Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 10:13 PM, william degnan wrote: > > CORRECTION: > > Running simH on a $9.95 Next Thing Co CHIP. > > 1. I built an RL01 disk with RSX11/M that boots within simH using the > files I found online. > > set cpu 11/40 > set cpu 64K > set rl0 writeenabled

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

One last comment...I will edit and clean up the directions for anyone interested http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=668

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

One last comment...I will edit and clean up the directions for anyone who wants them in the future here: http://vintagecomputer.net/browse_thread.cfm?id=668 thanks again all. Bill

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

CORRECTION: Running simH on a $9.95 Next Thing Co CHIP. 1. I built an RL01 disk with RSX11/M that boots within simH using the files I found online. set cpu 11/40 set cpu 64K set rl0 writeenabled set rl0 rl01 set rl1 writeenabled set rl1 rl01 set rl2 writeenabled set rl2 rl01 set rl3

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > > > I have made the bootable RL01 image and it works in simH. I have > > BB-L974F-BC_RSX11M_4.5_BRU64K.tap in place but what kind of tape device > do > > I set in simH to attach it? I need to attach prior to booting and the > > within RSX11/M > > > If you’ve set the simH to an

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 6:22 PM, william degnan wrote: > > John or anyone...regarding this: > > >>> >>The v3.2 version I have from bitsavers has the baseline disk a few >> bytes larger than >>an RL01 so simH autosized it (incorrectly) to an RL02. Hopefully

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

John or anyone...regarding this: > > > The v3.2 version I have from bitsavers has the baseline disk a few > bytes larger than > an RL01 so simH autosized it (incorrectly) to an RL02. Hopefully > Mark’s new sizing > code should avoid this in the future. To copy an RL01

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > simH did not change the size of the disk image. By default, simH > will automatically > detect the type of disk on a particular controller (e.g. > RL01/RL02, RK06/RK07) based > on the size of the disk image. When I attached the image and did > a”sh rl0” it showed up

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:35 AM, william degnan wrote: > >> >> >>> >>> Mark and John, >>> Summarizing...The disks in the RL01 directory are 5MB, which is the RL01 >>> disk size I believed, but if they are RL02, why would I not use "RL02" in >>> the simh commands? >>> >>>

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > > > Mark and John, > > Summarizing...The disks in the RL01 directory are 5MB, which is the RL01 > > disk size I believed, but if they are RL02, why would I not use "RL02" in > > the simh commands? > > > > For example the code Mark wrote with John's changes, should it not be > rlo2, > > not

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

>> Bill, Paul, >>I have been tinkering with old versions of RSX11M (back to V2) on >> non-mapped CPUs, primarily PDP-11/05 as I hope to get mine running soon. On >> Simh >> with the CPU set as a PDP-11/05 which does not have EIS (I also tried an >> 11/40 but the SET CPU NOEIS in Simh gave me

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 8:29 PM, william degnan wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > >>> From: Mark Matlock >> >>> I also tried an 11/40 but the SET CPU NOEIS in Simh gave me an error >> >> In Ersatz-11, an -11/40

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Mark Matlock > > > I also tried an 11/40 but the SET CPU NOEIS in Simh gave me an error > > In Ersatz-11, an -11/40 without EIS works properly (i.e. it doesn't :-): > that's how I recognized his

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: Mark Matlock > I also tried an 11/40 but the SET CPU NOEIS in Simh gave me an error In Ersatz-11, an -11/40 without EIS works properly (i.e. it doesn't :-): that's how I recognized his booting error! ;-) > From: John Forecast > Depending on the state of your EIS board

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 3:18 PM, John Forecast wrote: > > >> On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:29 AM, william degnan wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Mark Matlock wrote: >> > On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:19 PM, william degnan

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:29 AM, william degnan wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Mark Matlock wrote: > On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:19 PM, william degnan >> wrote: ... I am curious to see what OS's run on an

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Mark Matlock wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:19 PM, william degnan > wrote: > >> ... > >> I am curious to see what OS's run on an 11/40 without the EIS card > other > >> than RT-11. I am researching this. I have

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:19 PM, william degnan wrote: >> ... >> I am curious to see what OS's run on an 11/40 without the EIS card other >> than RT-11. I am researching this. I have always wanted to learn more >> about batch-11. > > You mean DOS/BATCH? Yes, that would

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > Not necessarily MUL, in a kernel, but definitely SOB. I've run into needing SOB just between the PDP-11/04 and PDP11/34. -ethan

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > I saw that stated earlier, too, but DEC's PDP11 architecture handbook > doesn't appear to confirm that. Either that or the model differences table > is sloppy. > The model differences table is definitely sloppy.

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > I was able to get the extended three cables Excellent! > I can put the M7238 EIS card on a riser so I can probe for faults I'm all agog to hear what you find out! > and maybe if I am lucky boot XXDP+. With the EIN installed I can't boot I thought the

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> ... >> What I meant is that the 11/40 has EIS standard, according to the PDP11 >> architecture handbook. So an OS that depends on MMU would

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Paul Koning > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm not sure there is one. DEC OS

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 4:07 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> >> >> >> I'm not sure there is one. DEC OS designers typically would assume that >> they are dealing with non-broken systems. Systems

RE: RL02 version of UNIX6?

Will wrote... -- OK. Hopefully I can repair my EIS board then. Otherwise it's RT-11. -- Don't forget the RT-11 + TSX+ option, very nice timesharing system. http://tsxplus.classiccmp.org

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > > I'm not sure there is one. DEC OS designers typically would assume that > they are dealing with non-broken systems. Systems with MMU all have EIS... > Is this actually true? I've been working on getting my

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > >> > >> > > So you're saying for a system with a MMU but no working EIS (removed for > > now) and 64KW RAM (half populated M7891) you're suggesting which OS? I > > still have to research the best options, RSX-11M? > > I'm not sure there is one. DEC OS designers typically would assume that

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 3:25 PM, william degnan wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> >>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Noel Chiappa >> wrote: >>> From: Paul Koning >>> Another OS

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > I was able to get the extended three cables so I can put the M7238 EIS > card on a riser so I can probe for faults, and maybe if I am lucky boot > XXDP+. With the EIN installed I can't boot RT-11 > > I mean EIS, not EIN.

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Noel Chiappa > wrote: > > > >> From: Paul Koning > > > >> Another OS that would run on your machine (as well as an 11/20) would > >> be RSTS-11 (V4, or I

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Paul Koning > >> Another OS that would run on your machine (as well as an 11/20) would >> be RSTS-11 (V4, or I suppose V3 if you can find that) > > I'd love to have an old RSTS-11, is there any variant

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:59 PM, william degnan wrote: > > > >> > >> > Bill >> >> RSX-11M V3.2 supports RL02s and bitsavers has images of the 3.2 RL01 >> distribution disks. I’m not sure if those will boot if copied to an RL02. >> >> John. >> >> > I saw that, and was

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Charles Dickman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:20 AM, william degnan > wrote: > > I am > > familiar with the database of tests online that has many but no KE11-E > > M7238 EIS Diagnostics...Sorry to have to ask, I

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > Bill > > RSX-11M V3.2 supports RL02s and bitsavers has images of the 3.2 RL01 > distribution disks. I’m not sure if those will boot if copied to an RL02. > > John. > > I saw that, and was thinking the same thing b

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:20 AM, william degnan wrote: > I am > familiar with the database of tests online that has many but no KE11-E > M7238 EIS Diagnostics...Sorry to have to ask, I checked what places I know > of, WWW search etc. Can anyone suggest the name of the test

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 11:50 AM, william degnan wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:18 AM, John Forecast wrote: > >> >>> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Paul Koning wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> paul >>> >> It looks as though

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: Paul Koning > Another OS that would run on your machine (as well as an 11/20) would > be RSTS-11 (V4, or I suppose V3 if you can find that) I'd love to have an old RSTS-11, is there any variant around? > didn't use the MMU Huh? He's got an MMU (I think): it's the EIS

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:18 AM, John Forecast wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > > > > > paul > > > It looks as though Bill only has RL02 drives on the 11/40 so that would > rule out DOS/BATCH. One of the later

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: William Degnan > > > my focus has been on just getting an 11/40 hardware working > > Rightly and properly so... > > > I suppose I should be happy with RT-11 given my circumstances. > > Unix really

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:19 PM, william degnan wrote: >> >> ... >> I am curious to see what OS's run on an 11/40 without the EIS card other >> than RT-11. I am researching this. I have

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > my focus has been on just getting an 11/40 hardware working Rightly and properly so... > I suppose I should be happy with RT-11 given my circumstances. Unix really is a significant improvement, we really need to make sure you can run it. Don't worry about

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:19 PM, william degnan wrote: > > ... > I am curious to see what OS's run on an 11/40 without the EIS card other > than RT-11. I am researching this. I have always wanted to learn more > about batch-11. You mean DOS/BATCH? Yes, that would run on

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?

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 <j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> From: Paul Koning >> >>> Yes, GCC should do that correctly. ... Dealing

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 Chia

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: 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: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > Just to check, you have 128KB of memory, and 2 RL02 drives, right? That > will > make it all really easy, if so. > > I have a 1/2 populated M7891 > Like I said, I'll make you a mini-disk that will be quick to load with > GUI11, > with only the only files on it the few you need to be

RL02 version of UNIX6?

> 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. Actually, dealing with the _input_ is going to be a PITA (so my suggestion

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > if possible can you help me to link in m40.o instead of m45.o? Sure; tomorrow, though, not tonight. Just to check, you have 128KB of memory, and 2 RL02 drives, right? That will make it all really easy, if so. Like I said, I'll make you a mini-disk that will be

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:55 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: William Degnan > >> I do not have an EIS installed. I have one however, I can try it. I am >> unsure if it's good or not, but I guess I am going to find out. > > Oh yeah, without that, you're totally hosed,

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > you'll also need to recompile the kernel > > Actually, I don't think you need to re-compile anything, just link in m40.o > instead of m45.o; I think all the C code checks for 'cputyp == 40' or > whatever, as the case may be. > > Noel If I get farther with an EIS, if possible can

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > I do not have an EIS installed. I have one however, I can try it. I am > unsure if it's good or not, but I guess I am going to find out. Oh yeah, without that, you're totally hosed, Unix-wise. The V6 C compiler puts out MUL etc all over the place (e.g. for

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:08 PM, william degnan wrote: > > > > > > > > That sounds like the bootstrap isn't running properly. > > > > Oh, I remember an issue I had with the boostrap when first trying to > bring > > up > > Unix in Ersatz-11 - does your -11/40 have the EIS

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:08 PM, william degnan wrote: > >> >> That sounds like the bootstrap isn't running properly. >> >> Oh, I remember an issue I had with the boostrap when first trying to >> bring up >> Unix in Ersatz-11 - does your -11/40 have the EIS board? Is the

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > That sounds like the bootstrap isn't running properly. > > Oh, I remember an issue I had with the boostrap when first trying to bring > up > Unix in Ersatz-11 - does your -11/40 have the EIS board? Is the EIS > working? > If not, the bootstrap won't run - it uses the MUL instruction. (MUL

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> William Degnan > It "boots" to the ! prompt at least there's that. Yeah, but not much has to be working for that to happen! :-) > I am unsure if one can put an M7891 into a slot that has no NPG jumper > installed Yes, you can - but having a slot with no NPG jumper, and

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > I'd like to get another M7891, mine is only 1/2 populated. > > Oh, so that must have been 64KW - 128KB. That will give you plenty of room > for > a decent-sized kernel, and user processes. Wonder why it won't boot, then? > > It "boots" to the ! prompt at least there's that. > Anyway,

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > 64K. That's 64KB, right? DEC used to talk of PDP-11 memory in words, back in the day, so it's never quite clear unless the 'B' or 'W' is specified. Anyway, 64KB out to be enough to run most things. I have't looked to see how big a system with just RL and DL

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On 2/1/2017 1:26 PM, william degnan wrote: The build just finished. When I boot I get the ! prompt, but when I type rlinux the system bombs and I can go no farther Bill sorry I mean rlunix, but typing anything kills the CPU and I have to restart the system.. b That is "the something

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:13 PM, william degnan wrote: > >> >> Anyway, try it, and let us know what happens. How much memory does the >> system >> have on it now? >> >> > 64K. I'd like to get another M7891, mine is only 1/2 populated. > > >> >> If it doesn't work, I can do

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> > > > Anyway, try it, and let us know what happens. How much memory does the > system > have on it now? > > 64K. I'd like to get another M7891, mine is only 1/2 populated. > > If it doesn't work, I can do some experiments and see what's the least > amount > of memory one needs. > > There are

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > doesn't hurt to try I suppose Absolutely. > My fear is that it will not have enough RAM on top of whatever other > issues are present. Oooh, good point - I hadn't thought of that. I couldn't quickly find a 'minimum memory required' in the release notes

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: William Degnan > > > Can one be made using simH to dump and set up for RL02 that can then > be > > ported as a RL02 disk image to actual RL02 drive? > > I see someone has already provided a

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

> From: William Degnan > Can one be made using simH to dump and set up for RL02 that can then be > ported as a RL02 disk image to actual RL02 drive? I see someone has already provided a pointer to someone who ha done this; I'm not sure if that system will boot on a hardware 11/40, or

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:15 AM, william degnan wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Angelo Papenhoff wrote: > >> On 01/02/17, william degnan wrote: >> > I thought this question was answered recently but I can't find the >> answer. >> > I have the

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Angelo Papenhoff wrote: > On 01/02/17, william degnan wrote: > > I thought this question was answered recently but I can't find the > answer. > > I have the RK disk version of UNIX6 for PDP 11/40 but I could not find an > > RL02 version. does

RL02 version of UNIX6?

I thought this question was answered recently but I can't find the answer. I have the RK disk version of UNIX6 for PDP 11/40 but I could not find an RL02 version. does this exist? Can one be made using simH to dump and set up for RL02 that can then be ported as a RL02 disk image to actual RL02

Re: RL02 version of UNIX6?

On 01/02/17, william degnan wrote: > I thought this question was answered recently but I can't find the answer. > I have the RK disk version of UNIX6 for PDP 11/40 but I could not find an > RL02 version. does this exist? Can one be made using simH to dump and set > up for RL02 that can then be