14 Jul
2000
14 Jul
'00
9:57 a.m.
IBM blew it as far as mini's concerned. The IBM 1800 was fun to work with.
System 7 software initially had to be developped on a mainframe and was not
compatible. System 1 was sold via higher management. So no (mini)computers
for the masses.
Wim
----------
From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: IBM System/1
Date: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:35 PM
What is an IBM system/1 ?
A minicomputer. In some sense an incompatible followon to the
IBM 1130 & 1800.
Please save the docs! If noone who actually has a System/1 needs them,
I'd like to have them, and would be happy to pay postage.
14 Jul
14 Jul
1:18 p.m.
IBM blew it as far as mini's concerned. The IBM
1800 was fun to work with.
System 7 software initially had to be developped on a mainframe and was not
compatible. System 1 was sold via higher management. So no (mini)computers
for the masses.
Well, I think they had a good score with the AS/400. Its been the king of
minis for some time now, bypassing even the mighty PDP-11 in numbers.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
8:26 p.m.
Well, I think they had a good score with the AS/400.
Its been the king of
minis for some time now, bypassing even the mighty PDP-11 in numbers.
I am not knowledgable, but never let that impede making comments, so isn't
the success of the AS/400 more at the expense of mainframe sales and former
mainframe applications?
9:42 p.m.
New subject: TI MicroExplorer Help/Info/Folklore Wanted
To complement my lovely new Symbolics/MacIvory system, I recently picked up
a TI MicroExplorer board set. I didn't even know that TI made these! I'd
appreciate hearing from anyone who has software, docs, or even just
reminiscences about this board. I have several "real" Exploders running,
but would love to reduce the BTUs coming from my computer collection by
being able to run a MicroExploder.
Also, as always, I'd love to hear from anyone with docs, software, or
memories of any other Lisp Machine. (Tony, please spare me a discussion of
whether a MicroExploder board counts as a LispM ;-)
Thanks,
Bill
15 Jul
15 Jul
6:49 a.m.
New subject: TI MicroExplorer Help/Info/Folklore Wanted
Bill,
Is that the TI system that has a bunch of modules that plug together? If
so, I have the software book that goes with it. The name of it is "Software
Design for MicroProcessors" by TI. I also have the brochure for the system
along with the packing slip and misc papers from when someone ordered the
book (only) from TI. Modules for the system were: LCM-1001 Microprogrammer
Module, LCM-1002 Controller Module, LCM-1003 Memory Module and LCM-1004
Input/Output Module. There were also manuals for each module but I don't
have them.
Joe
At 02:42 AM 7/15/00 -0400, you wrote:
To complement my lovely new Symbolics/MacIvory system,
I recently picked up
a TI MicroExplorer board set. I didn't even know that TI made these! I'd
appreciate hearing from anyone who has software, docs, or even just
reminiscences about this board. I have several "real" Exploders running,
but would love to reduce the BTUs coming from my computer collection by
being able to run a MicroExploder.
Also, as always, I'd love to hear from anyone with docs, software, or
memories of any other Lisp Machine. (Tony, please spare me a discussion of
whether a MicroExploder board counts as a LispM ;-)
Thanks,
Bill
10:10 a.m.
New subject: TI MicroExplorer Help/Info/Folklore Wanted
Unfortunately not. The MicroExplorer board is a TI Explorer LISP machine on
a board, which presumably plugs into a Mac II NuBus motherboard ala the
Symbolics MacIvory. Thanks for the offer - BTW, I still owe you some stuff
which I swear I'll be sending soon.
Bill
At 10:49 AM 7/15/00 -0500, Joe wrote:
Bill,
Is that the TI system that has a bunch of modules that plug together? If
so, I have the software book that goes with it. The name of it is "Software
Design for MicroProcessors" by TI. I also have the brochure for the system
along with the packing slip and misc papers from when someone ordered the
book (only) from TI. Modules for the system were: LCM-1001 Microprogrammer
Module, LCM-1002 Controller Module, LCM-1003 Memory Module and LCM-1004
Input/Output Module. There were also manuals for each module but I don't
have them.
Joe
At 02:42 AM 7/15/00 -0400, you wrote:
>To complement my lovely new Symbolics/MacIvory system, I recently picked up
>a TI MicroExplorer board set. I didn't even know that TI made these! I'd
>appreciate hearing from anyone who has software, docs, or even just
>reminiscences about this board. I have several "real" Exploders running,
>but would love to reduce the BTUs coming from my computer collection by
>being able to run a MicroExploder.
>
>Also, as always, I'd love to hear from anyone with docs, software, or
>memories of any other Lisp Machine. (Tony, please spare me a discussion of
>whether a MicroExploder board counts as a LispM ;-)
>
>Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
16 Jul
16 Jul
12:15 a.m.
New subject: Xerox Alto emulator(s)
I was just thinking...Would it be possible in 2000 to write a Xerox Alto
emulator and SmallTalk OS (assuming binaries are available). Is there any
efforts underway? personally I've love to experience an Alto, but unless an
emulator happens this is never going to happen. Historically it's a very
significant machine..and it would be neat to preserve it for future
generations.
What makes it difficult to write an emulator for this machine?
Thanks,
Chandra
1:04 a.m.
New subject: Xerox Alto emulator(s)
I was just thinking...Would it be possible in 2000 to
write a Xerox Alto
emulator and SmallTalk OS (assuming binaries are available). Is there any
efforts underway? personally I've love to experience an Alto, but unless an
emulator happens this is never going to happen. Historically it's a very
significant machine..and it would be neat to preserve it for future
generations.
Ask Al Kossow. He's supposedly been working on one for a while.
What makes it difficult to write an emulator for this
machine?
Probably the fact that you have to emulate the microcode. Some of the Alto
software was written in BCPL and used an instruction set geared for running
BCPL programs (which may have been similar to the Data General Nova's set).
But fire up Smalltalk or LISP or Mesa and you're suddenly using an entirely
different instruction set.
You might be able to emulate each instruction set as a special case, but it
would probably be safer to emulate the microinstructions that create the
instruction sets. The microcycle time is 170 nanoseconds, so it might just
be possible on current hardware if the OS doesn't get in the way.
Supporting the 3MB/sec Ethernet might be a challenge too.
-- Derek
3:24 p.m.
New subject: Xerox Alto emulator(s)
I was just thinking...Would it be possible in 2000 to
write a Xerox Alto
emulator and SmallTalk OS (assuming binaries are available). Is there any
Writing a simulator is certainly possible, but I don't see why you'd want
to write a Smalltalk OS. I mean, if you want to write a new OS, you might
as well target it for modern hardware.
What makes it difficult to write an emulator for this
machine?
It doesn't have a single instruction set. Each language/environment uses
a different instruction set implemented by different microcode.
Simulating the microcode level shouldn't be terribly difficult, but not
many people have sufficient information to do it.
15 Jul
15 Jul
4:20 p.m.
New subject: TI MicroExplorer Help/Info/Folklore Wanted
I think I may have a complete set of floppy disks with version 5.0
of the software. I also have disks with version 4.1.1 which is definitely
missing at least 3 disks.
Thats about 57 floppy disks for version 5.0, plus about 17 duplicates.
Make an offer that interests me, plus pay shipping, and they can be
yours. I have no manuals, nor the appropriate hardware to test these
disks, so its as-is.
-Lawrence LeMay
To complement my lovely new Symbolics/MacIvory system,
I recently picked up
a TI MicroExplorer board set. I didn't even know that TI made these! I'd
appreciate hearing from anyone who has software, docs, or even just
reminiscences about this board. I have several "real" Exploders running,
but would love to reduce the BTUs coming from my computer collection by
being able to run a MicroExploder.
10:31 p.m.
New subject: TI MicroExplorer Help/Info/Folklore Wanted
To complement my lovely new Symbolics/MacIvory system,
I recently picked up
a TI MicroExplorer board set. I didn't even know that TI made these! I'd
appreciate hearing from anyone who has software, docs, or even just
reminiscences about this board. I have several "real" Exploders running,
but would love to reduce the BTUs coming from my computer collection by
being able to run a MicroExploder.
Wow. Nice.
Also, as always, I'd love to hear from anyone with
docs, software, or
memories of any other Lisp Machine. (Tony, please spare me a discussion of
whether a MicroExploder board counts as a LispM ;-)
RCS/RI just received Symbolics 3600 and a 3670, plus we are getting two
3640s. Interestingly, these specific machines were the development tools
for the CM-2 at Thinking Machines.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
10:53 p.m.
I am not knowledgable, but never let that impede
making comments, so isn't
the success of the AS/400 more at the expense of mainframe sales and former
mainframe applications?
Yes, but over a very long time. The IBM minis came out of the S/360
family in the late 1960s. IBM had a very low end S/360 intended for small
businesses, which unfortunately, was not really a S/360 (big
incopatibilities, like half the registers!). IBM decided to split the
product off, as it was selling, and proved that the business minicomputer
was a real thing. They decided to come up with a new design, the S/3, in
the very early 1970s. It too was a good seller, and led to other models
further down the line - S/32, S/34, S/38, then S/36 (note that some of
these machines are wildly different, but made for the same market). The
last two were used, along with some ideas from a project called "FS", to
make the AS/400 in the mid-1980s.
Did all of this steal mainframe applications? Well, not directly, but
yes. But as you can see, it has been happening for 30 years now.
Additionally, the was not just an IBM thing - DEC witnessed the same
shift, as the PDP-11 and VAX took applications away from the PDP-10.
While many hackers complain and dislike AS/400s, they really are very
interesting, well built machines (but very unhackable - one of the big
problems for us.). They are damn near bulletproof, in both the hardware
and software end. If you order an AS/400 from IBM, you unpack it and turn
it on. That's it - it works perfectly. It doesn't crash, even when bogged
down. System administration really is not much of an issue, unlike a Unix
or NT box. Massive architecture changes can happen (and have) without
problems. The financial and business people love them...
William Donzelli
aw288(a)osfn.org
16 Jul
16 Jul
3:21 p.m.
William Donzelli <aw288(a)osfn.org> wrote:
Yes, but over a very long time. The IBM minis came out
of the S/360
family in the late 1960s. IBM had a very low end S/360 intended for small
businesses, which unfortunately, was not really a S/360 (big
incopatibilities, like half the registers!). IBM decided to split the
product off, as it was selling, and proved that the business minicomputer
was a real thing.
The 360/20. It's seems unlike to me that it was really the inspiration for
the minicomputer families. They had already build minicomputer-class
machines in the past (e.g., 650, 1401, 1620/1710), and were fairly
successful with them. I think what caused them to scale up their efforts
was more a matter that the perceived they were losing a lot of market
share to DEC (and other minicomputer vendors).
They decided to come up with a new design, the S/3, in
the very early 1970s. It too was a good seller,
There were some intermediate stops along the way, such as the 1130/1800,
and the System/7.
One of the most interesting things about Series/3 was that they invented
a new punched card format for it.
and led to other models
further down the line - S/32, S/34, S/38, then S/36 (note that some of
these machines are wildly different, but made for the same market). The
last two were used, along with some ideas from a project called "FS", to
make the AS/400 in the mid-1980s.
The evolution was sort of:
S/3 ---> S/32 ---> S/34 ------------> S/36 ------\
--> AS/400
FS
----------------------------> S/38 ---------------/
S/38 was almost completely different from any prior shipped IBM system,
and probably not all that similar to FS (which was to be a mainframe system).
But it did inherit the "single level store" concept from FS.
While many hackers complain and dislike AS/400s, they
really are very
interesting, well built machines (but very unhackable - one of the big
problems for us.).
I recently acquired one, and wish I had time to test the "unhackable" part.
The newer machines are based on the PowerPC architecture (with some
extensions), and may be more "hackable" than the old CISC machines.
6:54 p.m.
The 360/20. It's seems unlike to me that it was
really the inspiration for
the minicomputer families. They had already build minicomputer-class
machines in the past (e.g., 650, 1401, 1620/1710), and were fairly
successful with them.
Maybe not an inspiration, but certainly a rebirth. S/360 was supposed to
do all the jobs for business (not counting process control or lab use).
I think what caused them to scale up their efforts
was more a matter that the perceived they were losing a lot of market
share to DEC (and other minicomputer vendors).
I could see this.
There were some intermediate stops along the way, such
as the 1130/1800,
and the System/7.
I think these were process control machines (great for running
factories). I think IBM always treated these as a whole different branch.
There is an amazing lack of information on the S/7 on the web.
One of the most interesting things about Series/3 was
that they invented
a new punched card format for it.
Not all of them used the things, however.
I recently acquired one, and wish I had time to test
the "unhackable" part.
The newer machines are based on the PowerPC architecture (with some
extensions), and may be more "hackable" than the old CISC machines.
I don't think having a PowerAS based system will help. I would think the
older machines would be easier to play with.
William Donzelli
aw288(a)psfn.org
7:03 p.m.
The 360/20.
It's seems unlike to me that it was really the inspiration for
the minicomputer families. They had already build minicomputer-class
machines in the past (e.g., 650, 1401, 1620/1710), and were fairly
successful with them.
Maybe not an inspiration, but certainly a rebirth. S/360 was supposed to
do all the jobs for business (not counting process control or lab use). 
17 Jul
17 Jul
3:32 a.m.
New subject: IBM System/7
At 11:54 PM 7/16/00 -0400, you wrote:
There is an amazing lack of information on the S/7 on
the web.
I was a System 7 specialist for IBM for a while in the early 70's and wrote
the code for the first on-line ATM in the United States and it used a
System 7 as a host. It was at a very small bank in Califon New Jersey. Once
a day the disk from the S/7 was removed and taken to a S/3 where it was
inputted to the banking systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
gene(a)ehrich.com
gehrich(a)tampabay.rr.com
P.O. Box 3365 Spring Hill Florida 34611-3365
www.voicenet.com/~generic
Computer & Video Game Garage Sale
8773
days inactive
8776
days old
16 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
aw288＠osfn.org -
cbajpai＠mediaone.net -
dpeschel＠eskimo.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
gehrich＠tampabay.rr.com -
hofmanwb＠worldonline.nl -
lemay＠cs.umn.edu -
mac＠Wireless.Com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
vonhagen＠vonhagen.org