15 Apr
1998
15 Apr
'98
5:50 p.m.
<> QBUS 11/2 11/03 11/23 11/53 11/73 11/83
<> (They're also old and will eat you out of house and home with their app
<> for electricity. :)
None the above systems are tough it really depends on the disks used. The
later of the three in the microPDP-11 format (ba23/123) are very resonable
using MSCP and MFM drives. The QBUS-11s are modest power compared to the
Ubus-11s.
Also the Qbus-11s win in the small sizing as well. I have two BA11n boxen
one with 11/23b and the other 11/73, RX02, RL02, and MSCP disks all in one
50" rack.
<For the sake of discussion, what sorts of power requirements would be
<required for a lowend version 7 or 2.11 BSD box? Say that I wanted
<a machine that would allow me to troff/Tex a little, and do some
<minor C compiling, associated with that.
A qbus 11/73 (or 83) a meg of ram and disks would be comfortably under
500 watts. Adding an RL02 is not painful though it uses more than the
CPU box total. The massbus disks or RK/RMs are high power just for the
spindle motors.
<> Has anyone looked at the possibility of retrofitting older pdp11's with
<> switching power supplies to ease the electricity demands...?
You could if you set up event, ACOK and DCOK. Most of the DEC supplies
are actually lowvoltage switchers (744s) and the later ones are high
voltage swicthers (BA11s/BA32/BA123... all qbus).
<Are there special electrical requirements? I can always find a separate
<20 or 30 amp 115 volt circuit, but the 220 lines are tied up in my
<antique radio transmitters. Just how hungry are these pdp11s?
The bigger Ubus machines and some of the bigger (physically too) disks
are killer though most common PDP11s are really quite moderate to small in
their needs.
<I consider it great fun to resurrect the old dinosaurs. I still keep
<a few 8 inch CP/M S-100 boxes running, for fun. Alas, finding parts is
Smae here, the CCS2200 with DISCUS 10m and two SA800s challenge the 11/23
for power needed!
<What exactly were the Heathkit things in relation to the mainstream pdp11
<There was a unix that was available on the Heathkit boxes, but I never di
<get enough money together at the time to get one --- had to settle for th
<CP/M thingie, instead.
The H11 was a LSI11/03 cpu with heath equivelents for DLs and memorys, the
disks however were strange.
<What would BSD be comfy with, with a little space for play. I remember
<the old Xenix boxes that we had (RS 16B things) ran a sort of v7 in abou
<15 megs HD. The FreeBSD things require 100 or so megs to come up.
<What sizes of HD would one be looking out for, in the surplus piles?
I ahve V7 up on an 11/73 on one RL02 pack (10mb) and it's cramped with
about 4mb free. Two RL02s would be pretty good. If I can get 2.11 up
that will talk to the MSCP disks RD52(31mb)/53(71mb) and I'd expect plenty
of space then.
Allison
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA04969
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:42:34 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
But you made an assumption that addrtesses to data don't come in theflt.
op-code range, since few programs have that much data. But, by assuming
that they don't have "that much" data, you must also assume that whatever
little dtaa there is don't start at a high address. Your program can have
as little as one word of data, located at 177776, referenced a zillion
times, and your algorithm will catch it as a zillion flt. ops.
Oh, it most definitely does.
Tell me, what is the difference between a string of two bytes, a word, and
an instruction in memory?
Nothing. It's just a question of how you look at it.
So when you are talking about a word, how do you know that the programmer
didn't write two bytes there?
The reason I said "odd addres" was because the byte at the odd address is
the high byte of the word you are looking at.
That is a good point. But it's still a problem.
The point is more or less always, but a lot of small errors...
:-)
Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA05701
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:07:06 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From "Daniel A. Seagraves"
<DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com> Thu Apr 16 02:39:56 1998
Received: from toad.xkl.com
(toad.xkl.com [192.94.202.40])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA04964
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:42:27 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:39:56 -0700
From: "Daniel A. Seagraves" <DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com>
Subject: Re: PDP-11 Newbie Alert --- (gotta start somewhere)
To: allisonp(a)world.std.com
cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <199804151550.AA21199(a)world.std.com>
Message-ID: <13348030224.14.DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com>
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
[What PDP-11s run Unix...]
I currently run Version 7 on a PDP-11/83 Q-bus box stored under my bed.
(I have a hospital bed, the kind you can crank up and down - Mine's about
3/4 the way up)
The RL02 I boot from is twice the size of the CPU!
I also have an MSCP device that I load RT-11 from.
BTW, there is a setting in the '83 Setup program called allow-alternate-bootblock,
you can directly boot Unix by enabling this. Does that work on an 11/73 as well?
I just turn on the RL, start the disk and the CPU at the same time, and the disk
comes ready just at the 9-step check finishes.
I say unix and off it goes.
Now, I I could just get it to see my DHQ11...
-------
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA05100
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:26:30 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
<tih+mail(a)Hamartun.Priv.NO> Thu Apr 16 02:42:54 1998
Received: from
hesiod.nhh.no (root(a)hesiod.nhh.no [158.37.96.15])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA05095
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 03:26:22 +1000 (EST)
Received: from athene.nhh.no (root(a)athene.nhh.no [158.37.96.16])
by hesiod.nhh.no (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28669;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:26:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Hamartun.Priv.NO (Uhamartu@localhost)
by athene.nhh.no (8.8.5/8.8.5) with UUCP id TAA21659;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:21:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from tih@localhost)
by barsoom.Hamartun.Priv.NO (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22652;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:42:56 +0200 (CEST)
To: edgee(a)cyberpass.net
Cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: PDP-11 Addressing Modes
References: <199804150309.XAA00267(a)renoir.op.net>
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih+mail(a)Hamartun.Priv.NO>
Date: 15 Apr 1998 18:42:54 +0200
In-Reply-To: "Ed G."'s message of "Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:09:26
-0400"
Message-ID: <86ogy3kpdd.fsf(a)barsoom.Hamartun.Priv.NO>
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.4/Emacs 19.34
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
"Ed G." <edgee(a)cyberpass.net> writes:
What do people here on the list think of the
flexibility and
generality of the PDP-11's addressing modes? Is this a well thought
out architecture in your view? How are the PDP-11's addressing modes
better or worse than those of other processors, past and present?
It's simply beautiful. The PDP-11 architecture is the pinnacle of
16-bit computing, as the 6502 (the world's first RISC chip) is the
unchallenged champion of elegance in 8-bit microprocessors. The
cleanliness and orthogonality of the PDP-11 is a wonder to behold.
To top it off, they also knew when to _break_ orthogonality to make
proper use of the addressing mode bit combinations that don't make
sense for use with the program counter.
A good friend of mine, for whom I have much respect, claims that the
PDP-10 is even more beautiful. I can't comment on this, not knowing
that architecture, but myself I've seen nothing to challenge the '11.
Among more modern processors, I'm quite partial to Motorola's MC68K.
I also like the Transputer -- who doesn't? As for microcontrollers,
I've worked quite a bit with the Intel MCS-51 chips, and enjoyed it.
For the definition of "butt ugly", see the Intel i386 and its ilk.
-tih
--
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA05275
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:18:46 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From "Daniel A. Seagraves"
<DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com> Thu Apr 16 04:16:24 1998
Received: from toad.xkl.com
(toad.xkl.com [192.94.202.40])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA05268
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:18:39 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:16:24 -0700
From: "Daniel A. Seagraves" <DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com>
Subject: Re: PDP-11 Addressing Modes
To: tih+mail(a)Hamartun.Priv.NO
cc: edgee(a)cyberpass.net, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <86ogy3kpdd.fsf(a)barsoom.Hamartun.Priv.NO>
Message-ID: <13348047785.14.DSEAGRAV(a)toad.xkl.com>
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
[PDP-10 inst. set is nicer than PDP-11...]
Not sure about that, I haven't play with either enough to compare them.
But, judging by the pictures I have, a PDP-11/70 is about 1/2 as cool looking
as a KA-10!
[I *HAVE* to scan these and put them online sometime...]
-------
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA05338
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:26:15 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
<tih+mail(a)Hamartun.Priv.NO> Thu Apr 16 04:02:02 1998
Received: from
hesiod.nhh.no (root(a)hesiod.nhh.no [158.37.96.15])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA05332
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:26:08 +1000 (EST)
Received: from athene.nhh.no (root(a)athene.nhh.no [158.37.96.16])
by hesiod.nhh.no (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA00359;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:26:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Hamartun.Priv.NO (Uhamartu@localhost)
by athene.nhh.no (8.8.5/8.8.5) with UUCP id UAA21718;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:21:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from tih@localhost)
by barsoom.Hamartun.Priv.NO (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA22982;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:02:04 +0200 (CEST)
To: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: PDP-11 Newbie Alert --- (gotta start somewhere)
References: <199804151522.IAA22441(a)moe.2bsd.com>
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih+mail(a)Hamartun.Priv.NO>
Date: 15 Apr 1998 20:02:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: "Steven M. Schultz"'s message of "Wed, 15 Apr 1998
08:22:57 -0700 (PDT)"
Message-ID: <86g1jfklph.fsf(a)barsoom.Hamartun.Priv.NO>
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.4/Emacs 19.34
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
"Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> writes:
Indeed the 11/44 will work and very well with
2.11BSD. Before the
one at work got shutdown (RA81 failure and the support department here
doesn't like PDP-11s and refuses to help fix it) the care and feeding
of 2.11 was shared between a 11/44 (for UNIBUS related stuff) and a
11/73 (for QBUS).
Do you have the documentation you need for that RA81, Steven? I've
got the user's manual here, which isn't much, of course, but at least
tells you how to hook up a terminal, run diagnostics, and interpret
the results...
-tih
--
Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity. --Niles Crane, "Frasier"
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA05651
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:49:32 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> Thu Apr
16 05:48:00 1998
Received: from Zeke.Update.UU.SE (2026(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE
[130.238.11.14])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA05645
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:48:47 +1000 (EST)
Received: from localhost (bqt@localhost)
by Zeke.Update.UU.SE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA08980;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:48:03 +0200
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:48:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE>
To: "Ed G." <edgee(a)cyberpass.net>
cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Floating Point-How Important to Unix?
In-Reply-To: <199804110246.WAA07393(a)renoir.op.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.980415214003.8466A-100000(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Ed G. wrote:
My purpose here was to get a sense for how heavily the
Unix utilities
rely on floating point. I was not looking for a numerically exact
"right" answer, but rather an estimate which was good enough.
At this point, now that I have access to the source code, it seems to
me that an easier and more accurate way of doing that would be to
count the occurences of floats and doubles using grep or a similar
utility. What do you all think?
Would probably be a better idea, yes. :-)
You are making
atleast four assumptions which are wrong here.
1) Data starts from address 0. They most likely do not.
I'm not sure what you mean here; can you elaborate?
As I see it my key assumption about data was that it is
relatively small in size compared to code in a given program file.
This was certainly the case with factor, where less than 10% of the
runtime image consisted of static data. 3) All data
are not words. How about bytes? If a byte is in the range
240-255 and on an odd address, you'll catch it as a FP opcode.
My routine scanned words, not bytes, so I don't think this would
apply. 4) Not all
data are addresses. Most negative numbers will have 17 as the
high four bits.
This is true. But if data is negligible compared to code, then I
don't see how this wouldn't affect an estimate very much. From Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> Thu Apr
16 06:06:30 1998
Received: from Zeke.Update.UU.SE (2026(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE
[130.238.11.14])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05696
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:06:49 +1000 (EST)
Received: from localhost (bqt@localhost)
by Zeke.Update.UU.SE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA09548;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:06:31 +0200
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:06:30 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE>
To: "Ed G." <edgee(a)cyberpass.net>
cc: John Holden <johnh(a)psychvax.psych.usyd.edu.au>, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: Floating Point-How Important to Unix?
In-Reply-To: <199804110245.WAA07386(a)renoir.op.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.980415215418.9250A-100000(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Ed G. wrote:
I am not an expert on PDP-11 op codes, so you may well
be right about
this.
In response to your criticism, I looked up jmp and branch
instructions in the *Processor Handbook*. Based only on my quick
skim of the handbook, I don't think negative relative addresses would
be a problem because:
1. branch instructions are followed by a signed byte offset (-128,
127). This would not be a problem for my routine which only looks at
the first four bits of every word and would ignore the offset in the
odd byte.
Correct.
2. jump instructions, which seem at first glance to be
a problem
because they are followed by a 16 bit word, are not because they
always use absolute addressing, never relative and hence would never
be followed by a negative number.
2 wrong.
. Where did you get the idea that jump instructions have to be absolute?
. What about jumps to absolute addresses in the flt. op-code range?
I'm not sure about the 2BSD assembler, but the normal way of coding is to
have *all* addressing relative in the DEC assemblers. That means not just
jumps, but all instructions which takes arguments.
Almost all have word arguments, branch being one of the few exceptions.
Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA05804
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:33:36 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> Thu Apr
16 06:33:19 1998
Received: from Zeke.Update.UU.SE (2026(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE
[130.238.11.14])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05798
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:33:29 +1000 (EST)
Received: from localhost (bqt@localhost)
by Zeke.Update.UU.SE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10435;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:33:21 +0200
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:33:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE>
To: "Ed G." <edgee(a)cyberpass.net>
cc: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: PDP-11 Addressing Modes
In-Reply-To: <199804150309.XAA00267(a)renoir.op.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.980415223118.9250F-100000(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Ed G. wrote:
> The first line of chapter on addressing modes in the *processor
> handbook* states:
>
> "In the PDP-11 family, all operand addressing is accomplished through
> the eight general purpose registers."
>
> If I understand correctly, even things like immediate operands and
> addresses are represented as an addressing mode of a register, namely
> the PC. I think this is quite cool.
>
What do people here on the list think of the
flexibility and
generality of the PDP-11's addressing modes? Is this a well thought
out architecture in your view? How are the PDP-11's addressing modes
better or worse than those of other processors, past and present?
The PDP-11 did it right, all others did it wrong. :-)
Well, at least as long as you're talking about general register machines.
(And points could be made that the M68K isn't very general about its
registers...)
For accumulator machines, I guess the vote goes to the PDP-10.
All with a big :-) of course. This is religion...
Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA05852
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:42:10 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
From Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> Thu Apr
16 06:41:02 1998
Received: from Zeke.Update.UU.SE (2026(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE
[130.238.11.14])
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA05847
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 06:41:13 +1000 (EST)
Received: from localhost (bqt@localhost)
by Zeke.Update.UU.SE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10538;
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:41:03 +0200
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:41:02 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE>
To: Milo Velimirovic <milov(a)toes.its.uwlax.edu>
cc: pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com, pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: Re: PDP-11 Newbie Alert --- (gotta start somewhere)
In-Reply-To: <9804151317.AA04337(a)toes.its.uwlax.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.980415223736.9250G-100000(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Milo Velimirovic wrote:
QBUS 11/2 11/03 11/23 11/53 11/73 11/83
Unibus 11/05 11/10 11/15 11/20 11/24 11/3411/35 11/40 11/44 11/45 11/55 11/60 11/70
11/84...
Two additions to make the list officially complete:
QBUS: 11/93
Unibus: 11/94
The last PDP-11s by DEC.
Then you have the never-11s. (See the FAQ.)
Odd numbered machines where the odd digit is a 5 are
usually a Unibus machine.
(They're also old and will eat you out of house and home with their appetite
for electricity. :)
They are also normally just about the same machine as the next number in
line, but for OEM markets.
11/05 - 11/10
11/15 - 11/20
11/35 - 11/40
Has anyone looked at the possibility of retrofitting
older pdp11's with modern
switching power supplies to ease the electricity demands...?
(donning asbestos suit in anticipation of cries of "heretic" and
"Frankenstein"...)
:-)
Well, as far as I know, all of the already have switching supplies...
Possibly not the 11/15 and 11/20, but if anyone has one of those, and
makes such a modification, I *will* brand him as an heretic. :-)
Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA05987
for pups-liszt; Thu, 16 Apr 1998 07:36:11 +1000 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to
owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f
9713
days inactive
9713
days old
0 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
allisonp＠world.std.com