Project: DeskClock '86

RagingSamster

RagingSamster

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
3,097
I'm hoping to scratch some heads in here and would like any info you may have on the Compaq Portable II probably the sexiest most capable monochrome luggable out there (circa 1986)

Here's the project:

compaqproj.jpg


I have had it working, unfortunately the hard disk went south (2 hard drives in 20 years, awesome MTBF!)

I need help turning this array of nostalgia into a working and functional desk clock.
Currently the computer will boot to DOS 5.0, first machine with a factory 3.5" w00t!
It currently will not recognize the hard drive and I've tried a few. Back in the 80s PCs were still in the toddler stage and Compaq along with IBM wanted to control access to the hardware. They accomplished this by using setup/diagnostic disks. The setup disk allows you to install and configure peripheral devices. Looking through HP's archive (the owners of Compaq) I was able to find the "Compaq Portable II Personal Computer Maintenance and Service Guide" in PDF Format *Yay for anal-retentive behemoth tech corporations*

This machine was decked out for it's day - the standard 512K of ram just wasn't enough for this bad boy, no way. This came with the optional 640K. Also the PC was just made for gaming it came with compaq EGA graphics.

Where do we go from here? After obtaining the proper diagnostic diskettes I will install a new hard drive (new to me) and attempt to load Windows 3.1 (not workgroups - I don't have 1MB or a network card.) and then the most sought after product of it's day - Berkeley Systems After Dark for Windows. All on a 9" green phosphor screen.
 
Damn, what a blast from the past. :eek: Years ago when I first broke into the computer business, I used to service those things. I haven't see one in years.

I will be curious to see what you do with it.
 
If you only have 640k of RAM then you won't be able to run Windows 3.1 as it requires a minimum of 1024k to run in just standard mode. You can run Windows 3.0 in real mode with 640k.
 
Not quite correct, Windows 3.1 will run in 640K, Windows for Workgroups (3.11) requires 1M
 
RagingSamster said:
Not quite correct, Windows 3.1 will run in 640K, Windows for Workgroups (3.11) requires 1M
Click to expand...

Well accroding to MS , Windows 3.1 requires 1MB of RAM for Standard mode and 2MB (and a 386) for Enhanced mode.

This article was previously published under Q79749
Microsoft Windows version 3.1 does not run in real mode on any machine. Real mode has been removed from the Windows product for version 3.1. Windows 3.1 runs on an Intel 80286 or higher processor in standard or enhanced modes only.

System requirements for standard mode are:

• Intel 80286 (or higher) processor
• 1 MB or more of memory (640K conventional and 256K extended)
• 6.5 MB of free disk space (9 MB is recommended)
System requirements for enhanced mode are:

• Intel 80386 (or higher) processor
• 2 MB or more of memory (640K conventional and 1024K extended)
• 8 MB of of free disk space (10.5 MB is recommended)
Click to expand...

Now, while it might boot and load Windows with 640k, it'll most likely use all available RAM just for Windows and DOS alone.
 
After Dark!!! Sweet. Love the project man. Makes me want one of those beasts. Love the keyboard expecially. The new soft-touch crap gets on my nerves.
 
The last hard drive in it was a 160MB... I have found a 2 GB, I am wondering however if the BIOS can be made to "trick" it into thinking it is a drive of less capacity. Here's a pic of it with the former drive:

compaq.JPG


I'm hoping to have this back up and running as quickly as possible. However I don't want to alter it from it's original configuration too much - gutting it and putting in an LCD/mobo etc is not what I am after. If I can find an expanded memory card and run 3.11 with it, maybe an old network card and Mosaic wouldn't be out of the question.
 
RagingSamster said:
The last hard drive in it was a 160MB... I have found a 2 GB, I am wondering however if the BIOS can be made to "trick" it into thinking it is a drive of less capacity. Here's a pic of it with the former drive:

http://home.comcast.net/~ragingsamster/compaq.JPG

I'm hoping to have this back up and running as quickly as possible. However I don't want to alter it from it's original configuration too much - gutting it and putting in an LCD/mobo etc is not what I am after. If I can find an expanded memory card and run 3.11 with it, maybe an old network card and Mosaic wouldn't be out of the question.
Click to expand...

Here's some information that might help you out. http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/bios/over_DDO.htm
 
Ryan,

Thank you, that site contained some very good info...

Limitations of BIOS in recognizing large hard drives, Possible errors I could see, etc... I do believe I'll be running up against the 1024 cylinder limit - but the good news is that IDE appears to support 16 heads and 63 sectors per track - so my Caviar 22100 2.1 gig should work, although it may lose 75% of it's capacity 500MB is still a immense amount of storage for DOS 5/Win 3.1
 
I think I have a 30 pin simmverter at home...I'll check this evening.......and I had a ton of old 30 pin memory...yours for shipping if I can find it tonight.:D I'm assuming it uses ISA slots.......if so I'm sure I have some network cards as well....I'll look to night and let you know what I have.
 
Update:

Along the "critical path" to getting a new hard drive in this machine is obtaining a copy of Compaq's proprietary setup disk. This had me somewhat worried, where to turn?

Google to the rescue! doing a search on "Compaq Portable II" a couple of pages down I found this site http://www.z80.de/alex/compaq/index.htm I don't shprechen ze deutch but google translators worked their hit and miss magic enough for me to realize I struck paydirt.

Now I have the image for the disk - but what the heck is this "CopyQM" program? It turns out there are a plethora of google links to various versions. I D/L'd the shareware program and looked around the house... NO FLOPPY DRIVES to be SEEN! Doh! OK, I've saved a floppy from our last hardware refresh at work, so this puts off the disk creation until Monday:rolleyes:

I get into work this morning early and pop my ram drive into the lab PC and run the program. Does anyone remember the noises from older games like Wolfenstien 3D when all you had was a PC speaker - I had not head those noises for 15 years - some of the queuing in CopyQM used those noises to accent text fields - aaah memory lane!

When I started using the program, there were moments of dashed hopes as disk after disk was labeled bad by the program, after searching through the CopyQM program. I found it has a wonderful utility for up and downconverting formats

CopyQM.JPG


I selected to upconvert the image from a 360K to 1.44M and Viola! the familiar groan/whir of data being written and an ANSI progress meter provided relief as the disk was created!

So as of now (2/29@06:30 PST)you are up to date, next up:

Will the Setup disk work?

Will the 2G HDD work in a system limited to 540MB

Will the landfill receive a tear-stained old computer?

Tune in tonight or tomorrow for the next episode of Flash Compaq and the Temple of DustBunnies
 
RagingSamster said:
Update:

Along the "critical path" to getting a new hard drive in this machine is obtaining a copy of Compaq's proprietary setup disk. This had me somewhat worried, where to turn?

Google to the rescue! doing a search on "Compaq Portable II" a couple of pages down I found this site http://www.z80.de/alex/compaq/index.htm I don't shprechen ze deutch but google translators worked their hit and miss magic enough for me to realize I struck paydirt.

Now I have the image for the disk - but what the heck is this "CopyQM" program? It turns out there are a plethora of google links to various versions. I D/L'd the shareware program and looked around the house... NO FLOPPY DRIVES to be SEEN! Doh! OK, I've saved a floppy from our last hardware refresh at work, so this puts off the disk creation until Monday:rolleyes:

I get into work this morning early and pop my ram drive into the lab PC and run the program. Does anyone remember the noises from older games like Wolfenstien 3D when all you had was a PC speaker - I had not head those noises for 15 years - some of the queuing in CopyQM used those noises to accent text fields - aaah memory lane!

When I started using the program, there were moments of dashed hopes as disk after disk was labeled bad by the program, after searching through the CopyQM program. I found it has a wonderful utility for up and downconverting formats

[]http://ragingsamster.googlepages.com/CopyQM.JPG[]

I selected to upconvert the image from a 360K to 1.44M and Viola! the familiar groan/whir of data being written and an ANSI progress meter provided relief as the disk was created!

So as of now (2/29@06:30 PST)you are up to date, next up:

Will the Setup disk work?

Will the 2G HDD work in a system limited to 540MB

Will the landfill receive a tear-stained old computer?

Tune in tonight or tomorrow for the next episode of Flash Compaq and the Temple of DustBunnies
Click to expand...

Hell don't throw it away, send that baby to me.
 
I sent you a PM...

I may have some parts that will work.

I'll get some picts to you after I get home from work.
 
TO quote a line from a mildly entertaining movie:
Never give up, never surrender

Brought the boot disk home and found out a bonus, it's actually 3 utilities on 1 disk

  1. Diagnostic program
  2. Setup Program
  3. ROM version checker

Guess which TWO did not work? (Hint: I know my bios version now! ARRG) :D

The Setup program said it was not able to read a sector ( remember the error options? Abort, Retry, Fail.) So I'm thinking either corrupt data on the zip file or a bad copy to disk

The Diagnostic program called out simply "incorrect DOS version"

So I'm thinking maybe the DOS version problem may or may not be a root cause so I look for where to find a boot disk, and what version will I need. Luckily the compaq was the first portable to sport the 1.44Mb 3.5". SO now I'm looking for the first version of DOS to support it - that is 3.3. Good Gravy! where do I find a DOS 3.3 boot disk??

Right here!

http://oldfiles.org.uk/powerload/bootdisk.htm

looks like a legit site, not intending to post warez

OMG a veritable cornucopia of DOSs past.

I also have a second source for the Compaq utility disk. Tomorrow after work I should have a error free disk to boot from!

Thanks RadRob for the generous offer! I may need to take you up on that, but I'm thinking CMOS battery is TU and I let the computer sit for a year - I want to make sure the hard drive is bad first now.

For Rob's helpful offer, although the site is not associated with him I thought I would name this link the RadRob HD link of coolness because it walked me down memory lane:

http://redhill.net.au/d/d-a.html

If you are an old tech the write ups will have you laughing and nodding. Sherman! to the way-back machine!
 
Man, that will play Wolfenstein3D like woah!

I knew someone that had one of those, but he stripped the insides out and installed a newer Socket A board and all the accompanied newer hardware. It turned out pretty nice at the end and he even got the internal screen to work with the new PC as a secondary monitor.

_Kris
 
Of all the things I thought it could be
three little volts had the better of me
After fixing a boot floppy with bad format
A new Setup disk fixed it like that.

After using the DOS utility for making a MSDOS 3.3 boot disk I copied the test, setup and diagnostic files over. On bootup after the inevitable "Hit F1 to continue" I was greeted by this lovely screen.

cpq1.JPG


I typed "SETUP" and crossed my fingers - it asked about screen size, graphics adapter and other erata then popped up with this screen detailing all the lovely configuration information I was dying to see.

cpq2.JPG


Now I pop the bootdisk out and see if the old hard drive is toast or not.

This next picture serves me up a heaping helping of CROW. Mr Ryan, I stand corrected it is 3.0

cpq3.JPG


In case you have not seen the classic Windows interface in a while, here is a shot of windows in ALL it's glory

cpq4.JPG


Now in order to thoroughly exploit the elderly among us, how many thought this was the pinnacle of graphics technology when they first saw it?

cpq5.JPG


Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Deskclock '86 in action!

http://ragingsamster.googlepages.com/cpqw00t.zip <--7M quicktime (zipped seem to be the only way it would remain playable)

cpq9.JPG


No flash, so it's kind of blurry

cpq8.JPG


The only feature that detracts slightly is the screen burn. Not too terrible, but it's there.

cpq7.JPG


I'll be pulling the rather noisy fan shortly, and also getting a replacement CMOS battery

Once again [H] has helped another geek succeed!
 
but does it have an alarm?

Awesome anyways, seeing old hardware working again is great!
 
Man i love this project great use of old hardware, to make it even cooler you should make a "binary" clock program for it...:p

How about *nix ?
 
The part of this I like the most is that it is continuing to be (re)used (remember the three Rs).

It also proves the engineering was done right on the old machines, given that they continue to work. Things have gotten cheaper quickly in the computing world, what with 100k or less cycle switches being used in the keyboards, as opposed to 500k plus cycle in the early days, you will be hard pressed to find the same percentage of today's hardware continuing to work after 20+ years.

Long-windedness aside.

Thank you for the step back.

It is as some of us remember and better, because it can be used to give a basis of where we have come from...

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Thats gonna be one mightly expensive clock when the power bill comes around :) Well perhaps not bad, but not efficient in the least.


Interesting to see how this is still running and yet our modern technology seems to fail frequently.
 
Ockie said:
Thats gonna be one mightly expensive clock when the power bill comes around :) Well perhaps not bad, but not efficient in the least.


Interesting to see how this is still running and yet our modern technology seems to fail frequently.
Click to expand...


Fewer components, less integration, lower power requirement, less heat produced. Todays CPU's probably have more transistors (and maybe even pins :D)in it alone than that entire system does.
 
ryan_975 said:
Fewer components, less integration, lower power requirement, less heat produced. Todays CPU's probably have more transistors (and maybe even pins :D)in it alone than that entire system does.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but newer computers of today has much more efficient conversions including that of the monitor, psu, and components.
 
Ockie said:
Perhaps, but newer computers of today has much more efficient conversions including that of the monitor, psu, and components.
Click to expand...

Efficiency really doesn't mean anything in this situation. Sure today's computer use power more efficiently (save for the Prescott :) ), but they require 10 times more power to work right.

Analogy:
I'm washing my car and I leave the hose running when I'm not using it, so I waste about 100 gallons of water, plus the 50 I actually used on the car. So all together I consumed about 150 gallons of water.

Now a friend of mine works at the airport and washes the planes at night. They turn off the flow of water when not being used so they waste maybe 1 gallon. That's greatly more efficient, however, they used 10,000 Gallons to actually wash the plane.

So even though my method was far less efficient than the airport's way, I wasted a hell of a lot less water than they even utilized.

Now translating that to the topic at hand, the 286 system may be more wasteful, it still uses far less power and creates a lot less heat than today's "efficiant" systems.

Basically it's all relative.
 
ryan_975 said:
Efficiency really doesn't mean anything in this situation. Sure today's computer use power more efficiently (save for the Prescott :) ), but they require 10 times more power to work right.

Analogy:
I'm washing my car and I leave the hose running when I'm not using it, so I waste about 100 gallons of water, plus the 50 I actually used on the car. So all together I consumed about 150 gallons of water.

Now a friend of mine works at the airport and washes the planes at night. They turn off the flow of water when not being used so they waste maybe 1 gallon. That's greatly more efficient, however, they used 10,000 Gallons to actually wash the plane.

So even though my method was far less efficient than the airport's way, I wasted a hell of a lot less water than they even utilized.

Now translating that to the topic at hand, the 286 system may be more wasteful, it still uses far less power and creates a lot less heat than today's "efficiant" systems.

Basically it's all relative.
Click to expand...



See you are arguing a whole different concept, it's not a matter of how much is wasted. Wasted is wasted and it will still cost money on the electric bill. Your analogy also does not work in the sense that washing a plane but wasting less water is more efficient than washing a car and letting gallons of water go free... regardless of the quantity, it's the overall efficiency based on the objective. I was simply pointing out that it's a cool idea but feasibly it's not a good method of saving energy. A normal clock uses up next to no power, heck, I'd be surprised if it was a whole watt that a modern day clock uses.

It's a cool idea and thats where I give credit... geeezee... don't shoot somone for just pointing out a fact.


EDIT: Oh I found out, correct me if I'm wrong, this machine chews up 114 watts in power consumption. This is more than a modern energy efficient machine (I'm talking via C3 or Mobile technology). Actually 114 watts of power is enough to power light to 10 rooms in your home using efficient bulbs and maintain two digital alarm clocks ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top