11 Apr
2011
11 Apr
'11
1:15 a.m.
Is anyone selling working mockups of early model PDP-11s?
Ie. something with console switches and blinkenlights that
runs a simulator or uses a fpga implementation of a PDP11
and interfaces to some modern hardware like SATA drive..
11 Apr
11 Apr
7:31 a.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
Tim Newsham wrote:
Is anyone selling working mockups of early model
PDP-11s?
Ie. something with console switches and blinkenlights that
runs a simulator or uses a fpga implementation of a PDP11
and interfaces to some modern hardware like SATA drive..
YES!! My working mock-up does not look very much like any early
Unibus PDP-11 (PDP-11/10 if that is your definition of an early model
PDP-11????) on the outside, but the characters displayed to the screen
on my monitor are exact duplicates of what would have been displayed
on a VT100. I am not much of a hardware addict (my addiction is with
software), so I also have not bothered to produce a bank of "console
switches and blinkenlights" which would provide me with the additional
look and feel of a PDP-11/10 system. I understand that they are
possible for anyone who likes to pretend that they really are running
a PDP-11/10.
[What no one has ever managed to help me understand is what the
purpose is of having the hardware look like the PDP-11/10. After
you actually restore a real PDP-11/10, what can you do with it other
than run a few programs that don't run very fast on that hardware.
Or you can look and admire your effort, but then what? Of course,
I can fix the many bugs in RT-11 and enhance that operating system
as much as I can manage, but no one else seems even interested.
So my software addiction to RT-11 seems just about as useful.]
In general, I usually run my PDP-11 software on a mock-up which
supports at least a PDP-11/23 CPU with 4 MegaBytes of mock-up
memory. There are those SATA II drives hidden inside the mock-up
and they tend to run a bit faster than the RK05 drives which were
originally available on the PDP-11/10. In the actual mock-up that I
just used yesterday to test the Y3K ready code in one of the programs
that runs under RT-11, I actually had the mock-up configured to look
like a PDP-11/73 with 4 MegaBytes of mock-up memory and SCSI
drives (around a dozen or so) of 2 GigaBytes each (not much use
under RT-11 to have more than 2 GigaBytes per SCSI mock-up
drive since RT-11 can't easily see more than 2 GigaBytes of a disk
drive at a time).
As for the actual difference between what is displayed on the screen,
the characters do look a bit different than a VT100 would display
them (and if I choose, I could configure the mock-up to pretend that
a PDP-11/10 was being run), but the software runs between 500 and
1000 times faster than a PDP-11/10 would run the program or about
100 times as fast as a PDP-11/93 runs the program. Also, the disk I/O
is about 200 times faster than any SCSI disk drive connected to any
Qbus PDP-11 (SATA III drives would be even faster, but I have yet
to upgrade).
If you want a commercial license for the software which runs the mock-up
(you can probably get help here to produce the "console switches and
blinkenlights" although I can't help you with that), the cost is about
$ US 3000 if I remember correctly. You will need your own PC running
Windows or DOS and be careful with the video card and monitor if
you want it to display 132 character text lines in FULL SCREEN mode.
Needless to say, for anyone who knows of may software addiction to
RT-11, the software program to emulate a PDP-11 is called Ersatz-11.
There is also a hobby version which you can download for free if you
are not doing commercial work, i.e. not selling the results of your efforts.
SIMH also does the same thing, although I have a problem with the screen
display since SIMH does not have built-in emulation for the VT100 (or at
least the last time I used SIMH, it did not).
Does this VERY long response answer any of your questions? You
did not say how much the mock-up had to actually look like the original
PDP-11, so I assumed that as long as the input to the keyboard and
output to the screen were correct as far as content, that would be
sufficient (even though it was being displayed 1000 times as fast as
an early PDP-11 system could support - interesting, my keyboard
input never seems to be any faster than those original PDP-11 systems
could support).
Tim, please at least acknowledge my response and state if your definition
of a PDP-11 mock-up required something that is close enough to a real
PDP-11/10 to fool someone who has never seen a PDP-11/10 before.
Or if the output to the screen was the key aspect (as long as the speed
of the output was not a factor).
Any other questions?
Jerome Fine
10:28 a.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
On 4/11/11 7:31 AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
SIMH also does the same thing, although I have a
problem with the screen
display since SIMH does not have built-in emulation for the VT100 (or at
least the last time I used SIMH, it did not).
Urr? This is not the responsibility of a processor emulator. At
least it isn't on any sane platform.
SIMH (the PDP-11 part of it) spits the characters out to its
controlling terminal as it receives them from the emulated PDP-11's
console (addr 777566) serial port. As all common CLI access programs
(xterm/gnome-terminal/etc under most Unices including OS X, additionally
Terminal.app and iTerm.app under OS X) all speak ANSI by default, you
get the correct behavior even on the console.
And the only PDP-11 OS in which one is essentially *required* to use
the console all the time is RT-11, which is the least-capable of all of
the various PDP-11 OSs anyway, perhaps excluding some very early stuff
like CAPS-11 and DOS-11.
(I'm not knocking either Ersatz-11 or RT-11, because I love 'em both,
but just injecting a little reality here)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
7:36 p.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
Dave McGuire wrote:
On 4/11/11 7:31
AM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
SIMH also does the same thing, although I have a
problem with the screen
display since SIMH does not have built-in emulation for the VT100 (or at
least the last time I used SIMH, it did not).
Urr? This is not the responsibility of a processor emulator. At
least it isn't on any sane platform. SIMH (the PDP-11 part of it) spits the characters out
to its
controlling terminal as it receives them from the emulated PDP-11's
console (addr 777566) serial port. As all common CLI access programs
(xterm/gnome-terminal/etc under most Unices including OS X,
additionally Terminal.app and iTerm.app under OS X) all speak ANSI by
default, you get the correct behavior even on the console.
I don't know if the ability of the VT100 to switch character sets for the
Application Keypad is part of ANSI support. Please clarify.
One other point. While RT-11 must have a console, it need not
be at address 777566. The console can also be a DZ or a DH
device. The only common aspect may be ANSI for a VT100 or
the VT52 protocol in the case of that terminal. Also see below
regarding the use of the SL: under all RT-11 consoles (includes
an RT-11 monitor which supports multi-terminal features which
includes DL, DZ and DH hardware).
By the way, I have not actually tested it, but I think that Ersatz-11
also supports the VT52 Application Keypad - which, of course, is
definitely not ANSI.
And the only PDP-11 OS in which one is essentially
*required* to use
the console all the time is RT-11, which is the least-capable of all
of the various PDP-11 OSs anyway, perhaps excluding some very early
stuff like CAPS-11 and DOS-11.
Actually, in order to run RT-11, typing commands from the console does NOT
require anything other than normal characters. The ONLY reason that RT-11
uses (as opposed to NEEDS) the special characters of the Application Keypad
and the ARROW keys is to run SL: (Single Line Editor - similar in many
aspects
to DOSKEY). Since it probably takes me almost an hour to slowly type my
response in just this one case, I find that the ability to use at least
a command
stack (such as RSTS/E in V10.1 and RT-11 starting around V5.03) makes
program development so much faster that I only use SIMH when absolutely
necessary.
So just because RT-11 is "*required* to use the console all the time" is NOT
essential to support the VT100 ability to switch the Application Keypad keys
to support the SL: in RT-11. Such support is only for fellows like me who
can't touch type at an acceptable speed.
(I'm not knocking either Ersatz-11 or RT-11,
because I love 'em both,
but just injecting a little reality here)
Understood. Again I agree. But I am curious, why has SIMH dropped
what little support it did have for the Application Keypad on the VT100?
Also, why has some eager beaver not stepped up to the plate and developed
an option for SIMH to provide that support for RT-11 fellows like myself?
If Ersatz-11 can support the PF1, PF2, PF3 and PF4 keys, I really don't
understand why SIMH can't do the same. In fact, Ersatz-11 supports the
ability to DEFINE any key, so that might be part of the answer. Ersatz-11
also supports multiple consoles. It is likely that John Wilson thought
about
what features a commercial version of Ersatz-11 would require. I notice
that I use those multiple consoles under RSTS/E as well as TSX-Plus. So
those extra features are not limited to be used by just RT-11. Probably
the extra features can be used by RSX-11, but I don't have a bootable
copy available to run.
Jerome Fine
9:40 p.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
On 4/11/11 7:36 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
...
>> SIMH also does the same thing, although I have
a problem with the screen
>> display since SIMH does not have built-in emulation for the VT100 (or at
>> least the last time I used SIMH, it did not).
>
> Urr? This is not the responsibility of a processor emulator. At least
> it isn't on any sane platform.
....
SIMH (the
PDP-11 part of it) spits the characters out to its
controlling terminal as it receives them from the emulated PDP-11's
console (addr 777566) serial port. As all common CLI access programs
(xterm/gnome-terminal/etc under most Unices including OS X,
additionally Terminal.app and iTerm.app under OS X) all speak ANSI by
default, you get the correct behavior even on the console.
I don't know if the ability of the VT100 to switch character sets for the
Application Keypad is part of ANSI support. Please clarify. Understood. Again I agree. But I am curious, why has
SIMH dropped
what little support it did have for the Application Keypad on the VT100?
Also, why has some eager beaver not stepped up to the plate and developed
an option for SIMH to provide that support for RT-11 fellows like myself?
We're talking about very different things. I will try to explain
what I mean.
SIMH doesn't "support" specific keys or specific terminal emulations
at all, because that's outside its scope. It's very much like saying a
PDP-11/23 (for example) "supports" a VT100, or a PDP-11/23 supports PF
keys, or some other terminal function. It doesn't...it has serial
ports, and the OS (as you know) squirts bytes in and out of those serial
ports, and what the terminal or the OS (or the app software for that
matter) has nothing to do with the fact that the computer is, in this
example, a PDP-11/23.
A PDP-11/23 "has support for" a VT100's PF keys if a VT100 terminal
(or a clone) is plugged into it. In exactly this same way, SIMH "has
support for" PF keys if a VT100 terminal is "plugged into" it.
Say I start a terminal program like "gnome-terminal", which is a
common terminal program on Linux and Solaris machines. In that terminal
window, I get a shell prompt. I start SIMH, which creates a virtual
PDP-11 whose default console port (777566) is logically "connected to" a
terminal...not a hardware VT100, but the instance of the
"gnome-terminal" program. It speaks ANSI codes and mostly implements a
VT100, so <esc>[2J will clear the screen, <esc>[H homes the cursor, etc.
All of these functions are completely outside the scope of SIMH. If,
say, I boot RSTS/E on that virtual PDP-11, do SET TERM/DEV=VT100", and I
fire up EDT, then tell EDT to "SET MODE CHANGE", the first thing that
happens (more or less) is that EDT sends <esc>[2J to clear the screen.
SIMH never sees this...or, more correctly, it sees those four bytes
written to 777566, and squirts them through the emulated serial port
untouched. At that point, they are no longer the responsibility of
SIMH. It's up to the "terminal" that is "connected" to this
virtual
PDP-11 to understand what those bytes mean and what to do with them.
If I had started SIMH under a terminal program that only understands
the control codes of, say, an LSI ADM-3A, that EDT session would look
like gibberish.
In this way, I can start SIMH under any sort of terminal (iTerm under
OS X has wonderful full-VT-keypad emulation) and have things work the
way I want them to, for any desired configuration. I can even start it
under a pseudo-terminal that has no display, but watches for patterns
sent from SIMH and sends responses accordingly, as if they'd been typed
by a human. (an "expect" script, for anyone into such things)
What you are (or seem to be) talking about is starting a PDP-11
emulator that somehow opens its own window, thus creating a virtual
terminal of sorts, and that terminal is responsible for interpreting the
control codes, and handling key events and translating them to the
appropriate bytes to send to the emulated PDP-11's emulated serial port.
This is certainly a reasonable setup, but it locks you into one
specific configuration that may or may not be what you want. A car and
an oven may be a handy combination sometimes, but they perform different
tasks, and only having a car with an oven, or only having an oven in the
car, might sometimes be very limiting and inconvenient.
SIMH, to my knowledge, has never done this on any of its native
platforms. I've not spoken with Bob Supnik about this, but if it did in
fact do this on its Windows port, and it doesn't any longer, it's likely
because Bob realized the above and removed that functionality. I
certainly would have. After all, if every PDP-11/23 came with a VT100
permanently and undetachably connected to its console port, what would a
person do if they wanted an LA36 on the console?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
10:21 p.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
Dave McGuire wrote:
Understood.
Again I agree. But I am curious, why has SIMH dropped
what little support it did have for the Application Keypad on the VT100?
Also, why has some eager beaver not stepped up to the plate and
developed
an option for SIMH to provide that support for RT-11 fellows like
myself?
We're talking about very different things. I will try to explain
what I mean.
SIMH doesn't "support" specific keys or specific terminal emulations
at all, because that's outside its scope. It's very much like saying
a PDP-11/23 (for example) "supports" a VT100, or a PDP-11/23 supports
PF keys, or some other terminal function. It doesn't...it has serial
ports, and the OS (as you know) squirts bytes in and out of those
serial ports, and what the terminal or the OS (or the app software for
that matter) has nothing to do with the fact that the computer is, in
this example, a PDP-11/23.
A PDP-11/23 "has support for" a VT100's PF keys if a VT100 terminal
(or a clone) is plugged into it. In exactly this same way, SIMH "has
support for" PF keys if a VT100 terminal is "plugged into" it.
Say I start a terminal program like "gnome-terminal", which is a
common terminal program on Linux and Solaris machines. In that
terminal window, I get a shell prompt. I start SIMH, which creates a
virtual PDP-11 whose default console port (777566) is logically
"connected to" a terminal...not a hardware VT100, but the instance of
the "gnome-terminal" program. It speaks ANSI codes and mostly
implements a VT100, so <esc>[2J will clear the screen, <esc>[H homes
the cursor, etc. All of these functions are completely outside the
scope of SIMH. If, say, I boot RSTS/E on that virtual PDP-11, do SET
TERM/DEV=VT100", and I fire up EDT, then tell EDT to "SET MODE
CHANGE", the first thing that happens (more or less) is that EDT sends
<esc>[2J to clear the screen. SIMH never sees this...or, more
correctly, it sees those four bytes written to 777566, and squirts
them through the emulated serial port untouched. At that point, they
are no longer the responsibility of SIMH. It's up to the "terminal"
that is "connected" to this virtual PDP-11 to understand what those
bytes mean and what to do with them.
If I had started SIMH under a terminal program that only understands
the control codes of, say, an LSI ADM-3A, that EDT session would look
like gibberish.
In this way, I can start SIMH under any sort of terminal (iTerm
under OS X has wonderful full-VT-keypad emulation) and have things
work the way I want them to, for any desired configuration. I can
even start it under a pseudo-terminal that has no display, but watches
for patterns sent from SIMH and sends responses accordingly, as if
they'd been typed by a human. (an "expect" script, for anyone into
such things)
What you are (or seem to be) talking about is starting a PDP-11
emulator that somehow opens its own window, thus creating a virtual
terminal of sorts, and that terminal is responsible for interpreting
the control codes, and handling key events and translating them to the
appropriate bytes to send to the emulated PDP-11's emulated serial port.
This is certainly a reasonable setup, but it locks you into one
specific configuration that may or may not be what you want. A car
and an oven may be a handy combination sometimes, but they perform
different tasks, and only having a car with an oven, or only having an
oven in the car, might sometimes be very limiting and inconvenient.
SIMH, to my knowledge, has never done this on any of its native
platforms. I've not spoken with Bob Supnik about this, but if it did
in fact do this on its Windows port, and it doesn't any longer, it's
likely because Bob realized the above and removed that functionality.
I certainly would have. After all, if every PDP-11/23 came with a
VT100 permanently and undetachably connected to its console port, what
would a person do if they wanted an LA36 on the console? from the VT52 series to the VT510 series would not be
reasonable,
at least supporting the VT100 would provide 95% of the functions
needed to run SIMH with a PDP-11, in particular for RT-11 when
SL: is used or in general for RSTS/E when ARROW keys are used.
I also agree that the reason that Bob removed the VT100 Application
Keypad functions was likely for the reasons you suggest.
So while having a VT100 permanently connected to every PDP-11
running under SIMH is not the solution that Bob Subnik adopted,
having that as an option would seem to have been helpful for those
users who need a VT100 display interface.
On the other hand, while Ersatz-11 does allow major flexibility on
the keyboard side, on the display side of the fence, it is a VT100 by
default all of the time. If someone wanted an LA36 on the console,
then it is possible to change some of the display parameters. But
since the output is still to a video display, then VT100 type of
character handling seems the most appropriate in any case.
In short, if you are using any standard PC these days, a hard copy
display is just not available in any case as an option as far as I am
aware. However, with Ersatz-11 it would be possible to have a
serial port with a cable attached to an LA36 on the console in
which case the operator could tell the operating system that an
LA36 was being used.
In this case, I agree with the default selection for SIMH, I just
disagree that there is no VT100 support as an option.
Jeome Fine
12 Apr
12 Apr
3:10 p.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
Jerome H. Fine wrote:
While I agree with everything that you have written, I still STRONGLY
suggest that SIMH have an optional set of terminal interfaces which are
able to emulate the most popular terminals which DEC supported for
the PDP-11. While I agree that supporting all of the video terminals
from the VT52 series to the VT510 series would not be reasonable,
at least supporting the VT100 would provide 95% of the functions
needed to run SIMH with a PDP-11, in particular for RT-11 when
SL: is used or in general for RSTS/E when ARROW keys are used.
I also agree that the reason that Bob removed the VT100 Application
Keypad functions was likely for the reasons you suggest.
So while having a VT100 permanently connected to every PDP-11
running under SIMH is not the solution that Bob Subnik adopted,
having that as an option would seem to have been helpful for those
users who need a VT100 display interface.
On the other hand, while Ersatz-11 does allow major flexibility on
the keyboard side, on the display side of the fence, it is a VT100 by
default all of the time. If someone wanted an LA36 on the console,
then it is possible to change some of the display parameters. But
since the output is still to a video display, then VT100 type of
character handling seems the most appropriate in any case.
In short, if you are using any standard PC these days, a hard copy
display is just not available in any case as an option as far as I am
aware. However, with Ersatz-11 it would be possible to have a
serial port with a cable attached to an LA36 on the console in
which case the operator could tell the operating system that an
LA36 was being used.
In this case, I agree with the default selection for SIMH, I just
disagree that there is no VT100 support as an option.
SIMH supports redirecting the
console to a Telnet port using "set
console telnet=<port>". You can connect just about any terminal emulator
you want in this way, so there is no need for SIMH to include its own
terminal emulator.
10:38 p.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
Andrew Warkentin wrote:
Jerome H. Fine
wrote:
[Snip]
In this case, I agree with the default selection for SIMH, I just
disagree that there is no VT100 support as an option.
SIMH supports redirecting the console to a Telnet port using "set
console telnet=<port>". You can connect just about any terminal
emulator you want in this way, so there is no need for SIMH to include
its own terminal emulator. 
13 Apr
13 Apr
12:11 a.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
On Apr 12, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
As a Windows DUMMY, in particular for Windows 98SE and
Windows XP, could you PLEASE provide some details?
Can it be done using just one hardware system running under a
Windows OS? If I require a second hardware system, then
almost any advantage will be lost. Also, how is the terminal
emulator set up to be in-between SIMH and the user via the
command: "SET CONSOLE TELNET=<PORT>" and
specifically what environment needs to be set up to allow
that command to be entered? A DOS box? What additional
files are required? What about multiple terminals in the manner
supported by Ersatz-11 (which is a separate issue from the
emulation support)?
Here's how I would do it (on the same system) on Mac OS X (or probably any Unix
work-a-like for that matter):
In another terminal window type: "telnet 127.0.0.1:<port>" where
<port> is the # you used in the "set console" command above.
If 127.0.0.1 doesn't work try the IP address of the machine you're running on (ie
the machine that SIMH was started on). This would also allow you to "telnet"
into the SIMH session from any system that can reach the IP address (and isn't blocked
by a router/firewall).
TTFN - Guy
Andrew
Warkentin wrote:
Jerome H.
Fine wrote:
[Snip]
In this case, I agree with the default selection for SIMH, I just
disagree that there is no VT100 support as an option.
SIMH supports redirecting the console to a Telnet port using "set console
telnet=<port>". You can connect just about any terminal emulator you want in
this way, so there is no need for SIMH to include its own terminal emulator. 
7:23 a.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
On Tuesday (04/12/2011 at 10:38PM -0400), Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I would rather not be using Windows, but my son provides
my support and will only help if I use Windows. He has
provided a system for both of his parents, so we don't
tend to insist on Unix or some other operating system.
Why does Mickey Rooney come to mind here?
--
Chris Elmquist
8:25 a.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
At 06:23 AM 4/13/2011, Chris Elmquist wrote:
On Tuesday (04/12/2011 at 10:38PM -0400), Jerome H.
Fine wrote:
Kids these days. You mean Mickey "Hey kids, let's put on a show in the
barn"? Or Andy "Didya ever notice shoes? Everybody wears them"?
- John
I would rather not be using Windows, but my son provides
my support and will only help if I use Windows. He has
provided a system for both of his parents, so we don't
tend to insist on Unix or some other operating system.
Why does Mickey Rooney come to mind here? 
11:26 a.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/13/2011 07:23 AM, Chris Elmquist wrote:
On Tuesday (04/12/2011 at 10:38PM -0400), Jerome H.
Fine wrote:
Forcing you to use Windows? This clearly is a sign of parent abuse!
Barry
I would rather not be using Windows, but my son provides
my support and will only help if I use Windows. He has
provided a system for both of his parents, so we don't
tend to insist on Unix or some other operating system.
Why does Mickey Rooney come to mind here?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFNpcCzCFu3bIiwtTARAr3BAJ0ZgBqcu6GDC92+Dxw00KwnpZW6ugCdHoU8
gzqsnAwvJUFtYUnmVva2d2I=
=h3l3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
16 Apr
16 Apr
5:17 p.m.
New subject: PDP-11 mockups?
On 4/13/11 11:26 AM, Barry L. Kline wrote:
Absolutely. Jerome, I'm certain any number of people here would help
you out in the direction of something a bit more civilized and predictable.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
On Tuesday
(04/12/2011 at 10:38PM -0400), Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Forcing you to use Windows? This clearly is a sign of parent abuse! I would rather not be using Windows, but my son
provides
my support and will only help if I use Windows. He has
provided a system for both of his parents, so we don't
tend to insist on Unix or some other operating system.
Why does Mickey Rooney come to mind here? 
11 Apr
11 Apr
8:45 a.m.
Is anyone selling working mockups of early model
PDP-11s?
Ie. something with console switches and blinkenlights that
runs a simulator or uses a fpga implementation of a PDP11
and interfaces to some modern hardware like SATA drive..
Jerome mentioned some relevant software, but I thought
perhaps you meant something more like this:
http://www.sparetimegizmos.com/Hardware/KY11_Interface.htm
or perhaps like this?
http://www.pdp-11.nl/homebrew/newdesign/newdesign.html
(Which you are supposed to get to by going to http://www.pdp-11.nl/
and using the 'homebrew "PDP-11" ' link at the left, then the "new
design"
link at the top.)
Vince
12:42 p.m.
As addendum to what Vince wrote.
If you go to www.pdp-11.nl , use the navigation at the left side and check
out
"PDP-11/70 console" in the "my projects" folder.
I should make more pictures. You can see the floppy disk at the right side.
At the left side is the CD-ROM drive. Serial and parallel port is on the
rear
side, and still to make a panel will be the USB and ethernet RJ45 socket.
It boots RT-11, RSX and RSTS. I have an image for Ultrix but never took
the time to get that one started ... so many things to do, soooo little
time!
- Henk
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tim Newsham" <tim.newsham+cctalk at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:15 AM
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: mockups?
Is anyone selling working mockups of early model
PDP-11s?
Ie. something with console switches and blinkenlights that
runs a simulator or uses a fpga implementation of a PDP11
and interfaces to some modern hardware like SATA drive..
6:36 p.m.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Henk Gooijen wrote:
As addendum to what Vince wrote.
If you go to www.pdp-11.nl , use the navigation at the left side and check
out
"PDP-11/70 console" in the "my projects" folder.
I should make more pictures. You can see the floppy disk at the right side.
At the left side is the CD-ROM drive. Serial and parallel port is on the rear
side, and still to make a panel will be the USB and ethernet RJ45 socket.
It boots RT-11, RSX and RSTS. I have an image for Ultrix but never took
the time to get that one started ... so many things to do, soooo little time!
I would very much like to replicate this project. I just gotta snag a
front panel. How about some measurements/dimensions for your chassis?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
4846
days inactive
4851
days old
15 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
andreww591＠gmail.com -
blkline＠attglobal.net -
chrise＠pobox.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
henk.gooijen＠hotmail.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhfinedp3k＠compsys.to -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
tim.newsham+cctalk＠gmail.com -
vrs＠msn.com