< RANT_MODE=1 >
Sorry, I never could pass up an internecine fued of the UNIXes.... I'd like
to go on the record. I love AIX. And there are a couple of bullet points
we've missed in our description of it. The most important is its underlying
object repository. This may have been the seed of the AIX vs. AS/400
thread. AIX invented the central system registry long before Microsoft.
That's the engine behind its package and device management. It's the
underlying engine most of the standard admin commands ultimately converse
with. Very un-UNIX - and thank you to the IBM _wunderkinder_ for that.
UNIX is a wonderful thing, but why must we live in a timewarp where
anything not envisioned in the 1980s isn't "real UNIX". Let's move on
shall we? Linux is a good example. It's based on a complete rewrite of
Minix, itself a complete rewrite of AT&T System V. By all means, let's
preserve the vintage, and don't throw the baby out with the bath water. But
why should the UNIX community turn Luddite?
IBM as we've all said, did a rewrite of the kernel. Rather than porting
System V and glomming on some Berkely additions, IBM re-engineered the code
>from scratch. In the upcoming version, they are doing it again to
accomodate even more robust enterprise configurations with sub-CPU LPARs
and mainframe like accounting/management facilities on a rapidly advancing
64-bit CPU design. It's my own assessment they are moving AIX to the top of
the tree for big iron, and moving the zOS hardware toward commodity Linux
VMing. It's a move that follows the market's application development trend
for enterprise systems. Thee development community writes more for big
Unix, so this is perfectly sensible.
Just to keep this post from being too out of thread, I might just mention
my 10 year old 990 and 390 RS/6000s are still wonderful machines to work on
now. I use the 390 as a graphic station (if you could believe it). It scans
and GIMPs with the best of them. Only compression routines make it slow
down. The I/O's faster than the laptop I'm writing this post on.
< RANT_MODE=0 >
Brad Parker <brad(a)heeltoe.com> wrote:
> Just curious - are you using iverilog?
> I wonder about viewing waveforms, however.
Well, it says you can use GTKWave, and I assume it works, but I myself don't
need any pretty pictures: I personally can see whether my logic works right or
not from textual simulation output better than from pics. My brain prefers
text to graphics in absolutely every area of life.
Just out of curiousity, does anyone still have a working drum storage
device? wondering if any working examples have survived...
I have a half-assed plan to try and find one from somewhere at some
point. We have a Sperry unit that's way beyond repair, and don't have
anything other than the drum assembly itself anyway (the bearings still
seem good though so I might see if it can be coaxed into spinning) - but
a working demonstration would be great hooked up to one of the 1960's
I gather that telphone exchanges used to use them here in the UK so
maybe there are still a few lurking in private hands as they must have
been reasonably common at one point. The flipside of course being that
they're pretty bulky devices in themselves, and with the low reliability
they've maybe all gone to scrap years ago (unlike other peripherals of
the area which survived).
Roger Merchberger <zmerch(a)30below.com> wrote:
> >[snip] My brain prefers
> >text to graphics in absolutely every area of life.
> Including Porn??? :-O ;-)
Well, since I'm absolutely loyal to my fiance, I am not interested in porn, but
for those who are, yes you CAN have ASCII porn. Not too long ago I was chatting
on IRC and a gal joined the channel I was on. Some guy asked her if he could
see her tits. She replied:
So ASCII works for porn too.
contact original author with any help or inquiries;
he's not on the cctech list.
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:17:13 -0800
From: Mike Koon <mikekoon(a)comcast.net>
Subject: xxdp v1 handbook,and running pdp11-84
My name is Mike Koon, and I maintain PDP 11-70's and an 11-84 at a west
coast newspaper. We will be removing these running machines any time
between May 1,2004, and August sometime. Are you interested in having
these for your museum? They have an interesting device attached to
them, called a PCL, which was a early DEC networking system. I haven't
talked to the owner, but I would think that they would give them to you.
Let me know.
Also, I am Looking for a copy of the XXDP-11M+ Diagnostic handbook, or
Card. I am looking for the procedure for building a v-1 diag. tape,
from disk, to tape.
Let me know -
der Mouse <mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote:
> Possibly - or perhaps a KA620 is one example of an rtVAX, much as a
> KA630 is an example of a VAX.
You are right of course conceptually. But I'm pretty sure now that KA620 was
the only implementation of the rtVAX architecture.
> My VARM is "Revision 6.1" and is not obviously marked with an edition
1982-05-20, right? I have that one too, it's my first VARM, one of Tim Shoppa's
early gifts to Quasijarus Project. The early VARMs, the EK-VAXAR-RM ones, are
lovely: 100% pure ASCII, except for boldface section headers the book is line
printer output. From the appearance seems to be very close to the DEC internal
VAX spec, DEC STD 032 (though not having a copy of the latter it's an educated
guess). But then they stopped issuing VARMs in that format, and published it as
a book (with ISBN and all, rather than an EK part #). The book version of VARM
had two editions: 1st ed. in 1987 by Tim Leonard (listed as the keeper of the
DEC internal VAX spec in an appendix to another highly secretive DEC internal
spec I have) and 2nd ed. in 1991 by Richard Brunner (wonder what happened to
Tim...). I have acquired both of these books recently. Not having a copy of
the genuine article (the DEC internal STD 032 spec) I have to live with the
published versions instead, so I was trying to acquire as many of them as
possible to complete my mental picture of the complete architecture spec and its
variations. (I'm designing a new VAX CPU chip, so I have to have a very solid
picture of the spec requirements and options and their evolution.)
Would anyone perchance have a copy of the real VAX spec, DEC STD 032 aka
EL-00032-00 aka A-DS-EL00032-00-0?
> I don't recall seeing an rtVAX mentioned in it, and the index
> does not list anything beginning with rt-.
Yeah, of course the 1982-05-20 VARM predates it by a few years.
Brian Chase <vaxzilla(a)jarai.org> wrote:
> The 2nd Ed VARM has a section on rtVAX memory management, 11.2.3 on pgs
> 422-424. I don't yet see any other mentions of it the book to indicate
> whether it actually is designated as the KA620.
Table 8-2 on pp. 331-332 lists the SID code assignments, and 16 decimal is
listed as "rt/uVAX (chip 78R32)". Knowing that 78032 is the MicroVAX II chip,
used in KA630, KA410 (MV/VS2000), and a bunch of other less-known systems (see
the SYS_TYPE codes the same table lists for SID 08), it's pretty obvious that
the rtVAX 1000 listed by the table as being based on this 78R32 is the KA620.
Since the MMU is internal to the CPU chip, the difference between KA630 and
KA620 is in the silicon (78032 vs. 78R32) rather than board-level.
On Apr 1, 9:39, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Tony" == Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Tony> You hope... If the power fails and your NiCd pack isn't any
> Tony> good, then the heads will land on the platter with nasty
> Tony> results...
> NiCd? You must be thinking of the big capacitors (not batteries)
> do the emergency head retract in the event of powerfail.
Erm, in my RK05s there are NiCd packs which provide the power, and no
capacitors in the way.
> Tony> Anyway, the 'ting' when the heads load on an RK05 is claimed
> Tony> be the heads bouncing off the platter, so they may well touch
> Tony> for an instant.
> I rather doubt that. The sound is no different from the "ting" sound
> you hear when the head actuator seeks.
It shouldn't 'ting' on a seek! That's a bad sign.
Pete Peter Turnbull
University of York
Dwight K. Elvey <dwight.elvey(a)amd.com> wrote:
> Does anyone know of w freebee uudecode for windows?
If Weendoze can still run DOS executables, this should work for you:
I still have one that my dad purchased it is still in its original Styrofoam
with manual and all the parts I even have the warrantee page and the page
with the types of cassette players and TVs it is not compatible with and a
program my dad wrote for it my husband was laid off and we need the money or
I would hold on to it. It is the first home computer he ever bought I
remember going with him to get it
Let me know if you are still interested in it and how much you might be
willing to pay for it I can send you a picture if you wish