Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 05:05 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-20 13:57 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:26 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 10:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:13 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-25 21:35 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:28 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 17:49 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:29 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-21 12:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:36 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 09:38 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 11:07 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 11:35 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 12:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:52 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-23 23:16 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 00:21 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-24 13:23 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 15:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-24 22:37 +0200
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 15:53 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 16:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-26 16:24 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 16:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:33 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 06:49 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:02 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:18 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:39 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-26 16:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:36 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:26 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-27 12:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-27 09:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 08:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:43 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 19:05 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 16:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 05:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:37 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-27 18:48 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 08:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:37 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 12:19 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 11:08 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 18:46 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:58 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-28 22:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:39 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 22:52 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-29 15:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 16:47 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:04 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 05:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:21 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:48 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 14:47 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:09 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:18 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-29 18:02 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:28 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:42 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:49 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:57 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-30 08:39 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-31 09:36 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:38 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:23 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:44 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 12:25 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:32 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-01 12:48 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:07 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:52 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:48 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:31 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-01 23:55 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-02 14:59 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:29 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:53 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:24 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:20 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 18:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:50 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:33 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:55 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:18 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 20:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:37 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-11-03 06:56 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:14 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-30 20:50 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:05 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:29 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:51 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-26 09:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:28 -0700
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-26 17:19 +0000
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-26 17:02 -0400
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:40 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:34 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-27 07:00 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2015-10-27 10:15 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-27 20:09 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:42 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:22 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:23 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 16:09 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 19:31 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-26 13:10 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:45 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 04:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9f531Fg0iiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153510 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005233EBDA77ED0@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com... > Lawrence Statton wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>> The patch store was loaded during the boot process. >>>> >>>> [deletia] >>>> >>> Good Grief! They shipped the patches? DEC was infected with Autopatch >>> for a long time. I had no idea it had traveled to the VAX world. >>> >>> /BAH >> >> Well - I suspect that particular road to hell was paved with the very >> BEST of best intentions... "We are so very smart now, we may need one, >> maybe two patches to the microcode over the product lifespan ... we'll >> just ship them out as a giant box of PROM's, or do exchanges on the >> L0005 modules, it won't be bad." > > Not for the VAXes. The engineers' first experiences were done designing > the KLs. They were people who learned from their mistakes. > >> >> I suspect after about the twelfth microcode change, someone decided "We >> need a way to do this without throwing away and replacing a hundreds of >> dollars of PROMs.(per installed machine)" and thus was born the L0008. >> >> (Okay - actually I bet it was after the SECOND change that field service >> started squawking for it ... it just took another several iterations of >> replacing a critical board in the CPU that the bean-counters noticed the >> expense and allowed engineering to solve the problem, and then a >> whirlwind effort to build and debug the L0008 PCS replacement board) > There still has to be a file. But not one that you ever saw with 11s, 8s, 9s, 15s. > DEC's practice was to package such things with each release so that > archives could be retrieved in cases of firefights and disasters. Not with 11s, 8s, 9s, 15s. > hmmm....unless the files were "owned" by Diagnostics. > That group's culture never learned how to package their > software with the same strictures we did with all the other > software DEC developed. Diagnostics did learn at the end > but it was too late to set up the infrastructure. The -10's were set > up in a very quick and dirty method without any verifications.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 12:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87bnbh35d6.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153510 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> Well - I suspect that particular road to hell was paved with the very >> BEST of best intentions... "We are so very smart now, we may need one, >> maybe two patches to the microcode over the product lifespan ... we'll >> just ship them out as a giant box of PROM's, or do exchanges on the >> L0005 modules, it won't be bad." > > Not for the VAXes. The engineers' first experiences were done designing > the KLs. They were people who learned from their mistakes. Well, as I mentioned before -- two of the early VAX family did it the KL way. (780, and the 730) Why, then, if they were so capable of learning from their mistakes did they unleash the abomination that was the L0005 on their bottom line?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052329BD057935@aca4145e.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153407 |
Charles Richmond wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM000523155F10ED51@aca410a7.ipt.aol.com... >> Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure >>>> don't remember the filenames. >>> >>> Microcode isn't (necessarily) stored in files. It's a way to implement >>> the >>> computer's instruction set, and is still built into the hardware in most >> cases. >>> If it is loaded externally, a special mechanism is needed so that it can >> happen >>> when the computer doesn't even work yet. (Thus, as an example, one IBM >>> 370 >>> model loaded the microcode from the first 8-inch floppy disk - it wasn't >>> in >> a >>> file on one of the 3330 hard drives hooked to it.) >> >> You forget that I worked for the manufacturer. If it was a file, I had >> to package it on the distribution tapes so that a cold start could be >> done. That includes the -11s we used for the KL front end and remote >> stations. If it was burnt in on the manufacturing floor, then Field >> Service had to have some way to access it which also included part >> of my packaging of the diagnositc packs. I simply don't remember >> a filename for that function. >> > > BAH, were you in the plant where the CPUs were built??? Microcode is > usually just an integral part of the CPU itself. Microcode orchestrates the > steps that the CPU takes internally... to accomplish each machine language > instruction. The microcode for a PDP-10 processor would *not* be > distributed with the OS files. The KL microcode was distributed with the OS. It was a file. > > From what I have seen on the internet, the KS10 processor was implemented > with microcode. And that was a file also. If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c307784a-5e50-49db-96a1-d7e0ad199840@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153434 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 6:57:10 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? This was before the Pentium division bug. In those days, they felt they could be very careful when writing microcode, and test it thoroughly, so that when they shipped a product, they would not run any significant risk of having to actually replace circuit boards in every computer out there to fix a microcode bug. After all, if one is designing a computer with hardwired control (like the 11/20, or the 360/75) one could make a mistake in the design of the logic of the control unit too - and that was *more* complicated to get right than a microprogram, not less so. It's not as if Digital wrote the microcode for its microcoded PDP-11 models with the degree of care and attention that Microsoft seems to use for each new release of its Windows operating system. Had they done that, they would have gone out of business rather more quickly than they actually did. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0r51h$anr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153450 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:c307784a-5e50-49db-96a1-d7e0ad199840@googlegroups.com... > This was before the Pentium division bug. ... or the Bugium as it came to be known :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510281755340.31930@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153453 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, gareth wrote: > "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message > news:c307784a-5e50-49db-96a1-d7e0ad199840@googlegroups.com... >> This was before the Pentium division bug. > > > ... or the Bugium as it came to be known :-) > > > The 6502 had a bug. Maybe not a bug, but an early release was missing one of the shift register capabilities, so the manual said to shift the other way using the op-code that did work. I think it was that the opcode was missing, rather than implemented wrong. A later release did fix it. The 6502 also had a bug, I can't remember if it was fixed when the CMOS version came along. The 6502 used a single page for the stack and the right combination of op-codes and address caused a problem, the exact details I can't remember. That one was simply lived with, someone found the bug, but it was a fairly esoteric combination that caused it. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <844mhamyzz.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #153489 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > The 6502 had a bug. Maybe not a bug, but an early release was missing > one of the shift register capabilities, so the manual said to shift > the other way using the op-code that did work. I think it was that > the opcode was missing, rather than implemented wrong. A later > release did fix it. > > The 6502 also had a bug, I can't remember if it was fixed when the > CMOS version came along. The 6502 used a single page for the stack > and the right combination of op-codes and address caused a problem, > the exact details I can't remember. That one was simply lived with, > someone found the bug, but it was a fairly esoteric combination that > caused it. > Wasn't there a bug whereby if you tried to load from an address ending in FF it would load the high byte from the wrong place? i.e. 00 on the same page. Anyway I think it was fixed in a later, maybe 6502C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 17:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0rin9$3f0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153490 |
"David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message news:844mhamyzz.fsf@example.com... > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > >> The 6502 had a bug. Maybe not a bug, but an early release was missing >> one of the shift register capabilities, so the manual said to shift >> the other way using the op-code that did work. I think it was that >> the opcode was missing, rather than implemented wrong. A later >> release did fix it. >> >> The 6502 also had a bug, I can't remember if it was fixed when the >> CMOS version came along. The 6502 used a single page for the stack >> and the right combination of op-codes and address caused a problem, >> the exact details I can't remember. That one was simply lived with, >> someone found the bug, but it was a fairly esoteric combination that >> caused it. >> > > Wasn't there a bug whereby if you tried to load from an address ending > in FF it would load the high byte from the wrong place? i.e. 00 on the > same page. > > Anyway I think it was fixed in a later, maybe 6502C. > The 6502's memory indirect jump instruction, JMP (<address>), is partially broken. If <address> is hex xxFF (i.e., any word ending in FF), the processor will not jump to the address stored in xxFF and xxFF+1 as expected, but rather the one defined by xxFF and xx00 (for example, JMP ($10FF) would jump to the address stored in 10FF and 1000, instead of the one stored in 10FF and 1100). This defect continued through the entire NMOS line, but was corrected in the CMOS derivatives. IOW, when the address to be "jump"ed to was stored in memory (i.e., an indirect jump through an address that is stored in RAM), if the first byte of the address was stored at an address like $xxFF (the last byte of a 256 byte page) and the next byte was stored on the first byte of the next 256 byte page... the second byte of the "jump" address was taken from the first byte of the *original* page and *not* the first byte of the next page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_6502 -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 00:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510290010570.32256@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153490 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, David Hume wrote: > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > >> The 6502 had a bug. Maybe not a bug, but an early release was missing >> one of the shift register capabilities, so the manual said to shift >> the other way using the op-code that did work. I think it was that >> the opcode was missing, rather than implemented wrong. A later >> release did fix it. >> >> The 6502 also had a bug, I can't remember if it was fixed when the >> CMOS version came along. The 6502 used a single page for the stack >> and the right combination of op-codes and address caused a problem, >> the exact details I can't remember. That one was simply lived with, >> someone found the bug, but it was a fairly esoteric combination that >> caused it. >> > > Wasn't there a bug whereby if you tried to load from an address ending > in FF it would load the high byte from the wrong place? i.e. 00 on the > same page. > Yes there was, and maybe I'm mixing that up with my memory of a stack problem. Maybe there's more than one, since I also vaguely remember something about indirect addressing mode. > Anyway I think it was fixed in a later, maybe 6502C. > > The 6502C was a fast 6502, since the B was 2MHz, I assume the C was 3MHz clock. But yes, I don't remember any bugs being fixed (except for that missing shift register instruction) until one of the CMOS versions came along. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 22:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87egge46oq.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153503 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > The 6502C was a fast 6502, since the B was 2MHz, I assume the C was > 3MHz clock. The 65C02 is the CMOS version (which had fixed the page-crossing bug) If there was a NMOS version 6502C that clocked faster, it was not contemporaneous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9dn3fF4m3hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153503 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510290010570.32256@darkstar.example.org... > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, David Hume wrote: > >> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: >> >>> The 6502 had a bug. Maybe not a bug, but an early release was missing >>> one of the shift register capabilities, so the manual said to shift >>> the other way using the op-code that did work. I think it was that >>> the opcode was missing, rather than implemented wrong. A later >>> release did fix it. >>> >>> The 6502 also had a bug, I can't remember if it was fixed when the >>> CMOS version came along. The 6502 used a single page for the stack >>> and the right combination of op-codes and address caused a problem, >>> the exact details I can't remember. That one was simply lived with, >>> someone found the bug, but it was a fairly esoteric combination that >>> caused it. >>> >> >> Wasn't there a bug whereby if you tried to load from an address ending >> in FF it would load the high byte from the wrong place? i.e. 00 on the >> same page. >> > Yes there was, and maybe I'm mixing that up with my memory of a stack > problem. Maybe there's more than one, since I also vaguely remember > something about indirect addressing mode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_6502#Bugs_and_quirks >> Anyway I think it was fixed in a later, maybe 6502C. >> >> > The 6502C was a fast 6502, since the B was 2MHz, I assume the C was > 3MHz clock. > > But yes, I don't remember any bugs being fixed (except for that missing > shift register instruction) until one of the CMOS versions came along. > > Michael >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 16:47 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87io5q4nld.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153489 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes: > The 6502 also had a bug, I can't remember if it was fixed when the > CMOS version came along. The 6502 used a single page for the stack > and the right combination of op-codes and address caused a problem, > the exact details I can't remember. That one was simply lived with, > someone found the bug, but it was a fairly esoteric combination that > caused it. You are probably thinking of the quasi-infamous "Page crossing Bug" JMP ($12FF) was S'POSED to get the low-order byte of the EA from memory location $12FF (which it did) and the high-order byte from memory location $1300 (which it did not, getting it instead from $1200). This was "fixed" in the 65C02 (breaking some copy-protection code that used the quirk as an obfuscation against disassembly) There were lots of bus-cycle quirks around the prefetch logic and page-crossing indirects - a real hair-extractor for embedded hardware where merely ACCESSING a memory location to trigger an effect was used to save chip-count (e.g. the Apple ][ speaker). Another quirk was what my pal Bryce Nesbitt called the "read-before-write de-verify cycle": Code that would ostensibly store to a memory location would first issue a bus read cycle for the address in question (and not storing the result anywhere) and then issue a write cycle for the same address. So if you had a control/status register where reading the register had side effects (common for e.g. serial controllers on 8080/85/Z80 systems) you could have disastrously entertaining results when porting your hardware to a 6502-based device.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-04 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <proto-B1C089.12034604112015@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153450 |
In article <c307784a-5e50-49db-96a1-d7e0ad199840@googlegroups.com>, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: <snip> > > It's not as if Digital wrote the microcode for its microcoded PDP-11 models > with the degree of care and attention that Microsoft seems to use for each > new > release of its Windows operating system. Had they done that, they would have > gone out of business rather more quickly than they actually did. > > John Savard I actually programmed a machine that divided by negative powers of two, -1, -2, -4, -6 etcetera, incorrectly. Someone noticed this when examining a graph (graphing was done by data techs in them days). I remember being told that was the reason Itty Bitty Machines fudged those numbers. -- Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 05:54 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9cjvaFr1sjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153434 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052329BD057935@aca4145e.ipt.aol.com... > Charles Richmond wrote: >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM000523155F10ED51@aca410a7.ipt.aol.com... >>> Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure >>>>> don't remember the filenames. >>>> >>>> Microcode isn't (necessarily) stored in files. It's a way to implement >>>> the >>>> computer's instruction set, and is still built into the hardware in >>>> most >>> cases. >>>> If it is loaded externally, a special mechanism is needed so that it >>>> can >>> happen >>>> when the computer doesn't even work yet. (Thus, as an example, one IBM >>>> 370 >>>> model loaded the microcode from the first 8-inch floppy disk - it >>>> wasn't >>>> in >>> a >>>> file on one of the 3330 hard drives hooked to it.) >>> >>> You forget that I worked for the manufacturer. If it was a file, I had >>> to package it on the distribution tapes so that a cold start could be >>> done. That includes the -11s we used for the KL front end and remote >>> stations. If it was burnt in on the manufacturing floor, then Field >>> Service had to have some way to access it which also included part >>> of my packaging of the diagnositc packs. I simply don't remember >>> a filename for that function. >>> >> >> BAH, were you in the plant where the CPUs were built??? Microcode is >> usually just an integral part of the CPU itself. Microcode orchestrates >> the >> steps that the CPU takes internally... to accomplish each machine >> language >> instruction. The microcode for a PDP-10 processor would *not* be >> distributed with the OS files. > > The KL microcode was distributed with the OS. It was a file. >> >> From what I have seen on the internet, the KS10 processor was implemented >> with microcode. > > And that was a file also. > > If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005233ED1260AF8@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153455 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052329BD057935@aca4145e.ipt.aol.com... >> Charles Richmond wrote: >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM000523155F10ED51@aca410a7.ipt.aol.com... >>>> Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>> Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure >>>>>> don't remember the filenames. >>>>> >>>>> Microcode isn't (necessarily) stored in files. It's a way to implement >>>>> the >>>>> computer's instruction set, and is still built into the hardware in >>>>> most >>>> cases. >>>>> If it is loaded externally, a special mechanism is needed so that it >>>>> can >>>> happen >>>>> when the computer doesn't even work yet. (Thus, as an example, one IBM >>>>> 370 >>>>> model loaded the microcode from the first 8-inch floppy disk - it >>>>> wasn't >>>>> in >>>> a >>>>> file on one of the 3330 hard drives hooked to it.) >>>> >>>> You forget that I worked for the manufacturer. If it was a file, I had >>>> to package it on the distribution tapes so that a cold start could be >>>> done. That includes the -11s we used for the KL front end and remote >>>> stations. If it was burnt in on the manufacturing floor, then Field >>>> Service had to have some way to access it which also included part >>>> of my packaging of the diagnositc packs. I simply don't remember >>>> a filename for that function. >>>> >>> >>> BAH, were you in the plant where the CPUs were built??? Microcode is >>> usually just an integral part of the CPU itself. Microcode orchestrates >>> the >>> steps that the CPU takes internally... to accomplish each machine >>> language >>> instruction. The microcode for a PDP-10 processor would *not* be >>> distributed with the OS files. >> >> The KL microcode was distributed with the OS. It was a file. >>> >>> From what I have seen on the internet, the KS10 processor was implemented >>> with microcode. >> >> And that was a file also. >> >> If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? > > By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. And that requires a file. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <394af3fc-1efb-4515-96b5-3dd4f14a3dad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153512 |
On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > Rod Speed wrote: > > By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > And that requires a file. No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean that one would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings could cause short circuits. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZpGdnRzPUaYp0K_LnZ2dnUU78YEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153515 |
On 29/10/2015 14:21, Quadibloc wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Rod Speed wrote: > >>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > >> And that requires a file. > > No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean that one > would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings could cause > short circuits. > > John Savard > LOL. Different sort of file.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 14:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <stt43bhl74k6dc0go6hm6v2prvllu6v3o0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #153531 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:48:53 +0000, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: >On 29/10/2015 14:21, Quadibloc wrote: >> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> Rod Speed wrote: >> >>>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >> >>> And that requires a file. >> >> No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean that one >> would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings could cause >> short circuits. >> >> John Savard >> > >LOL. Different sort of file. Yup, a file in a manila envelope folder. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6607d20f-9cb0-4246-891b-f471e9b1bd6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153531 |
On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 10:47:50 AM UTC-6, Andrew Swallow wrote: > LOL. Different sort of file. Yes. a) I couldn't resist the opportunity for the pun, b) and I was trying to get her attention, to let her know that she is getting things seriously wrong. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tkfk02otf@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153515 |
On 2015-10-29, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Rod Speed wrote: >> >>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >> >> And that requires a file. > > No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean > that one would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings > could cause short circuits. You bastard. :-) -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web