1:03 p.m.
>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron> Were there any PDP11's as small as the DECmate III?
PDT 110?
paul 
1:13 p.m.
To the best of my knowledge the smallest possible
PDP-11 made out of
real hardware would be a 4-slot dual-height backplane, with a
There is a Q-bus box called a BA11-V, which is the same size as as the
stand-alone TU58 tape drive (and indeed is designed to stack with said
drive). It contains a 4-slot backplane (I assume Q18) and a little power
supply.
It was used in the UK for something called 'York Box' which linked
machines (mostly VAXen and PERQs) to the X25-based JANET network. IIRC
the standard set of cards was an SBC21, MSV11 (whichever is the 64K byte
(OK, 32K word ;-)) version, DPV11 (to link the X25 side) and DRV11
(parallel interface to the host, you could also have a serial link using
one of the ports on the SBC21).
I suspect that is one of the smallest 'official' PDP11s.
-tony
1:44 p.m.
At 06:03 PM 9/19/2004, you wrote:
How big is a PDT-11/110? My PDT-11/150 is quite a bit
larger than a
DECmate III.
To the best of my knowledge the smallest possible PDP-11 made out of real
hardware would be a 4-slot dual-height backplane, with a dual-height CPU
(ideally a PDP-11/73), DLV-11J (providing console port), 3rd party disk
controller w/bootstrap (preferably SCSI). That would leave room for one
additional dual-height board. You'd have to figure out the power-supply
and how to wire up any disk or tape drives. I'd build something like
this, if I had the backplane, but I don't.
The smallest DEC PDP-11 that I'm aware of is the PDP-11/03, but you've got
to add a external drive of some sort.
For people where a system the size of a BA23 is an issue, your best bet is
going to be to simply run under emulation. In my case it isn't the size
of the systems so much that is an issue, it's how much space all the
documentation I have takes up!
What about the VT103, a VT100 with bigger power supply and 4 slot QBus
backplane.
Ed K.
1:46 p.m.
What about the VT103, a VT100 with bigger power supply
and 4 slot
QBus backplane.
A VT103 isn't exactly small, the VT100 portion on its own takes up
quite a bit of space. Then you've got to do something about drives.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
2:09 p.m.
>>>> "Zane" == Zane H Healy
<healyzh(a)aracnet.com> writes:
> >>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson
<ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
Ron> Were there any PDP11's as small as the DECmate III?
> PDT 110?
>
> paul
Zane> How big is a PDT-11/110? My PDT-11/150 is quite a bit larger
Zane> than a DECmate III.
Zane> To the best of my knowledge the smallest possible PDP-11 made
Zane> out of real hardware would be a 4-slot dual-height backplane,
Zane> with a dual-height CPU (ideally a PDP-11/73), DLV-11J
Zane> (providing console port), 3rd party disk controller w/bootstrap
Zane> (preferably SCSI). That would leave room for one additional
Zane> dual-height board. You'd have to figure out the power-supply
Zane> and how to wire up any disk or tape drives. I'd build
Zane> something like this, if I had the backplane, but I don't.
For standard modules, that sounds right.
It would be interesting to check the size of the LA120 electronics
module. That has a PDP11 (T-11) on it, I believe.
paul
4:14 p.m.
"Zane H. Healy" wrote:
How big is a PDT-11/110? My PDT-11/150 is quite a bit
larger than a
DECmate III.
Jerome Fine replies:
I seem to remember that a DECmate III and the PRO350 are the
same size and even look similar??? Is this true?
To the best of my knowledge the smallest possible
PDP-11 made out of
real hardware would be a 4-slot dual-height backplane, with a
dual-height CPU (ideally a PDP-11/73), DLV-11J (providing console
port), 3rd party disk controller w/bootstrap (preferably SCSI). That
would leave room for one additional dual-height board. You'd have to
figure out the power-supply and how to wire up any disk or tape
drives. I'd build something like this, if I had the backplane, but I
don't.
You seem to be missing MEMORY??? That would be the fourth dual
height board.
The smallest DEC PDP-11 that I'm aware of is the
PDP-11/03, but
you've got to add a external drive of some sort.
As far as I understand, some backplanes that handle the PDP-11/03
can't handle the 11/23 or the 11/73. But some might be able to
handle all 3 CPU types. Are you aware of this problem and which
backplanes are in which category?
As for an external hard drive, for the VT103, even a 5 1/4" full
height hard drive can be placed under the tube - I have done
so VERY successfully, although a 3rd party disk controller
(dual RQD11-B from Sigma with onboard boot ROMs) was
required since an RQDX1,2 quad uses too much power and even
the RQDX3 has no boot ROMs.
For people where a system the size of a BA23 is an
issue, your best
bet is going to be to simply run under emulation. In my case it
isn't the size of the systems so much that is an issue, it's how much
space all the documentation I have takes up.
Even for RT-11, the full set of DOCs is about as large as a VT100
and BA23 combined. And that is just the DOCs for RT-11 and
2 or 3 layered products like FORTRAN.
As you mention, I now rarely used the real PDP-11 hardware since
E11 run RT-11 at about 15 times the speed of a PDP-11/93 on a
750 MHz Pentium III under Windows 98 SE. Since I am an addict
for RT-11, where I run the software is not important. Having E11
is a GREAT improvement - THANK YOU John Wilson!!!!!!!!!
at http://www.dbit.com/
Using the emulation solution to run PDP-11 programs will mean,
at the very least, that software is just as important as the hardware.
BUT, be aware that it may be necessary to use SIMH in the
future since E11 is an x86 based solution, as far as I understand,
unless John Wilson ports E11 to a new platform.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
5:04 p.m.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 09:14:11PM -0400, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
I seem to remember that a DECmate III and the PRO350 are the
same size and even look similar??? Is this true?
Nope. The DECmate III is about the size of a MicroVAX 2000, approx (from
memory) 5" tall, 9" wide, 12" deep, *much* smaller than, say, full-sized
desktop like a PC 5150 (original IBM PC).
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 20-Sep-2004 01:40 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -77.7 F (-61.0 C) Windchill -112.6 F (-80.3 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 8.80 kts Grid 062 Barometer 688.9 mb (10293. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
6:09 p.m.
I seem to remember that a DECmate III and the PRO350
are the
same size and even look similar??? Is this true?
The DECmate II, DEC Professional and the DEC Rainbow all used the
same style case. The DECmate III, and III+ use the same style as the
VAXstation 2000, and some external RZ5* SCSI drives, and the external
TK50 drives.
Even for RT-11, the full set of DOCs is about as large
as a VT100
and BA23 combined. And that is just the DOCs for RT-11 and
2 or 3 layered products like FORTRAN.
But when you're like me and have 3 different sets of RT-11 doc's, 1
1/2 sets of RSX-11M doc's, an Ultrix-11 set, a RSTS/E doc set, as
well as a lot of hardware doc's, and a few VMS Doc sets... All this
takes the more space than a few racks!
Of course then there are my 3 racks, various chassis, and boxes of
spare boards.
Using the emulation solution to run PDP-11 programs
will mean,
at the very least, that software is just as important as the hardware.
BUT, be aware that it may be necessary to use SIMH in the
future since E11 is an x86 based solution, as far as I understand,
unless John Wilson ports E11 to a new platform.
I'm pretty much to the point I agree that Emulation is the best way
to go. It generates less heat and noise, and takes less electricity
and room. In the hobbyist arena, very few people need specialized
interfaces.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
6:20 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
I'm pretty much to the point I agree that Emulation is the best way to
go. It generates less heat and noise, and takes less electricity and
room. In the hobbyist arena, very few people need specialized interfaces.
Not allways is faster better, remember as you get faster lots more bugs
develop because of timing problems. The other problem is you don't have
that many single board computers, that have a reasonably fast cpu on them
at reasonable cost.
Zane
7:31 p.m.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 08:09:28PM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
The DECmate II, DEC Professional and the DEC Rainbow
all used the
same style case.
Agreed. Might not be identical in size, but same style for sure.
The DECmate III, and III+ use the same style as the
VAXstation 2000, and some external RZ5* SCSI drives, and the external
TK50 drives.
Not so sure about this one. I disagree on the drives vs CPUs, at least
in the case of the external TK50s. I have several of these 'Leprechaun'
boxes (most with dead PSUs, but that's another story). They are only
wide enough to take a slab PSU mounted up on edge next to a 5.25" device
on a BA-23-type skid, with up to 3 ports on the back, directly behind
the drive. One or two are external TK50s, one is an external RX50 unit
for my RUX50 controller (purchased new for an 11/750 by the previous
owner).
The DECmate III(+)/MicroVAX 2000 case has a boxier PSU and is wider as a
result, in addition to taller, since the main board is above the drive,
making the the ports stick out over a cutout on the back of the case
and face the floor, not the wall.
I will agree that these are all of similar 'shoebox' proportions, not
'desktop' proportions like the DECmate II or PRO, but there are enough
differences that I hesitate to call them the same style as each other.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 20-Sep-2004 04:20 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -81.7 F (-63.2 C) Windchill -116.7 F (-82.59 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 8.4 kts Grid 078 Barometer 688 mb (10325. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
22 Sep
22 Sep
7:39 a.m.
How big is a PDT-11/110? My PDT-11/150 is quite a bit
larger than a
DECmate III.
Both the PDT-11/110 and PDT-11/130 are built into VT100 cases, so
that is what they are the size of.
The PDT-11/150 is a separate box which is an 8" floppy drive wide,
about 12" high and about 14" deep.
To the best of my knowledge the smallest possible
PDP-11 made out of
real hardware would be a 4-slot dual-height backplane, with a
dual-height CPU (ideally a PDP-11/73), DLV-11J (providing console
port), 3rd party disk controller w/bootstrap (preferably SCSI). That
would leave room for one additional dual-height board. You'd have to
figure out the power-supply and how to wire up any disk or tape
drives. I'd build something like this, if I had the backplane, but I
don't.
You forgot memory...
And the box exists, it is a BA11-VA (the Shoebox).
The smallest DEC PDP-11 that I'm aware of is the
PDP-11/03, but
you've got to add a external drive of some sort.
But that is a 4 x 4 backplane... so it is 19" wide (with the
attached power supply).
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL,ST| email: mbg at world.std.com |
| Member of Technical Staff | megan at savaje.com |
| SavaJe Technologies, Inc. | (s/ at /@/) |
| 100 Apollo Drive | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Chelmsford, MA 01824 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (978) 256 6521 (DEC '77-'98) | required." - mbg KB1FCA |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
19 Sep
19 Sep
2:38 p.m.
Ron Hudson wrote:
Were there any PDP11's as small as the DECmate
III?
Jerome Fine replies:
Please define "small"!
In terms of actual physical size, probably the PRO325, PRO350
and PRO380 systems are about the same size as a DECmate III
system.
But if you want a system which is even smaller, then place a Qbus
backplane INSIDE a VT100 terminal which then becomes a VT103
computer. Even if you count the Qbus backplane as the PDP-11
portion, overall it is still smaller than the DECmate III or the PRO
series. AND since the space occupied by the Qbus backplane
in a VT103 is NORMALLY empty, then the actual EXTRA physical
size of the PDP-11 portion might be considered to be ZERO.
By the way, the Qbus backplane in a VT103 can be either 2 * 4
or 4 * 4. I have seen BOTH, although ONLY one of the former.
The 4 * 4 Qbus backplane can hold either 4 quad Qbus boards or
8 dual Qbus boards or any combination. NOTE, however, that
the power supply is VERY inadequate - the 5 volt supply has ONLY
16 amps for EVERYTHING - including running the VT100 portion
of the system.
Even so, as a test case, at one point I had the following boards:
KDJ11-BB or M8190-YB or a quad board
Cristlin quad 4 MBytes of memory
M8029 RX02 controller or a dual board
3rd party MFM controller RQD11-B for an RD53 or a dual board
with MSCP emulation and onboard bootstrap
DHV11 8 port serial quad board
In order to use all 4 MBytes, 4 extra wires were used to modify
the DEC backplane to handle all 22 bits. The standard Qbus
DEC supplied backplane in a VT103 handles only 18 bits. The
extension to 22 bits was also needed to use the Sigma RQD11-B
MFM controller, or at least that was what seemed to have been
necessary to solve the problem when the standard 18 bit DEC
backplane was used.
Since I did not run the system for more than 15 minutes, I don't
know if the 16 amp limit on the 5 volts was adequate. I placed
the RD53 under the monitor inside the VT103. When I wanted
to run for a longer period, I removed the DHV11 and ran the
RD53 from an external power supply in order to reduce the load
on the internal power supply as much as possible.
Many other configurations are also possible with a VT103,
including the use of a TU-58 drive from DEC - which is
NOT recommended since RT-11 takes too long just to boot.
In your opinion, since the space inside a VT100 occupied by
the Qbus backplane to turn the VT100 into a VT103 (plus
a few other needed parts) is normally empty, does a VT103
qualify as a PDP-11 of ZERO size - or is the Qbus backplane
the actual size of the PDP-11? From my point of view, the
VT100 portion of the VT103 should not be considered to
be part of the PDP-11 since some terminal is essential to run
any PDP-11 like system, even if it is a separate monitor and
keyboard which is used by the PRO350.
Any other questions?
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
2:48 p.m.
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 07:38:08PM -0400, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I would say that the PRO series is about 2x the size of a DECmate III.
Perhaps you are thinking of a DECmate II? (it's about the same size
as a Rainbow, both of which are, ISTR, slightly smaller than a PRO;
I'd measure mine, but they are at home).
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 19-Sep-2004 23:40 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -81.5 F (-63.1 C) Windchill -111.1 F (-79.5 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 5.9 kts Grid 080 Barometer 689.3 mb (10277. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
Ron Hudson
wrote:
Were there any PDP11's as small as the
DECmate III?
Jerome Fine replies:
Please define "small"!
In terms of actual physical size, probably the PRO325, PRO350
and PRO380 systems are about the same size as a DECmate III
system. 
7:16 p.m.
On Sep 19, 2004, at 4:48 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 07:38:08PM -0400, Jerome H.
Fine wrote:
>> Ron Hudson wrote:
>
>> Were there any PDP11's as small as the DECmate III?
>
> Jerome Fine replies:
>
> Please define "small"!
Around the same size as a Decmate III, from pictures I have seen it
looks like it
could be about 1'wide x 5" tall x 2' deep, somewhat the same size as a
Mac2ci.
I have a shelf near my desk that a PC sized machine would fit on.
In terms of actual physical size, probably the PRO325, PRO350
and PRO380 systems are about the same size as a DECmate III
system.
I would say that the PRO series is about 2x the size of a DECmate III.
Perhaps you are thinking of a DECmate II? (it's about the same size
as a Rainbow, both of which are, ISTR, slightly smaller than a PRO;
I'd measure mine, but they are at home).
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 19-Sep-2004
23:40 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -81.5 F (-63.1 C) Windchill -111.1 F
(-79.5 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 5.9 kts Grid 080 Barometer 689.3 mb
(10277. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov
http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
20 Sep
20 Sep
12:39 p.m.
Ron Hudson wrote:
Were there any PDP11's as small as the DECmate
III?
Jerome Fine replies:
I asked this question at the bottom of one of my replies,
but it seems that it has not been addressed at all.
I presume that even a DECmate III requires a user
interface (normally called a terminal / monitor+keyboard)
to be useful!
Based on that assumption, may the user interface be
considered as a separate piece of hardware?
(a) If the answer is yes, then can it also be assumed
that anything placed inside the terminal does NOT
add to the overall size?
(b) If the answer is NO, then can it be assumed that
the total combination of (terminal + DECmate III) is
the actual size to be compared?
Until the above assumptions can be clarified, there
is no point is trying to decide what is the smallest
PDP-11. I still contend that is likely to be the VT103,
but the VT103 might well be larger than a very small
laptop or other device used as the user interface
plus the DECmate III.
From a rather humorous point of view, the first time
I demonstrated the use of the VT103 with a hard
disk drive inside back around 1990 when a plain
VT100 was still a well known terminal, almost no one
believed that I could be running a complete PDP-11
system with what looked (on the outside) as if I had
just a VT100 INCLUDING a hard disk drive!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
3:13 p.m.
On Sep 20, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I have an HP terminal I can use, or I can use my PC laptop with it's
serial port. Whatever I start looking for it should support RSTS/E
Ron Hudson
wrote:
Were there any PDP11's as small as the
DECmate III?
Jerome Fine replies:
I asked this question at the bottom of one of my replies,
but it seems that it has not been addressed at all.
I presume that even a DECmate III requires a user
interface (normally called a terminal / monitor+keyboard)
to be useful!
Based on that assumption, may the user interface be
considered as a separate piece of hardware?
(a) If the answer is yes, then can it also be assumed
that anything placed inside the terminal does NOT
add to the overall size?
(b) If the answer is NO, then can it be assumed that
the total combination of (terminal + DECmate III) is
the actual size to be compared?
Until the above assumptions can be clarified, there
is no point is trying to decide what is the smallest
PDP-11. I still contend that is likely to be the VT103,
but the VT103 might well be larger than a very small
laptop or other device used as the user interface
plus the DECmate III.
From a rather humorous point of view, the first
time
I demonstrated the use of the VT103 with a hard
disk drive inside back around 1990 when a plain
VT100 was still a well known terminal, almost no one
believed that I could be running a complete PDP-11
system with what looked (on the outside) as if I had
just a VT100 INCLUDING a hard disk drive!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
3:33 p.m.
Ron Hudson wrote:
On Sep 20,
2004, at 2:39 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I presume that even a DECmate III requires a user
interface (normally called a terminal / monitor+keyboard)
to be useful!
I have an HP terminal I can use, or I can use my PC laptop with
it's
serial port. Whatever I start looking for it should support RSTS/E
3:48 p.m.
On Sep 20, 2004, at 5:33 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
OK, but do you OR do you not COUNT the terminal
as part of the total size when using a DECmate III system?
Ok, I am looking for the form factor of a box and an external terminal.
The box for the Decmate III looks like it's about 1.5'w x .5'tall x
2'deep or
somthing like that.
I would probably be using my PC Laptop as a terminal (1 to save space,2
to provide for
a "paper tape" (save to file, paste from file)
I suppose what I would want to know is what can I run RSTS from that
won't scare my wife, and
would look sort of like a PC (box only)
Also Whatever should be available enough to be cheap and easy to find.
Ron Hudson
wrote:
On Sep
20, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I presume that even a DECmate III requires a user
interface (normally called a terminal / monitor+keyboard)
to be useful!
I have an HP terminal I can use, or I can use my PC laptop with
it's
serial port. Whatever I start looking for it should support RSTS/E
What I am trying to find out is:
(a) If you don't count the terminal as part of the total system, then
does placing a 4 * 4 Qbus backplane and everything else needed
to run a PDP-11 inside a VT100 (which changes it into a VT103)
constitute a ZERO increase in size?
(b) If you do count the terminal as part of the total system, then
does the VT103 exceed the size of a (terminal / DECmate III)
system?
At this point, I suspect that the whole subject is similar to how
many angels can dance on the point of a pin, so it really does
not matter whether you choose (a) or (b). Myself, I prefer
(a) and conclude that a VT103 has a ZERO increase in size
over a VT100, so essentially the size of the PDP-11 system
is also ZERO - which is about as small as you will ever get.
And since I can probably find a 3 1/2" SCSI hard drive to
use with a SCSI host adapter instead of the 5 1/4" MFM
hard drive that I originally used, the hard disk can now be
many GigaBytes and the end of the SCSI cable can also
be pulled outside of the VT103 to attach additional SCSI
hard drives when a backup is needed - VERY simple!
ENOUGH though. Let us finish by defining whether a
terminal is or is NOT part of a PDP-11. Since I am
voting first, I will start by saying that a basic PDP-11
does NOT include the terminal. However, I can easily
appreciate that many will differ!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
4:23 p.m.
I suppose what I would want to know is what can I run RSTS from that
won't scare my wife, and
would look sort of like a PC (box only)
Scare your wife? I can tell you how to do that. She used to think I
was a bit extreme because I had 7 PCs in various places in the house
and in my workshop, and I made a big deal of wiring every room with
two ethernet connections when we built our new home 3 years ago.
Then my buddies and I "rescued" a PDP-11/23 in a short cabinet with
two RL01 drives, a portable dual RX01 unit, a VT100 terminal, an LA120
DecWriter, and 5 boxes of manuals, cables, etc.
About a month later, North American Van Lines arrived with a PDP-11/34
with two RL02 drives. Then came two RK05 drives. About a month after
that a fellow drove up with two 6' tall PDP-11 racks, panels, another
RL02 drive, and some other misc stuff. Then I traded a local fellow
and got another RL02 drive. Occasionally a VT52 terminal would show
up on the doorstep, courtesy of FedEx. Then one day an LA36 DecWriter
and an ASR-33 showed up. Another time several boxes containing a
dismantled PDP-11/35 arrived.
Somewhere during all of this, I built a 12' x 10' room to house all
this equipment, which is overflowing into the surrounding game room
and guest room. Some of it has been racked in the tall racks.
My wife can't wait for the next 6' rack to arrive with another
vintage PDP-11 in it. It should be here in about a month or so. I
think I'll stop after that one.
She hasn't left me yet! She seems to have adapted to this new level
of geekdom that I have entered. I try to show her how magical it is
to fire up the big iron and watch RSTS/E as the startup processes
display on the VT52 terminal. I try to get her to marvel as the
program source that has been held captive since 1977 on my 27 year
old paper tapes once again comes to life via the paper tape reader
on the ASR-33 teletype.
She somehow does not see the magic in all of this.
But.... that's how to scare your wife!
Ashley
4:23 p.m.
nah to scare my wife all i'd need to do is to get her to help me clean the
cobwebs out of the big iron :D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ashley Carder" <wacarder(a)usit.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:23 AM
Subject: RE: Real PDP11 model question
<CUT>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 18/09/2004
I suppose what I would want to know is what can I run RSTS from that
won't scare my wife, and
would look sort of like a PC (box only)
Scare your wife? I can tell you how to do that. She used to think I
was a bit extreme because I had 7 PCs in various places in the house
and in my workshop, and I made a big deal of wiring every room with
two ethernet connections when we built our new home 3 years ago.
4:51 p.m.
My wife did actually help me put those 100+ pound RK05 drives
into the big rack. A few days later I had to call her in to watch
as I had RSTS running and I had the cover off one of the RK05s
and the read / write heads were moving in and out as I ran a
program I wrote to exercise the heads and move them to various
sectors.
nah to scare my wife all i'd need to do is to get
her to help me
clean the
cobwebs out of the big iron :D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ashley Carder" <wacarder(a)usit.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:23 AM
Subject: RE: Real PDP11 model question
<CUT>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 18/09/2004
I suppose what I would want to know is what can I run RSTS from that
won't scare my wife, and
would look sort of like a PC (box only)
Scare your wife? I can tell you how to do that. She used to think I
was a bit extreme because I had 7 PCs in various places in the house
and in my workshop, and I made a big deal of wiring every room with
two ethernet connections when we built our new home 3 years ago.
21 Sep
21 Sep
6 a.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 charlesb(a)otcgaming.net wrote:
nah to scare my wife all i'd need to do is to get
her to help me clean the
cobwebs out of the big iron :D
I scare my wife everytime I...
Nevermind.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
20 Sep
20 Sep
4:41 p.m.
Ron Hudson wrote:
I suppose what I would want to know is what can I run
RSTS from that
won't scare my wife, and
would look sort of like a PC (box only)
Also Whatever should be available enough to be cheap and easy to find.
Jerome Fine replies:
If you are focused on the software, then you might NOT
mind using an actual PC and running the Ersatz-11 emulator.
VT100 emulation is built in and it runs many times faster
on any Pentium III. There are both Windows and Linux
hobby versions. In addition, I am able to add most of the
extra keys present on an LK201 keyboard from a VT220
with the standard 104 key PC keyboard.
However, I use Windows 98 SE because I find it essential
to read 132 character text files from MACRO-11 listings.
The ATI AGP adapter is compatible with E11 to do this
only with Windows 95 / 98 as far as I understand.
Although I use only RT-11, RSTS/E also runs very well.
HAVE FUN!! Your wife should not even notice - except
that you will be using only text screens rather than Windows
GUI interfaces.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
6:26 p.m.
Jerome Fine replies:
If you are focused on the software, then you might NOT
mind using an actual PC and running the Ersatz-11 emulator.
I am currently running simh on both my Macintosh iBook and a
no name clone PC running Linux (redhat 7.0). The Linux box has
the added ability of being available for telnet (thanks Ashley C.)
Is Ersatz-11 better than simh?
22 Sep
22 Sep
6 a.m.
Ron Hudson wrote:
I am currently running simh on both my Macintosh iBook
and a
no name clone PC running Linux (redhat 7.0). The Linux box has
the added ability of being available for telnet (thanks Ashley C.)
Is Ersatz-11 better than simh?
Jerome Fine replies:
E11 is normally about 10 times the speed of SIMH. The hobby
version runs under either Windows or Linux. VT100 emulation
is built into E11, unlike SIMH which briefly (V9-11) also
included VT100 that mostly worked, but was mainly missing
the GOLD key!
Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only
Windows 98 SE is able to provide this feature. In addition,
I use the "Full" (Commercial) version of E11 which allows
direct access to raw SCSI drives, although this latter feature
is no longer needed now that I can "see" the first 64 blocks
of a CD media on the DVD drive that I use. Thus E11 can:
MOUNT DU0: CDROMi: (i: is the drive letter)
BOOT DU0:
This assumes, of course, that the first 64 blocks of the CD
can be read. If not, it is always possible to use the image file
of the CD (ISO file is available to burn the CD) and MOUNT
the ISO file under E11 as a file on the hard disk.
For 13 versions of RT-11 from V01-15 to V05.03:
http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/RT-11/dists/
the file is RT11DV10.ISO.zip which expands to 4 RT-11
partitions.
I don't know which of the other Windows operating system
flavours will also work to some extent, but I suspect that
most will have a few problems.
If you try RT-11 under the Linux box, I would VERY
much appreciate some feedback!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
6:49 a.m.
>>>> "Jerome" == Jerome H Fine
<jhfinexgs2(a)compsys.to> writes:
> Ron Hudson wrote: I am currently running simh on
both my Macintosh
> iBook and a no name clone PC running Linux (redhat 7.0). The Linux
> box has the added ability of being available for telnet (thanks
> Ashley C.)
>
> Is Ersatz-11 better than simh?
Jerome> Jerome Fine replies:
Jerome> E11 is normally about 10 times the speed of SIMH. The hobby
Jerome> version runs under either Windows or Linux. VT100 emulation
Jerome> is built into E11, unlike SIMH which briefly (V9-11) also
Jerome> included VT100 that mostly worked, but was mainly missing the
Jerome> GOLD key!
Jerome> Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
Jerome> VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only Windows
Jerome> 98 SE is able to provide this feature.
You can also do this in the Linux version. You just have to use xterm
invoked with the right switches.
paul
6:57 a.m.
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 10:49, Paul Koning wrote:
Or, you could hook a real VT-100/420/etc up to a serial port and get
perfect VT100 emulation. On Linux, at least, I don't know if E11 will
let you do that on Windows. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
>>>> "Jerome" == Jerome H Fine <jhfinexgs2(a)compsys.to> writes:
Jerome> Jerome Fine replies:
Jerome> E11 is normally about 10 times the speed of SIMH. The hobby
Jerome> version runs under either Windows or Linux. VT100 emulation
Jerome> is built into E11, unlike SIMH which briefly (V9-11) also
Jerome> included VT100 that mostly worked, but was mainly missing the
Jerome> GOLD key!
Jerome> Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
Jerome> VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only Windows
Jerome> 98 SE is able to provide this feature.
You can also do this in the Linux version. You just have to use
xterm invoked with the right switches.
9:06 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
On Wednesday 22 September 2004 10:49, Paul Koning
wrote:
Or, you could hook a real VT-100/420/etc up to a serial port and get
perfect VT100 emulation. On Linux, at least, I don't know if E11 will
let you do that on Windows. :)
Better yet, a VT520:
http://marketplace.vintage.org/view.cfm?ad=1158
:)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
>>>> "Jerome" == Jerome H Fine <jhfinexgs2(a)compsys.to> writes:
Jerome> Jerome Fine replies:
Jerome> E11 is normally about 10 times the speed of SIMH. The hobby
Jerome> version runs under either Windows or Linux. VT100 emulation
Jerome> is built into E11, unlike SIMH which briefly (V9-11) also
Jerome> included VT100 that mostly worked, but was mainly missing the
Jerome> GOLD key!
Jerome> Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
Jerome> VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only Windows
Jerome> 98 SE is able to provide this feature.
You can also do this in the Linux version. You just have to use
xterm invoked with the right switches. 
9:16 a.m.
Hi,
Patrick Finnegan <pat(a)computer-refuge.org> said:
Or, you could hook a real VT-100/420/etc up to a serial port and get
perfect VT100 emulation. On Linux, at least, I don't know if E11 will
let you do that on Windows. :)
It *should* do, it certainly does in MSDOS, I have a headless 486 running
DOS & E11 with a Qume QVT103 terminal. For an exercise in frustration,
try running MSDOS from a terminal...
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
5:09 p.m.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
On Wednesday
22 September 2004 10:49, Paul Koning wrote:
Or, you could hook a real VT-100/420/etc up
to a serial port and get
perfect VT100 emulation. On Linux, at least, I don't know if E11 will
let you do that on Windows. :) Jerome> Jerome Fine replies:
Jerome> Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
Jerome> VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only Windows
Jerome> 98 SE is able to provide this feature.
You can also do this in the
Linux version. You just have to use
xterm invoked with the right switches.
7:23 a.m.
Jerome> E11 is normally about 10 times the speed
of SIMH. The hobby
Jerome> version runs under either Windows or Linux. VT100 emulation
Jerome> is built into E11, unlike SIMH which briefly (V9-11) also
Jerome> included VT100 that mostly worked, but was mainly missing the
Jerome> GOLD key!
Jerome> Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
Jerome> VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only Windows
Jerome> 98 SE is able to provide this feature.
You can also do this in the Linux version. You just have to use xterm
invoked with the right switches.
paul
And a properly configured xterm has a properly functioning keyboard.
Given the choice between the two emulators, I'd much rather use E11,
but as a hobbyist that can't afford a full version of E11, I tend to
use SIMH for most things. SIMH also has the advantage of running on
my Mac, which is good since these days I rarely have another Unix box
up and running.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
23 Sep
23 Sep
5:18 a.m.
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Zane H. Healy wrote:
And a properly configured xterm has a properly
functioning keyboard.
Given the choice between the two emulators, I'd much rather use E11,
but as a hobbyist that can't afford a full version of E11, I tend to
use SIMH for most things. SIMH also has the advantage of running on
my Mac, which is good since these days I rarely have another Unix box
up and running.
I use both, but then again, I have a full license for E11. I do most
of my PDP-11 work on E11(/DOS/Win32DOS) and use SimH as an emulated
CVAX mostly. Again, mostly under Win32DOS.
SimH sucks in the sense that it doesn't do full-spec (exact) CPU and
device emulation, and I dont think it ever will, but then again, it
is more portable, and supports (a lot) more host platforms, so that
is one of its pluses.
--f
5:32 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Jerome H. Fine once stated:
Because of my requirement for 132 character text lines under
VT100 editing (because I use MACRO-11 listings), only
Windows 98 SE is able to provide this feature.
Linux does support higher text resolutions (my firewall console is
currently set to 132x60) but the video card has to support the text
resolution you require (I've found it to be hit or miss). I use lilo to set
the video mode, but there is a way to do it from the command line (although
I've forgotten how).
-spc (I tend to use xterm nowadays ... )
27 Sep
27 Sep
10:23 a.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
I haven't had a chance to get back and debug, but is it true that simh
does NOT simulate the target machine's execution speed? I wrote a simple
'sum all words in track N' program for the LGP and it completed as soon
as I hit return! It should have taken many seconds... I did RTFM, so no
reference to it, but I haven't had time to go look at the source. Got
lazy and decided to post instead of research (typical, huh :-)
4:09 a.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Tom Jennings wrote:
I haven't had a chance to get back and debug, but
is it true that simh
does NOT simulate the target machine's execution speed? I wrote a simple
'sum all words in track N' program for the LGP and it completed as soon
as I hit return! It should have taken many seconds... I did RTFM, so no
reference to it, but I haven't had time to go look at the source. Got
lazy and decided to post instead of research (typical, huh :-)
I wondered that myself. SpaceWar! on the PDP-1 seems to run at its
original speed.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:23 a.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
I haven't had a chance to get back and debug, but
is it true that simh
does NOT simulate the target machine's execution speed? I wrote a simple
'sum all words in track N' program for the LGP and it completed as soon
as I hit return! It should have taken many seconds... I did RTFM, so no
reference to it, but I haven't had time to go look at the source. Got
lazy and decided to post instead of research (typical, huh :-)
This is typical for most emulators, SIMH runs as fast as it can. For a lot
of things, this is the best behavior, but for software that somehow ties to
the speed of the computer it is running on, it's a bad thing.
Zane
28 Sep
28 Sep
9:39 a.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Zane H. Healy
<healyzh(a)aracnet.com> wrote:
This is typical for most emulators, SIMH runs as fast
as it can. For a lot
of things, this is the best behavior, but for software that somehow ties to
the speed of the computer it is running on, it's a bad thing.
It is the best behaviour? I've seen a couple of emulators which
regulate speed, because it is sometimes necessary for games and
frequently necessary for demos. An additional advantage is that it
reduces the rate at which electricity is converted into heat (ie. it
uses less of the host machine's CPU), so my batteries last longer and
my hands are less toasty. :) And I think it is fair to say that an
emulator which runs at two or three times the original machine's speed
will usually be fast enough. (If speed was really *that* important
you wouldn't be using an emulator.)
10:41 a.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
The best behavior, IMHO, is to be able to select what speed to run at. UAE,
a very good Amiga emulator, lets you choose which processor to emulate and
at what speed, including a setting that runs the emulator as fast as
possible. Granted the architecture of the Amiga is a bit more sensitive to
CPU timings than most computers, due to it's tightly integrated video and
sound processors, so CPU speed selection might be more important than, say,
in an S/360 emulator. It would still be very useful, however, being able to
select accurate speed emulation or being able to "overclock" your virtual
mainframe.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Wayne" <AppleTO(a)gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: simh simulation speed
<SNIP>
It is the best behaviour? I've seen a couple of
emulators which
regulate speed, because it is sometimes necessary for games and
frequently necessary for demos. An additional advantage is that it
reduces the rate at which electricity is converted into heat (ie. it
uses less of the host machine's CPU), so my batteries last longer and
my hands are less toasty. :) And I think it is fair to say that an
emulator which runs at two or three times the original machine's speed
will usually be fast enough. (If speed was really *that* important
you wouldn't be using an emulator.)
27 Sep
27 Sep
11:40 a.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
I haven't had a chance to get back and debug, but
is it true
that simh does NOT simulate the target machine's execution
speed?
Belief is that it goes as fast as it can
and the machine architecture type is used only
for instruction set/address map, IE all the other things.
This is based on doing VAX/VMS on a 670 MHz pc.
Another belief I have is that this machine takes 15 ~20
clocks to get 1 instruction, and 15 ~ 20 instructions to get
1 sim instruction... So I get 1 ~ 3 sim VAX Mips here.
Anyway, that's what it feels like running.
I'd like to hear complaints if anyone thinks I'm way off on the
numbers. Not as controversial as the Extra-terrestrial whitehouse
I realize, but this what is more important to me and hopefully us.
John A.
12:27 p.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
At 12:23 PM -0700 9/27/04, Tom Jennings wrote:
I haven't had a chance to get back and debug, but
is it true that simh
does NOT simulate the target machine's execution speed?
That is true. No attempt is made at mimicking the original CPU speed.
However this does cause problems for some I/O devices. In some
cases, extra code has gone into working through situations in which
an OS makes implicit assumptions about how quickly an I/O operation
will complete. Sometimes SIMH executes these too quickly and much
fun ensues.
John
1 p.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 14:27, John A. Dundas III wrote:
However this does cause problems for some I/O devices.
In some
cases, extra code has gone into working through situations in which
an OS makes implicit assumptions about how quickly an I/O operation
will complete. Sometimes SIMH executes these too quickly and much
fun ensues.
Good point!
The LGP-30 doesn't even have the hardware concept of "IO ready" for the
console flexowriter, relying entirely on drum software-delay routines to
avoid overrunning it, so I'll have to go look at how simh handles that.
I too quickly stated (duh) that I'll go add the sleep code to simh for
the LGP machines; it's not that simple. Drum machines have a
memory-search characteristic exactly analogous to a floppy sector skew
factor search; actual time to execute depends on the most-recent sector
(word) and the current instruction. It's not trivial, like it might be
with a core/semi machine.
SO I'll make my crappy sim into an LGP-xx simulator still.
2:34 p.m.
New subject: simh simulation speed
At 3:00 PM -0700 9/27/04, Tom Jennings wrote:
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 14:27, John A. Dundas III wrote:
It's complicated but not fatally so. At one time I coded up a model
for Bob of how this would work for a variety of disks on the PDP-11.
The model took into account seek time (from current location),
rotational latency, and data transfer latency. It was tested on the
RL and RP/RM disks and seemed to work quite well. That is,
operations took as long (!) as they would have with the real drives.
This was about the time Bob was working on an RSX problem where disk
I/Os completed too quickly under certain circumstances. The code is
not incorporated into the release version of SIMH, but Bob did
generate a paper from some of the explorations.
Bottom line: don't be put off by SIMH if you think that might be the
way to go. It can be done.
John
However this does cause problems for some I/O
devices. In some
cases, extra code has gone into working through situations in which
an OS makes implicit assumptions about how quickly an I/O operation
will complete. Sometimes SIMH executes these too quickly and much
fun ensues.
Good point!
The LGP-30 doesn't even have the hardware concept of "IO ready" for the
console flexowriter, relying entirely on drum software-delay routines to
avoid overrunning it, so I'll have to go look at how simh handles that. 
28 Sep
28 Sep
8:29 a.m.
New subject: Panasonic HHC vs Intermedics
I have an HHC that is apparently made by Panasonic. It is even marked RL-H1400 on
the back but doesn't have Panasonic anywhere.
There are some other differences from the normal Panasonic. If you remove the
Intermedic ROMs, the display shows "No Programs". When the ROMs are installed,
the
Calculator, File system, SNAP applications, Clock and Printer/Casette don't show up in
the system menu. File system, SNAP applications and Printer/Cassette do show up with
certain operations and the clock can be set and there is an Alarm label on the display.
Also, there is no Claculator labeling on the keyboard template.
The applicatios do seem to be present in the system but don't show up in the menu.
Anyone know if there is a way to cause these to display? Like an internal jumper or
switch or something?
Here is a photo of the Intermedics HHC
http://www.msdsite.com/vcomp/panasonic/intermedics.html
Thanks,
20 Sep
20 Sep
11:10 p.m.
Hi,
"Jerome H. Fine" <jhfinexgs2(a)compsys.to> said:
[Re: E11]
However, I use Windows 98 SE because I find it
essential
to read 132 character text files from MACRO-11 listings.
The ATI AGP adapter is compatible with E11 to do this
only with Windows 95 / 98 as far as I understand.
Attach a real terminal... :-)
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
21 Sep
21 Sep
12:27 a.m.
At 08:13 PM 9/20/2004, you wrote:
I have an HP terminal I can use, or I can use my PC
laptop with it's
serial port. Whatever I start looking for it should support RSTS/E
Look for a BA23 solution then.
Cheap, available, supportable, complete.
You can get the skin that makes it look like a largish tower box too.
Use another PC/laptop with a VT100 terminal emulator for the console terminal.
DEC console terminals generally only support software flow control (XON/XOFF),
, make sure your HP terminal will do that.
With the PC, sometimes you have to jumper CTS<->RTS and DTR<->DSR on the PC
side.
Later, if you like the system (and your wife can abide it),
get a SCSI card and add a SCSI tower for more storage, different OS etc.
Ed K.
20 Sep
20 Sep
3:49 p.m.
I presume that even a DECmate III requires a user
interface (normally called a terminal / monitor+keyboard)
to be useful!
Based on that assumption, may the user interface be
considered as a separate piece of hardware?
The DECmate III uses an LK201 keyboard, and I believe the exact same
Monochrome monitor as the DEC Professionals used.
Zane
7233
days inactive
7243
days old
48 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
allain＠panix.com -
AppleTO＠gmail.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
charlesb＠otcgaming.net -
dickset＠amanda.spole.gov -
dundas＠caltech.edu -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jbmcb＠hotmail.com -
jhfinexgs2＠compsys.to -
mbg＠TheWorld.com -
mike-cc＠msdsite.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
Pres＠macro-inc.com -
ron.hudson＠sbcglobal.net -
spc＠conman.org -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com -
tomj＠wps.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
wacarder＠usit.net -
waltje＠pdp11.nl