Re: Greetings
I'm just guessing here but I would suspect this had more to do with the hardware capabilities of the tape system. Not all tape drives could just pause to wait for more data then resume. If the data wasn't being steamed fast enough the tape would have to resync somehow which could even require rewinding and it's possible that was either unsupported or just unreliable On Thu., May 2, 2019, 12:41 p.m. Paul Koning via cctalk, < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On May 2, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Paul Koning > wrote: > >>> On May 1, 2019, at 10:58 PM, Ethan Dicks > wrote: > >>> I think those were still true for V3.X. I know we had a problem back > >>> then with our backups where someone elevated the priority of the Tape > >>> ACP over the Disk ACP (because it was faster) that left us with months > >>> of corrupt backups. > >> > >> Wow, that reflects very badly on the engineering involved. Setting > priorities wrong might cause things not to get done, or to take too long, > but it cannot ever be an excuse for data corruption. > > > > Thinking back 35 years... it was that someone enabled the backup > > operator account with SETPRI, allowing the operator to elevate the > > priority of the script. What I think was happening was that the > > script was grabbing buffers from the disk before they were filled and > > slamming them out to tape. It definitely cut minutes off the backup > > time, which is why it happened. > > > > I'm sure the VMS wizards hadn't expected a user process to run at > > priority 31 (IIRC) because anyone with SETPRI _surely_ had the wisdom > > not to elevate above system processes. > > > > Definitely a failure to think of ways users could abuse the system. > > > > -ethan > > More in particular, it is a design failure, relying on timing hacks rather > than explicitly and correctly passing ownership of data from producer to > consumer. > > paul > >
Re: Greetings
> On May 2, 2019, at 10:49 AM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Paul Koning wrote: >>> On May 1, 2019, at 10:58 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: >>> I think those were still true for V3.X. I know we had a problem back >>> then with our backups where someone elevated the priority of the Tape >>> ACP over the Disk ACP (because it was faster) that left us with months >>> of corrupt backups. >> >> Wow, that reflects very badly on the engineering involved. Setting >> priorities wrong might cause things not to get done, or to take too long, >> but it cannot ever be an excuse for data corruption. > > Thinking back 35 years... it was that someone enabled the backup > operator account with SETPRI, allowing the operator to elevate the > priority of the script. What I think was happening was that the > script was grabbing buffers from the disk before they were filled and > slamming them out to tape. It definitely cut minutes off the backup > time, which is why it happened. > > I'm sure the VMS wizards hadn't expected a user process to run at > priority 31 (IIRC) because anyone with SETPRI _surely_ had the wisdom > not to elevate above system processes. > > Definitely a failure to think of ways users could abuse the system. > > -ethan More in particular, it is a design failure, relying on timing hacks rather than explicitly and correctly passing ownership of data from producer to consumer. paul
Re: Greetings
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Paul Koning wrote: > > On May 1, 2019, at 10:58 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > I think those were still true for V3.X. I know we had a problem back > > then with our backups where someone elevated the priority of the Tape > > ACP over the Disk ACP (because it was faster) that left us with months > > of corrupt backups. > > Wow, that reflects very badly on the engineering involved. Setting > priorities wrong might cause things not to get done, or to take too long, but > it cannot ever be an excuse for data corruption. Thinking back 35 years... it was that someone enabled the backup operator account with SETPRI, allowing the operator to elevate the priority of the script. What I think was happening was that the script was grabbing buffers from the disk before they were filled and slamming them out to tape. It definitely cut minutes off the backup time, which is why it happened. I'm sure the VMS wizards hadn't expected a user process to run at priority 31 (IIRC) because anyone with SETPRI _surely_ had the wisdom not to elevate above system processes. Definitely a failure to think of ways users could abuse the system. -ethan
Re: Greetings
> On May 1, 2019, at 10:58 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:42 PM Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: >> ... >> 9.3 names back then, I'm pretty sure. File system still in an ACP (separate >> process)? DECnet Phase II ??? > > I think those were still true for V3.X. I know we had a problem back > then with our backups where someone elevated the priority of the Tape > ACP over the Disk ACP (because it was faster) that left us with months > of corrupt backups. > > -ethan Wow, that reflects very badly on the engineering involved. Setting priorities wrong might cause things not to get done, or to take too long, but it cannot ever be an excuse for data corruption. paul
Re: Greetings
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:42 PM Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > On May 1, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk > > wrote: > > > > I would expect V1.x to feel distinctly clunky in comparison ... to V4.x and > > later. > > > > Still a fun exercise though I would think. > > I would think so. I was an occasional VMS user at DEC, and I somehow got > myself a spot on an OS Internals course for VMS 1.5. I wasn't in or near VMS > at the time, I don't remember how that came to be. It was interesting to > learn how to add a syscall to the OS. > > 9.3 names back then, I'm pretty sure. File system still in an ACP (separate > process)? DECnet Phase II ??? I think those were still true for V3.X. I know we had a problem back then with our backups where someone elevated the priority of the Tape ACP over the Disk ACP (because it was faster) that left us with months of corrupt backups. -ethan
Re: Greetings
> On May 1, 2019, at 3:54 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk > wrote: > > ... > I would expect V1.x to feel distinctly clunky in comparison ... to V4.x and > later. > > Still a fun exercise though I would think. I would think so. I was an occasional VMS user at DEC, and I somehow got myself a spot on an OS Internals course for VMS 1.5. I wasn't in or near VMS at the time, I don't remember how that came to be. It was interesting to learn how to add a syscall to the OS. 9.3 names back then, I'm pretty sure. File system still in an ACP (separate process)? DECnet Phase II ??? paul
Re: Greetings
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:54 PM Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote: > I may have missed some of the thread, so this might be old news ... We've tossed around the facts from the edges but didn't list them one by one. > So I think that to use anything pre-V4.0 you need compatibility mode > support in SIMH. But that seems to be there. I think that's true. MicroVMS 4.0 runs on MicroVAXen, which don't happen to have compatibility mode, so I think it's safe to say that it was all worked out by then. I'm pretty sure there was still some PDP-11 code in the corners of late v3.x. > I would expect V1.x to feel distinctly clunky in comparison ... to V4.x > and later. I would agree (I got started with V3.4 or so, so anything V2.0 or older is going to feel strange to me, I'm sure). > Still a fun exercise though I would think. No doubt. Definitely a learning experience. I was just a user for V3.x, then became a System Manager with V4.x (late 1985 or early 1986), then started doing device drivers in 1988 with the push to add SMP under V5.0, at first driver upgrades, then later, drivers from scratch. How many times a day can you crash a VAX? Lots. -ethan
Re: Greetings
> On 2 May 2019, at 07:47, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > > The VAX 8600 and 8650 were the last VAX models to have PDP-11 compatibility > mode, so if the purpose of VMS 4.0 was to support the 8600, I would expect > it to still contain compatibility mode support. VMS versions at least as > late as 5.2 still supported the 8600. I don't have firsthand experience, as > the only 8600 I used ran BSD. I seem to recall that there was a software implementation of compatibility mode to allow PDP-11 code to be run on VAX hardware that didn’t have it natively. At one stage I used to manage a very eclectic mix of VAX systems, including 11-780, 11-785, 8650, 8700, 8800, 8820, 8840, 6300, 6600, 7740. Huw Davies | e-mail: huw.dav...@kerberos.davies.net.au Melbourne| "If soccer was meant to be played in the Australia| air, the sky would be painted green"
Re: Greetings
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:54 PM Antonio Carlini via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Then (I think) came the VAX 8600 and that needed VMS V4.0. That (I > think, but I can't find anything to support this right now ...) is when > the last of the PDP-11 compatibility code was finally removed. > The VAX 8600 and 8650 were the last VAX models to have PDP-11 compatibility mode, so if the purpose of VMS 4.0 was to support the 8600, I would expect it to still contain compatibility mode support. VMS versions at least as late as 5.2 still supported the 8600. I don't have firsthand experience, as the only 8600 I used ran BSD.
Re: Greetings
On 30/04/2019 10:25, Huw Davies via cctalk wrote: I know later 780s (probably with an upgraded memory controller) supported 64MB of memory. I have used VMS 1.6 and started managing VMS systems around the 2.4 timeframe. I haven’t looked but does the simh 11/780 also provide PDP-11 compatibility mode? You used to run a very large amount of -11 code in VMS 1.x.. I may have missed some of the thread, so this might be old news ... The VAX-11/780 was followed by the VAX-11/750 and that needed (iirc) VMS V2.0. The VAX-11/730 was next and that needed VMS V3.0. Then (I think) came the VAX 8600 and that needed VMS V4.0. That (I think, but I can't find anything to support this right now ...) is when the last of the PDP-11 compatibility code was finally removed. So I think that to use anything pre-V4.0 you need compatibility mode support in SIMH. But that seems to be there. I've not used anything older than V3.x ... I remember command line recall arriving, so I expect that happened in V4.0. I would expect V1.x to feel distinctly clunky in comparison ... to V4.x and later. Still a fun exercise though I would think. Antonio -- Antonio Carlini anto...@acarlini.com
Re: Greetings
> On 29 Apr 2019, at 21:47, allison via cctech wrote: >> > You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and > typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). I know later 780s (probably with an upgraded memory controller) supported 64MB of memory. I have used VMS 1.6 and started managing VMS systems around the 2.4 timeframe. I haven’t looked but does the simh 11/780 also provide PDP-11 compatibility mode? You used to run a very large amount of -11 code in VMS 1.x.. Huw Davies | e-mail: huw.dav...@kerberos.davies.net.au Melbourne| "If soccer was meant to be played in the Australia| air, the sky would be painted green"
Re: Greetings
On 4/28/19 3:55 PM, Ray Jewhurst via cctalk wrote: > I am new to the list and would like to introduce myself. I > am a computer history buff who especially likes DEC machines. > I unfortunately don't own any hardware but I use Simh on a daily > basis. I would like to start off with a question. I see that Bitsavers > has a copy of VMS 1.5 and wanted to know if anyone got it working > with the Vax 780 simulator? > I hope to learn a lot from this group. Hi Ray, about 18 months ago, I did indeed install VMS 1.5 on a simulated (with simh) VAX-11/780. It was not particularly difficult, but it did take a bit more effort than I expected. Here is what I did and the problems that I came across. I am typing this from memory, so I might have mis-remembered the odd fact. The instructions tell you to create a bootable disk from tape using the DSC utility. However, DSC was something that ran in PDP-11 emulation mode on a VAX and was discontinued early enough in the evolution of VMS that it was not present on any of my simulated systems (VMS 4.x, 5.x and 7.3). I needed to build a VMS 3.0 system in order to complete copying the VMS 1.5 tape to disk. If you have a simulated PDP-11 system, you might be able to use that instead. Building the VMS 3.0 system gave me another problem in that I tried using a simulated TE16 (Massbus) tape drive to read the VMS 3.0 installation tape. This should have been fine, but actually I uncovered a bug in simh. Bob Supnik fixed the bug, but you do need to use an up to date version of simh to get the bug fix. If you need to use an old version of simh for some reason, then use a TS (Unibus) tape drive and all should be well. VMS 1.5 is primitive compared with later versions, but does have historical interest. Do let me know if you want any further information about my adventures with VMS 1.5. Cheers Peter Allan
Re: Greetings
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:44 PM allison via cctech wrote: > On 04/29/2019 11:37 AM, Jon Elson wrote: > > On 04/29/2019 06:47 AM, allison via cctech wrote: > >> On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: > >>> On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: > I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in > experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. > >>> ACK > >>> > >>> I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware > >>> that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. > >>> > >> You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and > >> typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). > > The typical environment during the DEC years '83-93 was a 780 with a > 4-12mb and dozens of users or more. We (by that I mean Software Results) had an 11/750 that started out with 512K of RAM and quickly upgraded to 2MB. I later bumped it up to 8MB (adding the backplane wire and replacing the memory controller) and we ran 40+ users on it. > In 83 that meant 3.2 or later and much of the time was V3.8 or 3.9 till > maybe 86ish then V4 and soon after V5. I first encountered VMS in late 1984. I started off a just a user, so I don't recall the version, but ISTR we upgraded to either V3.4 or V3.6. We stayed there for a while, but the MicroVAX I we got was upgraded from, MicroVMS 1.0 to MicroVMS 4.0 as fast as that came out. Eventually we did the upgrade path to 4.0 and beyond, pausing at 4.6 on that machine in part because we had a SI9900 controller (you had to patch DRDRIVER.EXE to use all the cylinders of a Fuji Eagle) and in part because we had customers who were still on V4.X. I put V5.something on an 11/730 and we used that box to link our product for newer versions of VMS (after 1988). When we shut everything down in 1993, we were still running VMS 4.6 on that 11/750 and never needed to upgrade it past 8MB. It did have about 1GB on 4 spindles and 2 controllers. > The years 83 and 84 I fondly remember V3.6 and later mostly V3.8... I definitely remember V3.6 but I don't think we were on V3.8 for very long before moving to V4.0. > If memory serves V4 was the last that ran in 1meg, V5 pushed that higher > as a 4 meg system was more common then. I don't think I ever tried to run V4 in under 4MB (even our MicroVAX I was maxxed out). Or MicroVAX II had 9MB (and I think we had that one on V5.4 for a while before moving to V5.5-1). I think our VAX 8200 was on V5.4 for product development (COMBOARD for VAXBI) and it had no less than 8MB (the total amount varied by how many slots we had to free up by removing 2MB boards. > However the Qbus uVAX has a RD54[system] and RD52[swap] on > separate MSCP controllers > for performance as thats where they bottlenecked when heavy swapping. That sounds like fun - we never had enough hardware to pull that off. > All my uVAXen have run from V4.4 [MicroVaxII/GPX] or later and my > nominal version is 5.4. Though I have a > RZ56 with V7.2 on it. All are physical hardware in the Qbus BA123 > realm and M3100 series. Cool. I've powered up the MicroVAX II in recent memory, and the VAX 8200 but I haven't fired up the 11/750 since the company folded. > Running anything before V3 is painful as it was a build. Also V1 was > tied the 780 and that did PDP11 emulation > mode for a lot of stuff. Like I said, I started with V3.x so I missed out on the "joy". > VMS changed a lot from 4.2 to 4.6, long file > names are one that comes to mind as well as > phase III and IV DECnet. Yep. Lots of changes, most of them improvements. > That was a long time ago. It sure was. -ethan
Re: Greetings
On 04/29/2019 11:37 AM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 04/29/2019 06:47 AM, allison via cctech wrote: >> On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: >>> On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. >>> ACK >>> >>> I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware >>> that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. >>> >>> There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. >>> >>> >>> >> You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and >> typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). > Well, for command-line computing (well, this IS the classic computing > list) you can do a lot. > Our first 11/780 had half a megabyte of memory. Friday afternoon one > memory board went bad, and I pulled it out. A user group ran a > gigantic batch job of mechanical analysis over the weekend on 256 K! > I was amazed, I really thought it would thrash itself to death on that. > > I ran a microVAX-II at home on one meg for years. The typical environment during the DEC years '83-93 was a 780 with a 4-12mb and dozens of users or more. In 83 that meant 3.2 or later and much of the time was V3.8 or 3.9 till maybe 86ish then V4 and soon after V5. The years 83 and 84 I fondly remember V3.6 and later mostly 3.8 and often the best available machine was a PDP-11 [PRINCE] and [VIDEO] as the terminals and printers machines were running RSTS and phase II DECnet. Others of memory were MILRAT, REX, and ROYALT and later (1989) my own work box VIDSYS (uVAXII BA123]. If memory serves V4 was the last that ran in 1meg, V5 pushed that higher as a 4 meg system was more common then. However the Qbus uVAX has a RD54[system] and RD52[swap] on separate MSCP controllers for performance as thats where they bottlenecked when heavy swapping. All my uVAXen have run from V4.4 [MicroVaxII/GPX] or later and my nominal version is 5.4. Though I have a RZ56 with V7.2 on it. All are physical hardware in the Qbus BA123 realm and M3100 series. > > But, I never experienced VMS before about version 3.4, I think. I'd > really hate to run any VMS that didn't have loadable device drivers. > Doing the brute force sysgens was so RSX-11 ish. > I think VMS 1.5 still had a bunch of utilities running in PDP-11 > emulation. > > Jon > Running anything before V3 is painful as it was a build. Also V1 was tied the 780 and that did PDP11 emulation mode for a lot of stuff. VMS changed a lot from 4.2 to 4.6, long file names are one that comes to mind as well as phase III and IV DECnet. That was a long time ago. Allsion
Re: Greetings
On 04/29/2019 09:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Apr 29, 2019, at 7:47 AM, allison via cctech >> wrote: >> >> On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: >>> On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. >>> ACK >>> >>> I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware >>> that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. >>> >>> There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. >>> >> You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and >> typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). > Does it support MSCP? If not, RP06 would certainly serve for your disks. > > paul > I believe its pre MSCP. V1.5 is pre 1981 if memory serves. MSCP I think was introduced Qbus systems in the 80s just prior to the MicroVAX. VAX-11/78-- was introduced in '78 and the next generation was around 1980 with the 730 and 750 for the small systems and the 782 and 785 for the larger ones.
Re: Greetings
On 4/29/19 12:45 PM, allison via cctech wrote: > On 04/29/2019 11:37 AM, Jon Elson wrote: >> On 04/29/2019 06:47 AM, allison via cctech wrote: >>> On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: > I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in > experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. ACK I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. >>> You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and >>> typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). >> Well, for command-line computing (well, this IS the classic computing >> list) you can do a lot. >> Our first 11/780 had half a megabyte of memory. Friday afternoon one >> memory board went bad, and I pulled it out. A user group ran a >> gigantic batch job of mechanical analysis over the weekend on 256 K! >> I was amazed, I really thought it would thrash itself to death on that. >> >> I ran a microVAX-II at home on one meg for years. > > The typical environment during the DEC years '83-93 was a 780 with a > 4-12mb and dozens of users or more. Unless someone tried to run Ada, then it became a single user system. :-) bill
Re: Greetings
> On Apr 29, 2019, at 7:47 AM, allison via cctech wrote: > > On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: >> On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: >>> I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in >>> experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. >> >> ACK >> >> I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware >> that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. >> >> There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. >> > You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and > typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). Does it support MSCP? If not, RP06 would certainly serve for your disks. paul
Re: Greetings
On 04/29/2019 06:47 AM, allison via cctech wrote: On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. ACK I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb). Well, for command-line computing (well, this IS the classic computing list) you can do a lot. Our first 11/780 had half a megabyte of memory. Friday afternoon one memory board went bad, and I pulled it out. A user group ran a gigantic batch job of mechanical analysis over the weekend on 256 K! I was amazed, I really thought it would thrash itself to death on that. I ran a microVAX-II at home on one meg for years. But, I never experienced VMS before about version 3.4, I think. I'd really hate to run any VMS that didn't have loadable device drivers. Doing the brute force sysgens was so RSX-11 ish. I think VMS 1.5 still had a bunch of utilities running in PDP-11 emulation. Jon
Re: Greetings
On 04/28/2019 09:28 PM, Grant Taylor via cctech wrote: > On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: >> I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in >> experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. > > ACK > > I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware > that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. > > There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. > > > You are limited to what the VAX-11/780 system had for peripherals and typically under 8MB ram (it maxed at 16mb).
Re: Greetings
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 4:55 PM Ray Jewhurst via cctalk wrote: > I am new to the list and would like to introduce myself. I am a computer > history buff who especially likes DEC machines. Welcome. I started working with DEC machines for fun in 1982 and for money in 1984, so they have a dear place in my heart. > I see that Bitsavers has a copy of VMS 1.5 and wanted to > know if anyone got it working with the Vax 780 simulator? There was some discussion about that on the Simh mailing list a couple of years back. The difficulty is that Simh doesn't emulate the console media closely enough to use them to start the install and prior to VMS 2.0, the method (tools used, etc) was different. VAXen don't boot from tape like a PDP-11, so you have to have an install kit to match your console medium (RX01 for an 11/780, TU58 for 11/750, 11/730, 11/725, etc) From the discussion, it seems to be easiest to install a newer version of VMS (3.0 works, 2.0 does as well, I think) to unpack the VMS 1.5 files onto a blank disk, then boot that on an emulated 11/780 and finish the install. I myself haven't tried the process but the Simh mailing list archives describe the process in a way that someone with VMS experience can likely figure it out. I haven't encountered any step-by-step recipes. Where the Hobbyist License comes into play is with VMS 5.0 and newer - you'll need LMF license keys and the Hobbyist Program is a way to get free keys with a one-year expiration. -ethan
Re: Greetings
On 4/28/19 6:27 PM, Ray Jewhurst wrote: I already have a Hobbyist License. I am just interested in experimenting with different OSes and different versions of OSes. ACK I don't know what VAX hardware VMS 1.5 supported, what VAX hardware that Simh supports, or what the overlap is between the two. There's a reasonable chance that someone will chime in with experience. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: Greetings
On 4/28/19 3:55 PM, Ray Jewhurst via cctalk wrote: I am new to the list and would like to introduce myself. I am a computer history buff who especially likes DEC machines. Welcome. I unfortunately don't own any hardware but I use Simh on a daily basis. I would like to start off with a question. I see that Bitsavers has a copy of VMS 1.5 and wanted to know if anyone got it working with the Vax 780 simulator? I've not messed with VMS 1.5 on anything. But I have gotten OpenVMS 7.3 (memory?) to work in Simh quite happily. If you join a DECUS (?) user group, you can legally get a hobbyist license to run the latest VAX / Alpha OpenVMS on multiple systems for free. Seeing as how easy it is to do, I encourage people to legally obtain licenses and download install media (images) from HPE directly. IMHO the OpenVMS hobbyist program is very nice and we want to keep it around. I hope to learn a lot from this group. I know I have. I bet that most people can. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Greetings
I am new to the list and would like to introduce myself. I am a computer history buff who especially likes DEC machines. I unfortunately don't own any hardware but I use Simh on a daily basis. I would like to start off with a question. I see that Bitsavers has a copy of VMS 1.5 and wanted to know if anyone got it working with the Vax 780 simulator? I hope to learn a lot from this group. Thanks Ray
Re: Seasons greetings
On 12/24/2015 04:47 PM, Murray McCullough wrote: To all readers/followers of this website - for those who love What's the URL for the website? Happy humbug -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
Re: Seasons greetings
On 12/24/2015 04:47 PM, Murray McCullough wrote: > To all readers/followers of this website - for those who love > classic/vintage computers - I want to wish all the best of the holiday > season no matter what your beliefs. In this day of political > correctness it is simply to acknowledge Mother Nature's transition > from fall to winter and we should take time from our busy schedules to > reflect on this 'special' time of the year. > > Happy computing! > > Murray :) Thanks Murry and a Merry CHRIST-mas to you and yours! Habe a blessed day now On to setting up still in the box Commodore 64 together that I got for CHRIST-mas!
Re: Seasons greetings
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015, Murray McCullough wrote: To all readers/followers of this website - for those who love classic/vintage computers - I want to wish all the best of the holiday season no matter what your beliefs. In this day of political correctness it is simply to acknowledge Mother Nature's transition from fall to winter and we should take time from our busy schedules to reflect on this 'special' time of the year. Happy computing! Murray :) And to you! Today was a work from home day. I used the opportunity to have my Atari running as an auxillary terminal to do some real work on. http://archives.smbfc.net/uploads/retrocomupting/atari800/AtariTerminal_sm.jpg -- Jason Sent from my Atari 800
Seasons greetings
To all readers/followers of this website - for those who love classic/vintage computers - I want to wish all the best of the holiday season no matter what your beliefs. In this day of political correctness it is simply to acknowledge Mother Nature's transition from fall to winter and we should take time from our busy schedules to reflect on this 'special' time of the year. Happy computing! Murray :)
