A notes server would be fine. Answering maillists on a blackberry is problematic. The thing only allows new text between the header and the original text, i.e. forces top posting.
There is a terminal emulator available for it, vt100 compatible so VAXnotes* is fine.
Hans
* couldn't resist that ;-)
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
CORAL66 is an Algol descendant. IIRC it was a prerequisite for defense contractors in the UK.
Hans
PS
Apologies for top posting but this stream is getting quite long on a phone to read..
Verzonden vanaf mijn draadloze BlackBerry -toestel
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Koning <paul_koning at dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:52:30
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] PDP Ignorance
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
Mark,
Rare - probably depends on where you can look! :-)
RT-11 will run on any of the PDP-11's. The RSX-11 family of OS's has
specific requirements about memory amounts and memory management thus
the SPD should be reviewed. RSTS/E (and M+) require memory management
hardware.
RSTS V4 (not /E) runs on a non-MMU machine, but it's very limited -- Basic-Plus only.
The Pro-Series of systems could also be looked at for RT-11 and RSX
(P/OS). In this space the Pro-380 is probably preferred. The problem
here is finding a network card (DECNA) that does not cost as much (or
more) than the rest of the system.
Indeed. And they are quite slow because of the pathetic architecture. Also, all you get is the console display, unless you can find one of the 4-line UART cards that is so obscure that it's hard even to find a manual for it, or a reference to its name (it's PC3XC-BA... I had to look for that).
I did a RSTS port, but that wasn't distributed.
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
The books you have detail the degree of expandability for each of these
HW platforms (except maybe the Pro). You will be surprised at just how
much can be done with these systems. The speed will be another story.
Pro expansion is possible in theory, out of the question in practice. The needed details are undocumented in critical places.
RT-11 Languages (from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-11
MU/BASIC-11
BASIC-PLUS/RT-11
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
Also (via DECUS): Forth and Algol
RSX-11 Languages (also from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-PLUS-2
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
FORTRAN-77
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
COBOL-81, COBOL-11
And Coral-66, whatever that is.
RSTS/E Languages (also from memory):
The same as RSX-11 for the most part.
That, plus BASIC-PLUS (the ancestor of BASIC-PLUS-2, but an interactive interpreter). And Forth (a port of the RT one with FIG-Forth features added, included in the most recent releases, unsupported). There was a port of DECUS Algol but some of the pieces may have gotten lost; I had it at DEC but I can't find some of the pieces, at least not all the sources. Also Dibol.
And don't forget TECO, for any PDP-11 and any OS (except DOS and probably DSM).
paul
On 15/07/11 10:59, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2011-07-15 11.00, Kari Uusim ki wrote:
On 15.7.2011 4:36, Johnny Billquist wrote:
[...]
But since this is now starting to spin off into rather much PDP-11
stuff, maybe we should get this to some other place as well?
Anyone have any good suggestions? Otherwise I'd suggest alt.sys.pdp11 on
internet news.
Johnny
.
There seems to be many interesting discussions popping up every now and
then. Would a DEC Notes solution be a feasible one? Very easy to use and
as it supports DECnet it will be available for anyone on HECnet.
...who is running VMS... ;-)
But in a way yes, Notes would work just fine as well.
I could also create a separate list where we could move discussions that are not of general HECnet nature, but anything that spins off from here, and to which people who really want to, could subscribe to.
Johnny
As much as I'd like an an 'age-appropriate' solution in the form of a Notes discussion I'd say that a separate email list would be more practical day-to-day for most people.
Good idea. Seconded.
Mark.
On 15 Jul 2011, at 10:59, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
I could also create a separate list where we could move discussions that are not of general HECnet nature, but anything that spins off from here, and to which people who really want to, could subscribe to.
I wholeheartedly support this motion, mostly for the sake of everyone else ;)
DEC-discuss list, maybe?
--
Mark Benson
http://markbenson.org/bloghttp://twitter.com/MDBenson
On 2011-07-15 11.00, Kari Uusim ki wrote:
On 15.7.2011 4:36, Johnny Billquist wrote:
[...]
But since this is now starting to spin off into rather much PDP-11
stuff, maybe we should get this to some other place as well?
Anyone have any good suggestions? Otherwise I'd suggest alt.sys.pdp11 on
internet news.
Johnny
.
There seems to be many interesting discussions popping up every now and
then. Would a DEC Notes solution be a feasible one? Very easy to use and
as it supports DECnet it will be available for anyone on HECnet.
...who is running VMS... ;-)
But in a way yes, Notes would work just fine as well.
I could also create a separate list where we could move discussions that are not of general HECnet nature, but anything that spins off from here, and to which people who really want to, could subscribe to.
Johnny
On 15.7.2011 4:36, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2011-07-15 03.24, Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 1:03 AM +0200 7/15/11, Johnny Billquist wrote:
RSTS/E and RSX-11M+ (as well as Unix) do require an MMU, and some
additional things to run though.
RSTS/E offers some real challenges if installing on real hardware. While
I've installed RT-11 and RSX-11M+ off of CD-ROM, I'm not sure it's
possible with RSTS/E. Another tricky situation I ran into was that
RSTS/E would install off 4mm DAT tapes, but the layered products,
especially DECnet/E wouldn't.
I seem to remember that some installation pieces in RSTS/E actually
requires that tape drives identify as the "correct" models, or RSTS/E
will refuse. I don't remember the details, but I think John Wilson
documented in the e11 manual.
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
Well, not neccesarily true. There are SCSI controllers, and large fast
disks. But they are often not free.
How large disks you can actually use will also depend on what OS you
run, with RT-11 being the most limited.
What does the availability of disks look like for someone looking to put
together a PDP-11 at this point? Unless you're like a lot of us here,
and have been doing this for a long time, and built up a supply of
spares years ago, such things can be hard to come by. Even Narrow SCSI
disks are getting harder to obtain.
I have not had any problems with rather modern SCSI disks. No need to
get narrow disks. They are supposed to be backwards compatible anyway.
I have some wide RZ disks in storageworks bricks on my 11/93 as well as
my 11/84.
Just don't hope for anything if you have differential SCSI.
I also have RA disks running, and RL, but nothing else. I don't like RD
disks because they are small, and *slow*, if you are even lucky enough
to get them running.
If you have *ANY* third party controller, you're likely to have a
slightly easier time. Any MFM disks will be hard to find, and unlike
when I was putting my first system together ESDI disks are likely to be
even harder to get. While a SCSI board might set you back a nice chunk
of change, it's likely to be the best path. Besides then you can hook up
a CD-ROM drive.
Yes.
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
With much more ease, and less cost, yes.
Back in the 90's I swore running on real hardware was the way to go.
Now, with a nice collection of spare parts, I think Emulation would have
been better! Not as fun, but a Linux box running an emulator takes up a
lot less space! Thankfully that's the route I went with the PDP-10...
He. A PDP-10 takes a little space, even for a KS...
But since this is now starting to spin off into rather much PDP-11
stuff, maybe we should get this to some other place as well?
Anyone have any good suggestions? Otherwise I'd suggest alt.sys.pdp11 on
internet news.
Johnny
.
There seems to be many interesting discussions popping up every now and then. Would a DEC Notes solution be a feasible one? Very easy to use and as it supports DECnet it will be available for anyone on HECnet.
Kari
On 2011-07-15 03.24, Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 1:03 AM +0200 7/15/11, Johnny Billquist wrote:
RSTS/E and RSX-11M+ (as well as Unix) do require an MMU, and some
additional things to run though.
RSTS/E offers some real challenges if installing on real hardware. While
I've installed RT-11 and RSX-11M+ off of CD-ROM, I'm not sure it's
possible with RSTS/E. Another tricky situation I ran into was that
RSTS/E would install off 4mm DAT tapes, but the layered products,
especially DECnet/E wouldn't.
I seem to remember that some installation pieces in RSTS/E actually requires that tape drives identify as the "correct" models, or RSTS/E will refuse. I don't remember the details, but I think John Wilson documented in the e11 manual.
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
Well, not neccesarily true. There are SCSI controllers, and large fast
disks. But they are often not free.
How large disks you can actually use will also depend on what OS you
run, with RT-11 being the most limited.
What does the availability of disks look like for someone looking to put
together a PDP-11 at this point? Unless you're like a lot of us here,
and have been doing this for a long time, and built up a supply of
spares years ago, such things can be hard to come by. Even Narrow SCSI
disks are getting harder to obtain.
I have not had any problems with rather modern SCSI disks. No need to get narrow disks. They are supposed to be backwards compatible anyway.
I have some wide RZ disks in storageworks bricks on my 11/93 as well as my 11/84.
Just don't hope for anything if you have differential SCSI.
I also have RA disks running, and RL, but nothing else. I don't like RD disks because they are small, and *slow*, if you are even lucky enough to get them running.
If you have *ANY* third party controller, you're likely to have a
slightly easier time. Any MFM disks will be hard to find, and unlike
when I was putting my first system together ESDI disks are likely to be
even harder to get. While a SCSI board might set you back a nice chunk
of change, it's likely to be the best path. Besides then you can hook up
a CD-ROM drive.
Yes.
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
With much more ease, and less cost, yes.
Back in the 90's I swore running on real hardware was the way to go.
Now, with a nice collection of spare parts, I think Emulation would have
been better! Not as fun, but a Linux box running an emulator takes up a
lot less space! Thankfully that's the route I went with the PDP-10...
He. A PDP-10 takes a little space, even for a KS...
But since this is now starting to spin off into rather much PDP-11 stuff, maybe we should get this to some other place as well?
Anyone have any good suggestions? Otherwise I'd suggest alt.sys.pdp11 on internet news.
Johnny
At 1:03 AM +0200 7/15/11, Johnny Billquist wrote:
RSTS/E and RSX-11M+ (as well as Unix) do require an MMU, and some additional things to run though.
RSTS/E offers some real challenges if installing on real hardware. While I've installed RT-11 and RSX-11M+ off of CD-ROM, I'm not sure it's possible with RSTS/E. Another tricky situation I ran into was that RSTS/E would install off 4mm DAT tapes, but the layered products, especially DECnet/E wouldn't.
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
Well, not neccesarily true. There are SCSI controllers, and large fast disks. But they are often not free.
How large disks you can actually use will also depend on what OS you run, with RT-11 being the most limited.
What does the availability of disks look like for someone looking to put together a PDP-11 at this point? Unless you're like a lot of us here, and have been doing this for a long time, and built up a supply of spares years ago, such things can be hard to come by. Even Narrow SCSI disks are getting harder to obtain.
If you have *ANY* third party controller, you're likely to have a slightly easier time. Any MFM disks will be hard to find, and unlike when I was putting my first system together ESDI disks are likely to be even harder to get. While a SCSI board might set you back a nice chunk of change, it's likely to be the best path. Besides then you can hook up a CD-ROM drive.
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
With much more ease, and less cost, yes.
Back in the 90's I swore running on real hardware was the way to go. Now, with a nice collection of spare parts, I think Emulation would have been better! Not as fun, but a Linux box running an emulator takes up a lot less space! Thankfully that's the route I went with the PDP-10...
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
Mark,
Rare - probably depends on where you can look! :-)
RT-11 will run on any of the PDP-11's. The RSX-11 family of OS's has
specific requirements about memory amounts and memory management thus
the SPD should be reviewed. RSTS/E (and M+) require memory management
hardware.
RSTS V4 (not /E) runs on a non-MMU machine, but it's very limited -- Basic-Plus only.
The Pro-Series of systems could also be looked at for RT-11 and RSX
(P/OS). In this space the Pro-380 is probably preferred. The problem
here is finding a network card (DECNA) that does not cost as much (or
more) than the rest of the system.
Indeed. And they are quite slow because of the pathetic architecture. Also, all you get is the console display, unless you can find one of the 4-line UART cards that is so obscure that it's hard even to find a manual for it, or a reference to its name (it's PC3XC-BA... I had to look for that).
I did a RSTS port, but that wasn't distributed.
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
The books you have detail the degree of expandability for each of these
HW platforms (except maybe the Pro). You will be surprised at just how
much can be done with these systems. The speed will be another story.
Pro expansion is possible in theory, out of the question in practice. The needed details are undocumented in critical places.
RT-11 Languages (from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-11
MU/BASIC-11
BASIC-PLUS/RT-11
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
Also (via DECUS): Forth and Algol
RSX-11 Languages (also from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-PLUS-2
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
FORTRAN-77
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
COBOL-81, COBOL-11
And Coral-66, whatever that is.
RSTS/E Languages (also from memory):
The same as RSX-11 for the most part.
That, plus BASIC-PLUS (the ancestor of BASIC-PLUS-2, but an interactive interpreter). And Forth (a port of the RT one with FIG-Forth features added, included in the most recent releases, unsupported). There was a port of DECUS Algol but some of the pieces may have gotten lost; I had it at DEC but I can't find some of the pieces, at least not all the sources. Also Dibol.
And don't forget TECO, for any PDP-11 and any OS (except DOS and probably DSM).
paul
On 2011-07-14 22.53, Steve Davidson wrote:
Mark,
Rare - probably depends on where you can look! :-)
Indeed.
RT-11 will run on any of the PDP-11's. The RSX-11 family of OS's has
specific requirements about memory amounts and memory management thus
the SPD should be reviewed. RSTS/E (and M+) require memory management
hardware. If you can find one, the best is probably the 11/73, 11/83 or
11/93 in a BA23 (QBUS) enclosure. These come in either 4, or 8-slot
backplanes. If you really want to experience pain in your electric bill
then the BA123 (also QBUS) with it's 645 watt dual power supplies can
double as a winter heater/loud white-noise generator. These come in a
12 slot backplane configuration.
Actually, RSX-11M will run on just about anything. I think the minimum memory requirements is 32K, but that's about it. You don't need an MMU, or any other fancy stuff, but such a system is not that much fun to run, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is not already very familiar with the system, and have specific requirements.
There is also the diskless RSX-11S, but that requires a remote boot node (either RSX or VMS).
RSTS/E and RSX-11M+ (as well as Unix) do require an MMU, and some additional things to run though.
Size and powerwise, the BA23 with one of the above mentioned CPUs are probably pretty optimal. The BA123 is nice in that you have room for more disks and a much more serviceable box.
The Pro-Series of systems could also be looked at for RT-11 and RSX
(P/OS). In this space the Pro-380 is probably preferred. The problem
here is finding a network card (DECNA) that does not cost as much (or
more) than the rest of the system.
A PRO is a nice system in a way, unfortunately, if running P/OS, you'll probably feel somewhat frustrated by the feeling that the system probably can do more than you can figure out how to make it do.
Also, the hardware is incompatible with any other model of PDP-11, which puts some restrictions on you. But you'll get graphics instead. :-)
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
Well, not neccesarily true. There are SCSI controllers, and large fast disks. But they are often not free.
How large disks you can actually use will also depend on what OS you run, with RT-11 being the most limited.
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
With much more ease, and less cost, yes.
The books you have detail the degree of expandability for each of these
HW platforms (except maybe the Pro). You will be surprised at just how
much can be done with these systems. The speed will be another story.
All of these machines have some weight to them. An emulator will be
much faster and in the end easier to deal with. When the PLUTO::
machine is running as an emulated machine it is running with NetBSD and
SimH on a 700MHz Pentium-III, otherwise it is a real PDP-11/23+ (22-bit
backplane). The emulated machine is faster than the real thing, but not
my much. I was going for similar performance so that when I switch
between the two it wasn't that noticeable/painful to return to the
actual hardware.
Wow, since a 11/23 is a pretty slow machine...
RT-11 Languages (from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-11
MU/BASIC-11
BASIC-PLUS/RT-11
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
There was probably some more languages, although I haven't got much clue about RT-11. I know one of the earliest Prolog implementations was for RT-11.
RSX-11 Languages (also from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-PLUS-2
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
FORTRAN-77
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
COBOL-81, COBOL-11
Let's see. You forgot Pascal, BCPL, Forth, SIMULA, Lisp (which are other languages I have installed), and I also know of Focal and Dibol, and I feel that I must be missing a few languages in here...
RSTS/E Languages (also from memory):
The same as RSX-11 for the most part.
Almost a combination of stuff from RT-11 and RSX.
Johnny
On 15-7-2011 0:40, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I'd say no, they are not rare. But it's constantly getting more difficult to find machines as time goes by. No new ones are being built. You either need to find some place that is throwing out old hardware, and those are getting fewer, or else get something from another collector or a dealer.
They're not rare, but they're hard to find...?
- MG
On 2011-07-14 21.49, Mark Wickens wrote:
Are the MicroPDPs (desktop, deskside, rackmount) rare beasts? They seem
to be of a fairly hobbyist-friendly size, although presumably they are
less expandable (much like a VAXstation versus VAXserver I would imagine)
I'd say no, they are not rare. But it's constantly getting more difficult to find machines as time goes by. No new ones are being built. You either need to find some place that is throwing out old hardware, and those are getting fewer, or else get something from another collector or a dealer.
MicroPDP is a designation that don't really say anything about expandability, and is not really comparable to VAXstation vs. VAXserver.
MicroPDP was a designation used for Q-bus machines. Originally they were prepackaged solutions, on which a "micro" version of an OS was designed to run on, but that was only to make a cheaper option available. The full software versions also runs just fine, and you can add any additional hardware on the machine.
Traditionally, "large" PDP systems were the Unibus systems. They are much less "hobbyist-friendly" in size, yes. :-)
The fastest machines produced by DEC were the MicroPDP systems, though.
Johnny
The 11/83 is not as rare as the rest might be. I purchased one (1) on Ebay a year or so ago. It is running in a BA123 enclosure with 2MB of memory and (4) RD54's.
-Steve
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On Behalf Of Joe Ferraro
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 16:44
To: hecnet at update.uu.se
Subject: Re: [HECnet] PDP Ignorance
Although I hate to mention it... I have about 30 micro PDP 11/83's sitting in a lab right beside me; unfortunately they do not (yet... nor might they ever) belong to me... are they, in fact, "rare"?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Mark Wickens <mark at wickensonline.co.uk> wrote:
Are the MicroPDPs (desktop, deskside, rackmount) rare beasts? They seem to be of a fairly hobbyist-friendly size, although presumably they are less expandable (much like a VAXstation versus VAXserver I would imagine)
Mark.
Mark,
Rare - probably depends on where you can look! :-)
RT-11 will run on any of the PDP-11's. The RSX-11 family of OS's has
specific requirements about memory amounts and memory management thus
the SPD should be reviewed. RSTS/E (and M+) require memory management
hardware. If you can find one, the best is probably the 11/73, 11/83 or
11/93 in a BA23 (QBUS) enclosure. These come in either 4, or 8-slot
backplanes. If you really want to experience pain in your electric bill
then the BA123 (also QBUS) with it's 645 watt dual power supplies can
double as a winter heater/loud white-noise generator. These come in a
12 slot backplane configuration.
The Pro-Series of systems could also be looked at for RT-11 and RSX
(P/OS). In this space the Pro-380 is probably preferred. The problem
here is finding a network card (DECNA) that does not cost as much (or
more) than the rest of the system.
Disks on real hardware will be small and slow (an possibly expensive).
On emulated systems they can be much bigger and many many times faster.
The books you have detail the degree of expandability for each of these
HW platforms (except maybe the Pro). You will be surprised at just how
much can be done with these systems. The speed will be another story.
All of these machines have some weight to them. An emulator will be
much faster and in the end easier to deal with. When the PLUTO::
machine is running as an emulated machine it is running with NetBSD and
SimH on a 700MHz Pentium-III, otherwise it is a real PDP-11/23+ (22-bit
backplane). The emulated machine is faster than the real thing, but not
my much. I was going for similar performance so that when I switch
between the two it wasn't that noticeable/painful to return to the
actual hardware.
PLUTO:: configuration (from memory)
BA23 backplane (8-slot version)
PDP-11/23+
4MB memory
FPU chip set (somewhat rare these days)
CIS chip set (extremely rare these days)
2 * RQDX3 controllers - 1 for RD54 and dual RX50 drives (internal) and
1 for RD5x drive (external)
KLESI controller (TK50 tape drive (external)
DELQA NIC
2 serial ports (on main CPU board)
4 serial ports (on DHQ11 board)
RT-11 Languages (from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-11
MU/BASIC-11
BASIC-PLUS/RT-11
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
RSX-11 Languages (also from memory):
MACRO-11
APL-11
BASIC-PLUS-2
FORTRAN-IV (FORTRAN 66 STD)
FORTRAN-77
PDP-11/C
DECUS-C
COBOL-81, COBOL-11
RSTS/E Languages (also from memory):
The same as RSX-11 for the most part.
If you want to have a look around RSTS/E, I can create an account on
PLUTO:: for you to poke around. Just let me know off-list.
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] On
Behalf Of Mark Wickens
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 15:50
To: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Subject: Re: [HECnet] PDP Ignorance
Are the MicroPDPs (desktop, deskside, rackmount) rare beasts? They seem
to be of a fairly hobbyist-friendly size, although presumably they are
less expandable (much like a VAXstation versus VAXserver I would
imagine)
Mark.
Although I hate to mention it... I have about 30 micro PDP 11/83's sitting in a lab right beside me; unfortunately they do not (yet... nor might they ever) belong to me... are they, in fact, "rare"?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Mark Wickens <mark at wickensonline.co.uk> wrote:
Are the MicroPDPs (desktop, deskside, rackmount) rare beasts? They seem to be of a fairly hobbyist-friendly size, although presumably they are less expandable (much like a VAXstation versus VAXserver I would imagine)
Mark.
At 8:49 PM +0100 7/14/11, Mark Wickens wrote:
Are the MicroPDPs (desktop, deskside, rackmount) rare beasts? They seem to be of a fairly hobbyist-friendly size, although presumably they are less expandable (much like a VAXstation versus VAXserver I would imagine)
Depends in whose garage you look. ;-) Having said that, I've not come across any locally for well over a decade, but then I've not been looking.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
Are the MicroPDPs (desktop, deskside, rackmount) rare beasts? They seem to be of a fairly hobbyist-friendly size, although presumably they are less expandable (much like a VAXstation versus VAXserver I would imagine)
Mark.
On 2011-07-14 21.22, Mark Wickens wrote:
OK Johnny,
So to not appear too one tracked, and maybe draw the subject a little
more towards your heart ;)
Since my recent acquisition of various PDP handbooks I've decided to
delve the world of PDPs a little now I've been able to read up on the
(somewhat confusing) model numbers.
Could I have recommendations of where to go in terms of an emulator
(assume linux based), which model and operating system?
What I'd like to do is play with some of the languages, especially but
not exclusively APL, I don't know what software there is out there,
whether licenses are required, etc.
I'm guessing this is all very much before the SPL started...
Thanks for the help, Mark.
Those are not neccesarily easy questions to answer.
As for emulator, simh is free, but I'd say e11 is better. So it depends on your preferences. :-)
They both probably work well enough for your needs, though.
What you want to emulate, though, is something with all the "features" that you might want to use, which means lots of memory, split I/D-space and supervisor mode. This means:
11/44, 11/53, 11/7x, 11/8x or 11/9x machines.
As for operating system, that depends on your preferences. I can't really say what you should go with. An additional complication is that there aren't free licenses for some of the stuff, and it's still commercial products.
Johnny
OK Johnny,
So to not appear too one tracked, and maybe draw the subject a little more towards your heart ;)
Since my recent acquisition of various PDP handbooks I've decided to delve the world of PDPs a little now I've been able to read up on the (somewhat confusing) model numbers.
Could I have recommendations of where to go in terms of an emulator (assume linux based), which model and operating system?
What I'd like to do is play with some of the languages, especially but not exclusively APL, I don't know what software there is out there, whether licenses are required, etc.
I'm guessing this is all very much before the SPL started...
Thanks for the help, Mark.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE [mailto:owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE] Namens
Johnny Billquist
Verzonden: donderdag, juli 2011 20:51
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: Re: [HECnet] Towards the Mouth of Madness....
On 2011-07-14 19.56, MG wrote:
On 13-7-2011 11:32, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Just that the discussions lately seems to have started assuming that
everyone is running VMS. :-)
If so, wouldn't there be a solid rationale behind that thought? VMS is,
by default,
offering DECnet and out-of-the-box. So, for the sake of DECnet and
genuine usage
thereof, it could hence be seen as a big and important player in that
regard, correct?
VMS does not by default offer DECnet. It's a separate license you need
to install.
But yes, VMS is very much associated with DECnet, and DECnet is very
well integrated in VMS.
So it's an important player when we say DECnet.
But it's by no means the only one, or one you have to have, to run DECnet.
But I know that most people know that this is not true. I just felt
like pointing it out. Not trying
to offend anyone.
I don't know what most people know, but I *did* get the impression that
discussion on
VMS would have been allowed or not considered off-topic. So, you'll have
to excuse me
for having participated in that discussion about VMS and related things
and I'll refrain
from doing so in the future in my messages addressed to this mailing list.
Please don't read too much in to it. Talk about VMS is definitely not
banned. I just thought it was becoming perhaps a little too much last
week, considering the normal volume of mail on this list, and reflecting
on the fact that not everyone might be interested.
There were smileys in my mail...
Johnny
-----
DEC asked a pretty hefty fee for the privilege to run DECnet.
If only that license would have been free, and available to 3rd parties,
well then DECnet would have been somewhat more important.
And yes, I realize its design limitations in phase IV.
There were indeed smileys in your mail Johnny! I guess most of us have a
favorite DEC OS. Mine happen to be VMS and RT-11.
RSX-11 just didn't sit well on a PDP-11/40 with one RK05 and a DECtape I
unit.
Hans
On 2011-07-14 19.56, MG wrote:
On 13-7-2011 11:32, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Just that the discussions lately seems to have started assuming that
everyone is running VMS. :-)
If so, wouldn't there be a solid rationale behind that thought? VMS is,
by default,
offering DECnet and out-of-the-box. So, for the sake of DECnet and
genuine usage
thereof, it could hence be seen as a big and important player in that
regard, correct?
VMS does not by default offer DECnet. It's a separate license you need to install.
But yes, VMS is very much associated with DECnet, and DECnet is very well integrated in VMS.
So it's an important player when we say DECnet.
But it's by no means the only one, or one you have to have, to run DECnet.
But I know that most people know that this is not true. I just felt
like pointing it out. Not trying
to offend anyone.
I don't know what most people know, but I *did* get the impression that
discussion on
VMS would have been allowed or not considered off-topic. So, you'll have
to excuse me
for having participated in that discussion about VMS and related things
and I'll refrain
from doing so in the future in my messages addressed to this mailing list.
Please don't read too much in to it. Talk about VMS is definitely not banned. I just thought it was becoming perhaps a little too much last week, considering the normal volume of mail on this list, and reflecting on the fact that not everyone might be interested.
There were smileys in my mail...
Johnny
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 1:51 PM, MG <marcogb at xs4all.nl> wrote:
On 13-7-2011 13:05, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The RS/6000 is just a AIX / random Unix box, whereas the AS/400 is WEIRD.
Personally speaking, I never cared much for AIX myself. IBM also entered
the UNIX
market relatively late (compared to SGI, HP, DEC and so on).
As for the AS/400 platform, now that's an interesting operating system (I
usually
log onto RZKh.de for that) and the type of system that IBM traditionally
peddled.
(A bit like what VMS, RT-11, RSX, etc. were to DEC, later Compaq and HP
now.)
I wouldn't mind having an AS/400 either, it'd make a nice DB2 test
environment.
Especially those physically smaller systems, like the 9401-P03 with the
original
CISC processor (before "System i" and what-not, or whatever IBM calls it
today).
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773 at N02/4468965124/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773 at N02/4468966604/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773 at N02/4468967646/
(The above pictures are of/by the proprietor of IPv7.net, who's also a
'partaker'
in HECnet.)
- MG
Hello!
I agree! I've met my share of these IBM boxes, and that one and two
others seemed interesting.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On 13-7-2011 11:32, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Just that the discussions lately seems to have started assuming that everyone is running VMS. :-)
If so, wouldn't there be a solid rationale behind that thought? VMS is, by default,
offering DECnet and out-of-the-box. So, for the sake of DECnet and genuine usage
thereof, it could hence be seen as a big and important player in that regard, correct?
But I know that most people know that this is not true. I just felt like pointing it out. Not trying
to offend anyone.
I don't know what most people know, but I *did* get the impression that discussion on
VMS would have been allowed or not considered off-topic. So, you'll have to excuse me
for having participated in that discussion about VMS and related things and I'll refrain
from doing so in the future in my messages addressed to this mailing list.
- MG
On 13-7-2011 13:05, Sampsa Laine wrote:
The RS/6000 is just a AIX / random Unix box, whereas the AS/400 is WEIRD.
Personally speaking, I never cared much for AIX myself. IBM also entered the UNIX
market relatively late (compared to SGI, HP, DEC and so on).
As for the AS/400 platform, now that's an interesting operating system (I usually
log onto RZKh.de for that) and the type of system that IBM traditionally peddled.
(A bit like what VMS, RT-11, RSX, etc. were to DEC, later Compaq and HP now.)
I wouldn't mind having an AS/400 either, it'd make a nice DB2 test environment.
Especially those physically smaller systems, like the 9401-P03 with the original
CISC processor (before "System i" and what-not, or whatever IBM calls it today).
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773 at N02/4468965124/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773 at N02/4468966604/
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/31231773 at N02/4468967646/
(The above pictures are of/by the proprietor of IPv7.net, who's also a 'partaker'
in HECnet.)
- MG
Mark,
I'm not sure if it is the version you are looking for:
Take a look at wopr:: (or) telnet://wopr.adelphos.org
login with games / games - I believe it is option G on the menu...
If it is the version you seek, I can send it to you...
Joe
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Mark Wickens <mark at wickensonline.co.uk> wrote:
Is this a creation from one of us? He is hosting the DECUS and Freeware archive - I'm wondering if it's possible to get a copy for HECnet.
I've not quite got my head round how to search for stuff in the decus archives. I was trying to find Classic Empire for VAX/VMS which apparently was ported by DECUS, but the link from the http://www.classicempire.com/ website is now throwing an error: http://www.decus.org/libcatalog/description_html/v00012.html
Cheers, Mark.
