> > I didn't mean to say it wasn't. Just that you made it sound like
> > one could completely replace a 390 with a peesee.
> A 360 you could. a 370 soon, and thats doing emulation
> on the bare metal a PC is faster than the total run of
> 360's ever built combined many times over, and that
> includes the I/O.
What, even a 360/91 (I guess there weren't too many, in
fact, did anyone besides Columbia get one)?
I am looking for the console bulkhead pinout and the DIP switch
description of the M8190 / KDJ11-B PDP11 QBus CPU module. I had a look
at the micronotes and googled around, but found nothing.
Also: The board seams to be revision C1 (stamped on the handle). Does
this mean I can not add a FPA? I am a bit confused because there is only
"KDJ11-B" written on the board and micronote 39 lists the "KDJ11-BC" as
FPA incompatible. field-guide.txt contains no "KDJ11-BC" and lists only
the "KDJ11-B 11/84 CPU" UniBus CPU as FPA incompatible.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raymond Moyers [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Well the newer ones are getting better, the new fridge sized
> boxes require a fraction of the cooling the old ones did
I know, but power is somewhat expensive for me anyway ;)
> getting small, a IBM 3864 modem was a hefty 30 pounds or so.
Seen the "I put the nut on a rock, and I hit it with the modem"
> So what i said was correct, the herc emu is emulating the majority
I didn't mean to say it wasn't. Just that you made it sound like
one could completely replace a 390 with a peesee. If that's the case,
you (rather, the people who own the 390 in question) should have never
used a 390 in the first place.
> of all that stuff, dasd,, tapes,, card deck with an emulated
> "reader" the 3174's and the terminals, that campus full of stuff
> running virtualized on your PC.
One day I'll actually get around to trying it.
> at the time when the press would talk about NT everywhere when
> it was knowwhere, i guess doing their part to create the illusion
> of "everyone else, why not you?"
You mean NT finally got somewhere? :)
> > I don't know exact numbers, but honestly, the CPU in a modern peesee
> > isn't the weak spot at all. Generally there's some kind of
> > (or five) that needs repaired in the design.
> Well a decent modern board is no slouch there either really
The boards aren't, but the disk I/O on most "consumer" systems is
pretty bad, for instance. It should be possible to get better I/O
out of them, especially if there are (as I hear) AMD boards with
> You cant really trash PC I/O anymore, its right up there
> with everything else and surpasses all the old workstations,
Might be a dangerous statement. There have been some pretty
impressive workstations. Add that to the fact that some people
consider a one-year-old machine "old."
I won't argue that peesee hardware hasn't advanced. it's literally
mind-blowing what they've done with it, given the origins of the thing.
I just wish they'd started with a nicer architecture to begin with.
> current PC I/O dont compete with a current mainframe,
> but what ever did ?
Well, other current mainframes, of course, possibly -- as you mentioned
-- supercomputers, too.
> There has been really large R&D sums spent on pushing PC
> performance. and its starting to show bigtime.
I'm sure. Just imagine what they could have done by pouring all of
that cash into Alpha.
> In a way, comparing a mainframe to a PC is like a coal train to a
> dodge viper, sure the viper is faster, but lets see how well it
> does hooked to 80 hopper cars full of coal eh ?
I'll go along with that.
> > a supercomputer at all. When is "yesterday" in this context? :)
> Well litteraly yesterday, dreamworks, pixar etc is going all linux
> for their stuff and the supercomputers people talk about these
> days on the www.top500.org list are linux clusters.
All? I haven't checked top500 recently, but there were certainly a
few non-clusters in the top 20 last time I looked.
My trouble with clusters is that they're not "tightly coupled" enough
to make them very interesting to me, generally. Sure, they'll solve
problems, but again, I/O is the bottleneck.
> Another example, look at www.ltsp.org, they are netbooting old
> retired PC's used a diskless xterminals and hanging up to 200
> of them off a modern machine that the apps run on.
I've considered doing something like that just for fun, and it's
interesting, but as far as being a "cluster," I'm not sure it would
qualify in my book. :) Or did you mean it as an example of something
> It saves them bucks, and a machine not bloated down
> to a 486 with winblows can hump a good load these days.
Windows is up to 486 performance now? You wouldn't know it to use
windows 2k on the pentium 5xx at work.
> > Your comment about mainframes having "stayed small" is
> oddly amusing,
> Stay small they did, sure the linux kernel tree has grown with the
They've certainly "gotten small," in hardware. I can't argue that the
software isn't efficient, either.
> in-tree driver count and branches for all the different hardware,
> the same tree builds for a sun alpha or s390.
It's not so much the size of the tree that bothers me in general with
Linux, but the size of the finished kernel. I do still use it
occasionally on <on topic> hardware, and it really annoyed me when I
had to start using the bzImage target for make ;)
I don't think it's in the drivers, either, but in the kernel somewhere,
that it's gotten larger. There could be a good reason for it, but I'd
like to see some of the stuff optionally removed so that my kernels can
go back to being a few hundred kbytes uncompressed.
Admittedly, loadable modules help.
> but the resultant built kernel has not grown much over the years,
> same for the mainframe, sure it has lots of services hanging around
> it but its core also has stayed very trim.
In relation to the memory capacity of the hardware on which it runs,
you're absolutely right. I'd still like to see it trimmed some.
> One important object of kernel development is for the code to
> get smaller and faster consistent with the other goals.
> Linux, the BSD's and IBM's top line operating systems have
> done well here.
I can't name any non-microsoft product that hasn't done ok.
> My firewall DNS mail www and other sundres is still running on an
> old 486 EISA machine, and its just as happy running the same
> kernel and userspace as the 1000mhz linux box with the
> nvidia 3D card, runs fast on slow machines, runs all the faster
> on fast machines.
I hope you re-compiled specifically for the CPUs. There are some
optimizations that the compiler could make differently for 486 vs.
Pentium (I assume it's 100Mhz Pentium) that could make a difference
> The agenda for mickysoft dumbf**kware n co, however, seems
> to be ""cover up any hardware performance gains ( and existing
> hardware) with bloat, forcing the market to buy new boxes
> and end up with no gain at all.""
Agenda? I don't know about that. I honestly don't care what microshaft
is thinking. The result, though, is as you say.
> My main beaf with x86 is register starvation, at least AMD is doing
> something about it.
Ok, this is floating off-topic again, but do you mean in their
64-bit core, or in some 32 bit chip?
> c++ for example, eats a register for "this" and on a register
> starved cpu it hurts far more than others that have more
> registers, this type of thing is perhaps why some fare well
> by compare despite slower clock speeds.
There's always "virtual registers."
> Its hard to ignore raw speed however, what the x86 lacks
> archtectually its seems to be making it up with brute force.
That's true. I won't argue that it's not effective, but it's the
wrong way to do it ;)
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
>What's the "right" way to add networking to the MAC?
Just add the card
>I'm not inclined to buy
>into standard Ethernet, since I've got 100Mbps and am looking to move to the
>bleeding edge for educational purposes. Is there any >10Gbps stuff one can
>add? How about just the 100 Mbps?
There are 10, 100, and 1000 cards available, but the 1000s are only for
the newer PCI based Macs. That isn't to say you can't lay your hands on
the Mac cheap (a 7200 can be had for nearly free)... but the giga card is
likely to cost you far more than the Mac did.
You can get 100 cards for NuBus... Farallon made one... but they are a
little tough to come by. If you are looking to get a Mac and not use the
630, then get a PCI based Mac... 10/100 cards can be bought for those
easy (and some of your off the shelf brands support the Mac... like SMC
sells one of their cards and offers Mac drivers on their web site).
I don't know of anything faster than a 10Mb for the LC slot in your
630... at that point, you are better off getting a cheap 10/100 switch
and just use the 10Mb card.
>I'm also looking for a recommendation for a decent but not too rare or
>expensive 56K dialup modem that's also fax-capable.
Just about any external modem will work with a Mac. Take your pick... all
the major brands work fine.
>I've noticed that there's software out there for doing
>long-distance jibberjabber between computers on the internet. If I equip one
>of these babies with that and send it to my S.O's sister in Portland, they
>yack without running up the long distance bills. That's easily going to pay
>for an older MAC in a week or so.
Find a cheap Power PC mac (these can be had almost for free these days
for low end ones). Make sure it is a PCI one (check apple.com's hardware
specs to see which ones)
> One thing that I've wondered is how one gets an old MAC to talk on the
> Ethernet when it's a mixed environment with Netware and Windows NT
> know Netware has a provision for MAC namespace, but I've only seen one
> ethernet-capable MAC, which leaves me wondering how folks who use MACs
> an ethernet interface.
Nuvolink made a box, SCSI interfaced Ethernet, 10-base-2 and AUI.
The Quadra 700 was a slight modification to the Mac IIci.
The IIci didn't have Ethernet; the Q700 did. The IIci was a
1990 machine. Q700 was probably late '91 or early '92.
Not sure therefore what you mean by "old". May have been
e-net boards that clamped down on the 68k chip like the
hard drive upgrades and the 1st Radius FP display, but
once SCSI was in place, you had that. But shortly thereafter
you have e-nat on (almost) every Mac.