Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #69605 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-07-19 11:41 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-16 15:53 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2025-07-16 12:41 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-16 17:32 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-16 17:54 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-17 03:44 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-07-19 09:48 +0300
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-19 17:49 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-21 09:32 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-21 17:08 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-07-21 16:04 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-21 23:06 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 14:46 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-07-21 16:07 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-21 21:16 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:27 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:42 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-07-21 16:06 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-22 10:08 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-22 22:16 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-07-22 19:19 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 14:44 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-22 20:55 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 21:08 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-23 18:48 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 14:04 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 13:13 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 15:23 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:43 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:31 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-26 17:52 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:44 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 17:47 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-26 18:19 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:25 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 21:44 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 21:12 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-27 22:09 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 23:00 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-28 09:10 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:02 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:17 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 11:10 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:55 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 14:13 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-04 10:10 +0200
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 17:38 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 15:16 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 22:39 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:46 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 23:00 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 15:57 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:48 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:11 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:43 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-08 08:10 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alan Bowler <alantbowler@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 14:07 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-29 12:57 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:12 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:09 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 20:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:21 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-27 16:40 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 08:30 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-28 10:09 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-27 19:04 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 04:06 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 14:53 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-03 20:43 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 03:26 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-28 15:56 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 00:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:50 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:15 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 12:46 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:28 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-08-29 14:40 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:28 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 00:25 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-30 12:19 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:37 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:23 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 17:37 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-31 22:24 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:35 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 07:55 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-01 11:52 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:11 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 10:41 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 18:38 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:42 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-04 20:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:08 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:03 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-05 12:15 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:17 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 07:31 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-09-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:56 +0000
Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:10 +0200
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 14:23 +0000
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 14:11 -0400
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 21:07 +0200
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 19:29 +0000
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-10 20:13 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-04 22:22 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:06 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-05 12:02 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-30 18:30 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:25 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 21:46 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:44 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-03 14:31 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-09-03 01:22 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 01:13 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:20 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-09-01 14:46 +0300
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-01 14:33 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:03 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:53 +0200
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-29 17:09 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:18 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:54 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 03:06 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:28 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 05:30 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 11:59 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:26 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:36 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:31 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 03:10 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:13 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-29 22:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-29 21:12 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-29 20:52 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:34 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:51 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-30 15:54 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 12:13 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 19:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 14:45 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-02 14:45 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-09-03 10:40 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 07:59 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 17:38 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-03 17:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 22:03 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-08-30 19:34 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:44 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:36 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 01:52 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:26 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:01 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 18:12 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 20:15 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:20 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:49 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 12:40 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-31 08:19 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 20:10 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-07-21 16:05 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2025-07-19 11:41 +0100
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth |
| Message-ID | <e4ucnb1I-5IIqur1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Xenix 3.x can be downloaded from archive sites. Alas, on checking, it's like *41* floppies worth. I've installed stuff that spans a few floppies into VirtualBox, but *41* ??? Maybe not worth it.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-16 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JVPdQ.495184$sKi9.318413@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #69605 |
On 2025-07-16, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Xenix 3.x can be downloaded from archive sites. > > Alas, on checking, it's like *41* floppies worth. > I've installed stuff that spans a few floppies > into VirtualBox, but *41* ??? Maybe not worth it. Ah, takes me back to the days of the Univac System 80, where updates were distributed on floppies. 8-inch floppies. Lots of them. The pain was reduced somewhat if you had the auto-load diskette drive (affectionately referred to as the "auto-cruncher"). On the other hand, the pain was increased considerably if you had a read error on the last disk, since there was no retry capability. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-16 12:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <877c08krzy.fsf@atr2.ath.cx> |
| In reply to | #69605 |
I heard that system is buggy as hell. Might best not bother.
--
PGP Key ID: 781C A3E2 C6ED 70A6 B356 7AF5 B510 542E D460 5CAE
"The Internet should always be the Wild West!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-16 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdq622Fpaq8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69605 |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 01:24:50 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Xenix 3.x can be downloaded from archive sites. > > Alas, on checking, it's like *41* floppies worth. > I've installed stuff that spans a few floppies into VirtualBox, but *41* > ??? Maybe not worth it. Shades of early Slackware.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-16 17:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1058p12$rmco$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69629 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 01:24:50 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Xenix 3.x can be downloaded from archive sites. >> >> Alas, on checking, it's like *41* floppies worth. >> I've installed stuff that spans a few floppies into VirtualBox, but *41* >> ??? Maybe not worth it. > > Shades of early Slackware. Yep, I full well remember the 20 floppy shuffle to install early versions of Slackware. Not fun, but back then we had no other way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-16 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdqfbiFqst6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69630 |
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 17:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 01:24:50 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Xenix 3.x can be downloaded from archive sites. >>> >>> Alas, on checking, it's like *41* floppies worth. >>> I've installed stuff that spans a few floppies into VirtualBox, but >>> *41* >>> ??? Maybe not worth it. >> >> Shades of early Slackware. > > Yep, I full well remember the 20 floppy shuffle to install early > versions of Slackware. Not fun, but back then we had no other way. That was just the starter set. If you wanted gcc, make, and so forth so you could actually do something that was about another 20.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-17 03:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aZ6cnU18-N5ONOX1nZ2dnZfqn_sAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69629 |
On 7/16/25 1:32 PM, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 01:24:50 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Xenix 3.x can be downloaded from archive sites. >> >> Alas, on checking, it's like *41* floppies worth. >> I've installed stuff that spans a few floppies into VirtualBox, but *41* >> ??? Maybe not worth it. > > Shades of early Slackware. Heh heh - YEA ! For olde-tyme fun I'd LIKE to install Xenix in a VM - sure it WILL work - but *41* disks worth ??? That's like a whole afternoon of fiddly work !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-19 09:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <sm0cy9wllph.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi> |
| In reply to | #69667 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes: > For olde-tyme fun I'd LIKE to install Xenix in > a VM - sure it WILL work - but *41* disks worth ??? > That's like a whole afternoon of fiddly work ! I ran into some ready to run emulator packages at hampa.ch when looking for PC/IX recently. That was easy to start but turns out I don't know how to use PC/IX or what's included, other than the base OS, and how to use any of that. For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the original PC or PC/XT. They have Xenix 2.1.3 as well, in a similar ready to run package.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-19 07:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <105fgk4$2ka5f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69749 |
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 09:48:58 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote: > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the > original PC or PC/XT. Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-19 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kUQeQ.1805405$zOOb.1676556@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #69750 |
On 2025-07-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 09:48:58 +0300, Anssi Saari wrote: > >> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >> original PC or PC/XT. > > Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, > which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. PDP-7, actually - but a port to the PDP-11 came soon afterwards. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250721093237.0000674f@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #69750 |
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the > > original PC or PC/XT. > > Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, > which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely makes one curious...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EuufQ.1816767$zOOb.1258211@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #69812 |
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes: >On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >> > original PC or PC/XT. >> >> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. > >Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was >an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM >PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit architecture on >an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance characteristics of the >first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to do a head-to-head shootout. >I don't know if it's recorded whether the Bell Labs -11 was core or >semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz >would have a cycle time of around 209 ns, but with the aforementioned >8-bit bus. As a naive approximation, that might put them anywhere from >comparable to around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then >the 8088's instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. >Definitely makes one curious... > The PDP-11 would definitely have had a better I/O system, more memory and likely not too dissimilar instruction execution speeds when compared with an 8088; the availability of general purpose registers on the PDP-11 along with the powerful addressing modes would also likely have required a smaller text footprint than the 8088. Given that a early 70's PDP-8e could support a half dozen or more interactive users with TSS/8.24, I find Lawrence's bald assertion about the PDP-11 difficult to accept.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 16:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <105mh18$31brt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69813 |
On 7/21/25 10:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: > John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>>> original PC or PC/XT. >>> >>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >> >> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was >> an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM >> PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit architecture on >> an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance characteristics of the >> first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to do a head-to-head shootout. >> I don't know if it's recorded whether the Bell Labs -11 was core or >> semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz >> would have a cycle time of around 209 ns, but with the aforementioned >> 8-bit bus. As a naive approximation, that might put them anywhere from >> comparable to around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then >> the 8088's instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. >> Definitely makes one curious... >> > > The PDP-11 would definitely have had a better I/O system, > more memory and likely not too dissimilar instruction execution > speeds when compared with an 8088; the availability of general > purpose registers on the PDP-11 along with the powerful > addressing modes would also likely have required a smaller > text footprint than the 8088. Sorry, I think I did "reply" instead of "followup" - just getting used to Thunderbird as a newsreader. I liked the VAX, but always wondered why DEC didn't do a straight 32-bit re-implementation of the PDP-11 instead of going with a totally different architecture. > > Given that a early 70's PDP-8e could support a half dozen or > more interactive users with TSS/8.24, I find Lawrence's > bald assertion about the PDP-11 difficult to accept.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <105mh5h$4vlk$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69833 |
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 16:04:08 -0700, Peter Flass wrote: > I liked the VAX, but always wondered why DEC didn't do a straight 32-bit > re-implementation of the PDP-11 instead of going with a totally > different architecture. The VAX was it. How else should it have been done?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%uNfQ.1034907$sKi9.835865@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #69833 |
Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes: >On 7/21/25 10:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>>>> original PC or PC/XT. >>>> >>>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >>> >>> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was >>> an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM >>> PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit architecture on >>> an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance characteristics of the >>> first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to do a head-to-head shootout. >>> I don't know if it's recorded whether the Bell Labs -11 was core or >>> semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz >>> would have a cycle time of around 209 ns, but with the aforementioned >>> 8-bit bus. As a naive approximation, that might put them anywhere from >>> comparable to around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then >>> the 8088's instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. >>> Definitely makes one curious... >>> >> >> The PDP-11 would definitely have had a better I/O system, >> more memory and likely not too dissimilar instruction execution >> speeds when compared with an 8088; the availability of general >> purpose registers on the PDP-11 along with the powerful >> addressing modes would also likely have required a smaller >> text footprint than the 8088. > >Sorry, I think I did "reply" instead of "followup" - just getting used >to Thunderbird as a newsreader. > >I liked the VAX, but always wondered why DEC didn't do a straight 32-bit >re-implementation of the PDP-11 instead of going with a totally >different architecture. > The 11/780 had compatability mode, which ran PDP-11 code. Before VMS 2.0, they were still shipping RSX-11 utilities like PIP with VMS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 16:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddcy9t9ukh.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #69812 |
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the
>>> original PC or PC/XT.
>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11,
>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for.
> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was
> an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM
No, the original port of PDP-7 (18 bit) Unix was to a PDP-11/20, as was the
C reimplementation.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <me7p0gFrqveU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69812 |
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >> > original PC or PC/XT. >> >> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. > > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was an > 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. And not long after, Bell Labs even produced a version that ran on an 11/20. It wasn't fast, but it worked. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 22:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <105mbb7$307ge$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69825 |
On 21/07/2025 22:16, Bob Eager wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>>> original PC or PC/XT. >>> >>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >> >> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was an >> 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, > > Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. > > And not long after, Bell Labs even produced a version that ran on an > 11/20. It wasn't fast, but it worked. > I remember being one of four on a PDP-11 - can't remember which model - compiling 6809 code. It was bloody slow. Ultimately I worked on Venix, horribly slow on a 286, Xenix briefly and then SCO Unix and something called interactive unix - a sysV PC port. SCO was usable with up to about 50 users. Way ahead of the PDP. Then of course SUN SPARCS running BSD. I also worked on Ultrix and Irix briefly...for customers Linux was a godsend. Cheap and ubiquitous.Instant choice for servers by the late 90s, and finally a decent GUI desktop in the later noughties -- It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <105mfot$4vlk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69827 |
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 22:27:03 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > SCO was usable with up to about 50 users. Way ahead of the PDP. In 1979 or so, the main machine at the University where I was a student was an 11/70 with 768kiB of RAM. It was coping with up to 50 users, but only just. The OS was DEC’s own RSTS/E. Remember that Unix would have seemed quite a bloated and inefficient OS by comparison, back in those days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-21 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <105mh4p$31brt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69827 |
On 7/21/25 14:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/07/2025 22:16, Bob Eager wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>>>> original PC or PC/XT. >>>> >>>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >>> >>> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was an >>> 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, >> >> Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. >> >> And not long after, Bell Labs even produced a version that ran on an >> 11/20. It wasn't fast, but it worked. >> > I remember being one of four on a PDP-11 - can't remember which model - > compiling 6809 code. > > It was bloody slow. > > Ultimately I worked on Venix, horribly slow on a 286, Xenix briefly and > then SCO Unix and something called interactive unix - a sysV PC port. > > SCO was usable with up to about 50 users. Way ahead of the PDP. > Then of course SUN SPARCS running BSD. I also worked on Ultrix and Irix > briefly...for customers > > Linux was a godsend. Cheap and ubiquitous.Instant choice for servers by > the late 90s, and finally a decent GUI desktop in the later noughties > Desktop Linux now up to 6% and growing rapidly. Must thank Microsoft for the boost. If you count the various versions of windows separately, I think they're around 20-some % each. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web