25 Apr
2002
25 Apr
'02
6:44 p.m.
On Apr 25, 18:20, Bill Pechter wrote:
> On Apr 24, 21:05, Bill Pechter wrote:
>
> > Isn't it a bit much to call XXDP+ an OS.
> > DECX-11 is closer... XXDP's pretty dumb.
>
> I've always thought of XXDP as the OS that DECX-11 runs under.
More like the program loader for the OS... 8-).
At least CP/M had better editors available than XXDP...
Yeah, you mean EDLIN :-) TECO in XXDP is not my favourite editor!
I'm slightly puzzled by what you say about DEC X-11, though. My exposure
to it and XXDP is only in the form of the diagnostics available to end
users and third-party service organisations, and I suspect there's more to
it than that. The reason I think of XXDP as the OS and X-11 as the, well,
application in a way, is that all I see are the X-11 modules to run build
and series of tests, whereas XXDP includes the monitor, system handlers etc
(as well as the diagnostic programs and utilites, of course). To me,
that's the OS.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
26 Apr
26 Apr
9:19 a.m.
On Apr 25, 18:20, Bill Pechter wrote:
You're exactly correct, except the XXDP doesn't have drivers for
the comm gear and other stuff, whereas DECX/11 can have modules
running simulating disk and tape i/o, comm i/o and can do task
scheduling and timeouts. Also DECX/11 is interrupt driven where most of
XXDP polls status registers.
I stretched my view a bit. DEC training called XXDP a diagnostic
monitor... which was ok until the DS> diagnostic supervisor got loose...
and the names collided.
The XXDP monitor is single tasking, non-interrupt driven, polling and
can hang forever waiting for an event that never comes. DECX/11 won't.
DECX/11 seemed much more os-like. Batch streams do exist in XXDP
(the .ccc chain files) -- but that's just minimal scripting.
Bill
--
d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
bpechter@shell.monmouth.com|pechter@ureach.com
> On Apr 24, 21:05, Bill Pechter wrote:
>
> > Isn't it a bit much to call XXDP+ an OS.
> > DECX-11 is closer... XXDP's pretty dumb.
>
> I've always thought of XXDP as the OS that DECX-11 runs under.
More like the program loader for the OS... 8-).
At least CP/M had better editors available than XXDP...
Yeah, you mean EDLIN :-) TECO in XXDP is not my favourite editor!
I'm slightly puzzled by what you say about DEC X-11, though. My exposure
to it and XXDP is only in the form of the diagnostics available to end
users and third-party service organisations, and I suspect there's more to
it than that. The reason I think of XXDP as the OS and X-11 as the, well,
application in a way, is that all I see are the X-11 modules to run build
and series of tests, whereas XXDP includes the monitor, system handlers etc
(as well as the diagnostic programs and utilites, of course). To me,
that's the OS.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
8289
days inactive
8290
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
pechter＠pechter.dyndns.org -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com