RE: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
Yep, that was the place - I can't remember their name, I think they were the Autocad rep, and carried a few complementary lines like plotters. The R1 was laying down on some stands, like a coffee table, plexi cover so you could set your drinks on it and see all the intricate wiring, tubes and construction. One of the Texas Microsystems founders (and a Rice alum) got possession, and after a few years gave it back to Rice. Randy > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:09:48 -0500 > From: lini...@lonesome.com > To: rdawso...@hotmail.com > Subject: Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer? > CC: cctalk@classiccmp.org > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:24:47AM -0700, Randy Dawson wrote: > > There was a 'slice' of the R1 floating about with some friends of mine > > in Houston. > > Were they the owners of a small office building off of Post Oak in Houston > in the 1970s-1980s? > > That's the only one I know about that survived. > > mcl
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:38:00PM -0500, Jon Elson wrote: > Supposedly one in Australia is at least close to operational. The references to it are on one of the members.iinet.net.au sites. Currently only reachable through the Wayback Machine (see one of my other posts): https://web.archive.org/web/20141002192121/http://members.iinet.net.au/~dgreen/index.html It references the Australian Computer Museum Society ( http://acms.org.au/ ) but that site no longer contains any G-15 information that I can see. > I think the relays in the typewriter control had dirty contacts A problem from day one :-) > This is one of the major problems with the G-15, there was VERY poor > protection of the drum from dust. Oh wow. That's too bad. mcl
Re: internet blocking problem ?
Per your request, I tried the URL: http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html I did the search you requested, and tried the following URLs: http://members.iinet.com.au/~stepho/mick.htm http://members.iinet.net.au/~pontipak/redsquare.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~perthdps/convicts/stories.html http://www.iinet.net.au/~rmine/gctrebs.html http://www.iinet.net.au/~worcom http://members.iinet.net.au/~janwyllie/ http://members.iinet.net.au/~tom-hunter/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/ http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html In every case shown above, the result was the same: The server at members.iinet.net.au is taking too long to respond. Only two of the sites I tried gave a different result. They were: http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ It gave me a blank page. and http://members.iinet.net.au/~margretr/ It gave the following error message: "XML Parsing Error: unexpected parser state Location: jar:file:///C:/Program%20Files/Mozilla% 20Firefox/browser/omni.ja!/chrome/browser/content/browser/aboutNetError.xhtml Line Number 335, Column 68: &connectionFailure.longDesc;" My particulars are: 7:59 PM 9/10/2015 Gateway computer, connected by modem. Windows XP Professional v5.1 Firefox 35.0.1 Computer Country (ccountry.net) Medford, Oregon USA IP address: 12.73.18.147 You're welcome! Kurt > > So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in > the US, to check if they can view this page: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html > > > If you want to do some more research, just Google > members.iinet and you will see a lot of hits of the form: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~some_name > > Thanks for any help or info you can offer! > > Jon > > >
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
On 09/11/2015 11:31 AM, Cory Heisterkamp wrote: Are there any operational G-15's out there? Seems like this would be a good model to restore/demonstrate that doesn't come with all the usual baggage of a first gen machine (exotic power, A/C requirements, thousands of tubes, etc). -C Supposedly one in Australia is at least close to operational. I tried to help get a G-15D running at Washington University in about 1972. it was one of those NASA surplus deals, "you pay the shipping and it is yours". We got the G-15, typewriter and typewriter control box and several huge boxes of documents and paper tapes. It wasn't that hard to get power run to the machine, we had a lab available that was proven to be able to handle the heat load. But, then, it didn't seem to work. I think the relays in the typewriter control had dirty contacts, and there were a LOT of relays in there! The thing had 300 tubes of dubious quality. Finally, I determined that the drum was badly scored, there were several tracks that were scored down to the brass. So, obviously, no existing program could be expected to run, with several shot drum tracks. This is one of the major problems with the G-15, there was VERY poor protection of the drum from dust. They had a formed aluminum cover, but the cable bundle went through a hole with caterpillar grommet around it, so plenty of room for dirt to get in. The diode boards were paper-phenolic, and almost certainly would get more brittle as they aged. But, yes, it was a fairly simple machine, I don't think you could strip a tube computer down much further than the G-15 and still have it do useful work. Jon
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 09/11/2015 10:27 AM, Paul Koning wrote: FWIW: when I run into a web site issue due to filtering (or suspicion of same), I got to TOR. Apart from the confidentiality benefits it offers, you also get access from a completely different part of the world. An unpredictable place, admittedly. Just to explain why this is a problem, the various pages of the homebuilt CPU web ring all are supposed to link to David Brooks' page and a small javascript code that allows viewers of the various pages to jump to any of the other pages. As new pages are added to the ring (or dead ones removed) the javascript is updated to reflect that. So, it really is important that these pages link to a single copy of the javascript that is up to date. So, it is not a matter of me seeing David Brooks page one time, it is a matter of anybody who looks at my page or any of the other pages being able to get to all the other pages of the ring. And, with the great help of the classiccmp group, we have scoped out that this is actually a pretty large problem, about 54% of US and Canadian users cannot get to anything on members.iinet.net.au Jon
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:24:47AM -0700, Randy Dawson wrote: > There was a 'slice' of the R1 floating about with some friends of mine > in Houston. Were they the owners of a small office building off of Post Oak in Houston in the 1970s-1980s? That's the only one I know about that survived. mcl
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:27:47AM -0700, Al Kossow wrote: > A volunteer at CHM (Paul McJones) is scanning R1 documentation currently. Yes, I've already been talking to Paul. mcl
FS: three PDP-11 boards
I was going through my board collection and found three PDP-11 boards I've never used in years and don't see a foreseeable need. No idea of condition, but they're visually clean and neat, stored in antistatic bags. The serial cards came out of (my) working 11/23+ but I've not tested them (since I already have a 16-line card and only 2 terminals). I have (one each): M7957DZV11-M Quad height 4-line serial card M8053DMV11 "Microprogram Control" synchronous controller card Dilog CQ1610 16-line serial card. Make any reasonable offers. + shipping from US zip 65775. thanks Charles
Re: bendix GE-15?
His prices are pretty off the wall in general but he's got some neat ephemera if you browse through his other items. Lots of Univac boards, miscellaneous parts, old documentation, bits and pieces of several old computer lines... Best, Sean On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:59 PM, W2HX wrote: > > > > I think someone on one of the lists was inquring about this. Some items > that might be of interest > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-Bendix-G-15-Mainframe-Computer-Circuit-Board-Tester-/262042248871?hash=item3d02ef66a7 > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-Bendix-G-15-Mainframe-Computer-DA-1-Interface-Panel-Huge-Connectors-/361384840697?hash=item5424370df9 > > Wow, $575 for two switches, one meter, a few connectors, and some wire? > $125 for 5 connectors and switch? > > paul > >
Re: Spelling reforms [was RE: punchcard svg file available]
On 9/11/2015 12:03 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: From: Dave G4UGM Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:06 PM From: Liam Proven Sent: 10 September 2015 16:17 On 10 September 2015 at 15:42, Fred Cisin wrote: He also said that the colored pencils that I manually did graphs with were "COLOUR PENCILS". Sounds legit to me. But then in the old world we still spell the proper, old-fashioned-way. ;¬) I believe that historically "color" or "colour" was acceptable in English. Correct. "Colour" reflects Norman French, "color" reflects Latin. It was the Victorians that pushed the current "English" spellings in an attempt to "Latinise" or "Latinize" or even "Posh Up" English and Webster who pushed the simplified spellings that the USA uses today However, it was far earlier than the Victorians. Noah Webster (1758-1843) only overlaps the Victorian era by 6 years; he was reacting against the aristocratic spelling norms of the 17th and 18th centuries, when Latin and Greek were held to be more important than English in the learning of the latter language. His spelling book was originally published in 1783. Rich Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer Living Computer Museum 2245 1st Avenue S Seattle, WA 98134 mailto:ri...@livingcomputermuseum.org http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/ My earliest Webster is an 1820 copy. The last dictionary I bought was the CD version of the OED which was around $1000. I ended up with a copy for around $100. Now just use the spell check in whatever I'm in to keep me somewhat honest, and if I need something and have a browser handy, use the Google box on firefox to get me close to the correct spelling. Now choosing my words is different than spelling of course. Thanks Jim
Control Data 160
I have a CDC "160 Computer Programming Manual" that I obtained many years ago when I was working with CDC equipment. This manual caught my eye and I squirreled it away since we were using the 160-A computers not the 160s. This manual has a publication number of 023a and a date of 1960. The picture shown inside the manual is pretty much like the one described herein. It shows the dropped side panels. The manual shows the Ferranti paper tape reader and the BRPE paper tape punch as standard equipment. As optional equipment it shows Ampex magnetic tape handlers (FR300 or FR400), an 80 column punched card reader (no maker listed), an 80 column card punch (no maker listed), a line printer (no maker listed), a Soroban-modified IBM electric typewriter, and a digital communications line buffer. This manual has 45 pages and shows a full view of the computer and a close-up of the front panel. I always kept this as a kind of a CDC oddity as I had heard that the 160s were a proto type and never actually went into production. At least that is what I heard back then. I hope this information kind of helps to better identify these computers. Bill
Re: bendix GE-15?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:59 PM, W2HX wrote: > > I think someone on one of the lists was inquring about this. Some items that > might be of interest > http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-Bendix-G-15-Mainframe-Computer-Circuit-Board-Tester-/262042248871?hash=item3d02ef66a7 > http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-Bendix-G-15-Mainframe-Computer-DA-1-Interface-Panel-Huge-Connectors-/361384840697?hash=item5424370df9 Wow, $575 for two switches, one meter, a few connectors, and some wire? $125 for 5 connectors and switch? paul
RE: 21MX proms (per request
Gerard wrote HOW OFTEN theses old PROM fail ?? Who had been through this problem and does it "really" worth to have some blanks "just in case" ?? 1) Once is enough, if it is the only known copy of that particular rom. But in general they are very reliable. More often than not - when they fail - something else took them out in the process of it's failure. I have had a prom failure all by itself though. 2) It's extremely worth it. For one many of the machines run by people on this list immediately become boatanchors if a prom fails, especially if it's a microcode rom. Second... you're missing the more general case - say I have a HP21MX that was running 2000/Access and I now want to run RTE-6/VM. Guess what - I need the microcode roms that are required for RTE-6/VM. Fortunately, other collectors have taken the time to copy their proms and upload them online (bitsavers is a great example). So I can download their rom images and burn a new set for running new software I had not been able to run before. Another example - say my machine came with only paper tape. Two years later I happen to acquire a disc drive. Sure would be nice if I could just download the loader rom image and burn it so that I can boot from that device. With a burner and blanks, all that is possible. Best, J
bendix GE-15?
I think someone on one of the lists was inquring about this. Some items that might be of interest http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-Bendix-G-15-Mainframe-Computer-Circuit-Board-Tester-/262042248871?hash=item3d02ef66a7 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Vintage-Bendix-G-15-Mainframe-Computer-DA-1-Interface-Panel-Huge-Connectors-/361384840697?hash=item5424370df9 and a bunch of magazine advertisements Eugene
Re: internet blocking problem ?
Me too, especially as a working sys admin ... the business model is not really original ... just the old time "service bureau" or "timesharing company" but we have to have a hip new marketing catchname for it, LOL... Well, if I've learned one thing, the computer industry is kind of like the fashion industry ... cyclical ... one year it will be distributed services; ten years later it's centralization ... one year "cloud" is the fad ... but I think in ten years we'll all be moving to pull our services back in house, LOL. Best, Sean On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Jay West wrote: > Ben wrote > > What I find more annoying, is this cloud crap. > > "There is no such thing as 'the cloud', it's just someone else's computer." > > Love that quote... so true... and I sell cloud services ;) > > J > > > >
RE: 21MX proms (per request
That triggers again a question I had for a while ... HOW OFTEN theses old PROM fail ?? Who had been through this problem and does it "really" worth to have some blanks "just in case" ?? --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RE: Somewhat OT: Freighting Items
> I hope it all works out OK and let us know how it goes! > > Todd Well a quick update to this story. For a while it did not look like this was going to happen because the seller just did not want to pack. As a result we were getting quotes of $700-$800 proportions. The lowest was $595 if the seller dropped it off at the shipping center (they would pack and deliver) which the seller did not want to do. At this point it was going to be extremely cost ineffective and I was ready to call the whole thing off when the seller came around and decided to pack the item on a pallet (which he got for free from HD). That brought cost of pickup and delivery down to $368. Item is to ship out Monday and here in California by Friday. Will report back then on the success of the endeavor. Thanks again to everyone for all the help! -Ali
Re: Spelling reforms [was RE: punchcard svg file available]
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 09/11/2015 12:03 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: However, it was far earlier than the Victorians. Noah Webster (1758-1843) only overlaps the Victorian era by 6 years; he was reacting against the aristocratic spelling norms of the 17th and 18th centuries, when Latin and Greek were held to be more important than English in the learning of the latter language. His spelling book was originally published in 1783. It should be noted that neither Webster, nor Col. McCormick (he of the Chicago Tribune simplified spelling) got all of what they wanted. Webster wanted spellings of "ake", "soop", "cloke", "wimmen"... The NEA in the 1890s accounted for "catalog", "prolog", "program"... Then there was the Simplified Spelling Board of 1906, advocated by Andrew Carnegie and Theodore Roosevelt. Congress didn't much care for the 300-word list, but some spellings made it into modern usage. "Meter", "maneuver", "orthopedic", "omelet", "sulfate", "wagon" are among those. Thus, US spelling has been a work in progress. This discussion reminds me of this quote: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary." :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Spelling reforms [was RE: punchcard svg file available]
On 09/11/2015 12:03 PM, Rich Alderson wrote: However, it was far earlier than the Victorians. Noah Webster (1758-1843) only overlaps the Victorian era by 6 years; he was reacting against the aristocratic spelling norms of the 17th and 18th centuries, when Latin and Greek were held to be more important than English in the learning of the latter language. His spelling book was originally published in 1783. It should be noted that neither Webster, nor Col. McCormick (he of the Chicago Tribune simplified spelling) got all of what they wanted. Webster wanted spellings of "ake", "soop", "cloke", "wimmen"... The NEA in the 1890s accounted for "catalog", "prolog", "program"... Then there was the Simplified Spelling Board of 1906, advocated by Andrew Carnegie and Theodore Roosevelt. Congress didn't much care for the 300-word list, but some spellings made it into modern usage. "Meter", "maneuver", "orthopedic", "omelet", "sulfate", "wagon" are among those. Thus, US spelling has been a work in progress. To their credit, even the English have adopted some of these. How many British write "aera" for "era" nowadays? --Chuck
Spelling reforms [was RE: punchcard svg file available]
From: Dave G4UGM Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:06 PM >> From: Liam Proven >> Sent: 10 September 2015 16:17 >> On 10 September 2015 at 15:42, Fred Cisin wrote: >>> He also said that the colored pencils that I manually did graphs with >>> were "COLOUR PENCILS". >> Sounds legit to me. But then in the old world we still spell the proper, >> old-fashioned-way. ;¬) > I believe that historically "color" or "colour" was acceptable in English. Correct. "Colour" reflects Norman French, "color" reflects Latin. > It was the Victorians that pushed the current "English" spellings in an > attempt to "Latinise" or "Latinize" or even "Posh Up" English and Webster > who pushed the simplified spellings that the USA uses today However, it was far earlier than the Victorians. Noah Webster (1758-1843) only overlaps the Victorian era by 6 years; he was reacting against the aristocratic spelling norms of the 17th and 18th centuries, when Latin and Greek were held to be more important than English in the learning of the latter language. His spelling book was originally published in 1783. Rich Rich Alderson Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer Living Computer Museum 2245 1st Avenue S Seattle, WA 98134 mailto:ri...@livingcomputermuseum.org http://www.LivingComputerMuseum.org/
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On 9/11/2015 8:39 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2015-09-11 16:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Jon Elson elson > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the limited > memory was a big killer. The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the reason you point out.) WHile I agree that the PDP-11 is a wonderful architecture, it really is a few bits short of perfect, both for addressing, and for opcode allocation. NOW if the had made the PDP 11 - 18 bits I think we could have had a winner. It is the loss of two address bits that is the problem with 16 bits. The is obvious when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could not retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of bits. Too bad we got the 8086 rather than PDP-11 style (simplified design?) for 8/16 bit CPU. Johnny Ben.
RE: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
There was a 'slice' of the R1 floating about with some friends of mine in Houston. It was about the size and shape of the 2001 monolith. From what I was told, it represented one register, probably a byte, and constructed of about 100 vacuum tubes. It served as a conversation piece and a coffee table (beer table) at a CAD rep firm, later sat for a few years in a friends garage next to Billy Gibbons twin red Thunderbirds (he was a collector of toys like this). This particular piece of the R1 now sits in the Rice Library in the Woodson Research Center. I encourage anyone while in Houston to go have a look, the construction is a work of art, and beautiful. Randy > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:28:04 -0500 > From: lini...@lonesome.com > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer? > CC: lini...@lonesome.com > > So I have finally been prodded by some people to put together a web > page for the G-15 computer. As well, I am going to put up information > about the Rice Research Computer (later known as the R1), and its > intended succesor, the R2. > > Right now my web pages are pretty skeletal and mostly consist of > some old G-15 documentation scans I did in early 2000. Apparently > I have some things that are not on Bitsavers (yet). I have at least > one more document that I need to scan, the Technical Manual. > > I do have some R1 documentation which I intend to scan and then send > to either CHM or Rice University Fondren Library. > > To some of you that I have already contacted off-list, this will be > duplicate information. Sorry about that. To the others, please let me > know if you have any information about these computers that you would > be willing to share publicly. > > Also, beta-testers of the website would be appreciated; email me off- > list for the URLs. I mean, it it _really_ skeletal (e.g. 2 days old.) > > mcl
Re: punchcard svg file available
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, William Donzelli wrote: Five years ago the paper stock was still available in the US, and you could get cards from Cardamation as well. A lot of bad things have happened in the last five years.
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 9/11/2015 11:58 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Jon Elson > > > so MANY others who could not access the members.iinet page were finding > > they got stopped at cogentco. >^^^ > > Well, to be precise 'Cogentco was the last node on the route which > responded'. > > It's impossible to say whether i) that node tossed packets that tried to go > further; ii) it forwarded them to some other node (identity unknown) which > did toss them (and didn't allow/handle traceroute), etc. > Strictly true. However if Cogent were blocking them, they would most likely block them at *ingress* rather than egress - more efficient. My guess is that it is the next node - the first unidentified node - that is doing the blocking. > One can't draw any conclusions about whether it's i) from the fact that it's > _also_ still responding to traceroute packets sent to that address: one would > have to know whether it does the a) 'is this packet to a destination I'm > filtering' check before it does the b) 'I decremented the TTL and it's now > zero', or the other way around. If b) it could be the node that's dropping > the packets. > > But given that other 'last hops' are also producing similar results, I'm > still thinking it's Ii.net which is tossing the packets, not the 'last hop' > one can see on traceroutes. I expect that is correct. JRJ
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 9/11/2015 10:52 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote: >> >> >> I cannot make a connection. My DNS is able to resolve the address. >> > > I saw the same sort of thing but I let traceroute keep running. The result > is that it started giving real answers again just one or two hops later. > > Conclusion: hops 16-20ish are blocking traceroute packets. Later hops aren't. > > It's hard to be patient sometimes, but while * * * sometimes indicates "this > is as far as you get" it may also indicate just a few nodes that are not > cooperating with traceroute on a functional route. > > paul > > Not me. 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * Also, if an ISP is actually blocking traceroute packets, then the trace will STOP THERE - it can't get past that point. JRJ
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
> From: Johnny Billquist > it really is a few bits short of perfect ... > .. when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could not > retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of bits. Well, if they'd tried to keep the same general layout, I don't think EIS, floating point, etc would have all fit in 16 bits. Maybe they should have made it a 18-bit machine? ;-) But I keep circling back to the observation that the -11 architecture's incredible flexibility/complexity ratio happened precisely _because_ it had to be crammed into 16 bits (along with a big dollop of genius :-). Given that I think the big challenge of the next generation of computer science is going to be managing complexity, it's too bad we don't teach more young CS students the -11 and UnixV6 - to show them just how much you _can_ do, with how _little_, if you put your mind to it. > I still would not consider overlays as any part of the PDP-11 > architecture. But maybe that is just me. No, I agree with you 100%. Plenty of PDP-11 OS's did not support them. Noel
Re: IBM 026
who could be lucky enough to own 2 link 8s? Ed@ In a message dated 9/11/2015 10:22:34 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, wdonze...@gmail.com writes: Yeah, about those... Warning! Warning! -- Will On Sep 11, 2015 11:06 AM, "Paul Koning" wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > >> From: Ed Sharpe > > > >> well SMECC needs one hopefully to make work so we can show the youn'ins > >> how cards were punched! > > > > Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good > enough > > for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money: > > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725 > > Is that TWO Linc-eight systems in the background??? > > paul > >
Re: IBM 026
Yeah, about those... Warning! Warning! -- Will On Sep 11, 2015 11:06 AM, "Paul Koning" wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > >> From: Ed Sharpe > > > >> well SMECC needs one hopefully to make work so we can show the youn'ins > >> how cards were punched! > > > > Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good > enough > > for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money: > > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725 > > Is that TWO Linc-eight systems in the background??? > > paul > >
Re: IBM 026
2015-09-11 17:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Koning : > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > >> From: Ed Sharpe > > > >> well SMECC needs one hopefully to make work so we can show the youn'ins > >> how cards were punched! > > > > Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good > enough > > for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money: > > > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725 > > Is that TWO Linc-eight systems in the background??? > > paul > > There also seems to be a TC0x controller and a TU55 drive in the background of some of the other pictures.
Re: internet blocking problem ?
> From: Jon Elson > so MANY others who could not access the members.iinet page were finding > they got stopped at cogentco. ^^^ Well, to be precise 'Cogentco was the last node on the route which responded'. It's impossible to say whether i) that node tossed packets that tried to go further; ii) it forwarded them to some other node (identity unknown) which did toss them (and didn't allow/handle traceroute), etc. One can't draw any conclusions about whether it's i) from the fact that it's _also_ still responding to traceroute packets sent to that address: one would have to know whether it does the a) 'is this packet to a destination I'm filtering' check before it does the b) 'I decremented the TTL and it's now zero', or the other way around. If b) it could be the node that's dropping the packets. But given that other 'last hops' are also producing similar results, I'm still thinking it's Ii.net which is tossing the packets, not the 'last hop' one can see on traceroutes. Noel
Re: internet blocking problem ?
Works fine, save for the individual web-ring pages not being able to populate the buttons correctly. Going directly to a members... page does work from this proxy. -Gary On 09/11/2015 09:40 AM, Gary Oliver wrote: I fired up a proxy on amazon ec2 virginia this morning and it works fine from there. Strange geographic filtering... -Gary On 09/10/2015 09:11 PM, Gary Oliver wrote: The amazon instance is in the US West region (north-central Oregon I presume.) Tomorrow I'll fire up a proxy on the east coast and see what happens. -Gary
Re: KDJ11-A/M8192 identified as PDT11/50 from resorc /a?
Jerome H. Fine wrote: > >Holm Tiffe wrote: > > >..have repaired a HH725 Harddisk /TA7245BP was bad since a tantal Elko had > >a short) and booted now RT11 V5.07 with the new now repaired 1/73 CPU. > > > >Resorc /A give the following informations: > > > >.resorc /a > > > >RT-11XB (S) V05.07 > > > >Booted from DL0:RT11XB > >Resident Monitor base is 111774 (37884.) > >USR is set NOSWAP > >TT is set NOQUIET > >Indirect file abort level is ERROR > >Indirect file nesting depth is 3 > > > >PDT 11/150 Processor > >FP11 Hardware Floating Point Unit > >Extended Instruction Set (EIS) > >KT11 Memory Management Unit > >Cache Memory > >50 Cycle System Clock > > > >Device I/O time-out support > >Multi-terminal support > > > >Hmm, is that normal that the CPU gets identified as PDT11/150? > >Interestingly it finds an FP11 but the Socket is empty. > > > > > I suspect that somehow, somewhere you have managed > to include the RESORC.SAV file from V04.00 of RT-11 > (which was released in 1980) or at least a version of RT-11 > prior to V05.00 (which was released in 1983). > > If I remember correctly, that version of RT-11 did not > include support for the PDP-11/73 CPU since I don't > think that any of the PDP-11/73 boards were released > until after 1980. > > Furthermore, I just booted a standard distribution of > V05.07 of RT-11 using the standard RT11XM monitor > distributed by Mentec for V05.07 of RT-11. I ran > using a PDP-11/73 CPU (actually under Ersatz-11) > > I then MOUNTed a DSK file which contained the V04.00 > RT-11 distribution: > > MOUNT LD0: DU0:RTV4RK.00/NOWR > RUN LD0:RESORC /Z > > and the result that you displayed was essentially duplicated, > with about the only difference being the Resident Monitor > base address since RT11XM was being used. > > If you type: > RUN SY:RESORC > and follow the command with 2 s, the version > of RESORC.SAV which is being used will be displayed. > It will probably say: > RESORC V4.00 [..] > If you have any other questions, please ask. > > Jerome Fine You are exactly right! It displays V4.00. I must take a look to my old SIMH installation since I wrote the tapes from which I've installed the disk from there.. IMHO I've donloaded it with exactly that resorc.sav. I'll try to find another one .. and a way to get it onto the disk finally. As far as I remember I had an SIMH installation on my previous PC and wrote tape files there that I copied to real tapes from which I finally installed that RT11. (I have the disk contents of the previous PC archived on tapes) Thanks Jerome! Holm -- Technik Service u. Handel Tiffe, www.tsht.de, Holm Tiffe, Freiberger Straße 42, 09600 Oberschöna, USt-Id: DE253710583 www.tsht.de, i...@tsht.de, Fax +49 3731 74200, Mobil: 0172 8790 741
RE: internet blocking problem ?
> "There is no such thing as 'the cloud', it's just someone else's > computer." > > Love that quote... so true... and I sell cloud services ;) Jay, I am going to have to use that quote with my friends who like having their life on the cloud... -Ali
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
Are there any operational G-15's out there? Seems like this would be a good model to restore/demonstrate that doesn't come with all the usual baggage of a first gen machine (exotic power, A/C requirements, thousands of tubes, etc). -C MARCH's is untested. We plan to restore it one day.
Re: internet blocking problem ?
I fired up a proxy on amazon ec2 virginia this morning and it works fine from there. Strange geographic filtering... -Gary On 09/10/2015 09:11 PM, Gary Oliver wrote: The amazon instance is in the US West region (north-central Oregon I presume.) Tomorrow I'll fire up a proxy on the east coast and see what happens. -Gary
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
Are there any operational G-15's out there? Seems like this would be a good model to restore/demonstrate that doesn't come with all the usual baggage of a first gen machine (exotic power, A/C requirements, thousands of tubes, etc). -C On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Al Kossow wrote: > On 9/11/15 8:28 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: > > I do have some R1 documentation which I intend to scan and then send >> to either CHM or Rice University Fondren Library. >> >> > A volunteer at CHM (Paul McJones) is scanning R1 documentation currently. > > > >
Overlays - was Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
> - Original Message - > From: "Paul Koning" > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > Sent: Friday, 11 September, 2015 4:58:41 PM > I agree. You can use overlays on any hardware platform that has random > access secondary storage. > You need it if your programs are larger than your primary memory. … Overlays were also commonly used on Mag Tape systems before disk became common. The George 1 and 2 operating systems for the ICL1900 series (and many compilers) came in both disk overlaid and tape overlaid versions (e.g. the Fortran compiler XFAE was disk overlaid, XFAM was tape overlaid but otherwise identical - both were designed for 16K word systems allowing about 3K for Exec and the "run-time" overlay of George.) Andy
Re: information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
On 9/11/15 8:28 AM, Mark Linimon wrote: I do have some R1 documentation which I intend to scan and then send to either CHM or Rice University Fondren Library. A volunteer at CHM (Paul McJones) is scanning R1 documentation currently.
Re: internet blocking problem ?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > >> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote: >> >> On 9/10/2015 8:32 PM, Jon Elson wrote: >> >>> >>> So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to >>> check if they can view this page: >>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html >>> >>> >> >> I cannot make a connection. My DNS is able to resolve the address. >> >> ISP is Charter cable, Madison WI (Fitchburg, from the DNS name), then to >> Eau Claire WI, then Chicago, IL where it looks like they apparently peer >> with Cogent. >> >> As with others, the traceroute stopped at Cogent. Note that this may >> mean that the next hop after that blocks all of the packets or it could >> mean that the next hop is blocking just the traceroute packets. >> >> JRJ >> >> 1 * * * >> 2 dtr01ftbgwi-tge-0-6-0-3.ftbg.wi.charter.com (96.34.25.58) 15.413 ms >> 16.531 ms 16.524 ms >> 3 crr01ftbgwi-bue-4.ftbg.wi.charter.com (96.34.18.108) 23.528 ms >> 21.479 ms 23.501 ms >> 4 crr01euclwi-bue-1.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.16.77) 21.431 ms * * >> 5 bbr01euclwi-bue-4.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.2.4) 21.157 ms 21.153 >> ms 21.318 ms >> 6 bbr02euclwi-bue-5.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.0.7) 25.319 ms 16.876 >> ms 22.938 ms >> 7 bbr01chcgil-bue-1.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.9) 25.460 ms 26.958 >> ms 23.483 ms >> 8 bbr02chcgil-bue-6.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.67) 26.751 ms >> 27.724 ms 27.695 ms >> 9 te0-18-0-2.ccr41.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.122.181.65) 25.728 ms >> 30.118 ms 28.197 ms >> 10 be2216.ccr41.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.201) 27.315 ms >> 27.427 ms be2217.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.205) 27.389 ms >> 11 be2156.ccr21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.85) 41.659 ms >> be2157.ccr22.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.117) 40.758 ms 38.666 ms >> 12 be2432.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.133) 47.510 ms >> be2433.ccr22.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.213) 53.865 ms >> be2432.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.133) 52.515 ms >> 13 be2441.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.65) 53.141 ms >> be2443.ccr22.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.229) 55.853 ms >> be2441.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.65) 55.407 ms >> 14 be2066.ccr22.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.54) 86.437 ms >> be2065.ccr21.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.66) 89.222 ms 87.085 ms >> 15 be2017.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.237) 94.160 ms >> be2019.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.88.10) 90.385 ms 88.573 ms >> 16 * * * >> 17 * * * >> 18 * * * >> 19 * *^C > > I saw the same sort of thing but I let traceroute keep running. The result > is that it started giving real answers again just one or two hops later. > > Conclusion: hops 16-20ish are blocking traceroute packets. Later hops aren't. > > It's hard to be patient sometimes, but while * * * sometimes indicates "this > is as far as you get" it may also indicate just a few nodes that are not > cooperating with traceroute on a functional route. Sorry, I misremembered the different traceroute runs. The one that goes into cogentco fails for me too, all the way to 64 hops. But I had a different traceroute run from a different location that shows gtt.net, then 5 lines of * * *, then ii.net and on to the destination. So * * * is not necessarily the sign of a black hole, though it can be that. paul
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > ... > Overlays were a way to try getting around the address space limitations. I > still would not consider overlays as any part of the PDP-11 architecture. But > maybe that is just me. I agree. You can use overlays on any hardware platform that has random access secondary storage. You need it if your programs are larger than your primary memory. It's found on many machines prior to the arrival of really large memories and address spaces. And you could use it even there -- there's nothing that prevents the use of overlays on a VAX, for example, though in practice I doubt it has been done. The main alternative is paging, which is easier to use at the expense of lower performance. That follows from the fact that paging is done by an automatic mechanism that isn't aware of what the application is doing, while overlays are designed by a programmer who is (usually) smarter than the paging automaton. There are in-between approaches, where code and data are broken into fixed size pages that are paged in and out automatically, but the assignment of bits of code or data to pages is optimized by the programmer to improve performance. The THE operating system is a nice early (mid 1960s) example of this. paul
Re: internet blocking problem ?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote: > > On 9/10/2015 8:32 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > >> >> So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to >> check if they can view this page: >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html >> >> > > I cannot make a connection. My DNS is able to resolve the address. > > ISP is Charter cable, Madison WI (Fitchburg, from the DNS name), then to > Eau Claire WI, then Chicago, IL where it looks like they apparently peer > with Cogent. > > As with others, the traceroute stopped at Cogent. Note that this may > mean that the next hop after that blocks all of the packets or it could > mean that the next hop is blocking just the traceroute packets. > > JRJ > > 1 * * * > 2 dtr01ftbgwi-tge-0-6-0-3.ftbg.wi.charter.com (96.34.25.58) 15.413 ms > 16.531 ms 16.524 ms > 3 crr01ftbgwi-bue-4.ftbg.wi.charter.com (96.34.18.108) 23.528 ms > 21.479 ms 23.501 ms > 4 crr01euclwi-bue-1.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.16.77) 21.431 ms * * > 5 bbr01euclwi-bue-4.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.2.4) 21.157 ms 21.153 > ms 21.318 ms > 6 bbr02euclwi-bue-5.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.0.7) 25.319 ms 16.876 > ms 22.938 ms > 7 bbr01chcgil-bue-1.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.9) 25.460 ms 26.958 > ms 23.483 ms > 8 bbr02chcgil-bue-6.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.67) 26.751 ms > 27.724 ms 27.695 ms > 9 te0-18-0-2.ccr41.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.122.181.65) 25.728 ms > 30.118 ms 28.197 ms > 10 be2216.ccr41.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.201) 27.315 ms > 27.427 ms be2217.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.205) 27.389 ms > 11 be2156.ccr21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.85) 41.659 ms > be2157.ccr22.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.117) 40.758 ms 38.666 ms > 12 be2432.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.133) 47.510 ms > be2433.ccr22.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.213) 53.865 ms > be2432.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.133) 52.515 ms > 13 be2441.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.65) 53.141 ms > be2443.ccr22.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.229) 55.853 ms > be2441.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.65) 55.407 ms > 14 be2066.ccr22.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.54) 86.437 ms > be2065.ccr21.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.66) 89.222 ms 87.085 ms > 15 be2017.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.237) 94.160 ms > be2019.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.88.10) 90.385 ms 88.573 ms > 16 * * * > 17 * * * > 18 * * * > 19 * *^C I saw the same sort of thing but I let traceroute keep running. The result is that it started giving real answers again just one or two hops later. Conclusion: hops 16-20ish are blocking traceroute packets. Later hops aren't. It's hard to be patient sometimes, but while * * * sometimes indicates "this is as far as you get" it may also indicate just a few nodes that are not cooperating with traceroute on a functional route. paul
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On 2015-09-11 17:33, Warner Losh wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2015-09-11 16:49, Warner Losh wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2015-09-11 16:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Jon Elson elson > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the limited > memory was a big killer. The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the reason you point out.) WHile I agree that the PDP-11 is a wonderful architecture, it really is a few bits short of perfect, both for addressing, and for opcode allocation. The is obvious when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could not retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of bits. I loved the PDP-11 architecture, until I wanted to run programs on it that relied on the overlay manager and the overlays got to be 8 or 9 deep. Then it was... painful. Uh? What do that have to do with the PDP-11 architecture? Overlays are a thing specific to the operating system and linker, and looks and works differently in different OSes on the PDP-11, if they have them at all. Mind you, even having said that, overlays are just a userland implementation of demand paging. Conceptually they are dead easy. Now, the overlay description language, as well as the capabilities in RSX, can make people seasick. But once you've worked with them for a while, you realized that most of the time it is not that tricky. Well, the 16-bit address space forced a maximum limit on the text size of the program that could be in memory at any time. This made the overlay stuff trickier, since you had to use some kind of overlays (either managed by the linker or the OS or some experimental home-grown stuff we tried). Sure, the details were OS specific, but the tight memory of the architecture forced some kind of mechanism. If your text space was <64k, then OS demand paging was good. But if you needed more, there were no real good choices. Ok. Well, yes, I believe we all agree that a larger address space would have been nice. Even DEC noted that one pretty soon. Just like Jon Elson said initially. :-) Overlays were a way to try getting around the address space limitations. I still would not consider overlays as any part of the PDP-11 architecture. But maybe that is just me. Johnny
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On 2015-09-11 17:28, Paul Koning wrote: On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Warner Losh wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Paul Koning wrote: ... For efficient overlays, RT-11 with Link tends to be better. It's less flexible but that reduced flexibility enforces more care in overlay design, and the implementation is a whole lot faster. True. We were running under RSTS-E and so had some more flexibility. However, by the time we got to this overlay structure, we knew we'd done something horribly wrong and spent several weeks slimming down the program, reducing the number of parameters to some routines and redesigning some code to have either simpler algorithms, or inlining some code. We slimmed it by 30% but more importantly went from about 8 overlay depth to 3. Still slow, but it was acceptably slow rather than insane. The nice thing about RSTS/E is that you can use either the RT11 or the RSX tools, according to which is the best answer for what you're doing. And that gives you a choice of overlay schemes (regions with LINK, or trees with TKB). True. However, depending on which language they were using, that could limit them to just one or the other RTS. If your compiler generated code for RSX, you still could not use the RT-11 linker. Johnny
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 9/10/2015 8:32 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > > So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to > check if they can view this page: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html > > I cannot make a connection. My DNS is able to resolve the address. ISP is Charter cable, Madison WI (Fitchburg, from the DNS name), then to Eau Claire WI, then Chicago, IL where it looks like they apparently peer with Cogent. As with others, the traceroute stopped at Cogent. Note that this may mean that the next hop after that blocks all of the packets or it could mean that the next hop is blocking just the traceroute packets. JRJ 1 * * * 2 dtr01ftbgwi-tge-0-6-0-3.ftbg.wi.charter.com (96.34.25.58) 15.413 ms 16.531 ms 16.524 ms 3 crr01ftbgwi-bue-4.ftbg.wi.charter.com (96.34.18.108) 23.528 ms 21.479 ms 23.501 ms 4 crr01euclwi-bue-1.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.16.77) 21.431 ms * * 5 bbr01euclwi-bue-4.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.2.4) 21.157 ms 21.153 ms 21.318 ms 6 bbr02euclwi-bue-5.eucl.wi.charter.com (96.34.0.7) 25.319 ms 16.876 ms 22.938 ms 7 bbr01chcgil-bue-1.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.9) 25.460 ms 26.958 ms 23.483 ms 8 bbr02chcgil-bue-6.chcg.il.charter.com (96.34.0.67) 26.751 ms 27.724 ms 27.695 ms 9 te0-18-0-2.ccr41.ord03.atlas.cogentco.com (38.122.181.65) 25.728 ms 30.118 ms 28.197 ms 10 be2216.ccr41.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.201) 27.315 ms 27.427 ms be2217.ccr42.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.24.205) 27.389 ms 11 be2156.ccr21.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.85) 41.659 ms be2157.ccr22.mci01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.117) 40.758 ms 38.666 ms 12 be2432.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.133) 47.510 ms be2433.ccr22.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.213) 53.865 ms be2432.ccr21.dfw01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.133) 52.515 ms 13 be2441.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.65) 53.141 ms be2443.ccr22.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.44.229) 55.853 ms be2441.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.65) 55.407 ms 14 be2066.ccr22.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.7.54) 86.437 ms be2065.ccr21.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.5.66) 89.222 ms 87.085 ms 15 be2017.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.237) 94.160 ms be2019.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.88.10) 90.385 ms 88.573 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * *^C
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2015-09-11 16:49, Warner Losh wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Johnny Billquist >> wrote: >> >> On 2015-09-11 16:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> >>> > From: Jon Elson elson > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the limited > memory was a big killer. The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the reason you point out.) >>> WHile I agree that the PDP-11 is a wonderful architecture, it really is a >>> few bits short of perfect, both for addressing, and for opcode >>> allocation. >>> >>> The is obvious when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could >>> not retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of >>> bits. >>> >> >> >> I loved the PDP-11 architecture, until I wanted to run programs on it that >> relied on the overlay manager and the overlays got to be 8 or 9 deep. Then >> it was... painful. >> > > Uh? What do that have to do with the PDP-11 architecture? Overlays are a > thing specific to the operating system and linker, and looks and works > differently in different OSes on the PDP-11, if they have them at all. > > Mind you, even having said that, overlays are just a userland > implementation of demand paging. Conceptually they are dead easy. > Now, the overlay description language, as well as the capabilities in RSX, > can make people seasick. But once you've worked with them for a while, you > realized that most of the time it is not that tricky. Well, the 16-bit address space forced a maximum limit on the text size of the program that could be in memory at any time. This made the overlay stuff trickier, since you had to use some kind of overlays (either managed by the linker or the OS or some experimental home-grown stuff we tried). Sure, the details were OS specific, but the tight memory of the architecture forced some kind of mechanism. If your text space was <64k, then OS demand paging was good. But if you needed more, there were no real good choices. Warner
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> ... >> For efficient overlays, RT-11 with Link tends to be better. It's less >> flexible but that reduced flexibility enforces more care in overlay design, >> and the implementation is a whole lot faster. > > > True. We were running under RSTS-E and so had some more flexibility. > However, by the time we got to this overlay structure, we knew we'd done > something horribly wrong and spent several weeks slimming down the program, > reducing the number of parameters to some routines and redesigning some > code to have either simpler algorithms, or inlining some code. We slimmed > it by 30% but more importantly went from about 8 overlay depth to 3. Still > slow, but it was acceptably slow rather than insane. The nice thing about RSTS/E is that you can use either the RT11 or the RSX tools, according to which is the best answer for what you're doing. And that gives you a choice of overlay schemes (regions with LINK, or trees with TKB). paul
information about the Bendix G-15 and Rice Research Computer?
So I have finally been prodded by some people to put together a web page for the G-15 computer. As well, I am going to put up information about the Rice Research Computer (later known as the R1), and its intended succesor, the R2. Right now my web pages are pretty skeletal and mostly consist of some old G-15 documentation scans I did in early 2000. Apparently I have some things that are not on Bitsavers (yet). I have at least one more document that I need to scan, the Technical Manual. I do have some R1 documentation which I intend to scan and then send to either CHM or Rice University Fondren Library. To some of you that I have already contacted off-list, this will be duplicate information. Sorry about that. To the others, please let me know if you have any information about these computers that you would be willing to share publicly. Also, beta-testers of the website would be appreciated; email me off- list for the URLs. I mean, it it _really_ skeletal (e.g. 2 days old.) mcl
Re: internet blocking problem ?
>> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:32:11 -0500 >> Jon Elson wrote: >> >>> Hello, all, >>> >>> I am a member of the Homebuilt CPU web-ring, and a really >>> weird problem has turned up. The guy who administers the >>> ring, David Brooks, is in Australia, and uses iinet.net.au >>> as his ISP. All members of the web ring link to his >>> personal web pages at iinet. Apparently, due to government >>> censorship or a private war between iinet and US content >>> providers, iinet or Australia are blocking access from at >>> least some sites in the US. ... >>> >>> Some webring members are now using classiccmp mirrors to >>> host the affected files to get around this problem. >>> >>> So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in >>> the US, to check if they can view this page: >>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html FWIW: when I run into a web site issue due to filtering (or suspicion of same), I got to TOR. Apart from the confidentiality benefits it offers, you also get access from a completely different part of the world. An unpredictable place, admittedly. paul
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > ... > > I loved the PDP-11 architecture, until I wanted to run programs on it > that > > relied on the overlay manager and the overlays got to be 8 or 9 deep. > Then > > it was... painful. > > Perhaps the program was too large. But it may just be that the overlay > structure was not right. Overlays involve significant overhead, and it's > well known that the flexibility of TKB can cost a lot. (TKB itself is an > example of that, which is why there was a button with the text "TKB > forever... and ever... and ever...".) > > For efficient overlays, RT-11 with Link tends to be better. It's less > flexible but that reduced flexibility enforces more care in overlay design, > and the implementation is a whole lot faster. True. We were running under RSTS-E and so had some more flexibility. However, by the time we got to this overlay structure, we knew we'd done something horribly wrong and spent several weeks slimming down the program, reducing the number of parameters to some routines and redesigning some code to have either simpler algorithms, or inlining some code. We slimmed it by 30% but more importantly went from about 8 overlay depth to 3. Still slow, but it was acceptably slow rather than insane. Warner
Re: internet blocking problem ?
THANKS to all of you great guys who have helped obtain data on this problem! Here are some results: For 26 users in the US and Canada, I get 11 that worked OK, and 14 that did not work. Of the 14 that did not work, 6 (including me) got stopped at cogentco. It seems that users in other countries had no problem (Sweden, Ireland, UK). Thanks again for taking the time to help research! Jon
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On 2015-09-11 16:49, Warner Losh wrote: On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2015-09-11 16:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Jon Elson elson > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the limited > memory was a big killer. The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the reason you point out.) WHile I agree that the PDP-11 is a wonderful architecture, it really is a few bits short of perfect, both for addressing, and for opcode allocation. The is obvious when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could not retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of bits. I loved the PDP-11 architecture, until I wanted to run programs on it that relied on the overlay manager and the overlays got to be 8 or 9 deep. Then it was... painful. Uh? What do that have to do with the PDP-11 architecture? Overlays are a thing specific to the operating system and linker, and looks and works differently in different OSes on the PDP-11, if they have them at all. Mind you, even having said that, overlays are just a userland implementation of demand paging. Conceptually they are dead easy. Now, the overlay description language, as well as the capabilities in RSX, can make people seasick. But once you've worked with them for a while, you realized that most of the time it is not that tricky. Johnny
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:32:11PM -0500, Jon Elson wrote: > So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to check > if they can view this page: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html The other day I was trying to access David Green's pages there. I eventually wound up using the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20150702221040/http://members.iinet.net.au/~dgreen/index.html mcl
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 09/11/2015 09:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Don North > Basically see no problems accessing any of the pages on sites. > ... > 12: be2019.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 22.400ms asymm 8 > 13: no reply > 14: no reply > 15: ae0.cr1.mel4.on.ii.net 217.966ms asymm 19 Oh, that's really interesting. A bunch of us get as far as Cogentco, and then it stops working. But you get through... which implies that the _route_ in Cogentco to Ii.net is OK. Which in turn implies that it's Ii.net who are blocking (via packet drop, I assume), based on the IP _source_ address. So it sounds like the earlier post (too lazy to track it down) which says this is Ii.net responding to complaints from others (since they haven't blocked access to _all_ of ii.net, just that 'members' site) is right. Noel Not necessarily. It may be possible that filtering software/hardware statistically let a few accesses get through. This may be intentional or just due to overloaded nodes. But, YES, it IS very interesting, as so MANY others who could not access the members.iinet page were finding they got stopped at cogentco. Jon
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 9/11/2015 7:46 AM, Lyle Bickley wrote: On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:32:11 -0500 Jon Elson wrote: Hello, all, I am a member of the Homebuilt CPU web-ring, and a really weird problem has turned up. The guy who administers the ring, David Brooks, is in Australia, and uses iinet.net.au as his ISP. All members of the web ring link to his personal web pages at iinet. Apparently, due to government censorship or a private war between iinet and US content providers, iinet or Australia are blocking access from at least some sites in the US. So, from my work or home (totally different IPs) I cannot access ANY personal pages at iinet, but a few general help pages there can be accessed. As far as I can tell, nobody else in the world is being affected. Some webring members are now using classiccmp mirrors to host the affected files to get around this problem. So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to check if they can view this page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html Works from Silicon Valley (Mountain View) Lyle But not from Santa Cruz, only about 30 miles away from Mtn. View. Bob -- Vintage computers and electronics www.dvq.com www.tekmuseum.com www.decmuseum.org
Re: IBM 026
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Ed Sharpe > >> well SMECC needs one hopefully to make work so we can show the youn'ins >> how cards were punched! > > Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good enough > for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money: > > http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725 Is that TWO Linc-eight systems in the background??? paul
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > ... > I loved the PDP-11 architecture, until I wanted to run programs on it that > relied on the overlay manager and the overlays got to be 8 or 9 deep. Then > it was... painful. Perhaps the program was too large. But it may just be that the overlay structure was not right. Overlays involve significant overhead, and it's well known that the flexibility of TKB can cost a lot. (TKB itself is an example of that, which is why there was a button with the text "TKB forever... and ever... and ever...".) For efficient overlays, RT-11 with Link tends to be better. It's less flexible but that reduced flexibility enforces more care in overlay design, and the implementation is a whole lot faster. paul
Re: internet blocking problem ?
> On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Lyle Bickley wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:32:11 -0500 > Jon Elson wrote: > >> Hello, all, >> >> I am a member of the Homebuilt CPU web-ring, and a really >> weird problem has turned up. The guy who administers the >> ring, David Brooks, is in Australia, and uses iinet.net.au >> as his ISP. All members of the web ring link to his >> personal web pages at iinet. Apparently, due to government >> censorship or a private war between iinet and US content >> providers, iinet or Australia are blocking access from at >> least some sites in the US. ... >> >> Some webring members are now using classiccmp mirrors to >> host the affected files to get around this problem. >> >> So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in >> the US, to check if they can view this page: >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html > > Works from Silicon Valley (Mountain View) > > Lyle I tried "traceroute" from three places: a machine in Palo Alto (result: fail), my home firewall (result: works) and my office (result: fail). The routes shown are utterly different. The PA case shows just a few hops, into megapath.net, then no further. The office goes into alter.net, then through a whole bunch of different hosts all in cogentco.com, then nothing. And from home, I see a path through comcast.net, gtt.net, ii.net, then iinet.com.au and from there to the destination. The "censorship or ..." notion may be someone's overheated imagination -- it looks more like there's a backbone routing issue. paul
Re: IBM 026
> From: Ed Sharpe > well SMECC needs one hopefully to make work so we can show the youn'ins > how cards were punched! Well, here's an 029 (not quite what the OP was looking for, but good enough for you all, I expect) for a not insane amount of money: http://www.ebay.com/itm/281796720725 Noel
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2015-09-11 16:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> > From: Jon Elson elson >> >> > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the >> limited >> > memory was a big killer. >> >> The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in >> what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all >> time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the >> reason you point out.) >> > > WHile I agree that the PDP-11 is a wonderful architecture, it really is a > few bits short of perfect, both for addressing, and for opcode allocation. > > The is obvious when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could > not retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of bits. I loved the PDP-11 architecture, until I wanted to run programs on it that relied on the overlay manager and the overlays got to be 8 or 9 deep. Then it was... painful. Warner
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:32:11 -0500 Jon Elson wrote: > Hello, all, > > I am a member of the Homebuilt CPU web-ring, and a really > weird problem has turned up. The guy who administers the > ring, David Brooks, is in Australia, and uses iinet.net.au > as his ISP. All members of the web ring link to his > personal web pages at iinet. Apparently, due to government > censorship or a private war between iinet and US content > providers, iinet or Australia are blocking access from at > least some sites in the US. So, from my work or home > (totally different IPs) I cannot access ANY personal pages > at iinet, but a few general help pages there can be > accessed. As far as I can tell, nobody else in the world is > being affected. > > Some webring members are now using classiccmp mirrors to > host the affected files to get around this problem. > > So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in > the US, to check if they can view this page: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html Works from Silicon Valley (Mountain View) Lyle -- 73 AF6WS Bickley Consulting West Inc. http://bickleywest.com "Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
Re: internet blocking problem ?
> From: Don North > Basically see no problems accessing any of the pages on sites. > ... > 12: be2019.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 22.400ms asymm 8 > 13: no reply > 14: no reply > 15: ae0.cr1.mel4.on.ii.net 217.966ms asymm 19 Oh, that's really interesting. A bunch of us get as far as Cogentco, and then it stops working. But you get through... which implies that the _route_ in Cogentco to Ii.net is OK. Which in turn implies that it's Ii.net who are blocking (via packet drop, I assume), based on the IP _source_ address. So it sounds like the earlier post (too lazy to track it down) which says this is Ii.net responding to complaints from others (since they haven't blocked access to _all_ of ii.net, just that 'members' site) is right. Noel
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
On 2015-09-11 16:36, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: Jon Elson elson > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the limited > memory was a big killer. The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the reason you point out.) WHile I agree that the PDP-11 is a wonderful architecture, it really is a few bits short of perfect, both for addressing, and for opcode allocation. The is obvious when you look at the EIS and FPP extensions, which could not retain the general instruction layout format because of a lack of bits. Johnny
Re: PDP-11 architecture Was: internet blocking problem ?
> From: Jon Elson elson > I actually LIKED the PDP-11 architecture quite a LOT, but the limited > memory was a big killer. The good thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (It resulted in what's probably the most elegant architecture, in bang/buck terms, of all time.) The bad thing about the PDP-11 was the 16-bit word size. (For the reason you point out.) Noel
Re: KDJ11-A/M8192 identified as PDT11/50 from resorc /a?
>Holm Tiffe wrote: ..have repaired a HH725 Harddisk /TA7245BP was bad since a tantal Elko had a short) and booted now RT11 V5.07 with the new now repaired 1/73 CPU. Resorc /A give the following informations: .resorc /a RT-11XB (S) V05.07 Booted from DL0:RT11XB Resident Monitor base is 111774 (37884.) USR is set NOSWAP TT is set NOQUIET Indirect file abort level is ERROR Indirect file nesting depth is 3 PDT 11/150 Processor FP11 Hardware Floating Point Unit Extended Instruction Set (EIS) KT11 Memory Management Unit Cache Memory 50 Cycle System Clock Device I/O time-out support Multi-terminal support Hmm, is that normal that the CPU gets identified as PDT11/150? Interestingly it finds an FP11 but the Socket is empty. I suspect that somehow, somewhere you have managed to include the RESORC.SAV file from V04.00 of RT-11 (which was released in 1980) or at least a version of RT-11 prior to V05.00 (which was released in 1983). If I remember correctly, that version of RT-11 did not include support for the PDP-11/73 CPU since I don't think that any of the PDP-11/73 boards were released until after 1980. Furthermore, I just booted a standard distribution of V05.07 of RT-11 using the standard RT11XM monitor distributed by Mentec for V05.07 of RT-11. I ran using a PDP-11/73 CPU (actually under Ersatz-11) I then MOUNTed a DSK file which contained the V04.00 RT-11 distribution: MOUNT LD0: DU0:RTV4RK.00/NOWR RUN LD0:RESORC /Z and the result that you displayed was essentially duplicated, with about the only difference being the Resident Monitor base address since RT11XM was being used. If you type: RUN SY:RESORC and follow the command with 2 s, the version of RESORC.SAV which is being used will be displayed. It will probably say: RESORC V4.00 If you can somehow find the version of RESORC.SAV that is distributed with V05.07 of RT-11 and type: RUN RESORC.SAV The information for V05.07 is: RESORC V05.21 Hopefully, the correct information will be displayed with the version of RESORC.SAV which was distributed with V05.07 of RT-11. In case anyone else who is running RT-11 is reading this, using RESORC.SAV from V04.00 while running any version of RT-11 starting with V04.00 will produce the same problem when a PDP-11/73 is used. I have not checked what occurs with earlier versions of RESORC and RT-11. For an M8186 the output is more that what I've expected: .resorc /a RT-11XB (S) V05.07 Booted from DL0:RT11XB Resident Monitor base is 111774 (37884.) USR is set NOSWAP TT is set NOQUIET Indirect file abort level is ERROR Indirect file nesting depth is 3 PDP 11/23 Processor FP11 Hardware Floating Point Unit Extended Instruction Set (EIS) KT11 Memory Management Unit 50 Cycle System Clock Device I/O time-out support Multi-terminal support Regards, Holm If you have any other questions, please ask. Jerome Fine
Re: internet blocking problem ?
* Jon Elson [150910 21:32]:
[..SNIP..]
> So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in
> the US, to check if they can view this page:
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html
>
> This is David Brooks' homebuilt 16-bit CPU.
>
> Please send me the results of your test, no matter whether
> it works or DOESN'T work, I am looking for statistics on how
> much of the US is being blocked. Also, let me know where
> you are. I am assuming this is only a problem in the US,
> but that is not guaranteed. I also am not able to make
> email contact with David Brooks, so it seems email is ALSO
> being blocked.
[..SNIP..]
No problem from my address in UK (Essex)
Have you tried any of the (many) proxy servers such as anonymouse.org
or tried using tor.
anonymouse used to be able to get to pirate bay before the ".se" url got killed
don't need it for the current (".mn") incarnation but I still keep a collection
of proxy server urls in my bookmarks "just in case!"
Andy
Re: internet blocking problem ?
* Jon Elson [150910 21:32]: [..SNIP..] > So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in > the US, to check if they can view this page: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html > > This is David Brooks' homebuilt 16-bit CPU. > > Please send me the results of your test, no matter whether > it works or DOESN'T work, I am looking for statistics on how > much of the US is being blocked. Also, let me know where > you are. I am assuming this is only a problem in the US, > but that is not guaranteed. I also am not able to make > email contact with David Brooks, so it seems email is ALSO > being blocked. [..SNIP..] Hi Jon, No problem getting there from the northeast US (New Hampshire) using a Comcast business connection. Todd
Re: punchcard svg file available
Five years ago the paper stock was still available in the US, and you could get cards from Cardamation as well. -- Will On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Christian Corti wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Simon Claessen wrote: >> >> btw. in the Netherlands where I live, they are called ponskaarten and are >> nowhere to be find also. We only have one box of fresh cards and one box of >> used cards with our IBM 029. Of course the unused cards stay in the depot >> until we can do something usefull with them. That is why I made this file. >> As soon as I find a good local supply of the right type of paper, the cards >> can be reproduced. :-) > > > Why don't you just buy new cards from Hummel? They still produce punch(ed) > cards, at least they did five years ago. > > Christian
Re: internet blocking problem ?
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html ETIMEDOUT. members.iinet.net.au resolves to 203.0.178.90 for me. mtr shows HostLoss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. 98.124.61.89 0.0% 3821.1 1.5 0.7 123.1 7.2 2. 10.0.0.1 0.0% 3821.0 1.1 0.7 20.4 1.6 3. 205.233.56.2500.0% 382 14.5 14.8 13.3 38.7 3.3 4. 205.233.56.2530.0% 382 14.0 14.7 13.2 149.5 7.2 5. 76.10.144.58 0.0% 382 14.3 15.6 13.6 83.6 5.3 6. 69.196.136.48 0.0% 382 14.7 15.3 13.6 90.0 5.9 7. 209.51.184.2530.0% 382 14.4 25.7 13.6 132.2 20.9 8. 184.105.80.5 0.0% 382 25.6 30.0 23.6 222.6 14.5 9. 184.105.223.178 0.3% 382 42.0 42.0 31.3 235.0 24.0 10. 184.105.222.410.0% 382 68.5 72.3 51.6 222.1 18.8 11. 72.52.92.38 0.0% 382 170.9 104.4 77.4 259.0 23.9 12. ??? I then tried traceroute, in case mtr was getting stuck on a nonresponding hop with working hops beyond it. No joy; traceroute shows more or less[%] the same list of addresses, but then hops 12 through 30 are all no-response. [%] There are some minor differences; for example, hop 6 is 69.196.136.138 instead of 69.196.136.48. The hop 10 and 11 addresses, in particular, are the same. I am not in a position to tell whether it's Hurricane Electric or the next hop that's blocking traffic here; I don't know whether the hop after 72.52.92.38 would be another he.net host or not. These experiments were done from 98.124.61.94. Everything was legacy IPv4, since members.iinet.net.au doesn't seem to have a current-version IP address. (Appropriate enough, for this list. :-) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTMLmo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 09/10/2015 08:32 PM, Jon Elson wrote: So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to check if they can view this page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html It works for me here (northern Minnesota) Jules
Re: internet blocking problem ?
Can you do a traceroute to members.iinet.net.au? In case DNS is blocked, the IP address is 203.0.178.90. I've been on iiNet since they bought out my previous ISP. Here's a traceroute sample: 1 75-145-20-102-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (75.145.20.102) 0.554 ms 1.468 ms 1.878 ms 2 96.120.101.173 (96.120.101.173) 12.365 ms 13.275 ms 13.457 ms 3 te-0-2-0-4-sur02.tacoma.wa.seattle.comcast.net (68.87.207.193) 21.075 ms 21.161 ms 21.245 ms 4 be-1-sur03.tacoma.wa.seattle.comcast.net (69.139.164.210) 19.539 ms 20.673 ms 20.886 ms 5 be-28-ar01.seattle.wa.seattle.comcast.net (69.139.164.205) 25.549 ms 25.034 ms 25.142 ms 6 be-33650-cr02.seattle.wa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.93.165) 25.681 ms 23.712 ms 23.783 ms 7 he-0-13-0-0-pe04.seattle.wa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.82.234) 21.195 ms 15.285 ms 22.278 ms 8 as174.seattle.wa.ibone.comcast.net (66.208.228.110) 22.719 ms 16.767 ms 19.258 ms 9 be2084.ccr22.sea01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.253) 20.280 ms 19.499 ms 22.475 ms 10 be2077.ccr22.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.241) 37.690 ms be2075.ccr21.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.233) 36.861 ms be2077.ccr22.sfo01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.241) 33.408 ms 11 be2164.ccr21.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.34) 34.810 ms be2165.ccr22.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.66) 39.254 ms be2164.ccr21.sjc01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.28.34) 39.929 ms 12 be2160.ccr21.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.161) 47.379 ms be2161.ccr22.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.27.169) 48.420 ms 45.969 ms 13 be2017.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.237) 43.561 ms 45.060 ms be2019.ccr21.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.88.10) 44.200 ms 14 * * * It times out after the 14th hop. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
RE: internet blocking problem ?
Ben wrote What I find more annoying, is this cloud crap. "There is no such thing as 'the cloud', it's just someone else's computer." Love that quote... so true... and I sell cloud services ;) J
RE: punchcard svg file available
I have asked and will report back. Dave > -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Christian > Corti > Sent: 11 September 2015 09:12 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: punchcard svg file available > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Dave Wade wrote: > > Could not find anything on their web site... > > You have to ask them directly, they should still have all the means because > they also do ATB stuff. That's what we did a few years ago, but our "project" > stalled because they wanted some obscure file format for the printing > (QuarkExpress that nobody uses here). But if you're fine with really blank > cards (i.e. no printing whatsoever) they should still be able to deliver them. > > Christian
RE: punchcard svg file available
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Christian > Corti > Sent: 11 September 2015 09:12 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: punchcard svg file available > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Dave Wade wrote: > > Could not find anything on their web site... > > You have to ask them directly, they should still have all the means because > they also do ATB stuff. That's what we did a few years ago, but our "project" > stalled because they wanted some obscure file format for the printing > (QuarkExpress that nobody uses here). But if you're fine with really blank > cards (i.e. no printing whatsoever) they should still be able to deliver them. > > Christian I think I have a copy of QuarkExpress somewhere.
Re: internet blocking problem ?
On 11/09/2015 02:32, Jon Elson wrote: So, I wonder if I can ask classiccmp members, especially in the US, to check if they can view this page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html Yes, I can (from York, UK, my ISP is Plusnet). Here's a traceroute: 1 cisco877 (x.x.x.x) 2.400 ms 1.484 ms 1.354 ms 2 lo0-central10.pcl-ag02.plus.net (195.166.128.183) 23.643 ms 17.026 ms 17.156 ms 3 link-a-central10.pcl-gw01.plus.net (212.159.2.164) 17.246 ms 17.894 ms 17.364 ms 4 xe-10-1-0.pcl-cr01.plus.net (212.159.0.196) 16.966 ms 17.073 ms 19.371 ms 5 195.99.126.96 (195.99.126.96) 17.381 ms 18.651 ms 17.598 ms 6 core3-te0-2-0-19.faraday.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.249.5) 18.059 ms core3-te0-2-0-18.faraday.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.249.1) 18.011 ms core4-te0-0-0-19.faraday.ukcore.bt.net (109.159.249.47) 17.576 ms 7 host213-121-193-183.ukcore.bt.net (213.121.193.183) 19.329 ms peer6-BE7.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net (213.121.193.179) 20.248 ms peer6-hu0-19-0-1.telehouse.ukcore.bt.net (213.121.193.181) 17.568 ms 8 166-49-211-240.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.240) 17.862 ms 166-49-211-242.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.242) 17.447 ms 166-49-211-236.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.236) 17.307 ms 9 166-49-211-38.eu.bt.net (166.49.211.38) 17.490 ms 17.709 ms 17.629 ms 10 et-3-1-0.lax22.ip4.gtt.net (141.136.110.17) 155.702 ms 171.972 ms 154.836 ms 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 ae0.cr1.mel4.on.ii.net (150.101.33.10) 358.478 ms 358.957 ms 358.569 ms 17 ae5.cr1.adl6.on.ii.net (150.101.37.237) 358.802 ms 358.578 ms 366.367 ms 18 ae0.cr1.adl2.on.ii.net (150.101.33.2) 358.683 ms 359.084 ms 358.763 ms 19 aex.cr1.per1.on.ii.net (150.101.33.19) 358.888 ms 366.312 ms 366.156 ms 20 ae0.cr1.per4.on.ii.net (150.101.34.170) 358.079 ms 365.913 ms 366.136 ms 21 po6-10.per-qv1-bdr1.on.ii.net (150.101.33.91) 358.222 ms 377.115 ms 366.107 ms 22 te1-0-1-113.per-qv1-bdr2.on.ii.net (203.215.4.41) 295.066 ms 294.450 ms 294.677 ms 23 gi5-2.icp-osb-core1.iinet.net.au (203.215.4.8) 302.885 ms 303.318 ms 296.124 ms 24 members.iinet.net.au (203.0.178.90) 358.722 ms 366.378 ms 203.215.4.208 (203.215.4.208) 359.342 ms 25 members.iinet.net.au (203.0.178.90) 366.395 ms vl311.icp-osb-core1.iinet.net.au (203.215.4.185) 304.259 ms 295.479 ms 26 members.iinet.net.au (203.0.178.90) 358.789 ms 358.783 ms 359.028 ms 27 vl311.icp-osb-core1.iinet.net.au (203.215.4.185) 296.329 ms 296.295 ms members.iinet.net.au (203.0.178.90) 358.812 ms 28 vl311.icp-osb-core1.iinet.net.au (203.215.4.185) 297.262 ms 303.898 ms 296.044 ms 29 members.iinet.net.au (203.0.178.90) 358.822 ms vl311.icp-osb-core1.iinet.net.au (203.215.4.185) 296.023 ms 304.562 ms 30 members.iinet.net.au (203.0.178.90) 358.778 ms 358.834 ms vl311.icp-osb-core1.iinet.net.au (203.215.4.185) 303.581 ms $ -- Pete Pete Turnbull
Re: punchcard svg file available
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Dave Wade wrote: Could not find anything on their web site... You have to ask them directly, they should still have all the means because they also do ATB stuff. That's what we did a few years ago, but our "project" stalled because they wanted some obscure file format for the printing (QuarkExpress that nobody uses here). But if you're fine with really blank cards (i.e. no printing whatsoever) they should still be able to deliver them. Christian
Re: punchcard svg file available
Could not find anything on their web site... On Sep 11, 2015 8:51 AM, "Christian Corti" wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Simon Claessen wrote: > >> btw. in the Netherlands where I live, they are called ponskaarten and are >> nowhere to be find also. We only have one box of fresh cards and one box of >> used cards with our IBM 029. Of course the unused cards stay in the depot >> until we can do something usefull with them. That is why I made this file. >> As soon as I find a good local supply of the right type of paper, the cards >> can be reproduced. :-) >> > > Why don't you just buy new cards from Hummel? They still produce punch(ed) > cards, at least they did five years ago. > > Christian >
Re: punchcard svg file available
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Simon Claessen wrote: btw. in the Netherlands where I live, they are called ponskaarten and are nowhere to be find also. We only have one box of fresh cards and one box of used cards with our IBM 029. Of course the unused cards stay in the depot until we can do something usefull with them. That is why I made this file. As soon as I find a good local supply of the right type of paper, the cards can be reproduced. :-) Why don't you just buy new cards from Hummel? They still produce punch(ed) cards, at least they did five years ago. Christian
