Jerome Fine replies: Hello Stuart and welcome to the list from the software side. I think there are very few whose interest is almost totally software, but a sprinkle probably does exists. I can't say that I every learned very much about hardware. The software was always my cup. My first system was an IBM 650 which only has assembler language and NO operating system. One user at a time on a system which occupied a whole room. I have a number of PDP-11 Qbus systems as well, but the Unibus systems are BOTH too heavy and used to be too expensive. Plus, I focus on RT-11 operating systems, fixing bugs and making enhancements. My current goal is to produce a Y2K/Y10K V5.03 of RT-11 for hobby users. NO ONE else seems interested, so I will just putter along. NOW that would be very interesting. Is there a copy of the source available? Was it ever submitted to DECUS? About 10 years ago, I ran out of address space on one of the applications in an RT-11 environment (obvious on a PDP-11). In order to extend the available memory, we decided to allow one of the cardinal rules to be violated when overlays were being used. Since this was under RT11XM and already 64 KBytes were being used of address space along with virtual arrays of over 2 MBytes, it seemed like the best solution. Yes, for those of you who know RT-11 under RT11XM well - when VIRTUAL arrays are being used, 8 KBytes of the I/O page are lost to the use of the Memory Management Hardware. In any case, the cardinal rule that was violated was the an overlay in the same address space could NOT call an overlay in the same address space or memory region. There is an excellent reason of course - the return address code is not available when that happens - sort of obvious if one thinks about it. Plus it would tend to create thrashing behavior in a low memory overlay situation when the operating system would continually need to read the different overlays back into memory each time. However, when virtual overlays are used, the code always stays in memory and the operating system just maps in (and out) the various portions of the code. One additional rule that also must be imposed when the above cardinal rule is violated is that any arguments passed during a CALL to another overlay should probably be in the root so that the new overlay can "see" them. Fortunately, references to VIRTUAL arrays are always done via the root. In any case, to make a long story short, the overlay handler was easily modified to save the overlay number on the stack and when a different overlay region was used for the new overlay, the overlay handler then automatically restored the old overlay region without the user having to do the extra code that others proposed to handle that situation. Multi-user Basic (MUBASC) does this all the time, but users are not aware. I used a VAX/VMS system in the early 1990s and discovered all of the wonderful enhancements. Ever since I have attempted to figure out how to port some of them back down to RT-11. One such as the Logical Name List capability is close to completion as a Path Handler in RT-11. Also similar to the PATH NAME is DOS. In any case, welcome to the classiccmp list. There are few other software addicts such as myself. 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.

Jerome Fine replies: The same with some code I intend to port to V5.03 of RT-11. Likewise. I seem to be spending more time working out the details. Also, no one else seems to care about it in any case. Any possibility that it can also be used under RT-11? There are probably many such examples. TPU/EVE (I think that is correct as it applies to the VAX screen editor) would be great to have under RT-11. Plus other features as well. The Logical Name List in VMS seems to be implemented right into the operating system. I hope to do the same under RT-11 with the device name PHn: which the user can define as a search list of up to 16 devices. Is anyone on this list interested in: (a) Participating in the design detail (other than Megan Gentry)? (b) Using the features after they are made available other than the few who have already expressed an interest? Thus far, there really has be less than encouragement. Note that my expression of the situation is a complaint, just an observation. Plus I have been saying it for so my years, it is really time to actually do it. 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.

Jerome Fine replies: I am not sure what you are referring to. But if you don't remember, not a problem with me. While TSX-PLUS certainly can satisfy that requirement, the license for the product is rather expensive. I don't know if they have a hobby program, but I have not heard of one - although they did have a demo license that allowed 30 minutes of usage at a time. Fortunately, I do have my own license for V6.5 TSX-PLUS so I am able to run it when I used to have a contract that used TSX-PLUS over 5 years ago. If it was helpful, I could make sure that the multi-tasking and multi-user aspects were working correctly. That is a bit funny. On my PDP-11/83, I have SIX terminals sitting on my desk under RT-11 which has multi-terminal support in the monitor. I use RT11XM and run 5 KED sessions when I want to edit source code. 4 KED sessions look at the MACRO-11 listing and the BackGround job makes the actual changes. I also have a lack of time - I am spending too much time on the IP rights issue with Bill Gunshannon. We obviously have a different point of view. THANK YOU. For the next few years, my primary focus will be with bug fixes and enhancements for RT-11 starting with Y2K/Y10K for V5.03 of RT-11. I intend to make sure that all of the code can be adapted to all versions from V5.03 to V5.07 so that in 10 years when Mentec finally gives up and allows hobby users full access, it will need very little change. A few other enhancements will be a PATH HANDLER, 256 RT-11 partitions, enhancements to the SL: in RT-11. I do have a question about the design and implementation. If you have some RT-11 understanding and a knowledge of the information kept in the fixed offsets from the start of RMON, could I ask you a question? 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.

Jerome Fine replies: I thought I saw a comment on RT-11. Not a problem. I have managed to avoid ethernet under RT-11. Eventually, I will look at it. But not today. Thus far the only comment from Megan Gentry is that there will be a problem in compatibility with V5.03 up to V5.07 for any changes that I will make. When I proposed a solution for V5.03 that would be compatible with V5.07, the "far better hints" only considered what Megan opposed. While I would value any method that Megan would suggest that ensures that all of the extra code to V5.03 could also be used with V5.07, until they are provided, they can't be evaluated. At this point, Megan might be too busy looking for a new job - GOOD LUCK with that situation!! While I haven't heard, thus far, from anyone who understands the internals of RT-11 sufficiently to comment on the actual details of what I have proposed, my overall concept is that I want any bug fixes and enhancements made to be available to all hobby users. Since the hobby license from Mentec allows V5.03 of RT-11 (released in 1985) to be used with the Supnik emulator, V5.03 seems where I should start. If, as seems extremely unlikely right now for at least the next 10 years, Mentec changes its stand and allows V5.06 of RT-11 (released in August 1992 - so it is already over 10 years old) to be available to hobby users, then the same code will be available immediately. After I do the Y2K/Y10K bug fixes, I will ask about a few enhancements such as a PATH HANDLER, booting an MSCP RT-11 partition (i.e. a non-zero partition which V5.06 already can do because one instruction was omitted some that are just for emulators. If no one else is able to help, it will be a one person group to fix the bugs. 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.

It was called XL... the PRO300 series version of the same driver (a conditional assembly) was called XC. I was responsible for development of XL/XC/VTCOM/TRANSF package after taking it over from the original developer. Megan Gentry Former RT-11 Developer +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | email: mbg at world.std.com | | | | | "this space | (s/ at /@/) | | unavoidably left blank" | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ | | | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler | | (DEC '77-'98) | required." - mbg KB1FCA | +--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

But the XC.MAC is simply a prefix file, the actual code would have gone into XL, so you are correct... Actually, the original names for the parts of the package (before I renamed them using DEC-standard naming conventions) were MD (driver) VTERM (the RT-end communications program) TRANSF (same name, but originally written in BASIC+ for RSTS since that was the system we used) Megan