Fw: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
Thanks Guys, You are amazing. I got more informations than I can use over the next four weeks ! THANKS.
Re: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
I’m glad I had kept it around. I purchased a copy of the listing directly from HP while I was in High School so that I could study how it worked and “hack” on it to make some changes. I had kept the listing in a special binder. After college I had misplaced the binder and thought it was lost. During one of my moves (around 2006(or so) I discovered that I still had it. I lent it to James Markevitch (another list member) sometime after that who scanned it and OCR’d it and made it available to the community. The binder containing the source listing sits prominently on one of the shelves in my office. It is also loaded into the core of my 2116C that I run from time to time. ;-) TTFN - Guy > On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Brent Hilpert via cctalk > wrote: > > On 2019-Feb-24, at 2:03 AM, GerardCJAT via cctalk wrote: > >> Back in ''70, sometimes we were running "basic" BASIC ( NOT Time sharing ) >> on 2116B, 2100A, just for FUN. >> >> Is there some copy still around ?? >> >> I had a look in Google, Bitsavers, HPmuseum, with NO success. >> >> Thank for help and/or advise. > > > This is my own writeup about it, including assembler source and loader files, > but as noted there it's Guy Sotomayor (list member) > that deserves the thanks for keeping it around and making it available: > > http://madrona.ca/e/HP21xx/software/hpbasic/index.html > > The source files are also available on bitsavers, link included on above > page. >
Re: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
I have a set of actual HP paper tapes I acquired with my HP 2114B a number of year ago, including BASIC, FORTRAN and ALGOL. I'd have to look at the manuals to find out if/which required DOS. I have not run any of these images except for some of the diagnostics. I seem to recall that at least one of the tapes had problems, but I don't remember which one. I'll have to look at my notes / files tomorrow. I found what I *think* are the files and also some from Jeff Moffat (http://rikers.org/hp2100/jeff/) - those I'd prefer you got from him. Here are mine, and I will upload them tomorrow. JRJ KINDID MACHINE CONTENTSCOMMENT ChecksumChecksum 2 FILENAMEMFG SERIAL TRAYDATEAVAILABILI ERRORS PREVIOUS_C PT HP 2114BDiagnostic Config HP HP6 PT 2-60001 HP 2114BInput Output Control Rev. A HP HP1 PT 20002-60001 HP 2114BBCS Debug Routine Rev. B HP HP1 PT 20005-60001 HP 2114BBCS Tape Reader Drvr D.01 Rev. A HP HP1 PT 20017-60001 HP 2114BBCS TTY Drvr D.00 Rev. B HP HP1 PT 20018-60001 HP 2114BBCS Relocating Loader Rev. E HP HP1 PT 20021-60001 HP 2114BPrepare Control System Rev. B HP HP1 PT 20100-60001 HP 2114BSymbolic Editor Rev. B HP HP1 PT 20306-60001 HP 2114B8K SIO Tape Rdr Drvr Rev. A HP HP1 PT 20313-60001 HP 2114B8K SIO Sys Dump Rev. B HP HP2 PT 20392-60001 HP 2114BBASIC Rev. A HP HP2 PT 20392-60002 HP 2114BPrepare BASIC System Rev. A HP HP2 PT 20512-60001 HP 2114B2115/14 High Mem Checkbd Test Rev. A HP HP2 PT 20524-60001 HP 2114B2114B DMA Gen. Diag. Rev. A HP HP2 PT 20548-60001 HP 2114BFTN Compiler Pass 1 Rev. A HP HP2 PT 20548-60002 HP 2114BFTN Compiler Pass 2 Rev. A HP HP2 PT 20985-60001 HP 2114BDOS TTY Drvr (DVROO) Rev A HP HP2 PT 20987-60001 HP 2114BDOS PUN Tape Rdr Drvr (DVR01) Rev A HP HP3 PT 24031-60001 HP 2114BEXT. Assembler Non Eau Rev. A HP HP3 PT 24044-60001 HP 2114BALGOL Compiler Rev. A HP HP3 PT 24109-60001 HP 2114BCross-Ref Symb Table Gen Rev. A HP HP3 PT 24125-60001 HP 2114B8K SIO TTY Drvr (LP-Compat) Rev A HP HP3 PT 24146-60001 HP 2114BBCS Relocatable Library (Non-EAU) Rev A HP HP3 PT 24149-60001 HP 2114BBCS FORTRAN IV Library Rev A HP HP3 PT 24150-60001 HP 2114BRTE/DOS Reloc. Library (Non EAU) Rev B HP HP4 PT 24152-60001 HP 2114BRTE/DOS FORTRAN IV Library Rev A HP HP4 PT 24153-60001 HP 2114BRTE/DOS HP FORTRAN Formatter Rev A HP HP4 PT 24154-60001 HP 2114B
Re: PDP-11 LDA BFD backend for gnu binutils
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk > wrote: > > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Paul Koning wrote: >> What LDA do you have in mind? Absolute loader binary, for bare metal >> execution? > > I had in mind absolute loader binary for bare metal as a starting point. That sounds straightforward. > ... > I am mostly interested in assembly development for my purposes, but it looks > like others have been having pretty good luck with recent gcc on the > pdp11-aout target as well. For the purpose of running the execution tests in the gcc test suite I use a small Python program to convert a.out to a bare metal load tape. It's a bit clunky and it would be cleaner if bfd knew how to do this. So I'd have a use for what you're proposing. I probably wouldn't use it for assembly work, though; the gas assembler is too strange for one trained on DEC tools. paul
Re: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
I have this pocket guide. Probably more that I have not scanned. http://www.vintagecomputer.net/hp/2000A/index.html Bill On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 1:18 PM Brent Hilpert via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 2019-Feb-24, at 2:03 AM, GerardCJAT via cctalk wrote: > > > Back in ''70, sometimes we were running "basic" BASIC ( NOT Time sharing > ) on 2116B, 2100A, just for FUN. > > > > Is there some copy still around ?? > > > > I had a look in Google, Bitsavers, HPmuseum, with NO success. > > > > Thank for help and/or advise. > > > This is my own writeup about it, including assembler source and loader > files, but as noted there it's Guy Sotomayor (list member) > that deserves the thanks for keeping it around and making it available: > > http://madrona.ca/e/HP21xx/software/hpbasic/index.html > > The source files are also available on bitsavers, link included on above > page. > >
Re: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
opps seem you checked HP museum already .. sorry typed to quickly I seen to remember a core resident version of basic from paper tape but do not seem to have seen it in years may be warehoused if we still have one YES! it would be fin to play with! In a message dated 2/24/2019 3:04:03 AM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes: Back in ''70, sometimes we were running "basic" BASIC ( NOT Time sharing ) on 2116B, 2100A, just for FUN. Is there some copy still around ?? I had a look in Google, Bitsavers, HPmuseum, with NO success. Thank for help and/or advise.
Re: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
DID YOU CHECK HP MUSEUM DOWN UNDER? THEY HAVE A FAB ONLINE COLLECTION OF SOFTWARE... In a message dated 2/24/2019 3:04:03 AM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes: Back in ''70, sometimes we were running "basic" BASIC ( NOT Time sharing ) on 2116B, 2100A, just for FUN. Is there some copy still around ?? I had a look in Google, Bitsavers, HPmuseum, with NO success. Thank for help and/or advise.
Re: PDP-11 LDA BFD backend for gnu binutils
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > What LDA do you have in mind? Absolute loader binary, for bare metal > execution? I had in mind absolute loader binary for bare metal as a starting point. Most of the coding I’ve had to do on my restoration adventure has been standalone tests and utilities. To date I’ve been using the RT-11 tool chain under SIMH, and copying things in and out via the simulated paper tape reader/punch, but that’s a little cumbersome. I’m now contemplating developing a few more significant standalone utilities that will have both PDP-11 server components and modern PC client components, and it would be nice to be able to build all the parts together in one place using the conventional gnu tooling. I am mostly interested in assembly development for my purposes, but it looks like others have been having pretty good luck with recent gcc on the pdp11-aout target as well. I think I’m most interested in this level of development because it’s what is needed to repair and troubleshoot the machines. After they are up and running, it’s way more fun to do self-hosted development using the real thing (though it does run up the power bill, and I wish I had a better editor under V6 :-)) Cheers, —FritzM.
Re: BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
On 2019-Feb-24, at 2:03 AM, GerardCJAT via cctalk wrote: > Back in ''70, sometimes we were running "basic" BASIC ( NOT Time sharing ) on > 2116B, 2100A, just for FUN. > > Is there some copy still around ?? > > I had a look in Google, Bitsavers, HPmuseum, with NO success. > > Thank for help and/or advise. This is my own writeup about it, including assembler source and loader files, but as noted there it's Guy Sotomayor (list member) that deserves the thanks for keeping it around and making it available: http://madrona.ca/e/HP21xx/software/hpbasic/index.html The source files are also available on bitsavers, link included on above page.
Re: PDP-11 LDA BFD backend for gnu binutils
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Fritz Mueller via cctalk > wrote: > > I've been thinking it might be nice to have an LDA BFD backend for gnu > binutils, so gas, ld, objdump etc. could deal with LDA's directly without > having to use separate conversion utilities. > > Before jumping in on that, though, I thought I'd ask here to see if anybody > might have already started or done this? I've noticed several of the folks > here also have contributions on some of the binutils lists. > > thanks, > --FritzM. What LDA do you have in mind? Absolute loader binary, for bare metal execution? DOS-11 binary? :-) Part of the issue is that there are a number of different executable forats for PDP-11 -- RSX TSK files (possibly several, if -D and -M differ which I don't know, SAV for RT-11 (and also REL), not to mention the variant wrapper RSTS uses (SIL). paul
Re: IBM 3174 C 6.4 Microcode Disks?
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 3:01 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk > wrote: > > On 2/22/19 6:15 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> SNAP as a way of encoding bridged Ethernet II frames applies only to >> non-Ethernet LANs, all of which have larger MTU. > > Nope. I'm quite sure that NetBIOS used SNAP on Ethernet. > > I'm betting that 3174's Ethernet interfaces also used DLC / LLC2 via SNAP. > > IPX could run over SNAP on Ethernet if you wanted to. Yes, but that's not what I was trying to say, apparently not very clearly. There is a translation of Ethernet 2 frames into SNAP (by using an OUI of 00-00-00 or 00-00-F8 followed by the Ethentype). Those particular SNAP values are meant to be used only on LANs different from Ethernet, and bridges connecting those to Ethernet would look for those SNAP values and convert to the corresponding Ethernet 2 format. >> SNAP covers more than encoding bridged Ethernet II. It was intended as a >> way to carry protocols in 802 format for which you couldn't get a SSAP/DSAP >> code point (such as private protocols). DEC did this in various places, >> it's perfectly straightforward. > > *nod* > >> Perhaps some implementations make it hard to support both simultaneously, >> but there is no technical reason to make such a mistake. > > I feel like putting TCP/IP in SNAP on Ethernet is a mistake in that most OSs > will not know how to work with TCP in a SNAP frame as they will be expecting > Ethernet II frames. > > I don't know that there's a technical reason per say. I do think that there > is a market reason. A specific case of the general point above: on Ethernet you'd use 08-00 and 08-06; on non-Ethernet you'd apply RFC 1042 which gives the SNAP equivalents using the 00-00-00 prefix. >> The pretense that broadcast is different from multicast is just a confusion. >> The description says that it is used for traffic that every station wants >> to get. If you take that literally, no protocol should use broadcast, >> because there isn't any protocol that every station on every LAN wants to >> see. For example, ARP should have used multicast for the same reason DECnet >> does: it is traffic that is interesting to stations which speak that >> protocol, and only to those stations. > > Flip things on their head. I think it's that the sender wants every > receiving station to see. Yes, but no sender and no protocol has a valid expectation that this is the right thing. >> I think that's right. For 802.5, that is. > > ACK > >> In FDDI the frames are "stripped" by the sending station, which allows >> things like network monitors in promiscuous mode to work just like on >> Ethernet > > Intriguing. > >> The claim of collapse under load -- meaning throughput goes down beyond a >> certain load level -- is valid for ALOHA and similar networks, but not on >> Ethernet because it uses carrier sense and collision detect. Under overload >> it runs at close to full utilization. > > Okay. So you weren't saying that Token Ring had problems as much as you were > saying that Ethernet can work at close to capacity. > > I remember seeing references to Ethernet would start to have problems with > increasing backouts as the number of stations wanting to transmit at the same > time would grow. > > Though that may be that the average throughput of a given station may go down > while the network segment itself is closer to saturation. That's necessarily true for any sharing system. If you're not sharing you can get up to 100%, give or take how well the scheduling works. Two equal clients each get 50%, and so on. The merit of a sharing system is in how well it approaches 100% total throughput, and how well it delivers the desired split of service among the competing clients. Ethernet and 802.5 and FDDI all do it differently, and all do it pretty well. IBM once put out a marketing document full of FUD about Ethernet, and DEC, Intel, and 3Com (I think) put out a joint rebuttal going point by point (I participated in that effort). I have it in stored away somewhere; should look for it next time I'm in the right spot. paul
BASIC for HP 1000, 21xx series
Back in ''70, sometimes we were running "basic" BASIC ( NOT Time sharing ) on 2116B, 2100A, just for FUN. Is there some copy still around ?? I had a look in Google, Bitsavers, HPmuseum, with NO success. Thank for help and/or advise.
