george@endeavor.intel.com (George L. Rachor Jr.) (05/22/91)
It seems I am going down nostalga lane here (and please don't take offense
that I posted in the wrong newsgroup) but I am looking at firing up my
old c2-4p and wondered if any of you had this machine in your closet.
Any of you still running an OSI system. In this day and age is there
a good use (be kind) for this old hardware. Seems like with a software
/firmware upgrade we could be in business with these with very little
effort. Always had illusions of my system (no disk drive) running my
train layout. Of course I'm now thinking my Commodore Pet or Apple ][ plus
may do the job. (Actually at the rate I'm going Neither my wife's Mac
or my xenix system will get to run the train.)
How about it C1,C2,C4,C8 owners?
^ I drooled over this one!
--
George Rachor Jr.
Intel Corporation
Hillsboro, OR 97124cozza@cshl.org (Steven Cozza) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May21.210947.23057@endeavor.intel.com> george@endeavor.intel.com (George L. Rachor Jr.) writes: >It seems I am going down nostalga lane here (and please don't take offense >that I posted in the wrong newsgroup) but I am looking at firing up my >old c2-4p and wondered if any of you had this machine in your closet. You are waxing nostalgic, I haven't turned on my C4P in years, many years! Not just because its whopping 8K of memory got fired one day down to just 256 bytes, but because it seemed to die a quick death with the introduction of the Atari 400. I don't even have any software for it anymore, and I used to write games, and disassemblers for it. It really was a nice machine. ============================================================================= Steven Cozza Internet: cozza@cshl.org US Mail: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Box 100 1 Bungtown Road Cold Spring Harbor New York, 11724 =============================================================================
tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May21.210947.23057@endeavor.intel.com> george@endeavor.intel.com (George L. Rachor Jr.) writes: > >Any of you still running an OSI system. No way! ;-) I can barely stand to run my old Atari 800XL, much less the OSI C1P I used to use... >In this day and age is there >a good use (be kind) for this old hardware. Seems like with a software >/firmware upgrade we could be in business with these with very little >effort. Always had illusions of my system (no disk drive) running my >train layout. It might make a reasonable home control system... But then again, when something breaks down, there'll be no way to fix it unless you do such things yourself. :-(
rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.202435.24605@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes: >Any of you still running an OSI system. No way! ;-) I can barely stand to run my old Atari 800XL, much less the OSI C1P I used to use... I cut my computing teeth on OSI Equipment. I *think* a few of the customers I used to do work for *still* use the system's to this day. I spent time on the C2's and C3's running OS-65U. For awhile my partner and I had the only source to Level 3 (time sharing) (dissasembled it... )( time sharing ). For it's day it was a decent system. >In this day and age is there >a good use (be kind) for this old hardware. Seems like with a software >/firmware upgrade we could be in business with these with very little >effort. Always had illusions of my system (no disk drive) running my >train layout. It might make a reasonable home control system... But then again, when something breaks down, there'll be no way to fix it unless you do such things yourself. :-( OSI did offer did offer an X-10 hardware/software combo in the early days. Have fun! -randy -- Randy Welch Mail to : randy@bldr.UUCP or rwelch@isis.uucp or Boulder, CO rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu or (303) 442-6717 Have a Plexus? Subscribe to the plexus mailing list: plx-info-request@wpg.com General Requests: plx-info@wpg.com
carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May21.210947.23057@endeavor.intel.com> george@endeavor.intel.com (George L. Rachor Jr.) writes: >Any of you still running an OSI system. In this day and age is there >a good use (be kind) for this old hardware. Seems like with a software >/firmware upgrade we could be in business with these with very little >effort. Within the last two years I've received marketing blurbs from somebody marketing multiuser systems under the Ohio Scientific name. Seems as though this was another outfit that had licensed the name, though. Support for the old boxes would almost be too much to hope for... -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com "...and of their daughters it is written, 'Cursed be he who lies with any manner of animal.'" - Talmud
rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) (05/26/91)
In article <4028@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> carroll@ssc-vax (Jeff Carroll) writes:
Within the last two years I've received marketing blurbs from
somebody marketing multiuser systems under the Ohio Scientific name. Seems
as though this was another outfit that had licensed the name, though.
Support for the old boxes would almost be too much to hope for...
I saw something in Byte several years ago with the Ohio Scientific name
attached to it ( What's New Section ) and the address fit. I think they
went to a unix based platform, (88K,32XXX??). When I was no longer
associated with OSI equipment they were moving away from the 6502
platforms to Z80 platforms to take advantage of CP/M, but then the PC came
along...
-randy
--
Randy Welch Mail to : randy@bldr.UUCP or rwelch@isis.uucp or
Boulder, CO rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu or (303) 442-6717
Have a Plexus? Subscribe to the plexus mailing list: plx-info-request@wpg.com
General Requests: plx-info@wpg.comcsg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (06/05/91)
In article <RWELCH.91May22230850@isis.isis.cs.du.edu> rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) writes: >For it's day it was a decent system. Are we talking about the same machines here? I used OSI Challanger systems of various flavors for three years, and they were just plain junk. Far inferior to the systems you could get from Altair, Imsai, Processor Tech, or SWTPC at the time of the C1P, and to the Northstar and Cromemco systems in the days of the C4. Poor design, poor software, poor manufacturing. And I *liked* the 6502 processor. <csg>
rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) (06/05/91)
In article <eric.676167523@zen.maths.uts.edu.au> eric@zen.maths.uts.edu.au (Eric Lindsay) writes: >In article <RWELCH.91May22230850@isis.isis.cs.du.edu> rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) writes: >>For it's day it was a decent system. >Are we talking about the same machines here? I used OSI Challanger systems of >various flavors for three years, and they were just plain junk. Far inferior >to the systems you could get from Altair, Imsai, Processor Tech, or SWTPC at >the time of the C1P, and to the Northstar and Cromemco systems in the days of >the C4. Poor design, poor software, poor manufacturing. And I *liked* the 6502 >processor. ><csg> As I recall, the C1P was round $200-$300, at a time when everyone else was two or three times that cost. That made up for a lot of strange design ideas, and lousy software. I never had fortune/misfortune to use the C1 family of machines or the 'personal' machines running OS-65D. I spent most of my time working on the C3 machines with hard-disks running OS-65U. Granted 65U had it's quirks until 1.3/1.4 of the 'OS', it wasn't bad. Perhaps I was lucky and we had a good hardware/systems person to take care of things like that. What I was mentioning in regards to not a bad system was what you got for the buck at the time. Not too many machines did time sharaing ( Cromemco and SWTPC come to mind ) at that time and when most machine were offering a 5 or 10 M hard disk you could get from 20-140M on the OSI. Not to mention the 6502 at 2Mhz could keep up and sometimes beat a 4Mhz Z80 or even a 8088 you could live with the quirks... :-) -randy -- Randy Welch Mail to : randy@bldr.UUCP or rwelch@isis.uucp or Boulder, CO rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu or (303) 442-6717 Have a Plexus? Subscribe to the plexus mailing list: plx-info-request@wpg.com General Requests: plx-info@wpg.com
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (06/06/91)
Funny... I remember the Ohio Scientific C1P as quite a powerful little computer for its day. In a time of KIM-1s, AIM-65s and Commodore PETs, the OSI systems offered a great many features for an extremely reasonable price.. It was the first to offer an integrated single board computer with MicroSoft BASIC in ROM, a memory mapped video output and a fairly nice keyboard, all built into the basic system. The software started out fairly crudely (I should know, I wrote a bunch of it..! :), but toward the end of its life, the software had improved greatly. The main problem with OSI computers, as I saw it, was the company behind the hardware. They didn't keep up with advances in technology, and didn't improve the hardware to compete with new entries into the marketplace like the Apple II and TRS-80. If they'd moved more quickly to improve their color and sound, and gotten their disk systems into a more reasonable price range, things might have turned out differently in the microcomputer marketplace.. as it was, they vanished quietly in the night... BobR
tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) (06/06/91)
In article <157796@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >In article <RWELCH.91May22230850@isis.isis.cs.du.edu> rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) writes: >>For it's day it was a decent system. > >Are we talking about the same machines here? I used OSI Challanger systems of >various flavors for three years, and they were just plain junk. Far inferior >to the systems you could get from Altair, Imsai, Processor Tech, or SWTPC at >the time of the C1P, Hmm... The C1P and its caseless cousing the SuperBoard were just about the cheapest computers on the market at the time. The only things cheaper were those Ace computer kits which had 2K of RAM and a membrane keyboard with far too few keys and no expandability. The IMSAI may have been a better machine, but it cost a heck of a lot more, too. My C1P was fine as a "first" computer for a high school kid.
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (06/06/91)
>Hmm... The C1P and its caseless cousing the SuperBoard were just about >the cheapest computers on the market at the time. The only things >cheaper were those Ace computer kits which had 2K of RAM and a membrane >keyboard with far too few keys and no expandability. The AIM-65 was available at the same time; as a first computer for a high- school kid I think it would have been superior. <csg>
tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) (06/07/91)
In article <158318@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >>Hmm... The C1P and its caseless cousing the SuperBoard were just about >>the cheapest computers on the market at the time. > >The AIM-65 was available at the same time; as a first computer for a high- >school kid I think it would have been superior. That depends - the AIM seemed more like a bare-bones kit than a full-fledged computer. Did the AIM have BASIC in ROM? From the ads I remember, it looked like a big breadboard with a hex keypad and some 7-segment LED displays. Could you hook a terminal up to it? Mu impression of the AIM was that it was aimed more toward the nuts and volts EE hardware-oriented type, not the more software-oriented type. Of course, I wouldn't mind having am AIM65 *now* to play with, but as a first computer it might have been a bit too much.
fzsitvay@techbook.com (Frank Zsitvay) (06/07/91)
In article <158318@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >>Hmm... The C1P and its caseless cousing the SuperBoard were just about >>the cheapest computers on the market at the time. The only things >>cheaper were those Ace computer kits which had 2K of RAM and a membrane >>keyboard with far too few keys and no expandability. > >The AIM-65 was available at the same time; as a first computer for a high- >school kid I think it would have been superior. > ><csg> i don't really think the aim-65 would be much better, and at any rate cost a lot more than the osi did for the same capabilities. contrary to what some people here think, the osi was one of the better computers at the time, especially when you look at price/performance or bang/buck ratios. the memory map was a bit screwy, the molex pins on the backplane would get dirty from time to time, and the operating system was extremely strange, but overall it still was not a bad little machine. my C2-8p still works 14 years after it was built. a whopping 48k RAM and its single 8 inch disk drive. (that disk system it had was very fast, since it essentially did track buffering.) the c1p was, by comparison, a joke. however, it was perhaps the cheapest thing around until the sinclairs showed up. (by the by, it doesn't take much to upgrade a c1p into the equivalent of a c2 or c4. also, a lot of c1p systems found there way into process control applications. you basically had a microcontroller with BASIC and a keyboard for $200-$300. not bad for late-seventies/early 80s.) -- fzsitvay@techbook.COM - but don't quote me on that.... No wonder I can't hold a regular sleeping schedule. My subconcious mind knows we are only one well-placed bullet from having Quayle as president.
andy@research.canon.oz.au (Andy Newman) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun6.204920.14030@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes: >That depends - the AIM seemed more like a bare-bones kit than a >full-fledged computer. Did the AIM have BASIC in ROM? From the ads I >remember, it looked like a big breadboard with a hex keypad and some >7-segment LED displays. Could you hook a terminal up to it? The AIM-65 was the first microprocessor system I got my hands on. It had a monitor with a single line assembler/disassembler and BASIC in ROM (this was an option). The display was one line of 20 characters using 16-segment LEDS and it had a thermal printer. No keypad on the AIM, it had a real keyboard. Are you thinking about the KIM-1? >Mu impression of the AIM was that it was aimed more toward the nuts and >volts EE hardware-oriented type, not the more software-oriented type. Of >course, I wouldn't mind having am AIM65 *now* to play with, but as a >first computer it might have been a bit too much. This definitely seemed to be the case. A fun machine (but downright ugly!). -- Andy Newman (andy@research.canon.oz.au)
bob@reed.UUCP (Bob Ankeney) (06/11/91)
Until a few years ago, a friend and I were involved in multi-processing OSI's. We put together what was called the Portland Board, which gave each user a 4 MHz 6502 with 64K of RAM. They run under the OS-65U operating system. Actually, we still sell a few now and again. We supplied them to OSI to sell, and after they went away, we carried the line. This kind of developed after my company, Generic Computer Products, which made a memory/disk controller/ real-time-clock/parallel printer port board and a graphics board based on the TI-9918 chip. I thought the OSI was a pretty neat machine. I wrote an assembly-language development system for it called Generos (Generic Operating System), which was kind of like DEC RT-11. It had a disk-based relocating assembler, and a full implementation of TECO as the main text editor! Ahh, those were the good old days... Bob Ankeney ...!tektronix!bob@reed.edu