Re: Please identify this circuit board

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, dwight wrote: Are you sure the cores are transformers and not memory cores? Yes, because (ROM) memory would have *many* wires through each core / around each transformer rod. Christian

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:06 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > ,, > The advent of the /23 (with no CSW, and no KW11-L/P), made things more > complicated. (The clock is pretty key - Unix needs one - several things, > e.g. parts of the teletype drivers, require real-time

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Allison > > > for laughs I wandered over to: > > http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/mirrors/minnie.tuhs.org/PDP- > 11/Boot_Images/ > > To see if the copy of V6 on RL02 is still there yep it is.

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: Allison > for laughs I wandered over to: > http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub/mirrors/minnie.tuhs.org/PDP-11/Boot_Images/ > To see if the copy of V6 on RL02 is still there yep it is. and it > runs on a 11/23 just fine Yes, that's another copy of the Shoppa disk. So,

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2/2/2017 7:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 02/02/2017 05:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote: OK, I'm going to give the minimalist/cheap-bastard perspective. I've done some solid troubleshooting with my HP 1630G. Sure, it only has a 1K event memory, but the triggering options are pretty flexible. With

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 05:59 PM, Ian S. King wrote: > OK, I'm going to give the minimalist/cheap-bastard perspective. I've > done some solid troubleshooting with my HP 1630G. Sure, it only has a > 1K event memory, but the triggering options are pretty flexible. > With some creativity, you can focus on the

Re: Logic Analysers

OK, I'm going to give the minimalist/cheap-bastard perspective. I've done some solid troubleshooting with my HP 1630G. Sure, it only has a 1K event memory, but the triggering options are pretty flexible. With some creativity, you can focus on the behavior you need to observe. It can self-clock

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 4:24 PM, geneb wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Ian Finder wrote: > > WTF did I just read. >> >> Fred in absolutely rare form. I nearly choked on coffee at the "yodeling > jellyfish" bit. I'd give him fake internet points if I could. :) > > Also, QUIT TOP

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Ian Finder wrote: WTF did I just read. Fred in absolutely rare form. I nearly choked on coffee at the "yodeling jellyfish" bit. I'd give him fake internet points if I could. :) Also, QUIT TOP POSTING. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 23:49, "Jim Brain" wrote: > On 2/2/2017 5:21 PM, Chris Hanson wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Fritz Mueller wrote: >>> I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for >>> the work I've been doing on a PDP-11.

Re: Logic Analysers

On 2/2/2017 5:21 PM, Chris Hanson wrote: On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Fritz Mueller wrote: I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for the work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a pretty critical feature in

Re: Logic Analysers

On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:43 AM, Fritz Mueller wrote: > > I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for > the work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a > pretty critical feature in being able to sensibly interpret

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > Reality is weirder than the most ridiculous crap that I could come up with? > Yes. Satire is dead.

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: Allison > for laughs I wandered over to: > To see if the copy of V6 on RL02 is still there yep it is. There are actually plenty of builds out there that run on RL11s, e.g.: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/other/Tim_Shoppa_v6/ includes "A V6 RL02

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

I intended it to be absurd enough to provide some humor. It apparently failed at that. Sorry. On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Ian S. King wrote: Fred, you have to turn it up to 11 - after all, consider your competition these days in the domain of absurdity. It wouldn't be so bad, if people just said

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:56 PM, allison wrote: > On 2/2/17 2:32 PM, william degnan wrote: > >> All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP >> 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and >> wake >> calls, etc issues have

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

- Original Message - From: "Fred Cisin" To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 4:23 PM Subject: Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Ian Finder wrote: > >> WTF did I just read. >> > > An agreement with Mouse about plain-text, by sarcastically > objecting to use of plain text in the RFC, segueing into an > off-the-wall rant objecting to

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Ian Finder wrote: WTF did I just read. An agreement with Mouse about plain-text, by sarcastically objecting to use of plain text in the RFC, segueing into an off-the-wall rant objecting to planned obsolescence. It was inspired by finding only Youtube videos for some simple

VCF East online ticketing is open

Get your tickets now. Save time at the show. http://vcfed.org/wp/festivals/vintage-computer-festival-east/tickets/ Evan Koblentz, director Vintage Computer Federation a 501(c)3 educational non-profit e...@vcfed.org (646) 546- www.vcfed.org

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On 2/2/17 2:32 PM, william degnan wrote: All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and wake calls, etc issues have been solved then? Why is this an issue now? I am largely ignorant to the details

Re: OT: RANT (Was: [cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org: confirm 38290c8a992491eda604beff5a06ff20cd7e85f5]

WTF did I just read. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > If you think that, you _really_ need to read 3676. >> > > Nobody's going to read that the way that it is formatted. > > If they expect people to read it, they will have to punch it up, with > fonts,

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> Jim Stephens > The listings I've read of early unix have ... mixed c + assembly Not V6 (the subject of the current discussion); the C compiler of that era couldn't inline assembler. _ALL_ of the assembler in V6 is in one of _two_ files: l.s - per system, hardware configuration

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: William Degnan > > > was there ever UNIX made for the PDP 11/40 and RL02, or was it only > run > > on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and wake calls, etc issues have been > > solved then? > >

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > was there ever UNIX made for the PDP 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run > on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and wake calls, etc issues have been > solved then? You're mixing up two _TOTALLY_ different things. Unix V6 will happily run on _ANY_ block

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:38 AM, william degnan wrote: > >> >> >> On 2/2/17 11:32 AM, william degnan wrote: >>> All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP >>> 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and >> wake >>>

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On 2/2/2017 11:40 AM, Tony Duell wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 PM, william degnan wrote: On 2/2/17 11:32 AM, william degnan wrote: All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Tony Duell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 PM, william degnan > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 2/2/17 11:32 AM, william degnan wrote: > >> > All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the > PDP >

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:38 PM, william degnan wrote: >> >> >> On 2/2/17 11:32 AM, william degnan wrote: >> > All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP >> > 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and >> wake >> >

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > On 2/2/17 11:32 AM, william degnan wrote: > > All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP > > 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and > wake > > calls, etc issues have been solved then? Why is this an issue now? I am > > largely

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

DEC V7m comes to mind. On 2/2/17 11:32 AM, william degnan wrote: > All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP > 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and wake > calls, etc issues have been solved then? Why is this an issue now? I am >

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

All this talk about compatibility...was there ever UNIX made for the PDP 11/40 and RL02, or was it only run on RK05? Wouldn't all of the C and wake calls, etc issues have been solved then? Why is this an issue now? I am largely ignorant to the details but from 2 feet it would seem like this

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On 2/2/2017 10:50 AM, Paul Koning wrote: On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Phil Blundell I suspect it would probably not be all that hard to write some sort of preprocessor to convert such code Really? Check out:

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> >>> From: Phil Blundell >> >>> I suspect it would probably not be all that hard to write some >>> sort of preprocessor to convert such

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 18:43, "Fritz Mueller" wrote: > I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for the > work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a > pretty critical feature in being able to sensibly interpret traces. >

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 06:50, "Chuck Guzis" wrote: >> An HP 1660 or 1670 series self-contained portable logic analyzer >> might be nice to pick up if you can get a decent deal on one. The >> main limitation of the 1660 series is that the sample depth is only >> 4K samples per channel.

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 04:26, "Glen Slick" wrote: >> >> Whilst looking for better quality units I came across a couple of 'proper' >> HP/Agilent analysers, a 1663A 34 channel and 1661A 102 channel which seem >> complete apart from the chip leg grabbers. Am I right to assume some of

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Phil Blundell > >> I suspect it would probably not be all that hard to write some >> sort of preprocessor to convert such code > > Really? Check out: > >

Re: Logic Analysers

I bought a used 1662 off eBay for cheap, and it has been indispensable for the work I've been doing on a PDP-11. I think the external clock is often a pretty critical feature in being able to sensibly interpret traces. Sophisticated triggering is also very useful for catching a suspected

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: Phil Blundell > I suspect it would probably not be all that hard to write some > sort of preprocessor to convert such code Really? Check out: http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V6/usr/sys/ken/pipe.c (Needless to say, none of the 'int *' things are actually

Re: Logic Analysers

On 02/02/2017 03:13, "Jon Elson" wrote: > On 02/01/2017 05:18 PM, Adrian Graham wrote: >> Evening folks, >> >> I have two so-called Logic Analysers, both cheap Chinese clones of other >> more expensive units that hook up to the host via USB2 and stream readings >> direct

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 17:25 +, Bill Gunshannon wrote: > > What version of GCC is being used here? I thought they removed > support for the PDP-11 more than a deacde ago. GCC does still have a pdp11 backend today. It doesn't seem to be very actively maintained, and how well it works nowadays

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Bill Gunshannon > wrote: > > What version of GCC is being used here? I thought they removed support > for the PDP-11 more than a deacde ago. No, it's still there. I'm the target maintainer for it, not that I've done a whole lot of

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Bill Gunshannon > wrote: > > From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Paul Koning > [paulkon...@comcast.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:34 AM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Cc:

RE: RL02 version of UNIX6?

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Paul Koning [paulkon...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:34 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: RL02 version of UNIX6? > On Feb 1, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Noel Chiappa

Re: Please identify this circuit board

On 02/02/2017 06:24 AM, dwight wrote: > Are you sure the cores are transformers and not memory > > cores? > > Dwight It's pretty obvious to me that there are several turns on each core. Given the PCB fab date (10/73), there were better methods for keeping around a few bits than core. If you

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Paul Koning > >> Yes, GCC should do that correctly. ... Dealing with the output might be >> a nuisance ... You may need some post-processing to cast the output >> into the syntax that V6 "as" expects. > >

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Tom Manos wrote: > I think it's only mostly dead :) > > Sorry :( > > Tom > -- > > Pretty much dead/needs repair. System boots RT-11 without it. When I remove the w1 jumper on the M7233 IR Decode and install the EIS M7238, the system

Re: Please identify this circuit board

Are you sure the cores are transformers and not memory cores? Dwight From: cctalk on behalf of Christian Corti Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:44:18 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > Tried my M7838 EIS this morning. It is bad or there is a config/jumper > issue to investigate. When installing the KE11-E, you have to remove a jumper on the CPU's M7233 module. See pg. 2-1 on the KE11-E/KE11-F User's Manual (EK-KE11E-OP-001), available

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

I think it's only mostly dead :) Sorry :( Tom -- Tom Manos, CTO Concursive Corporation 222 W 21st, Suite 213 Norfolk, VA. 23517 (757) 627-2760 (office) On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:26 AM, william degnan wrote: > Tried my M7838 EIS this morning. It is bad or there is a

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

Tried my M7838 EIS this morning. It is bad or there is a config/jumper issue to investigate. With the EIS installed I cannot boot RT-11 5.3 nor UNIX 6. The good news is that when I attempt to boot UNIX 6 I get a different error than before. Now, when I run rlunix at the ! prompt, the system

Re: Free to a good home: Honeywell/Bull DPS-6 workstation / server (Seattle, WA)

Hi Josh, I saw your posting on the 23rd Jan 16 regarding Bull DPS 6. We are based in the UK and actually run 4 working DPS6 systems in the UK. Any system (in its entirety or parts) we may be interested in if compatible with our existing system. Do you still have it? Many thanks, Julian

Re: Please identify this circuit board

[Exceptionally top-posting...] There are two modules each containing eight pulse transformers. That's it. The left module has the cover removed. No memory, no register. This board is from 1971, so it would contain some TTL FFs or RAM (e.g. 7489) for registers. Christian On Wed, 1 Feb 2017,