On 2021-03-08 15:40, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 7, 2021, at 6:42 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2021-03-07 23:00, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 5, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
...
Anyway, in RSX, when running DDCMP on the serial port,
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
> ...
>> The explanation I heard for the slow J-11 clock is that the original J-11
>> spec called for it to operate at 20 MHz. When Harris failed to deliver and
>> the max useable clock speed
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 9:15 PM, Chris Zach via cctalk
> wrote:
>
>>> Can't run split I/D space on any version of P/OS. Neither does it support
>>> supervisor mode. Also, the J11 on the Pro-380 is running a bit on the slow
>>> side. Rather sad, but I guess they didn't want to improve the
> On Mar 7, 2021, at 6:42 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021-03-07 23:00, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
> ...
>>>
I would have liked better comms. The USART has such a tiny
On 2021-03-07 23:00, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 5, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
...
I would have liked better comms. The USART has such a tiny FIFO that you can't
run it at higher than 9600 bps even with the J-11 CPU. At least
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 9:02 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
>>> ...
>
>> I would have liked better comms. The USART has such a tiny FIFO that you
>> can't run it at higher than 9600 bps even with the J-11 CPU. At least not
>> with RSTS; perhaps a
Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
The explanation I heard for the slow J-11 clock is that the original J-11
spec called for it to operate at 20 MHz. When Harris failed to deliver
and the max useable clock speed ended up to be 18 MHz, most designs had
no trouble.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 7:05 PM Chris Zach via cctalk
wrote:
>
> > There seem to be a great many models of Unibus and Qbus multi-port async
> > serial boards, which present different register-level interfaces, e.g. for
> > Unibus, DH11, DHU11, DJ11, DM11, DZ11 . Which ones are considered "best",
>
On 2021-03-06 03:22, Eric Smith wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:33 PM Paul Koning via cctalk
mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
I would have liked better comms. The USART has such a tiny FIFO
that you can't run it at higher than 9600 bps even with the J-11
CPU. At least not
There seem to be a great many models of Unibus and Qbus multi-port async
serial boards, which present different register-level interfaces, e.g. for
Unibus, DH11, DHU11, DJ11, DM11, DZ11 . Which ones are considered "best",
for each bus, for use with a multitasking OS like RSTS/E or RSX-11M+?
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 6:33 PM Paul Koning via cctalk
wrote:
> I would have liked better comms. The USART has such a tiny FIFO that you
> can't run it at higher than 9600 bps even with the J-11 CPU. At least not
> with RSTS; perhaps a lighter weight OS can do better. The printer port is
>
Can't run split I/D space on any version of P/OS. Neither does it support
supervisor mode. Also, the J11 on the Pro-380 is running a bit on the slow
side. Rather sad, but I guess they didn't want to improve the support chips on
the Pro, which limited speed, and they didn't want to start having
On 2021-03-06 02:33, Paul Koning wrote:
On Mar 5, 2021, at 7:22 PM, Johnny Billquist via cctalk
wrote:
...
Maybe this weekend I'll hack that SSD floppy thingie and load up the P/OS 3.2
disks to see how that works.
Can't run split I/D space on any version of P/OS. Neither does it
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 7:22 PM, Johnny Billquist via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
>> Maybe this weekend I'll hack that SSD floppy thingie and load up the P/OS
>> 3.2 disks to see how that works.
>
> Can't run split I/D space on any version of P/OS. Neither does it support
> supervisor mode.
On 2021-03-06 01:14, Chris Zach wrote:
Ah ok. For some reason I always thought the 23 could only run M, which
is still a fine platform. I'd be amazed if they got all the extra cool
features like disk caching working without I/D.
Officially, you need the 11/23+. The original 11/23 is not
Ah ok. For some reason I always thought the 23 could only run M, which
is still a fine platform. I'd be amazed if they got all the extra cool
features like disk caching working without I/D.
But when I think about it, it makes sense: P/OS is basically M+ all the
way and runs on the Pro/350.
The 11/23 is officially supported, and does indeed lack I/D space (also
true of the 11/24). Which implies that split I/D space is not actually a
requirement for RSX-11M-PLUS. That would also be clear by reading the SPD.
However, officially, there is a requirement for 22-bit addressing. Which
How can you run m+ on an 11/23 or a 40? I thought it needed I/d space to run
thus I can see it on a 45.
On March 5, 2021 6:02:45 PM EST, Johnny Billquist via cctalk
wrote:
>Nice writeup, Paul. And very interesting.
>
>Just in case anyone wonder about RSX, here is how it's done in M+:
>
>1.
Nice writeup, Paul. And very interesting.
Just in case anyone wonder about RSX, here is how it's done in M+:
1. Test if SYSID register exists
If SYSID register exists:
2. Test if high bit of KISDR0 can be set and read back
If high bit can be set and read back => 11/74 CPU
If
19 matches
Mail list logo
