Re: HP 1670E logic analyzer QUESTION ??
The HP 16500 / 1660 / 1670 series which have hard drives use standard IDE drives. They might be slightly picky about which drives work. Any drive larger than around 2GB might have some issues. Why do you ask? On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 6:42 AM GerardCJAT via cctech wrote: > This equipment is said to have an internal 2 Go HD. > > Who knows what KIND of HD ?? HP SCSI ?? > > Thanks > >
Re: HP 1670E logic analyzer QUESTION ??
I forgot that at some point they switched from 3.5-inch drives to 2.5-inch drives. I just pulled the cover off my 1670E to check exactly what it has for a hard drive. It is an IBM Travelstar model DBCA-203240, 3.2GB, 4200RPM, 2.5-Inch Hard Disk Drive with ATA/IDE Interface, with a date code of March 1999. That is the original hard drive, it has an HP sticker with a raw HD part number of 0950-3641, which matches the part number in the Agilent Technologies 1670G-Series Logic Analyzers Service Guide, 01670-97015. I can't find a service guide specific to the 1670E at the moment. I don't have an HP 1660E/ES/EP-Series Logic Analyzer to check. Those are also color LCD display models, and I believe they also use 2.5-inch drives. The older HP 1660C/CS/CP-Series, 1670A-Series, and 1670D-Series with mono CRT displays use 3.5-inch drives. On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 8:51 AM Glen Slick wrote: > > The HP 16500 / 1660 / 1670 series which have hard drives use standard IDE > drives. > > They might be slightly picky about which drives work. Any drive larger than > around 2GB might have some issues. > > Why do you ask? > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 6:42 AM GerardCJAT via cctech > wrote: >> >> This equipment is said to have an internal 2 Go HD. >> >> Who knows what KIND of HD ?? HP SCSI ?? >> >> Thanks >>
Re: Mach
On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 15:21 -0800, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote: > On Jan 5, 2020, at 2:30 PM, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > It did seem for a while that a lot of things were based on Mach, > > but > > > > > > very few seemed to make it to market. NeXTstep and OSF/1, the > > > only > > > version of which to ship AFAIK was DEC OSF/1 AXP, later Digital > > > UNIX, > > > later Tru64. > > > > Yes, a lot of things were based on Mach. One OS that you're > > forgetting > > is OS X. That is based upon Mach 2.5. > > Nope, Mac OS X 10.0 was significantly upgraded and based on Mach 4 > and BSD 4.4 content (via FreeBSD among other sources). It was NeXT > that never got beyond Mach 2.5 and BSD 4.2. (I know, distinction > without a difference, but this is an issue of historicity.) > > I think only some of the changes from Mach 2.5→3→4 made it into Mac > OS X Server 1.0 (aka Rhapsody) so maybe that’s what you’re > remembering. You're probably thinking about the user space. I was working on the OS X kernel from 2006-2012. I can tell you that most of the kernel that was still Mach related (most actually got removed...about all that was left was mach message) was 2.5 based with some enhancements. > > > > MkLinux didn't get very far, either, did it? > > > > > > > I think that was the original Linux port for PPC. > > It was the original Linux port for NuBus PowerPC Macs at least. It > was never really intended to “get very far” in the first place, it > was more of an experimental system that a few people at Apple threw > together and managed to allow the release of to the public. > > MkLinux was interesting for two reasons: It documented the NuBus > PowerMac hardware such that others could port their OSes to it, and > it enabled some direct performance comparisons of things like running > the kernel in a Mach task versus running it colocated with the > microkernel (and thus turning all of its IPCs into function calls). > Turns out running the kernel as an independent Mach task cost 10-15% > overhead, which was significant on a system with a clock under > 100MHz. Keep in mind too that this was in the early Linux 2.x days > where Linux “threads” were implemented via fork()… At IBM we spent a *significant* amount of time optimizing the microkernel performance. I recall that on a 90MHz 601 PPC, we got round-trip RPC below 1 micro-second. I personally spent a significant amount of time optimizing the Pentium kernel entry/exit code and optimizing the CPU specific porition of Mach RPC (it actually took advantage of the x86 segmentation hardware). > > I don’t recall if anyone ever did any “multi-server” experiments with > it like were done at CMU, where the monolithic kernel were broken up > into multiple cooperating tasks by responsibility. It would have been > interesting to see whether the overhead stayed relatively constant, > grew, or shrank, and how division of responsibility affected that. The IBM microkernel project was *very* multi-server. There was a version of AIX and OS/2 that ran on top of the IBM microkernel (which was a heavily modified version of Mach 3.0) were there were quite a few OS neutral servers (including most device drivers) that were all in their own server tasks. -- TTFN - Guy
Re: Taligent
On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 15:06 -0800, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote: > On Jan 5, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > Does Talingent Pink sound familiar? OS/2 was ported to powerPC, > > and so > > was Netware iirc. The field was quite busy with hopeful Microsoft > > killers. OS/2 was to be morphed into a cross-platform o/s, to wean > > folks from dos/x86. Then PPC kills the x86 and we all get a > > decent > > os. That was the plan anyway. I never saw OS2 for PPC or Netware > > for > > OS/2, thought I know both to have shipped. > > Pink was the C++ operating system project at Apple that became > Taligent. I know a couple of people who did a developer kitchen for > Pink pre-Taligent, and I also know a number of folks who worked on > the Taligent system and tools—and have personally seen a demo of the > Taligent Application Environment running on AIX. > > I’ve even seen a CD set for Taligent Application Environment (TalAE) > 1.0 on AIX, and I have a beta developer and user documentation set. > Unfortunately my understanding is that the CD sets given to employees > to commemorate shipping TalAE were all *blank*—the rumor I’ve heard > is that IBM considered it too valuable to give them the actual > software that they had worked for years on. (Maybe there were tax > implications because of what IBM valued the license at, and the fact > that it would have to be considered compensation?) > > Taligent itself was only one component of IBM’s Workplace/OS > strategy, which was a plan to rebase everything atop Mach so you > could run AIX and OS/2 and Taligent all at once on the same hardware > without quite using virtual machines for it all. The idea is that > Apple would do pretty much the same with Copland and Taligent atop > NuKernel rather than Mach. > > It would be really great to actually get the shipping Taligent > environment and tools archived somewhere. While only bits and pieces > of it are still in use—for example, ICU—a lot of important and > influential work was done as part of the project. For example, the > design of most of the unit testing frameworks today actually comes > from *Taligent*, since Kent Beck wrote SUnit to re-create it in > Smalltalk, and JUnit and OCUnit were based on SUnit’s design and > everything else derived from JUnit… No, you don't. The object model that they used was *seriously* deranged. When I last looked at it there were >1200 objects and they were so interdependent that it was nearly impossible to make a change to one object without the change cascading across a large number of objects. They were also proud of the fact that on average only 6 *instructions* would be executed between method invocations...so performance sucked because you were just doing method calls. Rather than having a standardized "size" method for an object they actually had code in the object look at the new operator for the object (e.g. the binary machine code) in order to determine its size. As I said, I have scars from my interactions with Taligent. -- TTFN - Guy
Vintage computing spots in Chicago?
I'll be in Chicago for a week soon for a work event. Limited time for myself but I'll have some time Sunday to maybe Uber around. Any suggestions or cool spots for a computer collector to hit? I see a museum of broadcast communications is close to where I'll be which may be neat. Not sure if there are any used stores that might have vintage computers but always willing to try.
Re: OpenStep Solaris
On 1/5/20 3:12 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote: On Jan 5, 2020, at 7:02 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: Sun *did* do a full port of OpenStep to Solaris, but while I know people who saw it, I am not sure if it got a full commercial release. Not quite! Sun was a participant in creating the OpenStep standard (the NS class prefix stands for “NeXT/Sun”) and *created their own implementation* of OpenStep for Solaris. (Just as GNUstep is an independent implementation of the OpenStep spec under the FSF umbrella, and OPENSTEP/Mach and OPENSTEP/Enterprise were NeXT’s implementations.) OpenStep Solaris was released, both the user and developer environment, and you should be able to find them today and install them on Solaris 2.5 or later. I think OpenStep will run on everything through Solaris 7 or Solaris 8, but at some point it stopped working because it required Display PostScript in the window server. I demoed OpenStep Solaris on top of CDE in my last exhibit at VCF PNW. It could be awkward trying to figure out where to look for application's menu. Just to make things extra ugly, I ran MAE (Macintosh Application Environment) at the same time. I also have a SPARCstation 5 running OPENSTEP/Mach on SPARC. Sun also bought a number of NeXTstep software houses, including Lighthouse, but didn't release the code. Indeed, that was post-OpenStep; they weren’t buying companies like Lighthouse to get a suite of applications for OpenStep Solaris, they were buying them to port their stuff to Java (since Java was based rather heavily on Objective-C, and some aspects of the Java frameworks’ designs on OpenStep). Lighthouse was also the source for the Sun CEO who gets a lot of blame for the fall of Sun. alan
Mach
On Jan 5, 2020, at 2:30 PM, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: > > It did seem for a while that a lot of things were based on Mach, but >> >> very few seemed to make it to market. NeXTstep and OSF/1, the only >> version of which to ship AFAIK was DEC OSF/1 AXP, later Digital UNIX, >> later Tru64. > > Yes, a lot of things were based on Mach. One OS that you're forgetting > is OS X. That is based upon Mach 2.5. Nope, Mac OS X 10.0 was significantly upgraded and based on Mach 4 and BSD 4.4 content (via FreeBSD among other sources). It was NeXT that never got beyond Mach 2.5 and BSD 4.2. (I know, distinction without a difference, but this is an issue of historicity.) I think only some of the changes from Mach 2.5→3→4 made it into Mac OS X Server 1.0 (aka Rhapsody) so maybe that’s what you’re remembering. >> MkLinux didn't get very far, either, did it? >> > > I think that was the original Linux port for PPC. It was the original Linux port for NuBus PowerPC Macs at least. It was never really intended to “get very far” in the first place, it was more of an experimental system that a few people at Apple threw together and managed to allow the release of to the public. MkLinux was interesting for two reasons: It documented the NuBus PowerMac hardware such that others could port their OSes to it, and it enabled some direct performance comparisons of things like running the kernel in a Mach task versus running it colocated with the microkernel (and thus turning all of its IPCs into function calls). Turns out running the kernel as an independent Mach task cost 10-15% overhead, which was significant on a system with a clock under 100MHz. Keep in mind too that this was in the early Linux 2.x days where Linux “threads” were implemented via fork()… I don’t recall if anyone ever did any “multi-server” experiments with it like were done at CMU, where the monolithic kernel were broken up into multiple cooperating tasks by responsibility. It would have been interesting to see whether the overhead stayed relatively constant, grew, or shrank, and how division of responsibility affected that. — Chris
OpenStep Solaris
On Jan 5, 2020, at 7:02 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > Sun *did* do a full port of OpenStep to Solaris, but while I know > people who saw it, I am not sure if it got a full commercial release. Not quite! Sun was a participant in creating the OpenStep standard (the NS class prefix stands for “NeXT/Sun”) and *created their own implementation* of OpenStep for Solaris. (Just as GNUstep is an independent implementation of the OpenStep spec under the FSF umbrella, and OPENSTEP/Mach and OPENSTEP/Enterprise were NeXT’s implementations.) OpenStep Solaris was released, both the user and developer environment, and you should be able to find them today and install them on Solaris 2.5 or later. I think OpenStep will run on everything through Solaris 7 or Solaris 8, but at some point it stopped working because it required Display PostScript in the window server. > Sun also bought a number of NeXTstep software houses, including > Lighthouse, but didn't release the code. Indeed, that was post-OpenStep; they weren’t buying companies like Lighthouse to get a suite of applications for OpenStep Solaris, they were buying them to port their stuff to Java (since Java was based rather heavily on Objective-C, and some aspects of the Java frameworks’ designs on OpenStep). — Chris
Taligent
On Jan 5, 2020, at 12:56 AM, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: > Does Talingent Pink sound familiar? OS/2 was ported to powerPC, and so > was Netware iirc. The field was quite busy with hopeful Microsoft > killers. OS/2 was to be morphed into a cross-platform o/s, to wean > folks from dos/x86. Then PPC kills the x86 and we all get a decent > os. That was the plan anyway. I never saw OS2 for PPC or Netware for > OS/2, thought I know both to have shipped. Pink was the C++ operating system project at Apple that became Taligent. I know a couple of people who did a developer kitchen for Pink pre-Taligent, and I also know a number of folks who worked on the Taligent system and tools—and have personally seen a demo of the Taligent Application Environment running on AIX. I’ve even seen a CD set for Taligent Application Environment (TalAE) 1.0 on AIX, and I have a beta developer and user documentation set. Unfortunately my understanding is that the CD sets given to employees to commemorate shipping TalAE were all *blank*—the rumor I’ve heard is that IBM considered it too valuable to give them the actual software that they had worked for years on. (Maybe there were tax implications because of what IBM valued the license at, and the fact that it would have to be considered compensation?) Taligent itself was only one component of IBM’s Workplace/OS strategy, which was a plan to rebase everything atop Mach so you could run AIX and OS/2 and Taligent all at once on the same hardware without quite using virtual machines for it all. The idea is that Apple would do pretty much the same with Copland and Taligent atop NuKernel rather than Mach. It would be really great to actually get the shipping Taligent environment and tools archived somewhere. While only bits and pieces of it are still in use—for example, ICU—a lot of important and influential work was done as part of the project. For example, the design of most of the unit testing frameworks today actually comes from *Taligent*, since Kent Beck wrote SUnit to re-create it in Smalltalk, and JUnit and OCUnit were based on SUnit’s design and everything else derived from JUnit… — Chris
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 23:41 +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 23:30, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk > wrote: > > > > Yes. We first started with Mach 3.0 build MK58. We did our final > > fork at MK68. We made some *significant* changes from what CMU > > had (things like changing mach messages from IPC to RPC) and a > > whole lot of work in the area of scheduling. > > Very interesting. If you are allowed to, you should blog about this > somewhere -- it is historic stuff. Yea, unfortunately I've lost most of the historical documentation starting when we were all packed up to move from Boca Raton, FL to Austin, TX and then when I left IBM in 1997. I still have a set of the IBM Microkernel manuals (several 1000 pages that was all written in Framemaker) and I *may* still have a CD with the final set of sources on it (but where that might be would be an interesting question). > > > Yes, a lot of things were based on Mach. One OS that you're > > forgetting > > is OS X. That is based upon Mach 2.5. > > Well, firstly, no, I wasn't. I didn't mention OS X, or macOS as it's > called now, because it's based on NeXTstep. It's a later version of > the same OS. > > Secondly, AIUI, NeXTstep used Mach 2.5 but one of the changes in Mac > OS X 1.0 is that they moved to Mach 3 and updated the userland from > BSD 4.4-Lite to FreeBSD then-current, hiring Jordan Hubbard to do > much > of that work.. No OS X uses Mach 2.5. I worked in the kernel group at Apple for a number of years and am fairly familiar with the kernel. They may have pulled a few things from Mach 3.0, but it is still fundamentally Mach 2.5. > > > > MkLinux didn't get very far, either, did it? > > > > > > > I think that was the original Linux port for PPC. > > It was, and I think only on Apple hardware. There were a few dev > builds and then it disappeared, IIRC. > > [*Checkes*] > > Yup, OldWorld-ROM NuBus PowerMacs, and later OldWorld PCI PowerMacs > -- > but later Linux supported PCI Macs directly. > > There were apparently 4 "developer releases", an R1 and an unfinished > R2. Supplanted by Mac OS X, but apparently the Mach work really > helped > to get NeXTstep and "Rhapsody" bootstrapped on PowerMacs. > -- TTFN - Guy
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 23:30, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: > > Yes. We first started with Mach 3.0 build MK58. We did our final > fork at MK68. We made some *significant* changes from what CMU > had (things like changing mach messages from IPC to RPC) and a > whole lot of work in the area of scheduling. Very interesting. If you are allowed to, you should blog about this somewhere -- it is historic stuff. > Yes, a lot of things were based on Mach. One OS that you're forgetting > is OS X. That is based upon Mach 2.5. Well, firstly, no, I wasn't. I didn't mention OS X, or macOS as it's called now, because it's based on NeXTstep. It's a later version of the same OS. Secondly, AIUI, NeXTstep used Mach 2.5 but one of the changes in Mac OS X 1.0 is that they moved to Mach 3 and updated the userland from BSD 4.4-Lite to FreeBSD then-current, hiring Jordan Hubbard to do much of that work.. > > MkLinux didn't get very far, either, did it? > > > I think that was the original Linux port for PPC. It was, and I think only on Apple hardware. There were a few dev builds and then it disappeared, IIRC. [*Checkes*] Yup, OldWorld-ROM NuBus PowerMacs, and later OldWorld PCI PowerMacs -- but later Linux supported PCI Macs directly. There were apparently 4 "developer releases", an R1 and an unfinished R2. Supplanted by Mac OS X, but apparently the Mach work really helped to get NeXTstep and "Rhapsody" bootstrapped on PowerMacs. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 21:54 +0100, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 19:02, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk > wrote: > > I had been working on the IBM Microkernel (was one of the original 6 > people onthat team). It was eventually to form the basis of OS/2 for > PPC. The way thatthe microkernel project was structured was that > most > of the "OS" was personalityneutral (e.g. could be used for Unix, > OS/2, > DOS, etc) and then there was an OSpersonality that ran on top of the > infrastructure. OS/2 on PPC was supposed tobe the first to ship. > > I think I read that it was based on CMU Mach -- is that right? Yes. We first started with Mach 3.0 build MK58. We did our final fork at MK68. We made some *significant* changes from what CMU had (things like changing mach messages from IPC to RPC) and a whole lot of work in the area of scheduling. > It did seem for a while that a lot of things were based on Mach, but > very few seemed to make it to market. NeXTstep and OSF/1, the only > version of which to ship AFAIK was DEC OSF/1 AXP, later Digital UNIX, > later Tru64. Yes, a lot of things were based on Mach. One OS that you're forgetting is OS X. That is based upon Mach 2.5. > MkLinux didn't get very far, either, did it? > I think that was the original Linux port for PPC. -- TTFN - Guy
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 20:58, Steven M Jones via cctalk
wrote:
>
> Just to clarify, the reference to "i810 RISC" should be the i860
> ("N-10"), their second general-purpose RISC design - versus the 960MX
> from the BiiN project with Siemens in the mid-80s as their first (?),
> which would become the i960 that was popular in embedded applications.
Oops, I do apologise. You're absolutely right and I knew that. I don't
know what I was thinking.
--
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 19:02, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote: > > I had been working on the IBM Microkernel (was one of the original 6 > people onthat team). It was eventually to form the basis of OS/2 for > PPC. The way thatthe microkernel project was structured was that most > of the "OS" was personalityneutral (e.g. could be used for Unix, OS/2, > DOS, etc) and then there was an OSpersonality that ran on top of the > infrastructure. OS/2 on PPC was supposed tobe the first to ship. I think I read that it was based on CMU Mach -- is that right? It did seem for a while that a lot of things were based on Mach, but very few seemed to make it to market. NeXTstep and OSF/1, the only version of which to ship AFAIK was DEC OSF/1 AXP, later Digital UNIX, later Tru64. MkLinux didn't get very far, either, did it? -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On 01/05/2020 07:02, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
OS/2 was to be morphed into a cross-platform o/s,
>> to wean folks from dos/x86.
>
True, but what few remember now is that as well as OS/2 1 (80286) and
OS./2 2 (80386), there was also OS/2 3 (CPU-independent). It was
initially developed for Intel i810 RISC boxes, the N-10 series, so it
was renamed OS/2 NT and later Windows NT... and here we are with it
running on a billion computers.
Just to clarify, the reference to "i810 RISC" should be the i860
("N-10"), their second general-purpose RISC design - versus the 960MX
from the BiiN project with Siemens in the mid-80s as their first (?),
which would become the i960 that was popular in embedded applications.
--S.
Re: SCO software box last chance
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020, Tapley, Mark B. via cctalk wrote: All, have not yet brought myself to throw away this big box of SCO software. Last call, though. I’ll pay media rate to get it to you in the US, just let me know that you want it and where to ship it. If you are abroad, email me and we can split postage, depending on total price. SCO OpenServer (TM) Development System Documentation Package Version 5.0 Mark, I'd be interested if there's media included as well. Thanks! g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 2020-01-05 at 03:56 -0500, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: > A lot of odd PPC work happened in a group a friend worked for > inAustin TX, but not sure if they did Netware work there.? There was > a lot ofOS2 work there as well, but that's off track a bit more. > thanksJim > I was lead tech at a small computer company in Asheville, NC. in > thosedays. I ran OS/2 from version 2 in the early 90's to > Ecomstation inthe early 2000's. > Does Talingent Pink sound familiar? OS/2 was ported to powerPC, and > sowas Netware iirc. The field was quite busy with hopeful > Microsoftkillers. OS/2 was to be morphed into a cross-platform o/s, > to weanfolks from dos/x86. Then PPC kills the x86 and we all get > a decentos. That was the plan anyway. I never saw OS2 for PPC or > Netware forOS/2, thought I know both to have shipped. > Jeff > Yes, Taligent Pink is very familiar (and I still have the scars to prove it!).I was part of the IBM team that evaluated Pink. We (IBM) was mainly looking atit to see how to converge OS's between IBM and Apple...at least in terms of themicro-kernel. The Pink teams was shall we say "difficult to work with". I had been working on the IBM Microkernel (was one of the original 6 people onthat team). It was eventually to form the basis of OS/2 for PPC. The way thatthe microkernel project was structured was that most of the "OS" was personalityneutral (e.g. could be used for Unix, OS/2, DOS, etc) and then there was an OSpersonality that ran on top of the infrastructure. OS/2 on PPC was supposed tobe the first to ship. -- TTFN - Guy
HP 1670E logic analyzer QUESTION ??
This equipment is said to have an internal 2 Go HD. Who knows what KIND of HD ?? HP SCSI ?? Thanks
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 at 09:56, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > > On 1/2/2020 1:35 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote: > > > > > Anyone done anything with Netware *for PowerPC*? Allegedly > > > > > there was > > > > > some attempt at Apple to put it on what later became the > > > > > Network Servers > > > > > (the codename was apparently "Wormhole"). > > > > I know the people who were working in it (based on Portable > > > > NetWare) > > > > AFAIK it never shipped. > > > Was this based on the Cygnus PowerPC port, or was it Apple- > > > specific? > > > > > Sun did a power? PC? port I think paid for by IBM, which would have > > run > > on both the open Apple servers that briefly existed, and on IBM PPC > > systems. Hang on, this is getting confusing. There was a short-lived project to run OpenSolaris on POWER but that post-dated Apple involvement in PowerPC. I think Sun gave some help. Sun *did* do a full port of OpenStep to Solaris, but while I know people who saw it, I am not sure if it got a full commercial release. Sun also bought a number of NeXTstep software houses, including Lighthouse, but didn't release the code. Sun's half-hearted involvement in NeXTstep is a *particularly* short-sighted move on their part, I feel. It could have given them a big lead. AFAIK, pre Apple merge, there was no native OpenStep for PowerPC or POWER. > > A lot of odd PPC work happened in a group a friend worked for in > > Austin > > TX, but not sure if they did Netware work there.? There was a lot of > > OS2 > > work there as well, but that's off track a bit more. > > I was lead tech at a small computer company in Asheville, NC. in those > days. I ran OS/2 from version 2 in the early 90's to Ecomstation in > the early 2000's. > > Does Talingent Pink sound familiar? OS/2 was ported to powerPC, and so > was Netware iirc. Oh yes. I saw a demo of Processor-Independent Netware on PowerPC. I don't remember the make of the box but it had a gas-plasma flat-panel screen on the front of the case for the server monitoring screen, which I thought was a nice touch. PIN was never commercially launched, and quite rightly too, IMHO. What limited Netware servers wasn't CPU speed or number of cores or anything. I have read a lot about Netware on OS/2 (on x86). That worked and was released. It was not pushed hard enough: it had _immense_ potential. Windows NT 4 Server killed Netware partly because of the ease of running proper server apps on your fileserver -- notably, things like email servers, little mini web servers, firewalls/proxy servers, groupware, stuff like that. You could use your existing Windows skills and knowledge. Netware could do some of that too but it faced problems: * It needed more Netware skills than a lot of Netware admins had * It could destabilise your rock-solid Netware file/print boxes * An Internet-connected Netware box had to be kept updated and that was hard work * Per-user licensing costs meant it could get expensive fast NT 4 server bypassed a lot of that. You could use ordinary Windows Internet apps, often sold for a flat fee, which meant they didn't have per-user licensing. Nice easy GUI configuration. Stuff like connection sharing, etc. in the box. And people often forgot that Netware ran on top of DOS, and you could still access DOS devices, such as the floppy drive, or the CD-ROM if properly configured in DOS and one that lacked Netware-native drivers. Getting it to run on top of OS/2 wasn't that hard, I read. OS/2 could do the easy GUI setup part, it could in theory run simple Internet apps like mail servers and proxy servers outside Netware's memory space. It supported USB and multiple CPUs in its later editions. Its server edition never got much traction, though. It was a good upgrade for OS/2 -- Netware's super-fast file sharing, Netware's superior network directory support, automatic config and provisioning through the dynamic combination of NDS and Zenworks. And it was a good upgrade for Netware, giving it a a friendly, modern, GUI-driven, multitasking multiprocessor OS underneath. OS/2 + NDS extended the "better DOS than DOS, better Windows than Windows" thing to "a better server for Windows than Windows Server". But I don't think either company realised it. I don't know what it would have changed longer-term -- whether OS/2 could have survived and thrived as a server for Windows boxes. But weirder stuff has happened. That was a big niche for Linux in its first decade and a half -- a server for Windows networks. That's where _all_ my commercial Linux deployments went before I moved away from support/consultancy work. In one instance, as an install-media server for an NT4/Netware 4 LAN. Adding another Netware box would have required a £1000+ server, as much again on Netware licences, and as much again on RAM to support the big disk needed for multiple CD images. With Caldera OpenLinux it took me
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On 1/5/2020 12:56 AM, Jeffrey S. Worley via cctalk wrote: On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: On 1/2/2020 1:35 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote: Anyone done anything with Netware *for PowerPC*? Allegedly there was some attempt at Apple to put it on what later became the Network Servers (the codename was apparently "Wormhole"). I know the people who were working in it (based on Portable NetWare) AFAIK it never shipped. Was this based on the Cygnus PowerPC port, or was it Apple- specific? Sun did a power? PC? port I think paid for by IBM, which would have run on both the open Apple servers that briefly existed, and on IBM PPC systems. A lot of odd PPC work happened in a group a friend worked for in Austin TX, but not sure if they did Netware work there.? There was a lot of OS2 work there as well, but that's off track a bit more. thanks Jim I was lead tech at a small computer company in Asheville, NC. in those days. I ran OS/2 from version 2 in the early 90's to Ecomstation in the early 2000's. Does Talingent Pink sound familiar? OS/2 was ported to powerPC, and so was Netware iirc. The field was quite busy with hopeful Microsoft killers. OS/2 was to be morphed into a cross-platform o/s, to wean folks from dos/x86. Then PPC kills the x86 and we all get a decent os. That was the plan anyway. I never saw OS2 for PPC or Netware for OS/2, thought I know both to have shipped. Jeff My friend was on the OS2 PPC team, I think, didn't mention that. Been too long since I heard from him to be absolutely sure what was when. If I had to guess from my memory of what platforms he was on, it was PPC OS/2 first, then he and everyone they didn't can was moved to AIX. Then the decimated it as they have most US development teams. thanks Jim
Re: cctalk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3
On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 12:00 -0600, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > On 1/2/2020 1:35 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote: > > > > Anyone done anything with Netware *for PowerPC*? Allegedly > > > > there was > > > > some attempt at Apple to put it on what later became the > > > > Network Servers > > > > (the codename was apparently "Wormhole"). > > > I know the people who were working in it (based on Portable > > > NetWare) > > > AFAIK it never shipped. > > Was this based on the Cygnus PowerPC port, or was it Apple- > > specific? > > > Sun did a power? PC? port I think paid for by IBM, which would have > run > on both the open Apple servers that briefly existed, and on IBM PPC > systems. > > A lot of odd PPC work happened in a group a friend worked for in > Austin > TX, but not sure if they did Netware work there.? There was a lot of > OS2 > work there as well, but that's off track a bit more. > > thanks > Jim I was lead tech at a small computer company in Asheville, NC. in those days. I ran OS/2 from version 2 in the early 90's to Ecomstation in the early 2000's. Does Talingent Pink sound familiar? OS/2 was ported to powerPC, and so was Netware iirc. The field was quite busy with hopeful Microsoft killers. OS/2 was to be morphed into a cross-platform o/s, to wean folks from dos/x86. Then PPC kills the x86 and we all get a decent os. That was the plan anyway. I never saw OS2 for PPC or Netware for OS/2, thought I know both to have shipped. Jeff
