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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235018 > unrolled thread

Old commercial UNIX in '26

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

Contents

  Old commercial UNIX in '26 Piper McCorkle <contact@piperswe.me> - 2026-06-15 08:27 +0200
    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 mechanicjay@sol.smbfc.net (Mechanicjay) - 2026-06-15 06:57 +0000
      Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-15 09:25 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-15 10:01 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-15 13:39 +0000
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-15 14:06 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-15 14:36 +0000
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-06-15 11:14 -0400
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-15 15:29 +0000
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-15 16:23 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-15 16:43 +0000
                  Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-15 19:06 +0000
                    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2026-06-16 20:07 -0700
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-06-15 15:16 +0000
      Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Daniel <me@sc1f1dan.com> - 2026-06-15 07:13 -0700
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 mechanicjay@sol.smbfc.net (Mechanicjay) - 2026-06-18 15:47 +0000
    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-06-15 11:34 -0400
      Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-15 23:55 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Piper McCorkle <contact@piperswe.me> - 2026-06-16 04:50 +0200
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-16 03:34 +0000
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 12:49 +0000
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-16 14:40 +0000
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-17 11:49 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-17 13:55 +0000
                  Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-18 09:52 +0000
                    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-18 14:45 +0000
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Piper McCorkle <contact@piperswe.me> - 2026-06-16 21:59 +0200
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-16 13:53 -0700
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-17 12:00 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-17 13:21 +0000
    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-15 19:35 +0000
      Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-15 20:01 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 12:50 +0000
      Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-15 22:40 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-16 09:19 +0000
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 13:00 +0000
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-16 13:44 +0000
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-16 14:47 +0000
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-16 14:59 +0000
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-16 16:24 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-16 20:19 +0000
                  Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-16 21:27 +0000
                    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-17 08:44 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-16 21:39 +0100
                  Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-16 21:19 +0000
                  Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-16 21:29 +0000
        Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 12:59 +0000
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-16 07:30 -0700
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 "Phigan" <phigan@mutinybbs.com.remove-54f-this> - 2026-06-18 16:28 -0400
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-83z-this> - 2026-06-20 08:22 -0700
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-20 18:59 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-jv-this> - 2026-06-28 14:16 -0700
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2026-07-04 14:19 -0400
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2026-07-04 14:08 -0400
          Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-16 14:51 +0000
            Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 21:32 +0000
              Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-17 13:54 +0000
                Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-17 14:21 +0000
                  Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-17 19:35 +0000
                    [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery (was: Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-18 08:56 +0100
                      Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-18 06:37 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-18 07:57 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 22:51 +0000
                          Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-19 07:37 -0700
                            Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Piper McCorkle <contact@piperswe.me> - 2026-06-19 18:46 +0200
                              Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-20 09:28 +0100
                          Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-06-19 19:57 -0700
                      Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-06-18 15:27 +0100
                        Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-21 09:15 +0100
                      Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-18 07:52 -0700
                        Re: [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-18 22:52 +0000
    Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Anthk GM <anthk@disroot.org> - 2026-06-22 19:14 +0000
      Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-22 22:29 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#235065

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:24:18 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>I was referring to license PAKs, now that HP have stopped issuing them.
>>Or was that mentioned in the above, and I missed it?
> 
> It's not mentioned explicitly, however, the instructions as followed
> produced a working VMS system.    It doesn't include the Pascal
> compiler, however, which I had hoped would be there.

Does the system allow users other than SYSTEM? Gnenerally, if not 
licensed, it won't.

>>I managed to grab the manual set before it disappeared.
> 
> I have a few printed manuals from VMS 2.0 and 3.0 days;
> although pdf versions are available on bitsavers.

I have the 7.3 ones, which correspond to the hobbyisy distribution.

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

#235069

Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> writes:
>On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:24:18 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>I was referring to license PAKs, now that HP have stopped issuing them.
>>>Or was that mentioned in the above, and I missed it?
>> 
>> It's not mentioned explicitly, however, the instructions as followed
>> produced a working VMS system.    It doesn't include the Pascal
>> compiler, however, which I had hoped would be there.
>
>Does the system allow users other than SYSTEM? Gnenerally, if not 
>licensed, it won't.

It's been a few months.

I'll have to give it another shot when I get time (and this time
write down the SYSTEM password :-( ).

I noticed messages saying VMS wasn't licenced during the boot.

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

#235074

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 21:27:46 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> writes:
>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 16:24:18 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>>>I was referring to license PAKs, now that HP have stopped issuing
>>>>them.
>>>>Or was that mentioned in the above, and I missed it?
>>> 
>>> It's not mentioned explicitly, however, the instructions as followed
>>> produced a working VMS system.    It doesn't include the Pascal
>>> compiler, however, which I had hoped would be there.
>>
>>Does the system allow users other than SYSTEM? Gnenerally, if not
>>licensed, it won't.
> 
> It's been a few months.
> 
> I'll have to give it another shot when I get time (and this time write
> down the SYSTEM password :-( ).
> 
> I noticed messages saying VMS wasn't licenced during the boot.

That is fixable.

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

#235066

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Bob Eager writes:
>
>> I managed a VAXcluster and actually own three VAXes

I only own one, a VAXserver 3300

> I have a few printed manuals from VMS 2.0 and 3.0 days;
I've got large parts of a VMS 4.7 orange wall, and 5.5/6.1 grey wall.

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

#235068

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 21:39:18 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> 
>> Bob Eager writes:
>>
>>> I managed a VAXcluster and actually own three VAXes
> 
> I only own one, a VAXserver 3300
> 
>> I have a few printed manuals from VMS 2.0 and 3.0 days;
> I've got large parts of a VMS 4.7 orange wall, and 5.5/6.1 grey wall.

I used to have all of the base ones, plus several languages, both oramge 
and grey for a while. In my office at work!

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

#235070

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
>
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager writes:
>>
>>> I managed a VAXcluster and actually own three VAXes
>
>I only own one, a VAXserver 3300
>
>> I have a few printed manuals from VMS 2.0 and 3.0 days;
>I've got large parts of a VMS 4.7 orange wall, and 5.5/6.1 grey wall.
>

It was a blue wall in the v2 days; orange started with v3.0 IIRC.

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

#235052

In article <gb%XR.132106$I0Ta.47907@fx05.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>In article <nnd$6ea886ba$1c547b7f@9c94dd43bc13ac30>,
>>Piper McCorkle  <contact@piperswe.me> wrote:
>>>I've always been quite curious about commercial Unices, but when I was born
>>>Linux had already put the writing on the wall for them. I think it would be
>>>quite fun to set up a UNIX server in my homelab and have it host some services
>>>(WWW, Gopher, Gemini, etc), but I've heard plenty of horror stories about
>>>actually operating these things. Are there any commercial UNIX variants from
>>>the '90s-early '00s that aren't a complete and utter pain in the ass to
>>>administer? (especially coming from a Linux background)
>>>
>>>I'm thinking of going with Solaris, if only because I have some hardware (a
>>>Sun Fire system in unknown condition) that I could try to restore. But I know
>>>the installation process will definitely be a pain in the ass. The system
>>>doesn't have an optical drive, so I'll need to install Solaris over the
>>>network. No clue how to set up the server necessary for that - hopefully I can
>>>do it on OpenIndiana!
>>
>>I hate to be the one saying it, but ... it wasn't that cool. :-)
>
>As a long-time SVR3/4/4.2MP user, I found SunOs foreign, but
>Solaris was much more comfortable to work with.

It's more commercial Unix as a whole that I didn't find all that
cool.  

>I have a T1 in storage, with an external SCSI CDROM.  Have no
>idea if it still works.

I have some old Sun hardware down the basement that I need to
figure out how to jetison.  Kind of a shame in some sense, but
it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
have a need for it anymore.  :-/

>>Something that is kind of fun is to set up 4.3BSD on an emulated
>>VAX, though.
>
>I recently got VMS running on simh - it's been fun to revisit
>the late 70's and early 80's.  I started on a PDP-8 (TSS8.24) in 1976,
>followed by the HP-3000 in 1977 and the VAX in 1979.  I now have all
>three running in simulation for old-times-sake.

Nice!

	- Dan C.

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

#235056

On 6/16/26 05:59, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <gb%XR.132106$I0Ta.47907@fx05.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>> In article <nnd$6ea886ba$1c547b7f@9c94dd43bc13ac30>,
>>> Piper McCorkle  <contact@piperswe.me> wrote:
>>>> I've always been quite curious about commercial Unices, but when I was born
>>>> Linux had already put the writing on the wall for them. I think it would be
>>>> quite fun to set up a UNIX server in my homelab and have it host some services
>>>> (WWW, Gopher, Gemini, etc), but I've heard plenty of horror stories about
>>>> actually operating these things. Are there any commercial UNIX variants from
>>>> the '90s-early '00s that aren't a complete and utter pain in the ass to
>>>> administer? (especially coming from a Linux background)
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking of going with Solaris, if only because I have some hardware (a
>>>> Sun Fire system in unknown condition) that I could try to restore. But I know
>>>> the installation process will definitely be a pain in the ass. The system
>>>> doesn't have an optical drive, so I'll need to install Solaris over the
>>>> network. No clue how to set up the server necessary for that - hopefully I can
>>>> do it on OpenIndiana!
>>>
>>> I hate to be the one saying it, but ... it wasn't that cool. :-)
>>
>> As a long-time SVR3/4/4.2MP user, I found SunOs foreign, but
>> Solaris was much more comfortable to work with.
> 
> It's more commercial Unix as a whole that I didn't find all that
> cool.
> 
>> I have a T1 in storage, with an external SCSI CDROM.  Have no
>> idea if it still works.
> 
> I have some old Sun hardware down the basement that I need to
> figure out how to jetison.  Kind of a shame in some sense, but
> it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
> have a need for it anymore.  :-/

Every once in a while I get the idea that it might be fun to play with 
the actual old hardware, but then I shake myself and move on, for the 
reasons you mention.

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

#235106

  To: Peter Flass
  Re: Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26
  By: Peter Flass to alt.folklore.computers on Tue Jun 16 2026 07:30:57

 > > it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
 > > have a need for it anymore.  :-/
 > 
 > Every once in a while I get the idea that it might be fun to play with
 > the actual old hardware, but then I shake myself and move on, for the
 > reasons you mention.

Don't. It's still fun.
--- Synchronet 3.16c-Win32 NewsLink 1.103
MutinyBBS - telnet : mutinybbs.com:2332 - ssh : mutinybbs.com:2232

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

#235133

  To: Peter Flass
-=> Peter Flass wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 PF> Every once in a while I get the idea that it might be fun to play with
 PF> the actual old hardware, but then I shake myself and move on, for the
 PF> reasons you mention.

 I have an old steel tanker desk - finally a desk capable of supporting
 one of those SUN 21" CRT monitors! One of those beasts would have
 broken the cheap, particleboard IKEA desk I had when they were in
 circulation...

         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
                     | 1:218/700@fidonet



 
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

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

#235135

"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-83z-this> writes:
>  To: Peter Flass
>-=> Peter Flass wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> PF> Every once in a while I get the idea that it might be fun to play with
> PF> the actual old hardware, but then I shake myself and move on, for the
> PF> reasons you mention.
>
> I have an old steel tanker desk 

I have one (steelcase) as well.   Came from the electrodata/burroughs
pasadena plant, still has the asset tag.    Currently supporting
a very light-weight mac mini and a Burroughs T27 terminal.


>- finally a desk capable of supporting
> one of those SUN 21" CRT monitors! 

The SGI 24" monitor (rebranded Sony GDM-FW20) weighted in at 90#/41kg;
it was a very nice monitor for an SGI Octane dual processor box.

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

#235153

  To: scott
-=> scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 > I have an old steel tanker desk

 sc> I have one (steelcase) as well.   Came from the electrodata/burroughs
 sc> pasadena plant, still has the asset tag.    Currently supporting
 sc> a very light-weight mac mini and a Burroughs T27 terminal.

 I love mine - found it at a recycled home goods store called Urban Ore
 in Berkeley, CA - the finish is heavily patina, but hey - it was $75!

 Mine's got an ultrawide LCD on it, barely registering on the thing.


 
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Win32 NewsLink 1.2
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

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

#235157

"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-83z-this> writes:

>  To: Peter Flass
> -=> Peter Flass wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> PF> Every once in a while I get the idea that it might be fun to play with
> PF> the actual old hardware, but then I shake myself and move on, for the
> PF> reasons you mention.
>
> I have an old steel tanker desk - finally a desk capable of supporting
> one of those SUN 21" CRT monitors! One of those beasts would have
> broken the cheap, particleboard IKEA desk I had when they were in
> circulation...
>
>         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
>                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
>                     | 1:218/700@fidonet

A number of workplaces ago, I got a 21" HP monitor with a Trinitron for
my HP 9000. It sat in the middle of my desk until I noticed the desk top
was sagging in the center due to the weight of the monitor. I moved the
monitor to the side, but it was too late for that desk and it always
looked like an old horse ready for the glue factory afterwards.

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

#235156

Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:

> On 6/16/26 05:59, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <gb%XR.132106$I0Ta.47907@fx05.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>> In article <nnd$6ea886ba$1c547b7f@9c94dd43bc13ac30>,
>>>> Piper McCorkle  <contact@piperswe.me> wrote:
>>>>> I've always been quite curious about commercial Unices, but when I was born
>>>>> Linux had already put the writing on the wall for them. I think it would be
>>>>> quite fun to set up a UNIX server in my homelab and have it host some services
>>>>> (WWW, Gopher, Gemini, etc), but I've heard plenty of horror stories about
>>>>> actually operating these things. Are there any commercial UNIX variants from
>>>>> the '90s-early '00s that aren't a complete and utter pain in the ass to
>>>>> administer? (especially coming from a Linux background)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of going with Solaris, if only because I have some hardware (a
>>>>> Sun Fire system in unknown condition) that I could try to restore. But I know
>>>>> the installation process will definitely be a pain in the ass. The system
>>>>> doesn't have an optical drive, so I'll need to install Solaris over the
>>>>> network. No clue how to set up the server necessary for that - hopefully I can
>>>>> do it on OpenIndiana!
>>>>
>>>> I hate to be the one saying it, but ... it wasn't that cool. :-)
>>>
>>> As a long-time SVR3/4/4.2MP user, I found SunOs foreign, but
>>> Solaris was much more comfortable to work with.
>> It's more commercial Unix as a whole that I didn't find all that
>> cool.
>> 
>>> I have a T1 in storage, with an external SCSI CDROM.  Have no
>>> idea if it still works.
>> I have some old Sun hardware down the basement that I need to
>> figure out how to jetison.  Kind of a shame in some sense, but
>> it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
>> have a need for it anymore.  :-/
>
> Every once in a while I get the idea that it might be fun to play with
> the actual old hardware, but then I shake myself and move on, for the
> reasons you mention.

I get nostalgic in the same way, but then I go down to the basement and
look at my old Suns on the shelf and the feeling passes. :-) I have more
modern hardware than I have time to use, so digging out the old gear and
playing with it probably isn't going to happen.

In fact, browsing and posting on Usenet is the closest I get to legacy
computing a lot of the time now.

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

#235059

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>In article <gb%XR.132106$I0Ta.47907@fx05.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>I have a T1 in storage, with an external SCSI CDROM.  Have no
>>idea if it still works.
>
>I have some old Sun hardware down the basement that I need to
>figure out how to jetison.  Kind of a shame in some sense, but
>it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
>have a need for it anymore.  :-/

Yeah.  I had a couple of Indigos and an Indy that I finally
dropped off at a swap meet at the CHM, along with a couple
of NCD 17c X terminals.

I had used the X terminals for a few years before linux
grew up.

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

#235071

In article <OpdYR.493868$_BG8.200357@fx24.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>In article <gb%XR.132106$I0Ta.47907@fx05.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>I have a T1 in storage, with an external SCSI CDROM.  Have no
>>>idea if it still works.
>>
>>I have some old Sun hardware down the basement that I need to
>>figure out how to jetison.  Kind of a shame in some sense, but
>>it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
>>have a need for it anymore.  :-/
>
>Yeah.  I had a couple of Indigos and an Indy that I finally
>dropped off at a swap meet at the CHM, along with a couple
>of NCD 17c X terminals.
>
>I had used the X terminals for a few years before linux
>grew up.

I remember those.  I thought they were pretty nice for the time.
They had some kind of RISC CPU, right?

	- Dan C.

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

#235078

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>In article <OpdYR.493868$_BG8.200357@fx24.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>In article <gb%XR.132106$I0Ta.47907@fx05.iad>,
>>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>I have a T1 in storage, with an external SCSI CDROM.  Have no
>>>>idea if it still works.
>>>
>>>I have some old Sun hardware down the basement that I need to
>>>figure out how to jetison.  Kind of a shame in some sense, but
>>>it's big, it's heavy, it's power hungry, it's slow, and I don't
>>>have a need for it anymore.  :-/
>>
>>Yeah.  I had a couple of Indigos and an Indy that I finally
>>dropped off at a swap meet at the CHM, along with a couple
>>of NCD 17c X terminals.
>>
>>I had used the X terminals for a few years before linux
>>grew up.
>
>I remember those.  I thought they were pretty nice for the time.
>
>They had some kind of RISC CPU, right?
>
We originally had the monochrome NCD-16's.  The screen resolution
wasn't great, but it was better than using serial terminals.

We had a number of Motorola 88k VME systems and used the X terminals
when working on the distributed version of unix (using the Chorus
microkernel and SVR4 compatable unix subsystem actors) at
Convergent/Unisys.

The NCD 17c used a 68020 processor.  The NCD 17c was
much nicer than the 16s, with a 256 color palette and 1024x768 resolution.

Here's a picture of the mainboard.

https://bitsavers.org/pdf/ncd/NCD-17C/pictures/NCD-17C_1.JPG

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

#235080

On Wed, 17 Jun 2026 13:54:00 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>>I had used the X terminals for a few years before linux grew up.
>>
>>I remember those.  I thought they were pretty nice for the time.
>>
>>They had some kind of RISC CPU, right?
>>
> We originally had the monochrome NCD-16's.  The screen resolution wasn't
> great, but it was better than using serial terminals.

I remember going to a presentation by our computing service around 1990 or 
a bit earlier, given by the deputy software manager.

He extolled X terminals (we had NCDs) and confidently predicted that they 
were the future, and the PC was a passing fad.

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

#235085

On 2026-06-17, Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:

> I remember going to a presentation by our computing service around 1990 or 
> a bit earlier, given by the deputy software manager.
>
> He extolled X terminals (we had NCDs) and confidently predicted that they 
> were the future, and the PC was a passing fad.

In a way he might be right.  Many people's personal computers are now
nothing more than terminals to centralized e-mail and web servers.
We've come full circle: centralized -> distributed -> centralized.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  No artificial
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  intelligence was
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  used in the creation
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  of this post.

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

#235086 — [OT] Shifts in type of computing machinery (was: Re: Old commercial UNIX in '26)

On 2026-06-17, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-06-17, Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> I remember going to a presentation by our computing service around 1990 or 
>> a bit earlier, given by the deputy software manager.
>>
>> He extolled X terminals (we had NCDs) and confidently predicted that they 
>> were the future, and the PC was a passing fad.
>
> In a way he might be right.  Many people's personal computers are now
> nothing more than terminals to centralized e-mail and web servers.
> We've come full circle: centralized -> distributed -> centralized.

A possible danger that I see in this is that cheap, "generic" computing
machinery that you can use freely might end up going away with pushes
towards tablets and smartphones - which tend to be, from what I
understand, quite locked-down, and where the idea of just booting
install media to choose another system seems to be quite alien to the
point of requiring convoluted procedures or even cracks and is (in what
I'm sure can be legally challenged) considered something that voids the
warranty (at least Motorola seems to say this explicitly).

And that's with disregarding the whole issue of hardware compatibility
(maybe that'd get better if these systems weren't so locked down?).

So not only it becomes harder and more expensive to get PC-style
keyboard computers, it might even lead to a situation where you just
don't have that flexibility anymore because somehow smartphones and
tablets managed to set "fully locked down" as the new normal - which, to
be honest, isn't anything new as a concern, AFAIK this is perhaps the
main issue with "trusted computing" and "secure boot", the potential for
abuse is there too?

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web