16 Jan
2002
16 Jan
'02
7:29 a.m.
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 17:53, Ethan Dicks wrote:
I think so. The machine comes from a measurement installation of one of
our local gouvernment agencies. They validated beer-keg-volumes
(obviously a very important thing to do in Germany 8-).
So, it was just set up, fired up and left running 'till it has been
replaced in the '90s.
Well, the bean-counters obviously never upgraded VMS on this one, so, my
guess is that the version of VMS installed is the one that has been
deliverede back then.
--- Michael Schneider <ms(a)silke.rt.schwaben.de> wrote:
OK... if you had a newer VAX with the right version on it, you could,
theoretically, get the files you need from that new VAX and run a
serial line to that emulator PC (at a slower baud rate, probably) and
"write" the emulated tape image to your emulator box from the working
VAX, then move the cable, up the speed to 38400, and have the 11/730
feed off of that. The rub is that I don't recall how much of the console
data files are available in the regular SYS$SYSTEM directory structure
and how many I may or may not have pulled from a working tape. The
boot files are just text, short and easy to recreate, even with EDT.
The binary files are the problem.
Especially the file(s) with the CPU's microcode. They are definitively
not part of a standard VMS installation. The VMS tape, i mean.
Otherwise, your method would work, i think.
See below...
Do you
have access to another VAX? I used to cut console tapes all the
time for our 11/730 (k-panda when it was in the UUCP maps) - I still
have it (and the tapes).
Yes, but only newer ones, nothing with a tu58.
The reason for using the other VAX is to use it to easily create the
filesystem on the emulated tape. If you had a way to read the tape
that you do have, you could just put the image on the PC, run the
TU-58 emulator and go.
How true! You see the Catch-22 i'm in? If i had a working tape, i could
make me a working tape-image, so i would not need a working tape
anymore.
> > The tape from DEC was sub-optimized...
>
[snip]
an was cut Jun21/84.
Somewhat old - probably the very original tape that shipped with
the CPU. Unfortunately i do not know the exact VMS version
installed on my
machine, because the only time got it booting i was so exited that
i spoiled my notes. Very un-scientific, i know.
Ah, well.
But i think it is VMS 3.2, IIRC. Or 3.6,
that's the label on my
"standalon backup"-tape.
Hmm... my memory of those days is hazy... I played with 3.6, but that
was as a novice user on an 11/750. We did get an early model 11/730
(order the week they were announced) - that's the one I have in storage.
By the time I touched it, it was running VMS 4.x. I installed Ultrix 1.1
on it at one point (and hooked it to Usenet before the Great Renaming,
but that's another story), and it spent its last years as a linker box
for our product, running 5.x (we fed the objects and asm source to it
via 56K DECnet link, let it chew on the files, then transferred the
binaries back to our VMS 4.6 general-use 11/750 and put them in the tape
build area for making distribution tapes)
I think all I am going to have for it is VMS 4.x and VMS 5.x console
media. I am fairly certain I had my customized tape for booting VMS 4.4
in my hands on Sunday. I know exactly where it is. If that will work
for you, I may be able to help. I honestly do not recall how sensitive
the machine is to console tape version vs VMS version mismatch. I know
we didn't have to change the tapes on minor revs, but I do not recall
if we were forced to change for major revs.
This, i don't know either. I would have to try this.
[snip]
regards
ms
--
Michael Schneider email: ms(a)vaxcluster.de
Germany http://www.vaxcluster.de
People disagree with me. I just ignore them.
(Linus Torvalds)