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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005233ECF0EB87B@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153462 |
Lawrence Statton wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> And that was a file also. >> >> If there is no microcode file, how would it get fixed? >> > > It depends on how the microcode is implemented. For the machines where > the microcode was effectively embedded in the hardware, you swapped out > the module(s) that contained the microcode. OK. That was in the field so fixes had to be done in-house. There still has to be a file to hand to manufacturing to use when making the CPUs. > > For CPUs with masked-in microcode ROMS (like the LSI-11 machines), you > recalled and replaced the entire CPU. This would have a similar infrastructure problem. Quality Control for replacing the microcode had to have a set of files, ideally, to build the executable before using it on the manufacturing line. > > In fact, a good candidate as a bright-line test for the "difference > between a microprocessor and minicomputer" is "Can you change out the > microcode by replacing a component of the CPU, or is the CPU > sufficiently monolothic that replacing the microcode replaces the > entirety" > > There is an entire generation of computer users who think the Processor > is A chip (or maybe a couple of chips stuck into a module, like some of > the early Pentium family) and the thought of the CPU being multiple > boards - one containing the ALU, and one containing the registers, and > another containing the sequencer is entirely outside their reality. This is beyond my experience. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ZpGdnR3PUabu0K_LnZ2dnUU78YGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153514 |
On 29/10/2015 13:55, jmfbahciv wrote:
{snip}
>> It depends on how the microcode is implemented. For the machines where
>> >the microcode was effectively embedded in the hardware, you swapped out
>> >the module(s) that contained the microcode.
> OK. That was in the field so fixes had to be done in-house. There still
> has to be a file to hand to manufacturing to use when making the CPUs.
>
It is coming from the hardies so they may have given the data a hardware
part number. The transfer could have been on a paper tape or an
example/standard PROM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d5952c2-b710-456c-9227-a8078d91e8c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153462 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:15:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Statton wrote: > (or maybe a couple of chips stuck into a module, like some of > the early Pentium family) The Pentium Pro, the Pentium II, and the Pentium III. But my involvement with computers is such that I have no problem accepting that the CPU might be one chip, it might be an entire circuit board, it might be three or four circuit boards, or it might be an entire chassis, with the memory in other boxes trailing behind it. The technology changed and improved over time. I was reading recently about how someone stuck three resistors and a capacitor into a glass envelope within a three-triode tube... so they could make a radio with one tube socket and save on German taxes. That doesn't make me think that they could have implemented a 704 in a single glass envelope (I suppose theoretically they could, but there would be no point.) Incidentally, for those whose curiosity I have raised, the tube was the Loewe 3NF. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 14:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tbe0$dl4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153517 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:2d5952c2-b710-456c-9227-a8078d91e8c3@googlegroups.com... > > The technology changed and improved over time. I was reading recently > about how > someone stuck three resistors and a capacitor into a glass envelope within > a > three-triode tube... so they could make a radio with one tube socket and > save > on German taxes. That doesn't make me think that they could have > implemented a > 704 in a single glass envelope (I suppose theoretically they could, but > there > would be no point.) In my little museum, I show visitors a single active device, a 4-pin 1930s valve (tube to the Yanks) that is bigger than some mobile phones with their millions of active devices!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 08:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87si4t3ew2.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153517 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > The technology changed and improved over time. I was reading recently about how > someone stuck three resistors and a capacitor into a glass envelope within a > three-triode tube... so they could make a radio with one tube socket and save > on German taxes. That doesn't make me think that they could have implemented a > 704 in a single glass envelope (I suppose theoretically they could, but there > would be no point.) Interestingly enough - under one patent-licensing/taxation system in place (early interwar UK IIRC), the rules EXPLICITLY prohibited having more than one electrode-set in an envelope - you could have passive components inside the envelope, but something like a 6SN7 would have been prohibited under those rules. Another friend, who spends more time thinking about old tube radios than I speculated that something like the 12SA7 would have run afoul of those rules -- that while it had one nominal cathode, and one nominal anode, and several grids, it's use *in circuit* had one of the grids acting as a virutal cathode in a separate tuned circuit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0tv6p$4ju$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153517 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:2d5952c2-b710-456c-9227-a8078d91e8c3@googlegroups.com... > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:15:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Statton > wrote: >> (or maybe a couple of chips stuck into a module, like some of >> the early Pentium family) > > The Pentium Pro, the Pentium II, and the Pentium III. > > But my involvement with computers is such that I have no problem accepting > that > the CPU might be one chip, it might be an entire circuit board, it might > be > three or four circuit boards, or it might be an entire chassis, with the > memory > in other boxes trailing behind it. > Our friend Doug Jones of the University of Iowa once posted on <a.f.c.> about a school project he helped his son create. It used a PDP-8 with a small program that would allow two dumb terminals to connect to the computer. The boy's teacher asked "Where's the disk drive?" Doug said "We don't need a disk drive. The program is stored in non-volatile core memory." (Here Doug pulls out the memory board to show the teacher) The teacher asks "But where's the microprocessor???" Doug says "There is *no* microprocessor." (Here Doug pulls out the CPU board.) "Here is the CPU." The teacher was totally non-plussed. The whole thing was beyond the teacher's exepriences. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 13:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jY3Yx.15254$nT2.15064@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #153407 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes: >"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. I'm no so sure about that. At least with the Burroughs systems, the microcode was distributed to customers on floppies because it needed to be loaded after power-up. PDP-10 may have had it in ROM, but if it was in SRAM, it would need to be loaded after power up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0r5l5$d4r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153407 |
In article <n0on75$th0$1@dont-email.me>, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> 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. > >From what I have seen on the internet, the KS10 processor was implemented >with microcode. > I've been watching some of this microcode discussion. Too many years have passed for me to remember specifics exactly, but I spent three years on the "Venus" project (VAX 8600/8650) as a hardware-software engineer. Those machines were designed with writable control stores that were loaded at boot time, as I recall, from an 11/03 and RL02 disk using a version of RT-11 (DOS). I spent a good deal of time doing diagnostic microcode programming, as well as the end-user instruction set. What the end user saw as "assembly" order code was done in microcode. As I recall, most of the PDP-11's except the original 20 were microcoded in PLA's, not user-writable. Can't remember now about most of the other VAX models, but I think most, if not all, used external processors to upload to volatile memory at boot time. At one time or another, we canned non-VAX instructions into the user set "for test", but they didn't go into production. I recall writing an algorithm to do the 360 MVC command in addition to the standard VAX memory moves. As I recall, the IBM 360/370 control stores were hard coded on wire-wrap panels done by Raytheon's Wire Wrap shop in Waltham. I was involved in supporting that operation for several years, but can't recall how IBM sent them the wire maps. I worked on other projects using things like AMD 2901 bit-slice processors to run microcode as the end-user application directly. Those were generally developed using erasable PROM (ultraviolet to erase) and produced using permanent ROMs. HanK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60070e31-29b8-49e3-93d8-3f139bf48bdb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153457 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 12:56:41 PM UTC-6, Hank wrote: > As I recall, the IBM 360/370 control stores were hard coded on wire-wrap > panels done by Raytheon's Wire Wrap shop in Waltham. I was involved in > supporting that operation for several years, but can't recall how IBM > sent them the wire maps. Although ferrite ROMs could have been wired by something analogous to a wire-wrap machine, as I suggested, I don't think any of the 360 control stores were done by actual wire wrap. One of the low-end models used regular main memory for the microprogram. Two models above that used cards having the same form factor as punched cards, but made of a different material, for a capacitative ROM. Wires wound through a ferrite something-or-other, like the PDP-9, was then used on a higher-end model. Not having the MIT book at my elbow, though, I don't remember the exact details. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddeggeojy5.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153407 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> 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.
> From what I have seen on the internet, the KS10 processor was implemented
> with microcode.
Charles, Barb is exactly right. The following is a directory listing of the
front-end file system on a KL-10 (a DECSYSTEM-2065, in fact) running at the
museum. I've underlined the microcode file with "^" characters. The PDP-11/40
boots into a version of RSX-11M; unless the front panel switches are set for a
non-default boot, a task called KLINIT (file name KLI.TSK) starts and runs
either conversationally or reads from a configuration file (KL.CFG). One of
the very first things KLINIT does is to load the microcode into the engine that
makes a PDP-10 out of the circuitry in the main processor cabinet.
NB: The front end was booted from floppies in this instance. A default boot
would have gone to the disk (DB0: below).
RSX-20F VE16-00 12:50 4-Dec-113
[SY0: redirected to DX0:]
[DX0: mounted]
[DX1: mounted]
PAR>M MOU
MOU>DB0:
MOU -- MOUNT COMPLETE
MOU>^Z
PAR>M PIP
PIP>DB0:/LI
DIRECTORY DB0:[5,5]
4-DEC-13 12:52
F11ACP.TSK;1600 77. C 23-AUG-88 12:59
PARSER.TSK;1600 71. C 23-AUG-88 12:59
KLI.TSK;1600 73. C 23-AUG-88 12:59
MOU.TSK;1600 5. C 23-AUG-88 12:59
BF16N1.A11;1 1. 23-AUG-88 12:59
BF64N1.A11;1 1. 23-AUG-88 13:00
CLOCK.CMD;1600 2. 23-AUG-88 13:00
CRAM.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:00
DEX.CMD;1600 5. 23-AUG-88 13:00
DRAM.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:00
EBUS.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:00
FMPAR.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:01
HALT.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:01
KPALV.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:01
TIMEO.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:01
KLX.MCB;442 55. 23-AUG-88 13:01
^^^^^^^^^^^
KPALV1.CMD;1600 1. 23-AUG-88 13:01
LHALT.CMD;1600 6. 23-AUG-88 13:02
RSX20F.SYS;1600 60. C 23-AUG-88 13:12
T20ACP.TSK;1600 8. C 23-AUG-88 13:02
BOO.TSK;1600 19. C 23-AUG-88 13:02
COP.TSK;1600 8. C 23-AUG-88 13:02
DMO.TSK;1600 5. C 23-AUG-88 13:03
INI.TSK;1600 23. C 23-AUG-88 13:03
PIP.TSK;1600 56. C 23-AUG-88 13:03
RED.TSK;1600 6. C 23-AUG-88 13:03
SAV.TSK;1600 23. C 23-AUG-88 13:03
UFD.TSK;1600 9. C 23-AUG-88 13:03
MIDNIT.TSK;1600 4. C 23-AUG-88 13:04
LOGXFR.TSK;1600 10. C 23-AUG-88 13:04
KLDISC.TSK;1600 5. C 23-AUG-88 13:04
KLRING.TSK;1600 6. C 23-AUG-88 13:04
SETSPD.TSK;1600 5. C 23-AUG-88 13:04
TKTN.TSK;1600 6. C 23-AUG-88 13:04
BOOT.EXB;4076 200. 23-AUG-88 13:05
RSX20F.MAP;1600 148. 23-AUG-88 13:12
ZAP.TSK;1600 38. C 23-AUG-88 13:13
BLDFE1.CMD;1 3. 23-AUG-88 13:13
BLDFE2.CMD;1 1. 23-AUG-88 13:13
DBOOT.CMD;1 1. 23-AUG-88 13:13
DBOOT.OBJ;1 6. 23-AUG-88 13:13
DBOOT.MAP;1 2. 23-AUG-88 13:13
DBOOT.SYS;1 8. C 23-AUG-88 13:13
TKB.TSK;1 119. C 23-AUG-88 13:13
KLDCP.BIN;1 51. 23-AUG-88 13:13
KL.CFG;375 1. 23-AUG-88 13:15
TOTAL OF 1135. BLOCKS IN 46. FILES
PIP>^Z
Any questions?
P.S. Barb stated that the microcode file was named "UA.MCR"; I believe that
she's thinking of U.MCR and UB.MCR, respectively the *diagnostic* microcode for
the model A and model B KL-10 processors.
--
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 | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 12:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c05a4f3-ae8d-4aae-a94a-9eede474b280@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153467 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:46:14 PM UTC-6, Rich Alderson wrote: > Charles, Barb is exactly right. Well, about one thing. The microcode for a PDP-10 was in the file KLX.MCB, which she saw. But she is still very *wrong* in assuming that *because* the PDP-10 microcode was distributed in this way, then all the PDP-11 microcode models would also have had to have files like that in _their_ operating system distributions, or they couldn't possibly have been implemented with microcode. Just because the PDP-10 did it that way does not mean that every other computer that is microcoded had to do it that way. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005233EA1224D6A@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153469 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:46:14 PM UTC-6, Rich Alderson wrote: > >> Charles, Barb is exactly right. > > Well, about one thing. The microcode for a PDP-10 was in the file KLX.MCB, which > she saw. But she is still very *wrong* in assuming that *because* the PDP-10 > microcode was distributed in this way, then all the PDP-11 microcode models would > also have had to have files like that in _their_ operating system distributions, > or they couldn't possibly have been implemented with microcode. > > Just because the PDP-10 did it that way does not mean that every other computer > that is microcoded had to do it that way. Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. Bill? Do you remember? DEC's usual method was to ship a file. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 08:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87a8r14udr.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153509 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> that is microcoded had to do it that way. > > Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. Bill? > Do you remember? I assume the way they were fixed by *most* manufacturers in that epoch -- replacing the PROMs ... either having field service replace the (typically sockete) chips in the field, or more likely swapping the board and having the chips replaced as part of the refurb process. > > DEC's usual method was to ship a file. That would only work for those very small number of machines that they made that allowed the microcode to be in a file. Even the 11/60 - which had a WCS option, had the base instruction set in fusible-link PROMs, unless I'm sorely mistaken. > > /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052352C66ADF76@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153519 |
Lawrence Statton wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> that is microcoded had to do it that way. >> >> Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. Bill? >> Do you remember? > > I assume the way they were fixed by *most* manufacturers in that > epoch -- replacing the PROMs ... either having field service replace the > (typically sockete) chips in the field, or more likely swapping the > board and having the chips replaced as part of the refurb process. That is a good assumption. Now think about how those manufacturers took the bad boards and refurb'ed them with a new microcode. Somebody created a collection of bits, called it a microcode and handed it to the people who then transferred it into the hardware. > >> >> DEC's usual method was to ship a file. > > That would only work for those very small number of machines that they > made that allowed the microcode to be in a file. Even the 11/60 - which > had a WCS option, had the base instruction set in fusible-link PROMs, > unless I'm sorely mistaken. A "package" of all the sources, the assembler and linker would have been made for in-house distribution to produce the next release of microcode. It may not have gone to Field Service nor customers but it did go to whoever had use it to manufacture the CPUs or fix them. Manufacturing a new board from scratch and refurbing a board with a bug was usually done by separate groups. they might not even be in the same building to prevent cross-pollination of bits. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 04:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9f4snFfv5fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153509 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote > Quadibloc wrote >> Rich Alderson wrote >>> Charles, Barb is exactly right. >> Well, about one thing. The microcode for a PDP-10 was in the file >> KLX.MCB, >> which she saw. But she is still very *wrong* in assuming that *because* >> the >> PDP-10 microcode was distributed in this way, then all the PDP-11 >> microcode >> models would also have had to have files like that in _their_ operating >> system >> distributions, or they couldn't possibly have been implemented with >> microcode. >> Just because the PDP-10 did it that way does not mean that >> every other computer that is microcoded had to do it that way. > Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. By replacing what the microcode resides in, usually a rom. > DEC's usual method was to ship a file. Not with 11s, or the 8s, or the 9s, or the 15s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052352AF7282DA@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153538 |
Rod Speed wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >> Quadibloc wrote >>> Rich Alderson wrote > >>>> Charles, Barb is exactly right. > >>> Well, about one thing. The microcode for a PDP-10 was in the file >>> KLX.MCB, >>> which she saw. But she is still very *wrong* in assuming that *because* >>> the >>> PDP-10 microcode was distributed in this way, then all the PDP-11 >>> microcode >>> models would also have had to have files like that in _their_ operating >>> system >>> distributions, or they couldn't possibly have been implemented with >>> microcode. > >>> Just because the PDP-10 did it that way does not mean that >>> every other computer that is microcoded had to do it that way. > >> Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. > > By replacing what the microcode resides in, usually a rom. that was what was done in the field to upgrade a customer's system. I'm talking about the fix and the process to produce it, generate it, and distribute it. Bill's experience was the 80s and answered that question. Now I'd like to know how we did the work in the 70s. > >> DEC's usual method was to ship a file. > > Not with 11s, or the 8s, or the 9s, or the 15s. Yes. Those were made when we manufactured the CPUs. Thus, any microcode had to also be manufactured. I was trying to remember the filenames. However, everyone here claimes there were no files used to produce the microcodes. So now I'm thinking about the collection of bits which produced the microcodes which were used to manufacture the CPUs. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 15:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9itp0FehjbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153601 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052352AF7282DA@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com... > Rod Speed wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>> Quadibloc wrote >>>> Rich Alderson wrote >> >>>>> Charles, Barb is exactly right. >> >>>> Well, about one thing. The microcode for a PDP-10 was in the file >>>> KLX.MCB, >>>> which she saw. But she is still very *wrong* in assuming that *because* >>>> the >>>> PDP-10 microcode was distributed in this way, then all the PDP-11 >>>> microcode >>>> models would also have had to have files like that in _their_ operating >>>> system >>>> distributions, or they couldn't possibly have been implemented with >>>> microcode. >> >>>> Just because the PDP-10 did it that way does not mean that >>>> every other computer that is microcoded had to do it that way. >> >>> Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. >> >> By replacing what the microcode resides in, usually a rom. > > that was what was done in the field to upgrade a customer's system. > I'm talking about the fix and the process to produce it, generate it, > and distribute it. Bill's experience was the 80s and answered that > question. Now I'd like to know how we did the work in the 70s. > >> >>> DEC's usual method was to ship a file. >> >> Not with 11s, or the 8s, or the 9s, or the 15s. > Yes. Those were made when we manufactured the CPUs. But not SHIPPED TO CUSTOMERS. > Thus, any microcode had to also be manufactured. > I was trying to remember the filenames. You never saw those files, because they were never shipped to anyone. > However, everyone here claimes there were > no files used to produce the microcodes. No one said anything of the sort. > So now I'm thinking about the collection of bits which produced > the microcodes which were used to manufacture the CPUs. That is nothing like what you were talking about when you claimed that the 11s were not microcode because you never said any microcode files. They were in fact ALL microcode except the 11/20 and you never saw those files because you were not involved in the manufacturing of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tscr$g2d$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153509 |
In article <PM0005233EA1224D6A@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Quadibloc wrote: >> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 1:46:14 PM UTC-6, Rich Alderson wrote: >> >>> Charles, Barb is exactly right. >> >> Well, about one thing. The microcode for a PDP-10 was in the file KLX.MCB, >which >> she saw. But she is still very *wrong* in assuming that *because* the PDP-10 >> microcode was distributed in this way, then all the PDP-11 microcode models >would >> also have had to have files like that in _their_ operating system >distributions, >> or they couldn't possibly have been implemented with microcode. >> >> Just because the PDP-10 did it that way does not mean that every other >computer >> that is microcoded had to do it that way. > >Fine. Now tell me how the microcodes in those -11s got fixed. Bill? >Do you remember? > >DEC's usual method was to ship a file. > >/BAH The PDP11's were usually fixed with either wirewrap changes on boards or a swap of the CPU board. The microcode wasn't socketed. The 11/60 had a WCS option... The rest were board swapped but by the time I got to DEC (1981) as a new hire the 11 microcode was pretty much locked in and the only fixes were for functions that were critical. Many differences in the PDP11's were just documented and never fixed in microcode. The only "microcode" swap I did were the massive changes on the TS11 tape drive (not the Unibus controller) which (IIRC) had about 16 rom changes including a "dead bug" crazy glue'd chip upside down with wires tack soldered to pins on other chips on the board. This was the fix for difficulty in loading the tape drive and the famous TS11 tape stretch to end of reel. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tstn0hto@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153550 |
On 2015-10-29, William Pechter <pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org> wrote: > The only "microcode" swap I did were the massive changes on the TS11 tape > drive (not the Unibus controller) which (IIRC) had about 16 rom changes > including a "dead bug" crazy glue'd chip upside down with wires tack > soldered to pins on other chips on the board. > > This was the fix for difficulty in loading the tape drive and the famous > TS11 tape stretch to end of reel. So _that's_ what TS stood for. -- /~\ 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]
| From | pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tu57$osd$4@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153557 |
In article <n0tstn0hto@news6.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >On 2015-10-29, William Pechter <pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> The only "microcode" swap I did were the massive changes on the TS11 tape >> drive (not the Unibus controller) which (IIRC) had about 16 rom changes >> including a "dead bug" crazy glue'd chip upside down with wires tack >> soldered to pins on other chips on the board. >> >> This was the fix for difficulty in loading the tape drive and the famous >> TS11 tape stretch to end of reel. > >So _that's_ what TS stood for. > >-- >/~\ 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! The word in field service was that was what it was named for. The triacs would turn on both reel motors in opposite directions on certain kinds of power noise. Tape would get very very thin really quickly and wind around the stronger motor's reel. A major pain. TS also was the comment by the field engineer who got the call to work on this dog. Tough S@%t. After the 5th (or so) major eco the whole thing worked great. Not good for the customer who lived through a number of "this will fix it all now" rom changes and upgrades. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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