Found this on Wiki:
"The VT61 and VT62 were block-mode terminals. The VT62 was to be used in conjunction with TRAX, a transaction processing operating system on high-end PDP-11's. They used the same cabinet but had a more complete custom processor. Application-specific behavior was coded in separate PROM memory, using a separate instruction code that the processor interpreted. "
Any idea where we could get a copy of TRAX? Then it's just a matter of running it on a PDP-11, emulated or real..:)
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
On 28 Sep 2013, at 02:36, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
What can be done (non-destructive suggestions only, please) with a VT-62? This is NOT a VT52 (although it looks like one). The VT62 is a block mode terminal that, I think, actually speaks DDCMP. AFAIK it's incapable of being a plain ASCII terminal unless there's some hack I'm unaware of.
Right now the only thing I can think of is to part it out as spares for my VT52. I have two of the latter and it looks like at least some of the major assemblies - CRT, keyboard, power supply - are identical. I hate to do that, though, if there's a better use for it.
---
Bob
Hello!
I certainly hope so. I don't like VT-52s much. The later terminals
sure, but that model........
Where did you read that blurb about a PDP-11 OS (RT-11?) doing graphics on a 62?
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com> wrote:
Doesn't the VT-62 do graphics?
I was reading about some PDP-11 OS (RT-11?) where they used 62's as graphical terminals.
I say we try to build something funky for it - I'm game if there's any documentation on its protocols..
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
On 28 Sep 2013, at 02:36, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
What can be done (non-destructive suggestions only, please) with a VT-62? This is NOT a VT52 (although it looks like one). The VT62 is a block mode terminal that, I think, actually speaks DDCMP. AFAIK it's incapable of being a plain ASCII terminal unless there's some hack I'm unaware of.
Right now the only thing I can think of is to part it out as spares for my VT52. I have two of the latter and it looks like at least some of the major assemblies - CRT, keyboard, power supply - are identical. I hate to do that, though, if there's a better use for it.
---
Bob
Doesn't the VT-62 do graphics?
I was reading about some PDP-11 OS (RT-11?) where they used 62's as graphical terminals.
I say we try to build something funky for it - I'm game if there's any documentation on its protocols..
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
On 28 Sep 2013, at 02:36, Bob Armstrong <bob at jfcl.com> wrote:
What can be done (non-destructive suggestions only, please) with a VT-62? This is NOT a VT52 (although it looks like one). The VT62 is a block mode terminal that, I think, actually speaks DDCMP. AFAIK it's incapable of being a plain ASCII terminal unless there's some hack I'm unaware of.
Right now the only thing I can think of is to part it out as spares for my VT52. I have two of the latter and it looks like at least some of the major assemblies - CRT, keyboard, power supply - are identical. I hate to do that, though, if there's a better use for it.
---
Bob
What can be done (non-destructive suggestions only, please) with a VT-62? This is NOT a VT52 (although it looks like one). The VT62 is a block mode terminal that, I think, actually speaks DDCMP. AFAIK it's incapable of being a plain ASCII terminal unless there's some hack I'm unaware of.
Right now the only thing I can think of is to part it out as spares for my VT52. I have two of the latter and it looks like at least some of the major assemblies - CRT, keyboard, power supply - are identical. I hate to do that, though, if there's a better use for it.
---
Bob
No b4gate doesn't run DECNET.
Pyffle is hooked up to both but doesn't do mail gatewaying, it's just an end node.
But a gateway to UUHECNET over UUCP would be nifty, I mean most UUHECNET nodes have FQDN addresses anyway which can be reached over SMTP, but still, it'd be cool..
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
On 27 Sep 2013, at 22:58, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Just saw your post on EISNER, do we have bridge from HECnet to UUHECNET?
I wasn't aware, I thought all the traffic went over to b4gate over TCP..
Oops. I thought b4gate was acting as a DECnet UUCP gateway. Once I get a monitor or a new part for my VS4000 I can bring that up.
I've been toying with the idea of getting DECUS UUCP working and plugging that into UUHECNET but it's there yet.
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Sampsa Laine wrote:
Just saw your post on EISNER, do we have bridge from HECnet to UUHECNET?
I wasn't aware, I thought all the traffic went over to b4gate over TCP..
Oops. I thought b4gate was acting as a DECnet UUCP gateway. Once I get a monitor or a new part for my VS4000 I can bring that up.
I've been toying with the idea of getting DECUS UUCP working and plugging that into UUHECNET but it's there yet.
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
Just saw your post on EISNER, do we have bridge from HECnet to UUHECNET?
I wasn't aware, I thought all the traffic went over to b4gate over TCP..
I've been toying with the idea of getting DECUS UUCP working and plugging that into UUHECNET but it's there yet.
sampsa <sampsa at mac.com>
mobile +358 40 7208932
On 09/27/2013 04:06 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Ahh ok. Well, if I run the 11/24, I obviously won't be running
that
stack. :) I may run an 11/44 instead.
Running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 (the only systems without I/D space that
M+ supports) is perhaps not the most wonderful experience anyway. Since
you don't have split I/D-space on those systems, system pool becomes
really scarce. And that is not fun.
An 11/44 is so much better.
Yeah I suppose so.
I've never run Plus on anything. I've run plain M on lots of stuff
though; it's fine on an 11/23. I guess Plus is a lot heavier for all of
its additional functionality.
Depends on what you mean by "heavier". The performance is mostly better,
the capabilities are much greater, and it's much more user friendly and
fun. But it takes loads of more memory for all of this.
Actually better performance, even with all those neat features? Wow,
that's surprising and nice to hear...Very nice! I really need to do
something with Plus.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 2013-09-27 21:29, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 09/27/2013 01:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
Ahh ok. Well, if I run the 11/24, I obviously won't be running that
stack. :) I may run an 11/44 instead.
Running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 (the only systems without I/D space that
M+ supports) is perhaps not the most wonderful experience anyway. Since
you don't have split I/D-space on those systems, system pool becomes
really scarce. And that is not fun.
An 11/44 is so much better.
Yeah I suppose so.
I've never run Plus on anything. I've run plain M on lots of stuff
though; it's fine on an 11/23. I guess Plus is a lot heavier for all of
its additional functionality.
Depends on what you mean by "heavier". The performance is mostly better, the capabilities are much greater, and it's much more user friendly and fun. But it takes loads of more memory for all of this.
Johnny
On 2013-09-27 21:10, Lee Gleason wrote:
Running M+ on an 11/23 or 11/24 (the only systems without I/D space
that M+ supports) is perhaps not the most wonderful experience anyway.
Since you don't have split I/D-space on those systems, system pool
becomes really scarce. And that is not fun.
I read in old issues of the MultiTasker that it didn't take much to
get M+ to run on an 18 bit address space non I&D system.
It is actually easy to do, and the code will recognize pretty much any CPU at boot time. But you need to poke into [200,200]SGNPREFIX.CMD, and enable it. Which implicitly means you'll have an unsupported system.
They did mention that there wasn't a lot of pool left...
I can imagine, but I have never tested it.
Haven't had occasion to try it yet.
An 11/44 is so much better.
Without a doubt - the next best thing to an 11/70.
Yes. Nothing comes close to the satisfaction of an 11/70. :-)
Johnny
