On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Ian S. King wrote:
> The datamuseum.dk collection represents 25 years of accumulation, I was
> told. But more importantly, I think their work demonstrates a very
> well-considered approach for presenting the history of the collection's
> machines to visitors.
Tha
p;ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdatamuseum.dk%2Fddhf-samlinger&edit-text=&act=url
Dave
-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
Smallwood
Sent: 21 August 2015 11:41
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: out-of-mains
te.google.co.uk/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdatamuseum.dk%2Fddhf-samlinger&edit-text=&act=url
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>&g
1 August 2015 11:41
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: out-of-mainstream minis
I'm sure its very intersting.
The website is designed for domestic consumption only as its all in
Danish.
Rod
On 21/08/2015 11:27, Ian S. King wrote:
I had the privilege of visitin
=http%3A%2F%2Fdatamuseum.dk%2Fddhf-samlinger&edit-text=&act=url
Dave
-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
Smallwood
Sent: 21 August 2015 11:41
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: out-of-mainstream minis
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
Smallwood
Sent: 21 August 2015 11:41
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: out-of-mainstream minis
I'm sure its very intersting.
The website is designed for domestic consumption only as its all in Dani
un...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Rod
> Smallwood
> Sent: 21 August 2015 11:41
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
>
> Subject: Re: out-of-mainstream minis
>
> I'm sure its very intersting.
> The website is designed for domestic consumption only as i
rom: tony duell
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:31 AM
Subject: RE: out-of-mainstream minis
Not all minis came from the States :-)
One of my favourite non-mainstream families is the Philips P800 series.
It's
a 16 bit mach
nd some other small-time projects. In one of the
> project it was connected to an ATM (fun project).
> I know of one collector in the Netherlands (Camiel), and some guys who
> have no hardware but a lot of knowledge
> /Nico
> - Original Message -
> From: tony duell
>
OP (about the 68000 box) here – thanks for all the informative comments!
I did spend some time using the 68010-based Apollo workstations, and as I
understood it they were equipped with two processors, one shadowing the other,
because not enough information was saved to completely restart an inst
On Sun, 5 Jul 2015, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > True, but IIRC the OP was talking about a system that ran 7th Edition
> > UNIX, and 7th Edition didn't do demand paging. As long as you treat
> > it more like a big PDP-11 rather than a small VAX, you can write a
> > perfectly usable OS for a straig
On 2015-07-05 03:09, Brian L. Stuart wrote:
Ok. I didn't know it was some version of 7th ed. I didn't even know that
managed to get much beyond the PDP-11.
At least that's the way I read the original message. And there were
a number of re-implementations/clones of 7th ed.
Fair enough. And ye
> >> Also, there is no MMU from Motorola for the 68000, so you would have to
> >> design your own.
> >
> > What about the 68451?
>
> Sigh. I should learn to check things better. I thought it only was
> usable with the 68010, but apparently you could also use it with the
> 68000. My fault.
AFAIK t
> Ok. I didn't know it was some version of 7th ed. I didn't even know that
> managed to get much beyond the PDP-11.
At least that's the way I read the original message. And there were
a number of re-implementations/clones of 7th ed.
> Anyway, it's sad, because the PDP-11 hardware can easily
>
On 2015-07-04 20:58, Brian L. Stuart wrote:
The problems revolve around the fact that instructions cannot be
properly restarted on the 68000. Not enough context is saved. This in
turn means you cannot do demand paging, a that will cause a memory
exception trap, from which you cannot recover.
Tr
On 2015-07-04 18:33, Mouse wrote:
The problems revolve around the fact that instructions cannot be
properly restarted on the 68000. Not enough context is saved.
[...]
(The tricks done by those who did fix this consists of having a
second processor which gets interrupted when you get a page fault
On 2015-07-04 18:14, tony duell wrote:
Also, there is no MMU from Motorola for the 68000, so you would have to
design your own.
What about the 68451?
Sigh. I should learn to check things better. I thought it only was
usable with the 68010, but apparently you could also use it with the
68
On 07/03/2015 12:48 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
For operations support systems, I thought DEC was very popular in the Bell
System; I thought many OSS ran on some modified UNIX variant or another on
PDP-11 or, perhaps later, VAX which would have roughly been contemporaneous
with the System/7
The System
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Diane Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:33:05PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>> > The problems revolve around the fact that instructions cannot be
>> > properly restarted on the 68000. Not enough context is saved.
>> > [...]
>> > (The tricks done by those who did fi
On 07/04/2015 11:16 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
Sure, and the information they did push on the stack when they finally
added instruction continuation was pretty hefty. 68010 had that with
limited addressing (Which the MAC (ab)used).
I recall that I'd suggested to the guy at WESCON that a programma
Mouse wrote:
> I recall hearing of a company that build a machine with two 68000s,
one
> running one instruction behind the other. When the leading processor
got a
> page fault, hardware interrupted the lagging processor (which had not
yet
> encountered the faulting instruction) and there's a dan
rious other vendors; the one I had was
reportedly a prototype prior to being rebadged by Gould. Maybe Unisys were
doing the same. It may have been Gould's (not CT's) software.
Have a lot of fun
john wallace
============
Re: out-of-m
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> ...
> I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have some
> serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual memory
> or proper usermode protection.
True, but Apollo did it anyway. I heard a
> The problems revolve around the fact that instructions cannot be
> properly restarted on the 68000. Not enough context is saved. This in
> turn means you cannot do demand paging, a that will cause a memory
> exception trap, from which you cannot recover.
True, but IIRC the OP was talking about
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 10:06:16AM -0700, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> On 07/04/2015 09:42 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
>
> > Both Apollo and SUN did this. The clocks were two phase so one ran
> > behind the other. It was a hack.
>
> I don't remember when I first saw the 68000 in detail--perhaps it was at
> a
On 07/04/2015 09:42 AM, Diane Bruce wrote:
Both Apollo and SUN did this. The clocks were two phase so one ran
behind the other. It was a hack.
I don't remember when I first saw the 68000 in detail--perhaps it was at
a WESCON in the late 70s. My 68K manual is from that show and I took
some t
I've heard of that design too. It was back in the late 70'r or early 80's.
A quick search leads to Apollo, but I seem to recall others trying the
same. Onyx and Dual systems come to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Computer
On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Mouse wrote:
> > The problems
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:33:05PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> > The problems revolve around the fact that instructions cannot be
> > properly restarted on the 68000. Not enough context is saved.
> > [...]
> > (The tricks done by those who did fix this consists of having a
> > second processor which get
> The problems revolve around the fact that instructions cannot be
> properly restarted on the 68000. Not enough context is saved.
> [...]
> (The tricks done by those who did fix this consists of having a
> second processor which gets interrupted when you get a page fault,
> and the second process
On 2015-07-04 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-07-04 17:09, Toby Thain wrote:
...
I likely was thinking of Stratus, because I remember reading this before:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~david/papers/ibmsj1987_stratus.pdf
Unfortunately, that paper can slightly confuse you. They talk about
> Also, there is no MMU from Motorola for the 68000, so you would have to
> design your own.
What about the 68451?
-tony
On 2015-07-04 17:08, Jules Richardson wrote:
On 07/03/2015 06:59 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have some
serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual
memory or proper usermode protection.
(Yes, it can be done,
On 2015-07-04 17:09, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2015-07-03 11:13 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
On 07/03/2015 09:11 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:09 PM, Glen Slick wrote:
Apollo is the classic example of using plain 68K (two).
I always associate it with Tandem:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/ta
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 11:09:20AM -0400, Toby Thain wrote:
> Yes, you are right. The report gives some examples of dual 68000's in
> Tandem's peripheral subsystems.
Later systems had dual 68302s in the Service Processors.
I know -- I maintained that code for a while :-)
mcl
On 2015-07-03 11:13 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
On 07/03/2015 09:11 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:09 PM, Glen Slick wrote:
Apollo is the classic example of using plain 68K (two).
I always associate it with Tandem:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-86.2.pdf
Not sure what you are
On 07/03/2015 06:59 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have some
serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual
memory or proper usermode protection.
(Yes, it can be done, but the amount of hardware required means mos
On Jul 4, 2015 8:40 AM, "Sean Caron" wrote:
>I would be really interested to know what the
> System/7 did at AT&T if anyone is familiar.
As I mentioned, I'm reasonably certain that I've read it was hooked into
the billing/metering system.
Mike
On 07/03/2015 06:54 PM, m...@markesystems.com wrote:
In the late 80’s, I bought from a surplus/junk shop a (by then somewhat
obsolete) Unix computer, branded UniSys, I think. It had 10 serial
ports; one was the primary console, one was intended for a printer, and
the other 8 were regular user TT
On 2015-07-04 04:11, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:09 PM, Glen Slick wrote:
On Jul 3, 2015 4:59 PM, "Johnny Billquist" wrote:
I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have
some
serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual
memory or proper u
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:
>
> That remind me of the the Norsk Data ND-10 (Maybe the ND-1 and ND-100 is
> the same in this aspect) which is a 16 bit machine with 16 different
> interrupt levels. Each interrupt level has its own set of registers. On top
> of that it also ha
Wasn't it Apollo, that used a pair of 68000s in their very early systems?
Best,
Sean
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2015-07-04 01:54, m...@markesystems.com wrote:
>
>> In the late 80’s, I bought from a surplus/junk shop a (by then somewhat
>> obsolete) Unix compu
I was going to write almost exactly this ... although the Wiki page
mentions that AT&T was one of the primary customers of the System/7, AFAIK,
the common control on the 1/2/3/4ESS switches was a proprietary WECo design
that was highly integrated into the design of the switch itself ... in the
5E,
On 07/03/2015 08:13 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
With regard to the 68000 not being restartable after a trap for some
instructions such as MOVEM, didn't the Lisa guidelines avoid the problem
by avoiding the problem instructions?
I'm trying hard to remember--it's been a long time.
--Chuck
On 07/03/2015 09:11 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2015-07-03 8:09 PM, Glen Slick wrote:
Apollo is the classic example of using plain 68K (two).
I always associate it with Tandem:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/tandem/TR-86.2.pdf
Not sure what you are referring to, here. Tandem did not
use 6
On 2015-07-03 8:09 PM, Glen Slick wrote:
On Jul 3, 2015 4:59 PM, "Johnny Billquist" wrote:
I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have some
serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual
memory or proper usermode protection.
(Yes, it can be don
On 3 July 2015 at 16:48, Mike Ross wrote:
> I do difficult propositions, including prying pdps away from the cold
> dead hands of the British ministry of defence! So tell more? You can
> reach me off-list at this address.
>
My information was slightly incorrect. It appears that there is more
than
On 2015-07-04 02:09, Glen Slick wrote:
On Jul 3, 2015 4:59 PM, "Johnny Billquist" wrote:
I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have some
serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual
memory or proper usermode protection.
(Yes, it can be done,
On Jul 3, 2015 4:59 PM, "Johnny Billquist" wrote:
>
> I find it hard to believe it was a plain 68K in there. That CPU have some
serious issues that makes it close to impossible to implement virtual
memory or proper usermode protection.
> (Yes, it can be done, but the amount of hardware required me
On 2015-07-04 01:54, m...@markesystems.com wrote:
In the late 80’s, I bought from a surplus/junk shop a (by then somewhat
obsolete) Unix computer, branded UniSys, I think. It had 10 serial ports; one
was the primary console, one was intended for a printer, and the other 8 were
regular user TT
In the late 80’s, I bought from a surplus/junk shop a (by then somewhat
obsolete) Unix computer, branded UniSys, I think. It had 10 serial ports; one
was the primary console, one was intended for a printer, and the other 8 were
regular user TTYs. The processor was a 68000 (not 010, 020, or any
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Mike Ross
> Sent: 03 July 2015 21:48
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: out-of-mainstream minis
>
> I do difficult propositions, including pryi
I do difficult propositions, including prying pdps away from the cold
dead hands of the British ministry of defence! So tell more? You can
reach me off-list at this address.
I had been told that the System/7s were part of the billing system,
rather than the switch itself. My info may be defective,
> From: Christian Gauger-Cosgrove
> The other 1ESS/1AESS switch is a complete and functional unit, still in
> service, last I heard. But there are plans to scrap it and put in a
> modern switch in its place. Saving it would be a difficult proposition,
> to say the least.
I'd t
On 2015-07-02 02:36 PM, tony duell wrote:
>> > I share your favourite(s). In the danish IT-museum-to-be
>> > (www.datamuseum.dk) we have two
>> > P857-based systems running. We have lots of spare parts and nearly all
>> > documentation, so
>> > if you need something, you are welcome to ask.
>
> That's right. There were one odd swedish mini as well.
The Japanese made quite a wide variety of minicomputers (and
mainframes), but they remain fairly unknown in the collector mindset,
despite their web presence.
--
Will
> Take the IBM System/7. Successor to the 1800, succeeded by the
> Series/1. They were *ubiquitous* - one in every telephone exchange in
> the USA, I've heard. They even made a special ruggedised version for
> shipboard use. Yet they're functionally *extinct*...Unless anyone knows
> different, no
On 2 July 2015 at 17:39, Mike Ross wrote:
> Take the IBM System/7. Successor to the 1800, succeeded by the
> Series/1. They were *ubiquitous* - one in every telephone exchange in
> the USA, I've heard. They even made a special ruggedised version for
Being into telephony, I can say that I've not he
Anyone ever heard of the IS1000? I can't remember if it was made by GE or
GTE.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Mike Ross wrote:
> There are interesting and obscure machines from the most mainstream
> manufacturers.
>
> Take the IBM System/7. Successor to the 1800, succeeded by the
> Series/1. Th
There are interesting and obscure machines from the most mainstream
manufacturers.
Take the IBM System/7. Successor to the 1800, succeeded by the
Series/1. They were *ubiquitous* - one in every telephone exchange in
the USA, I've heard. They even made a special ruggedised version for
shipboard use
On 2015-07-02 15:47, Mattis Lind wrote:
2015-07-02 7:31 GMT+02:00 tony duell :
Not all minis came from the States :-)
That's right. There were one odd swedish mini as well.
Datasaab manufactured a line of minis called D5 in the early seventies. The
D5/10, D5/20 and D5/30. 16 bits.
They were
On 02.07.2015 16:36, tony duell wrote:
I share your favourite(s). In the danish IT-museum-to-be (www.datamuseum.dk) we
have two
P857-based systems running. We have lots of spare parts and nearly all
documentation, so
if you need something, you are welcome to ask.
Unfortunately I don't own a
> I share your favourite(s). In the danish IT-museum-to-be (www.datamuseum.dk)
> we have two
> P857-based systems running. We have lots of spare parts and nearly all
> documentation, so
> if you need something, you are welcome to ask.
Unfortunately I don't own anything in that series :-(. What
2015-07-02 16:02 GMT+02:00 Paul Koning :
>
> > On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:31 AM, tony duell wrote:
> >
> > Not all minis came from the States :-)
> >
> > One of my favourite non-mainstream families is the Philips P800 series.
> It's
> > a 16 bit machine with 16 registers (0 is the program counter and 1
> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:31 AM, tony duell wrote:
>
> Not all minis came from the States :-)
>
> One of my favourite non-mainstream families is the Philips P800 series. It's
> a 16 bit machine with 16 registers (0 is the program counter and 15
> is the stack pointer, rest are mostly general purp
2015-07-02 7:31 GMT+02:00 tony duell :
> Not all minis came from the States :-)
>
That's right. There were one odd swedish mini as well.
Datasaab manufactured a line of minis called D5 in the early seventies. The
D5/10, D5/20 and D5/30. 16 bits.
They were used among others in banks for controlli
amiel), and some guys who have no
hardware but a lot of knowledge
/Nico
- Original Message -
From: tony duell
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:31 AM
Subject: RE: out-of-mainstream minis
Not all minis came from the States :
Not all minis came from the States :-)
One of my favourite non-mainstream families is the Philips P800 series. It's
a 16 bit machine with 16 registers (0 is the program counter and 15
is the stack pointer, rest are mostly general purpose) and separate
I/O instructions (not memory-mapped I/O). The
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 05:26:14PM -0400, Matt Patoray wrote:
> I think RCA at one time also made smaller computers along with the
> Spectra/70 mainframe series.
If anyone has a front panel from one of those to sell ... :-)
(I only saw one, as a kid, in high school. It was neat industrial
design
On 2015-Jul-01, at 2:26 PM, Matt Patoray wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:54:51PM -0700, Brent Hilpert wrote:
>>> Something I could wish to find/stumble-across would be one of the
>>> out-of-the-mainstream minis from the 60s/70s - something
Varian made interesting mini computers with a very cool front panel.
I think RCA at one time also made smaller computers along with the
Spectra/70 mainframe series.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:54:51PM -0700, Brent Hilpert wrote:
> > Something
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:54:51PM -0700, Brent Hilpert wrote:
> Something I could wish to find/stumble-across would be one of the
> out-of-the-mainstream minis from the 60s/70s - something not DEC,
> not HP, not IBM, not DG (although a little Nova would be nice).
I had to suffer through building
71 matches
Mail list logo
