Oops - it's Monday. I obviously meant Omnibus, not Unibus, on the PDP8. -- Ian
________________________________________
From: cctalk-bounces at
classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at
classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ian
King [IanK at
vulcan.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:17 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Telnet access to classic mainframe/timesharing systems
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at
classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at
classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Roger Holmes
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 11:25 AM
To: cctalk at
classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Telnet access to classic mainframe/timesharing systems
On 29 Jun 2009, at 18:00, cctalk-request at
classiccmp.org wrote:
From: Michael Kerpan <mjkerpan at
kerpan.com>
Subject: Telnet access to classic mainframe/timesharing systems
What about various lesser-known systems? Given
that most
people used these systems through remote terminals to begin with, a
public access system would seem to be an ideal way to experience
them,
but how many of them are available in such a way?
Mine is too old, no serial connection, no operating system, not even
an operator terminal. Bootstrap from drum and read 80 column punched
cards. I have modified the bootstrap to read from paper tape and I
have now got a bit bashing serial link which uses 100% of the CPU to
make it work - no time to service any terminals though, no interrupts
and no multi-programming capabilities.
It would be nice to see a ICT/ICL 1900 online one day.
The first machine I used was an IBM 7094. We punched our cards, they
were taken to London and next week we got our listing back saying
syntax error on line 1.
Roger
ICT 1301 mainframe (1962)
My first programming language was FORTRAN, our card decks processed in batch on the school
district's 370. One learned to be very, very cautious when keypunching, as the
three-day turnaround rapidly ate into the semester!
Your comments highlight an important distinction: your system is NOT one that was used
"through remote terminals", but rather as a batch job processor. With
minicomputers, we see a slightly different distinction: those designed for use by
multiple, possibly remoted terminals, and machines such as our PDP-7 that was really
intended for a single local user. The PDP-8 originally fell into that latter class, but
was extended to support multiple users through extensions in software (e.g. TSS-8) and
hardware (the Unibus, on which it was relatively simple to add new serial adapters).
Each of these three classes provide obviously different challenges in terms of
presentation to a 'distributed' audience. -- Ian