Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by greenbit 30 days ago
The Commodore PET 4032 video system was generated by a 6545 (6845 equivalent) cathode ray tube controller, which generated the video buffer addresses and the HS and VS sync pulses. This was memory mapped and if one was not careful with POKE commands, you could effectively stop the CRT raster scan, leaving the beam parked at the center of the screen. This could burn the phosphors off that spot in a matter of minutes. Not exactly HCF, but a similar vibe.

(The PET had its own monitor that, unlike common composite monitors of the era, apparently would not continue to scan when the sync went away)

4 comments

That was definitely a defect of the monitor, not a serious mistake of the programmer. Any damaged monitor should have been paid by whoever had approved such a monitor design, even in the case of a monitor integrated in an all-in-one computer, which was not supposed to be disconnected from the computer.

I have also seen some monitors designed so badly, like the IBM MDA monitor mentioned at the link provided by userbinator, but all the TV sets that I have ever seen could only be synchronized to the desired scanning frequencies by the "sync" pulses, but they would oscillate freely in the absence of sync pulses.

The cost savings by not having relaxation oscillators or PLLs that would drive the raster scan in the absence of sync pulses, and which would limit the range of acceptable scan frequencies to safe values, have always been negligible, even by the time of the vacuum tube TV sets, and much more so by the time of computer monitors. The elimination of physical safety devices is not an acceptable way to reduce costs, especially when the savings are so small as in this case.

Found a schematic for the 4016/4032 at https://www.zimmers.net/anonftp/pub/cbm/schematics/computers...

The vertical deflection drive appears to have some feedback, so maybe that could constitute an oscillator, but I can't see any feedback at all in the horizontal section, it looks entirely feed-forward. I get the impression they were just integrating the square wave into a ramp. The diagram shows 15us low out of only 50us total line time, which seems like quite unlike the typical 15.75 kHz sync of the time. I recall getting hold of the 6845 datasheet and trying in earnest to understand how to program that chip, and was baffled that the reference set of register values wouldn't produce a display. The fact I was missing at the time was that one had to start from 20kHz for the horizontal refresh.

The IBM MDA also had a 6845, and since it was driving a fixed-frequency monitor of extremely simple design, any deviation from the standard timings could definitely let the magic smoke out of the flyback transformer.

https://marc.info/?l=classiccmp&m=119637265107100

In 1978 I built a single board computer with a 6800 uP and a 6845 to drive the display. Made a keyboard for it, and it worked.

Unfortunately, in my many moves it has disappeared, though I still have the schematics for it.

Somehow I missed the boat on being a billionaire!

Oh, I have so many of my own experiences to tell in this regard, but .. I'm a little curious .. if you still have the schematics, why not build it again and pick up where you left off?

(Disclaimer: I speak as one who has kept almost every computer I've ever hacked on since 1978...)

I could, but the list of projects I want to do is very looooonnnnggggg and reconstructing that machine would be nice to show off, but of no utility.

I also no longer have the software I wrote for it, nor the keyboard or monitor. It's all gone.

My other regret is I gave away my H11 computer. Sigh.

Oh, well at least scan your schematics in and put 'em on a repo somewhere! That might be inspiring to someone, you never know ..
You might be right!

It would be better if I'd just taken a photo of it. There is a photo of my H11 on my twitter profile.

The more likely risk with a 6845 is creating a way out of spec vertical sync that can cause the monitor's frame flyback transformer to fail. Although how you describe the PET monitor's beam being "parked" suggests it's actually the same effect.
I recall seeing it just stop dead center, quite bright. Immediately just turned the machine off, but that did seem to account for why a couple of the other machines in the room had small round-ish phosphors burns right in that spot