shmuel+...@patriot.net (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes: > We had an SE in the mid 1970's who claimed that IBM was ready to ship > a TSS release with a virtual machine capability but pulled the plug on > it at the last minute. He claimed that performance was good, and was > not a happy camper when it was dropped. I don't know whether VM/XB was > based on that work or was done from scratch.
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#30 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#31 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#34 Regarding Time Sharing http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#35 Regarding Time Sharing an objective of VM/XB was to have microkernel that had common device support & error recovery for the mainstream operating systems (significant cost duplication having three different device support and error recovery) ... the stripped down tss/370 kernel example for at&t unix. as mainstream hudson valley jumped on vm/xb bloating to 500 people writing specs and nobody writting code ... there was contingent that things might still be saved by adapting the stripped down tss/370 kernel. it sacrificies much of my original objective of having microkernel that could run on high-end mainframe (aka LSRAD) as well as low-end (non-370) microprocessors. while tss/370 virtual machine mid-70s, could come close to vm/370 for virtual guest operation ... it still couldn't match vm370/cms for interactive computing (my work on virtual memory management and dynamic adaptive resource management). however, decade later (mid-80s), vm370 had gotten quite bloated ... while tss/370 had changed little ... and the stripped down kernel for AT&T unix platform had returned to much closer to the original cp67 microkernel. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN