Re: Hyperland and Doctor Who (Was: 70's computers

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, A'vanOpstal via cctalk wrote: hello there, just read your reply in the thread "70???s computers" (from about a year ago) where you talk about having created a .SRT file for Hyperland. Is it still possible to get a copy of that .SRT file? That would be rreally swee

Hyperland and Doctor Who (Was: 70's computers

hello there, just read your reply in the thread "70’s computers" (from about a year ago) where you talk about having created a .SRT file for Hyperland. Is it still possible to get a copy of that .SRT file? That would be rreally sweet, 'd love to show this docu to a bunch o’ milleni

Re: 70's computers

On 10/29/2018 05:28, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: Does anyone know why they didn't catch on? Was it something like 'commodity 'ordinary' processors became so cheap one could build large parallel machines out of them, and each node had a lot more computing capability', or something like that?

Re: 70's computers

> From: Chuck Guzis > Danny Hillis' CM-1 also used lots of 1-bit processors. Does anyone know why they didn't catch on? Was it something like 'commodity 'ordinary' processors became so cheap one could build large parallel machines out of them, and each node had a lot more computing

Re: 70's computers

I believe I have a preliminary copy of Focal-11. See: http://iamvirtual.ca/collection/systems/mediadoc/mediadoc.html On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 06:11 ED SHARPE via cctalk, wrote: > both will run focal... but I need focal 11 on

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/2018 10:46 PM, Jon Elson wrote: > On 10/25/2018 02:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> Likely make a fortune off my stockpile of 2901s. Building machine >> from the earth up is not that hard, software to make them useful is a >> big deal. > Yes, and that's where my 32-bit 2903 project

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 12:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one > time, if you wanted a low-cast implementation, that was the way to do > it. Also gives you a leg up on variable word-length designs. > > > Didn't at least one of the more

Re: 70's computers

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 9:01 PM Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > On 10/25/18 12:02 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > > > You might be thinking of the AMT DAP, which used arrays of 1-bit > processors. > > yup. > > I know we have one, just can't find it in the CHM catalog > I have some docs on bitsavers >

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/2018 02:24 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: Likely make a fortune off my stockpile of 2901s. Building machine from the earth up is not that hard, software to make them useful is a big deal. Yes, and that's where my 32-bit 2903 project started to bog down. I knew some people, OS security

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/2018 05:37 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:45 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > >> Didn't at least one of the more popular MPU designs employ a serial ALU? >> TMS9900? >> > I don't think the TI TMS9900 was bit-serial internally,

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/2018 01:40 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: On Oct 25, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one time, if you wanted a low-cast implementation, that was the way to do it. Also gives you a leg up on

Re: 70's computers

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:45 AM Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Didn't at least one of the more popular MPU designs employ a serial ALU? > TMS9900? > I don't think the TI TMS9900 was bit-serial internally, but the RCA CDP1802 and National Semiconductor SC/MP

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 12:15 PM, allison via cctalk wrote: > The 1802 is claimed to be serial. Ah, that was it. Ultra-low power (for the time) CMOS. Simple instruction set. Thanks, Chuck

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 12:04 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > On 10/25/18 12:02 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > >> You might be thinking of the AMT DAP, which used arrays of 1-bit processors. > > yup. > > I know we have one, just can't find it in the CHM catalog > I have some docs on bitsavers Danny

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/2018 01:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 10/24/2018 9:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote: >> On 10/24/2018 01:11 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> On 10/24/2018 10:31 AM, Marc Howard via cctalk wrote: You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just build a board

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/2018 01:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one > time, if you wanted a low-cast implementation, that was the way to do > it. Also gives you a leg up on variable word-length designs. > > > Didn't at least one of the more

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 12:02 PM, Josh Dersch wrote: > You might be thinking of the AMT DAP, which used arrays of 1-bit processors. yup. I know we have one, just can't find it in the CHM catalog I have some docs on bitsavers

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 11:48 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > Arrays of single-bit processors have been tried. > CHM has one, I'm blanking on the company name. > We had one in Apple ATG. > Active Memory Technology DAP-500

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk > wrote: > > > >> On 10/25/18 11:40 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 25, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk >>> wrote: >>> >>> On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one >>> time, if

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 11:53 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > There is the moto MC14500 > > http://bitsavers.org/components/motorola/14500/MC14500B_Industrial_Control_Unit_Handbook_1977.pdf No, not the ICU--it'd be a real stretch calling it a computer. It'll come to me at some point. --Chuck

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 11:49 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Dunno, the mind is foggy on this detail, since I never played with the > beast. But it seems to me that there was at least one "too slow" MPU > out there in production at some point. There is the moto MC14500

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 11:33 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > On 10/25/18 10:45 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > >> Didn't at least one of the more popular MPU designs employ a serial ALU? >> TMS9900? > > You've mentioned this a couple of times. > > Are you confusing this with the serial CRU

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 11:40 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > >> On Oct 25, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one >> time, if you wanted a low-cast implementation, that was the way to do >> it. Also gives you

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one > time, if you wanted a low-cast implementation, that was the way to do > it. Also gives you a leg up on variable word-length designs. > > Didn't at least

Re: 70's computers

On 10/25/18 10:45 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Didn't at least one of the more popular MPU designs employ a serial ALU? > TMS9900? You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you confusing this with the serial CRU I/O scheme TI computers used? I double-checked and the 960,980 and

Re: 70's computers

On this subject, is there no interest in serial ALU designs? At one time, if you wanted a low-cast implementation, that was the way to do it. Also gives you a leg up on variable word-length designs. Didn't at least one of the more popular MPU designs employ a serial ALU? TMS9900? --Chuck

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 9:00 PM, Jon Elson wrote: On 10/24/2018 01:11 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: On 10/24/2018 10:31 AM, Marc Howard via cctalk wrote: You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts.  They actually predate 22V10's

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 01:11 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: On 10/24/2018 10:31 AM, Marc Howard via cctalk wrote: You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts. They actually predate 22V10's by quite a bit and you can pretty much

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 12:01 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: On 10/24/18 8:57 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word. Four accumulators, and no memory pages Yes, and the accumulators could hold addresses, which was a big plus. But, still, storing the subroutine

Re: NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

It just ended. I made a crap video (no people in it) that Bruce needs to screen before I post to Youtube, however, there was a video team that shot an enormous amount of 4K footage. Bruce does not quite know what to do with it, but figured it needed recording. -- Will On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:00

Re: 70's computers

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there. Wow... You are out

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/18 11:22 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic > PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on. > I am dealing with archiecture model here, the real hardware don't matter > anyway. If it takes X cycles to read memory,

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:22 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: >> On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect >>> it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU >>>

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:22 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: >> On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect >>> it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU >>>

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there. Wow... You are

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 10:31 AM, Marc Howard via cctalk wrote: You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts. They actually predate 22V10's by quite a bit and you can pretty much implement what every you want to without rewiring.

Re: NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

On 2018-10-24 2:00 p.m., Al Kossow via cctalk wrote: > > > >> So you won't be at NOVApalooza then? It's not too late to sign up: >> http://www.novapalooza.org/ > > > When: October 22-24, 2018 > > How was it? > > > Oops! I read the subject line and not the dates...

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote: > I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect > it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU > with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there. Wow... You are out of touch, aren't you.

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 9:47 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote: On 10/24/2018 07:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC transition was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed versus memory speed: with slow memory and fast

Re: 70's computers

You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts. They actually predate 22V10's by quite a bit and you can pretty much implement what every you want to without rewiring. Marc On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:57 AM Jon Elson via

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/18 8:57 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word. Four accumulators, and no memory pages

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote: > > On 10/24/18 5:36 AM, Paul Koning wrote: >> >> Very different. PPUs are real computers, vaguely like a PDP-8 in >> fact but quite fast. The PPUs have major roles in the OS throughout >> the 6000 series, not just in early versions. > >

Re: NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

> So you won't be at NOVApalooza then? It's not too late to sign up: > http://www.novapalooza.org/ When: October 22-24, 2018 How was it?

NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

On 2018-10-24 12:57 p.m., Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 10/24/2018 08:13 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: >> On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/18 5:36 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > Very different. PPUs are real computers, vaguely like a PDP-8 in > fact but quite fast. The PPUs have major roles in the OS throughout > the 6000 series, not just in early versions. You obviously haven't spent much time in SSD (Special Systems). I

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 08:13 AM, allison via cctalk wrote: On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 07:36 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: IBM channels are (from the programmer point of view at least) merely hardwired controllers Well, no. They actually can do a lot more. They can do branching and simple arithmetic. We had a program to deal with damaged/deteriorating

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 07:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC transition was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed versus memory speed: with slow memory and fast CPUs, it makes sense to get as much execution bang out of

Re: 70's computers

On 10/24/2018 09:19 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > >> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> ... >> There was a recent discussion about code density (I forget whether here, or >> on TUHS), and someone mentioned this paper: >> >>

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > > ... > There was a recent discussion about code density (I forget whether here, or > on TUHS), and someone mentioned this paper: > > http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf > > which shows that

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > >> From: Paul Koning > >> A lot more comes from the CPU architecture. The instruction set, of >> course (arguably the first RISC). > > An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC transition > was

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: > >> The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs >> where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user >> software. > > Try the Modular One with an OS

Re: 70's computers

> From: Paul Koning > A lot more comes from the CPU architecture. The instruction set, of > course (arguably the first RISC). An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC transition was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed versus memory speed:

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:50 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > >> From: Paul Koning > > >> Some years ago I learned the architecture of the Dutch Electrologica X1 >> and X8 machines. ... they gain a lot of efficiency by allowing almost >> all instructions to optionally set a condition

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 9:47 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > On 10/23/18 6:10 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > >> The 10 or so PPU units. >> Ben. > > Early SCOPE and COS also put the operating system in those, leaving the > CPU for real work. But for I/O, not that much different from IBM

Re: 70's computers

> From: Paul Koning > Some years ago I learned the architecture of the Dutch Electrologica X1 > and X8 machines. ... they gain a lot of efficiency by allowing almost > all instructions to optionally set a condition flag, and almost all > instructions to be executed

Re: 70's computers

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: On 10/23/2018 3:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user software.

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 3:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user software. Try the Modular One with an OS written in

Re: 70's computers

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user software. Try the Modular One with an OS written in BCPL. https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3230/PRG08.pdf Although

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/18 6:10 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > The 10 or so PPU units. > Ben. Early SCOPE and COS also put the operating system in those, leaving the CPU for real work. But for I/O, not that much different from IBM "channels", no? --Chuck

Re: 70's computers

both will run focal... but I need focal 11 on paper tape I have asked several people but have not heard if it is even available? Sent from AOL Mobile Mail On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: PS: > Not the simplest machine to implement, mind - the -8 is a lot >

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 7:00 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 10/23/18 5:34 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: With NO GUI and hidden IO, you get speed. I understand what GUI is, but what's "hidden IO"? --Chuck The 10 or so PPU units. Ben.

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/18 5:34 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > With NO GUI and hidden IO, you get speed. I understand what GUI is, but what's "hidden IO"? --Chuck

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 6:18 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Dunno. I'd say that the CDC 6000 seies machines had pretty good code density, and of course, ran like the wind. Instructions are 15 or 30 bits and no condition codes to preserve. Most are 3-address. And a very simple instruction set.

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 5:57 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: PS: > Not the simplest machine to implement, mind - the -8 is a lot > simpler. As a rough measure of how much more complex, the -8/E and -11/20 are roughly contemporaneous, and built out of the same technology (SSI TTL on larger

Re: 70's computers

Dunno. I'd say that the CDC 6000 seies machines had pretty good code density, and of course, ran like the wind. Instructions are 15 or 30 bits and no condition codes to preserve. Most are 3-address. And a very simple instruction set. --Chuck

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 5:26 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote: On Oct 23, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: From: Ben Bfranchuk I just can't find a clean simple design yet. ... The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs where 16K words is a valid memory

Re: 70's computers

PS: > Not the simplest machine to implement, mind - the -8 is a lot > simpler. As a rough measure of how much more complex, the -8/E and -11/20 are roughly contemporaneous, and built out of the same technology (SSI TTL on larger boards): the -8/E CPU is 5 quad boards, and the -11/20 CPU

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > >> From: Ben Bfranchuk > >> I just can't find a clean simple design yet. ... >> The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs >> where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user >>

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk > wrote: > > ... > > For simplicity and reasonable density, you might want to look at J1 (which is > a Forth CPU). It has been implemented in 300 lines of Verilog and the entire > CPU + 16KB of memory fits in a reasonably sized

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk > wrote: > >> From: Ben Bfranchuk > >> I just can't find a clean simple design yet. ... >> The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs >> where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user >>

Re: 70's computers

> From: Ben Bfranchuk > I just can't find a clean simple design yet. ... > The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs > where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user > software. There was a recent discussion about code density

Re: Hyperland and Doctor Who (Was: 70's computers

Later, in 2017, it [Shada] was reconstructed again, using animation for the missing scenes. That was released on DVD in UK almost a year ago. The USA release was delayed until last month, and played once on BBC America. Amazon.uk has had it available on DVD for a year; amazon.com (USA) should

Hyperland and Doctor Who (Was: 70's computers

Modern computers are just to play with on the web and read mail and download DR WHO. Remember when "personal" computers were on a par with model trains for "practicality" and "usefulness". I've got the Doctor Who MP4 files on a SATA III drive plugged into a Seagate GoFlex-TV streamer. On Tue,

Re: 70's computers

On 10/23/2018 3:12 PM, Paul Koning wrote: On Oct 23, 2018, at 5:07 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: ... The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user software. 16k words (or even 8k words) is a fine memory

Re: 70's computers

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 5:07 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > ... > The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking for simpler designs > where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user > software. 16k words (or even 8k words) is a fine memory size for a single user OS on

70's computers

On 10/23/2018 1:30 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote: Modern computers are just to play with on the web and read mail and download DR WHO. Remember when "personal" computers were on a par with model trains for "practicality" and "usefulness". I've