[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Brian S Walden]

Duncan Anderson asks:
> Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that it
> was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If
> there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?

SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
StarLAN hardware for it.

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Corey Lindsly]

> Duncan Anderson asks:
> > Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that it
> > was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If
> > there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?
> 
> SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
> implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
> hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
> StarLAN hardware for it.

There is indeed an ethernet interface for 
the UNIXpc, but they are exceedingly difficult 
to come by. It's separate from the StarLAN card.

From the 3b1 FAQ:

"If you want to connect your UNIX PC to a *real* Ethernet,
you'll need to hunt down the AT&T UNIX PC Ethernet board.  This board
runs a version of the TCP/IP drivers developed by Wollogong.  The
board will require the proper cables, as well as a transceiver.  This
increases the cost of Ethernet interconnectability.  The Wollogong
TCP/IP drivers are an older version not supported by Wollogong
anymore.  It's generally acknowledged that there are many bugs, and
the throughput of the board is nowhere near what Ethernet should be
getting.  (People report that throughput with the Starlan-1 board was
better than the TCP/IP Ethernet board, which shouldn't be the case.)"

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/3b1-faq/part2/

There are also information and schematics pertaining
to the UNIXpc ethernet interface in the Technical Reference
manual, which I am in the process of scanning & PDFing
for interested parties.

Regards,

---corey

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Duncan Anderson]

On Tuesday, 21 February 2006 06:52, Corey Lindsly wrote:
<snip>
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/3b1-faq/part2/
>
> There are also information and schematics pertaining
> to the UNIXpc ethernet interface in the Technical Reference
> manual, which I am in the process of scanning & PDFing
> for interested parties.
>
> Regards,
>
> ---corey

Would manual have any schematics and information regarding the power supply?

regards
Duncan

	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Duncan Anderson]

On Tuesday, 21 February 2006 05:46, Brian S Walden wrote:
> Duncan Anderson asks:
> > Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that
> > it was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and
> > 3? If there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP
> > network?
>
> SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
> implementation was from Wollongong. But wouldn't you need ethernet
> hardware support too? It's been a long time but I only remember
> StarLAN hardware for it.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of PPP or SLIP.

cheers
Duncan

		
___________________________________________________________ 
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Sven Mascheck]

Brian S Walden wrote:
> Duncan Anderson asks:

>> Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3?
> 
> SVR3 also added shared libraries and RFS. As for TCP/IP the popular
> implementation was from Wollongong.

A slightly awkward [1] but quite comfortable approach to
distinguish the Research/AT&T releases is identifying the shell.

New in the SVR3 shell (features easy to test):
 - "getopts" built-in
 - "read" knows the error message "missing arguments"
(- "cd" diagnostics.  Some vendors modified these again, though.
   Stock SVR3: cd formerly only knew "bad directory" and now there
   are "not a directory", "does not exist", "permission denied" and
   two diagnostics concerning remote file systems.)

[1] Not really awkward, because the introduction of shell functions
    is a quite frequently mentioned feature to identify SVR2.

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Mike Haertel]

>I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout

Basically the same machine was also sold as the 3b1; the difference
between the 7300 and the 3b1 is that the 3b1 has room for a taller
hard disk drive.

I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.

It's definitely not SVR3; no "STREAMS".

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Michael Davidson]

Mike Haertel wrote:

>>I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout
>>    
>>
>
>I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
>of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
>further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.
>
Yes - it is an SVR2 derivative - essentially the same thing that CT used 
on their "MiniFrame"
systems (some of the header files in /usr/include/sys actually contain 
references to the MiniFrame)

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Duncan Anderson]

On Saturday, 18 February 2006 17:44, Mike Haertel wrote:
> >I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout
>
> Basically the same machine was also sold as the 3b1; the difference
> between the 7300 and the 3b1 is that the 3b1 has room for a taller
> hard disk drive.
>
> I think the OS would best be characterized as SVR2 with the addition
> of the 4.1bsd VM system ("real" SVR2 had no demand paged VM) and the
> further addition of its own unique approach to shared libraries.
>
> It's definitely not SVR3; no "STREAMS".

Thanks for that bit of information. I had been under the impression that it 
was V3. Is the lack of streams the main difference between the 2 and 3? If 
there is no streams interface, can the machine be part of a TCP/IP network?

regards
Duncan

	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Duncan Anderson]

Greetings

I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some information 
regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power supply has 
problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what we have 
here, namely 220V 50Hz. 

I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams for the 
power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to have a go at 
redesigning it.

Am I barking up the wrong tree?

regards
Duncan

		
___________________________________________________________ 
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Brantley Coile]

The tree you're barking up has fruit.  I know the schematics are
out there.  I used to have a set, but have since lost them.

I've used several 7300s.  The hardware was designed by convergent
technologies.  It has a wonky graphics interface because of a poor
choice of a monitor.

There should be simple power converters to give you 120v at 60 Hz.

The 7300 was used as a console for some of the AT&T PBXs, so there was
a lot of them made.  They had the bigest expansion slots I have ever
seen, going almost the entire depth of the box, which was too deep.
Key action on the keyboard was nice.  The unicomp keyboad that I now
use has similar action.

If AT&T had put some version of Unix other than System V, there might
have been life in the old girl.  The UNIX PC and the DMD terminals had
this myopic corporate protectionism in common.  I always thought that
if the DMD5620 had been cheaper and they had had OS support for BSD as
well as System V, the history of computing would have been very
different.  I couldn't get my boss to pay $6K for a terminal when the
average price for a nice terminal was $1K.  If he had let me buy one,
I then would have had to port the support code.  Compilers, the Mux
communiction protocol, all the programs that ran in the terminal,
would have had to be change to run under the non-System V system that
we were using at the time.  AT&T's decisions during the period
displayed a persistant lack of undertanding marketing.  If the
customer came first, they would have supported the OS customers
wanted.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Duncan Anderson <duncangareth@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: [TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:48:16 +0200
Size: 3001
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20060218/b4e2e1b7/attachment.mht>

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Duncan Anderson]

On Saturday, 18 February 2006 16:34, Brantley Coile wrote:
> The tree you're barking up has fruit.  I know the schematics are
> out there.  I used to have a set, but have since lost them.
>
> I've used several 7300s.  The hardware was designed by convergent
> technologies.  It has a wonky graphics interface because of a poor
> choice of a monitor.
>
> There should be simple power converters to give you 120v at 60 Hz.
>
> The 7300 was used as a console for some of the AT&T PBXs, so there was
> a lot of them made.  They had the bigest expansion slots I have ever
> seen, going almost the entire depth of the box, which was too deep.
> Key action on the keyboard was nice.  The unicomp keyboad that I now
> use has similar action.
>
> If AT&T had put some version of Unix other than System V, there might
> have been life in the old girl.  The UNIX PC and the DMD terminals had
> this myopic corporate protectionism in common.  I always thought that
> if the DMD5620 had been cheaper and they had had OS support for BSD as
> well as System V, the history of computing would have been very
> different.  I couldn't get my boss to pay $6K for a terminal when the
> average price for a nice terminal was $1K.  If he had let me buy one,
> I then would have had to port the support code.  Compilers, the Mux
> communiction protocol, all the programs that ran in the terminal,
> would have had to be change to run under the non-System V system that
> we were using at the time.  AT&T's decisions during the period
> displayed a persistant lack of undertanding marketing.  If the
> customer came first, they would have supported the OS customers
> wanted.
As it happens, I have all the original software that came with the beastie. 
I'm not sure if it's OK, but the hard drive is loaded, anyway, since a friend 
had it running a BBS about 13 years ago.

I think it's System V Release 3.0 or thereabout

cheers
Duncan.

		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Corey Lindsly]

> 
> I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some information 
> regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power supply has 
> problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what we have 
> here, namely 220V 50Hz. 
> 
> I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams for the 
> power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to have a go at 
> redesigning it.

Greetings.

1. I have three or four UNIXpc machines (3b1/7300) including
   one for parts. I can probably hook you up with a replacement
   power supply if needed.

2. I have the technical reference manual for this machine,
   which includes numerous schematics. I would be happy to
   scan in the relevant sections for you.

Feel free to contact me off-list if I can help you with
anything UNIXpc related.

Regards,

corey at lod.com

[TUHS] AT+T UNIX PC Information needed

[Robert Tillyard]

I have one with a broken Hard Disk if anyone wants it they're welcome  
to have it. It would need collecting from Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk  
(UK), also comes with tape drive some expansion cards and lots of  
manuals and floppy disks.

Regards, Rob.

On 18 Feb 2006, at 08:48, Duncan Anderson wrote:

> Greetings
>
> I wonder if anyone on this list has any idea where I can find some  
> information
> regarding the AT+T PC7300? I have one, but it seems that the power  
> supply has
> problems. In any case, it is designed for a lower voltage than what  
> we have
> here, namely 220V 50Hz.
>
> I should like to know if it is possible to get schematic diagrams  
> for the
> power supply so that I can get an electronics engineer friend to  
> have a go at
> redesigning it.
>
> Am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
> regards
> Duncan