From: Johnny Billquist
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 2:11 PM
> On 2015-12-04 21:52, Phil Budne wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> [1] "Tops-10" was simply a renaming of an operating system which began on
>>> the PDP-6 in 1964 and continued in an uninterrupted line of
>>> development up through
On 2015-12-04 21:52, Phil Budne wrote:
Rich wrote:
[1] "Tops-10" was simply a renaming of an operating system which began on the
PDP-6 in 1964 and continued in an uninterrupted line of development up
through the final release, Tops-10 v7.04 (1988), and maintenance (v7.05,
1993).
Rich wrote:
> [1] "Tops-10" was simply a renaming of an operating system which began on the
> PDP-6 in 1964 and continued in an uninterrupted line of development up
> through the final release, Tops-10 v7.04 (1988), and maintenance (v7.05,
> 1993).
Are you sure about the captialization
From: Eric Smith
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 9:57 PM
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> [about KL10/KA10/PDP-6 tri-processor
>> Wow, that's impressive. How was it done? Was it done with DEC or was it
>> a local "hack"?
> Prior to the 1091 and 20xx, all PDP-10 proc
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
[about KL10/KA10/PDP-6 tri-processor
> Wow, that's impressive. How was it done? Was it done with DEC or was it
> a local "hack"?
Prior to the 1091 and 20xx, all PDP-10 processors used essentially the
same memory bus, and the memory boxes wer
From: Pontus Pihlgren
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 11:30 PM
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:47:12PM +, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> From: Pontus Pihlgren
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 12:19 AM
>>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:13:06AM +, Rich Alderson wrote:
KL-10/PDP-10/PDP
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 06:47:12PM +, Rich Alderson wrote:
> From: Pontus Pihlgren
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 12:19 AM
>
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:13:06AM +, Rich Alderson wrote:
>
> >> KL-10/PDP-10/PDP-6 triprocessor, and KL-10/PDP-10 dual processor and
>
> > You make
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Rich Alderson
wrote:
> Yes. Eric Smith was incorrect in his identification of the processor as a
> KI-10.
That was a thinko or typo. I knew it was a KA10, I'm not sure how KI10
got into the message. Thanks for the correction.
Michael Thompson wrote:
> 1026 TOPS-10 DEC Development Marlboro, MA KL1099 Tri-SMP Scrapped 12/14/97
> 1042 TOPS-10 DEC Development Marlboro, MA KL1099 Tri-SMP Scrapped 12/14/97
> 1322 TOPS-10 DEC Development Marlboro, MA KL10 Tri-SMP
This is almost CERTAINLY derived from the list of CPU (APR) ID
From: Pontus Pihlgren
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 12:19 AM
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:13:06AM +, Rich Alderson wrote:
>> KL-10/PDP-10/PDP-6 triprocessor, and KL-10/PDP-10 dual processor and
> You make it sound like someone hacked up a computer consisting of one
> KL-10, one PDP
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:18:56 +0100
> From: Pontus Pihlgren
> Subject: Triprocessor PDP-10 [Was: Re: [multicians] Emacs humor]
>
> You make it sound like someone hacked up a computer consisting of one
> KL-10, one PDP-10 and one PDP-6. But I assume you mean homogenic
> three-processor machine
On 12/2/15 12:18 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:13:06AM +, Rich Alderson wrote:
KL-10/PDP-10/PDP-6 triprocessor,
Who, besides Peter Löthberg, ran threeprocessor machines?
SAIL, which is the triprocessor Rich is referring to.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
> You make it sound like someone hacked up a computer consisting of one
> KL-10, one PDP-10 and one PDP-6.
Yes, the processors were a KL10, a KI10, and a 166 (PDP-6 CPU).
Needless to say, that was not a DEC-supported configuration.
13 matches
Mail list logo
