Subject: Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (from originator)

From: "Nick Garnett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 12:56:00 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for your replies!  From today's digest, they are:

   ?. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Fred Cisin,
          from an earlier digest)
   2. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Ethan Dicks)
   4. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Jochen Kunz)
   7. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Peter Turnbull)
  11. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Tony Duell)
  12. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Tony Duell)

Including all of these messages in my reply would be a
misuse of bandwidth.  Please see the original text of the
replies.

?  Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Fred Cisin) 
   from yesterday's digest?

  Fred asks if we have considered substituting 1.2M 5.25"
  drives.   Hmmmm.  I didn't know there were such drives.
  I know of DSDD 360K 5.25 drives and 1.44M 3.5 drives,
  even 720K 5.25 drives, but not 1.2M 5.25 drives.
  
  On the general subject of using a substitute drive. I
  have actually been considering if this could be done.  I
  have not suggested doing that because I need to find out
  the feasibility.  I would hope we could at least get into
  the 1990s with a 1.44M 3.5 in floppy drive.

 2. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Ethan Dicks)
 4. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Jochen Kunz)
 7. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Peter Turnbull)
12. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Tony Duell)

  These replies will probably be helpful to someone with a
  hardware background (which I'm not).  They point out the
  complexities of substituting one type of drive
  for another.  This level of complexity is about what I
  expected.
  
11. Re: Working 8" Floppy drives??? (Tony Duell)

  Your answer is not silly at all.  I didn't know whether
  such drives would be very rare or plentiful in the
  "vintage" market.  I see now that there are "plenty" of
  them.  The obvious questions, once I know what drives are
  compatible, are:  Are they actually for aale?  How much
  will each cost?  What condition are they in?  I don't
  think my client is prepared to pay for "priceless
  antiques".  He considers these to simply be old hardware
  that he needs to buy.
  
  The client has been repairing the drives for years. They
  are in heavy constant use.  I get the impression that
  they are simply getting too fragile to repair.
  
  The client seems to have the impression that 8" floppy
  drives are very hard to find.  While I think that
  upgrading the system to be based on, say, 1990 technology
  rather than 1980 technology is a good idea, I am sure
  they can make the existing system work for quite a while
  with an adequate supply of replacement drives.

Regards,
Nick Garnett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Allan Hessenflow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 13:18:00 2003

Don Maslin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The TMS9927 data sheet which I have sent to Joe and Patrick states
> that the CRT5027 is an SMC second source of this chip.  It came
> from a google search for TMS9927 and is on www.spies.*mumble*

In case that doesn't turn out to be close enough, I have an SMC
databook including the CRT5027 datasheet that I could scan in.

allan

-- 
Allan N. Hessenflow      [email-masked]

---

From: "Patrick Rigney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 14:20:00 2003

Thanks to Dan and Don, and everyone else who replied... I now have what I
was looking for.  I appreciate everyone's help.  --Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Allan Hessenflow
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Need Data Sheet: CRT5027 CRT controller
>
>

---

From: Kevin Handy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 14:35:00 2003

1.2M drives are/were very common. I have a 286 that has the option
to specify a 1.2M 5.25" in the bios, so they go back fairly far.
Most PC's > 286 came with 1.2M instead of the 360K, when
they were shipped with 5.25" drives.

---

From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 14:36:00 2003

>   even 720K 5.25 drives, but not 1.2M 5.25 drives.

20 years ago, IBM brought forth onto the microcomputer world a "new"
computer, with "advanced technology", called the "IBM AT".  I doubt that
they sold more than a few million of them with the 1.2M drive.  Counting
other manufacturers, there were probably less of them sold than
MacDonald's hamburgers.  The "AT" used a 80286 microprocessor, which could
handle up to 16M of RAM, although for half a dozen years there was little
if any software available to make use of any of its special features.

But the most interesting part of the "AT" was the floppy drive.  A number
of years prior to the "AT", several drive manufacturers (Mitsubishi was
the first one that I'm aware of) created a 5.25" disk drive that was
INTENDED to be usable as a replacement for 8" drives.  Well before the AT,
Amlyn produced a 5.25" 1.2M drive with a 5 disk changer built in; now THAT
is an unusual drive!

Unlike the previous (360K DSDD) drives which turned at 300 RPM, 1.2M
drives turned at 360RPM (like an 8" drive).  And when used with 600
Oerstedt diskettes ("High density"), its electrical interface was almost
indistinguishable from that of a "standard" 8" drive, such as a Shugart
SA8xx, or a Tandon 848.

The power supply for it was 5V and 12V, exactly like a "standard" (SA400)  
5.25" drive, as opposed to the distinctly NON-standardized 8" drive power
requirements.

The interface cable for it was 34 pin, like a "standard" (SA400) 5.25",
rather than the 50 pin that was the de-facto standard for 8" drives.

It had 80 tracks per side, at 96 tracks per inch, instead of the 77 tracks
of a "standard" 8" drive.  

The format that IBM used was 512 bytes per sector, with 15 sectors per
track.  That gave a capacity of 1228800 bytes, or 1.121875 "honest"
megabytes (where a K is 1024 and a M is 1024 K (1048576)), or 1.228
Million bytes, or 1.2 IBM SLEAZY BOGUS "mega"bytes (where a "megabyte" is
creatively redefined to be 1000*1024).  But the format was largely a
software issue, and the machine could do any format that the floppy disk
controller was capable of, (see, for example:
http://www.xenosoft.com/fmts.html#8 ) It could mimic almost any 8" MFM
format.  With different FDCs, it is capable of any format that an 8" drive
could do with the same controller.

The ORIGINAL intent of the drive, according to a few drive manufacturers,
was that by changing the power connector and interface cable, it could be
used as a drop-in replacement for "standard" 8" drives.

There is even an unsubstantiated rumor that when MICROS~1 was working on
the OS mods for the new machines that would use it (without having seen
the machine yet), that the programmers at MICROS~1 thought that IBM was
planning to release a machine with 8" drives!

But IBM used the 1.2M drive as the primary floppy for those machines, and
even modified their disk controller design to incorporate a 300K bits per
second data transfer rate to permit the "new" drive to be able to read
disks from 360K drives.  It could also write such disks, although with a
few complications. [You prob'ly don't want to hear my rants about THAT]
Some other manufacturers built 1.2M drives that had both a 360 RPM AND a
300RPM motor speed capability as an alternate way to incompletely solve
the interchange issues.

IBM made the 1.2M drive their "standard" 5.25" drive from then on, and 
even started stamping an asterisk on the front of any further 360K drives
that they made in order to label them as being different.

NOTE: It was intended as a substitute for "STANDARD" 8" drives.  In the
words of the late George Morrow: "Standards are a wonderful thing;
everybody should have a unique one of their own."  As has been pointed out
by a few people, there existed numerous NON-STANDARD drives.  The 1.2M is
NOT very suitable for use in replacement of 8" drives where only one brand
and model of 8" drive could be made to work, such as hard sectored with
PERIMETER holes, drives with non-standard electrical or mechanical specs,
drives where the drive circuitry was implemented elsewhere in the machine,
etc.  It is quite easy, in 8", 5.25", and even 3", 3.25", and 3.5" drives
to find examples where NO other drive can replace the one used.

>   the 1990s with a 1.44M 3.5 in floppy drive.

Probably, but anybody who can't replace an 8" drive with a 1.2M 5.25",
will NOT be able to replace it with a 1.4M 3.5" (all of the changes needed
for a 5.25" 1.2M would also be needed for a 3.5" 1.4M, plus a number of
other changes).  The BEST way to change over from an 8" drive to a 3.5"
1.4M is to FIRST change over to a 5.25" 1.2M, and get THAT working, THEN
make the change to the 3.5" 1.4M.

>   for another.  This level of complexity is about what I

Mostly, with some exceptions, those were documenting the existence of
"NON-STANDARD" 8" drives, for which ANY change, even to a different make
or model of 8" drive would be a challenge.

You need to start by identifying the exact machine, and exactly what drive
it currently uses.  If it "doesn't matter" what brand and model of
8" drive, then it also won't matter whether it is an 8" drive or a
5.25" 1.2M.

There has been some discussion here recently about how to identify whether
a 5.25" drive is a 360K v a 1.2M.  There have been proposals involving
latch design, color, LED, weight, etc.  The best way is to identify it by
model number, and then confirm experimentally.  Some of the many model
numbers to look for include: Teac 55G, Shugart/Matsushita 475, and
Mitsubishi 4854.  Going rate for used ones is about a dime a dozen.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred        [email-masked]

---

From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 14:56:00 2003

> creatively redefined to be 1000*1024).  But the format was largely a

CORRECTION: that should have read '1.171875 "honest" megabytes'
There are a dozen other errors, but that one needed to be fixed.

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Duell)
Date: Fri May 9 18:34:00 2003

>   even 720K 5.25 drives, but not 1.2M 5.25 drives.

Oh yes, the 1.2M drive (that's 1.2 'IBM Megabytes' -- 1000*1024 bytes) 
was a common drive on PC/AT (286) and later PCs. The PC I am typing this 
on has one fitted.

It's a double-sided 80 cylinder unit turning at 360 rpm (like an 8" 
drive, all other 5.25" and most 3.5" [1] drives turn at 300 rpm). It uses 
the higher data rate (500kbps) like an 8" drive.

I have successfully used such a drive in place of an 8" drive. It's not a 
drop-in replacement -- the cable/connectors are different, and there are 
minor differences in some of the signals. Btu it can noramlly be got to 
work. The problems really start if the drive you're replaceing wasn't a 
standard 8" drive (the cannoical example of this is the DEC RX01 or 
RX02), or if it uses some of the features on the 8" drive (data 
separator, hard sector sector/index hole separation) that were never 
provided on 5.25" drives

[1] Early 3.5" drives, often used by HP, rotated at 600rpm. And for 
completness, there was a 5.25" drive that rotated at 180 rpm, allowing 
the use of 1.2M disks on a normal (not high density) controller.

>   the 1990s with a 1.44M 3.5 in floppy drive.

It's possible, but if you want to go that route, get the machine working with
a 1.2M 5.25" drive first. Once that works correctly, then get it working 
with the 3.5" unit. By doiing the conversion in 2 stages, you will have a 
clearer idea as to where any problems are coming from.

[...]

>   hardware background (which I'm not).  They point out the

I sometimes forget that not everybody was born holding a soldering iron 
and screwdriver :-).. Although I do find it hard to understand how anyone 
can attempt to maintain and/or modify a computer without understanding 
some hardware (and for that matter some programming).

>   "vintage" market.  I see now that there are "plenty" of

They are not rare. I don't know how easy they are to find for sale -- 
certainly I am not selling any of mine. But there are plenty of working 
drives still around (Even if most of them are attached to working vintage 
computers).

>   they are simply getting too fragile to repair.

I find that very hard to believe. These drives were _very_ solidly made. 
I supplse it's possible the heads have worn out with all that use, but 
just about anything else can be fixed quite easily. Heads can be replaced 
if you can find them, BTW....

-tony

---

From: Þórhallur Ragnarsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 9 21:17:01 2003

---

From: "John Allain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat May 10 14:57:00 2003

Never thought I'd see it (I live in a pretty much non-engineering
area) but I just picked up a SparcII complete (nice Monitor, KB)
in somebodies      >> Yard Sale <<      for about nothing ($5).
Now to check it out...

John A.

---

From: "John Allain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 13:50:00 2003

The SparcII has a Mfg date of 1992, making it on topic.

Sure is a fussy sucker
   takes 30 seconds before displaying 
      any video at all.
   takes 5 minutes testing memory before responding
      to the keyboard.
   will boot the disk but won't even allow log-in attempts
      until it finds a netlog server.

Any info on password cracking?
Should I now switch to netBSD or can I get it to use SunOS
   or Solaris (it has SunOS v5.5.1 on it).

John A.

---

From: Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 14:14:00 2003

> The SparcII has a Mfg date of 1992, making it on topic.

I had one of those for a while - sold it to a former employer about
4 years ago.  I'm on a SPARCstation-5/110 at the moment ($35 at last
year's Dayton Hamvention).  I'm contemplating moving up to an Ultra
if I can find one for cheap.  I'd even take an old Ultra-5 if it were
cheap enough.
 
>    takes 30 seconds before displaying 

That's probably video-card dependent.  If you have a "dual-wide"
CG6 or a CG3, you might want to consider getting something newer.
You don't need a TGX+, but I find console operations with the older
cards to be a frustrating experience (no hardware acceleration of
the pixels in console mode).

>    takes 5 minutes testing memory before responding

That can be fixed with an NVRAM setting (test-megs?)

>       until it finds a netlog server.

Hmm... that should also be settable.

> Any info on password cracking?

NVRAM password or OS password?  The easiest way to crack passwords
is to boot a distribution CD; it's easy to get to a root prompt
and either edit the shadow file (OS password) or use the eeprom
command (NVRAM password).  If the boot sequence is locked so you
can't boot a CD-ROM, then rejumpering the target disk to some other
unit number and installing a friendly OS disk at the expected
SCSI target number is probably the easiest way in.

It's an easier process in any case if you have another machine
of any similar variety handy (in your case, anything from a SPARC1
up through a SPARC2 (1+, ELC, etc.) will be a perfect match; depending
on how it was installed, a SPARC5 or SPARC10 disk might or might not
boot for you).  I had to resort to a remote net boot to clear the
NVRAM config on my SPARCclassic - it *wanted* to boot off the network,
so I made my SPARC2 a network boot server and brought up the classic
far enough to use the eeprom command to reset the NVRAM password and
default boot device.

Instructions for a variety of these techniques are available in
several places - I would point people at www.sunhelp.org to start
with.  Also look for the Sun Hardware FAQ and Solaris Managers FAQ.
There's also a "Suns-at-Home" mailing list (low volume) that I
subscribe to.

>    or Solaris (it has SunOS v5.5.1 on it).

Personally, since I have adminstrated Solaris for $$$, I prefer to
run Solaris at home (I used to make a living off of flavors of 4BSD,
but that was a long time ago).  If you are used to BSD, then there's
nothing inherently wrong with it, but if you want to hone commercially
desired skills, I see posting locally for Solaris folks just about
every week.

Your box happens to be of the "sun4c" architecture, BTW.  That limits
you to Solaris 7 or lower.  You need a "sun4m" or "better" to run
Solaris 8 (SPARCclassic, SPARC-LX, SPARC-5, SPARC-10, SPARC-20, etc.)
The current version is Solaris 9, and even sun4m machines won't be
supported by Solaris 10 (or is it 'X' ;-)

More details here -> http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/solaris/versions/

Solaris 2.5.1 (what you have) is fine for a SPARC-2.  If you needed
to, you might get access to a little more stuff if you were running
Solaris 2.6.  Unless you had a pressing need (like certain pre-compiled
binaries), I wouldn't necessarily recommend Solaris 7, especially if
you don't have 64MB (or more, but that requires a daughter card).

-ethan
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com

---

From: "John Allain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 15:14:00 2003

I did some looking and Sun just wants to sell Solaris 8 
and 9 (incompat. w/ Sparc-2), plus I saw some list prices
for the sw up to $36,000.  No good for me.  You suggest
that 2.6 is still available (32 meg in this machine), but where.
Can I get yet one more clue?
THX so far.

John A.

---

From: Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon May 12 15:30:00 2003

> Can I get yet one more clue?

I did not suggest old versions were widely available, but you can
find distro kits on eBay from time to time.

It's true that full-on Solaris licenses are many kilobucks.  You can
frequently get the latest version for home use (one processor-per-box
limit which you satisfy) for free or at most the cost of media.  I
purchased originals from Sun that way for Solaris 7 and 8.  The problem
is that they don't sell anything older than the current version and
you can't use the current version.

Best option is eBay or mailing lists like this one.

I do not have any spare copies, sorry.

-ethan

---

From: "Andy Holt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 00:40:00 2003

> Can I get yet one more clue?

Interesting ... old versions of Solaris* are almost always available on eBay
in the UK; yet a search of eBay for items available to USA currently only
shows one copy - and that is in England (in spite of being listed under
USA).
At £5 the price is right - but the postage across the herring pond may be
prohibitive.
We are also seing lots of SS10s and 20s at low prices ... 5s tend to get a
bit more and Ultras are almost always over £100.

2.3, 2.6, 7, and 8 (and 9) occur fairly frequently - 9 can fetch £40-50,
earlier versions tend to be much less expensive.

Andy

---

From: David Woyciesjes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 08:25:01 2003

Andy Holt wrote:
> Interesting ...

	Well, browsing around Sun's website, I found that you can download
Solaris 8 and 9...
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/get.html
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/8/index.html

Prices:
Download Solaris 9/Sparc - free
Download Solaris 9/x86   - US$20
Download Solaris 8/Both  - US$20

	Solaris 9 is through the Free Binary License program, and Sol 8 used to
be free; I'm not sure if it still is in the Free Binary program. Well
that's how I downloaded 8 for x86 and Sparc, and 9 for my Ultra...

--
---   Dave Woyciesjes
---   ICQ# 905818

---

From: Ethan Dicks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 09:02:01 2003

--- David Woyciesjes <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 	Solaris 9 is through the Free Binary License program, and Sol 8
> used to be free; I'm not sure if it still is in the Free Binary program. 

I think "used to" is the operative phrase.  Sun tends to want you to
upgrade, including adding a little $20 persuasion in this case.  Also,
they didn't really want to make Solaris 9 for x86, but scuttlebutt is
that a large customer leaned on them for it.

Somewhere on the site, you can even download a PDF with the correct
labels.  You have to use the ones that are aligned vertically along
the center axis of the paper (as opposed to the ones with the labels
in opposite corners), but I dropped a sheet with those puppies in an
HP LaserJet 4550 and it cranked out some fine, professional-looking
lables for me (which seriously beat a scrawl from a Sharpie).

In any case, neither download will help you with a SPARC2.  Your best
bet is to borrow a 2.6 kit or pick one up on eBay.  If you have any
friends who do Solaris for a living, they might have a 2.6 kit gathering
dust on a shelf.  OTOH, I'm sure I'd be surprised at the number of
systems that were shipped with 2.6 that are still running it, so maybe
that distro isn't gathering dust yet.

-ethan

---

From: David Woyciesjes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 11:11:01 2003

> that a large customer leaned on them for it.

	Seems that way. Good thing I keep all the CDs I burn. :)
I wonder if I still have the ISO files I downloaded for 8 & 9

> lables for me (which seriously beat a scrawl from a Sharpie).

	Eh, I just used those PDF labels to make the CD case insert. Sharpie on
the disc is good enough for me...

--
---   Dave Woyciesjes
---   ICQ# 905818

---

From: Dave Woodman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 11:59:00 2003

>the disc is good enough for me...
For 8, it was a condition of the license that one *had* to use the 
labels on the CDs themselves. IIRC, this condition went away in 9.

I wonder just what proportion of the 8 distributions were correctly 
labelled...

    Cheers,

        Dave.

---

From: David Woyciesjes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue May 13 12:20:00 2003

> I wonder just what proportion of the 8 distributions were correctly

	Really? I didn't know that. Then again, I didn't read the whole license
agreement anyway... :) But I did write almost everything that was on the
label onto the disc anyway. I didn't feel like going to buy some label
sheets and screw around trying to get them lined up right...

--
---   Dave Woyciesjes
---   ICQ# 905818