If I have time tonight I'll log the session with "verbose" set on the TU58EM. 
Again, I'm trying the trick of booting from a TU58 emulator and an RK image 
with DD as the boot target (supposedly can work but maybe slow). I can see the 
blocks being read in but it stops and doesn't give me the sign-on banner. 

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Pete Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/03/2016 20:08, Paul Koning wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:54 PM, Pete Turnbull
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 10/03/2016 19:28, Richard Cini wrote:
>>>> I feel I'm close but I'm missing something. I may try 5.3
>>>> instead.
>>> 
>>> I've got various RX01, RX02, RL01 and RL02 disks with RT-11 v2, 4.0
>>> and 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.7 and run them on real hardware.  It's a
>>> long time since I've run v2, but the rest all run on my 11/73 as
>>> far as I remember.  It may depend on the exact config (SYSGEN) but
>>> it certainly won't work unless you have exactly the right boot
>>> block on the media.
>> 
>> V2 doesn't have sysgen.  But yes, the boot block is device specific
>> (at least in the early versions, I don't have experience with the
>> later ones).  You can use PIP to write a boot block of your
>> choosing.
> 
> I know v2 doesn't have SYSGEN but IIRC you still need to need to have things 
> set up right, like the driver files.  I haven't used V3 (I have some RX01 
> flopppies with that and MuBASIC) in several decades so I can't remember if 
> that was when it changed.  But for all versions you need to set up the 
> correct boot block for the specific boot device.  4.0 is so straightforward 
> I'm surprised if it won't run on Rich's H11 - 4.0 is contemporary with the 
> LSI-11 and 11/03 and although the other cards are different I thought the H11 
> used a standard DEC LSI-11 processor.
> 
> Maybe something vital isn't at the expected address?   Or there's an 
> unexpected interrupt or something?  What exactly does it do (or was it doing) 
> when it barfs and how far does it get?
> 
> -- 
> Pete

Reply via email to