read some good things about OS/2 in PIClist. However if I
> read the above article, I can not believe that IBM is such
> an irresponsible company.

I'm not sure which aspect you are referring to here: IBM conceding the desktop war to MS (done by a new CEO as his first act behind the desk, for some reason
nobody ever understood), or refusing to open-source it, or failing to keep track of who owns what?

My own attitude is that if they don't know who owns what, then nobody can prove that IBM doesn't, so why not go ahead on that basis?

> No wonder that IBM Lotus Notes is one of the worst software I have used by a large company.

Well it was originally designed by Lotus before IBM bought them, of course, so you can't blame IBM entirely.  I did a training course on it once.  It was so strangely
designed that I never did "get" how it worked.  There seemed to be some magic behind the scenes whose operation wasn't published, or predictable, but upon which
any development depended.  It had some good ideas, but they were mostly really badly implemented.  A shame.

Lotus did have one good product, IMHO:  Organizer.  I still use it to this day (under OS/2) as a diary/planner/address book etc.  But the developers (as Lotus) were
terribly unresponsive to user input.  By which I mean, of course, that they totally ignored my ideas for improvements!  :-)

I have to say that sales of eComStation are a bit slow at the moment, but I did sell a couple of copies recently to a firm that had equipment that ran OS/2 and
needed new copies for new machines (some sort of automatic test gear, I believe).  It works fine, apparently, and was a lot cheaper than switching to XP, which
was going to cost about £6,000 per machine, for some reason!

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England
(Typing this into a machine running eComStation, naturally!)


2008\03\23@162430 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Rob,

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:43:31 +0100, Rob Hamerling wrote:

>
> Hi Xiaofan,
>
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3725526
>
> Although I signed the petition getting OS/2 open sourced, it was to my
> opinion not very realistic.

Me too, on both counts.

> But the petition helped to get the attention
> of people thinking it is dead for more than 10 years. It depends how you
> define 'dead' for a product. I'm still using it as my primary OS for
> modern hardware (dual processor, dual screen) and modern applications
> (Firefox, etc).

Yup, me too!  It does annoy me when people say it died 10 years ago.  There was still development going on by IBM three years ago, and by various others under
Serenity Systems to this day.  Version 2.0 of eComStation should be out "Real Soon Now"!  :-)

> And (to get it a little on topic here) with the Watcom Open C/C++
> compiler I can build under OS/2 also the Linux and W32 versions of my
> originally OS/2 applications like XWisp2 for Wisp628/648. XWisp2
> compiles also under GCC, but then I would have to install and run three
> versions of GCC on three platforms....

As a matter of interest, do you use exactly the same source code for the three operating systems, or does it have to be tweaked for each?

> Even with Virtual PC (also a so
> called 'dead' OS/2 product) this is not comfortable, but it allows me to
> test the other XWisp2 versions without rebooting.

I always meant to get Virtual PC running, but never got round to it.  I understand it runs rather well, as long as you give it plenty of memory.  Which these days is
about an eighth of that required for Vista...

> > I read some good things about OS/2 in PIClist.
>
> I do my best ;-) but it's the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Two!  :-)))

Personally I tend not to bang on about it, because it's rather Off Topic for the PIClist and I don't want to bore people (although I may have failed in the latter
anyway! :-)

I wonder if you and I are unique (or whatever is the word meaning two only) in being fans of both PIC and OS/2?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\23@165929 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jeff,

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:34:48 -0800, Jeff Latta wrote:

> It was a good OS.  It had a weakness in its design, relating to single
> input queue, that could cause it to hang.

That's true, but it was solved a number of years ago.  It was basically caused by buffering keystrokes and mouse-clicks.  It seems Windows gets round it by not
doing so.

> But its Workplace Shell
> desktop was great.  IBM's System Object Model was technically advanced
> although I don't know of any program, other than the Workplace Shell,
> that really used it.

There were some, but generally a bit specialised.  I think there was a scanner/OCR program that used it rather well.

> It had a scripting language (REXX)

Designed by a single person - as a lot of Great software is, and used on IBM mainframes, as a built-in part of OS/2, and as add-ons to DOS and Windows.  Not sure if
it ever made it to Unix/Linux.  It was my first experience of OS/2, in the early 90s, where I had to write a program in REXX to read data passed from a Visual Basic
application and schedule a batch-program to send and receive data at given times unattended.  It worked pretty well, I'm glad to say!

> and a defined
> API so REXX could be used to integrate different applications, provided
> they supported the API.  The structure was there to automate business
> functions.  Unfortunately very few applications where ever written that
> really incorporated these technologies properly.  

The program I'm using for email (PMMail/2) uses REXX user-exits, to process emails at various stages, so handling things like spam and virus-detection are easy to
integrate.

> Without superior
> applications it merely became a better Windows than Windows, which was
> one of its marketing slogans due to the fact that Windows 3.1 programs
> could run in a protected session and not bring down the whole OS when
> they misbehaved.

Yes, and most Windows-95 programs could be run that way too.  There was much discussion - some of it overheated - about whether it would be better to have
OS/2-only software to encourage people to use it, or software that would run under OS/2 and Windows, so people could move between them.  As it turned out, the
latter meant a lot of people moved to Windows and didn't bother to move to OS/2, but I still don't know if having a lot of OS/2-only software would have made a
difference.

> I remember there was always a cloud of uncertainty
> hanging over OS/2 regarding IBM's commitment to it.  

No doubt some of it spread by purveyors of Other Operating Systems...

> Publicly they
> always maintained they were committed to the product but there seemed to
> be a lack of support for developers and then they came out with a
> migration strategy for their customers which confirmed the suspicions
> and it died a slow death.  But I guess it's not quite dead yet.  

Indeed!  Can I take your order?  :-)))

> It's kind of a sad story for technically inclined people who saw the vision
> for what could be done with the technology.

Quite - it's another case of Beta/VHS - and a sad indictment of the mob mentality...

Cheers,

Howard Winter
(Off to ride my Sinclair C5, fitted with an 8-track cartridge player next to the Betamax VCR connected to a Squarial*... :-)

* Gargoyle knows

2008\03\23@171510 by Rob Hamerling

picon face

Hi Howard,

[RobH]
>> And (to get it a little on topic here) with the Watcom Open C/C++
>> compiler I can build under OS/2 also the Linux and W32 versions of
>> my originally OS/2 applications like XWisp2 for Wisp628/648. XWisp2
>>  compiles also under GCC, but then I would have to install and run
>> three versions of GCC on three platforms....

[Howard Winter]
> As a matter of interest, do you use exactly the same source code for
> the three operating systems, or does it have to be tweaked for each?

The vast majority of code is common for all flavours. Where I need
OS-specific system functions I use different pieces of code. In the case
of XWisp2 this concerns for serial port control (speed, mode, flow
control settings, break, etc). With a pre-compiler #define the
appropriate function is selected. You can have a look at the source if
you like.

Recently I have built an OS/2 version of the new JAL compiler (JALV2)
without a single change. I even didn't look at the source! I only
converted some makefiles!

> I wonder if you and I are unique (or whatever is the word meaning two
> only) in being fans of both PIC and OS/2?

There will be more, the author of DFSee is one of 'm.

Regards, Rob.

--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)

2008\03\23@175836 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Rob,

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:14:46 +0100, Rob Hamerling wrote:

>...
> Recently I have built an OS/2 version of the new JAL compiler (JALV2)
> without a single change. I even didn't look at the source! I only
> converted some makefiles!

I've never looked at JAL - it's on my "when I have nothing better to do" list!  :-)  One day...

> > I wonder if you and I are unique (or whatever is the word meaning two
> > only) in being fans of both PIC and OS/2?
>
> There will be more, the author of DFSee is one of 'm.

Oh!  I know Jan quite well (we've met many times at Warpstocks on both sides of the pond, and discovered that we had both worked for CMG) but I didn't know he
was into PICs.  It's a small world (but I wouldn't want to Hoover it! :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2008\03\24@011923 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 3/24/08, Howard Winter <.....HDRWEraseMEspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:46:02 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > I read some good things about OS/2 in PIClist. However if I
> > read the above article, I can not believe that IBM is such
> > an irresponsible company.
>
> I'm not sure which aspect you are referring to here: IBM
> conceding the desktop war to MS (done by a new CEO as
> his first act behind the desk, for some reason
> nobody ever understood), or refusing to open-source it,
> or failing to keep track of who owns what?

I am referring to the fact that they do not know who owns
what. I have no problems that they refuse to open source
it since it takes a lot money and efforts to do so and may
not make business sense for IBM anyway. As for they
concede the desktop war to MS, I am not surprised. IBM
now even did not produce x86 PCs and HDDs, two things
they invented. And it makes perfect business sense to IBM.

> My own attitude is that if they don't know who owns what,
> then nobody can prove that IBM doesn't, so why not go ahead
> on that basis?

The article does have some points in proving IBM is quite
messy with the OS/2 code base.

Xiaofan


'[TECH]IBM diangostic BIO chip'
2009\11\20@044340 by cdb
flavicon
face
IBM along with Corisbio have published some details of their 16
pathogen detecting biochip.

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/news/09/lab_on_a_chip.html

Colin
--
cdb,   3/07/2009

--




spamBeGonecolinspamRemoveMEbtech-online.co.uk


'[OT] IBM 1130'
2016\09\05@215529 by Isaac M. Bavaresco
picon face
Does anyone here know when the last IBM 1130 was produced?

Cheers,

Isaac


-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2016\09\06@000142 by Jean-Paul Louis

picon face
Isaac,

I think the last release of new series of 1130 was 1972 or 73, but I cannot remember
when they stopped producing them.


Just my $0.02,

Jean-Paul
N1JPL



{Quote hidden}

-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.


'[OT]:: Red Hat takes over IBM.'
2018\10\30@044723 by RussellMc
face picon face

Hey - that's what Cringley titled his post - why should I change it? :-)

            https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red-hat-takes-over-ibm/

Worth a read.
Commenters are not all so sure that IBVM knows how to optimise this
opportunity.
Stay tuned.
     Russell

________________________________________________________

He starts:

So IBM is buying Red Hat
<www.recode.net/2018/10/28/18035422/ibm-red-hat-purchase-acquisiton-34-billion?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=102918&utm_content=102918+CID_5404d22b1fbedb21616bbe42b94840ea&utm_source=cm_email&utm_term=IBM%20is%20making%20the%20third-largest%20US%20tech%20acquisition%20ever>
(home
of the largest Enterprise Linux distribution) for $34 billion and readers
want to know what I think of the deal. Well, if I made a list of
acquisitions and things to do to save IBM, buying Red Hat would have been
very close to the top of that list.  They should have bought Red Hat 10
years ago when the stock market was in the gutter.

Jumping the gun a bit, I have to say the bigger question is really which
company’s culture will ultimately dominate? I’m hoping it’s Red Hat.

The deal is a good fit for many reasons explained below. And remember Red
Hat is just down the road from IBM’s huge operation in Raleigh, NC.

Will Amazon, Google, and Microsoft now run out and buy SUSE, Ubuntu,
Apache, etc?  Yes.

Will there be a mad rush to create new Linux distros? No. I think that boat
has already sailed and further Linux branding won’t happen, at least not
for traditional business reasons.

Oracle has to hate this deal. Oracle’s Linux (the kernel part) is based on
Red Hat.  This will definitely cramp Oracle’s style.  Most cloud providers
resell Red Hat software, so now IBM will be getting money
on their business.  IBM could be in the position Microsoft has been for the
last 30 years.  For every PC made Microsoft got money.

Microsoft will hate this deal. Amazon will, too.

...

  Do read !!!

______________________________________
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2018 , 2019 only
- Today
- New search...