15 Mar
2011
15 Mar
'11
6:06 a.m.
Michael Thompson wrote:
From: Johnny
Billquist <bqt at softjar.se>
All I can add about operating systems related to the original question is that unless I
remember wrong, CTS-300 and CTS-500 were based on RSTS/E (basically RSTS/E and hardware
bundled together as a complete solution).
I think that CTS-300 ran on RT-11, and CTS-500 ran on RSTS/E. You
could not compile a Dibol program on CTS-300 without shutting down the
main application. On CTS-500 it was easy to compile and debug online.
from the lowest priority (background) job.
As a consequence, your statement that it would not be possible to
"compile a Dibol program on CTS-300 without shutting down the
main application" would apply to every RT-11 main application
which ran as the background job - which would probably be 99%
of all applications that run under RT-11.
In fact, even the MACRO-11 assembler which runs under RT-11
lacks the additional code (at least the DEC version does - I have
since corrected that problem - well almost since one really confusing
bug still exists) to run as a system job whenever a cross-reference
table is requested. As a result, the DEC version of MACRO-11
can be run only as a background job and if the main application
must also include the background job, then MACRO-11 also can't
assemble any programs if the main application is running.
My point is that RT-11 and RSTS/E are vastly different operating
systems, each with its own area of advantages and disadvantages.
In some applications, RT-11 is essential. In others, only RSTS/E
is satisfactory. TSX-Plus combined the advantages of both of
these operating systems, but was not always the perfect solution.
Jerome Fine