Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
> On Aug 1, 2021, at 5:51 PM, William Donzelli wrote: > >> z/OS runs on IBM Mainframes, there is also “IBM i”, which was previously >> called OS/400. >> >> Last I checked, GCOS-8 is still running, but with Itanium end-of-life, I’m >> not sure what on. It’s been a niche market for decades. I’d argue that it >> was a serious niche when I was using it in the early 90’s. > > It is amazing how many people - IBMers included - that simply do not > realize that Unisys exists, and both MCP and OS2200 are modern, up to > date operating systems running on quite a lot of sites in the real > world. Actually I should remember that one as well… I supported a Unisys mainframe, after I worked with GCOS-8, though I spent most of my time with HP-UX and SunOS at that time. Zane
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 2021-08-01 1:14 p.m., Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: On Aug 1, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: CP/M is surprisingly alive for something so old and rudimentary and seeing some activity, e.g. CPMish, but I don't think anyone would claim it has much of a future. CCP/M is dead although I think Toshiba just about supports 4680 and 4690. I have to admit, this one surprises me. I'm struggling to think of anything else. There are things but they're even more niche than say Haiku. Redox OS? Genode? HelenOS? OpenVMS 9.2 will run on x86, as does the 9.1FT that’s currently out. I believe they’ve even had it running on an Atom-based board. z/OS runs on IBM Mainframes, there is also “IBM i”, which was previously called OS/400. OS/400 is a direct descendant of the operating system on S/38 one of the actual products that was based on ideas from the "Future Systems" project of the 1970s. It also had some of the ease of use features of the S/36 operating system rolled into it. Even the hardware of the first AS/400 systems was similar to the S38. Besides the single level store, another major feature was user programs ran on a microcode layer that hid the actual hardware, this allowed for significant changes to the underlying hardware during the lifetime of the systems without impact to customer programs. The hardware of the S/36 was much simpler and completely different it came from a series that started with S/32. While unspectacular in terms of hardware S/36 was loved for it ease of use and the announcement of its demise was not well received by customers. Paul.
Re: Reading MT/ST tapes
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:37:17 -0500 From: Cory Heisterkamp This is a bit of a long shot, but is anyone aware of a successful method to read IBM Selectric MT/ST tapes? A museum in Australia has a box of them and are interested in the contents. At the Computer History Museum we sometimes use a software technique to recover data from the analog waveforms on mag tapes. https://github.com/LenShustek/readtape I'd like to try that on MT/ST tapes. Does anyone have a couple of MT/ST tape cartridges with data that I can experiment with?
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
> And that like IBM still being able to run S/360 programs Unisys 2200 > can still run Univac 1100 programs. And that MCP and OS2200 put everyone else to shame in the security arena... Because they thought about it back in the 1960s. -- Will
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 8/1/21 8:51 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: z/OS runs on IBM Mainframes, there is also “IBM i”, which was previously called OS/400. Last I checked, GCOS-8 is still running, but with Itanium end-of-life, I’m not sure what on. It’s been a niche market for decades. I’d argue that it was a serious niche when I was using it in the early 90’s. It is amazing how many people - IBMers included - that simply do not realize that Unisys exists, and both MCP and OS2200 are modern, up to date operating systems running on quite a lot of sites in the real world. -- Will And that like IBM still being able to run S/360 programs Unisys 2200 can still run Univac 1100 programs. bill
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
> z/OS runs on IBM Mainframes, there is also “IBM i”, which was previously > called OS/400. > > Last I checked, GCOS-8 is still running, but with Itanium end-of-life, I’m > not sure what on. It’s been a niche market for decades. I’d argue that it > was a serious niche when I was using it in the early 90’s. It is amazing how many people - IBMers included - that simply do not realize that Unisys exists, and both MCP and OS2200 are modern, up to date operating systems running on quite a lot of sites in the real world. -- Will
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 8/1/21 11:45 AM, brainded ben via cctalk wrote: I suspect if they had the proper virtual memory, it would have been picked up as a Unix cpu Pull your head out of your ass. Unisoft had a very profitable business porting Unix to 68000 computers (note, NOT 68010) The Apple Lisa's 68000 ran Unisoft Unix and Xenix. The whole world of Stanford SUN CPU workstation wannabes existed before the Sun port of BSD and the 'brain transplant'. Originally, Sun Microsystems' workstation ran Unisoft with a 68000.
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Would the 68K have succeeded if it were not for Apple and Commodore? Without your engineering expertise, I would still say, "YES". (I was reading Infoworld, etc., as compared to you designing the machines) Before we heard anything about Apple picking it, and before any sort of announcements of such, the first that I ever heard about the 68000 was, "Hey! check this out! This is gonna be the BEST 16 bit processor. I hope that somebody builds a machine around it SOON. Anybody who wants to design THE BEST machine from scratch, rather than just add kludges on top of kludges would have to use it. 'Course, they'd have to re-write all the software from scratch, and that would make it slow to get market share." The Intel approach of each one being based closely on the previous meant that the 5150 had software VERY fast. For example, Wordstar was up and running in weeks, but then was delayed while the user manual got rewritten. Supercalc was very soon. OTOH, when the Lisa, and then Mac, came out, Apple was smart enough to provide basic software. I heard a story at the time that it was ordained that "the Mac will be shipped with FOUR software packeages", but that the four ended up finally being MacWrite, MacPaint, MacWrite, and MacPaint. Third party software took much longer than it had for the 5150, because it had to be written, not just patched from a previous iteration. 'Course, the 6502 marketing of "First one's free" sort of made it almost inevitable for homebrew bootstrap such as Apple1 and Apple2. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 8/1/21 11:45 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > I suspect if they had the proper virtual memory, it would have been picked > up as a Unix cpu, instead. It is the only common non segemented 16 bit > cpu I can think in that time frame. There were ways around that. You could run two, with one slightly lagging the other, such that one would hit a trap condition before the "real one" (was that Daisy?) Or you could limit the instruction set to the restartable ones (Apple). I recall attending a trade show (NCC, WESCON...?) where the Moto reps were handing out literature (but not chips). After a brief reading of the 68K manual, I approached the rep with a question about implementing virtual memory. He looked wearily at me (he'd probably been asked the same question a hundred times before) and quietly said, no, there wasn't enough information saved in a trap to ensure restartability of all instructions. You also have to recall that at the time, virtual memory Unix was very new--I think it was introduced with BSD in 1979 or so. I still have a BSD tape from Ernie (Co VAX) from that time. --Chuck
RE: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of ben via cctalk > Sent: 01 August 2021 19:46 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What > We Have Lost" > > On 2021-08-01 12:32 p.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > > Would the 68K have succeeded if it were not for Apple and Commodore? Atari used it as well. It also saw a lot of use in embedded cards for other systems > > > > --Chuck > I suspect if they had the proper virtual memory, it would have been picked > up as a Unix cpu, instead. It is the only common non segemented 16 bit cpu I > can think in that time frame. > Ben. > > Dave
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
> On Aug 1, 2021, at 2:45 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > On 2021-08-01 12:32 p.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> Would the 68K have succeeded if it were not for Apple and Commodore? >> --Chuck > I suspect if they had the proper virtual memory, it would have been picked > up as a Unix cpu, instead. It is the only common non segemented 16 bit cpu I > can think in that time frame. Apollo built a workstation company around the 68000. That was hairy because that chip doesn't handle page faults right. I think they used two of them, running in lock step one cycle apart so the one behind could be used to save state at a paging exception and allow it to be restored. In the 68010 that design oversight was fixed and page faults became properly restartable. paul
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 2021-08-01 12:32 p.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Would the 68K have succeeded if it were not for Apple and Commodore? --Chuck I suspect if they had the proper virtual memory, it would have been picked up as a Unix cpu, instead. It is the only common non segemented 16 bit cpu I can think in that time frame. Ben.
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 8/1/21 10:52 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 2021-08-01 11:17 a.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> The lack of interest in the classic/vintage computing segments is a bit >> surprising, since many of these MCUs far exceed the computing power of >> many legacy platforms. >> >> Silicon is cheap. >> > Only with good marketing, and lucky designs like the 6502. > Look at the Intel APX_432 for good example not so cheap and forgotton > Silicon. Non-sequitur. The 6502 is a simple design that was steeply discounted (grab one out of the fishbowl for $25) early on when other MPUs were still pretty dear. The 432 was a massive multi-chip affair that was also hugely complex. Problems with the performance/dollar, slipping delivery schedules, incompatibility with earlier platforms and general lack of interest in the marketing sector doomed it. By 1982, it was clear that it was a non-starter. I remember that our Intel sales rep (whom I knew from CDC) initially talked it up in the 1970s, but by 1981, flatly admitted that we didn't really want it. Would the 68K have succeeded if it were not for Apple and Commodore? --Chuck
Re: Help reading a 9 track tape
Hi Jim, I have a 9track drive hooked to my old Sun IPX which may be able to read your tape. I am in Valapraiso IN if you are up for a drive. Best, --tom On 7/30/21 1:02 PM, James Liu via cctech wrote: > Hi, > > I have been lurking for a few years, but thought I'd finally speak up > as I just received a 9 track tape purportedly containing the source > code to Schoonschip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoonschip). This > is a 2400' reel recorded at 1600 bpi based on the labels, and a > cursory examination suggests that it is still in pretty good shape > (although I am not sure how it was stored over the years). Here is a > picture of the tape: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JgY8QdVDchxubUz39jYn86gEczSvFhcZ/view?usp=sharing > > We no longer have any equipment that can read the tape, so I was > wondering if anyone may be willing to help or if anyone had > suggestions on where to go to get it read. Thanks! > > - jim >
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 2021-08-01 11:17 a.m., Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: The lack of interest in the classic/vintage computing segments is a bit surprising, since many of these MCUs far exceed the computing power of many legacy platforms. Silicon is cheap. Only with good marketing, and lucky designs like the 6502. Look at the Intel APX_432 for good example not so cheap and forgotton Silicon. Ben.
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On 8/1/21 9:14 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > On Aug 1, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk > wrote: >> CP/M is surprisingly alive for something so old and rudimentary and >> seeing some activity, e.g. CPMish, but I don't think anyone would >> claim it has much of a future. CCP/M is dead although I think Toshiba >> just about supports 4680 and 4690. > > I have to admit, this one surprises me. > >> I'm struggling to think of anything else. There are things but they're >> even more niche than say Haiku. Redox OS? Genode? HelenOS? > > OpenVMS 9.2 will run on x86, as does the 9.1FT that’s currently out. I > believe they’ve even had it running on an Atom-based board. > > z/OS runs on IBM Mainframes, there is also “IBM i”, which was previously > called OS/400. > > Last I checked, GCOS-8 is still running, but with Itanium end-of-life, I’m > not sure what on. It’s been a niche market for decades. I’d argue that it > was a serious niche when I was using it in the early 90’s. There are MCU RTOSs, for example, https://www.freertos.org FreeRTOS, than can be found in many IoT devices. Not Linux, Windows, or Android. The lack of interest in the classic/vintage computing segments is a bit surprising, since many of these MCUs far exceed the computing power of many legacy platforms. Silicon is cheap. --Chuck
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On Aug 1, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > CP/M is surprisingly alive for something so old and rudimentary and > seeing some activity, e.g. CPMish, but I don't think anyone would > claim it has much of a future. CCP/M is dead although I think Toshiba > just about supports 4680 and 4690. I have to admit, this one surprises me. > I'm struggling to think of anything else. There are things but they're > even more niche than say Haiku. Redox OS? Genode? HelenOS? OpenVMS 9.2 will run on x86, as does the 9.1FT that’s currently out. I believe they’ve even had it running on an Atom-based board. z/OS runs on IBM Mainframes, there is also “IBM i”, which was previously called OS/400. Last I checked, GCOS-8 is still running, but with Itanium end-of-life, I’m not sure what on. It’s been a niche market for decades. I’d argue that it was a serious niche when I was using it in the early 90’s. Zane
Re: Unidentified IBM Module / Package
> On Aug 1, 2021, at 8:28 AM, William Donzelli wrote: > > I think those are IBM Q-Pacs, mil spec modules for the Informer computers. > > -- > Will > > On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 1:53 AM Cory Heisterkamp via cctalk > wrote: >> >> Does anyone recognize these IBM modules? My gut says late 50’s based on the >> transistor packages and font. Perhaps for a contract or military system? >> Thanks- Cory >> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/izitf1lmjqwcbuo/IBM1.jpg?dl=0 >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/dq8macaubrechkz/IBM2.jpg?dl=0 Thanks Will, it looks like you’re right on the money. Page 22 (in the scan) shows one definitively. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/4020/4020_Military_Computer_General_Info_Oct59.pdf
Re: Branching the thread away from Compaq deskpro boards: "What We Have Lost"
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 04:21, Tony Aiuto via cctalk wrote: > > I would argue that this is totally wrong. iOS, Which is a Unix. Derived from Mac OS X, which is an Open Group certified UNIX™. > Android A Linux distro. > and other mobile > systems, QNX as in Blackberry 10? A Unix. Jolla Sailfish? Meego? Tizen? Samsung Bada? Huawei Harmony OS? All Linux. > with decidedly different user experiences and programming interfaces Sure, yes. Still Unices underneath, though. > As we get > better a consumer level containerization and sandboxing, more end users > are seeing chimera's like Android apps running under ChromeOs Linux apps running under Linux: more proof that Linux is Linux, ISTM. > or Windows > apps on macos and Linux. WINE is pretty good these days. I use it for several things. There are basically 2 OS families left for general-purpose computing: Windows NT and UNIX. DOS is dead. Netware is dead. OS/2 is very very nearly dead. BeOS is dead; Haiku is alive and developing but very niche. RISC OS is alive but very niche. AmigaOS is not well at all and even including MorphOS and AROS it's as niche as RISC OS or more so. Symbian is dead. NewtonOS is dead. Classic MacOS is dead. CP/M is surprisingly alive for something so old and rudimentary and seeing some activity, e.g. CPMish, but I don't think anyone would claim it has much of a future. CCP/M is dead although I think Toshiba just about supports 4680 and 4690. VMware was originally based around Linux although the company tried hard to cover that up. Xen is alive and well but it's not a GP OS, I'd say. I'm struggling to think of anything else. There are things but they're even more niche than say Haiku. Redox OS? Genode? HelenOS? -- Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Ian Hirschsohn - DISSPLA, Superset Inc. and sad news
On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 at 07:56, Randy Dawson via cctalk wrote: > Well, he is dead I find out, killed last year in Mexico is what the news > says, buried in a well with his wife. They went often, many times a year. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2021-01-26/baja-authorities-arrest-suspect-in-slaying-of-san-diego-pair-in-70s-ian-hirschsohn-kathy-harvey That's horrible. :-( -- Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: Unidentified IBM Module / Package
I think those are IBM Q-Pacs, mil spec modules for the Informer computers. -- Will On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 1:53 AM Cory Heisterkamp via cctalk wrote: > > Does anyone recognize these IBM modules? My gut says late 50’s based on the > transistor packages and font. Perhaps for a contract or military system? > Thanks- Cory > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/izitf1lmjqwcbuo/IBM1.jpg?dl=0 > https://www.dropbox.com/s/dq8macaubrechkz/IBM2.jpg?dl=0
