From: Eric S. Lamemond
Subject: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <D5yxwn.5BG@sdf.saomai.org>
Hi there!

I'm Eric S. Lamemond.  Many of you may know me for my wonderful editing
skills.  This post is about retro computing.

In the old days, computer rooms need raised floors, extensive cooling systems,
and huge power requirements.  The machines were composed of cabinets the
sizes of freezers and usually only had the computing power of the Zilog 80.
Disk drives were enormous and could be often mistake as a washing machine.

One of biggest resource hogs was the Honeywell MULTICS.  Running a MULTICS
is like trying to air condition hell and do their accounting on an intel
286 under XENIX.  Although the i286 and the MULTICS fair about the same in
processor power, the intel superior design flaw leaps centuries beyond
Honeywell.

The operators (sysadm in UNIX) of the computer room did their work from
printing terminals (X-windows stations in UNIX) usually at 300/1200bps.
I can recall my very first modem my father bought me .. it was a 2400bps
Hayes compatible.  I thought that was slow!  gaaaad zooks!

The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.  If you ran one today, you'd
be looking at spending $1500 a month in just power and cooling.  The brains
of the Decsystem20 was TOPS-20 Monitor (OS in UNIX).  The monitor was nothing
but a glorified program loader (VP/IX in UNIX). PDP-10 programmers are often
called hackers because nothing worked on the Decsystem20 and always had to
be "hacked" to work.  Some of the tools of the day were TECO (VI in UNIX)
and DDT.  Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the system
does what is called a PANIC .. the machine then just needs to be rebooted
therefore debugging is not necessary.

Symbolics machines were prone to such errors.  For instance, GENERA (The OS
in UNIX) offered a cheap windowing system, an archaic filesystem and useless
version control.  At times the GENERA's flakey windowing system would lock
up and dump the poor user to the Cold Load Stream (init 6 in UNIX).  The
user would have to debug the problem or abort totally!  The Symbolics 3600
series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!  The FEP was
probably the most advanced component of the Symbolics 3600 series because
it had a motorola 32 bit processor.  I've often wondered why they just didn't
run UNIX on the FEP and make the machine multiuser.

"lose! lose! lose!"  ;^) ;^* (*smooch*) (*giggle*)

Todays computing room is not filled with such dinasaurs.. We lead the
race in the computer information superinflux with SGI and SunSPARC stations.
You will find most computer rooms are carpeted and quiet enough that the
sysadm can listen to Handel or Bach and not be disturbed by fan noise or
disk activity.  All computer speak the same language and now run truly
OPEN systems.  We also take less power, less room, less costs .. very
attractive to the millions of advertisers waiting to get their web page
on the "NET".

-esl
--
Eric S. Lamemond - SunOS sysadm gcc g++ LINUX "Ralph Nader, will you marry me?"
#include <std.disclaimer> - Segmentation fault - core dumped ;^) |+) rm -rf /
/* dmr: "So, what do you think of STEAMS Ken?"  Ken: "?" */ 8) &8^) sed2perl

From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l2b46$ro0@tools.near.net>
In article <··········@sdf.saomai.org> ···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) writes:
>The Symbolics 3600
>series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
>was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!

The VAX 8000 series needed an 8086 PC front-end to boot them!
-- 
Barry Margolin
BBN Planet Corporation, Cambridge, MA
······@bbnplanet.com
From: Paul A Vixie
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <PAUL.95Mar25225231@sager.vix.com>
> The VAX 8000 series needed an 8086 PC front-end to boot them!

I wish I had either the power to keep my mouth shut, or the brain cells back
that are forever wired down with VAX details.  I have neither, so here goes.

The first 8xxx was the 86x0, which had a single chip PDP-11 embedded on one
of its A-BUS boards.  I think it was the T-11, which is a J-11 without VM.
It booted in a manner very reminiscent of the 78x series, which makes sense
since it was designed by the same group of people.

The next few 8xxx's were 82x0's and 83x0's.  (There never was an 81xx.)  The
82x0/83x0 was very 750-like in its booting -- the control store that made it
a VAX was mostly present even before booting, so it booted "as a VAX".

The 85xx was the first "Nautilus" machine and had a Pro-350 (J-11) console
device.  (I don't remember whether there was ever an 84xx.)

The 87xx/88xx used Microvax-II consoles.

There never was an 89xx.  I never laid eyes on a 9xxx.

Therefore no 8xxx ever used an 8086 front end.

Aren't you glad you asked?

(Btw, my first 8800 was a development machine returned from none other than
Thinking Machines.  They were hard to get (I was inside Digital at the time)
and I was VERY glad that TMI had finished with it.  It was the fastest machine
we had for a long while, and I'm pleased to say that we got a hell of a lot
of work out of it before retiring it in favour of a DECsystem 5000/240.)
--
Paul Vixie
La Honda, CA
<····@vix.com>
decwrl!vixie!paul
From: Roger Ivie
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <1995Mar26.101442.45673@cc.usu.edu>
In article <··················@sager.vix.com>, ····@vix.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>
> The first 8xxx was the 86x0, which had a single chip PDP-11 embedded on one
> of its A-BUS boards.  I think it was the T-11, which is a J-11 without VM.
> It booted in a manner very reminiscent of the 78x series, which makes sense
> since it was designed by the same group of people.

A T-11 is _not_ a J-11 without VM. It's the 11/03 all on one chip.
--
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie      | Never underestimate the bandwidth of a
····@cc.usu.edu |     truckload of tapes
From: Paul A Vixie
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <VIXIE.95Mar26110207@gw.home.vix.com>
> A T-11 is _not_ a J-11 without VM. It's the 11/03 all on one chip.

And the difference between a T-11 (11/03) and a J-11 (11/73) is MFDS/MTDS...?
--
Paul Vixie
La Honda, CA
<····@vix.com>
decwrl!vixie!paul
From: Roger Ivie
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <1995Mar26.125127.45679@cc.usu.edu>
In article <···················@gw.home.vix.com>, ·····@gw.home.vix.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>> A T-11 is _not_ a J-11 without VM. It's the 11/03 all on one chip.
>
> And the difference between a T-11 (11/03) and a J-11 (11/73) is MFDS/MTDS...?

The T-11 has no floating point, I don't think it has even the extended
instruction set. The J-11 also performs better, but has a more difficult
bus to interface to. But then, at least it can do writes on the bus
without the T-11's inseparable read (that is, all writes by the T-11
appear to be read modify write sequences to the outside world).
--
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie      | Never underestimate the bandwidth of a
····@cc.usu.edu |     truckload of tapes
From: Megan
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <D611o6.Ao8@world.std.com>
······@nic.near.net (Barry Margolin) writes:

>In article <··········@sdf.saomai.org> ···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) writes:
>>The Symbolics 3600
>>series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
>>was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!

>The VAX 8000 series needed an 8086 PC front-end to boot them!

And the Vax 6800 had a PDP-11 (T-11) running a conditional assembly
of RT-11 as the front end to not only load the microcode but also to
sequence the power controllers ...

which prompted the expression:

"RT-11 turns Venus on"...

					Megan Gentry
					Former RT-11 Developer
From: Huw Davies
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <1995Mar26.081823.11628@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
Barry Margolin (······@nic.near.net) wrote:

: The VAX 8000 series needed an 8086 PC front-end to boot them!

I've got no idea what this has to do with Multics, but the 8000 series
VAX console device was a PDP-11 (a Pro, but an 11 nevertheless).

Now back to our regular Multics related postings....
--
 Huw Davies                      | e-mail: ··········@latrobe.edu.au
 Information Technology Services | Phone: +61 3 479 1550  Fax: +61 3 479 1999
 La Trobe University             | "My Alfa keeps me poor in a monetary
 Melbourne Australia 3083        | sense, but rich in so many other ways"
From: Anders Magnusson
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l3gtu$15t@teena.ludd.luth.se>
In <··········@tools.near.net> ······@nic.near.net (Barry Margolin) writes:

>In article <··········@sdf.saomai.org> ···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) writes:
>>The Symbolics 3600
>>series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
>>was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!

>The VAX 8000 series needed an 8086 PC front-end to boot them!
Not really an 8086 PC, they have an PRO 380 which is an 
micro-PDP11-based machine that runs some obscure RSX variant
called P/OS. VAX systems use to have micro-PDP11's as boot-loaders
(at least the older ones), compared to PDP10's which have _real_
PDP11 computers as front-ends. (Not counting in '2020 here).

-- Ragge

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Anders Magnusson - ·····@ludd.luth.se - Lule� Academic Computer Society -
-                    May the carrier be with you!                         -
From: Henry Baker
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <hbaker-2703950834120001@192.0.2.1>
In article <··········@tools.near.net>, ······@nic.near.net (Barry
Margolin) wrote:

> In article <··········@sdf.saomai.org> ···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S.
Lamemond) writes:
> >The Symbolics 3600
> >series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
> >was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!
> 
> The VAX 8000 series needed an 8086 PC front-end to boot them!

In high school I programmed on a 'distributed system' consisting of a
4K IBM 1401 with a direct connection to an IBM 7040.  I got real tired
of having my 1401 assemblies punch out the intermediate deck which was
then reloaded for the 2nd pass, so I wrote a 'memory server' for the
7040 which stored the intermediate pass in the 7040's larger memory.  From
what I've seen of some Unix assemblers, this system may have been faster :-)

I can't claim to have invented the first 'diskless' node, though, since
this 1401 was already 'diskless'.  (It did have 2 tape drives, though.)

-- 
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
From: Megan
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <D60HJE.1zx@world.std.com>
···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) writes:

>The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.  If you ran one today, you'd
>be looking at spending $1500 a month in just power and cooling.  The brains
>of the Decsystem20 was TOPS-20 Monitor (OS in UNIX).  The monitor was nothing
>but a glorified program loader (VP/IX in UNIX). PDP-10 programmers are often

Well, if you want to look at it in such a simplistic way, then U*x is no
better than that either...

>called hackers because nothing worked on the Decsystem20 and always had to
>be "hacked" to work.  Some of the tools of the day were TECO (VI in UNIX)

No, the term 'hacker' in those days meant something special (at least
where I came from).  Unix programmers (the rabid ones) are what I would
use the current (media) definition of hackers for...

Comparing TECO to VI?  You've got to be kidding, VI is to TECO as a
a sneaker is to a car...

>and DDT.  Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the

Another joke, right?  Nowadays, with optimizing compilers and executable
images which bear no relation to the source, you couldn't use one anyway.
Not that you would want to, wich such obscure user interfaces...

The variables on the stack have to be searched for, they're not where
you would expect...

>superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the system
>does what is called a PANIC .. the machine then just needs to be rebooted
>therefore debugging is not necessary.

Yes, most U*x systems panic at the drop of a bit... for reasons which
other systems could ride through and report in a more graceful way...

Ah, but I sense that maybe you are making fun of u*x systems as well...

heck, they deserve it...

					Megan Gentry
					Former RT-11 Developer

p.s. Hmmm, sounds like a troll for unix-haters...
From: Jay Ashworth
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l21n4$pr5@xcalibur.IntNet.net>
···@world.std.com (Megan) writes:
) ···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) writes:
) >The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.  If you ran one today, you'd
) >be looking at spending $1500 a month in just power and cooling.  The brains
) >of the Decsystem20 was TOPS-20 Monitor (OS in UNIX).  The monitor was nothing
) >but a glorified program loader (VP/IX in UNIX). PDP-10 programmers are often

) Well, if you want to look at it in such a simplistic way, then U*x is no
) better than that either...

Megan...  Megan...  _You_ got hooked by this troll?

) >called hackers because nothing worked on the Decsystem20 and always had to
) >be "hacked" to work.  Some of the tools of the day were TECO (VI in UNIX)

) No, the term 'hacker' in those days meant something special (at least
) where I came from).  Unix programmers (the rabid ones) are what I would
) use the current (media) definition of hackers for...

) Comparing TECO to VI?  You've got to be kidding, VI is to TECO as a
) a sneaker is to a car...

Yup much more reliable, and much easier to use.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jr 'not bad... gonna mail a copy to esr' a
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth       High Technology Systems Consulting              Ashworth
Designer             Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation        & Associates
ka1fjx/4       "Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics"     +1 813 790 7592
···@baylink.com    -- Michael Handler, in news.admin.policy          NIC: jra3
From: Peter da Silva
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <D60Ip2.KL4@bonkers.taronga.com>
Of course it's a troll... look at the name, it's a take-off on Eric
Raymond's.
From: Eric Raymond
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l31vb$let@netaxs.com>
Peter da Silva (·····@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote:
: Of course it's a troll... look at the name, it's a take-off on Eric
: Raymond's.

Quite.  I was amused.

The fellow should learn to write, though; a *plausible* parody of me would
have to exaggerate my normal locutionary style, deftly skewering my 
tendency towards sesquipedalian pollysyllabilisms and nigh-interminable
run-on-sentences.
--
	<a href="http://www.ccil.org/~esr/home.html>Eric S. Raymond</a>
From: Lon Stowell
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l76ea$q96@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com>
In article <··········@netaxs.com> ···@netaxs.com (Eric Raymond) writes:
>The fellow should learn to write, though; a *plausible* parody of me would
>have to exaggerate my normal locutionary style, deftly skewering my
>tendency towards sesquipedalian pollysyllabilisms and nigh-interminable
>run-on-sentences.

  Along with the obligatory reference to TNHD and plea for funds to
  buy newer and faster hardware.  >:-)
From: Mark H. Wood
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <1995Mar27.122235.13616@ivax>
In article <··········@world.std.com>, ···@world.std.com (Megan) writes:
[deletia]>
>and DDT.  Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
>
> Another joke, right?  Nowadays, with optimizing compilers and executable
> images which bear no relation to the source, you couldn't use one anyway.
> Not that you would want to, wich such obscure user interfaces...

Pssst!  Don't tell this guy how we used to do (small) program development
entirely in FILDDT....
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead Systems Programmer    +1 317 274 0749   [@··········@]
Internet:  ·····@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU       BITNET:  ·····@INDYVAX
From: Peter da Silva
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <D647Cp.Hx1@bonkers.taronga.com>
In article <······················@ivax>,
Mark H. Wood <·····@indyvax.iupui.edu> wrote:
>Pssst!  Don't tell this guy how we used to do (small) program development
>entirely in FILDDT....

Wimps. Even as late as 1982 we were running multiuser on a system with
12K of RAM under Polyforth. All you big iron people are WIMPS. Real
programmers do *realtime*. If you can afford to be a few milliseconds past
the deadline now and then you consider yourself *lucky*.
From: Richard M. Alderson III
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <aldersonD67wtL.63n@netcom.com>
In article <······················@ivax> ·····@indyvax.iupui.edu (Mark H. Wood)
writes:

>Pssst!  Don't tell this guy how we used to do (small) program development
>entirely in FILDDT....

FILDDT?  Why?  You can't test the execution of anything in FILDDT.  I like my
computing interactive.

I have, though, created systems programs in DDT.
-- 
Rich Alderson		[Tolkien quote temporarily removed in favour of
········@netcom.com	 proselytizing comment below --rma]

Please support the creation of the humanities hierarchy of newsgroups!
The second CFV for humanities.misc has been posted.  See news.groups.
From: Mark H. Wood
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <1995Mar29.231246.13715@ivax>
In article <··················@netcom.com>, ········@netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) writes:
> In article <······················@ivax> ·····@indyvax.iupui.edu (Mark H. Wood)
> writes:
> 
>>Pssst!  Don't tell this guy how we used to do (small) program development
>>entirely in FILDDT....
> 
> FILDDT?  Why?  You can't test the execution of anything in FILDDT.  I like my
> computing interactive.
> 
> I have, though, created systems programs in DDT.

Touche.  *sigh* has it really been *eight* years since I last laid hands on a
36-bit system?  Too long, too long....
-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead Systems Programmer    +1 317 274 0749   [@··········@]
Internet:  ·····@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU       BITNET:  ·····@INDYVAX
Monitor is one instruction too long.
From: Cliff Segar
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l3hfs$6ks@news1.is.net>
Eric S. Lamemind (···@sdf.saomai.org) wrote:
And most of us wish he had not ...
: I'm Eric S. Lamemond.  Many of you may know me for my wonderful editing
I, at least, know you for nothing
: In the old days, computer rooms need raised floors, extensive cooling systems,
: and huge power requirements.  The machines were composed of cabinets the
: Disk drives were enormous and could be often mistake as a washing machine.
Maybe if you had a real job around real computers you would notice the 24"
raised floor (instead of the 8" in 'the old days') to handle the miles of
cable and 200+ tons of A/C requirements in the average 10K sqft computer
rooms in existance today.
: One of biggest resource hogs was the Honeywell MULTICS.  Running a MULTICS 
And one of the biggest bandwidth hogs is Eric Lamemind
: The operators (sysadm in UNIX) of the computer room did their work from
: printing terminals (X-windows stations in UNIX) usually at 300/1200bps.
Actually the IBM Selectric console ran at 137.5 baud if I recall - but it
did have 'red-shift' capability!
: and DDT.  Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
No?!? But at least there is the 'kill file' :-)
: superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the system
Hmmm ... What security rating does SunOS have?
: in UNIX) offered a cheap windowing system, an archaic filesystem and useless
Hey, I hear Gates has a new windowing system with longer file names!
: series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
: was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!  The FEP was 
Uh, does anyone have a spare loader tape for my DN-30 FNP? Mine ripped.
: Todays computing room is not filled with such dinasaurs.. We lead the
And I bet your Victrola has a 'morning glory horn'
: disk activity.  All computer speak the same language and now run truly 
You have obviously never had to link up different machines.

Cliff <······@is.net>
From: William
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <BILLW.95Mar26154351@glare.cisco.com>
     This post is about retro computing. 

Looks like flame-bait to me.


    One of biggest resource hogs was the Honeywell MULTICS.
    The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.

MULTICS and the tops20-like operating systems ran rings around "modern"
operatings systems.  Somehow they managed to support ~100 simultaneous users
with CPU power judged "too little" for a single user today.  I think this is
because modern operating systems are designed to draw pictures instead of
manage a computer (crayons for children with a technical leaning?)


    The brains of the Decsystem20 was TOPS-20 Monitor (OS in UNIX).  The
    monitor was nothing but a glorified program loader (VP/IX in UNIX).

Huh?  Tops20 was perhaps the most overloaded operating system ever written,
including os kernel functions to do parsing, floating point IO, date and
timer conversion, networking that looks like normal filesystem, and many,
many more (700+ system calls, if I remember correctly!)


    Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
    superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the
    system does what is called a PANIC .. the machine then just needs to
    be rebooted therefore debugging is not necessary.

That explains a lot.


    [Today] you will find most computer rooms are carpeted and quiet enough
    that the sysadm can listen to Handel or Bach and not be disturbed by fan
    noise or disk activity.  All computer speak the same language and now
    run truly OPEN systems.  We also take less power, less room, less costs

I don't think you've been in a modern computer room.  I think you were in
what most of us old-timers call a "cubicle".

BillW
From: Doug Humphrey
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <3l4jql$h6q@ss1.digex.net>
This guy is a little early on this; April 1 is not here yet.

Doug





In article <··········@sdf.saomai.org>,
Eric S. Lamemond <···@sdf.saomai.org> wrote:
>Hi there!
>
>I'm Eric S. Lamemond.  Many of you may know me for my wonderful editing
>skills.  This post is about retro computing.
>
>In the old days, computer rooms need raised floors, extensive cooling systems,
>and huge power requirements.  The machines were composed of cabinets the
>sizes of freezers and usually only had the computing power of the Zilog 80.
>Disk drives were enormous and could be often mistake as a washing machine.
>
>One of biggest resource hogs was the Honeywell MULTICS.  Running a MULTICS
>is like trying to air condition hell and do their accounting on an intel
>286 under XENIX.  Although the i286 and the MULTICS fair about the same in
>processor power, the intel superior design flaw leaps centuries beyond
>Honeywell.
>
>The operators (sysadm in UNIX) of the computer room did their work from
>printing terminals (X-windows stations in UNIX) usually at 300/1200bps.
>I can recall my very first modem my father bought me .. it was a 2400bps
>Hayes compatible.  I thought that was slow!  gaaaad zooks!
>
>The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.  If you ran one today, you'd
>be looking at spending $1500 a month in just power and cooling.  The brains
>of the Decsystem20 was TOPS-20 Monitor (OS in UNIX).  The monitor was nothing
>but a glorified program loader (VP/IX in UNIX). PDP-10 programmers are often
>called hackers because nothing worked on the Decsystem20 and always had to
>be "hacked" to work.  Some of the tools of the day were TECO (VI in UNIX)
>and DDT.  Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
>superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the system
>does what is called a PANIC .. the machine then just needs to be rebooted
>therefore debugging is not necessary.
>
>Symbolics machines were prone to such errors.  For instance, GENERA (The OS
>in UNIX) offered a cheap windowing system, an archaic filesystem and useless
>version control.  At times the GENERA's flakey windowing system would lock
>up and dump the poor user to the Cold Load Stream (init 6 in UNIX).  The
>user would have to debug the problem or abort totally!  The Symbolics 3600
>series were so inferior to machines such as the VAX that they needed what
>was called a FEP (AMI bios in Pentium UNIX) to boot them!  The FEP was
>probably the most advanced component of the Symbolics 3600 series because
>it had a motorola 32 bit processor.  I've often wondered why they just didn't
>run UNIX on the FEP and make the machine multiuser.
>
>"lose! lose! lose!"  ;^) ;^* (*smooch*) (*giggle*)
>
>Todays computing room is not filled with such dinasaurs.. We lead the
>race in the computer information superinflux with SGI and SunSPARC stations.
>You will find most computer rooms are carpeted and quiet enough that the
>sysadm can listen to Handel or Bach and not be disturbed by fan noise or
>disk activity.  All computer speak the same language and now run truly
>OPEN systems.  We also take less power, less room, less costs .. very
>attractive to the millions of advertisers waiting to get their web page
>on the "NET".
>
>-esl
>--
>Eric S. Lamemond - SunOS sysadm gcc g++ LINUX "Ralph Nader, will you marry me?"
>#include <std.disclaimer> - Segmentation fault - core dumped ;^) |+) rm -rf /
>/* dmr: "So, what do you think of STEAMS Ken?"  Ken: "?" */ 8) &8^) sed2perl
From: Vance Socci
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <vsocciD629vw.HH1@netcom.com>
···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) wrote:

["modest" introduction and warped third-hand history deleted]

>The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.  If you ran one today, you'd
>be looking at spending $1500 a month in just power and cooling.  The brains
>of the Decsystem20 was TOPS-20 Monitor (OS in UNIX).  The monitor was nothing
>but a glorified program loader (VP/IX in UNIX). PDP-10 programmers are often
>called hackers because nothing worked on the Decsystem20 and always had to
>be "hacked" to work.  Some of the tools of the day were TECO (VI in UNIX)
>and DDT.  Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
>superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the system
>does what is called a PANIC .. the machine then just needs to be rebooted
>therefore debugging is not necessary.
>

Thanks anyway for the troll, the Sun/Unix propaganda, and its warped view of computer history.
Its interesting to those of us that have actually been there to see how distorted some people's view
the past actually is.

Remember: don't ever look directly at the Sun: it will AIX out your eyes.







- Vance

/=======================================\
|    Vance Socci   ······@netcom.com	|
| "The worst secrets are those we keep	|
|   from ourselves . . ."		|
| "I am not a number; I am a free man!	|
\=======================================/
From: Pete Fenelon
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <796308312.14@cs.york.ac.uk>
···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond) wrote:
> Fortunately these days no one needs to use a debugger.  In the
> >superior operating systems (such as SunOS, ULTRIX, AIX and LINUX) the system
> >does what is called a PANIC .. the machine then just needs to be rebooted
> >therefore debugging is not necessary.

*PLONK*.

oete
--
Peter Fenelon - Research Associate - High Integrity Systems Engineering Group,
Dep't of Computer Science, University of York, York, YO1 5DD (+44 1904 433388)
············@minster.york.ac.uk http://dcpu1.cs.york.ac.uk:6666/pete/pete.html
From: Richard M. Alderson III
Subject: Re: Retro-Computing!
Date: 
Message-ID: <aldersonD67x1r.6Mx@netcom.com>
In article <··········@sdf.saomai.org> ···@sdf.saomai.org (Eric S. Lamemond)
writes:

>The Decsystem20 was also another resource hog.  If you ran one today, you'd
>be looking at spending $1500 a month in just power and cooling.

I realize that this was supposed to be a troll, but I have to correct the
poster's mistaken notions about the power consumption of a KL10:  Power and AC
for a typical KL10-based machine room run more like $100K per year, so he's too
*LOW* by a factor of more than 5....

I presume that he is equating "DEC-20" with "KL10."
--
Rich Alderson		[Tolkien quote temporarily removed in favour of
········@netcom.com	 proselytizing comment below --rma]

Please support the creation of the humanities hierarchy of newsgroups!
The second CFV for humanities.misc has been posted.  See news.groups.