Re: [Simh] [OT] What's the difference between the 1990 Brunner VAX Architecture book and the Leonard from 1987?

2016-01-28 Thread Paul Koning
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:28 AM, li...@openmailbox.org wrote: > > Hi, > > Since there are some ex-DEC people here and many people knowledgeable in > VAX can anybody tell me the [major] differences between these books if any? > The Brunner book is very expensive, the 1987 copy is very affordable. W

Re: [Simh] [OT] What's the difference between the 1990 Brunner VAX Architecture book and the Leonard from 1987?

2016-01-28 Thread lists
Thank you so much. That's a wonderfully complete and very helpful answer. I will save your email for future reference. On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:04:17 -0500 Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:28 AM, li...@openmailbox.org wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Since there are some ex-DEC people h

Re: [Simh] [OT] What's the difference between the 1990 Brunner VAX Architecture book and the Leonard from 1987?

2016-01-28 Thread Tom Morris
You'll get better answers if you're more explicit with your references. Paul took at guess at what you meant. I'm going to make a different guess. I'm guessing that the two books are: - "Leonard book" - VAX Architecture Manual, first edition, edited by Timothy Leonard and published by Digital Pre

Re: [Simh] [OT] What's the difference between the 1990 Brunner VAX Architecture book and the Leonard from 1987?

2016-01-28 Thread Paul Koning
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Tom Morris wrote: > > You'll get better answers if you're more explicit with your references. Paul > took at guess at what you meant. I'm going to make a different guess. > > I'm guessing that the two books are: > > - "Leonard book" - VAX Architecture Manual, fi

Re: [Simh] [OT] What's the difference between the 1990 Brunner VAX Architecture book and the Leonard from 1987?

2016-01-28 Thread lists
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:15:59 -0500 Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Tom Morris wrote: > > > > You'll get better answers if you're more explicit with your references. > > Paul took at guess at what you meant. I'm going to make a different > > guess. Both guesses were good