Has anyone ever described the OS/8 version history?
I have some DECtapes that are V3D and I have found some RX01 images
>from the V3D Combined Kit. The programs that are common to both are
different versions, so V3D changed over time.
Then there were the DECmates and there were changes made to support
them. I see V4 referenced.
There are also some sources online, but it isn't clear how they
correspond to the usable device images.
I have been looking at these online resources mostly, but I have found others.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-8http://www.pdp8.net/
Are there other better resources? Are there source distributions in
the original state for example?
>From what I have seen, the combined kit has the best support for the
PDP-8/e and its devices. That's the hardware I have and so that is
what I am concentrating on.
Hoping to trigger some conversation.
-chuck
So, looking at the list of 'wanted pages' on the Computer History' wiki:
http://gunkies.org/wiki/Special:WantedPages
the top page or so of entries are all about various Vaxen.
Is there a volunteer our there to sign up as an editor there (note:
applications have to be approved, which can take a couple of days, due to
busyness on the part of the admin) to start writing up VAX content?
Noel
yes this is mentioned in the pamphlet...
Ed#
In a message dated 12/9/2016 12:57:01 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
billdegnan at gmail.com writes:
> It's curious that the emulation feature, which adds software emulation
of
> those instructions, isn't mentioned, and in fact I haven't seen it
> mentioned anywhere.
And don't have any spares on the shelf. The title on this just was funny,
maybe it's time to crash, since it's late.
VINTAGE-DEC-DIGITAL-Empty-case-of-the-VAX-VMS-exceptions-interrupts-CASE-ONLY-/
http://www.ebay.com/itm/291941009551
(posted for levity, no warning on this posting)
So, does anyone know of any documentation (especially engineering drawings)
for the M8728, which is the 256KB board for the MK11 (originally), also later
useable in the VAX-11/750 and VAX-11/730?
The M8728 and M8750 are in fact the same PCB, with different DRAMs (16K or
64K) and different jumper configurations, and since M8750 prints are extant,
most of the M8728 is documented, but the M8728 also has some discrete
components that the M8750 lacks (I think to produce voltages used by the
earlier DRAMs that the later ones don't).
Yes, I could work this all out by tracing leads, but I'd rather not!
I have produced a table of all the jumper differences, etc and will be
creating a page to document all this, but actual documentation for the M8728
would be helpful.
Noel
PS: Does anyone know the formal names for the M8728? The 64KB board, the
M7984, is the MS11-K, but I don't know the one for the larger one (if it was
ever assigned). The M7850 seems to be called the MS750/MS730 (per the prints).
>
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:57:08 -0700
> From: Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
> on
> > it. Output for an XY scope?
> >
>
> Extended-length Multibus. Definitely not Multibus II, which uses Eurocard
> 6Ux220 form factor with two 96-pin DIN 41612 connectors.
>
The components are on the wrong side of the board for a Multibus.
If I remember correctly, DY 4 Systems, now part of Curtiss-Wright, made
extended depth Multibus boards.
Michael Thompson
> From: Torfinn Ingolfsen
> Where to should one send account requests? There doesn't seem to be a
> registration page on that wiki.
Per the note on the main page:
http://gunkies.org/wiki/Main_Page
on the right hand side, one needs to send email to Tore (toresbe at gmail.com),
because they'd had spammer issues.
> I tried sending an email to Tore a while back .. but haven't got a
> response.
He's often very busy - try sending him a reminder.
Noel
Hi,
recently I acquired a 1980s Typewriter, a Brother TC-600.
While not exactly a classic computer, this typewriter was often used as a
low cost printing terminal (aka teletype).
It has a serial interface and I was able to connect it to my PC. I can SEND
characters and text files to a terminal program. However I have not found
out how to receive something back. Ideally it should print out what the host
sends. On the internet I found a manual for the Brother EP-44 which is
similar, but not identical.
Does someone have a manual for the TC-600?
Thanks,
Martin
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] Im Auftrag von cctalk-
> request at classiccmp.org
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 19:00
> An: cctalk at classiccmp.org
> Betreff: cctalk Digest, Vol 30, Issue 7
>
> Send cctalk mailing list submissions to
> cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cctalk-request at classiccmp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> cctalk-owner at classiccmp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cctalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Double Buffer RK11-C (Fritz Mueller)
> 2. Re: UNIBUS/QBUS interface chips Was: Re: MEM11 update (allison)
> 3. Re: Intel C1101A (allison)
> 4. Re: Double Buffer RK11-C (Paul Koning)
> 5. Could somebody please help me identify this board? (Chris Pye)
> 6. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board? (Jon Elson)
> 7. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board? (Chris Pye)
> 8. Miniscribe 6053 HD PCB needed (Mike Stein)
> 9. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> (Mike van Bokhoven)
> 10. Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> (Eric Smith)
> 11. Have lunch with Lee Felsenstein (Evan Koblentz)
> 12. Wanted: Terminator for an RL02 (Tom Moss)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:56:38 -0800
> From: Fritz Mueller <fritzm at fritzm.org>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Double Buffer RK11-C
> Message-ID: <DF227289-9352-4646-8339-72E2640AF202 at fritzm.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
> >
> > [data fetch] can't be off-loaded onto a separate interface unit, as it
needs
> access to
> > register contents held in the CPU.
>
> Yeah, it?s pretty interesting! My guess would be that it was a separate
> register/command oriented interface, sitting on the Unibus, and didn?t
actually
> interface directly with the 11/20 CPU? Such an interface could limit the
> instructions ?fed? to the FPU to those accessing its internal registers,
etc. But
> who knows? :-)
>
> I?ve gotten quite deep into the design of the FP11-B and associated KB11-A
> interfacing during my debug (which is how I noticed all the 11/20 refs in
the
> docs, circuitry, and microcode), but I?m pretty ignorant of the 11/20
having
> never worked on one.
>
> > I wouldn't be surprised if there's some microcode in the KB11 to support
those
> memory operations.
>
> Yes, there certainly is ? quite a bit of it actually. The are F/CLASS
branches off all
> three of the A, B, and C forks.
>
> ?FritzM.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:24:21 -0500
> From: allison <ajp166 at verizon.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: UNIBUS/QBUS interface chips Was: Re: MEM11 update
> Message-ID: <8d451f35-e495-5feb-86b4-e0b0992ed2d7 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 12/6/16 10:05 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
> > On 2016-12-06 1:34 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:53 PM, allison <ajp166 at verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A bunch of us old digits (former dec engineers) got together and were
> >>> talking
> >>> about old systems and the thing that stood out is a general dislike
for
> >>> having
> >>> to use the limited set of bus interface chips when there were newer
> >>> parts. It
> >>> was a internal mandate not something that was better than could be
had.
> >>> The
> >>> logic was the parts were known, the vendors vetted for quality and
> >>> reliability
> >>> and when you use hundreds of thousands to millions of a part like bus
> >>> interface
> >>> and ram quality is a critical thing. Were they special, a flat no.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't fully agree. The receivers (and transceivers) had a threshold
> >> voltage that is not available with modern parts, and that actually was
> >
> > I'm an electronics noob, but do you mean a threshold of 1.5V, as with
> > DS8641?
> >
> I'm not a noob. I'm an engineer from the the realm of DEC engineering.
>
> I also forget the 74LS14 hex inverter with hysteresis which has a
> threshold about 1.5V
> depending on whos datasheet you believe.
>
> Bottom line is the older parts has a low Vih and a high Vil with a
> resulting narrow noise immunity.
> Increasing the Vih helps this and the driver/bus combo can support it.
> The yabut is if the drivers
> have leakage then attaining Vih on the bus is problematic as the leakage
> was a undesired pull down.
> The 8xxx parts used were screened for low leakage with output is in the
> high state (open as they
> are open collector). The bus loads assert the Voltage high state and
> that is above 2.3V so the only
> limiting factor then is excessive capacitive loading which smears pulsed
> by RC time constant. The
> other issue with slow edges is where the edge really is and that adds
> uncertainty to timing. All
> of those things were allowed for in the design of the bus.
>
> The voltage your hung up about was tested to insure it was never lower
> than that or the noise
> immunity was terrible. Its companion was was that the saturated device
> in the package could
> also achieve the limit or less or a low voltage at the rated current, at
> that time (late 60s early 70s)
> this was a hard parameter to control.
>
> The bottom lime is the better the logic high voltage and logic low
> voltages achieved the greater
> noise immunity. Adding hysteresis insure that a hig is high and a low
> is low and not some random
> analog voltage inbetween (or oscillation!).
>
> As to any slew rate testing the issue was that devices that could sink
> the needed current were also
> slow as sludge and had to be tested to insure they were fast enough not
> that they would have a
> slow propagation time and switching speed as that was also a undesired
> in systems where fast
> is important. Bottom line is the datasheet and purchase spec was to
> insure the part worked to or
> better than expected rather than implying magical properties.
>
>
> Allison
>
> > I'm referring to this part of October's thread:
> > http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/2016-October/028871.html
> >
> >
> > --Toby
> >
> >
> >> important for large systems with multiple bus segments. That was
> >> particularly important for large Unibus systems, but even Qbus with
only
> >> two bus segments can get finicky when heavily loaded.
> >>
> >> DEC could easily have made custom interface ICs if they had needed
them.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, *no* current production interface ICs have the right
> >> threshold. It's
> >> hard to meet the spec without using either NOS parts or comparators.
> >>
> >> It would certainly be possible to build a functionally equivalent bus
> >> with
> >> modern interface ICs, and it might have significantly better
> >> performance,
> >> but it wouldn't be compatible with the legacy systems.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:27:22 -0500
> From: allison <ajp166 at verizon.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic Posts" <cctech at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Intel C1101A
> Message-ID: <33d486b9-62b2-a536-82d5-c9b61c41c71e at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 12/6/16 11:46 AM, Brad H wrote:
> > I kind of thought that might be a possibility. I might just let things
lie for a
> while.. I was concerned about stock disappearing, didn't think about price
> tripling. Not sure I want to spend $1400 for 1K of RAM on a clone. :)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Corey
> Cohen
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:27 AM
> > To: General Discussion: On-Topic Posts <cctech at classiccmp.org>
> > Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> > Subject: Re: Intel C1101A
> >
> > I do notice these "schlock" IC sellers actually raise the price the more
"hits"
> they get on an item. So your shopping around will actually make the price
worse
> and my even cause your earlier vendors to raise their price when you
finally do
> place an order.
> >
> > corey cohen
> > u??o? ???o?
> >
> >> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:00 PM, jim stephens <jwsmail at jwsss.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 12/4/2016 3:29 PM, Brad H wrote:
> >>> The supplier (a different one from the one I first used) that quoted
> >>> me on C1101A for the second round sent me a picture.. exact same 'lot'
or
> 'job'
> >>> number as the ones I have. So perhaps even that may not be
meaningful?
> >>> What are the odds I'd hit the exact same dates from two different
suppliers?
> >>>
> >>> I'm thinking it's*fairly* safe to assume white ceramic is pre-76, at
> >>> least.. but yeah.. might be impossible to ever really know. I'm just
> >>> wondering why the price jumped to $40+ each all of a sudden!
> >> Brad,
> >> a very large number of schlock IC sellers all communicate with each
other.
> They all have a continuous stream of wants or needs that they exchange.
but
> they make their own prices. The probability is that you may have hit the
original
> stocking guy with your first query. Querying any others will result in
them
> looking at the wants that others shared, or buys, and he saw someone else
had
> it and quoted you the same info.
> >>
> >> I know this happens as I know two guys who trade in all manner of stock
all
> the time like this and have for 35 to 40 years.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> Jim
> Considering the first 1101s I ever bought in the early 70s were around
> 12-14$ each in small volumes (24-48).
> By the mid 1975s they had dropped to a buck or so as there were faster
> and denser parts. But then the first 2102s
> cost me about 14$ in early 74 so that was the way it was.
>
> Allison
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 16:13:43 -0500
> From: Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Double Buffer RK11-C
> Message-ID: <E3C0D8A7-1B50-4877-97E1-7E930FDD07A7 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> > On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:56 PM, Fritz Mueller <fritzm at fritzm.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 6, 2016, at 7:51 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
> >>
> >> [data fetch] can't be off-loaded onto a separate interface unit, as it
needs
> access to
> >> register contents held in the CPU.
> >
> > Yeah, it?s pretty interesting! My guess would be that it was a separate
> register/command oriented interface, sitting on the Unibus, and didn?t
actually
> interface directly with the 11/20 CPU? Such an interface could limit the
> instructions ?fed? to the FPU to those accessing its internal registers,
etc. But
> who knows? :-)
>
> I don't know anything of a DEC product along those lines, but a college
> classmate of mine (Bill Black, Lawrence Univ. class of 1975) built a
floating point
> coprocessor for our PDP11/20 that was a Unibus peripheral. I helped with
the
> software interface. The device had 4 registers, two for source and two
for
> second source and result. They appeared at several different bus
addresses;
> you'd select the operation to perform based on which address you used.
The
> device would start when the 4 source words had been loaded, then a read
cycle
> of the result register would simply be held off until the operation was
done
> (since it would complete well within the SSYNC timeout).
>
> The implementation took, if I remember right, one hex-sized wire wrap
board.
>
> paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 10:57:03 +1000
> From: Chris Pye <pye at mactec.com.au>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <BE8ACBED-16AE-4C35-B519-33E5DF0FFEF7 at mactec.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2016 20:32:10 -0600
> From: Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com>
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <584774AA.2050400 at pico-systems.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>
> On 12/06/2016 06:57 PM, Chris Pye wrote:
> > I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
> on it. Output for an XY scope?
>
> Jon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 12:40:49 +1000
> From: Chris Pye <pye at mactec.com.au>
> To: elson at pico-systems.com, "General Discussion: On-Topic and
> Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <00BE5D7E-6202-4D62-851D-FAA884636B7A at mactec.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> > On 7 Dec 2016, at 12:32 pm, Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/06/2016 06:57 PM, Chris Pye wrote:
> >> I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Chris
> > It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
on it.
> Output for an XY scope?
> >
> > Jon
>
> Thanks Jon
>
> If anybody wants it, they can have it for cost of postage. I am in
Brisbane
> Australia, so it?s probably going to be costly outside AU..
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 21:58:24 -0500
> From: "Mike Stein" <mhs.stein at gmail.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Miniscribe 6053 HD PCB needed
> Message-ID: <074CFFA13AFF454581BCC3E1EEEC5306 at 310e2>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi all,
>
> I accidentally dropped something on a Miniscribe 6053 44MB HD and cracked
> the board; looks pretty dense and tricky to repair so I'm hoping that
there's a
> kind soul out there somewhere who happens to have a 6053 doorstop and can
> spare the circuit board for a good cause?
>
> Removing the board shouldn't impair the door-stopping capability in any
way...
>
> Mike (in Toronto)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:18:36 +1300
> From: Mike van Bokhoven <mike at fenz.net>
> To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID: <ed5f1e6c-2028-d7dc-88ea-5090430b2e8b at fenz.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 7/12/2016 1:57 p.m., Chris Pye wrote:
> > I?m moving my collection and found this board amongst some others.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM
> <https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0m4VYF4tIU5aXJMSHBwUDJMUWM>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
>
> It's a Compugraphics board of some sort, I think. Couple of AD or DAs,
> etc. I know nothing about these, just recognised the logo.
>
>
> Cheers - Mike
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:57:08 -0700
> From: Eric Smith <spacewar at gmail.com>
> To: elson at pico-systems.com, "General Discussion: On-Topic and
> Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: Could somebody please help me identify this board?
> Message-ID:
> <CAFrGgTTLic5hnQRwpDjAc-
> syKRd13cpTtbU0ZC3d41dAFaw=hQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jon Elson <jonelson126 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It appears to be an extended-length Multibus II board with 2 8-bit DACs
on
> > it. Output for an XY scope?
> >
>
> Extended-length Multibus. Definitely not Multibus II, which uses Eurocard
> 6Ux220 form factor with two 96-pin DIN 41612 connectors.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 02:34:26 -0500
> From: Evan Koblentz <cctalk at snarc.net>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Have lunch with Lee Felsenstein
> Message-ID: <42f12b6a-d3ab-8739-2d83-0f7f420145eb at snarc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Only 12 hours left to bid on lunch with legendary computer engineer Lee
> Felsenstein! This benefits Vintage Computer Federation, a 501(c)3
> non-profit devoted to enabling collectors, growing the hobby, and
> spreading awareness of computer history. Please see
> https://www.charitybuzz.com/catalog_items/lunch-for-3-with-personal-
> computing-social-media-icon-1198500.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 16:10:16 +0000
> From: Tom Moss <tomjmoss at googlemail.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Wanted: Terminator for an RL02
> Message-ID:
> <CAN69K+bG2C4xg5i7N_Vyc7gvGVYd7otHJwwqg2Rp4CytokhqfA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi All,
>
> Does anyone have a spare RL02 terminator for sale?
>
> Regards,
> -Tom
>
>
> End of cctalk Digest, Vol 30, Issue 7
> *************************************
Hiya guys,
Quick question, I can't find what I'm doing wrong.
I sysgen'd a XM monitor with Multiterminal Support on RT-11 V5.7:
.sh conf
RT-11XM (S) V05.07
Booted from DL0:RT11XM
22 bit addressing is on
USR is set NOSWAP
EXIT is set SWAP
KMON is set NOIND
RUN is set NOVBGEXE
MODE is set NOSJ
TT is set NOQUIET
ERROR is set ERROR
SL is set OFF
EDIT is set KEX
FORTRAN is set FORTRA
KMON nesting depth is 3
CLI is set DCL, CCL, UCL, NO UCF
PDP 11/94 Processor
4088KB of memory
Floating Point Microcode
Extended Instruction Set (EIS)
Memory Management Unit
60 Hertz System Clock
Device I/O time-out support
Multi-terminal support
UNIBUS mapping enabled
Then from AA-M240E-TC - RT-11 System Generation Guide
Section C-4:
Assigning a Remote Line as the Console Terminal
You can customize your FB, XM, and ZM monitors to allow a terminal connected
through a dial-up line to be used as the console terminal. The
multiterminal software
will answer the line when called (provided appropriate modem hardware is in
place)
and connect the remote terminal to the system as the console terminal.
In this customization, monitr.SYS is the name of the multiterminal monitor
file that
you wish to modify, and ..CRMT is the value of that symbol from the monitor
link
map.
.RUN SIPP RET
*monitr.SYS RET
Base? 0 RET
Offset? ..CRMT RET
Base Offset Old New?
000000 ..CRMT 020000 0 RET
000000 ..CRMT+2 xxxxxx
CTRL/Y RET
* CTRL/C
.
So I find from the RT11XM.MAP that .CRMT is offset 144414:
.run sipp
*RT11XM.SYS
Base? 0
Offset? 144414
Base Offset Old New?
000000 144414 020000 0
?SIPP-E-Exceeds program limit
Offset?
System Messages Manual states:
"Explanation: The location being examined or modified is beyond the end of
the program.
User Action: SIPP returns with the OFFSET? prompt and does not discard any
previous changes. The current open location is not modified."
But how can that be as the RT11XM.MAP is coming from the most recent SYSGEN?
With kind regards,
Obliviscor
