10 May
2013
10 May
'13
1:46 a.m.
Hello All,
I a new subscriber from just a few days ago, and I have spent more hours
than I care to admit to going through all of the emails in the online
archives.
In past lives, I spent a lot of time with OS/2, and even though I don't
spend as much time as I used to with it, OS/2 comments still catch my
attention.
Anyway, to get to the point, I caught this thread (bottom) from 2008
which generated a bunch of comments.
The thread was briefly revived in early 2009.
If there was ever a final fall out from the thread, I somehow missed it.
Was there a version of OS/2 for CPU's other than X86 or PPC?
What was ultimately found to be on the tape?
Thank you,
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you read that correctly.
I have in my possession a TK-50 tape for the PDP-11 system which
contains none other than
OS/2 operating system.
Many people have claimed this never existed. But I have the tape!
I had done a directory dump of it and can supply it.
One other person who's checked the directory listing has said it is
authentic.
I'm not sure what to do with it, and I believe IBM made OS/2 open
source, so technically it should be "free"
of it's chains
maybe someone can turn it into something useful, or just run it and have
the most unique PDP on the planet, I don't know... whatever :)
anyhow, it's a really weird bit of computing history, and I'd hate for
it to be lost. it should be in a museum :)
10 May
10 May
2:33 a.m.
On 5/9/13 10:46 PM, "Jerry Kemp - other" <other at oryx.cc> wrote:
Hello All,
I a new subscriber from just a few days ago, and I have spent more hours
than I care to admit to going through all of the emails in the online
archives.
In past lives, I spent a lot of time with OS/2, and even though I don't
spend as much time as I used to with it, OS/2 comments still catch my
attention.
Anyway, to get to the point, I caught this thread (bottom) from 2008
which generated a bunch of comments.
The thread was briefly revived in early 2009.
If there was ever a final fall out from the thread, I somehow missed it.
Was there a version of OS/2 for CPU's other than X86 or PPC?
What was ultimately found to be on the tape?
Thank you,
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you read that correctly.
I have in my possession a TK-50 tape for the PDP-11 system which
contains none other than
OS/2 operating system.
Many people have claimed this never existed. But I have the tape!
I had done a directory dump of it and can supply it.
One other person who's checked the directory listing has said it is
authentic.
I'm not sure what to do with it, and I believe IBM made OS/2 open
source, so technically it should be "free"
of it's chains
maybe someone can turn it into something useful, or just run it and have
the most unique PDP on the planet, I don't know... whatever :)
anyhow, it's a really weird bit of computing history, and I'd hate for
it to be lost. it should be in a museum :)
I remember this thread, too, and one thing that AFAIK was never resolved
was whether the tape contained OS/2 *for a PDP-11* or OS/2 for some other
machine, on a TK50 tape.
TK50 drives are not unique to the PDP-11, and will also hook up to VAXen,
Alphas and DEC MIPS machines; since there is a Unibus controller for it, I
can't see why one couldn't hook one to a KS-10, either. MS used a number
of different platforms in its earlier years. So the ambiguity is
meaningful. ISTR the OP didn't respond to such questions from the list.
I'd be really surprised if OS/2 was ever ported to the PDP-11, partly
because of the dates, partly because of the difference between the segment
strategies of x86 vs. PDP-11. I can envision some MACRO games you could
play, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. :-) -- Ian
9:57 a.m.
You'll have to ask Jeremey Fine,
He never did boot that PDP-11 to see what as on it.lazy SOB. :)
as for the TK50 I still have it, but I'm not willing to ship it to anyone.the
directory contents are intriguing, but not enough to be proof.
the smoking gun would be to see what that PDP had on it.
I think Mr. Fine should give me back the PDP if he has no intention ofbooting it
Dan.
From: IanK at vulcan.com
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org; cctech at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: follow up???? - offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 06:33:05 +0000
On 5/9/13 10:46 PM, "Jerry Kemp - other" <other at oryx.cc> wrote:
Hello All,
I a new subscriber from just a few days ago, and I have spent more hours
than I care to admit to going through all of the emails in the online
archives.
In past lives, I spent a lot of time with OS/2, and even though I don't
spend as much time as I used to with it, OS/2 comments still catch my
attention.
Anyway, to get to the point, I caught this thread (bottom) from 2008
which generated a bunch of comments.
The thread was briefly revived in early 2009.
If there was ever a final fall out from the thread, I somehow missed it.
Was there a version of OS/2 for CPU's other than X86 or PPC?
What was ultimately found to be on the tape?
Thank you,
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you read that correctly.
I have in my possession a TK-50 tape for the PDP-11 system which
contains none other than
OS/2 operating system.
Many people have claimed this never existed. But I have the tape!
I had done a directory dump of it and can supply it.
One other person who's checked the directory listing has said it is
authentic.
I'm not sure what to do with it, and I believe IBM made OS/2 open
source, so technically it should be "free"
of it's chains
maybe someone can turn it into something useful, or just run it and have
the most unique PDP on the planet, I don't know... whatever :)
anyhow, it's a really weird bit of computing history, and I'd hate for
it to be lost. it should be in a museum :)
I remember this thread, too, and one thing that AFAIK was never resolved
was whether the tape contained OS/2 *for a PDP-11* or OS/2 for some other
machine, on a TK50 tape.
TK50 drives are not unique to the PDP-11, and will also hook up to VAXen,
Alphas and DEC MIPS machines; since there is a Unibus controller for it, I
can't see why one couldn't hook one to a KS-10, either. MS used a number
of different platforms in its earlier years. So the ambiguity is
meaningful. ISTR the OP didn't respond to such questions from the list.
I'd be really surprised if OS/2 was ever ported to the PDP-11, partly
because of the dates, partly because of the difference between the segment
strategies of x86 vs. PDP-11. I can envision some MACRO games you could
play, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. :-) -- Ian
1:27 p.m.
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
You'll have to ask Jeremey Fine,
He never did boot that PDP-11 to see what as on it.lazy SOB. :)
We are sorry that he hasn't done so, presumably due to more pressing life.
as for the TK50 I still have it, but I'm not
willing to ship it to
anyone.the directory contents are intriguing, but not enough to be
proof.
Absolutely!
We are still waiting for you to share that directory content information.
We would love to see what filenames are on it!
the smoking gun would be to see what that PDP had on it.
I think Mr. Fine should give me back the PDP if he has
no intention
ofbooting it
Certainly. Or perhaps others in the same geographic area could assist
in
getting it bootable.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
1:50 p.m.
do you have a way to image the tape, so that people could see what might
be going on. There were a lot of coprocessor system boards for PDP's
that were out there, and this might well be just a tape to install OS2,
or a backup of an OS2 image hosted on such a board.
I worked with a group who had a system implemented and running on an
NS32000 board, so it would have appeared on that half inch tape that
there was a 32000 unix system running on that host. however it would
not have been the case.
I also suspect w/o seeing more of the thread / info that there is a good
chance a system that was scrapped would have had such a unique card
pulled before being pushed out the door. I know when I had to support
systems with unique addons, I'd make sure that the basic systems ran and
store them and when sending them out, would add on or merge as needed
special hardware.
thanks
Jim
On 5/10/2013 10:27 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
You'll have to ask Jeremey Fine,
He never did boot that PDP-11 to see what as on it.lazy SOB. :)
We are sorry that
he hasn't done so, presumably due to more pressing life.
as for the TK50 I still have it, but I'm not
willing to ship it to
anyone.the directory contents are intriguing, but not enough to be
proof.
Absolutely!
We are still waiting for you to share that directory content information.
We would love to see what filenames are on it!
the smoking gun would be to see what that PDP had on it.
I think Mr. Fine should give me back the PDP if
he has no intention
ofbooting it
Certainly. Or perhaps others in the same geographic area could
assist in
getting it bootable.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
2:08 p.m.
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Jim Stephens wrote:
do you have a way to image the tape, so that people
could see what might
be going on. There were a lot of coprocessor system boards for PDP's
that were out there, and this might well be just a tape to install OS2,
or a backup of an OS2 image hosted on such a board.
Or, if a PDP-11 OR ANY OTHER MACHINE CAPABLE OF USING A TK50, were used
for cross compiling of ANY code that was ultimately intended to be used
ona ANY OS/2 system, then a backuyp tape from that machine would have a
tape labelled OS/2.
It is also quite possible to make a backup of a PC OS/2 system, and STORE
that backup on a PDP-11 with TK50 tape.
For obvious technical reasons, and direct statements made by Gordon Letwin
(the author of OS/2 and "Inside OS/2" book), there is NO reason to assume
that it is a copy of the OS/2 operating system, ported to RUN on a PDP-11!
We are still waiting for Dan to tell us the filenames that are on the
tape, as derived from the "directory dump", which he has explicitly said
that he has and would share.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:13 p.m.
On 05/10/2013 11:08 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Or, if a PDP-11 OR ANY OTHER MACHINE CAPABLE OF USING
A TK50, were used
for cross compiling of ANY code that was ultimately intended to be used
ona ANY OS/2 system, then a backuyp tape from that machine would have a
tape labelled OS/2.
Indeed. I know that swaths of Sorcim SuperCalc and SuperWriter,
SuperProject, etc. were developed using a VAX 11/730 (I was offered the
system when CA bought Sorcim, but couldn't figure out a valid reason to
own a slow VAX). I suspect the cross-platform thing was an integral
part of much early PC software.
--Chuck
4:29 p.m.
> Or, if a PDP-11 OR ANY OTHER MACHINE CAPABLE OF
USING A TK50, were used
> for cross compiling of ANY code that was ultimately intended to be used
> ona ANY OS/2 system, then a backuyp tape from that machine would have a
> tape labelled OS/2.
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
Indeed. I know that swaths of Sorcim SuperCalc and
SuperWriter,
SuperProject, etc. were developed using a VAX 11/730 (I was offered the
system when CA bought Sorcim, but couldn't figure out a valid reason to
own a slow VAX). I suspect the cross-platform thing was an integral
part of much early PC software.
Q: On what platform was Microsoft BASIC 1.0 written?
What was written on the label of the tapes written on that machine?
9:01 p.m.
From: Fred Cisin
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:29 PM
>> Or, if a PDP-11 OR ANY OTHER MACHINE CAPABLE
OF USING A TK50, were
>> used for cross compiling of ANY code that was ultimately intended to
>> be used ona ANY OS/2 system, then a backuyp tape from that machine
>> would have a tape labelled OS/2.
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> Indeed. I know that swaths of Sorcim SuperCalc
and SuperWriter,
> SuperProject, etc. were developed using a VAX 11/730 (I was offered
> the system when CA bought Sorcim, but couldn't figure out a valid
> reason to own a slow VAX). I suspect the cross-platform thing was an
> integral part of much early PC software.
Q: On what platform was Microsoft BASIC 1.0 written?
Umm, which Microsoft BASIC 1.0? If you mean the productized BASIC for
the Altair, then a PDP-10 (KA10 CPU) in the school district offices in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, on which Micro-soft Corporation rented time.
If you mean the original version for the Altair, there was no Micro-soft
in existence at the time, and that was written on a KA10 at Harvard
University. Both systems ran the PDP-10 10/50 Monitor, probably a 5.0x
release given the dates in question.
What was written on the label of the tapes written on
that machine?
Things like "LGP1", "WHG", and the like. Absolutely no clues as to
the
contents at all.
By the way, these were DECtapes, not 1/2in 7- or 9-track sequentials.
I've held them in my hands, and read the contents on a TU56.
If you mean some later product, I have no idea.
Rich
Rich Alderson, Sr. Curator
Living Computer Museum
2245 1st Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134
mailto:RichA at LivingComputerMuseum.org
http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
5:53 p.m.
On 05/10/2013 01:08 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Jim Stephens wrote:
Heck, it's not even necessarily *that* OS/2 - could quite easily be an
entirely different animal (whether it be for the PDP, or for some other
system entirely and just stored on a TK50).
do you have a way to image the tape, so that
people could see what might
be going on. There were a lot of coprocessor system boards for PDP's
that were out there, and this might well be just a tape to install OS2,
or a backup of an OS2 image hosted on such a board.
Or, if a PDP-11 OR ANY OTHER MACHINE CAPABLE OF USING A TK50, were used
for cross compiling of ANY code that was ultimately intended to be used
ona ANY OS/2 system, then a backuyp tape from that machine would have a
tape labelled OS/2.
2:26 p.m.
If PDP and vax TK50 are compatible, I'll try to restore it that way.but I've had
quite a few vaxen die on me :(
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:50:28 -0700
From: jws at jwsss.com
To:
Subject: Re: follow up???? - offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11
do you have a way to image the tape, so that people could see what might
be going on. There were a lot of coprocessor system boards for PDP's
that were out there, and this might well be just a tape to install OS2,
or a backup of an OS2 image hosted on such a board.
I worked with a group who had a system implemented and running on an
NS32000 board, so it would have appeared on that half inch tape that
there was a 32000 unix system running on that host. however it would
not have been the case.
I also suspect w/o seeing more of the thread / info that there is a good
chance a system that was scrapped would have had such a unique card
pulled before being pushed out the door. I know when I had to support
systems with unique addons, I'd make sure that the basic systems ran and
store them and when sending them out, would add on or merge as needed
special hardware.
thanks
Jim
On 5/10/2013 10:27 AM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
You'll have to ask Jeremey Fine,
He never did boot that PDP-11 to see what as on it.lazy SOB. :)
We are sorry that
he hasn't done so, presumably due to more pressing life.
as for the TK50 I still have it, but I'm not
willing to ship it to
anyone.the directory contents are intriguing, but not enough to be
proof.
Absolutely!
We are still waiting for you to share that directory content information.
We would love to see what filenames are on it!
the smoking gun would be to see what that PDP had on it.
I think Mr. Fine should give me back the PDP if
he has no intention
ofbooting it
Certainly. Or perhaps others in the same geographic area could
assist in
getting it bootable.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:07 p.m.
New subject: [cctalk] RE: follow up???? - offer - OS/2 for the PDP-11
On 05/10/2013 02:26 PM, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
If PDP and vax TK50 are compatible, I'll try to
restore it that way.
A TK50 is a TK50...
but I've had quite a few vaxen die on me :(
Fix 'em!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
11 May
11 May
3:35 a.m.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 06:33:05AM +0000, Ian King wrote:
TK50 drives are not unique to the PDP-11, and will also
hook up to VAXen,
Alphas and DEC MIPS machines;
Plus there are SCSI(-ish) versions (TK50Z-GA and TZ30), that will work on
any machine as long as the tape driver indulges them a little. Not to mention
SCSI DLT drives, which were a perfectly reasonable backup medium for PCs.
Lots of ways for PC data to wind up on a DEC tape cartridge.
I'd be really surprised if OS/2 was ever ported to
the PDP-11, partly
because of the dates, partly because of the difference between the segment
strategies of x86 vs. PDP-11. I can envision some MACRO games you could
play, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. :-) -- Ian
I'm with you. OS/2 is very heavily invested in the idea of a per-process
memory area that's *much* bigger than 64 KB. The flips and twists it would
take to make it work with a 16-bit virtual address space would be awful.
Porting it to the VAX would be perfectly reasonable technically, but idiotic
from a marketing point of view.
John Wilson
D Bit
4:20 a.m.
On 11/05/2013 08:35, John Wilson wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 06:33:05AM +0000, Ian King
wrote:
Doesn't LAN Manager (and Novell Netware) run on the VAX as "Pathworks"
so is OS/2 1.0, which was command line only too much of a departure. I
would be very surprised if Digital hadn't looked at it. And whilst I
can't remember my first meeting with UNIX I do remember my first
exposure to Pathworks, but the twitch when its mention is much less
severe these days...
TK50 drives are not unique to the PDP-11, and
will also hook up to VAXen,
Alphas and DEC MIPS machines;
Plus there are SCSI(-ish) versions (TK50Z-GA and
TZ30), that will work on
any machine as long as the tape driver indulges them a little. Not to mention
SCSI DLT drives, which were a perfectly reasonable backup medium for PCs.
Lots of ways for PC data to wind up on a DEC tape cartridge.
I'd be really surprised if OS/2 was ever
ported to the PDP-11, partly
because of the dates, partly because of the difference between the segment
strategies of x86 vs. PDP-11. I can envision some MACRO games you could
play, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. :-) -- Ian
I'm with
you. OS/2 is very heavily invested in the idea of a per-process
memory area that's *much* bigger than 64 KB. The flips and twists it would
take to make it work with a 16-bit virtual address space would be awful.
Porting it to the VAX would be perfectly reasonable technically, but idiotic
from a marketing point of view. John Wilson
D Bit
1:24 p.m.
On May 11, 2013, at 12:35 AM, John Wilson <wilson at dbit.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 06:33:05AM +0000, Ian King
wrote:
The only "port" (and I use that term *very* loosely) was OS/2 PPC. It shared
no kernel code with the x86 version. It was based on IBM's Microkernel project.
It used a heavily modified version of the Mach 3.0 kernel and *many* user mode
servers. All of the device drivers were in user space.
TTFN - Guy
TK50 drives are not unique to the PDP-11, and
will also hook up to VAXen,
Alphas and DEC MIPS machines;
Plus there are SCSI(-ish) versions (TK50Z-GA and TZ30), that will work on
any machine as long as the tape driver indulges them a little. Not to mention
SCSI DLT drives, which were a perfectly reasonable backup medium for PCs.
Lots of ways for PC data to wind up on a DEC tape cartridge.
I'd be really surprised if OS/2 was ever
ported to the PDP-11, partly
because of the dates, partly because of the difference between the segment
strategies of x86 vs. PDP-11. I can envision some MACRO games you could
play, but I can't imagine why anyone would bother. :-) -- Ian
I'm with you. OS/2 is very heavily invested in the idea of a per-process
memory area that's *much* bigger than 64 KB. The flips and twists it would
take to make it work with a 16-bit virtual address space would be awful.
Porting it to the VAX would be perfectly reasonable technically, but idiotic
from a marketing point of view. 
12 May
12 May
12:47 p.m.
On 11 May 2013 08:35, John Wilson <wilson at dbit.com> wrote:
I'm with you. OS/2 is very heavily invested in the idea of a per-process
memory area that's *much* bigger than 64 KB. The flips and twists it would
take to make it work with a 16-bit virtual address space would be awful.
Hang on - are you talking about OS/2 1.x (80286) or OS/2 2.x (80386+) here?
Porting it to the VAX would be perfectly reasonable
technically, but idiotic
from a marketing point of view.
Well, quite. I don't believe it for a second, myself, but I'm still
curious to know what the tapes hold.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
4095
days inactive
4097
days old
15 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
dgahling＠hotmail.com -
ggs＠shiresoft.com -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jules.richardson99＠gmail.com -
jws＠jwsss.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
other＠oryx.cc -
RichA＠vulcan.com -
wilson＠dbit.com