Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

> DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also > proprietary, seldom used, I think it is only semi-proprietary. I've seen open documentation that at the time (I don't think I have it handy now) I thought was sufficient to write an independent implementation, both for Ethernet

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Richard Loken wrote: > And I don't get this notion about lifting the network code out of Tru64 > since VAX/VMS had UCX (not my favourite network package) before the > Alpha and associated OSF/1, Digital Unix, Tru64 Unix. The candidate for > lifting code would be Ultrix

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

A Quadra 950 is also a decent machine if you want to fill it up with cards. Most 840av's these days have bad motherboards from leaking capacitors and the plastics break if you sneeze too hard close to them. -Original Message- From: N0body H0me Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:05

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

If I had the time and money (mostly money) to do this, I would settle for nothing less than a Quadra 840AV. Be prepared to spend , though; the 840 is quickly approaching 'investment grade'. If I wanted the "all in one" experience, I would get the SE/30. Once again, these are kinda

Re: PLATO PC floppy

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Jim Brain wrote: > I so wish I could find my copy of the PLATO client for the Commodore 64 > (yep, it actually existed, I did some of my Physics 107 labs on PLATO from > my room with my C64 and my 2400 bps modem (333-1000, 217 area code, to get

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 15 July 2016 at 17:57, Paul Koning wrote: > Not to mention "HELP ADVANCED WOMBAT". :-) I spent /hours/ reading that. At first I was looking around for the hidden camera because I was convinced someone was playing a very sophisticated practical joke on me at work... >

Re: NuTek Mac comes

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 15 July 2016 at 17:57, Paul Koning wrote: > ... >> Actually, if you want to see really good online help -- vastly better even >> than that of VMS -- take a look at PLATO. To become a PLATO

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 14 July 2016 at 20:47, Chris Hanson wrote: > And interestingly, these days IBM is a huge user of Macs… which these days > use a derivative of the system architecture that IBM developed! The PC CPU was from Intel, not IBM. Macs now use Intel CPUs. But in the

PLATO and learning models (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: > Sounds great. I never saw a PLATO terminal. :-( Wish I had now! I wish they'd had a few at schools I attended. I think someone on the list mentioned that PLATO content could be viewed on Apple hardware, too. The wikipedia article on it is very detailed.

Re: Reproduction micros

On 14 July 2016 at 21:03, ben wrote: > * Lets add a brain dead cpu and run DOS. Oh, come on, for the time, it was OK. DOS compatibility looked like it'd be a selling point, although it didn't actually prove to be a big one AIUI. The A2000 came out in '87, the same year

PLATO PC floppy

Anent PLATO discussions, that reminds me: I discovered that I have a 360K (DSDD) floppy with (apparently) PLATO client software on it probably from the mid 1980s. Is the image of this of any interest to anyone? --Chuck

Re: OSX, OS/2, ECS, and Blue Lion (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On 15 July 2016 at 00:39, Jerry Kemp wrote: > I still judge OS/2 to be one of the better x86 options for the early and mid > 1990's. Oh, definitely, yes. It truly was "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows". Then MS moved the goalposts and improved Windows and

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 14 July 2016 at 20:50, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > Everyone seems to forget about the work-alikes, such as TPM for the > Epson QX-80. True. And there was Pro DOS for the SAM Coupé: http://www.samcoupe-pro-dos.co.uk/ ZCN for the Amstrad NC series:

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Mouse wrote: > >> DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also >> proprietary, seldom used, > > ... > However, IIRC it also has a fairly small hard limit on the number of > hosts it supports. I don't remember exactly

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Ethan Dicks wrote: > Indeed. As you've seen, I use both. No need to be all "Commodore vs > Atari" about it. ;-) Hehe, I forgot about that. Here I am liking both of those, now too. I think I was playing with Hatari yesterday and eUAE last week ! > I mean vs

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 14 July 2016 at 22:43, Mouse wrote: > As for VMS HELP, I don't think the tool is all that much better; what > is _much_ better is the documentation it contains. DEC documentation > of the VMS era was _awesome_. Even today I rarely see it equaled, > never mind

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 14 July 2016 at 19:34, Fred Cisin wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: >>> >>> meeting. I'm guessing I will never be a BMW fan or a NeXT bigot. >> >> Wouldn't know. I don't do cars. I like BMW bikes, though. Had an R80/7 >> with a sidecar for many years. > > > I

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Mouse wrote: > >> DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also >> proprietary, seldom used, > > I think it is only semi-proprietary. I've seen open documentation that > at the time (I don't think I have it handy now)

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Swift Griggs wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Richard Loken wrote: >> And I don't get this notion about lifting the network code out of Tru64 >> since VAX/VMS had UCX (not my favourite network package) before the >> Alpha and associated OSF/1,

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Ethan Dicks wrote: > It was a huge deal in the late 80s and into the 90s. I was on both > sides, so mostly, I watched. This thread has definitely been the most civil discussion and set of anecdotes I've seen when folks discuss VMS and Unix in the same thread. I usually

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 14 July 2016 at 22:51, Jerry Kemp wrote: > > I'm missing something here. Although most did/are using the Apple supplied > GUI/Aqua, it wasn't a requirement. > > I have/run OpenWindows (compiled for OS X/PPC), and also, although mostly > for fun, have a copy of the Mosaic web

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 14 July 2016 at 19:57, Mouse wrote: > Personally - I went through my larval phase under it - I'd cite VMS as > a counterexample. Even today I think a lot of OSes would do well to > learn from it. (Not that I think it's perfect, of course. But I do > think it did

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

> > That said, it was easier (to me) to write full-on apps and utilities in > > DCL than sh or csh. > > [...] Fortunately, most folks seem to > agree and csh is pretty niche these days. That's not to say there aren't > very enthusiastic users of csh, too. *tcsh*, yes. I now find it very

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Swift Griggs wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Ethan Dicks wrote: >> It was a huge deal in the late 80s and into the 90s. I was on both >> sides, so mostly, I watched. > > This thread has definitely been the most civil discussion and set of >

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 14 July 2016 at 23:51, Peter Coghlan wrote: > What is it that "sucked" about the VMS command line? I used it a lot and I > had some issues here and there but I found it to be streets ahead of any other > command line system I came across on anything else anywhere. > >

Re: NuTek Mac comes

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 14 July 2016 at 22:43, Mouse wrote: >> As for VMS HELP, I don't think the tool is all that much better; what >> is _much_ better is the documentation it contains. DEC documentation >> of

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 07/15/2016 11:10 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > >> We don't appreciate how much faster modern PCs are than the old >> ones, because modern PC OSes are so appallingly slow and bloated. > > Reminds me of a conversation that I

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On 14 July 2016 at 22:50, Swift Griggs wrote: > Strengths versus Unix: > * More granular authentication/authorization system built in from very >early days I'm told. "capabilities" style access control, too. > * Great hardware error logging that generally tells you

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On 15 July 2016 at 07:24, wrote: > As a comp sci student I loved using VMS on our 11/780s at Uni, from first > year through final year where we also had the use of a Gould PN6080 UNIX mini. > (Aside - the Gould had one good drive, one flaky. The OS and staff accounts > were

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On 15 July 2016 at 07:37, Ethan Dicks wrote: > I think TCP networking on VMS is a bit of a bodge, but back when I > used it every day in the 1980s, we didn't _have_ any Ethernet > interfaces in the entire company - *everything* we did was via sync > and async serial. How

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 15 July 2016 at 19:38, geneb wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: > >> Caldera didn't inherit source code for *all* the old DR products, e.g. >> many of the apps, but it looked at what it had got, and the bits that >> couldn't realistically be sold commercially

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 15 July 2016 at 19:39, Swift Griggs wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: >> But in the now-gone PowerPC era, yes, Macs used a derivative of the IBM >> POWER RISC processor line. > > I always thought it was a shame that both IBM and Apple were so tight >

Re: OSX, OS/2, ECS, and Blue Lion (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

I guess I am glad that someone getting something positive from windows. I have never viewed it as any more than a virus distribution system with a poorly written GUI front end. Jerry On 07/15/16 12:15 PM, Liam Proven wrote: On 15 July 2016 at 00:39, Jerry Kemp wrote: I

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: Caldera didn't inherit source code for *all* the old DR products, e.g. many of the apps, but it looked at what it had got, and the bits that couldn't realistically be sold commercially any more, it open-sourced: DR-DOS and PC GEM, mainly. Caldera didn't

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: > But in the now-gone PowerPC era, yes, Macs used a derivative of the IBM > POWER RISC processor line. I always thought it was a shame that both IBM and Apple were so tight around the pucker strings and never were more comfortable sharing their OS's

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On 14 July 2016 at 19:42, Swift Griggs wrote: > > I had forgot myself until I recently started messing with OS8.1 again. Me too, until I restored a bunch of my Macs to sell them before I left the UK. > Anecdotally, lately I've felt that 7.6 + Open Transport was a bit more

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 15 July 2016 at 19:38, geneb wrote: > Somewhere around here I've got an inventory of what was lost and it's a > horror show. :( While it springs to mind -- the other things that were lost that I wish had got open-sourced were Quarterdeck's QEMM, DesqView and DesqView/X.

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Swift Griggs wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: >> But in the now-gone PowerPC era, yes, Macs used a derivative of the IBM >> POWER RISC processor line. > > I always thought it was a shame that both IBM and Apple were so

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 07/15/2016 11:10 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > We don't appreciate how much faster modern PCs are than the old > ones, because modern PC OSes are so appallingly slow and bloated. Reminds me of a conversation that I had with Greg Mansfield back in the mid-80s when he was working for Cray. I was

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

I have a "pinstripe" grey G4 PowerMac with (if memory serves) a 400Mhz CPU - would this be a safer bet? Is there any way to underclock the 1.25Ghz CPU's in the mirror door for improved reliability in the mirror door? We used the MD PowerMac as an OS X 10.3 server running Macintosh Manager

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

> Also, cross-compilers are so f'ing wonderful for targeting old or > embedded systems, nowadays too. NetBSD's ability to cross compile > binaries for completely alien systems is just awesome. But it comes at a price. NetBSD/vax, for example, has trouble self-hosting, and nobody knows why,

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Austin Pass wrote: > I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although > I'm having a little difficulty pinning down the definition of what the > ultimate representation of the type is, so was looking for a little > input from Classic CMP'ers. I've

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

On 7/15/16 12:58 PM, Austin Pass wrote: > I have a "pinstripe" grey G4 PowerMac with (if memory serves) a 400Mhz CPU - > would this be a safer bet? > Yes, that or a slightly faster one. I like the ones where we went with gigabit ethernet (2nd gen G4?) > Is there any way to underclock the

Re: NuTek Mac comes

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: > Reminds me of horrible compatibility glitches with OS X in the early > days. E.g. one of my clients had Blue & White G3s on a Windows NT 4 > network. (Later they pensioned them off, bought G5s, and gave the B > to me! :-) ) Woot! The benefits of

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote: On 15 July 2016 at 19:38, geneb wrote: Somewhere around here I've got an inventory of what was lost and it's a horror show. :( While it springs to mind -- the other things that were lost that I wish had got open-sourced were

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote: > P.S. A full build for the board I work on (OS and creating the boot > image) for work takes < 1 hour. The firmware I?m working on takes just > 2-3 seconds to build! This is on a PC with a 3.2GHz Skylake i7 with > SSDs. ;-) Also, cross-compilers

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Austin Pass wrote: …. > Mr Kaiser - is Clasilla still maintained? …. Yup: http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/ Have not used it, but I am up-to-date on a G3 (iMac) and a G4 (PowerBook) with TenFourFox and use them

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

Anecdotally, this may be the case. I ran my dual 1.25 MDD for six or seven years without a single hardware failure. It's probably still fine, but I haven't tried to turn it on since I upgraded to a Mac Pro (geez, eight years ago). ok bear. -- Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 15, 2016, at 13:15,

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

> On 15 Jul 2016, at 21:15, Al Kossow wrote: > > > >> On 7/15/16 12:58 PM, Austin Pass wrote: >> I have a "pinstripe" grey G4 PowerMac with (if memory serves) a 400Mhz CPU - >> would this be a safer bet? > > Yes, that or a slightly faster one. I like the ones where we

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Mouse wrote: > But it comes at a price. NetBSD/vax, for example, has trouble > self-hosting, and nobody knows why, because it shows up only in native > builds. Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. I've only used it in the context of other platforms and variants. > Nobody knows

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

>> NetBSD/vax, for example, has trouble self-hosting, and nobody knows >> why, because it shows up only in native builds. > Hmm, I wasn't aware of that. I've only used it in the context of > other platforms and variants. I'm sure there are lots of triples it works just

Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.

I went thru this exercise myself a couple of years back. Even kicked off a thread on a Mac email list. I don't/didn't have any experience or background with the Mac on the 68K, so that didn't come into my decision making. I ultimately decided that I didn't need the fastest/biggest/most

Re: DEC RRD40 CD-Rom Drive caddy

On Jul 15, 2016 10:01 AM, "devin davison" wrote: > > Are the caddys specific to that drive or pretty standard? I picked up a > stack of caddys recently, if you can get me a reference picture i can see > if any of them are the same. > > --Devin They are specific to that

Re: DEC RRD40 CD-Rom Drive caddy

Are the caddys specific to that drive or pretty standard? I picked up a stack of caddys recently, if you can get me a reference picture i can see if any of them are the same. --Devin On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Peter Coghlan wrote: > > > > Greetings > > > > The

Re: PLATO and learning models (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

> On Jul 15, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Chris Hanson wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Swift Griggs wrote: >> >> * It had graphics, but ran on terminals! > > Graphics terminals were a thing that existed. It wasn’t just PLATO that used >

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

> On 15 Jul 2016, at 14:41, Richard Loken wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Mouse wrote: > >>> Personally, given the mess of MultiNet, TCP/IP Services, and TCPWare, >>> I wouldn't make that statement about networking *at all*. >> >> If you think of "networking" as being

Re: NuTek Mac comes

>> I'm not sure I agree. The VMS command line I used sucked, but so >> did Unix shells of the time, and in many of the same ways. > What is it that "sucked" about the VMS command line? I'm sure there were many, mostly small ones. Here are the ones big enough for me to remember after this many

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 14 July 2016 at 20:47, Chris Hanson wrote: > And interestingly, these days IBM is a huge user of Macs… which these days > use a derivative of the system architecture that IBM developed! On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > The

Re: PLATO and learning models (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Jul 15, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Swift Griggs wrote: > > * It had graphics, but ran on terminals! Graphics terminals were a thing that existed. It wasn’t just PLATO that used them. -- Chris

Re: VMS stability back in the day (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 10:08:40AM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > DECnet might be totally integrated and awesome, but it's also > > proprietary, seldom used, > > I think it is only semi-proprietary. I've seen open documentation that > at the time (I don't think I have it handy now) I thought was >

Re: DOS code in CP/M? Revisited...

On 7/15/2016 12:15 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: On 07/15/2016 11:52 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr wrote: P.S. A full build for the board I work on (OS and creating the boot image) for work takes < 1 hour. The firmware I’m working on takes just 2-3 seconds to build! This is on a PC with a 3.2GHz Skylake

Re: DEC RRD40 CD-Rom Drive caddy

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Glen Slick wrote: > They are specific to that drive, which is a* Laser Magnetic Storage > International* (LMSI) / Philips CM201 drive. I can't imagine there are many of these caddy/tools left on the planet. I have exactly one. Sounds

11/44 Console cable

Does anyone know off hand if a 11/83 cab kit will work as a 11/44 console? Both are 20 bin ribbon cable connectors - minus the baud rate select stuff of course. I have the 44 print set kit from bitsavers but being lazy prefer not making a cable if I can avoid it.

Re: PLATO and learning models (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > I remember, around the same time, the Tektronix 4010. But that was > far less flexible; it could only draw, not erase, unlike the PLATO terminals. The 4010 can erase just fine. The problem is that it can't do

Multiflow Trace 14/300 close to being scrapped in Texas

Hi All, I noticed that the Multiflow race 14/300 system listed on eBay didn't sell recently. I don't have any personal background with these machines but it seems they could be both significant and rare? It's been sitting on eBay but I wasn't sure if it had slipped between the cracks somehow?

Re: PLATO and learning models (was Re: NuTek Mac comes)

On Jul 15, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> I remember, around the same time, the Tektronix 4010. But that was >> far less flexible; it could only draw, not erase, unlike the PLATO

Re: PLATO PC floppy

On 7/15/2016 9:29 PM, Jason T wrote: On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote: I discovered that I have a 360K (DSDD) floppy with (apparently) PLATO client software on it probably from the mid 1980s. Is the image of this of any interest to anyone? I vote "yes."

Anyone near San Marcos, CA with a Commodore drive cable?

Evidently, there is a kind soul with a project this weekend lacking a cable (it's my fault), and I had hoped one might be available near he could borrow. Jim -- Jim Brain br...@jbrain.com www.jbrain.com

Re: PLATO PC floppy

On 07/15/2016 07:29 PM, Jason T wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Chuck Guzis > wrote: >> I discovered that I have a 360K (DSDD) floppy with (apparently) >> PLATO client software on it probably from the mid 1980s. Is the >> image of this of any interest to anyone? >