cctalk Digest, Vol 88, Issue 29

[Bob Smith]

Back in 75-77 time frame, the KMC11 was packaged with DD11 backplane,
a controller interface board or an SLU to implement version 2 of the
DoD AUTODIN II. Philco Ford element then called Aeronuetronic Ford out
ot Cali was the prime. DEC won the hardware portion bidding PDP11
systems using the KMC11 and SLUs ranging from Mode1 to Mode VI. I did
the SLUs for Mode VI (ADCCP/SDLC et al) and Mode II (BiSync) out of
the Comms 11 group. CSS Nashua did the Async system with I think 64
lines, or more, and labeled it DMX IIRC - my memory could be bad on
the name.The COMM IOP concept was another alternative using the DZ/DU
boards.  Barney Loiter, if he is still around can probably remember
who in CSS did the product. I think Frank Zareski, who had moved from
Comms group to Semiconductor was involved with or the lead for the
DUAL UART chips DEC invented (point for the record, the original UART
was designed by DEC, Vince Bastiani was the project lead and designer,
Gordon Bell was behind the project, and it may have been his idea.)

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 1:00 PM <cctalk-request at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> Send cctalk mailing list submissions to
>         cctalk at classiccmp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://www.classiccmp.org/mailman/listinfo/cctalk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         cctalk-request at classiccmp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cctalk-owner at classiccmp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cctalk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: simulation of an entire IBM S/360 Model 50 mainframe
>       (Curious Marc)
>    2. What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's products?
>       (Chris Zach)
>    3. Re: What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's
>       products? (Paul Koning)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:53:22 -0800
> From: Curious Marc <curiousmarc3 at gmail.com>
> To: Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>, "General Discussion: On-Topic and
>         Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: simulation of an entire IBM S/360 Model 50 mainframe
> Message-ID: <E6C6C3FB-E0A0-4472-A485-3EA9E1102CEC at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Ah, it was you Liam. Ken is enamored with the new title you bestowed on him. He will now be officially called: Master Ken, Hardware Boffin.
> :-)
> Marc
>
> > On Jan 27, 2022, at 11:54 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 17:20, Guy N. via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> This might be old news to a lot of people here, but I noticed a fun
> >> article on The Register today:
> >
> > Oh cool. Thanks for the link -- that's one of my stories. Glad to hear
> > people enjoyed it. :-)
> >
> > --
> > Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
> > Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lproven at gmail.com
> > Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
> > UK: (+44) 7939-087884 ~ Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 00:28:30 -0500
> From: Chris Zach <cz at alembic.crystel.com>
> To: CCTalk mailing list <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's products?
> Message-ID: <ba6ec80e-e099-4015-9d58-f33fb4e51c02 at alembic.crystel.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Old question: I'm looking through some old reports from 1977 about a
> failed DEC project with the DMX11 multiplexer system and there is
> reference to the following key items:
>
> 1) The DMX was designed to handle block mode devices. Fine.
> 2) Character mode devices like the VT52's were supposed to use a "TCD"
> product from DEC.
>
> The reason the project imploded was because apparently DEC stopped
> supporting the TCD in RSX11/D in late 1976, so someone in CSS had the
> great idea of agreeing to extend the microcode in the DMX11 to handle
> both block AND character mode devices. This did.... not work well and it
> sank the project.
>
> What I'm wondering is what was the TCD for PDP11's back then? I don't
> see anything in my communications handbooks on this, and even the DMX11
> doesn't really appear, instead there is the COMM/IO/P type boards which
> worked with a pile of DZ11's. From what I can glean from this
> documentation it looks like the DMX11 worked in a similar fashion as the
> requirement was the DMX11 system was a nine board solution (possibly 8
> DZ11's and one controller board).
>
> More odd it looks like the TCD *was* still supported in RSX11/M and
> ultimately the decision was made to build the thing in M so it's weird
> they continued to whack away at the DMX solution instead of going with
> TCD's for async and proven DMX microcode for block devices.
>
> Any thoughts, or does this jog any memories?
>
> C
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:24:56 -0500
> From: Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net>
> To: Chris Zach <cz at alembic.crystel.com>, "cctalk at classiccmp.org"
>         <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: What was a Terminal Concentration Device in DEC's
>         products?
> Message-ID: <7F4B4A3F-4114-4FF9-9D6C-28AA7E26E475 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:28 AM, Chris Zach via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Old question: I'm looking through some old reports from 1977 about a failed DEC project with the DMX11 multiplexer system and there is reference to the following key items:
> >
> > 1) The DMX was designed to handle block mode devices. Fine.
> > 2) Character mode devices like the VT52's were supposed to use a "TCD" product from DEC.
> >
> > The reason the project imploded was because apparently DEC stopped supporting the TCD in RSX11/D in late 1976, so someone in CSS had the great idea of agreeing to extend the microcode in the DMX11 to handle both block AND character mode devices. This did.... not work well and it sank the project.
> >
> > What I'm wondering is what was the TCD for PDP11's back then? I don't see anything in my communications handbooks on this, and even the DMX11 doesn't really appear, instead there is the COMM/IO/P type boards which worked with a pile of DZ11's. From what I can glean from this documentation it looks like the DMX11 worked in a similar fashion as the requirement was the DMX11 system was a nine board solution (possibly 8 DZ11's and one controller board).
> >
> > More odd it looks like the TCD *was* still supported in RSX11/M and ultimately the decision was made to build the thing in M so it's weird they continued to whack away at the DMX solution instead of going with TCD's for async and proven DMX microcode for block devices.
> >
> > Any thoughts, or does this jog any memories?
>
> Nothing comes to mind here; the name "DMX" does not ring any bells.  It's a bit before my time, admittedly.
>
> DEC made some products that used block mode terminals: the moderately successful Typeset-11 with the VT-61/t forms and page editing terminal, and the VT-71 with embedded LSI-11 to do full file local editing.  Both have some form of block transfer to the host, but as far as I can remember they used ordinary DH-11 terminal interfaces.  DH-11 is unusual in that it has DMA in both directions, which is unhelpful for interactive use but great for block transfer.  Typeset-11 also supported a specialized terminal made by Harris (the 2200), another local processor device, this one connected to the PDP-11 host with a DL-11/E, using half duplex multidrop BISYNC with modem signal handshakes.  I kid you not... I have some scars debugging that protocol at 2 am in downtown Philadelphia.
>
> DEC also built yet another VT-51 variation, the VT-62, which was the terminal for the TRAX system.  That was, I think, some sort of RSX derivative (-M+ perhaps, but I'm not sure), which made it to field test but was canceled before becoming an official product.  Not sure why.
>
>         paul
>
>
>
>
> End of cctalk Digest, Vol 88, Issue 29
> **************************************