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 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c930dd8-3080-4c18-b142-3c961433c377@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153557 |
On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 3:42:53 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > > 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. I thought it was a popular young singer. She did sing "Shake It Off"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523529AE2A490@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153550 |
William Pechter wrote: > 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. So the boards must have been shipped back to corporate and fixed there. I wonder who "owned the files^W collections of bits which created the microcode. > > Many differences in the PDP11's were just documented and never fixed in > microcode. That wounds dangerous. :-) They probably became part of the project plan for the next generation of CPU. > > 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. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the meetings which ran that project ;-). /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 16:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n106ms$it4$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153598 |
In article <PM000523529AE2A490@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >William Pechter wrote: >> 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. > >So the boards must have been shipped back to corporate and fixed there. >I wonder who "owned the files^W collections of bits which created the >microcode. > >> >> Many differences in the PDP11's were just documented and never fixed in >> microcode. > >That wounds dangerous. :-) They probably became part of the project plan >for the next generation of CPU. > >> >> 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. > >I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the meetings >which ran that project ;-). > >/BAH They would just have so-many hundred roms burned by someone (possibly a parts supplier to DEC). The parts went to board rework... and someone had a soldering iron. But the rom contents or sometimes some programmed piece of logic like a PAL often had something like a truth table showing the chip inputs and outputs on a truth-table like diagram. The microcode was often divided between roms to get the word width so the microcode wasn't what was burned on the rom -- just bits 11, 15, 22 and 39 for example (a wierd example but not impossible). The actual CPU microcode was often included on the printset. The PDP11/44 microcode listing is here... http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp11/1144/EY-C3012-RB-001_Microcode_Listing_Apr81.txt As you can see by 1979 they stopped putting fixes in. I showed up in 1981 -- so they would've been done before me and new 11/44s coming from factory wouldn't need the ECO/FCO. I don't remember any ECO's to change the 11/44 cpu in the Field... There seems to have been a significant number of changes It's interesting... this comes from http://retrocmp.com/tools/pdp11gui/1144-mcode which links to the bitsavers link above and shows the chips on the 11/44 cpu that hold the microcode. The pdp11 gui gives a nice debugging interface into the modified SIMH. 1144 FLOWS ETC ;REV U -14 SEPT 79 FIX BUF GETS FPS FOR CORRECT ABORTS ;1008 ;REV U -14 SEPT 79 FIX BUF GETS FPS FOR CORRECT ABORTS ;1009 ;BASE MACHINE CODE UNCHANGED FROM REV T ;1010 ;REV T -5 SEPT 79 ADD BACK LOC 1002 TO SAVE A PROM ! ;1011 ;ALSO FIX BUG IN STST INST. ;1012 ;REV S - 22 AUG 79 1ST ATTEMPT TO FIX FP I/D SPACE ;1013 ;REV R - 19 JUL 79 - FIX CSM AND SR1 LOAD IN MTPI(D) ;1014 ;REV Q - 6 JUN 79 - MFM SERVICE STATE ;1015 ;REV M -20 APR 79 -KERNEL RTI ;1016 ;REV K -CALL SUPER,SPL -29 MAR 79 ;1017 ;REV J -19 MARS 79 CLEANUP 2 ;1018 ;REV I - 23 FEB 79 \REDEF ID SPACE,D SP MACRO =ID SP MACRO ;1019 ;REV H -29 DEC 78 - FINAL EDIT FIRST PASS ;1020 ;REV G - 5 DEC 78 COMBINED BASE FLOWS WITH FP FLOWS REV C FP) ;1021 ;REV F 27 NOV 78 1144 FUNCTIONALITY ;1022 ;REV E -15 SEP 76 - 1144 FUNCTIONALITY ;1023 ;22 AUG 78 - DEL MULT DEF 7-E:,CHANGE BUT IR9 TOBUT DEST ;1024 ;28 AUG 78- ADD STATE TO ALLOW BUT DEST AND C-16IN MULT ;1025 ;30 AUG 78 - CHANGE R17 TO R15 SCRATCH REG ;1026 ;11 SEP 78 - FIX TARGET FOR MFPT ;1027 ;15 SEP 78 - FIX SHIFT RIGHT TARGETS ;1028 ;27 NOV 78 - R17 TO R10 SCRATCH REG,CIS EDIT ;1029 ;7 DEC 78 - ADD FIXES FROM FP DEBUG (CC_FP) ;1030 ;28 DEC 78 - EDIT COMBINED FIXES + MTPI,D &MFPI,D ;1031 ;9 JAN 79 - FINAL CLEANUP ;1032 ;23 FEB 79 - REDEF ID SPACE,D SP = ID SP ;1033 ;9 MAR 79 FIX MOV DEST TARGETS ;1034 ;19 MARS 79 - CLEANUP 2 ;1035 ;27 MAR 79 CHANGE WRITE NO LOAD TARGET,SPL CSM ;1036 ;10 APR 79 -FIX RTI ;1037 ;29 MAY 79 -FIX WAIT R15,TRAP BUT NOSERV Bill -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/ -- -- 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 | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddsi4t4gag.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153509 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> 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?
By changing out the microcode ROMs.
> DEC's usual method was to ship a file.
For late[1] Large Systems products, and early VAXen. Not for anything else
(ok, probably the 11/60) they ever built with microcode. They're right, you've
overgeneralized.
[1] As you know full well, the 166, KA-10, and KI-10 processors were hardware
state machines, not microcode.
--
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 | rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 06:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <56385a84$0$1626$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #153551 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
+---------------
| [1] As you know full well, the 166, KA-10, and KI-10 processors
| were hardware state machines, not microcode.
+---------------
Ah, yez... The KA-10, that *wondrous* asynchronous "one-hot"
state machine!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-hot>
But instead of the "one-hot" sequencer being implemented
with a shift register like, say, the PDP-8/E [1], it was
implemented with 35 ns one-shots and delay lines of various
lengths. Which step of the sequencer was "hot" was defined
as in which delay line the clock pulse was currently hiding!! ;-}
The KA-10's sequencer also had numerous "subroutines" implemented
in hardware: The same clock pulse that "called" a subroutine
[into an OR at the beginning with as many inputs as possible
callers] also set a flop so that the clock pulse exiting from
the subroutine could find its way back to the caller. [The exit
fanned out to an AND gate and a flop per caller.]
[Much, much later, when studying the Scheme dialect of Lisp,
I realized that one could view this as the callers providing
explicit "continuations" to called subroutines as "parameters",
namely, those exit routing flops. But that's another story...]
In fact, a memory read/write cycle was also implemented as such
a subroutine. After enabling the address and mode onto the memory
channel, the clock pulse hopped across the bus into the selected
memory box and didn't come back into the CPU until the memory
read or write was completed, whence it was routed back to whichever
part of the CPU sequencer had "called" the memory cycle. This
is part of the reason that it was so easy to mix memory boxes
of different speeds in the same system [MA10, MB10, MD10, etc.].
-Rob
[1] While the PDP-8/E's sequencer was shift-register based,
ISTR that it was actually a "two-hot" state machine: an
"engine" and a "caboose" bit [to coin some terms] that
travelled as an adjacent pair through the shift register.
Since the sequencer clocked at 20 MHz (50 ns/cycle), that
meant that any given flip-flop in the shift register would
be "on" for 100 ns as the "hot" pair of bits shifted through
it. Tapping different flops in the chain was a convenient
way to generate the 100 ns-wide TP{1,2,3,4} timing pulses
that clocked so much of the rest of the CPU [and the I/O
bus a.k.a. OMNIBUS].
The companion TS{1,2,3,4} ("Time-State") levels were
generated from R-S flops toggled on & off from the *2nd*
of the two shift register flops that generated TP{1,2,3,4},
which resulted in the transitions of the TSn levels being
straddled by the 100 ns TPn pulses, as in the earlier
PDP-8 models. [E.g., TS1 went false and TS2 came true
halfway through TP1.] For more first-person history see
here, about 1/3 of the way down in the section on "Timing":
http://ethw.org/First-Hand:PDP-8/E_OMNIBUS_Ride
and the timing diagram and schematic here:
http://ethw.org/File:OMNI-Timing.jpg
Hmmm... If I'm reading that schematic correctly, the
sequencer was actually a "two-cold"!! ;-} That is,
the shift register was filled with *ones* at reset time,
then the Start/Run events injected two zeroes into the
shift register, which then recirculated as a pair until
the machine halted (or single-stepped) again. [I suppose
that having the sequencer outputs be low-true made it
easier to toggle the NOR-based R-S flops used to generate
the TSn levels and other internal enable signals.]
-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005233E9C30D74A@aca42db5.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153467 |
Rich Alderson wrote: > "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. Yea. I fucked that up. Weren't there separate KL microcodes for Models A and B? IIRC, there were also different names for KL microcodes for TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 until the diffference issues were resolved. So what you have is after hardware engineering started shipping the same microcode for all KLs no matter what OS was running. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddoafh4ftg.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153508 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
> Rich Alderson wrote:
>> 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.
> Yea. I fucked that up. Weren't there separate KL microcodes for Models A
> and B? IIRC, there were also different names for KL microcodes for TOPS-10
> and TOPS-20 until the diffference issues were resolved. So what you have is
> after hardware engineering started shipping the same microcode for all KLs no
> matter what OS was running.
Well, yes, because I'm running 7.04 here. Simplifies running it on a 2065.
There were probably separate microcode files for the A and B systems, but I
can't say from personal experience. The only Model A I used was the 2040 at
UChicago, which they upgraded to a 2050 while I was still in grad school, and
I never got to play with its front end until it was a 2060 (upgraded while I
was writing COBOL and PL/I for the Comptroller's Office).
I would guess KL.MCB and KLB.MCB, but I emphasize the word "guess". Whatever
they were named, the *version numbers* were significant differentiators: The
file in the snipped listing, KLX.MCB;442, was the version that unified the 2
OS environments.
--
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 | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 14:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <877fm5300y.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153558 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: > I would guess KL.MCB and KLB.MCB, but I emphasize the word "guess". Whatever > they were named, the *version numbers* were significant differentiators: The > file in the snipped listing, KLX.MCB;442, was the version that unified the 2 > OS environments. H R Dixon (Jim - WB6NIL) swore a blood-oath that the KL-10 based ITS machines had different microcode loads at least at one point. Was he mis-remembering or was there a time when that was true?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052352ED4F6E61@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153566 |
Lawrence Statton wrote: > Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes: >> I would guess KL.MCB and KLB.MCB, but I emphasize the word "guess". Whatever >> they were named, the *version numbers* were significant differentiators: The >> file in the snipped listing, KLX.MCB;442, was the version that unified the 2 >> OS environments. > > H R Dixon (Jim - WB6NIL) swore a blood-oath that the KL-10 based ITS > machines had different microcode loads at least at one point. Was he > mis-remembering or was there a time when that was true? > The KL microcode versions were always skewed primarily because the schedules of the TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 monitor releases were skewed. Also, Hardware Engingeering (who did the KL-microcode development) were never in sync with any of the OS development cycles. With TOPS-10, there could also be skews between the DECtape and floppy distributions of -20F (although we tried very hard not to have that happen). In addition, if one had 2 KLs, they did not have to run the same KL microcode. Now that I think about it, I don't think there was a way of comparing the versionn of microcode on a running system. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 20:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddk2q3x3n3.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153566 |
Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> writes:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>> I would guess KL.MCB and KLB.MCB, but I emphasize the word "guess".
>> Whatever they were named, the *version numbers* were significant
>> differentiators: The file in the snipped listing, KLX.MCB;442, was the
>> version that unified the 2 OS environments.
> H R Dixon (Jim - WB6NIL) swore a blood-oath that the KL-10 based ITS
> machines had different microcode loads at least at one point. Was he
> mis-remembering or was there a time when that was true?
The KL-10 ITS machine[1] ran different microcode that implemented the MIT
pager for the KA-10, so that ITS worked at all. Similarly, Bawden wrote new KS
microcode to accomplish the same thing.[2]
[1] Only 1 in existence as far as I remember, MC => MX when the KS-10 machines
came along. It now lives in Sweden.
[2] We're working on running an ITS system at the museum, the KS processor that
was MIT-AI. Currently, there is an issue with the RH11 in the KS not
talking to our Massbus disk and tape emulation.
--
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 | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052352DA221939@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153558 |
Rich Alderson wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Rich Alderson wrote: > >>> 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. > >> Yea. I fucked that up. Weren't there separate KL microcodes for Models A >> and B? IIRC, there were also different names for KL microcodes for TOPS-10 >> and TOPS-20 until the diffference issues were resolved. So what you have is >> after hardware engineering started shipping the same microcode for all KLs no >> matter what OS was running. > > Well, yes, because I'm running 7.04 here. Simplifies running it on a 2065. > > There were probably separate microcode files for the A and B systems, but I > can't say from personal experience. The only Model A I used was the 2040 at > UChicago, which they upgraded to a 2050 while I was still in grad school, and > I never got to play with its front end until it was a 2060 (upgraded while I > was writing COBOL and PL/I for the Comptroller's Office). > > I would guess KL.MCB and KLB.MCB, but I emphasize the word "guess". Whatever > they were named, the *version numbers* were significant differentiators: The > file in the snipped listing, KLX.MCB;442, was the version that unified the 2 > OS environments. > I was talking about version 231. UA.MCB;231 and UB.MCB;231 /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 16:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9b3cgFeu0fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153375 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote > Quadibloc wrote >> 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. Nope. And you either have forgotten that microcoded cpus don’t have to have that loaded from a file or never knew that. ALL of the PDP-11s except the 11/20 were microcoded and we know that because Gordon Bell said that in Computer Engineering. > If it was a file, It wasn’t with any of the 11s except those with writeable control stores. > 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. Which didn’t have a WRITEABLE control store, and so didn’t need a file with the contents of that in it. The microcode was in rom instead. > If it was burnt in on the manufacturing floor, It wasn’t, it was in a rom. > 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. Because those 11s didn’t have a WRITEABLE control store. They were microcoded anyway. >> The PDP-9 was microcoded (which surprised me, >> given the nature of its instruction set) - Gordon Bell >> notes that in his book "Computer Engineering". Even you must know who Gordon Bell is. You're utterly confusing microcode with writeable control stores as is your want. Now you can try claiming that DEC used that term differently to anyone else and we can point and laugh at your predicament when we realise who Gordon Bell is, even if you don’t know that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 15:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddbnbiojnf.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153427 |
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote
[discussing the KL-10 processor]
>> 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.
> Which didn't have a WRITEABLE control store, and
> so didn't need a file with the contents of that in it.
Wrong. Quite simply flat wrong.
> The microcode was in rom instead.
No, it was not. It was in a file in the RSX-20F portion of the boot disk, as
well as on the boot floppies used to initialize a disk when a system was newly
installed. Cf. my other post in this thread, with the front end file system
directory listing.
I've made my living running these damned things for more than 30 years now,
without a break, so I'm not remembering things from years and years ago, I'm
telling you what I can do on the running KL-10 1 floor down from me right now.
--
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 | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 12:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9db3lF2690U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153470 |
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote > [discussing the KL-10 processor] Nope, discussing 11s and whether they were microcoded. >>> 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. >> Which didn't have a WRITEABLE control store, and >> so didn't need a file with the contents of that in it. > Wrong. Quite simply flat wrong. Nope, the 11s that she used for remote stations didn’t have a writeable control store, same with plenty of other 11s too. >> The microcode was in rom instead. > No, it was not. It was in a file in the RSX-20F portion of the > boot disk, as well as on the boot floppies used to initialize > a disk when a system was newly installed. Cf. my other post > in this thread, with the front end file system directory listing. That's the writeable control store for the 10, not the 11. > I've made my living running these damned things for more than 30 years > now, > without a break, so I'm not remembering things from years and years ago, > I'm > telling you what I can do on the running KL-10 1 floor down from me right > now. Irrelevant to how the microcode IN THE 11 FRONT END IS DONE. I ran an 11/10AD node for a country wide network and that had no drive at all, no tape either and it booted fine from the rom. So there was never any file to load any microcode from. Same with all the other 11s I ran, NOT ONE of those loaded any microcode file at boot time. The microcode was all in rom and while they did have drives, they ran fine with no drive at all so can't have been loading any microcode file at boot time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 15:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mddlhal4fmx.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153498 |
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote
[a lot of snipped stuff that I agree was]
> Irrelevant to how the microcode IN THE 11 FRONT END IS DONE.
You're right. On rereading that part of the thread, I realized that you were
talking about the 11/40 and not the KL-10 CPU.
--
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 | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 09:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1bsi4xy8j5.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #153338 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > gareth wrote: >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM000522EE18B332A4@aca42931.ipt.aol.com... >>> gareth wrote: >>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>> news:PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com... >>>>> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >>>>> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >>>>> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >>>>> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >>>>> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >>>>> so on, and so on. >>>> >>>> What was running in the later versions of the PDP-11 that were >>>> microcoded? >>> >>> I don't understand your question. What microcode? >> >> The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I >> encountered >> 4 or 5 years later were microcoded. > > I don't remember any microcode. But, not that I think of it, the > -11s I dealt with were remote stations and the ones on the KL > front end. Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure > don't remember the filenames. Microcode is most commonly burned into ROM; there wouldn't be filenames. Some machines have had a writeabable control store (some machines that do have been mentioned in this thread), but that's by far the less common option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 14:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0lvmo$i38$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153347 |
"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message news:1bsi4xy8j5.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net... > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> gareth wrote: >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM000522EE18B332A4@aca42931.ipt.aol.com... >>>> gareth wrote: >>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com... >>>>>> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's >>>>>> machine >>>>>> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the >>>>>> PDP >>>>>> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >>>>>> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >>>>>> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >>>>>> so on, and so on. >>>>> >>>>> What was running in the later versions of the PDP-11 that were >>>>> microcoded? >>>> >>>> I don't understand your question. What microcode? >>> >>> The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I >>> encountered >>> 4 or 5 years later were microcoded. >> >> I don't remember any microcode. But, not that I think of it, the >> -11s I dealt with were remote stations and the ones on the KL >> front end. Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure >> don't remember the filenames. > > Microcode is most commonly burned into ROM; there wouldn't be > filenames. Some machines have had a writeabable control store (some > machines that do have been mentioned in this thread), but that's by far > the less common option. It might be more instructive to give some general information here. The microcode is located inside the CPU. When the CPU fetches an instruction from memory, the binary code of that instruction causes a section of the microcode inside the CPU to be executed. That microcode sequence switches the internal CPU electronics to accomplish the instruction. So what we think of as the instructions of the CPU... actually are represented *inside* the CPU by sequences of instructions of the microcode program. And *no*, the microcode program does *not* have the same bit patterns as the computer's instructions themselves. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0e825f6-8565-4d5c-ab62-2a9fe4442d2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153358 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 3:44:28 PM UTC-4, Charles Richmond wrote: > The microcode is located inside the CPU. When the CPU fetches an > instruction from memory, the binary code of that instruction causes a > section of the microcode inside the CPU to be executed. That microcode > sequence switches the internal CPU electronics to accomplish the > instruction. So what we think of as the instructions of the CPU... actually > are represented *inside* the CPU by sequences of instructions of the > microcode program. For what it's worth, on bitsavers there is a agood IBM manual explaining a lot of this stuff for IBM machines, GF20-0385-0_An_Introduction_to_Microprogramming_Dec71.pdf Also, there are numerous listing of microcode for various computers (search the index). The S/360 history goes into why they chose to use micrcode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language |
| Message-ID | <n0lnbn$1knq$1@miucha.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #153338 |
>> The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I >> encountered 4 or 5 years later were microcoded. > >I don't remember any microcode. You need to remember harder. The original PDP-11/20 was hardcoded, but every subsequent PDP-11 was microcoded. The 11/60 even had provision for WCS and user microcode, although I don't think many if any used it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language |
| Message-ID | <mddk2q98htc.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #153353 |
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>>> The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I
>>> encountered 4 or 5 years later were microcoded.
>> I don't remember any microcode.
> You need to remember harder. The original PDP-11/20 was hardcoded, but every
> subsequent PDP-11 was microcoded.
> The 11/60 even had provision for WCS and user microcode, although I
> don't think many if any used it.
Richie Lary, of PS/8 (OS/8) fame, is reputed to have implemented a PDP-8 on the
11/60 hardware with this feature. I have heard this from a mutual friend, in
Mr. Lary's presence; he simply grinned.
--
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]
Page 8 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