Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #220214 > unrolled thread

TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 "Stephen M. Jones" <smj@ma.sdf.org> - 2022-03-02 21:32 +0000
    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-03 14:30 +0000
      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2022-03-03 16:38 +0000
        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-03 17:13 +0000
          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-03-03 15:33 -0500
            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-03 21:55 +0000
              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-04 12:06 -0700
                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2022-03-04 13:23 -0800
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-06 17:29 +0100
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-06 11:34 -0700
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-06 19:40 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> - 2022-12-23 11:49 -0600
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2022-12-23 10:34 -1000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2022-12-23 21:42 +0000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 11:54 +0000
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> - 2022-12-24 11:17 -0600
                              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> - 2022-12-24 18:01 -0600
                                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-25 11:24 -0700
                              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2022-12-25 09:12 -1000
                              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-30 17:06 +0000
                                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-12-30 19:09 +0000
                                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> - 2022-12-30 16:11 -0600
                              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2022-12-30 20:22 +0000
                                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> - 2022-12-30 16:12 -0600
                                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-12-30 23:44 +0000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2022-12-23 12:18 -1000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-12-24 03:43 +0000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2022-12-24 07:55 -1000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-24 11:08 -0700
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-24 18:36 +0000
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-12-24 21:09 +0000
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2022-12-24 14:03 -1000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2022-12-24 14:46 -1000
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2022-03-06 11:17 -0800
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-07 17:53 +0100
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-03-07 22:02 +0000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> - 2022-12-23 11:55 -0600
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-23 12:27 -0700
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-03-07 03:11 +0000
                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2022-12-30 13:57 -0800
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 22:11 +0000
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-12-30 23:44 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 23:56 +0000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2022-12-31 09:02 +0000
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-12-30 20:44 -0500
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-30 20:08 -0700
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2022-12-31 00:25 -0800
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-12-31 13:39 +0100
            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2022-03-04 00:46 +0000
              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 "Stephen M. Jones" <smj@ma.sdf.org> - 2022-03-04 18:49 +0000
                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2022-03-04 14:55 -0600
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-04 22:14 +0000
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2022-03-04 22:17 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2022-03-06 04:35 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2022-03-06 05:40 +0000
              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-03-04 22:46 -0500
            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-06 17:21 +0100
              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-06 11:34 -0700
                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-07 17:42 +0100
              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-03-06 20:43 -0500
                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 15:07 +0000
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-07 17:51 +0100
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 17:07 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-07 11:47 -0700
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 19:19 +0000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2022-03-08 10:08 +0100
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-08 07:49 -0700
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2022-03-08 19:47 +0000
                              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2022-03-09 01:03 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-07 20:18 +0100
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 19:37 +0000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 14:53 -0500
                            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 20:43 +0000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2022-03-07 19:52 +0000
                  Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-03-07 17:18 -0500
                    Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 22:33 +0000
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 22:58 +0000
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-08 00:06 +0100
                      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-08 07:49 -0700
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-08 15:22 +0000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-08 11:17 -0700
                        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-03-08 21:09 +0000
                          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-08 21:33 +0000
                Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-07 20:24 +0100
        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-03-03 15:24 -0500
          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2022-03-03 21:06 +0000
            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2022-03-04 22:47 -0500
      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-04 12:06 -0700
      Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 10:48 -0600
        Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-07 17:03 +0000
          Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 19:52 -0600
            Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Fred Smith <fred@thejanitor.corp> - 2022-03-08 04:13 +0000
              Re: TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2022-03-08 16:32 +0100

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#220214 — TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users 05-Mar-2022

On Saturday March 5th, 2022 SDF will kick off its TOPS-20 Boot Camp series
on https://twitch.tv/sdfpubnix at 1PM Pacific Time (9PM GMT).  Registration
is open at https://twenex.org/?bootcamp which includes access to SDF's
XKL Toad-2 and is offered at no cost.

If you cannot attend an archive of the live stream (approximately 
1 hour long) will be posted to the fediverse via SDF's Peertube instance, 
https://toobnix.org

Looking forward to doing a "TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users", though any User
of any operating system background is certainly welcome, kid.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#220215

"Stephen M. Jones" <smj@ma.sdf.org> writes:
>On Saturday March 5th, 2022 SDF will kick off its TOPS-20 Boot Camp series
>on https://twitch.tv/sdfpubnix at 1PM Pacific Time (9PM GMT).  Registration
>is open at https://twenex.org/?bootcamp which includes access to SDF's
>XKL Toad-2 and is offered at no cost.
>
>If you cannot attend an archive of the live stream (approximately 
>1 hour long) will be posted to the fediverse via SDF's Peertube instance, 
>https://toobnix.org
>
>Looking forward to doing a "TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users", though any User
>of any operating system background is certainly welcome, kid.
>

Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the PDP-10
vs. the VAX-11/780?   From a technical standpoint, not from a nostalgia or DEC politics
standpoint?  My migration at the time was from a PDP-8 to PDP-11 to VAX-11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220216

On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:30:52 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the
> PDP-10 vs. the VAX-11/780?   From a technical standpoint, not from a

	PDP-10 was a 36 bit mainframe that (usually) ran TOPS.
	VAX-11/780 was a 32 bit mini that (usually) ran VMS.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220217

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:30:52 GMT
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the
>> PDP-10 vs. the VAX-11/780?   From a technical standpoint, not from a
>
>	PDP-10 was a 36 bit mainframe that (usually) ran TOPS.
>	VAX-11/780 was a 32 bit mini that (usually) ran VMS.
>

What were the advantages, if any, of one family over the other family?

I'm quite aware of the hardware specifications.

How does TOPS DCL compare with VMS DCL?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220219

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:30:52 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

>>> Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the
>>> PDP-10 vs. the VAX-11/780?   From a technical standpoint, not from a

>> 	PDP-10 was a 36 bit mainframe that (usually) ran TOPS.
>> 	VAX-11/780 was a 32 bit mini that (usually) ran VMS.

> What were the advantages, if any, of one family over the other family?

VMS ran on supported hardware after 1983.

The PDP-10 operating systems were mainframe oriented ab origine, unlike VMS.

> I'm quite aware of the hardware specifications.

> How does TOPS DCL compare with VMS DCL?

Again, there ain't no "TOPS".

Tops-10 offered a facility called "MIC" which allowed for programmed execution
of programs, but programs had to be written to handle whatever command line
arguments they might expect.

TOPS-20 offered an unrelated facility also called "MIC", which was less capable
than the Tops-10 facility of the same name.  In addition, later versions of
TOPS-20 offered "PCL" ("Programmable Command Language"), with a very different
syntax than MIC, which originated at CMU but provided as an unsupported feature
by DEC.

The facilities offered by both OSes are unrelated to "DCL" as understood by VMS
and other PDP-11 oeprating systems.

-- 
Rich Alderson					  news@alderson.users.panix.com
      Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
	  omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
									--Galen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220221

Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:30:52 GMT
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>>> Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the
>>>> PDP-10 vs. the VAX-11/780?   From a technical standpoint, not from a
>
>>> 	PDP-10 was a 36 bit mainframe that (usually) ran TOPS.
>>> 	VAX-11/780 was a 32 bit mini that (usually) ran VMS.
>
>> What were the advantages, if any, of one family over the other family?
>
>VMS ran on supported hardware after 1983.

I was using VMS 1979-1983.

>
>The PDP-10 operating systems were mainframe oriented ab origine, unlike VMS.

VMS wasn't designed as a batch system, so far as I'm aware, although
it could certainly serve as such.

>
>> I'm quite aware of the hardware specifications.
>
>> How does TOPS DCL compare with VMS DCL?
>
>Again, there ain't no "TOPS".

Correction noted.   Let's abstract from the jargon and talk more
generically about the user interface.   Pros and Cons of MIC/PCL
vs. DCL.

Note that I spent most of the 80's writing mainframe operating
systems for Burroughs, so I've both batch and TS experience.
You've used one of the Burroughs boxen at the LCM, yourself.

>
>The facilities offered by both OSes are unrelated to "DCL" as understood by VMS
>and other PDP-11 oeprating systems.

Generically, then.  How does the interactive user experience differ
between the Decsystem-10/20 and the VAX-11/780.  I've read quite a few
PDP-10 advocates claiming superiority, but I've never seen any
data to back it up other than "I prefer this to that" or "I'm pissed
because DEC management killed Jupiter".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220229

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>> 
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:30:52 GMT
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the
>>>>> PDP-10 vs. the VAX-11/780?   From a technical standpoint, not from a
>> 
>>>> PDP-10 was a 36 bit mainframe that (usually) ran TOPS.
>>>> VAX-11/780 was a 32 bit mini that (usually) ran VMS.
>> 
>>> What were the advantages, if any, of one family over the other family?
>> 
>> VMS ran on supported hardware after 1983.
> 
> I was using VMS 1979-1983.
> 
>> 
>> The PDP-10 operating systems were mainframe oriented ab origine, unlike VMS.
> 
> VMS wasn't designed as a batch system, so far as I'm aware, although
> it could certainly serve as such.
> 
>> 
>>> I'm quite aware of the hardware specifications.
>> 
>>> How does TOPS DCL compare with VMS DCL?
>> 
>> Again, there ain't no "TOPS".
> 
> Correction noted.   Let's abstract from the jargon and talk more
> generically about the user interface.   Pros and Cons of MIC/PCL
> vs. DCL.
> 
> Note that I spent most of the 80's writing mainframe operating
> systems for Burroughs, so I've both batch and TS experience.
> You've used one of the Burroughs boxen at the LCM, yourself.
> 
>> 
>> The facilities offered by both OSes are unrelated to "DCL" as understood by VMS
>> and other PDP-11 oeprating systems.
> 
> Generically, then.  How does the interactive user experience differ
> between the Decsystem-10/20 and the VAX-11/780.  I've read quite a few
> PDP-10 advocates claiming superiority, but I've never seen any
> data to back it up other than "I prefer this to that" or "I'm pissed
> because DEC management killed Jupiter".
> 
> 
 
It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220233

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
> than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.

For the first N years, VAXes were much slower than the faster 10's.
Faster VAXes appeared later, and eventually overtook the 10 mostly due
to improved chip technology.  The main VAX for a long time was the
original 11/780 (introduced 1977) which was the canonical 1 MIP machine.
A KL-10 (introduced 1975) was maybe 3x that, about equivalent(?) to the
VAX 8600 that that came out in 1984.

I don't know about today, but legend has it that a few 11/780's were
kept operational for decades after that model's obsolescence, to serve
as benchmark hosts for MIPs rating of newer cpus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220249

On 2022-03-04 22:23, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
>> than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.
> 
> For the first N years, VAXes were much slower than the faster 10's.

Not really. The KL10 was about 1.5 MIPS, while the original VAX-11/780 
was 1 MIPS.

Speed parity was basically achieved with the VAX-11/785. After that, the 
VAXen just were becoming faster.

The PDP-10 was never a speed daemon. It was helped a lot by being 
offloaded for terminal I/O by the front end processor. But with the 
spreading of ethernet, all of that work started moving back to the 
PDP-10 itself, at which point you really felt the pain. 40 users on a 
-2060 was usually not all that much fun, I can tell you. Heck, even 20 
was painful.

> Faster VAXes appeared later, and eventually overtook the 10 mostly due
> to improved chip technology.  The main VAX for a long time was the
> original 11/780 (introduced 1977) which was the canonical 1 MIP machine.
> A KL-10 (introduced 1975) was maybe 3x that, about equivalent(?) to the
> VAX 8600 that that came out in 1984.

KL-10 was about 1.5x. The 8600, introduced in 1984 was 4x the 11/780, 
and was noticeably faster than the KL-10.

> I don't know about today, but legend has it that a few 11/780's were
> kept operational for decades after that model's obsolescence, to serve
> as benchmark hosts for MIPs rating of newer cpus.

I think I heard such stories, but I never put any value to them. Another 
story/problem is that the original MIPS definition was also based on a 
specific version of OS and compiler. And as these evolved, the 
VAX-11/780 actually became significantly faster than 1 MIPS. Which 
exposed a problem with the whole MIPS definition. And also meant keeping 
any VAXen around for reference was pretty pointless.

And that's a big reason DEC themselves never used MIPS. They instead 
talked about VUPs. Where a VAX-11/780 was by definition 1 VUP. And it 
was more properly based on the actual processing speed, and not 
depending on various software.

   Johnny

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220251

Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2022-03-04 22:23, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
>>> than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.
>> 
>> For the first N years, VAXes were much slower than the faster 10's.
> 
> Not really. The KL10 was about 1.5 MIPS, while the original VAX-11/780 
> was 1 MIPS.
> 
> Speed parity was basically achieved with the VAX-11/785. After that, the 
> VAXen just were becoming faster.
> 
> The PDP-10 was never a speed daemon. It was helped a lot by being 
> offloaded for terminal I/O by the front end processor. But with the 
> spreading of ethernet, all of that work started moving back to the 
> PDP-10 itself, at which point you really felt the pain. 40 users on a 
> -2060 was usually not all that much fun, I can tell you. Heck, even 20 
> was painful.
> 
>> Faster VAXes appeared later, and eventually overtook the 10 mostly due
>> to improved chip technology.  The main VAX for a long time was the
>> original 11/780 (introduced 1977) which was the canonical 1 MIP machine.
>> A KL-10 (introduced 1975) was maybe 3x that, about equivalent(?) to the
>> VAX 8600 that that came out in 1984.
> 
> KL-10 was about 1.5x. The 8600, introduced in 1984 was 4x the 11/780, 
> and was noticeably faster than the KL-10.
> 
>> I don't know about today, but legend has it that a few 11/780's were
>> kept operational for decades after that model's obsolescence, to serve
>> as benchmark hosts for MIPs rating of newer cpus.
> 
> I think I heard such stories, but I never put any value to them. Another 
> story/problem is that the original MIPS definition was also based on a 
> specific version of OS and compiler. And as these evolved, the 
> VAX-11/780 actually became significantly faster than 1 MIPS. Which 
> exposed a problem with the whole MIPS definition. And also meant keeping 
> any VAXen around for reference was pretty pointless.
> 
> And that's a big reason DEC themselves never used MIPS. They instead 
> talked about VUPs. Where a VAX-11/780 was by definition 1 VUP. And it 
> was more properly based on the actual processing speed, and not 
> depending on various software.
> 
>   Johnny
> 

IBM never used MIPS either, but rated processors relative to each other. I
always thought they did this to avoid comparisons to other vendors’
machines, but it was probably as much because it was meaningless, as you
say.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#220253

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:

>> 
>> And that's a big reason DEC themselves never used MIPS. They instead 
>> talked about VUPs. Where a VAX-11/780 was by definition 1 VUP. And it 
>> was more properly based on the actual processing speed, and not 
>> depending on various software.
>> 
>>   Johnny
>> 
>
>IBM never used MIPS either, but rated processors relative to each other. I
>always thought they did this to avoid comparisons to other vendors’
>machines, but it was probably as much because it was meaningless, as you
>say.

Likewise, Burroughs used RPM (Relative Performance Metric) to rate their
machines.   RPM was measured using the throughput of a selected set of
customer applications in banking, finance and back-office fields.

The application set was once ported to run on the dominant competitors machines
and run on one of the 3030 series (iirc) to get a baseline for comparison.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223228

On 3/6/2022 12:34 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>> On 2022-03-04 22:23, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
>>>> than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.
>>>
>>> For the first N years, VAXes were much slower than the faster 10's.
>>
>> Not really. The KL10 was about 1.5 MIPS, while the original VAX-11/780
>> was 1 MIPS.
>>
>> Speed parity was basically achieved with the VAX-11/785. After that, the
>> VAXen just were becoming faster.
>>
>> The PDP-10 was never a speed daemon. It was helped a lot by being
>> offloaded for terminal I/O by the front end processor. But with the
>> spreading of ethernet, all of that work started moving back to the
>> PDP-10 itself, at which point you really felt the pain. 40 users on a
>> -2060 was usually not all that much fun, I can tell you. Heck, even 20
>> was painful.
>>
>>> Faster VAXes appeared later, and eventually overtook the 10 mostly due
>>> to improved chip technology.  The main VAX for a long time was the
>>> original 11/780 (introduced 1977) which was the canonical 1 MIP machine.
>>> A KL-10 (introduced 1975) was maybe 3x that, about equivalent(?) to the
>>> VAX 8600 that that came out in 1984.
>>
>> KL-10 was about 1.5x. The 8600, introduced in 1984 was 4x the 11/780,
>> and was noticeably faster than the KL-10.
>>
>>> I don't know about today, but legend has it that a few 11/780's were
>>> kept operational for decades after that model's obsolescence, to serve
>>> as benchmark hosts for MIPs rating of newer cpus.
>>
>> I think I heard such stories, but I never put any value to them. Another
>> story/problem is that the original MIPS definition was also based on a
>> specific version of OS and compiler. And as these evolved, the
>> VAX-11/780 actually became significantly faster than 1 MIPS. Which
>> exposed a problem with the whole MIPS definition. And also meant keeping
>> any VAXen around for reference was pretty pointless.
>>
>> And that's a big reason DEC themselves never used MIPS. They instead
>> talked about VUPs. Where a VAX-11/780 was by definition 1 VUP. And it
>> was more properly based on the actual processing speed, and not
>> depending on various software.
>>
>>    Johnny
>>
> 
> IBM never used MIPS either, but rated processors relative to each other. I
> always thought they did this to avoid comparisons to other vendors’
> machines, but it was probably as much because it was meaningless, as you
> say.
> 
MIPS in Outer Space

The processor used in the original Sony PlayStation is currently guiding 
a space probe the size of a grand piano towards Pluto? Yep, the same 
MIPS R3000 CPU that once ran Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid was 
repurposed by NASA in 2006 to fire thrusters, monitor sensors, and 
transmit data from the New Horizons space probe.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/15/7551365/playstation-cpu-powers-new-horizons-pluto-probe

-- 

Charles Richmond


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223233

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> IBM never used MIPS either, but rated processors relative to each other. I
> always thought they did this to avoid comparisons to other vendors’
> machines, but it was probably as much because it was meaningless, as you
> say.

IBM tries stamp out industry standard benchmark numbers for their
mainframes. I had worked with Jim Gray at IBM Research on System/R
(original SQl/Relational implementation) and he then palmed off some
stuff on me when he left for Tandem ... where he pioneers DBMS TPC
benchmarks
http://www.tpc.org/information/who/gray5.asp

Periodically some mainframe numbers manage to leak. Industry standard
MIPS benchmark wasn't instructions/sec but number of program iterations
compared to the standard's processor ... assumed to be one MIP machine
(and easier to find for IBM's non-mainframe systems).

IBM mainframe this century

z900, 16 processors, 2.5BIPS (156MIPS/proc), Dec2000
z990, 32 processors, 9BIPS, (281MIPS/proc), 2003
z9, 54 processors, 18BIPS (333MIPS/proc), July2005
z10, 64 processors, 30BIPS (469MIPS/proc), Feb2008
z196, 80 processors, 50BIPS (625MIPS/proc), Jul2010
EC12, 101 processors, 75BIPS (743MIPS/proc), Aug2012
z13, 140 processors, 100BIPS (710MIPS/proc), Jan2015
z14, 170 processors, 150BIPS (862MIPS/proc), Aug2017
z15, 190 processors, 190BIPS* (1000MIPS/proc), Sep2019

* pubs say z15 1.25 times z14 (1.25*150BIPS or 190BIPS)
* z16, 200?? processors, ???BIPS (???MIPS/proc), 

Max configured z196 was $30M ($600,000/BIPS) and in that timeframe,
cloud megadatacenters (with half million or more systems) standard was
E5-2600 blades benchmarked at 500BIPS. This was shortly before IBM sold
off its blade server business ... but IBM had E5-2600 base list price of
$1815 ($3.60/BIPS). However, cloud megadatacenters had been saying for
at least a decade that they assembled their own systems for 1/3rd the
cost of brand name blade servers ($1.20/BIPS) ... likely contributing to
IBM selling off its blade server business ... this was also about the
time that server chip maker press said that they were shipping half
their product directly to cloud megadatacenters.

z196 pubs also claimed that over half the per processor performance
improvement from z10 to z196 was the introduction of cache miss (memory
latency) compensation features (that had been in other platforms in some
cases for decades) ... out-of-order execution, branch prediction,
speculative execution, etc.

Big cloud operators (with dozen or more megadatacenters around the
world, each with half million or more systems) had so drastically
reduced their system costs that power & cooling were becoming
increasingly large part of their costs ... and they were putting
pressure on Intel/AMD to significantly increase computational power
efficiency (and looking at moving to ARM, originally designed for low
power, battery use, computational power efficiency offsetting increasing
the number of systems). They had so decreased cost of systems that they
could justify complete upgrade of all systems when there was improvement
computational power efficiency.  Also start seeing TPC including
computational efficiency in benchmarks, being able to calculate
electrical power cost per transaction ... and IBM still participates for
their non-mainframe systems.
https://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results5.asp?orderby=hardware

trivia: 50+ yrs ago, IBM 195 mainframe had out-of-order execution but
conditional branches drained the pipeline ... so most 360&370 codes ran
at half the 195 throughput. Shortly after joining IBM, the 195 group
tried to suck me into helping with hyperthreading the 195 ... simulating
two processor with two threads, each running at half machine throughput.
In this description of the shutdown of ACS/360 (executives were afraid
it would advance the state of art too fast and IBM would loose control
of the market) ... there is reference to multithreading patents
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html

new work for 195 (including multithread) was canceled when it was
decided to add "virtual memory" to all 370s ... and it wasn't believed
that adding virtual memory to 195 was practical. Also claims that at the
time, MVT/MVS two-processor SMP systems were claimed to only have
1.2-1.5 system throughput of single processor (because of their
multiprocessor system software overhead) ... which would have more than
offset any benefit of having a multithreaded (simulated two processor)
195.

other trivia: in the morph from cp67->vm370, they simplified and/or
dropped (including dropping cp67 multiprocessor support). after joining
IBM, one of my hobbies was enhanced production operating systems for
internal datacenters ... including world-wide, sales&market support
"HONE" systems. The US HONE systems had been consolidated in Palo Alto
in the mid-70s (when facebook 1st moves into silicon valley, it was into
a new bldg built next door to the former US HONE datacenter).  Their
VM370 was enhanced to have eight loosely-coupled (cluster, shared DASD)
single-system image, aka cluster with load balancing and fall-over
across the complex. I had added lots of CP67 features/function back into
VM370 and then (initially for HONE) added tightly-coupled (shared
memory) multiprocessor into VM370 release 3 ... giving them 16 processor
complex (at the time I considered largest IBM mainframe single-system
image complex; some ACP/TPF complexes may have had eight loosely-coupled
system complex but ACP/TPF didn't have tightly-coupled support so was
limited to one processor/system), With very short multiprocessor
pathlengths and some games with "cache affinity" ... could get two
processor machine with twice the throughput of single processor machine
(improved cache hit rate offsetting the multiprocessor software
overhead).

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223235

On Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:34:13 -1000
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:

> Big cloud operators (with dozen or more megadatacenters around the
> world, each with half million or more systems) had so drastically
> reduced their system costs that power & cooling

	I think the cleverest twist in system cooling has to be the trick of
immersing the whole thing in an inert fluid that boils at 50C with a
fan assisted condenser at the top.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223242

On 23/12/2022 21:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 	I think the cleverest twist in system cooling has to be the trick of
> immersing the whole thing in an inert fluid that boils at 50C with a
> fan assisted condenser at the top.

The problem with that is hot spots under the bubbles. You'll need a 
decent heat spreader too.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223245

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:54:10 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 23/12/2022 21:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> 	I think the cleverest twist in system cooling has to be the trick of
>> immersing the whole thing in an inert fluid that boils at 50C with a
>> fan assisted condenser at the top.
>
>The problem with that is hot spots under the bubbles. You'll need a 
>decent heat spreader too.
>
>Andy

The Cray YMP-2 had a non-conductive fluid that flowed across the
circuit boards, then out to a head exchanger.
--  
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223254

On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:17:54 -0600, D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:54:10 +0000, Vir Campestris
><vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On 23/12/2022 21:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> 	I think the cleverest twist in system cooling has to be the trick of
>>> immersing the whole thing in an inert fluid that boils at 50C with a
>>> fan assisted condenser at the top.
>>
>>The problem with that is hot spots under the bubbles. You'll need a 
>>decent heat spreader too.
>>
>>Andy
>
>The Cray YMP-2 had a non-conductive fluid that flowed across the
>circuit boards, then out to a head exchanger.

Heat exchanger.
--  
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223263

D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:17:54 -0600, D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:54:10 +0000, Vir Campestris
>> <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2022 21:42, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> I think the cleverest twist in system cooling has to be the trick of
>>>> immersing the whole thing in an inert fluid that boils at 50C with a
>>>> fan assisted condenser at the top.
>>> 
>>> The problem with that is hot spots under the bubbles. You'll need a 
>>> decent heat spreader too.
>>> 
>>> Andy
>> 
>> The Cray YMP-2 had a non-conductive fluid that flowed across the
>> circuit boards, then out to a head exchanger.
> 
> Heat exchanger.
> --  
> Jim
> 

Head Exchanger is what you need after using windoze. 

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223266

D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
> The Cray YMP-2 had a non-conductive fluid that flowed across the
> circuit boards, then out to a head exchanger.

IBM water cooled machines had flow sensor on inboard fluid side but not
on outboard side of heat exchanger ... and a customer machine outboard
side lost water flow ... by the time the thermal sensor registered
temperature was increasing (and shutoff power) ... it was too late and
circuits fried.  All heat exchangers were then retrofitted with flow
sensor on the outboard side.

as periodically mentioned, during Future System project (in first half
of 70s), 370 projects were being shutdown (FS was going to completely
replace 370s and completely different). When FS imploded there was mad
rush to get stuff back into the 370 product pipelines, including kicking
off quick&dirty 3033 & 3081 in parallel.
http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm

The 370 emulator minus the FS microcode was eventually sold in 1980 as
as the IBM 3081. The ratio of the amount of circuitry in the 3081 to its
performance was significantly worse than other IBM systems of the time;
its price/performance ratio wasn't quite so bad because IBM had to cut
the price to be competitive. The major competition at the time was from
Amdahl Systems -- a company founded by Gene Amdahl, who left IBM
shortly before the FS project began, when his plans for the Advanced
Computer System (ACS) were killed. The Amdahl machine was indeed
superior to the 3081 in price/performance and spectaculary superior in
terms of performance compared to the amount of circuitry.]

... snip ...

the enormous number of circuits for 3081 helped motivate TCMs ... to
pack them in reasonable sized physical volume
https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV2137.html

... note above marketing respinning the enormous number of circuits,
also the increased heat density significantly exacerbated sensitivity to
loss of cooling.

Note initial 3081D was two processor claiming 5mips/processor (although
several benchmarks were slower than 4.5mips 3033). IBM then doubled the
cache size for 3081K claiming 7mips/processor (aka from improved cache
hit rate, with some of those benchmarks now equivalent to 4.5mips 3033
or slightly better, see previous post increasingly machine throughput
was becoming increasingly sensitive to cache miss and wating on memory)
... or two processor aggregate of 14mips claimed.  By comparison, the
single processor Amdahl benchmarked at around 13mips.

shutdown of ACS/360
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223295

On 24/12/2022 17:17, D.J. wrote:
> The Cray YMP-2 had a non-conductive fluid that flowed across the
> circuit boards, then out to a head exchanger.

Liquid cooling is not uncommon.

Boiling liquid cooling has all sorts of problems, which is what Steve 
suggested.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web