> From: Paul Koning
> RSTS/E of course has a bunch of new stuff in it to deal with mapping,
> but the bulk of the code carries over from RSTS-11.
I was assuming that the basic intermal environment was sufficiently different
that not a lot of the OS-level code could carry over, but I guess not.
DId you actually work on RSTS-11 internals (I don't know your exact dates at
DEC), or did you just read the source?
And speaking of which, are any RSTS-11 sources still extant? I found the RSTS
directory on BitSavers, but it seems to have only manuals.
Noel
I'm trying to figure out what were the earliest Type numbers for 3M ?-inch reel-to-reel computer tape
As best I can find, 3M began marketing a Type 777 computer tape about 1967. The Type 700 appears to be somewhat later. But 3M sold computer tape directly to at least government customers (e.g. NSA, Social Security) in the 1950s. The also notably OEMed tape to IBM who rebranded it under an IBM label until the late 1960s at which point with the help of Sony IBM began manufacturing its own computer tape.
Anyone have any idea of the Type number for 3M computer tapes earlier than Type 777?
There might be a place for some of these older Types at the CHM if anyone knows of any still in existence.
Tom
PS: There is a lot of information on 3M audio tape Type numbers as at http://www.aes.org/aeshc/docs/3mtape/aorprod-cust.pdf but computer tape seems to be an orphan
Please copy cctalk/cctech on any responses to Peter.
J
From: Peter Dick <peter at balvine.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 4:34 PM
To: jwest at classiccmp.org
Subject: RSTS/E has just had its 50th Birthday...
Hi. I stumbled on your wonderful PDP11.ORG website.
As I expect you know, RSTS was ?born? on 11th June 1970 as shown when you print DATE$(1%) with Star Date format selected.
This means RSTS/E, the Greatest Operating System ever, has just turned 50 years old.
We would like to mark this historic moment by collecting a total of 50 memories from those of us who used RSTS/E at some time, obviously the earlier the better. Or if you are still running old Basic Plus code, then the later the better! I will then collate these memories and email them out to everyone who takes part.
What memories? It doesn?t matter. Funny / technical / life changing / surprise / show how times have changed / whatever ?
Length? It doesn?t matter. Your name will be included but not your email address unless you specifically want it included.
Please email contributions to 50years at silverware.co.uk <mailto:50years at silverware.co.uk>
Bye/P
Peter Dick, ex Chairman DECUS UK RSTS SIG.
> The file is empty.
Not much I go do except stop trying and advise people to ignore all this.
I've just downloaded the file from my site, and it is NOT empty
and does work.
I did notice a small bug, if you specify names not in it's database
it doesn't tell you, and produces no output. I have corrected it.
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal site: http://dunfield.maknonsolutions.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PROM in my 9114B committed suicide this morning, letting the magic smoke out. It was marked with part number 09114-15521, does anyone happen to have dumped the contents so I can program a new one? Thanks.
Thanks JayI'm am not trying to use DS/1000 just trying to get the 7974 loader going.Grant
-------- Original message --------Grant wrote....------------------------Hi all, i am looking for a loader rom set for my 21mx and does not seem tobe around at the usual places, I am hoping to find a leed.Here is what i am in need of.12992L consisting of12992-8001191740-8007091740-8007191740-80072there is a set of 91740 on bit savers but with a suffix of 67-69 ?------------------------Pretty sure I have a binary copy of all known 12992's, the ones I use I justburn out to a set of blanks. The 7974 loader rom uses the boot loaderextension firmware for DS/1000. Are you actually running ds/1000?? I haven'tseen anyone get that up and running.I'll see if I can dig up the bin (or an already burned chipset).J
This eBait item:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/202989416368
has a number of VAX-11/785 manuals, including /785 Hardware User's Guide. A
bit outside my scope, but /785 docs are very rare (Bitsvers only has prints)
so a VAX person should grab this and then scan them.
Noel
As part of my project to create a Field Programmable Gate Array
implementation (FPGA) of the IBM 1410 Data Processing System based on
Automated Logic Diagrams (ALDs), I decided to look at using the
Instructional Logic Diagrams (ILDs) to guide my testing, rather than
using the ALDs directly.
The ILDs are written completely in ?positive logic?. Going in, I sort of
expected a pretty imperfect match ? that the ILDs would not have all the
signals, and be somewhat superficial in their treatment of the logic.
For the IBM 1410, the circuits were:
AND, OR, Inverter, Indicator (Lamp), Single Shot,
Latch (Reset/Set), Trigger (Flip Flop)
To my surprise I found that the ILDs are *VERY* accurate, and a great
testing guide, providing a second view of the logic ? a kind of
redundancy check against my entry of ALD data into my system. They are
good enough that they have given me considerable confidence that I can
use them to help ?fill in the blanks? related to the handful of ALD
pages I am missing, and also for some of the IBM 1414 peripheral
controllers for which I do not have ALDs.
In 1962 IBM published an article in the IEEE Transactions ?Information
Processing ? from Engineering Drawing to Manufacture? by R. K. Grim that
describes how the data the ended up generated ALDs was entered and the
ALDs produced, but it does not mention where the ILDs come from. They
are definitely artwork ? not machine generated per se. The article did
not address ILDs.
I have corresponded with IBM to see if they might have, in their
archives, the data from these 1960s era engineering systems, but it
seems that they do not (or have lost the pointers to them.)
It seems that the SMS automation was first done using an IBM 709, then
they later added IBM 7090 and IBM 1401 systems (which of course could
not have been there for the original design of the IBM 7090 and 1401,
which used the SMS system), using tape files. The article also describes
future plans to use a 1301 disk drive attached to an IBM 1410 for remote
(tele-processing) access (which was supported by the IBM 1410-PR155
operating system.
The accuracy of the ILDs is such that I expect that they evolved along
with the design of the machine and entry of the data used for the ALDs.
I?d expect that doing it after the fact, from the ALDs, would be quite
error prone ? besides the one difference I have found is in the signal
names, which do not always exactly match those used in the ALDs, but are
close enough that the intent is obvious. But I don?t know the timing:
which came first ? the ILDs or the ALDs, or did they perhaps begin
together in some form and co-evolve?
In summary, it seems to me that one could do a pretty decent positive
logic implementation of IBM machines of that era using these ILDs. This
was a real eye-opener.
If there are any old-time IBMers that read this, I'd love to hear any
enlightening information or stories about this process.
JRJ
A friend kindly searched and found an interesting paper from 1973,
Programming by semantic refinement
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/390014.808298> JB Morris - ACM SIGPLAN
Notices, 1973 - dl.acm.org.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/390014.808298
While an interesting paper, it's going the opposite direction (essentially,
going from an English language description down to a final programming
language).
But, using the L1 (highest level language), L2, ..., Ln (lowest level
language) concept, I can phrase my concept better ... so ...
Most programmers write at, say, the level of L3.
They might write something like:
mem [foo].head = something
My "raising the semantic level" would be:
#define HEAD(x). mem [x].head
...
HEAD (foo) = something
With a fair set of macros like that (HEAD, TAIL, etc), the program is now
effectively written in a "new" language, L2 (a higher level language than
L1).
Being written in L2, the resulting code is more readable to everyone,
partially because they aren't continually seeing the implementation of how
".head" / "mem" work/interact.
In effect, the programmer has added a feature (linked list handling,
perhaps) to L3 ... for that particular program, seemingly extending/raising
the level of the language.
It's that concept that I thought I saw sometime in the early 1970s :)
thanks,
Stan
