13 Sep
2001
13 Sep
'01
8:28 a.m.
Ok,
We all need a topic to take our minds of the WTC attack. Here's
one I've been meaning to bring up, surely it will generate a lot
of discussion.
In a recent thread, Tony Duell expressed a lack of interest in the
emulators and simulators of old iron that are now circulating. His
reasons centered around his love of hardware. From my perspective,
it appears that for Tony, the experience of computing cannot be
separated from the experiencing of the computer.
My reading of this mailinglist's charter leads me to conclude that
the group is here for the benefit of the Tonys (BTW, Tony, I'm *not*
picking on you) in the world, those for whom the hardware *is* the
end-all be-all of the Classic _Computer_ experience.
I confess I don't like that- the Classic Computers for which I
lust the most will forever remain inaccessible (and few examples
will even continue to exist). However, as both an RJE operator and
as a mainframe user, I found the experience to be more about the
_computing_ and less about the _computer_.
Exceptions included (back in the 70s) of building an IMSAI, a SOL,
hacking a KIM-1, etc. But after we got the hardware running, the
fun part was in creating the _computing environment_.
So, I think the formal name and the charter of this group should
change to reflect an interest in Class Computing. The only real
change would be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
of the Classic Operating Systems would be similarly on-topic.
I'm not sure how many of you have ever thought about this; but
now that I've broached the subject, whaddy'all think?
Regards,
-doug quebbeman
13 Sep
13 Sep
9 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 4489 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010913/4431704e/at…
11:29 a.m.
change would
be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
Why the last exclusion? I've never heard of a discussion on how to
diagnose hardware faults using modern test equipment being branded as
off-topic. Nor using modern parts to repair old machines. Nor using
modern machines as an aid to restoring/preserving old hardware. Why
should writing emulators be any different. 
9:12 a.m.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
So, I think the formal name and the charter of this
group should
change to reflect an interest in Class Computing. The only real
change would be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
of the Classic Operating Systems would be similarly on-topic.
I'm not sure how many of you have ever thought about this; but
now that I've broached the subject, whaddy'all think?
I don't think I would have ever considered emulators/simulators or the
programming of such, or classic operating systems, to be off-topic.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
10:57 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010913/5c7cf54d/at…
12:34 p.m.
Classic computing (and, BTW, I think that's a much
better description of
the list than 'classic computers' because the latter could be taken to
only mean heardware) is a very big field.
I thought the list's name was simply "ClassicCmp"...
Tom
Applefritter
www.applefritter.com
9:56 a.m.
So, I think the formal name and the charter of this
group should
change to reflect an interest in Class Computing. The only real
change would be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
of the Classic Operating Systems would be similarly on-topic.
I never realized the subject was off topic, and I've never heard it refered
to being off topic. With the possible exception of a topic I started a
year or two ago about the iOpener, and wanting to get one to convert into a
'PDP-11'.
While you might be talking about a simulator, the software you're running
on it typically is on topic.
In all honesty, I'm starting to lean towards emulation myself. Especially
on systems I don't really do anything with. I'm short on space and it
costs a lot to store what I've got. Plus this next month our electricity
prices will be going up by 30% :^( Somehow the classic hardware made a lot
more sense when I was single (and my wife has never complained about it at
all).
OTOH, my wife and I just bought a 4-Slot Neo Geo cabinet and a bunch of
cartridges for it, because for some things emulation just doesn't cut it.
Also on my VMS systems that are under heavy use at home, there is no way
I'm emulating them :^)
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
3:02 p.m.
I diagree.
We need both the emulation-simulation fans, AND the hardware fans.
Simulators will never recover data from physical media, and the hardware
should be preserved for the future.
But in time, the last examples of the hardware will cease to run, and
parts will
be long gone. As some (distant point) the torch must pass to emulation,
but this
should be delayed as long as practical.
As for the computing experiuance being computing, I also disagree.
Building devices and interfacing them to the hardware has always been
a major attraction to computing, and this is nearly all the original
personal computers were able to do.
Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
Ok,
We all need a topic to take our minds of the WTC attack. Here's
one I've been meaning to bring up, surely it will generate a lot
of discussion.
In a recent thread, Tony Duell expressed a lack of interest in the
emulators and simulators of old iron that are now circulating. His
reasons centered around his love of hardware. From my perspective,
it appears that for Tony, the experience of computing cannot be
separated from the experiencing of the computer.
My reading of this mailinglist's charter leads me to conclude that
the group is here for the benefit of the Tonys (BTW, Tony, I'm *not*
picking on you) in the world, those for whom the hardware *is* the
end-all be-all of the Classic _Computer_ experience.
I confess I don't like that- the Classic Computers for which I
lust the most will forever remain inaccessible (and few examples
will even continue to exist). However, as both an RJE operator and
as a mainframe user, I found the experience to be more about the
_computing_ and less about the _computer_.
Exceptions included (back in the 70s) of building an IMSAI, a SOL,
hacking a KIM-1, etc. But after we got the hardware running, the
fun part was in creating the _computing environment_.
So, I think the formal name and the charter of this group should
change to reflect an interest in Class Computing. The only real
change would be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
of the Classic Operating Systems would be similarly on-topic.
I'm not sure how many of you have ever thought about this; but
now that I've broached the subject, whaddy'all think?
Regards,
-doug quebbeman
14 Sep
14 Sep
9:26 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1985 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010914/ed8bcbd8/at…
15 Sep
15 Sep
5:30 a.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
<snip>
In the case you mention, your replacing a TTL device with an FPGA that
currently
uses TTL level I/O.
But most of my classic hardware is pre-TTL and no such logic level compatible
programmable logic exists.
So when a CTL chips fails, I must resort to canabilisim. Eventually it will
no longer be practical to keep this ancient (HP) hardware running. I only
hope that this can be delayed 50 years or so.
But in time, the last examples of the hardware
will cease to run, and
parts will
be long gone. As some (distant point) the torch must pass to emulation,
I am not convinced. It depends on what 'parts' you mean, but if you work
at the level of individual components, then there are probably ways to
make alternatives and will be for many years to come. Consider the AM29xx
bit-slice chips, now moderately hard to find. It's not beyond a seriously
dedicated entusiast to program an FPGA to replace one of those and make a
kludgeboard so it will plug into the original socket. Unoriginal? Sure.
Would I rather use a real AMD chip? Sure, again. But if that's the only
way to keep the last PERQ running, I would have a go.
10:09 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 506 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010915/19afd125/at…
13 Sep
13 Sep
7:12 p.m.
Douglas Quebbeman skrev:
[snip snip]
So, I think the formal name and the charter of this
group should
change to reflect an interest in Class Computing. The only real
change would be that discussions about the eumlators and simulators
would no longer be OT unless they drift into details of programming
the emu/simulators themselves. Additionally, more detailed discussions
of the Classic Operating Systems would be similarly on-topic.
I'm not sure how many of you have ever thought
about this; but
now that I've broached the subject, whaddy'all think?
I don't like emulators one bit. I run them every so often, but I really prefer
the original whenever I can. I don't really trust emulations, but that's not
the main point.
What really puts me off emulators is that they're so awfully lame. How can an
emulator be lame? Well, it's not as much the emulators as the crowd
surrounding them. They're usually Win#? kids who know nothing about old
computers, really don't care, and just want games, games, games, all for free.
Since I'm using a computer which is becoming increasingly popular among
emulator kids, I'm always irritated by people who think they can pirate the
operating systems and applications I pay for, just because they may be run
using an emulator. They're like vultures, they want it all, and of course, for
free. And then I find my precious ROMs? on those awful pages run by fourteen-
year-olds with dubious taste, right between the pornography and the Britney
Spears MP3s.
They even emulate systems which require no particular effort to find, and no
considerable funds, either. But I feel that they turn whatever remains there
are of a scene on the emulated machine into some kind of backdrop. There are
millions of kids boasting about their newest rips, while they actually don't
care at all about the system which actually still matters to a lot of people.
Their very presence diminishes the spirit of the platform.
The real users, the hackers which remain, are turned into some kind of quaint
natives which are kept there for the tourists.
However, when it comes to emulating a PDP-10, that is another deal. They don't
interest your average kid, and most users would never have encountered the
actual hardware anyway, even back in the day.
But emulating a C64, apart from as a programming exercise, seems quite
pointless. There are enough C64s out there for all of us.
?(Which, among these kids, is not a term for read-only memory, but the
proper nomenclature for pirated games and programs. IOW, a C64 tape image is
called a ROM, so is an Atari disk image.)
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
When cherry tree blooms, people go and walk there, eat dumpling, bring sake
and talk each other such things as "A superb view!" and "Full of spring
here",
and they become very happily and cheerful. But this is a lie. People gather
below cherry trees and get drunk, vomit, fight, which are happening since the
old days of Edo period. From long time ago.
THE FULL OF CHERRY BOOLMS, CHAPTER 1
14 Sep
14 Sep
6:37 a.m.
I don't like emulators one bit. I run them every
so often, but I really prefer
the original whenever I can. I don't really trust emulations, but that's not
the main point.
There is a point to emulators for those of us that are space constrained.
I don't have the space to have more than two desktop-sized machines
set up simulaneously. So for me, an emulator is a substitute for
spending an hour packing away one machine and setting up another. Of
course, the machines with good emulator support are the ones that I find
least interesting so they'd rarely get set up anyway.
In the case of CP/M machines, running an emulator on a modern machine with
a decent OS greatly improves the development environment. I find myself
developing software on my PIII in a native editor, compiling/assembling with
MyZ80, and transfering it to the CP/M machines for use there. (Not that I do
a lot of CP/M development.)
Emulators that come with source can also be a lot of fun to hack at.
Eric
3:56 p.m.
Eric J. Korpela skrev:
I'm having a hard time believing that anyone could have bigger space
constraints than I (since you've got an .edu address, we might be in similar
situations =). Whenever I run a micro, I take it out of storage and put it in
my lap for the duration of the session.
Mind you, emulators may be nice if you can't be bothered. Digging out my
Dragon would be such a chore ATM that I'd have to change clothes in order not
to soil my everydays. The PCDragon emulator is nice to have in that case. Or
if I just would like to check out a function in MSX-BASIC, then AmiMSX vill di
just fine. But if I'm going to spend an evening with said language, pulling
out the computer in question is certainly worth it.
And I would never consider using a C64 emulator for anything but trying out
something quickly, perhaps in order to validate a statement in a message to
the list or something.
Even though this prevents me from running a lot of nice software, due to a
lack of proper transfer methods, I don't think it's worth it experiencing it
through an emulator. I'd rather just wait for the day when I find a way to run
it on a real Commie.
Emulators are just substitutes, and I don't settle for those if I have any
choice.
But, if you're into running TOPS-10, and not a PDP, you have my blessing. =)
And space constraints take on a whole new dimension if you're into running
minis. But if there's any chance that I might encounter and run the original,
I'll settle for that, even if it may take years.
I don't
like emulators one bit. I run them every so often, but I really
prefer the original whenever I can. I don't really trust emulations, but
that's not the main point.
There is a point to emulators for those of us that are space constrained.
I don't have the space to have more than two desktop-sized machines
set up simulaneously. So for me, an emulator is a substitute for
spending an hour packing away one machine and setting up another. Of
course, the machines with good emulator support are the ones that I find
least interesting so they'd rarely get set up anyway. In the case of CP/M machines, running an emulator on a
modern machine with
a decent OS greatly improves the development environment. I find myself
developing software on my PIII in a native editor, compiling/assembling with
MyZ80, and transfering it to the CP/M machines for use there. (Not that I do
a lot of CP/M development.)
Much like the PCDragon, I suppose. While it's an emulator by name, it's also a
development environment, which is why I'm fond of it.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
Georgie beundrade stor?gt sin pappa som med v?ldsamma slag gick l?s p? det
stora tr?det. Han badade i svett, och den muskul?sa kroppen bl?nkte i
solskenet. Hon ?lskade honom.
Lady Georgie, TMS 1983
3:18 a.m.
My interest in classic computers is primarily in the architecture (i.e. -
programmer's model), not the actual metal, silicon, and plastic, although I
cannot deny a certain satisfaction in using at least parts of an original
machine to implement that architecture.
The PDP-11's I'm playing with at present are machines that are newly built
from scrap parts. I don't care whether those parts
are DEC parts or not. I
am currently collecting parts to build a PDP-11 that will
consist of:
- M7554-SD CPU board from a DECserver 550
- gutted SparcStation 1 (nice compact box and power supply)
- SCSI Qbus board from a microVAX (off eBay)
- SCSI hard drive (from an old PC)
- VT420 off eBay
- 100 pin .125 pitch backplane connectors (non-DEC) from Digikey.
It will run 2.11BSD. I consider this as legitimate a PDP-11 as any 19" rack
with pink and purple paint and blinkenlights.
Inconsistently, I have reservations about the legitimacy of my notebook
computer running simh and 2.11BSD, although so far I've done all my PDP-11
software development on this platform. I guess it's tainted by its too-close
contact with Windows. I'll continue to use it, but I won't be satisfied
until any software I develop is running on a "real" pdp-11.
An idea that I've been thinking about is the re-implementation of a classic
architecture (for me, probably a PDP-11) using entirely modern hardware. One
way to go about this would be to use a Xilinx FPGA. I know that this has
already been done for the PDP-8. Another approach would be to view a Wintel
PC as a microcoded platform, and reimplement the PDP-11 on that hardware.
The microcode would be written in tightly crafted Pentium code. The machine
would bootstrap itself by loading the microcode from a special partition on
the hard drive. Since the hardware has memory to burn relative to the
target, instruction decoding would be via huge jump tables. Don't bother
decoding anything, just use the entire 16 bit opcode as an index into a
table. The execution routines for each instruction would be generated by
macros or a C program, one routine for each of the 65536 possible opcodes.
The Pentium memory management hardware could be used to emulate the PDP-11
MMU. Accesses to the I/O page would be trapped by the hardware to routines
that mapped the PDP-11 registers onto the real available devices. Although I
could probably do this, I'll probably never get the chance -- it would be a
pretty ambitious hobby project. It could be done for any architecture. I
would consider such a reimplementation to be a legitimate instance of a
classic computer.
I don't see that there is a need to change the charter. Nobody pays
attention to the charter anyhow. ;-)
--
Jonathan Engdahl???????????????? Rockwell Automation
Principal Research Engineer????? 24800 Tungsten Road
Advanced Technology????????????? Euclid, OH 44117, USA
Euclid Labs????????????????????? engdahl(a)cle.ab.com 216-266-6409
http://users.safeaccess.com/engdahl/pdp-11.htm
8:11 a.m.
An idea that I've been thinking about is the
re-implementation of a classic
architecture (for me, probably a PDP-11) using entirely modern hardware. One
way to go about this would be to use a Xilinx FPGA. I know that this has
already been done for the PDP-8. Another approach would be to view a Wintel
Mentec and I think one other company have implemented the PDP-11 in FPGA.
IIRC, Mentec's version is about 4x as fast as a 11/93.
PC as a microcoded platform, and reimplement the PDP-11
on that hardware.
The microcode would be written in tightly crafted Pentium code. The machine
would bootstrap itself by loading the microcode from a special partition on
the hard drive. Since the hardware has memory to burn relative to the
Now I like this idea!
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
8352
days inactive
8354
days old
15 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bshannon＠tiac.net -
dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com -
engdahl＠cle.ab.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
g＠kurico.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
optimus＠canit.se -
owad＠applefritter.com