Subject: M840 PC8-E Reader/Punch Controller WANTED
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 09:25 CDT

Date:    Wed, 12 Sep 90 09:25 CDT
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: M840 PC8-E Reader/Punch Controller WANTED

Hi Guys,

I still have had no luck in locating an M840 PC8-E reader/punch
controller.  Could anyone out there help me out?  I would be
willing to buy outright or swap for an Omnibus,  Unibus or Qbus
interface.

Thanks,
                  Richard F. Lukes
                  Computer Science Department
                  University of Manitoba
                  Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3T 2N2
                  Canada
                  Tel: (204)-261-7366

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 11:03:50 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: M840 PC8-E Reader/Punch Controller WANTED

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 11:03:50 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: [email-masked]'s message of Wed, 12 Sep 90 09:25 CDT <[email-masked]>
Subject: M840 PC8-E Reader/Punch Controller WANTED

the only interface that I would have for that would be for a PDP-10, and
would be an entire rack of R and B flip chips.... Seriously, I used to 
have one, but not any longer.  It even worked... <sniff>

Doug

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500
From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI  <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500
From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI  <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?

(This is my first posting to this list, so forgive the ignorance. :-)

     I have been looking at used computer price lists lately, and it strikes
me that a lot of computing power can be had fairly cheap. (i.e. various
PDP-11's in the $300 to $1000 range, depending on options, periphs, etc.)

     I've been looking at this as a viable alternative to plowing $2k-$4k
into a new PC/workstation.  In fact, I've made a few other people on campus
think a little bit too! :-)  At any rate, I'd like those of you who are
using old mini's as personal computers to relate to me your experiences
with doing this.  I can see several advantages and disadvantages with this
approach:

Advantages:

     o  low cost vs. performance	

     o  large software base (even larger than pc's?)

     o  proven technology

Disadvantages:

     o  power consumption	

     o  size/weight

     o  heat

     o  noise

     The idea of having a real computer in the basement has a very strong
appeal :-) :-) :-)  But, before I jump in with both feet, I'd like to hear
from you folks out there who may have done the same.  Many thanks for any and 
all information/comments/etc.

===============================================================================

Todd Enders - WD0BCI                  ARPA: [email-masked]
Computer Center                       UUCP: ...!uunet!plains!enders
Minot State University                  or: ...!hplabs!hp-lsd!plains!enders
Minot, ND  58701                     Bitnet: enders@plains

     "The present would be full of all possible futures,
      if the past had not already projected a pattern upon it" - Andre' Gide

===============================================================================

Date: Sat 15 Sep 90 18:16:34
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Sat 15 Sep 90 18:16:34
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

>     I have been looking at used computer price lists lately, and it strikes
>me that a lot of computing power can be had fairly cheap. (i.e. various
>PDP-11's in the $300 to $1000 range, depending on options, periphs, etc.)

True.

>     I've been looking at this as a viable alternative to plowing $2k-$4k
>into a new PC/workstation.  In fact, I've made a few other people on campus
>think a little bit too! :-)  At any rate, I'd like those of you who are
>using old mini's as personal computers to relate to me your experiences
>with doing this.  I can see several advantages and disadvantages with this
>approach:

First let me tell you what I have, and then I'll give you my comments
on various pros and cons.

I have a pdp8 in my student room, which is 19 square metres.
The pdp8 is in one 19 in. cabinet. In addition I have one
printer, one terminal and one modem.

>Advantages:
>
>     o  low cost vs. performance	

You can definitely say that about a pdp8. However, preformance
isn't in the same range as more modern computers.

>     o  large software base (even larger than pc's?)

There sure is a lot of software, and all for free by now.
However, the pdp8 is a little too old for having a real
big software base. The pdp11 on the other hand definitely
has a lot of software. I'd guess on it being *much* larger
than for the pc.

>     o  proven technology

The most enjoyable part of this is that you can repair
all stuff by your self, if you are into that stuff. Everything
is much easier to understand and replace. And it sure works.

      o Its more fun (my oppinion)

You cannot compare a computer which can be mistaken for a terminal
with a big piece of hardware which you really can hear when you
turn it on. :-)

>Disadvantages:
>
>     o  power consumption	

Not too bad, actually.

>     o  size/weight

This sure is a problem when you first move the stuff.
However, once you have it on the right site, you don't
think much of it.

>     o  heat

This is an advantage in Sweden, where it sometimes can be pretty
cold...

>     o  noise

Well, I DO turn it off when I want to sleep.

>     The idea of having a real computer in the basement has a very strong
>appeal :-) :-) :-)  But, before I jump in with both feet, I'd like to hear
>from you folks out there who may have done the same.  Many thanks for any and 
>all information/comments/etc.

I'd say get one. However, I'm not objective. If you like *real* computers
I don't think you will regret it. If you just want fancy graphics and
lots of video games, fancy environments and so on, you will probably
not like anything but a "modern" computer.

If you want to write programs, you will probably like a mini.
Its much more fun than writing programs for a micro, in my experience.
You can find just about any language for the pdp11, and many languages
for most other minis as well. If a language doesn't exist, you can always
write the language as well. It might prove even more fun.

	Johnny

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 14:03:51 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 14:03:51 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

>From [email-masked] Sat Sep 15 00:18:17 1990
>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
>	id AA12272; Sat, 15 Sep 90 00:18:16 EDT
?Received: from [128.52.32.80] by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
>	id AA30419; Sat, 15 Sep 90 00:18:25 EDT
>Received: from plains.NoDak.edu by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) id AB00662; Sat, 15 Sep 90 00:01:03 EDT
>Received: by plains.NoDak.edu; Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500
>Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500
>From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI  <[email-masked]>
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?
>
>(This is my first posting to this list, so forgive the ignorance. :-)
>
>     I have been looking at used computer price lists lately, and it strikes
>me that a lot of computing power can be had fairly cheap. (i.e. various
>PDP-11's in the $300 to $1000 range, depending on options, periphs, etc.)
>
>     I've been looking at this as a viable alternative to plowing $2k-$4k
>into a new PC/workstation.  In fact, I've made a few other people on campus
>think a little bit too! :-)  At any rate, I'd like those of you who are
>using old mini's as personal computers to relate to me your experiences
>with doing this.  I can see several advantages and disadvantages with this
>approach:
>
>Advantages:
>
>     o  low cost vs. performance	
>
>     o  large software base (even larger than pc's?)
>
>     o  proven technology
>
>Disadvantages:
>
>     o  power consumption	
>
>     o  size/weight
>
>     o  heat
>
>     o  noise
>
>     The idea of having a real computer in the basement has a very strong
>appeal :-) :-) :-)  But, before I jump in with both feet, I'd like to hear
>from you folks out there who may have done the same.  Many thanks for any and 
>all information/comments/etc.
>
>===============================================================================
>
>Todd Enders - WD0BCI                  ARPA: [email-masked]
>Computer Center                       UUCP: ...!uunet!plains!enders
>Minot State University                  or: ...!hplabs!hp-lsd!plains!enders
>Minot, ND  58701                     Bitnet: enders@plains
>
>     "The present would be full of all possible futures,
>      if the past had not already projected a pattern upon it" - Andre' Gide
>
>===============================================================================

From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: Todd Enders - WD0BCI <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500

Re Personal use of mini-computers:

It all depends:

    If you are a "led by the nose" end luser of computers whose entire purpose
is to run spreadsheets and  "slick"  user-interface word-processors, etc., and
don't  mind  hardware  and  software  unreliability   and  inefficiency  (read
noise-prone glitchy hardware and buggy and otherwise non-robust poorly written
programs) then just go buy a macintosh or  other dead-end machine and you will
be  happy  as a pig in shit.

    If you appreciate careful engineering on a hardware  and  software  level,
and are willing to interact more with the command  level of the computer and a
lot  more,  including  assembly  and machine language if necessary, then  keep
reading  this.

    Most  older  machines have tremendous advantage over newer ones both large
and small.  The software is basically available to you in source  form  if you
tap the network of users of the machine itself.  Exceptions do exist,  such as
when the  manufacturers  attempt  to  prevent  further use of machines they no
longer sell by  stonewalling  the user community regarding availability of the
programs, but by and large this has been overcome.  This very group, the PDP-8
Lovers  is an attempt to  organize  this  very  thing:    a  user  group  with
comradeship for mutual benefit.  The user community was fragmented because DEC
let  us down, but we have available  experts  in  virtually  all  phases  that
"matter." We are committed to fixing various esoteric  problems  left to us by
past managerial etc.  mistakes.  This consists of  (but  is  not  limited  to)
current  software  and hardware design efforts.  Here is an  example:    I  am
primary  a  programmer, but here is a hardware-oriented problem I was  brought
into as a software person, which I left as a hardware person!  (I wear lots of
"hats.")  A  friend  of  mine  and  I  corrected a hardware bug in the  TD-8/E
controller card that should have been an official ECO:
    
            If  a TD-8/E is used at the highest level DEC designed it for
        (highest ECO  level),  then  certain  programs for the TD-8/E are
        still unreliable.   The  excuse  for  this was turned into a "bum
        rap" on the entire  beast.    The design limits of the TD-8/E are
        well  known;  living within  its  limits  should  cause  reliable
        operation.    Ultimately, all TD-8/E problems  stem  from  either
        improper  maintenance,  slightly  flakey  software  which can  be
        rewritten and sometimes was, failure to implement known  ECOs  to
        the hardware, or curiously enough this "non-ECO" I and  a  friend
        of mine personally uncovered.

            Despite  being  derailed    several    times    by   software
        "witch-hunts", the problem was  finally revealed as the following
        mistake:  certain TD-8/E programs,  such  as  the OS/8 12k system
        handler require a valid feature of the TD-8/E to work, namely the
        SDLD  instruction  should load the data register,  and  also  NOT
        clear the AC.  The software reasoning for  this  is that the SDRD
        instruction  can  read  the  data back later, so a  parameter  is
        passed in the register, and it is also needed immediately  in the
        AC.   Properly  "protected"  from  unwanted conditions, this is a
        valid technique, as  long as the instruction works as documented.
        Most existing programs really  don't  care what happens to the AC
        in this case, and they  deliberately  clear  the  AC  since  they
        "know" SDLD doesn't do this.   Due  to  a  hardware  "glitch"  in
        design, the AC WILL occasionally clear!

            This is why this problem is never seen by users of either the
        MR-8/E-C ROM TD-8/E system,  or any non-system handlers.  For the
        users of the 12k system  handler,  I  have  heard  various horror
        stories:  One user was under  DEC field service contract who paid
        expensive 1970's money for continous down-time of  over  9 months
        of  DEC trying to fix the problem unsuccessfully.    The  primary
        repair person said that the problem was that he  had  to  replace
        the  entire  CPU,  even  though  several  attempts  at  this were
        unsuccessful.  This  person  was  actually  ALMOST  RIGHT!

            The actual problem is an invalid  timing  relationship in the
        logic that governs which TD-8/E instructions will  clear  the  AC
        and which will not.  There is a collection of gates which control
        the "clear the AC" control line (C0) as a  function  of which IOT
        is executed.  There is a "hole" in the logic  in  that one of the
        controlling signals is not properly delayed sufficiently.  On any
        system where the  buss is physically "long", i.e., in two Omnibus
        blocks,  a  glitch  appears   on  C0  when  executing  SDLD.    A
        fascinating analog display occurs if  you  'scope loop SDLD;  JMP
        .-1 and connect to C0.  A tall spikey glitch occurs in the window
        of time that C0 is read by  the  CPU  for AC clear purposes.  The
        amplitude and width is very unstable, but the  'scope loop catchs
        it with ease.  The glitch may or may  not  be present in one buss
        machines.  It appears to also be CPU-dependent, so 8/A  users may
        or may not see this (I never checked at the time;   didn't have a
        KK-8/A available back then.) and perhaps certain KK-8F board sets
        were more immune, thus the repairman's dillema above.  Installing
        EAE may change details  of  the  glitch.    This  logic  is  even
        highlighted in the maintenance manual,  which is filled with "how
        does  this  sub-section  work"  documentation,  an   elegance  of
        documentation perhaps, but in this case, it doesn't work!

            The problem, once isolated, is trivial to fix.  One way is to
        place a capacitor across one of the gates to ground, to slow down
        the signal a little;  this method  is  a little kludgy because it
        uses  an  "analog"  property  of  the  chips,  which   might  not
        duplicate.   Breaking a line and inserting a resistor  will  help
        this slightly.  A better way is to insert two  inversions  in the
        logic  path using available spare gates.  It takes a little  more
        cutting  and  soldering  but  is the reliable fix.  If it were  a
        manufacturing ECO,  they could fix it merely by re-laying out the
        PC  board  without  additional  components.    Once  the  fix  is
        accomplished, the TD-8/E became  totally reliable again, even for
        the harried 12k user.

            Other TD-8/E areas of unreliability stem from bad maintenance
        of the drive  itself;    following  all  ECOs solves the problem.
        Unlike the "automatic" controllers (TC01/08/11, etc.), the TD-8/E
        expects the software to "keep  up"  on a word-by-word basis.  The
        nominal time for a word is  133  microseconds.  Due to cumulative
        software overhead, especially in the ROM system, there isn't much
        spare time over 133 microseconds available, especially at certain
        key  points  in  the  transfer  such as the last  data  word  and
        checksum transfer.    The  automatic  controllers  can  deal with
        transfers that are 20-50% faster than expected, but this software
        cannot.  Failure to  follow  the drive maintenance and mechanical
        ECOs will yield more than  merely premature failure of media (and
        possibly destruction of heads, which should  theoretically  NEVER
        wear  out due to the air-bearing design  (read  NO  head  contact
        here!) as long as you keep it all  clean.),  but  also unreliable
        operation.  The same tapes brought to automatic controller  sites
        work fine.

            The reason is that most mechanical problems  yield  some form
        of minor wear or dirt which causes friction.  This causes "jerky"
        motion on a "microscopic" level.  If you look  at  head data on a
        'scope, the data arrives less "smoothly" such that some words are
        stretched, while others are shrunk in time.  This means that  the
        worst case time for a word could be too short for the software to
        keep in  sync with, so there are occasional failures.  This could
        even lead to  "deformatting"  of  the  tape  in extreme cases.  A
        well-maintained drive will deliver  data  for decades with little
        jitter, thus allowing the software to perform adequately.

            Except  for the ROM-based system (which today most users need
        not use  because  they  now have the memory in their machines for
        the 12k system),  the  software  such  as  OS/8  handlers  can be
        improved to be even  more robust and defensive against the jitter
        problem.  I am the  principal  author  of  an alternate operating
        system for the PDP-8, known as  P?S/8.   Perhaps some of you have
        heard of it, but that should be  a  separate  discussion.   (This
        TD-8/E example is already too much of a  digression  from  Todd's
        question!)  The  P?S/8  usage  of  the  TD-8/E  includes superior
        handling  of  some  of the timing-critical transfer states of the
        data  transfers.  The P?S/8 handler is so much better than  DEC's
        OS/8  handlers that TD-8/E P?S/8 can be run on a PDP-8/L equipped
        with a DW-8/E!   (Except for ONE handler feature:  P?S/8 handlers
        are designed to work  with interrupts on.  The TD8/E handler uses
        the SKON instruction to turn  off  interrupts  during the handler
        oeprations, and then restore it at  the end of the handler.  This
        instruction isn't available on machines prior to  the  8/E.  OS/8
        Fortran IV maintains a table of devices which  can't tolerate its
        interrupt  structure,  so  they avoid calling the TD-8/E handlers
        with  interrupts on;  other programs aren't as elaborate, so  the
        more general-purpose  P?S/8  method would be better if available,
        but, alas, only  on the PDP-8/E, F, M, A.)

            If there  is sufficient user interest AND I have enough time,
        I may rewrite the OS/8 handlers to use the same techniques as the
        P?S/8 handlers, perhaps even  incorporating the SKON technique if
        there is sufficient room.   PIP10  would also require some fixes,
        since it uses an internal TD-8/E handler for the PDP-10 DECtapes.
        I can pass along the ideas I  used  to the more "impatient" users
        who wish to solve this problem sooner.   (I spend most of my time
        writing  other  things,  mostly  -8  code  for  1990  money,  and
        maintaining KERMIT-12, etc., as well as P?S/8 itself.)

            Ultimately  there  are only three things you can't do with  a
        TD-8/E over a TC01/08 system:

        1)  You  can't  use  unrestricted live interrupt systems with the
        TD-8/E since  it  doesn't  support  interrupts  at  all,  and the
        software has no "extra" time during the data transfer.  This does
        not  preclude  "dead-reckoning" searching  with  interrupts  from
        other devices during the search phase.

        2)  You can't write a one-page handler  for  it, but two pages is
        adequate, so OS/8 mostly "likes" the device.

        3)  You  must   ensure  that  simultaneous  DMA  virtually  never
        happens.  This  means  things like running VT-8/E displays (P?S/8
        allows TINY text messages  on  the  top line of the VT-8/E during
        the TD-8/E handler:  the  screen  merely says "WAITING" while the
        handler does its work.), or RK8Es, etc.  This is why RTS-8 cannot
        unconditionally run on a TD-8/E system.

        These limitations are purely a result of  design trade-offs.  All
        other obstacles can be overcome by following the  "rules"  of the
        game.

    Whether or not this TD-8/E major example is relevant to you, it points our
the level of documentation or expertise available to you if you use  an  older
machine.    I challenge you to find the equivalent depth of "support" for  ANY
aspect of  "modern"  machines.    Further,  if you wish to learn how computers
ACTUALLY work, instead  of  just  pressing keys, you can't find a better place
than  the  old  minis,   etc.,  which  usually  have  front  panels,  possibly
implementing FETCH and EXEC stops,  etc.    I  use  a  PDP-12 with that "trap"
feature, A LINC-8 with the feature  (only  in LINC mode), and a PDP-8/E with a
CIS 110B installed to allow program debugging  on  a "direct" basis.  Go debug
an interrupt handler on "newer" machines for a comparison!  MS-DOS DEBUG is an
insult to those of us who have used P?S/8 ODT or DECmate CPODT.

    A hardware argument for the older machines is that  they  are usually more
"demultiplexed"  on  the buss.  This means that  they run  faster,  cycle  for
cycle,  than do newer designs.  Actual speed is not what  is  important  here,
it's  just that when you have a zillion timing states on the  same  data  buss
pins, then the clock cycles have to run REAL fast just to service all portions
of  the  machine.    This means a very fast clock with slow actual throughput.
Yet the faster the clock, the more NOISE-PRONE and unreliable the whole system
is.  This is why PC busses are either non-existent, or only run inches to only
a few slots.   Expansion  chassis  does occasionally exist (albeit expensive),
but they "cheat" and slow  the  whole  machine down just to work at all.  With
the availability of micros comes a  whole  industry  of  noise "filters" which
most of us just never needed with minis.

    An inadvertent example of modern  software  "support"  happened  with this
very e-mail from you!  One  of  the  lines  in your file started with the word
"from", which was arbitrarily "mangled" into ">From" by the time I got it.  My
understanding is that this is a common "feebility"  of  many  unix-type  sites
which sloppily implement the mail system.  Don't hold  your breath waiting for
it to be fixed!  The older software is more  "mature",  and  more  responsible
people are committed to fixing it.  Further, it is often more efficient coding
in  the  first  place,  so your expectations can be higher than "hoping"  that
someone  will  fix  an obscure bug "buried" in the undesirable interactions of
"miles" of code, which is the hallmark of today's excessively modular systems.

    Except for noteworthy exceptions like the KERMIT project (which I am proud
to be  a member of!) and those producers of GNU and PKWARE, etc., by and large
you can expect  little  more  of PC software than that disclaimer on the front
cover:  It basically  says  that if it don't work - tough!  The third (fourth,
fifth?) party vendor who (possibly) indirectly now has your money doesn't give
a damn about you!

    So, if you want to pay lots  of money to be manipulated, go do it.  If you
want to "fight back" then stay here!  Others will help you get out of trouble;
you will be going where everyone has gone before (with apologies to StarTrek).

cjl ([email-masked])

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 00:24:49 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?    (Beware - LONG!)

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 00:24:49 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Todd Enders - WD0BCI's message of Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?    (Beware - LONG!)

   Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500
   From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI  <[email-masked]>

	I have been looking at used computer price lists lately, and it strikes
   me that a lot of computing power can be had fairly cheap. (i.e. various
   PDP-11's in the $300 to $1000 range, depending on options, periphs, etc.)

	I've been looking at this as a viable alternative to plowing $2k-$4k
   into a new PC/workstation.  In fact, I've made a few other people on campus
   think a little bit too! :-)  At any rate, I'd like those of you who are
   using old mini's as personal computers to relate to me your experiences
   with doing this.  I can see several advantages and disadvantages with this
   approach:

This is a question that I get asked from time to time.  The number one
criterion for owning a minicomputer is: can you maintain it?  DEC is
charging exorbitant sums for maintaining "traditional products"; you
will not be able to afford a service contract on it, and, unlike a
'386 box, things will (probably) go wrong on a fairly regular basis.

OK, so you've decided that you can make the support commitment and you
want to get an older machine.  Next, you have to decide what you want.
As much as I would like to, I can't recommend a PDP-8 for your only
machine.  I have learned much in the field of hardware design and
repair from the 8s I have owned, but 4K x 12 of memory means that you
won't be able to do very much in the way of modern code development on
it.  If you have an opportunity to get one, by all means snag it, but
don't count on using it for your main machine.  

You probably want to pick up a PDP-11 or a VAX.  The Vaxen are
somewhat big for home use; they also suck a lot of juice, and you will
have a hard time getting a Microvax for a price that you'd want to
pay.  Come to think of it, if you were thinking of buying a Microvax,
unless you were planning to run VMS on it, I'd try to talk you into
buying an old Sun instead.  Now on to the PDP-11s.  I hate to be the
bearer of bad news, but without a substantial run of good luck, you
*are* going to wind up dropping a few bucks on the system and its
peripherals before you have a usable setup.  PDP-11 processors to look
for (in order of preference) are:

PDP-11/83 (q-bus)  *
PDP-11/73 (q-bus)  *
PDP-11/23 (q-bus)
PDP-11/44 (Unibus) *
PDP-11/34 (Unibus)

Items marked with a * have separate I&D space, which is a real plus.
The Q-bus systems have the advantage of being relatively small and
lightweight, quiet, and they don't draw too much power.  The 11/44
throws off a pretty sizeable amount of heat.  I've left off machines
that are unrealistic because of architecture (must have memory
management), physical size, or prevailing price from used computer
dealers. 

Disks - Just say "NO" to DEC disks.  In order to get any kind of
decent storage space, you have to go with Massbus disks, which take up
as much floor space as the rack you'll have the '11 in, and throw out
a lot of heat.  Except for the RM-03 and the RM-80 (67 and 121 MB
respectively), they require special power.  What you want to do is to
get an SMD disk controller (for Q-bus, you can also get MFM and SCSI
disk controllers, but they can be a little pricey), and a disk, and
mount the disk in the same rack that you put the '11 in.

Good Choices for Disks:

Fujitsu 2284 (160 MB, very reliable)
CDC 9730-160 (160 MB; don't let the crunchy sounds on seek disturb you
             - they're normal!)
Fujitsu 2294 (300 MB, or 250 MB, or something like that; they look a
             lot like 2284s)
Fujitsu Eagle (400 MB - these are still a little expensive)
Fujitsu Super Eagle (600 MB - if you got the bucks, go for it!)

Good choices for Controllers:

Emulex SC-03 (for Q-bus; will control up to 2 drives)
Emulex SC-21 (for Unibus; will control up to 4 drives)

These controllers support a common set of disks, some that are unique
to each one also.  I think that all the disks I mentioned above (with
the possible exception of the Super Eagle) are supported by both.  My
strategy would be to go looking for disks first; see what you can get
people to give you for free (you'll have best luck with the little
Fuji and the CDC).  Then see which controller supports them (call
Emulex and get the manuals for them), and decide which kind of CPU you
want to get.

Disks to avoid:

Anything that doesn't rackmount is probably Bad News.  Free-standing
disks suck power at a great rate, take non-standard power, etc.  But
maybe you have your heart set on having removable-pack drives.  Fine.
You might want to pick up a CDC-9762 or a CDC-9766.  The 9762 and the
9766, when coupled to a massbus adaptor and painted the appropriate
color, are called RM-03 and RM-05.  Don't bother with the 9766 unless
you can get 3-phase though.

Tapes:  Try to get a Keystone or a Kennedy.  Get your controller from
Emulex or Dilog.

Comm:  DEC comm gear is usually sufficient.  DZ-11s are good; don't
bother with the DH-11 though - it's too big and gives off too much
heat!  DZV-11 and DHV-11 (for Q-bus) are both just fine.

   Advantages:

	o  low cost vs. performance

The cost for a flush PDP-11 system isn't that low, but it's still not
a bad deal.

	o  large software base (even larger than pc's?)

Yes.  You can probably pick up a lot of stuff that you don't even have
licenses for and nobody will care (don't try this with Unix though -
after the Steve Jackson Games thingie, I'm pretty wary of AT&T, even
when dealing with old versions of Unix).

	o  proven technology

I don't see what this gains you really.  Technology that's near the
end of its growth cycle is certainly "proven", but then again, so's a
20 MHz 80386 or a 68020.

   Disadvantages:

	o  power consumption	

Well, if you get your utilities free (this has always been a REAL BIG
concern of mine in looking for a place to live)...

	o  size/weight

The disks may be a little rough, but everything else I've mentioned
can be slipped out of the rack and handled with moderate ease.  The
unibus machines get really heavy real fast when you're holding them,
and an extra pair of hands sure helps, but you *can* get them in and
out of the rack by yourself.  If you build out an '11 system with the
notion of having it all live in one rack, it's not that bad size-wise
either. 

	o  heat

Since you live in Minot, I don't see how this is really a problem.  Or
are you talking about trying to heat the room to keep it from dropping
below 32 degrees Fahrenheight?  :-)

	o  noise

The Q-bus machines are not too bad.  The Unibus machines emit a very
satisfying roar when they're on (they are REAL computers, damnit, not
PCs, and they make macho-computer noises, with real fans!)

	The idea of having a real computer in the basement has a very strong
   appeal :-) :-) :-)  But, before I jump in with both feet, I'd like to hear
   from you folks out there who may have done the same.  Many thanks for any and 
   all information/comments/etc.

If you've read this far, you probably realize that a minicomputer
isn't for everyone.  You have to be slightly out of touch with reality
to even be bringing up the idea, and it might be symptomatic of
something worse (like deciding to lay ethernet, fire up multipe
machines, and hook them together and into the Internet or getting into
the 36-bit world).  But if you decide to go ahead and do it up, you'll
have a lot of fun with some really neat machines and learn to
appreciate good architecture and well-thought-out design (something we
have entirely too little of these days).  If you need any further
help, suggestions, etc. feel free to ask.  I'm sure everyone on the
list would be interested in hearing what eventually transpires and what
you finally get.  Enjoy!

                                        ---Rob

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 21:39:35 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Do Old Minis make good PC's

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 21:39:35 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Chuck Huffington's message of Mon, 17 Sep 1990 09:34:48 PDT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Do Old Minis make good PC's

   From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
   Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 09:34:48 PDT

   On Sep 16,  0:24, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

   | Don't bother with the 9766 unless you can get 3-phase though.

   This is getting a little far from pdp8's but:

   9766's DO NOT require 3 phase power.  They generally require 208 volts
   which is what you get from 2 phases out of a 3 phase circuit.
   However the drives have jumper options to allow 220 volt operation.

OK, before I hear it about this from everyone else on the list, MRC
called me on the RM05 bit (RM05s, as noted in the original article,
are just re-packaged 9766es with proprietary interfaces); they want
L6-20R connectors, and are single phase.

   The other real problem with 9766's is that they are HEAVY.  I really
   don't recommend carrying them up/down stairs.

Um, according to my 1985 VAX Systems & Options catalog, RM05s weigh
746 pounds.  A 9766 is probably more like 700-725, since it has no
massbus adaptor in it.  After carrying an RM02 (450 pounds) up a
flight of stairs and out of the basement (we couldn't come up with a
refrigerator dolly on short notice, so we picked it up and carried it
out), I have no desire to try the same thing with a 9766.

                                        ---Rob

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 09:34:48 PDT
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Do Old Minis make good PC's

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 09:34:48 PDT
In-Reply-To: Robert E. Seastrom <uunet!eddie.mit.edu!rs>
       "Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?    (Beware - LONG!)" (Sep 16,  0:24)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Do Old Minis make good PC's

On Sep 16,  0:24, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

| Don't bother with the 9766 unless you can get 3-phase though.

This is getting a little far from pdp8's but:

9766's DO NOT require 3 phase power.  They generally require 208 volts
which is what you get from 2 phases out of a 3 phase circuit.
However the drives have jumper options to allow 220 volt operation.
If you want to run in a dorm, you have a problem, but houses usually
have such power.  I know, I have run one in a house, and a friend of
mine still does.

The main reason to avoid 9766 and 9762 drives is head crashes.
These drives aren't any worse then other removable media drives,
but once you get used to winchester drives, head crashes are a real pain.
Also most people don't have the tools to replace and realign heads.

The other real problem with 9766's is that they are HEAVY.  I really
don't recommend carrying them up/down stairs.

				Chuck Huffington
				uunet!apex!chuckh

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 12:08:41 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Do Old Minis make good PC's

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 12:08:41 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Chuck Huffington's message of Mon, 17 Sep 1990 09:34:48 PDT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Do Old Minis make good PC's

Hell, we carry old CDC drives in and out of basements for *fun*.  Smaller
and lighter than my old machine...

9762s can be used with great reliability if you 1) ALWAYS change the 
absolute filter each 6 months (if it needs it or not ;-)) and if 
you never open the thing up to remove the pack, except when doing the
absolute filter change.  Basically, treat them like winchesters and 
they pretty much act like them.  If you start opening them to swap
packs (changing Operating systems or impresing the neighbors daughter)
then you can get into trouble.

So, take my advice; take the neighbors daughter upstairs and impress
her with something else  ;-)

Doug

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 19:01:38 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 19:01:38 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Todd Enders - WD0BCI's message of Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:07:29 -0500 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Do Old Minis Make Good PC's?

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 11:52:13 -0500
From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI  <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: The quest begins

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 11:52:13 -0500
From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI  <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: The quest begins

     I want to thank everyone who responded to my original post.  I was 
really supprised at the response I got (I thought I might be dismissed as
a flake, but that never stopped me! :-)!

     Well, for those of you who have followed this discussion with baited 
breath, The answer is: Yep, I'm going to go for it!!!  It's really no 
supprise, since I've always been a fan of well engineered equipment
(I have a model 15 and a model 19 teletype that still see use.  I think
they'll run forever! :-).

     Unfortunately, I can see a few obstacles in my way.

     1.  Shipping/Freight.  Anything other than boards is gonna soak up
         bucks.  I don't know just what truck rates are, but I suspect
         that they ain't cheap.  And, since I'm in the middle of nowhere,
         I have few places that I could even drive to within 600 miles
         to pick up racks/power supplies/tape drives/disk drives/ etc.

     2.  100 zillion different DEC model/unit/whatever partnumbers.  I'm
         no DEC whiz (yet!), but most of the used computer adds seem about
         as readable as a millitary nomenclature list.  I'm sure there's a
         way to make sense out of the mish-mosh.  Any leads on decoding the
         wonderful DEC system would be most appreciated.

     I can see that the way around #1 is to get the heaviest stuff as cheaply
as possible.     Anyone with any knowledge of people giving away heavy items
such as disk drives, tape drives, cpu's, etc. PLEASE, PLEASE drop me a note
or put them in touch with me.  However, this brings me back to #2.  How do I
know what I'm getting if I can't figure out what the numbers all mean.  I do
know that Dxx-xx are interface/controller/i/o cards, Txx-xx are tape drives,
Rxxx-xx are disks, etc. But just what is what is still mostly a mystery.

     The specifics of what I'm looking for are:

     CPU: either an 11/44 or an 11/73  (I didn't see any comments on an 11/70
                                        so I assume that there is something
                                        about it [size, configuration, etc.]
                                        that doesn't make it quite as 
                                        desireable.)

     Disk:  probably the CDC 9730-160  (I like drives that let you know that
                                        they're working.  It's a design
                                        feature! ;-)

     Tape:  Up in the air.  Any drive that has fairly good reliability
            and will mount in the rack will merit my attention.  Price
            and shipping (read weight) will be a large factor in my decision.

     Again, Thanks for any and all help!

===============================================================================

Todd Enders - WD0BCI                  ARPA: [email-masked]
Computer Center                       UUCP: ...!uunet!plains!enders
Minot State University                  or: ...!hplabs!hp-lsd!plains!enders
Minot, ND  58701                     Bitnet: enders@plains

     "The present would be full of all possible futures,
      if the past had not already projected a pattern upon it" - Andre' Gide

===============================================================================

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 1990 10:30:07 PDT
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The quest begins

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 1990 10:30:07 PDT
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The quest begins

On Sep 19, 11:52, Todd Enders - WD0BCI wrote:
}      CPU: either an 11/44 or an 11/73  (I didn't see any comments on an 11/70
}                                         so I assume that there is something
}                                         about it [size, configuration, etc.]
}                                         that doesn't make it quite as 
}                                         desireable.)

I would choose an 11/70 over either a 44 or 73.  They may be big and
soak up a bit of power.

BUT:

They are very reliable, and I have always felt pretty easy to repair.
Not much if any LSI or even custom parts.

They do eat a bit of power.  At first glance it would appear they need
3-phase, but they don't.  Just change the power controller.  All of the
power supplies are normal single phase (120 V in the US) power.

					Chuck Huffington
					uunet!apex!chuckh

Date: Wed 19 Sep 90 21:00:14
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The quest begins
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Wed 19 Sep 90 21:00:14
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The quest begins
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

>     I want to thank everyone who responded to my original post.  I was 
>really supprised at the response I got (I thought I might be dismissed as
>a flake, but that never stopped me! :-)!

Good for you.

>     2.  100 zillion different DEC model/unit/whatever partnumbers.  I'm
>         no DEC whiz (yet!), but most of the used computer adds seem about
>         as readable as a millitary nomenclature list.  I'm sure there's a
>         way to make sense out of the mish-mosh.  Any leads on decoding the
>         wonderful DEC system would be most appreciated.

I didn't know they had a system... ;-)
Well, actually, I know of the pdp8 stuff, but not much 11.
DZ, DH, DL(?) is terminal controllers.
RK11 and RK611 is diskcontrollers for RK05 and RK06/07

>     CPU: either an 11/44 or an 11/73  (I didn't see any comments on an 11/70
>                                        so I assume that there is something
>                                        about it [size, configuration, etc.]
>                                        that doesn't make it quite as 
>                                        desireable.)

Ahhum, well, if you have the space, I'd say the 11/70 is very desirable.
However, even though the 11/70 is old, it is still pretty expensive.
Nobody is giving those away yet. It got some real punch in it.
Faster to run on than a VAX-11/780 (unless you use RSTS/E V9).

>     Disk:  probably the CDC 9730-160  (I like drives that let you know that
>                                        they're working.  It's a design
>                                        feature! ;-)

You'll need a massbus controller. (Only the 11/70 had one as
default, I think).

>     Again, Thanks for any and all help!

Good luck. Let us know how things proceed.

	Johnny

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:07:06 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The quest begins

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:07:06 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: The quest begins

Chuck Huffington:
>I would choose an 11/70 over either a 44 or 73.  They may be big and
>soak up a bit of power.
>
>BUT:
>
>They are very reliable, and I have always felt pretty easy to repair.
>Not much if any LSI or even custom parts.

I've been told that most problems originate with the ribbon cables, and
the core memory. So try to get semiconductor memory and don't bend the
ribbon cables!!!
I've had an 11/70 collecting dust in the cellar for over a year since failing
to repair it. I exchanged every card in the CPU and then started examining
the ribbon cables. Sure, there were a few breaks here and there. Tried
to repair them, but wasn't that successful. Never did succeed in finding
replacement cables (BC06R if memory serves me right). A pity. It's got three
massbus controllers connected to RP06's and BSD 2.10 is really decent.
32 terminal ports. 768k mos memory. TU45 tape. <sigh>
--
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	                         [email-masked]
University of Linkoping, Sweden	                    ...!uunet!isy.liu.se!pell

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 1990 14:24:53 PDT
To: [email-masked]
Subject: 11/70's

From: [email-masked] (Chuck Huffington)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 1990 14:24:53 PDT
In-Reply-To: Johnny Billquist <uunet!carmen.docs.uu.se!D89.JOHNNY-BILLQUIST>
       "Re: The quest begins" (Sep 19, 21:00)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: 11/70's

On Sep 19, 21:00, Johnny Billquist wrote:
|
|Ahhum, well, if you have the space, I'd say the 11/70 is very desirable.
|However, even though the 11/70 is old, it is still pretty expensive.
|Nobody is giving those away yet. It got some real punch in it.
|Faster to run on than a VAX-11/780 (unless you use RSTS/E V9).

Wrong about price.  Most of them have already been given or thrown
away.  I've seen whole systems sold for <$1000 or even scrapped.

|>     Disk:  probably the CDC 9730-160  (I like drives that let you know that
|>                                        they're working.  It's a design
|>                                        feature! ;-)
|
|You'll need a massbus controller. (Only the 11/70 had one as
|default, I think).

Not quite correct.  A lot of systems had massbus controllers.
Unibus 11's, 11/70's, VAXen, even 10's and 20's.

Massbus was the bus between the controller and the drive adaptors.

The Massbus controller on 11/70's was different.  It was not a unibus
device and connected to the Cache/Memory "bus" in the 11/70.

Actually what you want for a CDC drive is a 3rd party SMD controller.
Like and Emulex SC70, SC71, or SC72.  If you use a real DEC massbus
controller, you will also need to use the DEC adaptor between massbus
and the drive.  DEC had the SMD interface on the drive modified so that
the adaptor will only run with the drives CDC built for DEC.

				Chuck Huffington
				uunet!apex!chuckh

From [email-masked] Wed Sep 19 20:08:51 1990
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 19:47:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

I'm new to this list so feel free to ignore me...

First off, I'm trying to get my 8/E back up, and I'm looking for the 
following items:
    RX8E   (DEC -still- sells the board, but it's expensive)
    RK8E
    RL8A
I'm also looking for OS/8 in any form.
I'd be willing to buy any of these things outright, but I have a few
things that I guess might be tradeable...  DZ11, 11/34 processor...

Re DEC disk drives, you think the maytags are heavy, you should try
moving an RS08 fixed-head drive!  DEC Field Circus was at my house
trying to write new timing tracks for a week after the disk drive
preceded us down the cellar stairs...

My 11/34 systems have (altogether) 2 RK07's (28MB), 2 RL01's (5MB),
and 2 RK05's (2.5MB) and all of them run on 120V power.  They all seem
to draw about 5A each.  My experience with replacing the disk drive
air filters hasn't been so much with head crashes, but with the spindle
bearings themselves - they wear out in a few months and vibrate badly
enough to cause I/O errors.  If anyone has a broken RK06 or RK07 and
wants to sell me the bearing (or the whole thing), let me know!

DEC used to be really psyched about Massbus because it worked not only
across each product line, but across all three major lines too
(16/32/36 bit).  One thing to watch out for was that the RM03 and RM05
drives are too fast to work with the lesser (non-11/70) PDP-11 massbus
adapters (RH11, don't know about RH55).  The RM02 was an RM03 with a
2400 RPM motor instead of 3600 RPM, and it worked on the RH11
(what a hack!).
 
As far as mini versus micro, get both!
Remember:  you can never have too many computer systems!
(our apt. has 3 11/34's, 1 11/05, 1 8/E, 2 LSI-11's and about 5 micros!)
 
Also:  anyone know where I can get a KS10 ior an 11/70?
 
   John Wilson    00,03 (those were the days!)

Date: Thu 20 Sep 90 02:25:51
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: [[email-masked] (Mail Delivery Subsystem): Returned mail: User unknown]
To: [email-masked]

Date: Thu 20 Sep 90 02:25:51
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: [[email-masked] (Mail Delivery Subsystem): Returned mail: User unknown]
To: [email-masked]

Don't know why it scrambled the address...
                ---------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:18:21 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
To: <[email-masked]>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to uunet.UU.NET:
>>> RCPT To:<[email-masked]>
<<< 550 <[email-masked]>... User unknown
550 <[email-masked]>... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Thu 20 Sep 90 02:18:04
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 11/70's
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked],
        [email-masked]

On Sep 19, Chuck Huffington writes:

Wrong about price.  Most of them have already been given or thrown
away.  I've seen whole systems sold for <$1000 or even scrapped.

Might be different in the US. In Sweden they are still not that
easy to come by... :-(

>|>     Disk:  probably the CDC 9730-160  (I like drives that let you know that
>|>                                        they're working.  It's a design
>|>                                        feature! ;-)
>|
>|You'll need a massbus controller. (Only the 11/70 had one as
>|default, I think).
>
>Not quite correct.  A lot of systems had massbus controllers.
>Unibus 11's, 11/70's, VAXen, even 10's and 20's.
>
>Massbus was the bus between the controller and the drive adaptors.
>
>The Massbus controller on 11/70's was different.  It was not a unibus
>device and connected to the Cache/Memory "bus" in the 11/70.

Hey! I wrote "default". All UNBIUS 11 (I guess except for 16-bit unibus)
can have MASSBUS, but he would have to get one.
I think they might be called RH11, but I'm not sure.
As for other machines. I thought MASSBUS initially was designed for
the pdp-10. Anyway, I was only discussing -11.

By the way. I have heard *very* unconfirmed rumours, which I doubt,
that there would exist a MASSBUS adaptor for OMNIBUS. Anybody
got a definitive on this? (Not jut: I would very much doubt it).

	Johnny

Date: Thu 20 Sep 90 02:21:41
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Thu 20 Sep 90 02:21:41
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

I might trade a RK8E with you, but I'd like to get some other
omnibus stuff.

	Johnny

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:46:48 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: The quest begins

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:46:48 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Johnny Billquist's message of Wed 19 Sep 90 21:00:14 <[email-masked]>
Subject: The quest begins

   Date: Wed 19 Sep 90 21:00:14
   From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>

   >     2.  100 zillion different DEC model/unit/whatever partnumbers.  I'm
   >         no DEC whiz (yet!), but most of the used computer adds seem about
   >         as readable as a millitary nomenclature list.  I'm sure there's a
   >         way to make sense out of the mish-mosh.  Any leads on decoding the
   >         wonderful DEC system would be most appreciated.

   I didn't know they had a system... ;-)
   Well, actually, I know of the pdp8 stuff, but not much 11.
   DZ, DH, DL(?) is terminal controllers.
   RK11 and RK611 is diskcontrollers for RK05 and RK06/07

The Alphabet According to DEC (Modern and Late Model Traditional Products):

A - D/A, A/D converters
B - Boxes/Chassis, as in BA11, also cables as in BC03
C - Very Fast I/O (CI780), also some cables
D - Data Comm as in DZ-11, DLV11J, DN87, DEUNA
E - Floating point processors
F - More Floating Point processors
G - Analog logic modules (some older A/D converters, also
    core stack drivers and sense amps)
H - Racks and power supplies as in H960, H9642
I - Some of the peripherals on a MINC have an "I" designation.
    IEEE488 also??
J - Unused
K - CPUs and clocks, as in KA-10, KL11
L - Printing terminals and lineprinters/interfaces LP-11, LA36, LP26, LN03
M - Most logic modules, pieces of CPU, etc.  A lot of other boards
    also have an M designation (a DZ-11 is also known as an M8xxx
    where the xxx stands for 3 numbers I forgot).
N - Unused
O - Unused
P - Micros (PC278, PC350)
Q - Software
R - Disks.  RP06, RM03, RL02, RK05, RA90
S - Storage arrays and... ??  SA482...  specialty items?
T - Tapes.  TU77, TA79 TU10
U - Unused
V - Video terminals.  VT-100, VT-340, VT-52
W - Blank logic modules
X - Unused
Y - Unused
Z - Unused

   >     Disk:  probably the CDC 9730-160  (I like drives that let you know that
   >                                        they're working.  It's a design
   >                                        feature! ;-)

   You'll need a massbus controller. (Only the 11/70 had one as
   default, I think).

Uh, no.  He'll need an SC21-B1 or SC21-BX.  The CDC 9730 is an SMD
disk, not a massbus disk.  The SC21 looks like massbus to the
processor though.

                                        ---Rob

From [email-masked] Wed Sep 19 22:34:44 1990
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 21:21:16 -0500
From: Loren Heal <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: please...
Cc: [email-masked]

Please remove my name from the pdp8-lovers mailing list.
Thank you....

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 01:59:52 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Larry Stone)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  The quest begins

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 01:59:52 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Larry Stone)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  The quest begins

The letters found on flip-chip handles also correspond to the color
of the handle:

> A - D/A, A/D converters
Amber (seen in a laboratory interface for an 8/e)

> B - Boxes/Chassis, as in BA11, also cables as in BC03
Blue (random flipchips of unknown purpose)

> G - Analog logic modules (some older A/D converters, also
>     core stack drivers and sense amps)
Green, yup, analog flip-chips (including power drivers in TU56)

[I built a "homebrew" TU56 power bridge and wrote "H221" (or whatever
 the G-number was) on the handle...]

> M - Most logic modules, pieces of CPU, etc.  A lot of other boards
>     also have an M designation (a DZ-11 is also known as an M8xxx
>     where the xxx stands for 3 numbers I forgot).
Magenta - digital logic flip-chips.

> R - Disks.  RP06, RM03, RL02, RK05, RA90
Red - RTL logic flip chips?

> W - Blank logic modules
White - does W also mean Wire-Wrap?

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 4:03:58 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 4:03:58 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (Larry Stone)
Subject: Re: The quest begins
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 20 Sep 90 01:59:52 EDT

    Blue is for B modules; early high-speed modules which were
"hotter" than R modules.

    Amber is indeed for lab peripherals.

    G is for green modules.  Generally something to do with a
special-purpose voltage module.  Core stacks were partially G modules
because there was a built-in power supply on the card, but some of
the logic is also there, so it's a little confused.  The TU56 example
is better.

    H is a power supply notation, but no-handle modules in the core
stack set had H numbers, which is also confusing.

    R is for Red modules.  The original standard flip-chip cards.
They are DTL, not RTL.  RTL is an early plus supply chip-based logic
which came in round multi-leaded packages, and also a little later in
DIP packages.  They were electrically compatible.  Fairchild made the
round ones and Motorola made the DIPs.  The DIPs are in the W70X
modules in the PT08.  Some early DEC machines like the KA-10 and
PDP-8 are made mostly of R series modules.  When faster and beefier
stuff was needed, sometimes the faster B series cards were used.

    S is a special variation on the R series modules.  S modules are
basically R modules with changed resistor values.  This causes less
fanout, but a little better speed.  Used where the R module was just
slightly marginal, not requiring a B card to do the job.  Some cards
were not part of the "stock" set, so they were designed specifically
for a job.  In some cases, these cards are ONLY available in S
versions.  Where applicable, you can modify an S=>R or R=>S if you
are desperate.

    A separate discussion is needed on just what flip-chips are.  The
R and S series of cards are basically made of transistors, diodes,
capacitors, and 1/4 watt 5% resistors.  A common configuration is
known as a DCD gate; there are other somewhat common variant
interconnected components in somewhat standard values.  These are not
the complete implementation of the basic logic gate, but can be
schematically dealt with as an entity.  The logic drawings of the
period do just that.

    Someone got the idea to fabricate a thick-film hybrid thing known
as a flip-chip.  Some early DEC pr was directed at the clean-room
techniques needed to fabricate these things.  It's somewhat little
over-blown considering what little is in there; the only
semi-conductor is a diode.  The rest is resistors and the equivalent
of a silver-mica capacitor.  They were made to replace the equivalent
discrete components.  They also fail!  So you just unsolder the
flip-chip and put in the analog components and it works again.

    The problem is that they then got the idea to bother re-laying
out the pc boards so that ONLY flip-chips would fit; they eliminated
the lands for the discrete components and made only the flip-chips
fit.  If you are desperate, you can solder together a flip-chip
equivalent and float it in fresh air hanging by its leads to replace
it, but it's a pain.  These are known as the "s1" variants on the
etch.  It's always better to have a "regular" version, since you know
how to fix it trivially.  I believe that virtually all S modules are
not flip-chip laden.

    Somehow, the word flip-chip became associated with the modules,
even though virtually all of them were designed without flip-chips.

    Other colors are W for white.  It CAN'T be for wire-wrap, since
the W modules in the PT08 are RTL and loaded with logic.  The W103
and later W123 modified version (for use in newer -8s through the
DW08A level convertor on faster buses like the -12 and KA-8/E) are
device selectors for negative peripherals; similar numbers are for
PDP-9 usage too.

    Some W cards are for jumpers, or are the designation for the ends
of cables, like W023.  They are all apparently white, anyway.
Various wire-wrap and prototyping boards sometimes with copper-clad,
or even holes for flea clips, etc. are indeed W modules.

    K modules are blacK handled.  They are for relay logic levels as
in the PDP-14.

    For some reason, they also made X,Y, and I have heard rumors Z
modules.  They are all Yellow handled.  I found some X002s in a
surplus store.  They have some common transistors on them, plus some
non-standard capacitors.  I would guess that they interface with some
"foreign" equipment.

    By the way, DEC also sells grey handles without modules.  There
is no associated module number at all.

    M modules come in 1,2,4, and 6 wide versions.  Some are
double-height.

    Metal spines without color or handles exist in quad (q-buss) and
hex (UNIBUS and 8/A) versions.  There are no Magenta handles as in
the other M modules; maybe M means Metal here.  Some M modules have
hinges on them (RX cards), or aren't exactly pluggable at all.  I
guess that newer DEC people just thought that M meant Module, thus
further confusing the nomenclature.

    Another confusion is DEC's use of numbers for equipment.  Most
are power supplies; some are power controllers, like 863.  But power
supplies are also sometimes Hxxx as well as xxx.  There is a BIG
difference between an H721 power supply and a 721 power supply.  In
many cases, these anomolous names exist in both forms viably -
extremely confusing.

    Yet another issue: rack-mounted supplies once came in a shorter
width than 19".  The backs of DEC cabinets were about 17.5 inches,
even though the fronts were 19 inches.  The power supplies and power
controllers were narrower than newer counterparts.  Newer ones can't
fit in older cabinets.  But they brought out versions, sometimes
adding an "A" to the end of the number, which meant that mounting
"ears" were bolted onto the narrow panel to accomodate the 19 inch
newer racks backs or plenum doors.  The numbers are not consistent;
sometimes the newer part has a lower number!  If you want to be sure
just what a module etc. does, you better ask someone who "knows",
because there are just too many exceptions!

    PS: in some cases, a module is M and a 3-digit number.  When
obsoleted, the replacement adds an extra 0.  M833 begat M8330, etc.
When variations come out, they are often of the form -YA, -YB, or
even -YC appended onto the end of the M number.  Often this meant
that the card was modified, and could not replace the generic
original.

cjl ([email-masked])

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:28:04 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:28:04 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

>From [email-masked] Thu Sep 20 10:01:48 1990
>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>Received: from EDDIE.MIT.EDU by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
>	id AA28850; Thu, 20 Sep 90 10:01:46 EDT
>Received:  by EDDIE.MIT.EDU (5.61/25-eef)
>	id AA20368; Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:00:16 EST
>Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:00:16 EST
>From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>In-Reply-To: Charles Lasner's message of Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:28:54 EDT <[email-masked]>
>Subject: The quest begins
>
>   Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:28:54 EDT
>   From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
>
>   On the 8/E KL is the serial port to the system console, etc., as in
>   KL-8/E, KL-8/F, KL-8/M, KL-8/JA.  Actually KL-8/M is a modem control
>   option for all the others.
>   cjl

That's why I said "late model traditional products".  Before the
Unibus PDP-11s, things were a *lot* more chaotic.

                                        ---Rob

From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The quest begins
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:00:16 EST

    You contend that things were more chaotic in DEC's
numbering/lettering schemes before the Unibus things happened.  Well,
I'm not sure anything really changed.  DEC never really had these
things under complete control before OR after.  Why is the Unibus
terminator known as an M930?  It is totally passive, and has no
Magenta or Metal handles, in fact it has no handles at all!

    In defense of DEC's earlier numbering schemes and the KL8
designation, I will say this: they mostly got the -8 stuff right.
Until then, all complete -8 models were sold as complete machines,
which includes a built-in system console function; just plug in a
teletype into a designated slot.  The only exception is the -8/s
which wasn't complete anyway for other reasons. (More on this later.)

    So, when the 8/e came out, the serial port was needed as an
integral part of the CPU, for at least MARKETING reasons, if nothing
else, so the processor is known collectively as KK8F, and the console
portion is KL8-E.  Other variations and options to the serial port
card continued the KL8 designation.  KK8F is acceptable since the
processor is for the 8/e, or 8/f, or 8/m.  The PDP-10 CPU was sold
without memory; the front panel says KK10, not KA10.

    Other PDP-8/e processor options are KA8E, the positive bus
convertor for compatiblity with older peripherals, and KD8E, the data
break portion thereof, since DMA is a separate portion of the
positive bus, and not always needed.  Older machines needed
multiplexors to have more than one DMA peripheral; the 8/E just uses
multiple KD8Es as necessary.  The older machines support up to 8 DMA
channels; the 8/e supports 13.

    The KL8-E itself has an interesting history which further
confirms its role as an integral portion of a "complete" machine.
Outsiders could point out that the KL8-E is a general-purpose card
since it supports RS-232 as well as current loop, and can be devices
other than 03/04.

    This makes it an option, not a CPU section.  The KL8-E
designation is for the M8650.  But this is not the first generation
of the card!  For a limited time, the PDP-8/e was sold with 3-digit
cards like M833, M831, M847, M835, M836, and yes M865.  Most of these
were obsoleted by their replacements, the same numbers with a 0
added.  M847 survived as the bootstrap option, but all of the others
were replaced, and also heavily ECO'd before getting "stable".  The
M865 was the original console-only card.  It is viable even today IF
you can put up with its limitations:

        a)      Device 03/04 only (no jumpers to change!).

        b)      Current loop only (great for teletypes!).

        c)      110-baud only (for teletypes!).

        d)      No berg connector (solder lugs for your teletype cable!).

This was CLEARLY a console-only card.  They felt it was too limited,
so they made the M8650, aka KL8-E.  Other variations followed,
including the KL8-F, an early attempt to use a uart instead of TTL.
I prefer the chips, since they can run at megabaud speed if you need
it!  Later came the KL8-JA, which is an acceptable uart card.  It
could go as fast as 9600 baud "officially", and was available with a
"special" uart (read hand-picked hotter chip here) that allowed use
of an available jumper which replaces 9600 baud with 19,200 baud.
Eventually DEC went to SMC uarts, so you can just set the jumper if
you want 19,200 baud; they all work.

    The KL8-JA also can fixup for the VT05 LF problem, although quite
brute-force.  It also supports uart error handling as an option.
There was even an option called KL8-M, which is a modem control card
to be used with any of the other 3 cards, since they just tie the
control leads high.  You insert your modem cable into the KL8-M, and
then jumper the modules berg <-> berg, and additional IOTs can
control the modem signals directly.

    Now on to the (PDP-5 and) PDP-8/s:

    The 8/s cannot do all the instructions of the -8, so most
software can't run on it.  It is also DREADFULLY slow.  It was an
attempt to do serial instead of parallel logic.  The vast majority of
software for the -8's is for the classic -8 or better.

    This also locks out the -5 as well.  We just ignore these two,
although there are rumors that someone fixed up a -5 to be -8
compatible with a lot of outboard logic.

    The -5's biggest problem is that it doesn't have a program
counter register!  They created an additional major state of the CPU
on the theory that gates were cheaper than flip-flops!  This is the
state that stores the updated PC into location 00000, from which it
was originally fetched!  JMP instructions are a write to memory, just
like ordinary store instructions like DCA.

    The only useful thing that runs on a -5, or an -8/s for that
matter, is FOCAL, 1969.  It checks for the -8/s and changes some
timing to allow slow-motion operation.  You find out it is a -5 by
storing a PC value into 00000 and winding up in a -5-handling
routine.  This routine dynamically fixes up the interrupts to go to
00001, not 00000.  That's all it needs, since the -5 is only
marginally slow compared to the -8.

    The -8 can do things in 1.5 microseconds; the -5 has 8
microsecond instructions, but some -8/s instructions take 78
microseconds!  By the way, the original intention was to make a
machine to be known as PDP-10.  It was to be the -8/s, only it would
be a throwback to drum memory with the DF-32 platter being its
memory.

    This is why the DF-32 is the maximum size of PDP-8 memory, 32K
exactly, including parity.  They abandoned this, and produced the
first quad-card, the  -8/s core memory.  The DF32 became a peripheral
for any -8; fast but TINY! 

    The -8/s was sold as a machine without a console, the first
"controller" computer for various OEM uses.  It wound up inside of
lab instruments, etc.  When configured as a "whole" machine, it
needed the PT08, which was a complete and flexible serial interface,
which came in single and dual configurations.

    The PT08, by the way, is a "PANELAID" design, meaning that it is
not wire-wrapped.  It has multiple PC boards soldered to the wrap
pins to save labor.  DEC tried to market a similar design known as an
"OCTAID" as well.  I am unfamiliar with them other than the PT08.
The multiple PC boards were needed because each PC board is standard,
no multi-layer boards here, and the wrap-equivalent was too complex
for one card.

    So, ignoring the -8/s (a  good  idea!), DEC's nomenclature wasn't
all that bad before Unibuses reared their ugly heads.

cjl

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:07:44 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:07:44 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Charles Lasner's message of Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:28:04 EDT <[email-masked]>

   Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:28:04 EDT
   From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>

   The PDP-10 CPU was sold without memory; the front panel says KK10,
   not KA10.

Where?  The front panel of every KA-10 I've ever seen says "PDP-10" in
white letters on a blue background in the upper left corner of the
programmer's console.  Doug, can you confirm or deny this?

In an earlier message, someone wrote that the PDP-10 was full of
R-logic.  It's been a while since I looked inside a KA-10, but I seem
to recall seeing lots of B and almost no R.  The KI-10, if my folklore
sources are right (I've never seen one in the flesh) is almost totally
M-series.

                                        ---Rob

From [email-masked] Thu Sep 20 12:53:37 1990
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:53:59 -0500
From: Loren Heal <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: please...

I used to have an '8, but it fell out of my posession during a move.  I have 
been reading the mail ever since, but now I've lost interest.

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 13:30:34 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 13:30:34 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Robert E. Seastrom's message of Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:07:44 EST <[email-masked]>

My KA-10 CPU (I owned serial number 9, and then number 44) (personally)
said PDP-10 on the console.  I have seen maybe 40 other KA10s in my life,
and all of them had PDP-10.  KK was not even the designation on the metal
serial number tag in the CPU cab (right hand bay - console) which said
KA10  sn 9  on it.  There was also a tag for the fast registers option.

An interesting note on the KA was that the super-early KAs (from
the engineering protocype up to 12 or so I am told) had the second
relocate/protect register as an option; after that they were standard,
mainly because the Tops operating systems needed them.  My KA ran the
2N series of monitors, single user and multi-user; this is pre-Tops.
That is why I traded old #9 in for #44, which had dual R/Ps and 
was able to run more advanced system software, like 602 and 603lir
(Limited Interim Release).   Such a machine!

Doug

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 13:35:48 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 13:35:48 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Robert E. Seastrom's message of Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:07:44 EST <[email-masked]>

Rob is right on the modules; the KI was pretty much solid M logic, 
sort of a KA done in early 7400 series.  Many of the periphs were
from the KA era, and had a lot of R and B....  Actually, the CPU on
the KA was nearly solid B logic, since it was pretty fast.  As you 
got away from the CPU things would get into R logic (5 megahertz
I think), like the BA10 Hardcopy controller, BC10 Beer Cooler
controller (seriously, but not a DEC product ;-)), etc.

Doug

From [email-masked] Thu Sep 20 16:17:03 1990
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 15:17:26 -0500
From: Loren Heal <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: mailing list
Cc: [email-masked]

Please remove me from the pdp8-lovers mailing list.  
T'anks!

From [email-masked] Thu Sep 20 19:32:53 1990
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: M930
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Sep 90 14:19:33 PDT (Thu)
From: [email-masked] (M.R.Murphy)

In Message-Id: <[email-masked]>,
Charles Lasner <[email-masked]> writes:
[...]
>    You [<[email-masked]>] contend  that  things were more chaotic in DEC's  >numbering/lettering
>schemes before the Unibus things happened, well I'm not sure  anything  really
>changed.  DEC never really had these things under complete control  before  OR
>after.  Why is the Unibus terminator known as an M930?  It is totally passive,
>and has no Magenta or Metal handles, in fact it has no handles at all!

The first one I saw was full length and had a magenta handle.   After that they
were the little stubby things.   I reckon this major design change was effected
to make it harder to pull out by mistake, and to make it easier to give a blood
sacrifice from the knuckles when you reach in to pull one out.

Speaking of little stubby things, how about LBT's?
--
Mike Murphy  Sceard Systems, Inc.  544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA  92069
[email-masked]        {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd,uunet}!sceard!mrm      +1 619 471 0655

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 02:46:50 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Larry Stone)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 02:46:50 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Larry Stone)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]

The Computer Museum in Boston is planning a new exhibit of nine
vignettes of historical computers.  They would like two of them
to feature minicomputers of the early 1970's, which naturally
brings the PDP-8 to mind.  They would also like to find a foreign-made
minicomputer from the same era for the other vignette.

The exhibit will be a full-scale, static, diorama showing the
minicomputer at work.  Spectators will not be able to touch it.  They
would like to reconstruct a real application that demonstrates some key
features of the minicomputer that made it historically significant:

    1. Inexpensive enough to dedicate to a single user or task.
    2. Small and versatile, does not need special machine room.
    3. Interface hardware connecting it to the outside world, monitoring
	instruments or controlling machines.
    4. Ability to roll the entire computer around to different places.

One theme they are currently investigating is a pdp-8/I-based hospital
monitoring system used in an operating room.  They were also interested
in a rumor about Nabisco using pdp-8's.

What do you know about pdp-8 applications from the late 1960's or early
1970's that are visually appealing, and understandable enough to make
sense to a museum audience?  (Controlling lasers or particle
accellerators is plenty macho, but a little escoteric for family viewing..)
I know there were typsetting systems, and someone put an '8 in
a van to drive around to schools, but don't know any of the details.

I may be lending the museum a couple of extra pdp-8/L's, so it would be
nice if the application could use that model.  The machine will not be
running, but the fan and teletype noise and blinking lights may be simulated.

Do you know anything about minicomputers made outside of the US in that
time frame?  Was Siemens making computers then?  Do our Swedish
correspondents have any non-DEC equipment?  If they can't find a foreign
computer, maybe they'll have to use another pdp-8 :-).

	thanks,

	-- Larry   [email-masked]

Date: Sat 22 Sep 90 13:16:09
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]

Date: Sat 22 Sep 90 13:16:09
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

Computers outside the US in 1960-1970 time?

I know that DATA-SAAB (a Swedish company) made computers at that
time. I do not have any of them, not anybody I know.
However. I know that there is a museum in stockholm who has
a few of these beasts. I'm not sure if they can be called mini:s
though.

The museum in stockholm is
Tekniska Museet

I don't have the address. But if people in Boston are interested,
I could find out.

Coming to think of it, they were pre 1970. Mid '60 I'd say.
Sorry, that's all I can come up with.

By the way. DATA-SAAB was bought by UNIVAC long ago as well.

	Johnny

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:42:50 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:42:50 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum

Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>:
>However. I know that there is a museum in stockholm who has
>a few of these beasts. I'm not sure if they can be called mini:s
>though.
>
>The museum in stockholm is
>Tekniska Museet

They got some of them from Lysator.

>By the way. DATA-SAAB was bought by UNIVAC long ago as well.

And Ericsson. And then Nokia. Nokia recently opened their own exebition
of old Data-SAAB computers here in Linkoping. A significant part of that
exibition was donated by Lysator.

The last D23 in Sweden was shut down in the early eighties, I think.
But I could be wrong.
--
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	                         [email-masked]
University of Linkoping, Sweden	                    ...!uunet!isy.liu.se!pell

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 16:03:58 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Good-looking hardware

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 16:03:58 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Good-looking hardware

How about a new thread: the most beautiful piece of DEC hardware.
I'd vote for the PDP-15 console...

     /Pell
--
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	                         [email-masked]
University of Linkoping, Sweden	                    ...!uunet!isy.liu.se!pell

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 11:50:00 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 11:50:00 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

>From [email-masked] Thu Sep 20 10:01:48 1990
>Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
>Received: from EDDIE.MIT.EDU by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB)
>	id AA28850; Thu, 20 Sep 90 10:01:46 EDT
>Received:  by EDDIE.MIT.EDU (5.61/25-eef)
>	id AA20368; Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:00:16 EST
>Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:00:16 EST
>From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>In-Reply-To: Charles Lasner's message of Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:28:54 EDT <[email-masked]>
>Subject: The quest begins
>
>   Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:28:54 EDT
>   From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
>
>   On the 8/E KL is the serial port to the system console, etc., as in
>   KL-8/E, KL-8/F, KL-8/M, KL-8/JA.  Actually KL-8/M is a modem control
>   option for all the others.
>   cjl

That's why I said "late model traditional products".  Before the
Unibus PDP-11s, things were a *lot* more chaotic.

                                        ---Rob

From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The quest begins
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:00:16 EST

    You contend that things were more chaotic in DEC's
numbering/lettering schemes before the Unibus things happened.  Well,
I'm not sure anything really changed.  DEC never really had these
things under complete control before OR after.  Why is the Unibus
terminator known as an M930?  It is totally passive, and has no
Magenta or Metal handles, in fact it has no handles at all!

    In defense of DEC's earlier numbering schemes and the KL8
designation, I will say this: they mostly got the -8 stuff right.
Until then, all complete -8 models were sold as complete machines,
which includes a built-in system console function; just plug in a
teletype into a designated slot.  The only exception is the -8/s
which wasn't complete anyway for other reasons. (More on this later.)

    So, when the 8/e came out, the serial port was needed as an
integral part of the CPU, for at least MARKETING reasons, if nothing
else, so the processor is known collectively as KK8F, and the console
portion is KL8-E.  Other variations and options to the serial port
card continued the KL8 designation.  KK8F is acceptable since the
processor is for the 8/e, or 8/f, or 8/m.  The PDP-10 CPU was sold
without memory; the front panel says KK10, not KA10.

    Other PDP-8/e processor options are KA8E, the positive bus
convertor for compatiblity with older peripherals, and KD8E, the data
break portion thereof, since DMA is a separate portion of the
positive bus, and not always needed.  Older machines needed
multiplexors to have more than one DMA peripheral; the 8/E just uses
multiple KD8Es as necessary.  The older machines support up to 8 DMA
channels; the 8/e supports 13.

    The KL8-E itself has an interesting history which further
confirms its role as an integral portion of a "complete" machine.
Outsiders could point out that the KL8-E is a general-purpose card
since it supports RS-232 as well as current loop, and can be devices
other than 03/04.

    This makes it an option, not a CPU section.  The KL8-E
designation is for the M8650.  But this is not the first generation
of the card!  For a limited time, the PDP-8/e was sold with 3-digit
cards like M833, M831, M847, M835, M836, and yes M865.  Most of these
were obsoleted by their replacements, the same numbers with a 0
added.  M847 survived as the bootstrap option, but all of the others
were replaced, and also heavily ECO'd before getting "stable".  The
M865 was the original console-only card.  It is viable even today IF
you can put up with its limitations:

        a)      Device 03/04 only (no jumpers to change!).

        b)      Current loop only (great for teletypes!).

        c)      110-baud only (for teletypes!).

        d)      No berg connector (solder lugs for your teletype cable!).

This was CLEARLY a console-only card.  They felt it was too limited,
so they made the M8650, aka KL8-E.  Other variations followed,
including the KL8-F, an early attempt to use a uart instead of TTL.
I prefer the chips, since they can run at megabaud speed if you need
it!  Later came the KL8-JA, which is an acceptable uart card.  It
could go as fast as 9600 baud "officially", and was available with a
"special" uart (read hand-picked hotter chip here) that allowed use
of an available jumper which replaces 9600 baud with 19,200 baud.
Eventually DEC went to SMC uarts, so you can just set the jumper if
you want 19,200 baud; they all work.

    The KL8-JA also can fixup for the VT05 LF problem, although quite
brute-force.  It also supports uart error handling as an option.
There was even an option called KL8-M, which is a modem control card
to be used with any of the other 3 cards, since they just tie the
control leads high.  You insert your modem cable into the KL8-M, and
then jumper the modules berg <-> berg, and additional IOTs can
control the modem signals directly.

    Now on to the (PDP-5 and) PDP-8/s:

    The 8/s cannot do all the instructions of the -8, so most
software can't run on it.  It is also DREADFULLY slow.  It was an
attempt to do serial instead of parallel logic.  The vast majority of
software for the -8's is for the classic -8 or better.

    This also locks out the -5 as well.  We just ignore these two,
although there are rumors that someone fixed up a -5 to be -8
compatible with a lot of outboard logic.

    The -5's biggest problem is that it doesn't have a program
counter register!  They created an additional major state of the CPU
on the theory that gates were cheaper than flip-flops!  This is the
state that stores the updated PC into location 00000, from which it
was originally fetched!  JMP instructions are a write to memory, just
like ordinary store instructions like DCA.

    The only useful thing that runs on a -5, or an -8/s for that
matter, is FOCAL, 1969.  It checks for the -8/s and changes some
timing to allow slow-motion operation.  You find out it is a -5 by
storing a PC value into 00000 and winding up in a -5-handling
routine.  This routine dynamically fixes up the interrupts to go to
00001, not 00000.  That's all it needs, since the -5 is only
marginally slow compared to the -8.

    The -8 can do things in 1.5 microseconds; the -5 has 8
microsecond instructions, but some -8/s instructions take 78
microseconds!  By the way, the original intention was to make a
machine to be known as PDP-10.  It was to be the -8/s, only it would
be a throwback to drum memory with the DF-32 platter being its
memory.

    This is why the DF-32 is the maximum size of PDP-8 memory, 32K
exactly, including parity.  They abandoned this, and produced the
first quad-card, the  -8/s core memory.  The DF32 became a peripheral
for any -8; fast but TINY! 

    The -8/s was sold as a machine without a console, the first
"controller" computer for various OEM uses.  It wound up inside of
lab instruments, etc.  When configured as a "whole" machine, it
needed the PT08, which was a complete and flexible serial interface,
which came in single and dual configurations.

    The PT08, by the way, is a "PANELAID" design, meaning that it is
not wire-wrapped.  It has multiple PC boards soldered to the wrap
pins to save labor.  DEC tried to market a similar design known as an
"OCTAID" as well.  I am unfamiliar with them other than the PT08.
The multiple PC boards were needed because each PC board is standard,
no multi-layer boards here, and the wrap-equivalent was too complex
for one card.

    So, ignoring the -8/s (a  good  idea!), DEC's nomenclature wasn't
all that bad before Unibuses reared their ugly heads.

cjl

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 11:48:13 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Museum suggestions

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 11:48:13 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Museum suggestions

Re: Usage of PDP-8's in applications.  Some possibly lend themselves
    to museum display.

    The -8 was used in a variety of places.  Here's just a few:

    Controlling Baseball message boards; Three Rivers Stadium in Pittburgh.

    Creating Video Baseball and other sports box scores for video
    feed of news to cable etc., by Reuters (using the VK-8/E later
    packaged in a VT05-like case by DEC as the VT-8/E).

    Controlling planetarium hardware at several planetaria;
    Vanderbilt in Long Island, and another in the Rochester, NY area
    are two I have heard of.

    National defense.  As recently as 3 years ago we have heard of a
    military installation using an -8 (not a newer model) at the DEW
    line.  I know of an 8/i which is involved with submarine
    surveillance currently, but I won't say more 'til it is totally
    declassified.

    Point-of-sales terminals and inventory control.  Burger King used
    hundreds of -8/m stripped-down machines, without the front
    panels, the true OEM version, to make a custom-made AMF terminal
    become a cash-register/inventory control terminal.  Each site had
    up to 3 AMF terminals and one 8/m and a modem. 

    The idea was to tell a central computer about the ordering needs
    of the store by what they sold.  This was largely given up
    because it was expensive to maintain (problematic AMF terminals),
    and Burger King changed business policies so that most of their
    stores are NOT company-owned, but rather are franchises, and each
    store can opt to maintain its own supplies.  Most buy
    independently, often making local deals with MacDonald's or other
    competitors for group discounts from local food distributors.
    Some even get their own Burger King napkins, etc. from local
    sources, which vaguely violates company copyrights, but in any
    case makes them true independent franchises.

    In any case, no new computer vendor has ever replaced the 8/m
    systems, because the replacements cost too much.  Today, most
    Burger Kings use less technology, merely having some form of
    electronic cash register.

    Education.  Many people who grew up in the 70s learned BASIC in
    grade school or high school.  This occurred in many scattered
    school districts in the US where BASIC, but not much else, was
    offered on a variety of -8 configurations eventually known as
    EDU-SYSTEM xx, where xx was a number designating an entire
    package of hardware and software.  Due to DEC's ever burgeoning
    "Madison Avenue" tactics, which were starting back then, the use
    of sub-models made it totally impossible to comprehend which
    system was "bigger" merely by model of package.

    This was a deliberate tactic, so many of these schools were
    "taken", in that they were made to believe that they needed a
    certain model, when an intelligent alternate could be pieced
    together from stuff DEC would sell to anyone smart enough to
    specify the order particulars.

    Matters were made worse by companies like EDUCOMP.  These
    companies basically made the old "value-added" pitch, but the
    cost of the added value far exceeded the worth.  What these
    companies did was to send salesmen to these schools, to prey upon
    naive educators.  They usually sold DEC's very packages at high
    markup.  Remember, DEC's original package was no bargain, just a
    recommended combination at full price.  So these packages were
    sold at ABOVE list price.  Further, DEC could have granted an
    educational discount to the local school district that was smart
    enough to buy several systems, but instead they paid premium
    prices to the middle-man.

    The added value usually consisted of nothing useful to the
    educator: DEC had preprinted cards for entry of BASIC statements
    on a 40-column punched-card format, but you used pencils instead
    of keypunchs.  The system included a mark-sense card reader.
    These cards already said DEC on them; the value added was the
    rubber stamp of the middle-man!  One such vendor had the ego to
    bother to modify the silk-screen of the PDP-8/e which originally
    says "digital pdp8/e" to "digital pdp8/educomp" to further
    "personalize" the system, but of no real value to the user.

    DEC field service also came with the package, at then current
    prices.  The customer was made aware of the fact that he was
    dealing with DEC field service, but they were misled into
    believing that the middle-man was arranging some great favor!
    Remember, the hardware was 100% DEC sold; the customer could have
    gone to his nearest DEC sales office and gotten the same deal for
    less!

    Eventually these vendors did come up with non-DEC options, such
    as a primitive PDP-8 COBOL, rumored to be written in Fortran, and
    ETOS, a form of time-sharing system, but the majority of systems
    sold were EDU-SYSTEMS right from DEC.

    I remember that DEC even tried to start a newsletter for
    EDU-SYSTEMS.  Issue number one had a letters-to-the-editor column
    called "Letters to EDU-Man." The very first one had a hack
    letter: Dear EDU-Man, since this is issue number 1, how come
    there are letters to EDU-Man?

    There are other sleazier aspects of the treatment of educators at
    the hands of DEC, as well as other hardware vendors.  If there is
    interest in this subject, perhaps we can start an independent
    gripe session.  My purpose here was to suggest a scene, right out
    of DEC advertising literature, where children sit at an -8
    learning BASIC, which I think is  an appropriate subject for the
    museum to display.

    This is reaching a little: while it is true that the public can't
    really relate to an -8 or -8/s inside of a laboratory instrument
    from Picker etc., because they don't understand the overall
    purpose of the instrument, many people are aware of psychology
    experiments with humans and rats.  PDP-8's were often used to
    collect data, and even control the experiments.

    The rat-in-a-maze ideas can be dramatized well in that
    environment, and the PDP-8, surrounded by other lab equipment
    like meters, 'scopes, etc., with some white-lab-coat-wearing
    scientists nearby, could be at the control center for the
    experiment.  I personally know of LINC-8's being used for this
    kind of stuff.  DEC even had some white-paper reports on
    "Computers in the Psychology Laboratory" which I believe even
    spread to multiple printed volumes.  The vast majority of the
    computers mentioned in these reports were -8's.

    Those hospital monitoring systems are not far afield from the
    CLINICAL-LAB-12 systems, which were definitely in use less than
    10 years ago.  These systems could monitor the activities of
    blood-testing and other machines, and also manage patient billing
    as well.  The PDP-12's were an unusual color - white cabinets
    with PDP-15 blue-colored console parts.  Nothing was green here!

    PDP-8's delivered news 'round the world.  Various commercial
    news-wires like AP used them in their private comm networks by
    the hundreds.  You could re-create a newsroom filled with
    editors, etc., with the PDP-8 in the background running all the
    fast terminals and slow teleprinters.

    Western Union also used them to implement the Mailgram network.
    The PDP-8/e did all the work, except for the central machines
    (Univac 1108) which acted as the routing switcher, and each
    serving Post Office, which used an -11 to merely print the final
    copy one at a time as it came down the line using a DataProducts
    80-column parallel printer.

    (Note: what a waste of money, using an -11 for such a trivial
    purpose, when an -8 could have done it for less money, power and
    space!  And this was duplicated in hundreds of Post Offices.)

    You could show a customer ordering Mailgram copy, and the
    operator typing it into the -8 console teletype, while the -8
    transmitted the copy back to the central 1108 over the leased
    phone lines (they used BI-SYNC and the DP-8/E).

    Here is a specific application, but I doubt if the museum could
    use it.  DEC was contacted to help create a TV show.  I went to
    its only pre-premiere showing.  It was called THE COMPUTER GAME,
    hosted by "Dandy" Dan Daniels, the former New York area radio DJ.
    The object was for contestants to beat MINI, the Mini-computer.

    The show opens with an extreme close-up of the PDP-8/e orange and
    brown front panel, then pans back to show the whole machine:
    Rack-mounted with RK05's and DECtapes.  They have slightly
    modified the DECtapes, so the white reels have black plastic
    electrical tape strips on them.  This is so the camera can pick
    up the tape motion.  On cue, the -8 rocks the tape drive reels in
    sync with the "spiel" of the off-stage announcer "pumping up" the
    audience.

    The contests can't really win, because the computer can cheat.
    The contestants are playing word games against a computer with
    the entire dictionary on-line!  I think the object was to see
    which contestent got beat last by the computer.  The music was
    awful, but typical of game shows.  The "contestants" for the
    pilot show were well-known faces - actors in tv commercials.
    Perhaps it was fortunate that the network chose to ignore this
    show other than the pilot!  

    It's hard to make a visual display that captures the utility of
    the PDP-8, or any other computer for that matter, in many
    applications that "ordinary people" can relate to; I hope we can
    think of some to allow the PDP-8 to get the proper credit for its
    role as the original minicomputer.

cjl

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:31:28 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:31:28 +0200
From: P{r Emanuelsson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re:  Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum

The Swedish manufacturer of that time, DataSAAB, mostly made mainframes
(D21, D22, D23, etc. (D23 was the last of that series)). The one corresponding
to the -8 in age should be the D22. There are still some of these running
in eastern Europe. Regarding minis, one spring to mind: the D5. It was
used e.g. as an intelligent I/O processor for the D22, sitting beneath
the printer on the console. It was a general computer, though, but didn't
have any fascinating blinking lights etc, so it looks fairly uninteresting.
Btw, neither did any of the D2?-series models. Except for the console, which
was separate from the rest of the computer.

The Lysator computer club has been running all these DataSAAB models,
but the D21 and D22 systems were scrapped about three years ago, along
with most of the D5:s. We still have one D23 running a FORTH in
microcode.
The D23 was built as an extremely general processor, to be able to emulate
other computers. To accomplish this it was completely microprogrammable, but
more difficult operations like address calculations were implemented in
hardware on boards called "VLS" (Variable Logic Sets). The computer could
have several of these VLS boards and a complete architecture change was
accomplished by just loading new microcode.
The only computer "implemented" on the D23 was the D22, however, for
backwards compatibility of course. The D23 was also asynchronous. The only
thing which you could call a clock was the regular feeding of microinstructions
to the execution unit, but even that could be asynchronously interrupted.
Processor, arithmetics and memory were considered as three separate units,
each containing internal general-purpose registers, talking to each other
asynchronously using a hand-shake protocol.

Sorry to fill this otherwise interesting list with things unrelated to the -8.

Ah, the old D21 tape stations. Blue metal cases with glass doors.
The two shining 1" tape drives (Ampex?). Nostalgia...
--
Dept. of Electrical Engineering	                         [email-masked]
University of Linkoping, Sweden	                    ...!uunet!isy.liu.se!pell

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 1990 13:52:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Museum suggestions

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 1990 13:52:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Museum suggestions
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>

>  Controlling Baseball message boards; Three Rivers Stadium in >Pittburgh.

Are you sure this was an 8?  I took a tour of Three Rivers when I was a
wee lad, and I remember them telling us that it was a 7.  They even let
us play with it -- you could type messages on a TI teletype they had,
which would punch them onto tape, and you could walk over and feed the
tape to the reader, and out your message would come on the scoreboard.. 
They also had a "custom" peripheral -- a device that would read
colored-in transparencies.  You'd have a grid on the transparency, and
you'd fill in the pixels you wanted to be turned on on the display, and
this box would read them.  Impressed the hell out of me at the time. 
I'm pretty sure that it's been replaced by now, though.

At CMU a couple of years ago, I was told that the lighting for the Fine
Arts auditorium was run by an 8 of some kind.

beak is                                                          beak is not

From [email-masked] Sat Sep 22 16:39:40 1990
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 16:31:42 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Are you suggesting that one of the machines at project MAC (or to be
more general LCS and AI) was purchased without memory?  I have seen
and used every 36 bit machine that they have ever had (and helped
de-install most of them) and none of them said KK10 on the console.
In point of fact, I can tell you the original memory configurations
for the KA's, the KL, the KS's as received at the labs.

Where was this KK10 installed anyway?  Do you know what CPU serial
number it was?

Doug

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:20:00 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject:  Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:20:00 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: P{r Emanuelsson's message of Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:31:28 +0200 <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Minicomputer exhibit at Computer Museum

I used to have a Honeywell 316 which might have fit the bill for a
mini of that time, maybe a bit later.  These were used in a lot of
things, but the application that people here might remember best was
that of ARPAnet TIP (Terminal Interface Processor).  A lot of us 
spent a lot of time dialed into Honeywell 316s illegally in our 
younger days...

Doug
(founding member - DC Turist Assination Squad)

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:53:51 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: The quest begins

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:53:51 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Chuck Huffington's message of Wed, 19 Sep 1990 10:30:07 PDT <[email-masked]>
Subject: The quest begins

As someone that has had (oh wow, how many?) 2 or 3 11/70 systems, and a
pair of 11/44s, and an 11/73 (the 44s and the 73 run in a comercial 
setting making real money...) I have to say that the 11/70 is really not
an option for home use.  It is going to be less reliable than the 44 or 
the 73 because if has orders of magnitude more parts, and while it is
faster than the 44, the 44 and the 73 are plenty fast...

More later...

Doug

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 12:26:30 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: The quest begins

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 12:26:30 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Todd Enders - WD0BCI's message of Wed, 19 Sep 90 11:52:13 -0500 <[email-masked]>
Subject: The quest begins

The 11/73 CPU is selling for around $1,000+ from the various mail order 
places (the big ones like Midwest or Newman).  I have some contacts in that
business that can undoubtedly do better, but it would be best to have a
system configuration in mind before contacting them, since they don't
like people to waste their time (that is part of what you pay such high
prices for at Midwest; the option to sit on the phone for an hour with
them asking strange questions and costing them bucks).  The 73 would be
a lot better as a home system than a 44, but the various parts for the 44
(including options like comm and controllers) will cost somewhat less
than the Q buss equivs for exactly this reason; the 73 parts are more
desirable.

What operating system do you want to run?  This is a critical question
at this point.  If you are looking at PDP11s, then you have your choice
of many; RSTS/E  RT11  RSX11  2.9/2.10 BSD UNIX  and a host of others 
that are really obscure.  I have RSTS on my 11/34a here at home, since
it is a kind of all purpose operating system.  RSX is more cryptic, but
better for realtime things.  RT is the best there is for realtime, but 
does not do a whole lot more than that....  Please folks, no big flames,
this is painting with a wide brush so that people will get a general 
idea.  So, what do you want to DO with it?  Contrary to popular thought,
there is not as much *useful* software for the 11s as there is today for
the IBM PC world.  Sure, I can get you a package that runs a Cyclotron
for the 11 (I wrote it!) but that does not do you a lot of good in your
basement.  

A real nice system, for example,  would be an 11/73 CPU, a meg of memory
(or more, but for a single person running a few tasks a meg is fine),
SC03 SMD disk controller from Emulex, Fuji 2284 disk drive (very reliable
and I can give you a great source for one (I might even be getting rid of
one to upgrade to 2294s)), DEC DZV comm (4 lines) or able DH clone if you
can find one cheap (8 lines).  One question to ask is if you really need
to have a 9-track tape.  Sure, you want one, and it makes the place look
like there is a real computer here  ;-)  but the fact of the matter is
that it will take a lot of space, cost a couple hundred in shipping, cost
some real bucks (bad tape drives (old TU16 and TE16) are cheap, and you get
exactly what you pay for, headaches; good tape drives (CDC Keystone, etc)
cost real money because they actually work...)

Maybe the ultimate in slowness, the TK50?  Who can tell....  For backups,
and interesting option is to get a second disk drive and use that for a
backup, and then power it down to protect it.  Cheaper than a tape drive,
using $500 as a price for the Fuji 2284K (160 megs).

More later...

Doug

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 12:30:19 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: The quest begins

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 12:30:19 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: Johnny Billquist's message of Wed 19 Sep 90 21:00:14 <[email-masked]>
Subject: The quest begins

11/70 systems are free now.  No problem there.  Nobody wants them 
for all sorts of reasons, mainly the power and maintenance issues.
Those of you who think they are reliable are thinking of 11/70s 
that you used years ago maybe; years have gone by, and they tend 
to get the flakes after a while, just like the old KA10s did.
Too many cards, too complex a backplane, etc.

Doug

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 14:00:07 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 14:00:07 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: [email-masked]'s message of Wed, 19 Sep 90 19:47:50 EDT <[email-masked]>

KS10s are harder to get now than they were, because a lot have been scrapped
and frankly there are a lot of people (well, a lot might only mean 10 or 20)
that want them now.  11/70s are really cheap, and have been going to the 
scrap heap by the hundreds.  I threw 2 away a while ago because I didn't
have anywhere to put them, and nobody that I talked to about taking them
was interested once they saw the real power/heat/space numbers...

Call all of the used computer places and say "I will pay you $200 each, and
will cover all shipping costs, for all the 11/70 systems that you want
to send to me" and watch how quickly you and your abode dissapear under
a pile of scrap iron and boards!

The KS10s are more difficult.  If you are really interested, send mail to
[email-masked] and ask to be put on the PDP10 list, where we discuss things.

Just as a strange aside, I am looking to build a 'portable' KS10 system
to take to science fiction cons and run ITS on (or tops-10 or tops-20
depending on my mood).  This is going to be a real KS10 and associated stuff
that has been freed from its rack and repackaged smaller, etc.  Disks are
the big trouble, since it is not a realistic thing to drag an RM80 around
with me; building a SCSI adapter for the system would be a good idea, but
not something I have the time to do...  anyone out there think of strange
ideas on how to kluge/kludge something?  

Doug

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 1990 11:30:54 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: (response to message of Sun, 23 Sep 90 14:00:07 EDT)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 1990 11:30:54 PDT
From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: (response to message of Sun, 23 Sep 90 14:00:07 EDT)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

I have a rack-mounted 8/e that is more or less a basket case, but which has
several salvagable boards.  It also has a TU56 (I have no idea if this works
or not).  My idea is to take the TU56 out of the rack and connect it with my
8/f which is much closer to running.  The 8/f actually runs the BIN loader,
but crashes when running FOCAL.  I think the problem is in interrupt handling
or possibly in the TTY board's interrupt logic.

The other possibility is to get the 8/e working to take advantage of the extra
Omnibus slots, but I think the console is shot.  I have two TD8 boards and
probably more memory than I can fit in the 8/f, so if anyone is visiting the
Seattle area and would like to help me hack, you could take some stuff back
with you.

Once I get the 8/f running with DECtapes, I hope to get OS/8, etc. on it.  I
have had this 8/f for several years now, with 12K memory and an EAE, but the
only software I've had for it was the paper tape kit with 4K FOCAL!

On KS10's, I have three of them; two working, one a basket case salvaged for
parts.  I'm quite interested in any sources of RM03 disk drives, or in any
project to build an SCSI controller for a KS.  I'll help out with software.

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:45:37 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Some questions:

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:45:37 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Doug Humphrey)
Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: [email-masked]'s message of Sun, 23 Sep 90 15:24:30 EDT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Some questions:

I will note that MRC did not say that he is up for building a SCSI
controller for the KS10; he said that he would help on the software
side, meaning making Tops-20 (and maybe ITS) talk to it is someone
else builds it.  The hardware has long been a question.

I could give my basic talk here on how the KS10 busses work; maybe a
simple version without graphics  ;-)

The knee bone is connected to the ...

The CPU has its own backplane which is really not a 'buss' per se.
<meta-X insert-handwave-here>
It has 3 slots for 3 Unibus Adapters (UBAs).  DEC didn't ship many with 3 UBAs,
but it can have 3.  Each UBA has an adapter board that goes to a Unibus
backplane (in a 2020 it is housed in the BA11-K in the same cab as the
CPU box).  The usual configuration is to have two Unibi (plural of Unibus?)
one with the disks and the other with tape and comm.  Some sites that I
know have used the third for more disk.

On the Unibus you have a unique beast; the RH11-C.  We are all familliar
with the RH11-A/B which is the classic Unibus Massbus controller for
disk or tape.  The RH11-C is an RH11-A/B with some extra chips epoxyed
onto one of the boards (the RH11 is a 9 slot backplane) to turn the data
path from 16bits with 2 parity to 18bits, no parity.  Yep, we have a real
problem to deal with here, because this is Unibus equipment (16 bits)
operating on a 36 bit machine.  But Wait!  they cry, big dec-10s and 20s
had these things on them!  Wrong.  Big 10s and 20s had PDP-11s on them,
and the 11s had Unibi on them.  Since the KS10 does NOT use PDP11 systems
<meta-X insert-handwave-here-again>
for DTE/DN front end service, somewhere those extra 2 bits need to be
delt with.  As we will see, this is a major pain in the butt.

So, from the RH11-C, we are into Massbus (which someone correctly
identified as working across all of the major product lines) and into the
Massbus disks (well, only the ones that know how to do 18 bit transfers).

The key thing to note here is that we are transfering information in 18 bit
chunks, not 16.  This limits the range of equipment that can be tossed into
a KS10 configuration.

From the Massbus, we go to one of the following DEC drives:

   Known to work with KS10:
      RP06   big, fast, loud, heavy, power-sucking, 176megs (formatted)
      RM03   small, single phase 120volt, medium/fast, 67megs (formatted)
      RM05   big, fast loud, heavy, power-sucking, >200 megs (formatted)
      RM80   small, single phase 120volt, fast, fixed, ~130 megs (formatted)

   Suspected to work KS10:

      RP07   big, fast, not so loud, very heavy, very power-sucking
             something over 400 megs formatted.  Many concerns that this
             drive, even in slow mode, is too fast on burst transfers
             for the RH11 to deal with.  Only 11 I have ever seen them
             work with are 11/70 using RH70 controller.  MIT is trying to
             get an ITS device driver written for RP07 (for ITS) to test.

      Fuji 2284/2294  small, fast, quiet, light, easy on power (by
             comparison) 160/320 megs *unformatted*.  Does not do a
             specific 18 bit transfer, but I am looking at ways to
             monkey the MBA from an RM03 to let the KS10 see this
             as an extended RM03 drive, or in the case of the 2294
             a *very extended* RM03.  I want to have this cabled to
             my KS10 test-bed in my basement by the end of the year
             for testing. 

   SCSI Interface - This is the modern dream for the KS10.  Many people
             who own KS10s are interested (myself, RS, MRC, and the gang
             at FTP Software to name a few) but the question is, who has
             the time to hack the hardware to make all this work?  I will
             consider lending a KS10 to someone who wants to hack on this,
             but only to someone who fully understands what is involved,
             and then still wants to do it (a rare fool indeed!).

So, that is (in a large nutshell) the situation on KS10s for disks. 
Hope that it enlightens.

Doug

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 10:26:46 EDT
From: Bob Hoffman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Oldest File? 

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 10:26:46 EDT
From: Bob Hoffman <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Oldest File? 

> >>I've got diagnostics for my PDP-8/e on paper tape that are dated 1966.
> >>So there. Ptttthhhhh!
> >
> >The diagnostics for my PDP-4 are dated 1962.  So there, too!
> 
> I'm almost sure enough that there was no PDP-2, 3, or 4 to be
> positive you are fooling, but 1962 would be about the right date.
> So, really, do you have one?  If so, please copy the reply to
> [email-masked].

Larry et al,
	No fooling!  I really have a PDP-4B, serial number 32.  Here
is a quick history of the early PDPs.

PDP-1:  An 18-bit computer, first shipped in November, 1960.  A typical
	system cost about $120,000.  There were 50 systems built.

PDP-2:  This designation was saved for a 24-bit machine but none were
	ever built.

PDP-3:	This was a 36-bit system designed on paper, but none were built
	by DEC.  In 1960, a customer (Scientific Engineering Institute,
	Waltham, MA) built a PDP-3.  It was later dismantled and given
	to MIT; as of 1974, it was up and running in Oregon.

PDP-4:	An 18-bit computer, first shipped in July 1962.  The cost for
	a typical system was $65,500.  There were 45 systems built.
	The PDP-4 was designed to be a low-cost follow-on to the PDP-1.
	It featured 62% of the speed at 54% of the cost.

All of this information comes from a book that should be in the library
of every good DEC historian:

	Computer Engineering: A DEC view of hardware systems design
	by C. Gordon Bell, J. Craig Mudge, and John E. McNamara,
	Digital Press, 1978.

	---Bob.

Date: Mon 24 Sep 90 18:09:04
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (response to message of Sun, 23 Sep 90 14:00:07 EDT)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]

Date: Mon 24 Sep 90 18:09:04
From: Johnny Billquist <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: (response to message of Sun, 23 Sep 90 14:00:07 EDT)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>

Mark. If you are interested, I can send you the
different diagnostics for the 8/e on paper tape.
I think I have them lying around somewhere.
(Even some docs, I think...)

	Johnny

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 13:07:01 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 13:07:01 EDT
From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]

From: Charles Lasner <[email-masked]>
To: Bob Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Oldest File?
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 24 Sep 1990 10:26:46 EDT

Where did this question first surface?  (I am relatively new to this
mailing.)  You are incorrect when you say you have 1966 dated PDP-8/e
diagnostics simply because there wasn't an 8/e to run it on before late
'70 in-house and '71 in user hands.  Having PDP-8 diagnostics from 1966
isn't impressive because the -8 was available in 1965.  I would only be
impressed with late '64 pre-release -8 diagnostics (if any), since all
of us original -8 "diagnosticians" have a complete set of those tapes
and more.  Some date from '65, others are later only because they were
re-released.  But we all have those diagnostics including the write-ups
with numbers like MAINDEC 804.  This predates the new numbering system
like MAINDEC-08-D1EC-PB, which they switched over to later.

    Speaking of early diagnostics, most of us with LINC-8's have the
modified "St. Louis Tests" from the original LINC project circa '62.  I
even have the prints of the original LINC: a set of REALLY big books!
One volume, which most LINC-8-ers have, is these diagnostics, which
have been patched to run on the LINC-8 (slightly different from the
LINC due to hardware incompatibilities which are minor).  They were
never quite "official", but everyone knows about them, because they are
acquired from DEC field service on THEIR copy of SUDSY.  If you make
your own SUDSY tape, from the paper-tapes, or use the delivered tape
which came with your machine, you don't get ST. Louis.  But SUDSY
ignores the tape region where ST. Louis resides.  I may have the only
copy left (from the LINC prints) of the LINC diagnostic volume which
DOESN'T have the LINC-8 modifications penciled in!

cjl (Your computer is as old as you feel!)

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 14:54:58 EDT
From: [email-masked] (stepehen g. wadlow)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Museum suggestions

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 14:54:58 EDT
From: [email-masked] (stepehen g. wadlow)
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: "Anthony A. Datri"'s message of Sat, 22 Sep 1990 13:52:41 -0500 (CDT) <Mayv=tO2e4NhM7ct92@concave>
Subject: Museum suggestions

>   Date: Sat, 22 Sep 1990 13:52:41 -0500 (CDT)
>   From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[email-masked]>
>   References: <[email-masked]>
>
>   At CMU a couple of years ago, I was told that the lighting for the Fine
>   Arts auditorium was run by an 8 of some kind.

The old lighting system in the kresge theatre was a skirpan lighting
system run on a PDP-8/E (I believe) complete with light-pen interface,
core memory and I seem to remember some RX01's.   It was a bit crufty,
but generally worked well.

				steve

>  beak is                                                          beak is not
  
    "in the sunshine of time mankind is told to refresh himself...."
					-- David Yokeson IV

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 17:06:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: 

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 17:06:45 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: 
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>

>MAINDEC-08-D1EC-PB

This "MAINDEC" business has been driving me crazy for years -- many of
my DECtapes are thus labelled -- what does it mean?

>isn't impressive because the -8 was available in 1965.

I'm the proud owner of a real DECUS (I think it's DECUS, could be DEC
(it's not at hand)) papertape dated my birthday in 1965 (uh oh -- I just
dated myself as a whippersnapper).

beak is                                                          beak is not

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:11:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: MAINDEC

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:11:44 EDT
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: MAINDEC

Hey, '65 was a great year!  I just wish I wasn't still an undergrad...
(people keep saying "wow, you're SOOO OLD!".  this shouldn't be happening yet!)
 
I believe MAINDEC means MAINtenance DEC.  The Field Circus guys seemed
to like scribbling "MAINT" all over all my DECtapes before I got them.
 
    John

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 23:50:41 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 23:50:41 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: "Anthony A. Datri"'s message of Mon, 24 Sep 1990 17:06:45 -0500 (CDT) <QazcBpK2e4Nh06TLAp@concave>

   Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 17:06:45 -0500 (CDT)
   From: "Anthony A. Datri" <[email-masked]>

   I'm the proud owner of a real DECUS (I think it's DECUS, could be DEC
   (it's not at hand)) papertape dated my birthday in 1965 (uh oh -- I just
   dated myself as a whippersnapper).

Hey, I'm the *list maintainer*, and I was born the same month the
PDP-8/L was released...

                                        ---Rob

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 09:45 MDT
From: Roger Ivie <[email-masked]>
Subject: Add me to the mailing list, please...
To: [email-masked]

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 09:45 MDT
From: Roger Ivie <[email-masked]>
Subject: Add me to the mailing list, please...
To: [email-masked]
X-Envelope-To: [email-masked]
X-Vms-To: IN%"[email-masked]"

...and don't forget the 'w' in my username this time!

Roger Ivie
[email-masked]

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:50:44 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Ouch!

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:50:44 EST
From: Robert E. Seastrom <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Ouch!

OK, it's time to clarify the PDP-10 list story...

I do not maintain a PDP-10 mailing list.  At one time, I started
KS-AT-HOME mailing list for people who were interested in owning the
only PDP-10 that could fit *in* a spare bedroom, rather than *taking
over* the house.  There was not enough interest in the KS-AT-HOME
mailing list, so when the last ITS machine (MC.LCS.MIT.EDU) was
finally shut down, I didn't bother to move it along with PDP8-LOVERS
to ai.mit.edu.  

Ever since Doug mentioned the PDP-10 mailing list here, I've been
deluged with mail asking to be added.  Well, I'm more than willing to
give it a try again, but I can't run a mailing list with just people
who are interested in listening but nobody who can post and speak
authoritatively.

There are two DEC 36-bit-related mailing lists that I know of:

[email-masked] (you are supposed to be a 20x sysadmin to
get on this list)

and

[email-masked] (you are supposed to own or be about to
acquire a ks-10 to be on this list - lists of owners and their
machines' names and serial numbers are broadcast to the list every so
often.

                                        ---Rob