13 Sep
2004
13 Sep
'04
10:15 p.m.
Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E, ITS,
TWENEX or one of the other
legacy OS to work on x86 machines? The idea would be to do something
like Linux has done for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all
the ones I mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write
could have once run on anything.
The new OS should be entirely self hosting. What would be the most
interesting old OS to do.
This would differ from the simh machines in that actual serial ports
would connect to serial devices and printers would connect via parallel
port.
13 Sep
13 Sep
11:21 p.m.
Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like
RSTS/E, ITS,
TWENEX or one of the other
legacy OS to work on x86 machines? The idea would be to do something
like Linux has done for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think
all the ones I mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to
write could have once run on anything.
The new OS should be entirely self hosting. What would be the most
interesting old OS to do.
This would differ from the simh machines in that actual serial ports
would connect to serial devices and printers would connect via
parallel port.
Do you really want to go so far as to have to deal with device
drivers? The best choice might be build on top of the Linux kernel
making as few changes to the kernel itself as possible. That way you
can leave writing new device drivers to the Linux people, and
concentrate on the user interface. I believe this is the method that
the FreeVMS project is using.
If you were to go from the kernel level, write it such that it is
easy to port to different architectures.
As for interesting OS's RSTS/E, TOPS-20, and Multics all come to mind.
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/ |
14 Sep
14 Sep
9:17 a.m.
>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson
<ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron> Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E,
Ron> ITS, TWENEX or one of the other legacy OS to work on x86
Ron> machines? The idea would be to do something like Linux has done
Ron> for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all the ones I
Ron> mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write could
Ron> have once run on anything.
What would it mean to "run" such an OS on an x86? Consider RSTS,
which is the only one of those three I know well. The OS itself is
100% assembly language. The system services are defined in terms of
request blocks in low user memory along with system call instructions
(EMT opcode of the PDP-11). Applications were generally written in
Basic-Plus (or -2), or in PDP11 assembler; rarely in some other
language such as TECO, or FORTH, or others.
I could imagine creating a Basic-Plus environment that emulates that
aspect of RSTS. I could also imagine a BP2 compiler that generates
X86 code. The surrounding machinery -- "run time systems", the system
service semantics, etc. -- that would be tricky. Assuming you get
that far, you have a user mode analog of the original, so old
applications (if written in Basic-Plus or BP2) would run. The same
would go for TECO. Assembly language applications have no chance
short of running an emulator at least for user mode. The same goes
for FORTH, since it tends to hook right into the assembly style system
service API, though obviously you could replace just that small part
and keep the rest.
paul
11:04 a.m.
In a past life ;-) I used and worked with RSTS/E running on an 11/70 -
including creating a lot of software, adding libraries, etc. - while running
the Quant. Analysis Group at Fidelity.
I now have RSTS/E running on my 11/83 - including the same account (and my
personal software) that I worked with over twenty five years ago.
To port RSTS/E to Intel would be a major chore. RSTS/E supports the RT, RSX
BASIC-PLUS, BASIC-PLUS2, TECO, etc. run-time systems. It "automagically" can
run programs from any of those "OS"es!
So porting RSTS/E would mean porting all of those runtimes and their
associated libraries (RT, RSX, etc.) as well. Whew!!!
I thinks its a LOT easier (and more fun) to simply run it on real DEC hardware
- or if you can't create that environment - run it on Intel via the SIMH or
ERSATZ emulators.
Cheers,
Lyle
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 07:17, Paul Koning wrote:
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron> Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E,
Ron> ITS, TWENEX or one of the other legacy OS to work on x86
Ron> machines? The idea would be to do something like Linux has done
Ron> for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all the ones I
Ron> mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write could
Ron> have once run on anything.
What would it mean to "run" such an OS on an x86? Consider RSTS,
which is the only one of those three I know well. The OS itself is
100% assembly language. The system services are defined in terms of
request blocks in low user memory along with system call instructions
(EMT opcode of the PDP-11). Applications were generally written in
Basic-Plus (or -2), or in PDP11 assembler; rarely in some other
language such as TECO, or FORTH, or others.
I could imagine creating a Basic-Plus environment that emulates that
aspect of RSTS. I could also imagine a BP2 compiler that generates
X86 code. The surrounding machinery -- "run time systems", the system
service semantics, etc. -- that would be tricky. Assuming you get
that far, you have a user mode analog of the original, so old
applications (if written in Basic-Plus or BP2) would run. The same
would go for TECO. Assembly language applications have no chance
short of running an emulator at least for user mode. The same goes
for FORTH, since it tends to hook right into the assembly style system
service API, though obviously you could replace just that small part
and keep the rest.
paul
11:46 a.m.
On Sep 14, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Lyle Bickley wrote:
In a past life ;-) I used and worked with RSTS/E
running on an 11/70 -
including creating a lot of software, adding libraries, etc. - while
running
the Quant. Analysis Group at Fidelity.
I now have RSTS/E running on my 11/83 - including the same account
(and my
personal software) that I worked with over twenty five years ago.
To port RSTS/E to Intel would be a major chore. RSTS/E supports the
RT, RSX
BASIC-PLUS, BASIC-PLUS2, TECO, etc. run-time systems. It
"automagically" can
run programs from any of those "OS"es!
Yes, it would be. With all of us who program working together perhaps
we can do
it. We would be able to say how it would work.
So porting RSTS/E would mean porting all of those runtimes and their
associated libraries (RT, RSX, etc.) as well. Whew!!!
I thinks its a LOT easier (and more fun) to simply run
it on real DEC
hardware
- or if you can't create that environment - run it on Intel via the
SIMH or
ERSATZ emulators.
I wish I had some DEC hardware, what's the physically smallest PDP11
one could
find? I am running RSTS/E on simh.
Cheers,
Lyle
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 07:17, Paul Koning wrote:
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron> Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E,
Ron> ITS, TWENEX or one of the other legacy OS to work on x86
Ron> machines? The idea would be to do something like Linux has done
Ron> for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all the ones I
Ron> mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write could
Ron> have once run on anything.
What would it mean to "run" such an OS on an x86? Consider RSTS,
which is the only one of those three I know well. The OS itself is
100% assembly language. The system services are defined in terms of
request blocks in low user memory along with system call instructions
(EMT opcode of the PDP-11). Applications were generally written in
Basic-Plus (or -2), or in PDP11 assembler; rarely in some other
language such as TECO, or FORTH, or others.
I could imagine creating a Basic-Plus environment that emulates that
aspect of RSTS. I could also imagine a BP2 compiler that generates
X86 code. The surrounding machinery -- "run time systems", the system
service semantics, etc. -- that would be tricky. Assuming you get
that far, you have a user mode analog of the original, so old
applications (if written in Basic-Plus or BP2) would run. The same
would go for TECO. Assembly language applications have no chance
short of running an emulator at least for user mode. The same goes
for FORTH, since it tends to hook right into the assembly style system
service API, though obviously you could replace just that small part
and keep the rest.
paul 
11:57 a.m.
At 12:46 PM 9/14/2004, you wrote:
I wish I had some DEC hardware, what's the
physically smallest PDP11 one could
find? I am running RSTS/E on simh.
This would be a good RSTS box, 16 ports, 4MB,
except you'd have to lose the RD53 and get an RD54/Maxtor XT2190:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=5121950704&…
Ed K.
12:52 p.m.
What Ed suggests would work fine. Or you can probably pick up an 11/23+ for
less $ and it will handle RSTS/E nicely - though not as "snappy" as a micro
11/73 or 11/83.
You might want to check Ed's or Arclight's website:
http://macro-inc.com/DECSale.html
http://www.arcind.net/Inventory.html
Or you can hit this list for an 11/23+, 11/53, 11/73 - someone will very
likely have one to sell!
Cheers,
Lyle
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 09:57, Ed Kelleher wrote:
At 12:46 PM 9/14/2004, you wrote:
--
Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
http://bickleywest.com
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
I wish I had some DEC hardware, what's the
physically smallest PDP11 one
could find? I am running RSTS/E on simh.
This would be a good RSTS box, 16 ports, 4MB,
except you'd have to lose the RD53 and get an RD54/Maxtor XT2190:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=5121950704&…
me=STRK:MEWA:IT
Ed K. 
5:54 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:52:08AM -0700, Lyle Bickley wrote:
What Ed suggests would work fine. Or you can probably
pick up an 11/23+ for
less $ and it will handle RSTS/E nicely - though not as "snappy" as a micro
11/73 or 11/83.
In my experience, PDP-11 CPUs are much easier and/or cheaper to find than
a Qbus disk system that does not use MFM drives. I have plenty of RQDX
controllers and older drives, but a single Qbus SCSI card is usually more
expensive than the box you previously bought to put it into.
Of course, as others have pointed out, the current cost for an RD54 (~150MB)
MFM drive (Maxtor XT-2190) is high enough that if you don't already have one,
you might as well consider a Qbus SCSI card. Best to stay away from RD53s
(Micropolis 1355 w/R7 jumper added) unless you a) have a good backup scheme,
and b) like replacing drives every few years.
I remember RSTS/E on F-11 CPUs (11/24...) being kinda doggy, but we were
doing lots of compiles of our product, and using the box to test/use our
data comms products (HASP, 3780...); RSX-11/M 4.2 wasn't exactly flying
on the same hardware either. If you want to play with anything more
complicated than RT-11 on real PDP-11 hardware, I'd consider an 11/53
(KDJ-11 CPU) to be a bit better, not even counting the fact that you get
Split I&D space and can build larger programs. Yes, an 11/73 or /83
would be 'snappier', but a bit more pricey, especially over an 11/23.
I would love to find an 11/8x or 11/9x, but I'm not holding my breath. At
the moment, my fastest real Qbus -11 CPU is out of a communications server,
making it, ISTR, the same as an 11/53 CPU (with different ROMs, but I
have solved that already). It is destined to go into a BA123, perhaps with
a 3rd party disk controller.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 14-Sep-2004 22:40 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -56 F (-48.9 C) Windchill -97.2 F (-71.8 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 19.3 kts Grid 001 Barometer 679.6 mb (10639. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
6:26 p.m.
you might as well consider a Qbus SCSI card. Best to
stay away from RD53s
(Micropolis 1355 w/R7 jumper added) unless you a) have a good backup scheme,
and b) like replacing drives every few years.
If it's only every few years you've had far better luck than me. The
longest I've been able to keep an RD53 running was about 3 days.
(KDJ-11 CPU) to be a bit better, not even counting the
fact that you get
Split I&D space and can build larger programs. Yes, an 11/73 or /83
would be 'snappier', but a bit more pricey, especially over an 11/23.
As long as you don't mind dealing with the troubles involved in a
dual-height /73 CPU, they aren't to hard to come by. Of course if you do
get one you'll want a third party disk controller w/bootstrap, and a DLV11J
for your console ports. It's a pain, but it works. Until I upgraded to a
Quad-Height /73 CPU, I kept a Webster ESDI board in the system for the
bootstrap even though it didn't have any disks attached and the system disk
was on a SCSI controller.
I would love to find an 11/8x or 11/9x, but I'm
not holding my breath. At
Ditto. Actually what I *really* want is one of the newer Mentec CPU boards!
the moment, my fastest real Qbus -11 CPU is out of a
communications server,
making it, ISTR, the same as an 11/53 CPU (with different ROMs, but I
have solved that already). It is destined to go into a BA123, perhaps with
a 3rd party disk controller.
Let me guess it's out of a DECserver 550, if so it's a /53.
Zane
9:25 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I'm not even _dreaming_ about those... I'd be happy to get a hand-me-down from
someone else who _did_ just get one.
If it's only every few years you've had far
better luck than me. The
longest I've been able to keep an RD53 running was about 3 days.
In commercial use, when SRC had MicroVAXen, we never lost an RD53 (that
I know of - they might have had to swap one out when I wasn't working
there at one point). I have that MicroVAX, and its RD53 is still good.
OTOH, I do know that others have had problems.
As long as you don't mind dealing with the
troubles involved in a
dual-height /73 CPU, they aren't to hard to come by. Of course if you do
get one you'll want a third party disk controller w/bootstrap, and a DLV11J
for your console ports. It's a pain, but it works.
I haven't played with a dual-height /73 - I take it, it's like the dual-height
KDF-11 (11/23) CPU, nothing but a CPU? (Some of my F-11 boxes have that CPU
and a BDV11, others have the 11/23+ quad-height CPU).
Until I upgraded to a
Quad-Height /73 CPU, I kept a Webster ESDI board in the system for the
bootstrap even though it didn't have any disks attached and the system disk
was on a SCSI controller.
Ah... interesting solution. These days, of course, it's trivial to keep
a bootstrap on another machine, talk to the -11 via terminal emulator
(Kermit...) and force-feed any bootstrap you want over the console line.
I would love
to find an 11/8x or 11/9x, but I'm not holding my breath. At
Ditto. Actually what I *really* want is one of the newer Mentec CPU boards! Let me guess it's out of a DECserver 550, if so
it's a /53.
I got it as a bare board, but that sounds right.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 15-Sep-2004 02:20 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -55.8 F (-48.8 C) Windchill -98.2 F (-72.3 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 21 kts Grid 005 Barometer 680.5 mb (10607. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
10:19 p.m.
In commercial use, when SRC had MicroVAXen, we never
lost an RD53 (that
I know of - they might have had to swap one out when I wasn't working
there at one point). I have that MicroVAX, and its RD53 is still good.
OTOH, I do know that others have had problems.
Right, but this was how many years ago? The RD52's and RD54's both
seem to still be fairly good disks, but the RD53's are bad news. I
have heard of people opening them up, removing the rubber and going
back to running with them.
As long as you
don't mind dealing with the troubles involved in a
dual-height /73 CPU, they aren't to hard to come by. Of course if you do
get one you'll want a third party disk controller w/bootstrap, and a DLV11J
for your console ports. It's a pain, but it works.
I haven't played with a dual-height /73 - I take it, it's like the dual-height
KDF-11 (11/23) CPU, nothing but a CPU? (Some of my F-11 boxes have that CPU
and a BDV11, others have the 11/23+ quad-height CPU). Until I
upgraded to a
Quad-Height /73 CPU, I kept a Webster ESDI board in the system for the
bootstrap even though it didn't have any disks attached and the system disk
was on a SCSI controller.
Ah... interesting solution. These days, of course, it's trivial to keep
a bootstrap on another machine, talk to the -11 via terminal emulator
(Kermit...) and force-feed any bootstrap you want over the console line. Let me guess
it's out of a DECserver 550, if so it's a /53.
I got it as a bare board, but that sounds right.
11:22 p.m.
New subject: DS550 CPUs (was Re: rewriting legacy OS for new iron)
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:19:16PM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
Warning my memory stinks today. Does the board have a
faceplate on
it like it was for a BA213 box (S-Box comes to mind, but I can't
remember if that's right)? If so you'll have to remove that before
putting it in a BA123. I've actually got three of the boards,
somewhere (a friend of mine got three DS550's).
Yes it does... I have lots of the right kind of handles (since I used to
*make* Qbus boards). I traded a box of handles for this CPU in the first
place.
I'd actually like to get a cheap DS550 just to fiddle with - compact
enclosure and all. I gave up on eBay two years ago because they were
going for a lot more money than I wanted to spend.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 15-Sep-2004 04:20 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -56.6 F (-49.2 C) Windchill -95.59 F (-70.90 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 16.6 kts Grid 003 Barometer 680.7 mb (10599. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
15 Sep
15 Sep
4:28 a.m.
At 06:54 PM 9/14/2004, you wrote:
Yes, an 11/73 or /83
would be 'snappier', but a bit more pricey, especially over an 11/23.
I would love to find an 11/8x or 11/9x, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've found the 11/73 to be a LOT faster (subjectively at least) than an 11/23.
Sort of like the difference between 300baud and 1200baud CRT terminal
connections.
300 baud was painful on a CRT, but 1200 baud passed a knee, or hump,
and was almost as good as 9600.
At least as far as I recall from the time when VADIC came out with 1200
baud full duplex dial up modems we used to support DEC systems in the field.
The 11/73 has cache (16kb?), the 11/23 doesn't.
And while the amount is small, compared to today's standards,
it makes all the difference in the world, as anyone who has ever run an
11/70 with it's cache (8kb) disabled will tell you.
I did some testing on 11/73 vs 11/83:
The 11/83 has a faster CPU AND a faster memory bus.
You can use an 11/73 with the 11/83 memory to improve speed.
From my website [WARNING: crass commercialism
zone]: http://www.macro-inc.com/DECSale.html
To spare delicate sensibilities, here's an excerpt:
If your PDP 11/73 needs a boost, upgrading to a PDP 11/83 can give you 30%
more power with NO changes required to your software.
The 11/83 is a combination of 2 boards -- Processor and Memory:
The KDJ11-BF (M8190-AE) processor uses a 18MHz J11 CPU instead of the 15
MHz chip on the KDJ11-BB 11/73.
The MSV11-JE (M8637-EC) 1 MB memory board uses the C/D rows for a special
processor/memory bus.
Here are the results for a CPU/Memory intensive benchmark with various
combinations of CPU and memory.
1) KDJ11-BB 11/73 and MSV11-M (M7506) 21:32 (Minutes:Seconds) = 100%
2) KDJ11-BB 11/73 and MSV11-QA (M7551) 21:29 (Minutes:Seconds)
3) KDJ11-BB 11/73 and MSV11-PL (M8067) 20:40 (Minutes:Seconds) +4% Older
memory
4) KDJ11-BF 11/83 and MSV11-QA (M7551) 19:28 (Minutes:Seconds) +10% CPU alone
5) KDJ11-BB 11/73 and MSV11-JE (M8637) 17:06 (Minutes:Seconds) +20% Memory
alone
6) KDJ11-BF 11/83 and MSV11-JE (M8637) 15:04 (Minutes:Seconds) +30% Together
The benchmark was run under RT11. I created a VM: ramdisk, copied the RT11
SYS and SAV files to VM:, and another copy of the RT11 SAV files as .SAX
files and then booted VM: I executed a command file that printed the system
time, then did 100 iterations of a binary file comparison of all .SAV files
with all .SAX files and then printed the time at exit. Everything ran out
of RAM, there was no disk I/O.
Some of the KDJ11's on eBay are 11/83 processors with a "-xE" on the
handles.
Be careful. The MSV11-JE can be used on 11/73, 11/83 and 11/84 systems.
The MSV11-JC can only be used on 11/84 systems.
Why? Beats me.
Also, the KDJ11-Bx quad CPU board has boot strap and console port built in.
The console port is isolated from the rest of the bus.
Some 3rd party QBus disk controllers use the console port for their
setup/formatting software.
You'll need a console port on the bus to use them,
like a DLV11-J, with port 3 set as console.
The KDJ11-Bx system will boot fine like this, ignoring the DLV11-J port 3
console.
Ed K.
14 Sep
14 Sep
1:47 p.m.
I wish I had some DEC hardware, what's the
physically smallest PDP11 one
could find? I am running RSTS/E on simh.
Personally I'd recommend a BA23 Chassis if space is a concern, a BA123 would
be better, but they take up about twice the space. Then add a CPU board
(/23+, /53, /73, /83, or /93 preferably with a bootstrap and console port
onboard), get the right memory, get a disk and tape controller, disks, tape
drive, a real terminal (I personally like VT420's), and plug it all
together.
If you can afford it I would recommend getting a SCSI disk/tape controller
rather than an RQDX3, if you do go with the RQDX3, stay away from the RD53
disks. For a good reason to spend the money on a SCSI controller, take a
look at what RD54's sell for these days!
Having said that, I find myself leaning towards SIMH or E11 running on a
Mini-ITX system. There is something about a PDP-11 that is virtually silent
and only uses about 40W that appeals to me.
Zane
7:47 p.m.
On Sep 14, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I have a terminal.. it's an HP but it's a terminal. I suppose writing
RSTS from the ground
up is not as nice as just using an emulator (simh or E11).
(Sellam - look away)
I really can't afford the space, heat or electricity of a real PDP 11.
but I can run and emulator in my iBook.
(Ok Sellam, done)
If anyone has an RSTS/E system hanging on the Internet (simh or not) I
would be interested in
a an account.. Trade-ya for games written in BASIC.
I wish I had
some DEC hardware, what's the physically smallest PDP11
one
could find? I am running RSTS/E on simh.
Personally I'd recommend a BA23 Chassis if space is a concern, a BA123
would
be better, but they take up about twice the space. Then add a CPU
board
(/23+, /53, /73, /83, or /93 preferably with a bootstrap and console
port
onboard), get the right memory, get a disk and tape controller, disks,
tape
drive, a real terminal (I personally like VT420's), and plug it all
together.
If you can afford it I would recommend getting a SCSI disk/tape
controller
rather than an RQDX3, if you do go with the RQDX3, stay away from the
RD53
disks. For a good reason to spend the money on a SCSI controller,
take a
look at what RD54's sell for these days!
Having said that, I find myself leaning towards SIMH or E11 running on
a
Mini-ITX system. There is something about a PDP-11 that is virtually
silent
and only uses about 40W that appeals to me.
Zane
10:13 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Ron Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:47 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: rewriting legacy OS for new iron
On Sep 14, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote:
I have a terminal.. it's an HP but it's a terminal. I suppose writing
RSTS from the ground
up is not as nice as just using an emulator (simh or E11).
(Sellam - look away)
I really can't afford the space, heat or electricity of a real PDP 11.
but I can run and emulator in my iBook.
(Ok Sellam, done)
If anyone has an RSTS/E system hanging on the Internet (simh or not) I
would be interested in
a an account.. Trade-ya for games written in BASIC.
I have a RSTS/E system on the internet running under simh. It's late
1970s vintage, RSTS/E V7. Do you have a preference of an account
number that you would like me to set up for you? (no, don't ask for a
privileged account yet!) Mine is a recreation of the Wofford College
system of 1977-79. For more info, go to http://www.woffordwitch.com.
I also have this system SYSGENed on RL02 packs and running on a real
PDP-11/34.
What do you have to trade? I have quite a number of games on there,
including the Basic Plus version of ADVENTure.
Ashley
I wish I
had some DEC hardware, what's the physically smallest PDP11
one
could find? I am running RSTS/E on simh.
Personally I'd recommend a BA23 Chassis if space is a concern, a BA123
would
be better, but they take up about twice the space. Then add a CPU
board
(/23+, /53, /73, /83, or /93 preferably with a bootstrap and console
port
onboard), get the right memory, get a disk and tape controller, disks,
tape
drive, a real terminal (I personally like VT420's), and plug it all
together.
If you can afford it I would recommend getting a SCSI disk/tape
controller
rather than an RQDX3, if you do go with the RQDX3, stay away from the
RD53
disks. For a good reason to spend the money on a SCSI controller,
take a
look at what RD54's sell for these days!
Having said that, I find myself leaning towards SIMH or E11 running on
a
Mini-ITX system. There is something about a PDP-11 that is virtually
silent
and only uses about 40W that appeals to me.
Zane
10:21 p.m.
What do you have to trade? I have quite a number of
games on there,
including the Basic Plus version of ADVENTure.
Do either of you happen to have DND?
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/ |
10:52 p.m.
What do you
have to trade? I have quite a number of games on there,
including the Basic Plus version of ADVENTure.
Do either of you happen to have DND?
Zane
10:52 p.m.
Do either of
you happen to have DND?
Zane
I'll have to look. I got a PDP-11/23 a few months ago and I believe
that a version of Dungeon was on an RL01 pack with that system.
I'll have to fire it up some time in the near future and check on
those RL01 packs. These are all RT11 packs.
I never played Dungeon, but I assume that's what you're talking
about. I spent many hours (days, months) playing ADVENTure
(Colossal Cave) back in the 1978-79 time frame.
Ashley 
15 Sep
15 Sep
1:27 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Is this what you are looking for?
http://members.tripod.com/~rancourt/default.htm
What do you
have to trade? I have quite a number of games on there,
including the Basic Plus version of ADVENTure.
Do either of you happen to have DND?
Zane
14 Sep
14 Sep
10:45 p.m.
If anyone has
an RSTS/E system hanging on the Internet (simh or not) I
would be interested in
a an account.. Trade-ya for games written in BASIC.
I have a RSTS/E system on the internet running under simh. It's late
1970s vintage, RSTS/E V7. Do you have a preference of an account
number that you would like me to set up for you? (no, don't ask for a
privileged account yet!) Mine is a recreation of the Wofford College
system of 1977-79. For more info, go to http://www.woffordwitch.com.
I also have this system SYSGENed on RL02 packs and running on a real
PDP-11/34.
What do you have to trade? I have quite a number of games on there,
including the Basic Plus version of ADVENTure.
Ashley
11:09 p.m.
If anyone has an RSTS/E system hanging on the Internet
(simh or not) I
would be interested in
a an account.. Trade-ya for games written in BASIC.
I have a RSTS/E system on the internet running under simh. It's late
1970s vintage, RSTS/E V7. Do you have a preference of an account
number that you would like me to set up for you? (no, don't ask for a
privileged account yet!) Mine is a recreation of the Wofford College
system of 1977-79. For more info, go to http://www.woffordwitch.com.
I also have this system SYSGENed on RL02 packs and running on a real
PDP-11/34.
What do you have to trade? I have quite a number of games on there,
including the Basic Plus version of ADVENTure.
Ashley
11:07 p.m.
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Ashley Carder wrote:
I have a RSTS/E system on the internet running under
simh. It's late
1970s vintage, RSTS/E V7. Do you have a preference of an account
number that you would like me to set up for you? (no, don't ask for a
privileged account yet!) Mine is a recreation of the Wofford College
system of 1977-79. For more info, go to http://www.woffordwitch.com.
I also have this system SYSGENed on RL02 packs and running on a real
PDP-11/34.
Ashley,
That is a very cool website!
--
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 ]
11:25 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:08 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: rewriting legacy OS for new iron
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Ashley Carder wrote:
Thanks. It was originally put together just for my old college buddies
and retired professor, but I'll share it with the rest of you folks. I
need to update it to include some info and pictures of my real PDP-11
computer center that is now growing and coming along quite nicely.
Ashley
I have a RSTS/E system on the internet running
under simh. It's late
1970s vintage, RSTS/E V7. Do you have a preference of an account
number that you would like me to set up for you? (no, don't ask for a
privileged account yet!) Mine is a recreation of the Wofford College
system of 1977-79. For more info, go to http://www.woffordwitch.com.
I also have this system SYSGENed on RL02 packs and running on a real
PDP-11/34.
Ashley,
That is a very cool website! --
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 ]
15 Sep
15 Sep
12:18 p.m.
I see that my www.woffordwitch.com site is getting a little traffic today.
Can you folks let me know if you have any difficulty with the site, or any
problems with pages rendering properly? I think that it's only been
tested using Internet Explorer on Windows, so this will be a good
shakedown with the variety of operating systems and browsers that
are used by the group here. I suppose I should update the site to
include some info on the *REAL* PDP-11 installation. I haven't made
any site updates since I moved the system from the simh simulator to
the real hardware.
Thanks,
Ashley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ashley Carder" <wacarder(a)usit.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: rewriting legacy OS for new iron
-----Original
Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces@classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of Vintage Computer
Festival
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:08 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: rewriting legacy OS for new iron
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Ashley Carder wrote:
Thanks. It was originally put together just for my old college buddies
and retired professor, but I'll share it with the rest of you folks. I
need to update it to include some info and pictures of my real PDP-11
computer center that is now growing and coming along quite nicely.
Ashley
I have a RSTS/E system on the internet running
under simh. It's late
1970s vintage, RSTS/E V7. Do you have a preference of an account
number that you would like me to set up for you? (no, don't ask for a
privileged account yet!) Mine is a recreation of the Wofford College
system of 1977-79. For more info, go to http://www.woffordwitch.com.
I also have this system SYSGENed on RL02 packs and running on a real
PDP-11/34.
Ashley,
That is a very cool website! --
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 ]
16 Sep
16 Sep
12:40 a.m.
New subject: Mine's smaller than yours (Re: rewriting legacy OS for new iron)
Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net>et>:
I wish I had some DEC hardware, what's the
physically smallest PDP11
one could find?
I have an SBC-11 system consisting of a power supply and
4-slot backplane that's about the size of a couple of
lunch boxes.
Can anyone beat that?
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
12:46 a.m.
Lyle Bickley <lbickley(a)bickleywest.com>om>:
I thinks its a LOT easier (and more fun) to simply run
it on real
DEC hardware - or if you can't create that environment - run it on
Intel via the SIMH or ERSATZ emulators.
Maybe run an emulator directly on the hardware, without any other OS
in the way? That would be the next best thing to implementing the OS
on the bare metal.
Sometimes I think it might be fun to build an emulator based on an
FPGA. Then you wouldn't have any other instruction set in the way,
either. :-)
Has anyone out there done that?
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
21 Sep
21 Sep
1:33 p.m.
>>>> "Greg" == Greg Ewing
<greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
Greg> Sometimes I think it might be fun to build an emulator based on
Greg> an FPGA. Then you wouldn't have any other instruction set in
Greg> the way, either. :-)
Greg> Has anyone out there done that?
I don't know about the PDP-11. But yes, for the PDP-4 and PDP-8:
http://www.spies.com/~dgc/
paul
1:46 p.m.
Greg Ewing:
Lyle Bickley <lbickley(a)bickleywest.com>om>:
For an emulator the route to go is a dedicated box, with as lean of an OS
installation as is needed to boot the computer and run the Emulator. That
is if you're looking for optimum performance (and if you are, running on a
dual processor box would be good as well).
As for the FPGA route, there are commercial PDP-11 CPU boards out there that
use FPGA's for the CPU. Oddly enough, while hobbyists have done several DEC
CPU's in FPGA's (including two different PDP-10 projects), no one to my
knowledge has done a PDP-11.
I for one would love to see a FPGA Hobbyist implementation of a PDP-11 that
includes memory, SLU's and a disk controller, and could either be a SBC, or
go onto a Q-Bus board.
Zane
I thinks its a LOT easier (and more fun) to
simply run it on real
DEC hardware - or if you can't create that environment - run it on
Intel via the SIMH or ERSATZ emulators.
Maybe run an emulator directly on the hardware, without any other OS
in the way? That would be the next best thing to implementing the OS
on the bare metal.
Sometimes I think it might be fun to build an emulator based on an
FPGA. Then you wouldn't have any other instruction set in the way,
either. :-)
Has anyone out there done that?
22 Sep
22 Sep
11:31 p.m.
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh(a)aracnet.com>om>:
Oddly enough, while hobbyists have done several DEC
CPU's in FPGA's
(including two different PDP-10 projects), no one to my knowledge
has done a PDP-11.
Hey, neat! That means there's still a chance I could
be the first...
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
27 Sep
27 Sep
11:25 a.m.
Greg Ewing wrote:
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh(a)aracnet.com>om>:
Too late. Some guys in Japan did "pop-11".
Looks pretty nice, but it's written in some non-standard language and
then converted into verilog.
I've been trying to coax the orginal source out of the authors with no
luck so far.
I'd sure like to see this in pure verilog.
http://shimizu-lab.dt.u-tokai.ac.jp/pop11.html
-brad
Oddly enough, while hobbyists have done several
DEC CPU's in FPGA's
(including two different PDP-10 projects), no one to my knowledge
has done a PDP-11.
Hey, neat! That means there's still a chance I could
be the first...
28 Sep
28 Sep
1:14 a.m.
Brad Parker <brad(a)heeltoe.com>om>:
Hmmm... so maybe I could be the first to release
one as open source...
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a |
Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. |
greg(a)cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
Greg Ewing wrote:
Hey, neat!
That means there's still a chance I could
be the first...
Too late. Some guys in Japan did "pop-11".
I've been trying to coax the orginal source out of the authors with no
luck so far.
14 Sep
14 Sep
2:17 p.m.
Paul Koning wrote:
It would be better to just create a compiler for the languages like
basic-plus than trying to rewrite the entire OS. It would allow you
to use the old programs on new systems. Make a BP2 front-end for
GCC, and you can natively run RSTS/E programs on your Linux
system.
If you want to play with a BP2 to C++ translator:
http://onewest.net/~kth/btran.tgz
pre-alpha, plenty of bugs, ugly code, lots of missing features.
Has configure problems. Run configure/make in each subdirectory (src,
lib, examples) and it mostly works. You may have to edit generated
example file 'fri13.cc' and change an 'atof' to 'basic::atof'.
>>>>"Ron" == Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
Ron> Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E,
Ron> ITS, TWENEX or one of the other legacy OS to work on x86
Ron> machines? The idea would be to do something like Linux has done
Ron> for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all the ones I
Ron> mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write could
Ron> have once run on anything.
What would it mean to "run" such an OS on an x86? Consider RSTS,
which is the only one of those three I know well. The OS itself is
100% assembly language. The system services are defined in terms of
request blocks in low user memory along with system call instructions
(EMT opcode of the PDP-11). Applications were generally written in
Basic-Plus (or -2), or in PDP11 assembler; rarely in some other
language such as TECO, or FORTH, or others.
I could imagine creating a Basic-Plus environment that emulates that
aspect of RSTS. I could also imagine a BP2 compiler that generates
X86 code. The surrounding machinery -- "run time systems", the system
service semantics, etc. -- that would be tricky. Assuming you get
that far, you have a user mode analog of the original, so old
applications (if written in Basic-Plus or BP2) would run. The same
would go for TECO. Assembly language applications have no chance
short of running an emulator at least for user mode. The same goes
for FORTH, since it tends to hook right into the assembly style system
service API, though obviously you could replace just that small part
and keep the rest.
2:06 p.m.
>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Handy
<kth(a)srv.net> writes:
Kevin> It would be better to just create a compiler for the languages
Kevin> like basic-plus than trying to rewrite the entire OS. It would
Kevin> allow you to use the old programs on new systems. Make a BP2
Kevin> front-end for GCC, and you can natively run RSTS/E programs on
Kevin> your Linux system.
Yes, once you have implemented a sys(char *) function that knows all
the RSTS sys calls... which is a substantial job. And the libc
additions to emulate the various I/O modifiers, especially for
terminal I/O where they are both strange and important...
paul
7:36 p.m.
On Sep 14, 2004, at 12:06 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
Might as well just run linux. It has lots of good languages, and plays
nicely with terminals and
telnet sessions. It's not very legacy tho.
>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Handy <kth(a)srv.net> writes:
Kevin> It would be better to just create a compiler for the languages
Kevin> like basic-plus than trying to rewrite the entire OS. It would
Kevin> allow you to use the old programs on new systems. Make a BP2
Kevin> front-end for GCC, and you can natively run RSTS/E programs on
Kevin> your Linux system.
Yes, once you have implemented a sys(char *) function that knows all
the RSTS sys calls... which is a substantial job. And the libc
additions to emulate the various I/O modifiers, especially for
terminal I/O where they are both strange and important...
paul
15 Sep
15 Sep
4:08 p.m.
Isn't this sort of task better handled by a CPU-instruction-set-type
simulator? Sheesh, with the CPUs we have today you could code it up in
Perl and get good performance.
Hardware interface though would be a Really Big Deal. You could always
Punt and when you get to a read-disk-block OS call, palm it off on the
host OS.
This approach isn't new, it's as old as stored-program computing.
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 07:17, Paul Koning wrote:
>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> writes:
Ron> Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E,
Ron> ITS, TWENEX or one of the other legacy OS to work on x86
Ron> machines? The idea would be to do something like Linux has done
Ron> for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all the ones I
Ron> mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write could
Ron> have once run on anything.
What would it mean to "run" such an OS on an x86? Consider RSTS,
which is the only one of those three I know well. The OS itself is
100% assembly language. The system services are defined in terms of
request blocks in low user memory along with system call instructions
(EMT opcode of the PDP-11). Applications were generally written in
Basic-Plus (or -2), or in PDP11 assembler; rarely in some other
language such as TECO, or FORTH, or others.
I could imagine creating a Basic-Plus environment that emulates that
aspect of RSTS. I could also imagine a BP2 compiler that generates
X86 code. The surrounding machinery -- "run time systems", the system
service semantics, etc. -- that would be tricky. Assuming you get
that far, you have a user mode analog of the original, so old
applications (if written in Basic-Plus or BP2) would run. The same
would go for TECO. Assembly language applications have no chance
short of running an emulator at least for user mode. The same goes
for FORTH, since it tends to hook right into the assembly style system
service API, though obviously you could replace just that small part
and keep the rest.
paul
7397
days inactive
7412
days old
35 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
brad＠heeltoe.com -
dickset＠amanda.spole.gov -
greg＠cosc.canterbury.ac.nz -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
kth＠srv.net -
lbickley＠bickleywest.com -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
Pres＠macro-inc.com -
ron.hudson＠sbcglobal.net -
tomj＠wps.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
wacarder＠usit.net