Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.dec > #218 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-04 09:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2011-05-25 14:05 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.dec
Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-04-04 09:12 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-04-30 22:27 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-01 10:01 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-01 10:27 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-01 20:53 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-01 21:16 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-01 20:54 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-01 21:07 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-02 09:37 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-02 08:39 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-02 05:15 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems jjh <jjhudak@gmail.com> - 2011-05-02 18:20 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-03 08:18 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-03 12:51 -0400
VAXTREK koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-03 12:50 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> - 2011-05-03 21:39 +0300
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-03 15:56 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems onedbguru <onedbguru@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-03 15:52 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billig999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-04 00:07 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> - 2011-05-04 01:16 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-04 13:01 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> - 2011-05-04 10:19 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2011-05-04 10:58 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> - 2011-05-04 21:51 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems G Cornelius <cornelius@eisner.decus.org> - 2011-05-06 13:08 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> - 2011-05-06 14:47 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@update.uu.se> - 2011-05-06 16:13 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-07 21:00 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-07 19:51 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> - 2011-05-08 07:19 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-09 17:32 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rob Brown <mylastname@gmcl.com> - 2011-05-09 09:40 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-09 09:43 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems vandys@vsta.org - 2011-05-09 21:47 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-09 16:05 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems vandys@vsta.org - 2011-05-09 23:05 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-09 17:20 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems vandys@vsta.org - 2011-05-10 00:12 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-09 19:36 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-10 02:01 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-10 08:31 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems John Wallace <johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-10 09:56 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-10 12:50 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems G Cornelius <cornelius@eisner.decus.org> - 2011-05-11 11:04 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-04 10:02 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-04 12:20 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-04 18:10 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems John Wallace <johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-04 12:21 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems MetaEd <metaed@gmail.com> - 2011-05-04 15:06 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-04 20:17 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-10 08:20 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-10 08:29 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-10 09:29 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems G Cornelius <cornelius@eisner.decus.org> - 2011-05-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-10 12:45 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-10 15:34 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-10 12:58 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-10 15:36 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-03 12:38 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems paramucho@hotmail.com (paramucho) - 2011-05-03 11:28 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-03 12:09 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-05-23 03:41 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-22 21:51 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems jjh <jjhudak@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 07:47 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-23 15:04 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-23 15:52 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 00:16 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-23 17:40 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 12:58 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-24 14:02 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-24 07:36 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 16:42 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-24 11:17 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 20:07 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-24 21:07 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-25 03:34 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-25 15:46 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-25 16:00 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201105.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-05-26 17:50 +0200
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 09:53 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201105.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-05-26 22:20 +0200
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-28 18:01 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-25 20:58 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-26 01:23 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-26 08:01 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-27 00:54 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-26 16:15 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-26 23:56 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-27 14:37 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-27 00:02 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 20:17 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-27 14:51 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-27 12:48 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-27 14:35 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-25 21:14 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-26 01:32 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-26 16:39 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201105.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-05-26 17:50 +0200
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-24 21:01 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-26 07:53 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 09:59 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201105.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-05-26 10:03 +0200
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems paramucho@hotmail.com (paramucho) - 2011-05-26 14:21 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-05-26 18:50 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems paramucho@hotmail.com (paramucho) - 2011-05-27 11:58 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-05-27 17:23 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 10:04 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201105.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-05-27 03:30 +0200
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2011-05-26 22:17 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 20:26 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems John Wallace <johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 14:09 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-30 18:15 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems jjh <jjhudak@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 11:02 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) - 2011-05-31 15:54 -0500
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 21:37 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-24 22:59 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-25 03:51 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-25 08:36 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> - 2011-05-25 13:25 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-25 14:01 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-25 11:44 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-25 21:20 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rob Brown <mylastname@gmcl.com> - 2011-05-26 10:53 -0600
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2011-05-26 16:27 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 20:27 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-26 16:38 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-26 21:44 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems paramucho@hotmail.com (paramucho) - 2011-05-24 12:02 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-23 10:48 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-23 15:46 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 00:19 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-23 17:43 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-25 14:41 -0400
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-05-24 02:54 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 13:03 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-24 07:39 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-05-24 15:10 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2011-05-24 08:48 -0700
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 16:54 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billy@MIX.COM - 2011-05-24 14:42 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) - 2011-05-24 16:56 +0000
Re: Y3K for PDP-11 Operating Systems "Jerome H. Fine" <everyone@nospam.com> - 2011-05-25 14:05 -0400
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-04 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92d114Fhm7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #382 |
In article <H9mdnUTgT5LYfF3QnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: > On 5/3/2011 8:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article<7d287cc3-4605-49a0-826e-fb92fc14e98d@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, >> onedbguru<onedbguru@yahoo.com> writes: >>> On May 3, 2:39 pm, Henry Crun<m...@rechtman.com> wrote: >>>> On 03/05/11 20:51, Bob Koehler wrote: >>>> >>>>> >Bob Koehler wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> In article<bdd4fd3d-bb52-43fb-ad9c-746b901f4...@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, jjh<jjhu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> To make sure I understand, y3K =3D 3000, it is 2011 now...um that is 989 >>>>>>> years from now...or roughly 12.5 lifetimes....I seriously don't think >>>>>>> that anyone in the year 3000 will want to know anything about DEC hw >>>>>>> or sw. >>>> >>>>>> You obviously have not read the historical documents. >>>> >>>>> I am curious, I have not read the historical documents. >>>>> Can you please post a link? >>>> >>>>> As for Y3K for RT-11, since the date is presently managed >>>>> up to 2099 as of V05.07 of RT-11, dates starting in 2100 >>>>> become the next problem. And since adding support only >>>>> for an additional 128 years seems like a complete waste of >>>>> time, then 3000 CE was chosen as the next minimum step. >>>>> In practice, at least an additional 4000 years would probably >>>>> be added, more than enough to handle dates until the rules >>>>> for the CE (Commercial Events, Common Era, Christian Era >>>>> or Gregorian - all are identical and have a 400 year cycle) >>>>> Calendar requires a rule change to handle years which are >>>>> less than the current 365.2418 days. >>>> >>>>> So Y3K is really just Y2.1K if that makes a difference. >>>> >>>> IIRC there was an article by someone from DEC who promised that RSTS would be >>>> patched to accept five-digit years before the year 9999. However I doubt that >>>> current versions would be supported until then... >>>> >>> question... who cares??? I can almost guarantee that none of us will >>> be here in 2099... and by that time you might be using neural-net >>> technology that will make the PDP look like a TRS80. >> >> Hey, just what xfdo you think was wrong with the TRS80? >> > > Other than primitive hardware and primitive software? It was a good > machine in its day but its day is LONG GONE! > Now that's funny, here. Just how is the Z80 more primitve than the PDP-11? And software? At least 5 different OSes. Wide language support. Many commercial applications. And, at this point it is probably debatable which one between the TRS80 and PDP-11 has more users on both real hardware and emulators. I have quite a bit of both. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-04 10:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KsmdnY-dhd7k_VzQnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #385 |
On 5/4/2011 9:01 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article<H9mdnUTgT5LYfF3QnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: >> On 5/3/2011 8:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article<7d287cc3-4605-49a0-826e-fb92fc14e98d@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, >>> onedbguru<onedbguru@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> On May 3, 2:39 pm, Henry Crun<m...@rechtman.com> wrote: >>>>> On 03/05/11 20:51, Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> In article<bdd4fd3d-bb52-43fb-ad9c-746b901f4...@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, jjh<jjhu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> To make sure I understand, y3K =3D 3000, it is 2011 now...um that is 989 >>>>>>>> years from now...or roughly 12.5 lifetimes....I seriously don't think >>>>>>>> that anyone in the year 3000 will want to know anything about DEC hw >>>>>>>> or sw. >>>>> >>>>>>> You obviously have not read the historical documents. >>>>> >>>>>> I am curious, I have not read the historical documents. >>>>>> Can you please post a link? >>>>> >>>>>> As for Y3K for RT-11, since the date is presently managed >>>>>> up to 2099 as of V05.07 of RT-11, dates starting in 2100 >>>>>> become the next problem. And since adding support only >>>>>> for an additional 128 years seems like a complete waste of >>>>>> time, then 3000 CE was chosen as the next minimum step. >>>>>> In practice, at least an additional 4000 years would probably >>>>>> be added, more than enough to handle dates until the rules >>>>>> for the CE (Commercial Events, Common Era, Christian Era >>>>>> or Gregorian - all are identical and have a 400 year cycle) >>>>>> Calendar requires a rule change to handle years which are >>>>>> less than the current 365.2418 days. >>>>> >>>>>> So Y3K is really just Y2.1K if that makes a difference. >>>>> >>>>> IIRC there was an article by someone from DEC who promised that RSTS would be >>>>> patched to accept five-digit years before the year 9999. However I doubt that >>>>> current versions would be supported until then... >>>>> >>>> question... who cares??? I can almost guarantee that none of us will >>>> be here in 2099... and by that time you might be using neural-net >>>> technology that will make the PDP look like a TRS80. >>> >>> Hey, just what xfdo you think was wrong with the TRS80? >>> >> >> Other than primitive hardware and primitive software? It was a good >> machine in its day but its day is LONG GONE! >> > > Now that's funny, here. Just how is the Z80 more primitve than the PDP-11? > And software? At least 5 different OSes. Wide language support. Many > commercial applications. > > And, at this point it is probably debatable which one between the TRS80 > and PDP-11 has more users on both real hardware and emulators. I have > quite a bit of both. > > bill > I disposed of my "TRASH 80" and replaced it with a used Rainbow 100. The lack of a few milligrams of gold plating made the TRASH 80 a nightmare. Tin oxidizes and did so on critical connectors!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-04 10:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iprpio$e25$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #387 |
Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote: > >I disposed of my "TRASH 80" and replaced it with a used Rainbow 100. >The lack of a few milligrams of gold plating made the TRASH 80 a >nightmare. Tin oxidizes and did so on critical connectors! The GC "Nickel Print" kit fixed that problem nicely. I made good money nickel-plating the edge card connectors on Model Ones back when they were new. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-04 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92ddfkF764U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #387 |
In article <KsmdnY-dhd7k_VzQnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: > On 5/4/2011 9:01 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> In article<H9mdnUTgT5LYfF3QnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: >>> On 5/3/2011 8:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>> In article<7d287cc3-4605-49a0-826e-fb92fc14e98d@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, >>>> onedbguru<onedbguru@yahoo.com> writes: >>>>> On May 3, 2:39 pm, Henry Crun<m...@rechtman.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/05/11 20:51, Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In article<bdd4fd3d-bb52-43fb-ad9c-746b901f4...@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, jjh<jjhu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To make sure I understand, y3K =3D 3000, it is 2011 now...um that is 989 >>>>>>>>> years from now...or roughly 12.5 lifetimes....I seriously don't think >>>>>>>>> that anyone in the year 3000 will want to know anything about DEC hw >>>>>>>>> or sw. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> You obviously have not read the historical documents. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am curious, I have not read the historical documents. >>>>>>> Can you please post a link? >>>>>> >>>>>>> As for Y3K for RT-11, since the date is presently managed >>>>>>> up to 2099 as of V05.07 of RT-11, dates starting in 2100 >>>>>>> become the next problem. And since adding support only >>>>>>> for an additional 128 years seems like a complete waste of >>>>>>> time, then 3000 CE was chosen as the next minimum step. >>>>>>> In practice, at least an additional 4000 years would probably >>>>>>> be added, more than enough to handle dates until the rules >>>>>>> for the CE (Commercial Events, Common Era, Christian Era >>>>>>> or Gregorian - all are identical and have a 400 year cycle) >>>>>>> Calendar requires a rule change to handle years which are >>>>>>> less than the current 365.2418 days. >>>>>> >>>>>>> So Y3K is really just Y2.1K if that makes a difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC there was an article by someone from DEC who promised that RSTS would be >>>>>> patched to accept five-digit years before the year 9999. However I doubt that >>>>>> current versions would be supported until then... >>>>>> >>>>> question... who cares??? I can almost guarantee that none of us will >>>>> be here in 2099... and by that time you might be using neural-net >>>>> technology that will make the PDP look like a TRS80. >>>> >>>> Hey, just what xfdo you think was wrong with the TRS80? >>>> >>> >>> Other than primitive hardware and primitive software? It was a good >>> machine in its day but its day is LONG GONE! >>> >> >> Now that's funny, here. Just how is the Z80 more primitve than the PDP-11? >> And software? At least 5 different OSes. Wide language support. Many >> commercial applications. >> >> And, at this point it is probably debatable which one between the TRS80 >> and PDP-11 has more users on both real hardware and emulators. I have >> quite a bit of both. >> > > I disposed of my "TRASH 80" and replaced it with a used Rainbow 100. I always wanted a Rainbow, too, but never had the luck of finding one. > The lack of a few milligrams of gold plating made the TRASH 80 a > nightmare. Tin oxidizes and did so on critical connectors! Wow, you have gold on all your PDP-11 modules? Maybe those old cards are worth more than I thought. :-) I have a number of TRS-80 Model-I's with the Expansion Interface and they all work quite well. I spent more time cleaning edges connectors on my daughters Nintendo than on the TRS-80. And, of course, like the PDP-11, today it is mostly done with emulators anyway. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-04 21:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tY2dnego1pM4n1_QnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #389 |
On 5/4/2011 12:33 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article<KsmdnY-dhd7k_VzQnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, > "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: >> On 5/4/2011 9:01 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>> In article<H9mdnUTgT5LYfF3QnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >>> "Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes: >>>> On 5/3/2011 8:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >>>>> In article<7d287cc3-4605-49a0-826e-fb92fc14e98d@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> onedbguru<onedbguru@yahoo.com> writes: >>>>>> On May 3, 2:39 pm, Henry Crun<m...@rechtman.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/05/11 20:51, Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >Bob Koehler wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In article<bdd4fd3d-bb52-43fb-ad9c-746b901f4...@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, jjh<jjhu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To make sure I understand, y3K =3D 3000, it is 2011 now...um that is 989 >>>>>>>>>> years from now...or roughly 12.5 lifetimes....I seriously don't think >>>>>>>>>> that anyone in the year 3000 will want to know anything about DEC hw >>>>>>>>>> or sw. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You obviously have not read the historical documents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am curious, I have not read the historical documents. >>>>>>>> Can you please post a link? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for Y3K for RT-11, since the date is presently managed >>>>>>>> up to 2099 as of V05.07 of RT-11, dates starting in 2100 >>>>>>>> become the next problem. And since adding support only >>>>>>>> for an additional 128 years seems like a complete waste of >>>>>>>> time, then 3000 CE was chosen as the next minimum step. >>>>>>>> In practice, at least an additional 4000 years would probably >>>>>>>> be added, more than enough to handle dates until the rules >>>>>>>> for the CE (Commercial Events, Common Era, Christian Era >>>>>>>> or Gregorian - all are identical and have a 400 year cycle) >>>>>>>> Calendar requires a rule change to handle years which are >>>>>>>> less than the current 365.2418 days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So Y3K is really just Y2.1K if that makes a difference. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IIRC there was an article by someone from DEC who promised that RSTS would be >>>>>>> patched to accept five-digit years before the year 9999. However I doubt that >>>>>>> current versions would be supported until then... >>>>>>> >>>>>> question... who cares??? I can almost guarantee that none of us will >>>>>> be here in 2099... and by that time you might be using neural-net >>>>>> technology that will make the PDP look like a TRS80. >>>>> >>>>> Hey, just what xfdo you think was wrong with the TRS80? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Other than primitive hardware and primitive software? It was a good >>>> machine in its day but its day is LONG GONE! >>>> >>> >>> Now that's funny, here. Just how is the Z80 more primitve than the PDP-11? >>> And software? At least 5 different OSes. Wide language support. Many >>> commercial applications. >>> >>> And, at this point it is probably debatable which one between the TRS80 >>> and PDP-11 has more users on both real hardware and emulators. I have >>> quite a bit of both. >>> >> >> I disposed of my "TRASH 80" and replaced it with a used Rainbow 100. > > I always wanted a Rainbow, too, but never had the luck of finding one. > >> The lack of a few milligrams of gold plating made the TRASH 80 a >> nightmare. Tin oxidizes and did so on critical connectors! > > Wow, you have gold on all your PDP-11 modules? Maybe those old > cards are worth more than I thought. :-) I have a number of > TRS-80 Model-I's with the Expansion Interface and they all work > quite well. I spent more time cleaning edges connectors on my > daughters Nintendo than on the TRS-80. And, of course, like the > PDP-11, today it is mostly done with emulators anyway. > I have no PDP-11. I had one at work many long years ago. I don't miss it. Poor cripple! The screwing around necessitated by the microscopic address space was more trouble than it was worth!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | G Cornelius <cornelius@eisner.decus.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-06 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4DC4390F.9040401@eisner.decus.org> |
| In reply to | #397 |
Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > I have no PDP-11. I had one at work many long years ago. I don't miss it. You must never have worked on an -8! A 22-bit PDP-11 with RSX-11M+ (I/D space, supervisor mode libraries) was a huge improvement over the sad little 18-bit beasts (physical address, of course). And memory resident overlays at least meant that you did not have to wait for more than a single system call's overhead for additional segments of your overlaid program to be accessed. But, oh, the task builder overlay description language files you had to manage! The 18-bit physical address space was a broken concept from the beginning: "Hey, we have all this 18/36 bit stuff already built for the 10- and 20-series, let's give the 11's two entire bits of extended physical address!" To go to 22 bits your device drivers still had to go through the 18 bit atrocity, with the extra two bits tucked into the CSR somewhere, just so they could address a set of "Unibus mapping registers" to extend the map from 18 bits to 22 bits. In retrospect it all seems to have been rather poor planning. If in fact your code fit into the address space and did not need 32 bit arithmetic, it could be fast. The first time I started working in a group that had VAXen I noticed two 750's sitting off to the side because they had not been able to handle the application load. Their replacement: a pair of 11/84's. Granted, this was specialized in that the language interpreter had to do a lot of single byte operations, resulting in the initial versions, on 750's at least, being rather inefficient. Sometimes extra bits just mean extra overhead. George
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-06 14:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6eWdnQijKMHZ31nQnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #413 |
On 5/6/2011 2:08 PM, G Cornelius wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> I have no PDP-11. I had one at work many long years ago. I don't miss it. > > You must never have worked on an -8! I did work on a PDP-8 but not much. The memory issues seemed difficult enough that I was surprised that anyone managed to get anything done! I came to the PDP-8 after working with 24 bit and 32 bit architectures. I REALLY don't miss the PDP-8! <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@update.uu.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-06 16:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iq1rps$qs1$1@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE> |
| In reply to | #413 |
On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> I have no PDP-11. I had one at work many long years ago. I don't miss it. > > You must never have worked on an -8! Heh. Yeah, well, the PDP-8 code is pretty compact in a way, but of course you don't write something like SSL for a PDP-8. Also, on both the PDP-8 and PDP-11 (but especially on the -8) assembly language programming was the norm. And you get so much more use out of memory that way. (And it also encourages you to keep your programs small... ;-) ) > A 22-bit PDP-11 with RSX-11M+ (I/D space, supervisor mode libraries) > was a huge improvement over the sad little 18-bit beasts (physical > address, of course). And memory resident overlays at least meant > that you did not have to wait for more than a single system call's > overhead for additional segments of your overlaid program to be > accessed. But, oh, the task builder overlay description language > files you had to manage! Yeah. The ODL-files are not that fun, but I agree that M+ on a big PDP-11 is a very different experience to some small -11 with some other OS. > The 18-bit physical address space was a broken concept from the > beginning: "Hey, we have all this 18/36 bit stuff already built > for the 10- and 20-series, let's give the 11's two entire bits > of extended physical address!" To go to 22 bits your device > drivers still had to go through the 18 bit atrocity, with the > extra two bits tucked into the CSR somewhere, just so they could > address a set of "Unibus mapping registers" to extend the map > from 18 bits to 22 bits. In retrospect it all seems to have been > rather poor planning. Well. The 18-bit thingy was not totally for the PDP-11. The Unibus was first done for the PDP-11, true, but the PDP-11 at that time was only 16 bits (there was no MMU). However, the Unibus was also used in some 18/36-bit products, where those two extra bits made sense. And sharing a bus design between several machines also makes sense (and both address and data can be 18 bits). But yes, having room only for 18-bit addresses on the bus was obviously pretty little, and the PDP-11 quickly grew out of that too. Gordon Bell have a famous quote for the PDP-11 and address extensions. The Unibus map is annoying, true, but not really a big issue. It's the same thing on a VAX. Except the Unibus map is more fine grained on VAXen. (That's why the 11/70 had Massbuses... ;-) ) > If in fact your code fit into the address space and did not need > 32 bit arithmetic, it could be fast. The first time I started > working in a group that had VAXen I noticed two 750's sitting > off to the side because they had not been able to handle the > application load. Their replacement: a pair of 11/84's. > Granted, this was specialized in that the language interpreter > had to do a lot of single byte operations, resulting in the > initial versions, on 750's at least, being rather inefficient. > Sometimes extra bits just mean extra overhead. Heck. The 11/750 is not a fast machine. It's definitely slower than an 11/84, unless you do things that the VAX can do natively and the PDP-11 can't. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-07 21:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddzkmyc8gh.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #415 |
Johnny Billquist <bqt@update.uu.se> writes:
> On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> The 18-bit physical address space was a broken concept from the
>> beginning: "Hey, we have all this 18/36 bit stuff already built
>> for the 10- and 20-series, let's give the 11's two entire bits
>> of extended physical address!" To go to 22 bits your device
>> drivers still had to go through the 18 bit atrocity, with the
>> extra two bits tucked into the CSR somewhere, just so they could
>> address a set of "Unibus mapping registers" to extend the map
>> from 18 bits to 22 bits. In retrospect it all seems to have been
>> rather poor planning.
> Well. The 18-bit thingy was not totally for the PDP-11. The Unibus was
> first done for the PDP-11, true, but the PDP-11 at that time was only 16
> bits (there was no MMU). However, the Unibus was also used in some
> 18/36-bit products, where those two extra bits made sense. And sharing a
> bus design between several machines also makes sense (and both address
> and data can be 18 bits).
There wasn't any Unibus in the PDP-10 world until the introduction of the 2020,
which used the Unibus for I/O interfaces. That was 1978, nearly a decade after
the PDP-11 brought Unibus into being...
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-07 19:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iq4sue$olv$1@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE> |
| In reply to | #416 |
On 2011-05-07 19.00, Rich Alderson wrote: > Johnny Billquist<bqt@update.uu.se> writes: > >> On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote: >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >>> The 18-bit physical address space was a broken concept from the >>> beginning: "Hey, we have all this 18/36 bit stuff already built >>> for the 10- and 20-series, let's give the 11's two entire bits >>> of extended physical address!" To go to 22 bits your device >>> drivers still had to go through the 18 bit atrocity, with the >>> extra two bits tucked into the CSR somewhere, just so they could >>> address a set of "Unibus mapping registers" to extend the map >>> from 18 bits to 22 bits. In retrospect it all seems to have been >>> rather poor planning. > >> Well. The 18-bit thingy was not totally for the PDP-11. The Unibus was >> first done for the PDP-11, true, but the PDP-11 at that time was only 16 >> bits (there was no MMU). However, the Unibus was also used in some >> 18/36-bit products, where those two extra bits made sense. And sharing a >> bus design between several machines also makes sense (and both address >> and data can be 18 bits). > > There wasn't any Unibus in the PDP-10 world until the introduction of the 2020, > which used the Unibus for I/O interfaces. That was 1978, nearly a decade after > the PDP-11 brought Unibus into being... True. And I did say that the Unibus first came with the PDP-11. And I don't know why DEC decided on having 18 address bits on the Unibus, but it can't very well have been for just doing a 2-bit expansion of the PDP-11 address space in the future, so it seems more likely that they were considering the possibility of using it on 18/36 bit products. But that is just guessing on my part. (But really, if it were for just -11 expansion, why on earth only make room for a 2 bit expansion? When it was done, it was a totally open and free decision to make provisions for a larger expansion. If that was the case, then I would agree with the statement that it was very poor planning.) Also, the fact that you can run 18-bit data on the Unibus is totally lost on a PDP-11, since it never use that, but instead use the two additional bits for parity of each data byte. I don't know much details of the Unibus on the PDP-15 either, but that came sooner than the -2020. Also, not totally relevant, but the 11/40 FE of the KL-10 have a Unibus as well, and the machine normally use a dual-ported RP06 which is formatted in 18-bit mode, that is also accessed by the FE. As such, something non entirely -11-normal is done on the RH11 of the FE... But it's not really the same as any 18/36 bit machine with a Unibus in anyway, so it's more of a curious oddball among -11s. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-08 07:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7r-dnYARorOs4VvQnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #416 |
On 5/7/2011 9:00 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: > Johnny Billquist<bqt@update.uu.se> writes: > >> On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote: >>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >>> The 18-bit physical address space was a broken concept from the >>> beginning: "Hey, we have all this 18/36 bit stuff already built >>> for the 10- and 20-series, let's give the 11's two entire bits >>> of extended physical address!" To go to 22 bits your device >>> drivers still had to go through the 18 bit atrocity, with the >>> extra two bits tucked into the CSR somewhere, just so they could >>> address a set of "Unibus mapping registers" to extend the map >>> from 18 bits to 22 bits. In retrospect it all seems to have been >>> rather poor planning. > >> Well. The 18-bit thingy was not totally for the PDP-11. The Unibus was >> first done for the PDP-11, true, but the PDP-11 at that time was only 16 >> bits (there was no MMU). However, the Unibus was also used in some >> 18/36-bit products, where those two extra bits made sense. And sharing a >> bus design between several machines also makes sense (and both address >> and data can be 18 bits). > > There wasn't any Unibus in the PDP-10 world until the introduction of the 2020, > which used the Unibus for I/O interfaces. That was 1978, nearly a decade after > the PDP-11 brought Unibus into being... > Please be a little more careful about your attributions. The above text does not contain anything that I wrote!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddfwonlfuy.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #418 |
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> On 5/7/2011 9:00 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> Johnny Billquist<bqt@update.uu.se> writes:
>>> On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote:
>>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Please be a little more careful about your attributions. The above text
> does not contain anything that I wrote!
My apologies.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rob Brown <mylastname@gmcl.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 09:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LFD.2.00.1105090938080.19900@libra.gmcl.internal> |
| In reply to | #415 |
On Fri, 6 May 2011 at 16:13 -0600, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote:
>
>> If in fact your code fit into the address space and did not need 32
>> bit arithmetic, it could be fast. The first time I started working
>> in a group that had VAXen I noticed two 750's sitting off to the
>> side because they had not been able to handle the application load.
>> Their replacement: a pair of 11/84's. Granted, this was specialized
>> in that the language interpreter had to do a lot of single byte
>> operations, resulting in the initial versions, on 750's at least,
>> being rather inefficient. Sometimes extra bits just mean extra
>> overhead.
>
> Heck. The 11/750 is not a fast machine. It's definitely slower than
> an 11/84, unless you do things that the VAX can do natively and the
> PDP-11 can't.
It seemed to me that the 11/750 was even slower than an 11/44, but
perhaps that had something to do with their respective workloads.
--
Rob Brown b r o w n a t g m c l d o t c o m
G. Michaels Consulting Ltd. (780)438-9343 (voice)
Edmonton (780)437-3367 (FAX)
http://gmcl.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 09:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iq922s$2bb$2@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE> |
| In reply to | #419 |
On 2011-05-09 09.40, Rob Brown wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2011 at 16:13 -0600, Johnny Billquist wrote: > >> On 2011-05-06 12.08, G Cornelius wrote: >> >>> If in fact your code fit into the address space and did not need 32 >>> bit arithmetic, it could be fast. The first time I started working in >>> a group that had VAXen I noticed two 750's sitting off to the side >>> because they had not been able to handle the application load. Their >>> replacement: a pair of 11/84's. Granted, this was specialized in that >>> the language interpreter had to do a lot of single byte operations, >>> resulting in the initial versions, on 750's at least, being rather >>> inefficient. Sometimes extra bits just mean extra overhead. >> >> Heck. The 11/750 is not a fast machine. It's definitely slower than an >> 11/84, unless you do things that the VAX can do natively and the >> PDP-11 can't. > > It seemed to me that the 11/750 was even slower than an 11/44, but > perhaps that had something to do with their respective workloads. I don't know for sure, but I would have guessed that they were about equal, but maybe with a small edge for the 11/44. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92r5ntFf3hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #419 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Rob Brown <mylastname@gmcl.com> wrote: > It seemed to me that the 11/750 was even slower than an 11/44, but > perhaps that had something to do with their respective workloads. For anything not requiring 32 bits, I'm quite sure the 11/70 outran it, in both integer math and string handling scenarios. Floating point, I'm not sure--not an area where I had to deal with performance. -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 16:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iq9off$af6$1@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE> |
| In reply to | #422 |
On 2011-05-09 15.47, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Rob Brown<mylastname@gmcl.com> wrote: >> It seemed to me that the 11/750 was even slower than an 11/44, but >> perhaps that had something to do with their respective workloads. > > For anything not requiring 32 bits, I'm quite sure the 11/70 outran it, in > both integer math and string handling scenarios. Floating point, I'm not > sure--not an area where I had to deal with performance. I wouldn't be so sure on string handling, since the VAX have lots of native instructions to deal with that, which the 11/70 do not. Integer on the other hand, yes. Floating point as well, unless you want some VAX-specific format. The 11/44 is a bit slower than the 11/70, but still pretty ok. And for a lot of things, the PDP-11 have much lower overhead than a VAX, such as subroutine calling and interrupts. I'm not sure if context switching is better or worse. The VAX have a single instruction for that, while the PDP-11 needs to manually handle both processor registers and MMU registers. On the other hand, you don't have the penalty of the TLB cache flushes, and I don't know how fast/slow the context save/restore on the VAX are. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 23:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92raajFe87U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #423 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > I wouldn't be so sure on string handling, since the VAX have lots of > native instructions to deal with that, which the 11/70 do not. Integer > on the other hand, yes. I think it was most competetive when you used multiple of its more optimized instructions. For instance, my recollection is that the single-instruction bulk string ops ran slower than the hand coded move/loop constructs. (Most of my time was on 750's and the odd 780, and this no doubt changed as DEC fleshed out their Vax line.) > The VAX have a single instruction for that, while the > PDP-11 needs to manually handle both processor registers and MMU > registers. Having a single instruction does not mean you have a *fast* single instruction. That was definitely the case for bulk string ops. I don't recall actual task switch performance; that was not an area which caused me problems. -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 17:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iq9ssn$bri$1@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE> |
| In reply to | #424 |
On 2011-05-09 17.05, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Johnny Billquist<bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> I wouldn't be so sure on string handling, since the VAX have lots of >> native instructions to deal with that, which the 11/70 do not. Integer >> on the other hand, yes. > > I think it was most competetive when you used multiple of its more optimized > instructions. For instance, my recollection is that the single-instruction > bulk string ops ran slower than the hand coded move/loop constructs. (Most > of my time was on 750's and the odd 780, and this no doubt changed as DEC > fleshed out their Vax line.) I know that for some things, actually coding using more primitive instructions on the (older) VAXen turned out to be faster than to use the fancy instructions, but I would not have thought that was true for things like MOVC or LOCC, but I might very well be wrong. >> The VAX have a single instruction for that, while the >> PDP-11 needs to manually handle both processor registers and MMU >> registers. > > Having a single instruction does not mean you have a *fast* single > instruction. That was definitely the case for bulk string ops. I don't > recall actual task switch performance; that was not an area which caused > me problems. Indeed. Which is why I said I'm not sure in this area. The save/load context instructions are doing a *lot* of things. But doing a context switch on the PDP-11 is no little task either. But from a performance point of view, it is rather relevant, since a lot of context switches happens all the time. (The big win, however, was obviously the loads of actual code needed to do a context switch which was reduced to just a few bytes on a VAX. :-) ) Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 00:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92re7gF8btU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #425 |
In alt.sys.pdp11 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > I know that for some things, actually coding using more primitive > instructions on the (older) VAXen turned out to be faster than to use > the fancy instructions, but I would not have thought that was true for > things like MOVC or LOCC, but I might very well be wrong. I'm pretty sure we ended up with a hand coded bcopy() back in the day. It might've been that we could do optional initial odd, and then move as words. I think I heard that later Vaxen microcode would do that too. > (The big win, however, was > obviously the loads of actual code needed to do a context switch which > was reduced to just a few bytes on a VAX. :-) ) I'm pretty sure I remember that BSD on the Vax never ended up using the high level task instructions. I can remember trying to make it line up, and ending up deciding it cost more than it saved. No doubt VMS did, as otherwise, well, what was the point? :-> This all dribbles back to that old RISC versus CISC argument. I think the MIPS context switching I coded was faster than anything comparable on a x86 or Vax. OTOH, MIPS was never able to beat the TLB miss performance of the x86. The ultimate (implied) instruction! -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-09 19:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iqa4rr$ebl$1@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE> |
| In reply to | #426 |
On 2011-05-09 18.12, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > In alt.sys.pdp11 Johnny Billquist<bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> I know that for some things, actually coding using more primitive >> instructions on the (older) VAXen turned out to be faster than to use >> the fancy instructions, but I would not have thought that was true for >> things like MOVC or LOCC, but I might very well be wrong. > > I'm pretty sure we ended up with a hand coded bcopy() back in the day. > It might've been that we could do optional initial odd, and then move > as words. I think I heard that later Vaxen microcode would do that too. Hmm. Memory alignment issues... Good point. Otherwise, I'm also pretty sure that a function like strcpy() is much better to do on your own, as the VAX really don't have a good way of implementing that. Doing first a LOCC to get the length, and then a MOVC to move the string will surely be less efficient than just doing a MOV followed by a conditional branch to loop... Obviously, for C stuff, anything dealing with strings is opposed to how a VAX wants things. :-) >> (The big win, however, was >> obviously the loads of actual code needed to do a context switch which >> was reduced to just a few bytes on a VAX. :-) ) > > I'm pretty sure I remember that BSD on the Vax never ended up using > the high level task instructions. I can remember trying to make it > line up, and ending up deciding it cost more than it saved. I know that NetBSD/VAX use those, and I'm almost sure you cannot do a context switch without them. > No doubt VMS did, as otherwise, well, what was the point? :-> :-) > This all dribbles back to that old RISC versus CISC argument. I think the > MIPS context switching I coded was faster than anything comparable on a x86 > or Vax. OTOH, MIPS was never able to beat the TLB miss performance of the > x86. The ultimate (implied) instruction! Indeed. But context switching goes a bit beyond the RISC/CISC as well. It's also a question of how much is held in a context (admittedly, I suspect this sortof follows hand in hand with CISC vs. RISC, but anyway), if you have lots of context, saving it will take more time than if you have just a little. And that means both processor state, as well as MMU state, and what else there might be in things like cache invalidations. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.dec
csiph-web