I keep reading about people cracking open those chips, and I always
wonder why they bother. They're neither expensive nor difficult to find
brand-new. Why would one find it worth the time to spend an afternoon
performing surgery on that chip to replace the battery when you can get
a new one on the way for about eight bucks?
I thought the situation was that NOS chips were available, not new ones?
Honestly, though, I might hack on even a new one: potting a battery with
a limited life span is the dumbest thing since russian roulette with a
pistol.
De
On 8 Feb 2013, at 16:10, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
On 2/8/2013 3:52 PM, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote:
Oh, now I need a disk for that machine. Right now it is running diskless as a satellite of my 4000/60, paging via ethernet (ouch!). I have some SCA-68-50 pin adapters for SCSI disks, and I have used those with success with 4GB drives, but I have read somewhere the vaxstation firmware can't handle disks bigger than that. Anyone knows if that is true? Can I plug in a generic, big SCSI disk and hope it will work?
Tell that to the 146GB SCA SCSI disks I have in my 4000/90.
Nice!
One word of warning, the disk carrier won't fit back into the machine with the SCA/50-pin adapters. The cables hit the inside "wall" between the disks and 5.25" bay.
-brian
On 2/8/2013 3:52 PM, Jordi Guillaumes i Pons wrote:
Oh, now I need a disk for that machine. Right now it is running diskless as a satellite of my 4000/60, paging via ethernet (ouch!). I have some SCA-68-50 pin adapters for SCSI disks, and I have used those with success with 4GB drives, but I have read somewhere the vaxstation firmware can't handle disks bigger than that. Anyone knows if that is true? Can I plug in a generic, big SCSI disk and hope it will work?
Tell that to the 146GB SCA SCSI disks I have in my 4000/90.
One word of warning, the disk carrier won't fit back into the machine with the SCA/50-pin adapters. The cables hit the inside "wall" between the disks and 5.25" bay.
-brian
On 02/08/2013 04:00 PM, Dennis Boone wrote:
Now I'm not sure about the state of the (by now) working chip. Buying to
chinese traders via ebay has its risks :). On the other hand, I have
improvised a testbench for the chips using an arduino, and I see the
"damaged" ones _can_ keep the time-of-day, even if them are reporting as
"faulty" (VRT bit in register D reads as zero).
It's a lot easier to grind your way in to the potted battery and replace
it with something accessible in a holder _before_ you put the chip into
the machine. :)
I have one of those blasted chips soldered to the nigh-unreplaceable CPU
board of a Prime 5340. Dead battery of course.
I keep reading about people cracking open those chips, and I always
wonder why they bother. They're neither expensive nor difficult to find
brand-new. Why would one find it worth the time to spend an afternoon
performing surgery on that chip to replace the battery when you can get
a new one on the way for about eight bucks?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Now I'm not sure about the state of the (by now) working chip. Buying to
chinese traders via ebay has its risks :). On the other hand, I have
improvised a testbench for the chips using an arduino, and I see the
"damaged" ones _can_ keep the time-of-day, even if them are reporting as
"faulty" (VRT bit in register D reads as zero).
It's a lot easier to grind your way in to the potted battery and replace
it with something accessible in a holder _before_ you put the chip into
the machine. :)
I have one of those blasted chips soldered to the nigh-unreplaceable CPU
board of a Prime 5340. Dead battery of course.
Now how you get the "valid" bit to come back on I dunno.
De
I got the replacement RTC chips this week and I have replaced the old one. After a little scare, now the 4000/90 is up and running, and keeping time and date.
Why the scare? Well. I ordered two chips. One of the ones I have got is faulty. Of course, the faulty one is the one I plugged in first... :)
Now I'm not sure about the state of the (by now) working chip. Buying to chinese traders via ebay has its risks :). On the other hand, I have improvised a testbench for the chips using an arduino, and I see the "damaged" ones _can_ keep the time-of-day, even if them are reporting as "faulty" (VRT bit in register D reads as zero).
I remember someone in the list was waiting for replacement for a DS1287A too. So just beware... I guess I have been lucky, 50% of my RTCs work :)
(If anyone wants the arduino sketch I'm using to test the chips, just say so).
Oh, now I need a disk for that machine. Right now it is running diskless as a satellite of my 4000/60, paging via ethernet (ouch!). I have some SCA-68-50 pin adapters for SCSI disks, and I have used those with success with 4GB drives, but I have read somewhere the vaxstation firmware can't handle disks bigger than that. Anyone knows if that is true? Can I plug in a generic, big SCSI disk and hope it will work?
Jordi Guillaumes Pons
jguillaumes at me.com
HECnet: BITXOV::JGUILLAUMES
On Feb 8, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-08 19:29, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-08 15:54, Steve Davidson wrote:
Bob,
Why Phase-III?
I think it was an implication for the time period he was looking for. Phase IV would be too new. And phase II do not have MOP, as far as I know.
I think Phase II does have MOP, and it looks like Phase I does, also. Look in the revision history of the MOP spec. While the latest (Phase IV, V3.0.0) spec does not show the dates of the versions, the previous one (Phase III, V2.1.0, in document AA-K178A-TK) does. It mentions V1.1 was dated January 1976 and V2.0.0 was March 1978. That fits the dates for Phase I and Phase II respectively, I believe. And the revision history mentions a change to a download protocol message between V1.1 and V2.0, implying that download was part of the 1/1976 edition of MOP.
Interesting. Definitely more than I know. I only saw the mention that MOP (or atleast downline loading) was added in phase III on the Wikipedie page about DECnet. Which is a rather shaky source...
Fixed.
paul
On 2013-02-08 19:29, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-08 15:54, Steve Davidson wrote:
Bob,
Why Phase-III?
I think it was an implication for the time period he was looking for. Phase IV would be too new. And phase II do not have MOP, as far as I know.
I think Phase II does have MOP, and it looks like Phase I does, also. Look in the revision history of the MOP spec. While the latest (Phase IV, V3.0.0) spec does not show the dates of the versions, the previous one (Phase III, V2.1.0, in document AA-K178A-TK) does. It mentions V1.1 was dated January 1976 and V2.0.0 was March 1978. That fits the dates for Phase I and Phase II respectively, I believe. And the revision history mentions a change to a download protocol message between V1.1 and V2.0, implying that download was part of the 1/1976 edition of MOP.
Interesting. Definitely more than I know. I only saw the mention that MOP (or atleast downline loading) was added in phase III on the Wikipedie page about DECnet. Which is a rather shaky source...
Johnny
On Feb 8, 2013, at 1:29 PM, <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
wrote:
On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-08 15:54, Steve Davidson wrote:
Bob,
Why Phase-III?
I think it was an implication for the time period he was looking for. Phase IV would be too new. And phase II do not have MOP, as far as I know.
I think Phase II does have MOP, and it looks like Phase I does, also. Look in the revision history of the MOP spec. While the latest (Phase IV, V3.0.0) spec does not show the dates of the versions, the previous one (Phase III, V2.1.0, in document AA-K178A-TK) does. It mentions V1.1 was dated January 1976 and V2.0.0 was March 1978. That fits the dates for Phase I and Phase II respectively, I believe. And the revision history mentions a change to a download protocol message between V1.1 and V2.0, implying that download was part of the 1/1976 edition of MOP.
More data: the Phase II MOP spec is here: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/www.computer.museum.uq.edu.au/pdf/AA-D60… . Neat, I've never seen that document before...
(Phase II DAP, NSP, and DDCMP specs can also be found there)
paul
On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2013-02-08 15:54, Steve Davidson wrote:
Bob,
Why Phase-III?
I think it was an implication for the time period he was looking for. Phase IV would be too new. And phase II do not have MOP, as far as I know.
I think Phase II does have MOP, and it looks like Phase I does, also. Look in the revision history of the MOP spec. While the latest (Phase IV, V3.0.0) spec does not show the dates of the versions, the previous one (Phase III, V2.1.0, in document AA-K178A-TK) does. It mentions V1.1 was dated January 1976 and V2.0.0 was March 1978. That fits the dates for Phase I and Phase II respectively, I believe. And the revision history mentions a change to a download protocol message between V1.1 and V2.0, implying that download was part of the 1/1976 edition of MOP.
paul
