On 2013-01-06 22:06, Steve Davidson wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
[mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 15:54
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Cc: John Wilson
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DU11 vs. DUV11
On 2013-01-06 21:47, John Wilson wrote:
I still can't find where it says "8085A" in the 110/130 manual, but
page
B-3 gives I/O page timings and mentions an "I/O microprocessor" and
the fact that word I/O takes 90 usec but byte I/O takes 180
usec. So
that certainly explains the difference in the DUV driver. Plus the
manual specifically says that RSX11S is available for the
/110, so I
guess it was even supported! Sweet.
Also mentioned on page 4-6, but pretty much with the same
level of detail. Byte writes cause a read-modify-write. Time
of 180 usec. And there is an (unmentioned) 8-bit
microprocessor acting in between the
PDP-11 and any peripherials.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I just found my VT103 LSI-11 Video Terminal User's Guide.
The beast looks like a VT100 but has dual, count them dual, TU58's in
the front and a 4x4 18-bit backplane in the back. Typical configuration
(slot-wise) is:
1 - LSI-11 Processor
2 - MSV11-DD memory
3 - DJV11-J (4-channel serial line interface)
Or
1 - LSI-11 Processor
2 - MVX11-A memory and serial in/out
The bus slots are numbered from 0-7.
I will look for my PDT documentation a little later. I am cleaning up
that part of the basement now anyway.
I actually have a couple of VT103, but I've never laid my hands on any PDT-11, which is why I (obviously) don't know enough about them.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
[mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Johnny Billquist
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 15:54
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Cc: John Wilson
Subject: Re: [HECnet] DU11 vs. DUV11
On 2013-01-06 21:47, John Wilson wrote:
I still can't find where it says "8085A" in the 110/130 manual, but
page
B-3 gives I/O page timings and mentions an "I/O microprocessor" and
the fact that word I/O takes 90 usec but byte I/O takes 180
usec. So
that certainly explains the difference in the DUV driver. Plus the
manual specifically says that RSX11S is available for the
/110, so I
guess it was even supported! Sweet.
Also mentioned on page 4-6, but pretty much with the same
level of detail. Byte writes cause a read-modify-write. Time
of 180 usec. And there is an (unmentioned) 8-bit
microprocessor acting in between the
PDP-11 and any peripherials.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I just found my VT103 LSI-11 Video Terminal User's Guide.
The beast looks like a VT100 but has dual, count them dual, TU58's in
the front and a 4x4 18-bit backplane in the back. Typical configuration
(slot-wise) is:
1 - LSI-11 Processor
2 - MSV11-DD memory
3 - DJV11-J (4-channel serial line interface)
Or
1 - LSI-11 Processor
2 - MVX11-A memory and serial in/out
The bus slots are numbered from 0-7.
I will look for my PDT documentation a little later. I am cleaning up
that part of the basement now anyway.
-Steve
You must be talking of the PDT-11/150 then. The /110 and /130 sat inside
a VT100 shell. Extremely similar to a VT103 (I actually never figured
out what the difference between a VT103 and a PDT-11/130 is.)
I may be grossly misinformed, but my understanding is that although the
/110 and /130 both live inside a VT100, they're *not* like VT103s, and
have no Q-bus but use a custom CPU board just like the /150 (I doubt it's
the exact same board, but a similar design).
I could have sworn the 110/130 manual on bitsavers (which is misfiled
away from the 150 manual -- I forget where) said so but on a quick skim I
can't find it. The I/O hardware has enough programming differences that
it can't be regular Q-bus stuff, although I suppose they could have made
a whole set of PDT-specific boards.
Yes, I think that's the case. I found a paragraph in the PDT 11/130 manual that states that the PDT family all have "bounded bus" systems that are completely buried in the PDT card, and an 8 bit processor actually talks to the IO devices. It also says that a word transfer to the IO system takes 90 microseconds, and a byte transfer takes 180 seconds, so that explains the logic behind the optimization.
I never thought of any of them running any type of RSX - I ll have to dust off one of my PDT-11/150s and see if I can get some sort o' RSX on it.
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.gleason at comcast.net
On 2013-01-06 21:47, John Wilson wrote:
I still can't find where it says "8085A" in the 110/130 manual, but page
B-3 gives I/O page timings and mentions an "I/O microprocessor" and the
fact that word I/O takes 90 usec but byte I/O takes 180 usec. So that
certainly explains the difference in the DUV driver. Plus the manual
specifically says that RSX11S is available for the /110, so I guess it
was even supported! Sweet.
Also mentioned on page 4-6, but pretty much with the same level of detail. Byte writes cause a read-modify-write. Time of 180 usec. And there is an (unmentioned) 8-bit microprocessor acting in between the PDP-11 and any peripherials.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
I still can't find where it says "8085A" in the 110/130 manual, but page
B-3 gives I/O page timings and mentions an "I/O microprocessor" and the
fact that word I/O takes 90 usec but byte I/O takes 180 usec. So that
certainly explains the difference in the DUV driver. Plus the manual
specifically says that RSX11S is available for the /110, so I guess it
was even supported! Sweet.
John Wilson
D Bit
On 2013-01-06 21:34, John Wilson wrote:
From: "Steve Davidson" <jeep at scshome.net>
The main target for the PDT-11 was RT-11. It was slow. The floppies
spent a great deal of time seeking.
Slow, but still a PDP-11! I had a /150 (plus VT62 and LA36) as my main
computer when I was a frosh at RPI ('84-'85) and it was quite a bit above
average compared to other personal computers at the time (C64, Apple ][,
TRS-80, Atari 800, but IBM PCs were still rare -- so mostly fun toys with
pretty graphics but slow and no disk space and usually no 80-column text).
With 60 KB and most of the floppy/TU58 driver up in ROM space its free
memory was at the very high end of MMU-less PDP-11s -- stuff fits in a PDT
that won't run on a "real" LSI-11.
I ran a PDP-8 at home back then. Boy, those RK05 were fast, and stored a lot. :-)
Also, PAL8 was ridiculously fast... MACREL was a bit worse... But still, compared to what most people played with...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On 2013-01-06 21:28, John Wilson wrote:
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
You must be talking of the PDT-11/150 then. The /110 and /130 sat inside
a VT100 shell. Extremely similar to a VT103 (I actually never figured
out what the difference between a VT103 and a PDT-11/130 is.)
I may be grossly misinformed, but my understanding is that although the
/110 and /130 both live inside a VT100, they're *not* like VT103s, and
have no Q-bus but use a custom CPU board just like the /150 (I doubt it's
the exact same board, but a similar design).
I could have sworn the 110/130 manual on bitsavers (which is misfiled
away from the 150 manual -- I forget where) said so but on a quick skim I
can't find it. The I/O hardware has enough programming differences that
it can't be regular Q-bus stuff, although I suppose they could have made
a whole set of PDT-specific boards.
You know, I had never even thought that thought, but now that you mention it, it makes total sense. I think you must be right.
All the PDT-11 use the same system board. It's not a Qbus at all, in any of them.
That definitely also makes it very different from the VT103.
Thanks for making me understand this. :-)
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
BTW, does anyone know why SIMH doesn't support booting from RC11?
I never miss a chance for a plug: Ersatz-11 has RC11 booting.
(The device name is DC:, so MOUNT/DISMOUNT/BOOT work as usual.)
John Wilson
D Bit
From: "Steve Davidson" <jeep at scshome.net>
The main target for the PDT-11 was RT-11. It was slow. The floppies
spent a great deal of time seeking.
Slow, but still a PDP-11! I had a /150 (plus VT62 and LA36) as my main
computer when I was a frosh at RPI ('84-'85) and it was quite a bit above
average compared to other personal computers at the time (C64, Apple ][,
TRS-80, Atari 800, but IBM PCs were still rare -- so mostly fun toys with
pretty graphics but slow and no disk space and usually no 80-column text).
With 60 KB and most of the floppy/TU58 driver up in ROM space its free
memory was at the very high end of MMU-less PDP-11s -- stuff fits in a PDT
that won't run on a "real" LSI-11.
John Wilson
D Bit
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
You must be talking of the PDT-11/150 then. The /110 and /130 sat inside
a VT100 shell. Extremely similar to a VT103 (I actually never figured
out what the difference between a VT103 and a PDT-11/130 is.)
I may be grossly misinformed, but my understanding is that although the
/110 and /130 both live inside a VT100, they're *not* like VT103s, and
have no Q-bus but use a custom CPU board just like the /150 (I doubt it's
the exact same board, but a similar design).
I could have sworn the 110/130 manual on bitsavers (which is misfiled
away from the 150 manual -- I forget where) said so but on a quick skim I
can't find it. The I/O hardware has enough programming differences that
it can't be regular Q-bus stuff, although I suppose they could have made
a whole set of PDT-specific boards.
John Wilson
D Bit
