11 Dec
2000
11 Dec
'00
5:51 a.m.
UNIX dates and 2038.
I'm willing to bet that there will be people looking at atmospheric,
rainfall, snow cover, and other long term datasets that were created long
ago :), 40 years, and some of there data formats are probably platform
dependent. There are people still running IBM emulators that run old
emulator code that runs old code that probably controls missiles and planes.
The problem is not going away, everybody is hoping not to spend money for
data their company will probably loose or discard before 2038.
It all comes down to a question of self interest. Most company managers
plan not to be in business in 20 years and their compensation is tied to
this quarter.
1. If I were an astute computer manager I would convince my company
that it was actually intelligent to outsource all my computing and problems
and then quit before the ramifications are known.
2. I would then go to work for somebody else and convince them to
insource the computing because of security risks associated by outsourcing.
3. I would then quit and go to work as a consultant and lecturer on the
perils and pitfalls of computing.
4. I would then write a book on the theoretically best system, which is
of course doesn't exist.
5. Finally I would write a book on my life in the golden age of
computing.
I know that I will have computers in 2038 that I have now.
Mike
mmcfadden(a)cmh.edu
11 Dec
11 Dec
5:14 p.m.
McFadden, Mike wrote:
I know that I will have computers in 2038 that I have
now.
Jerome Fine replies:
If I am still around in 2038, I am also hoping to still run software
that was first produced about 30 years ago. But I don't expect
that I will be able to use the same hardware - but who knows -
might a power supply last that long? I have a number of PDP-11
systems in a BA23 box which is about the same size as the full
tower PC that I am using right now that I bought 3 years ago with
W95. Fortunately, there are a number of emulators for PDP-11
software that run just as well under DOS/W95/W98 as on a real
PDP-11. In fact, the PC is a Pentium 166 MMX and runs PDP-11
code about twice as fast as a real PDP-11/93. When I eventually
switch to a current Pentium III 800, I expect the ratio to be about
ten times as fast.
The only question is if I will be able to run the emulator in 2038
or an updated version of it.
By the way, although I will not make any revenue from a hobby
version of Y2K patches for the old V5.03 of RT-11, I am in
the middle of doing so, along with a Y10K set as well just for
the extra fun. But, I do agree that there are many problems with
commercial software, especially older versions that have bugs
that were never fixed. Generally, the companies force the user
to buy the newer versions under the guise that new features have
been included when all the user wants is to have to old bugs fixed.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
5:56 p.m.
Jerome Fine wrote:
I'm betting only 4 times as fast (maybe 5). Just because you've quad'd
the clock (internally) doesn't mean you see a 400% increase in total
response. Besides when you load the next version of WinX it'll boot
about as fast as my Atari 800 off the disk. :-)
Still I wonder how many emulators can one run under another? I know
I've done Linux -> DOS -> CP/M, Linux -> Linux doesn't count (self-
referencing variables ;-).
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry(a)home.net
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52 (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)
McFadden, Mike wrote:
I know that I will have computers in 2038 that I
have now.
Jerome Fine replies:
If I am still around in 2038, I am also hoping to still run software
that was first produced about 30 years ago. But I don't expect
that I will be able to use the same hardware - but who knows -
might a power supply last that long? I have a number of PDP-11
systems in a BA23 box which is about the same size as the full
tower PC that I am using right now that I bought 3 years ago with
W95. Fortunately, there are a number of emulators for PDP-11
software that run just as well under DOS/W95/W98 as on a real
PDP-11. In fact, the PC is a Pentium 166 MMX and runs PDP-11
code about twice as fast as a real PDP-11/93. When I eventually
switch to a current Pentium III 800, I expect the ratio to be about
ten times as fast. 
6:07 p.m.
Still I wonder how many emulators can one run under
another? I know
I've done Linux -> DOS -> CP/M, Linux -> Linux doesn't count (self-
referencing variables ;-).
I've often wondered about this myself... using a technique like this,
one might approach the speed of the original hardware -- from the
other side, of course...
Imagine a pdp-8 emulater, running under RT-11 on an emulated-11, running
under TOPS-10 on an emulated-10, etc... As I said, you might end up
having a pdp-8 emulator which is slowed down far enough to match the
speed of the original hardware... :-)
Megan Gentry
Former RT-11 Developer
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Megan Gentry, EMT/B, PP-ASEL | Internet (work): gentry!zk3.dec.com |
| Unix Support Engineering Group | (home): mbg!world.std.com |
| Compaq Computer Corporation | addresses need '@' in place of '!' |
| 110 Spitbrook Rd. ZK03-2/T43 | URL: http://world.std.com/~mbg/ |
| Nashua, NH 03062 | "pdp-11 programmer - some assembler |
| (603) 884 1055 | required." - mbg KB1FCA |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
7:03 p.m.
New subject: Ebay: PDP 16/M Super MiniComputer
I just looked at Ebay and found out that the PDP 16/M is a roll-your-own PDP
8 or PDP 11. I sure wish DEC had let me know this information when I took
the maintenance classes on it at the Maynard training facility. Here I
always thought it was just a glorified solid state controller. We could have
saved some money instead of buying the 11/05 and 11/45s :). The URL is:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1200936691
12 Dec
12 Dec
8:45 a.m.
New subject: Ebay: PDP 16/M Super MiniComputer
Marvin wrote:
I just looked at Ebay and found out that the PDP 16/M
is a roll-your-own PDP
8 or PDP 11. I sure wish DEC had let me know this information when I took
the maintenance classes on it at the Maynard training facility. Here I
always thought it was just a glorified solid state controller. We could have
saved some money instead of buying the 11/05 and 11/45s :). The URL is:
It *is* a glorified solid state controller, and it is *NOT* a "Super
MiniComputer". There is an example design for an *almost* PDP-8, but
AFAIK they have not been used to implement complete PDP-8s or -11s, and
would not really be very good at that.
The PDP-16 is basically a set of building blocks for time-state machines
(which is how early PDP-xx machines were designed). However, it is
intended for building dedicated controllers, not general-purpose computers.
Why? Because a general-purpose computer built out of PDP-16 Register
Transfer Modules is larger, slower, and more expensive than the same
computer built using more conventional techniques (even when using
DEC M-series modules).
It took me several readings of the book to understand how the PDP-16
modules are intended to be used. I wish I had the bucks to buy the
thing and play with it. Sigh.
11:04 a.m.
New subject: Ebay: PDP 16/M Super MiniComputer
Eric Smith wrote:
Marvin wrote:
I know, and perhaps I should have put a smiley after that statement. I am
just amazed at the amount of mis-information that gets passed around on
auctions such as that one. I still have the manuals and engineering drawings
for the PDP-16, and I wouldn't mind getting one if only for old times sake
... but not for $500+ dollars!
I just looked at Ebay and found out that the PDP
16/M is a roll-your-own PDP
8 or PDP 11. I sure wish DEC had let me know this information when I took
the maintenance classes on it at the Maynard training facility. Here I
always thought it was just a glorified solid state controller. We could have
saved some money instead of buying the 11/05 and 11/45s :). The URL is:
It *is* a glorified solid state controller, and it is *NOT* a "Super
MiniComputer". There is an example design for an *almost* PDP-8, but
AFAIK they have not been used to implement complete PDP-8s or -11s, and
would not really be very good at that. 
2:27 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Megan" <mbg(a)world.std.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Unix and 2038
like this,
>Still I wonder how many emulators can one run under
another? I know
>I've done Linux -> DOS -> CP/M, Linux
-> Linux doesn't
count (self-
referencing
variables ;-).
I've often wondered about this myself... using a technique one might approach the speed of the original hardware
--
from the
other side, of course...
Imagine a pdp-8 emulater, running under RT-11 on an
emulated-11, running
under TOPS-10 on an emulated-10, etc... As I said, you
might end up
having a pdp-8 emulator which is slowed down far
enough to
match the
speed of the original hardware... :-)
Is anyone collecting the emulators?
They'd take up a lot less space and be much easier to move
or ship across the country. Maybe we could designate them
with an e such as PDP-11e to indicate an emulator in the
collection.
Wouldn't need to worry as much about carrying the right
tools, the spouse would never know how many we really
had,...
noon
I love to see vmac running a mac plus under virtual pc on a G3 mac...
Met vriendelijke groet,
Simon Claessen.
--
Pas op! dit bericht was electronisch verzonden
16 Dec
16 Dec
3:13 p.m.
simon skrev:
I love to see vmac running a mac plus under virtual pc
on a G3 mac...
It is rather common for show-offs amongst UAE users to run a Shapeshifter Mac
on a UAE Amiga on a PC.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
"Jag ?r 35 ?r och citerar planetens och v?rldshistoriens b?sta anime hur
mycket jag vill, bl?jbarn."
?ke Rosenius
17 Dec
17 Dec
4:57 a.m.
It is rather common for show-offs amongst UAE users to
run a Shapeshifter Mac
on a UAE Amiga on a PC.
When I was running Shapeshifter on my A4000, I used to try
and run an older version of SoftPC on top of it. Even with just
MS-DOS 5 running, it ran slowly on the stock '040 cpu, but it did
run. I also only had the standard 18meg of RAM on the mainboard and
Shapeshifter was running System 7.1 at 640 x 480 in 256 colors on EGS
on my Spectrum.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
12 Dec
12 Dec
3:44 a.m.
>Still I wonder how many emulators can one run under
another? I know
>I've done Linux -> DOS -> CP/M, Linux -> Linux doesn't count (self-
>referencing variables ;-).
On emulator fan sites, you will often seen screen shots like
this, one emulator within another. It can get very slow, but
it works.
- John
7:40 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1072 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20001212/47599281/at…
8613
days inactive
8619
days old
12 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
jhfine＠idirect.com -
KenzieM＠sympatico.ca -
marvin＠rain.org -
mbg＠world.std.com -
mmcfadden＠cmh.edu -
ncherry＠home.net -
optimus＠canit.se -
simski＠dds.nl