test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by mbg＠world.std.com

>It's looking like there is something with the way I ran a SYSGEN a few >days ago. It turns out that I can't even boot the SJ monitor, and the FB >monitor won't let me install the EQ driver. However, the XM monitor >which I didn't even touch will let me install the EQX driver. I don't know the restrictions for EQ (under TSX, I suppose), but having been the designer and implementer of the ethernet drivers under RT-11, I can tell you that they won't run under SJ and FB. By the time we started working on Ethernet, the target system for most installations was XM. When I started working on the design for the ethernet drivers, there were several factors which guided the decision to be XM-only: 1) It was procedural to add and remove buffer descriptors from the ring -- you had to ensure that the adapter would not use one while the driver was working on it 2) Receive buffers had to essentially always be available or performance would have been abyssmal. 3) There was a recommended minimum number of receive buffers, or again, performance would suffer. 4) Maximum sized receive buffers were required or we would have had to support buffer chaining (which would have added to the size and complexity of the driver code, and as anyone familiar with RT knows, low memory is at a premium -- and moving them to high memory was not available under SB/FB) So, since we had to have a minimum of 6 receive buffers, at the maximum size (1600 bytes), that would have been just over 9kbytes, and we haven't even added the space for the code. This was unacceptable for SB/FB. It was decided that they would be supported under XM only. >I think my next step is to either redo the SYSGEN on the SJ and FB >monitors, or to copy over the XM versions of the TCP/IP software. I'll >probably copy over the XM versions first. Unfortunatly we've got a >downtime at work tonite, so I've got to go into work in the next hour and >most likely won't be able to try this tonite :^( I don't think you have to do this... TSX doesn't use the exact same xx.SYS drivers that SB/FB use, it uses rebuilt ones with a file type of .TSX So, as long as your TSX sysgen includes the driver, it should be available... And remember, TSX essentially takes over the machine, kicking the former OS (RT-11 SJ) out of memory... Megan Gentry Former RT-11 Developer +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com | | Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com | | Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' | | 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ | | Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler | | (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

27 years, 8 months

Unix for 8080/Z80? [Re: WooHoo!! PC/XT Unix anyone?]

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Allison J Parent wrote: <> Unix didn't always have the idea of virtual memory. See Minix for an <> example of that also V4 and maybe V5 unix didn't either. < <I would expect that the original PDP7 that ran UNIX didn't have VM... No it didn't. I'm fairly certain that VM didn't appear until V7 on pdp-11 or maybe later. The fact of the matter is there have been 8bit unix impmentations. The idea that there is only 64KB is just means more reliance on things like overlays or paging/swapping. Also many of the mid 80s 6809 and z80 system had some kind of MMU to support large address spaces. The Z180 was good for 1mb with it's MMU and most of the paging schemes for s100 permitted anyware from 512k to 16mb. the late z280 allowed 16mb space using a paged MMU and added I&D space along with user/system spaces. The latter I&D space (instruction and data spaces) were features only found on the upper models of PDP-11 (11/44,11/45,11/60 and 11/70 and the J11 chip based systems 11/73 and 11/83). With I&D space and user/system space VM was supportable. Allison

27 years, 8 months

OT: Y0K problem??

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

> >(Translated from Latin scroll dated 2 BC) > >Dear Cassius: > >Are you still working on the Y zero K problem? This change from BC to AD is giving us a lot of headaches and we haven't much time left. I don't know how people will cope with working the wrong way around. Having been working happily downwards forever, now we have to start thinking upwards. You would think that someone would have thought of it earlier and not left it to us to sort it all out at this last minute. > >I spoke to Caesar the other evening. He was livid that Julius hadn't done something about it when he was sorting out the calendar. He said he could see why Brutus turned nasty. We called in Consultus, but he simply said that continuing downwards using minus BC won't work and as usual charged a fortune for doing nothing useful. Surely, we will not have to throw out all our hardware and start again? Macrohard will make yet another fortune out of this I suppose. > >The money lenders are paranoid of course! They have been told that all usury rates will invert and they will have to pay their clients to take out loans. Its an ill wind.... > >As for myself, I just can't see the sand in an hourglass flowing upwards. We have heard that there are three wise men in the East who have been working on the problem, but unfortunately they won't arrive until it's all over. > >I have heard that there are plans to stable all horses at midnight at the turn of the year as there are fears that they will stop and try to un backwards, causing immense damage to chariots and possible loss of life. Some say the world will cease to exist at the moment of transition. Anyway, we are still continuing to work on this blasted Y zero K problem. I will send a parchment to you if anything further develops. > >If you have any ideas please let me know. > >Plutonius > > >

27 years, 8 months

Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

by dburrows＠netpath.net

We also need to keep in mind that the PDP11/93 was available new until approx. 1 year ago. Dan

27 years, 8 months

Unix for 8080/Z80? [Re: WooHoo!! PC/XT Unix anyone?]

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<IIRC, adding virtual memory support to UNIX was the project goal for the <CSRG at Berkeley. That was what BSD Unix was all about, and it was why the <kernel image was /vmunix vs. the /unix which was the prior kernel image nam <--Chuck That also answers the part of the question of what/why is BSD significant? Allison

27 years, 8 months

mac tool

by lemay＠cs.umn.edu

Does anyone know where I can get the tool you need to use to crack open teh case of an old MacIntosh? I seem to recall that in addition to special torx tools, probably one with an extra long shaft, that you needed something to pop the case open... I'd like to upgrade the tiny hard drive in a mac se, and maybe in a mac plus 1 Meg, to use a 250 meg scsi drive. Any idea if these units will run system 7? -Lawrence LeMay

27 years, 8 months

Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

by KFergason＠aol.com

> > 2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's > > just an indisputable fact. :-) > I disagree. (with both) Interesting, maybe not. but the original PC and Mac are both classic. I could agree that very few types of PC (or Mac's) were/are classics. My opinion: The original PC, AT, are classics. A Packard Bell 286 or the Commodore Colt is not. The Mac 128 and Macintosh II are classics. The Plus, SE, etc, are just more usable. IMHO, Kelly

27 years, 8 months

Legitimacy of the Ten Year Rule.

by allisonp＠world.std.com

<1. Ten years is just a guideline. If something is only 9 years old, < I won't much mind hearing about it. I might even like it. But if I happen to like that. < it is only two or three years old, there must be a surviving < users-group or something. Go find it, or start your own, but please < don't clutter up my mailbox with it. Generally PCs with 486 or Win3.1 and later are not discussion fodder for here, too new and current. <2. Nothing PC- or Mac-compatible can ever be classic. Sorry, that's < just an indisputable fact. :-) I draw a line based on two things early 386 or older and uniqueness. There are many clones but a few were very unique and interesting of themselves. An example is the Leading Edge Model D I have or the Kaypro ProPC both Xt class and a bit different. <5. The ten year rule should apply to the date when a thing dropped off < in popularity; if it was still in common use eight years ago, it is < not yet classic. (Justification: if it is still in common use, < there will be other places to discuss it.) Humm. This one is tough. We talk about VAXen and the MicroVAX is only about 14-15 years old and some models do persist but they are uniquly new compared to others. Example, we wouldn't be talking about 6xxx series as the oldest ones are early 90s. However BA123 based Microvaxen introduced in the 80s were still made in the early 90s and are able to run current version of the OS. They are old enough to be of interest. Another example is the DECMATE-III sold up to the early 90s but they are related too. Why, they run OS/278 and WPS both legacy software. The keys are OLDness, UNIQUEness and desireability. I'm sure there are technical aspects that would qualify like machines with unusual word length or the like but, they should be 80s or earlier in introduction or common use. So long as it's related to the collecting, preserving and discussion centered around older machines there is little conflict. Just my small cash investment in opinion. Allison

27 years, 8 months

ReLiability of wrong media (was: is out of 5-1/4" diskettes

by manney＠hmcltd.net

>THAT is something that we are all more likely to agree with! If IBM ran >a doughnut shop, how many WOULD be in a dozen?? Not only that, what would a doughnut look like? They'd redesign that, too. And make in incompatible with existing doughnut boxes.

27 years, 8 months

classic printer on an iMac

by jim＠calico.litterbox.com

Hi all. Just thought I'd let you know about a cool product I've found. My father, who up until this time has been running various apple2 computers, (which is how I got into classic computers as a hobby, by the way) just acquired an iMac. All is well and good except he wants to run his Sears Epson fx85-alike from it. And as I discovered, the official Epson USB-Parallel adapter doesn't do anything that far back. So whilst at CompUSA last night I happened across InfoWave's PowerPrint USB - Parallel adapter. After some checking to see if they claimed to support old Epson 9pins, I bought it. Plugged it into the USB port on my wife's mac, asked her to load the software, plugged it into my own Epson LX800 - which uses the same driver - and it printed perfectly. It's a bit of a mess to UNINSTALL, if you don't have extention management loaded, but my wife is a mac power user and eventually got things cleaned up. It's not cheap, - about a hundred bucks US - but even more than classic computers, classic printers don't wear out, and with this package there's no need to replace them just because you got an iMac. Their web page is at www.infowave.com, and it lists what printers the software, PowerPrint, supports. Apparently they also make a Mac-serial to parallel adapter, and the USB version is just ported over from the software from that. -- Jim Strickland jim(a)DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there? -----------------------------------------------------------------------

27 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb