The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
|
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Mar 2007 08:12 In article <573r7kF2arf8qU1(a)mid.individual.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Vorbr=FCggen?= <jvorbrueggen(a)not-mediasec.de> wrote: >> OK, then my question goes back to Jan and Barb. Why was a full sysgen >> required or recommended for the situations you guys were talking about? >> Wouldn't partial gens do the job without the need for the large >> resource commitment Jan talked about? > >At least for the first 10 years or so, VAX/VMS wasn't structured in a >sufficiently loose way to make this feasible, IMO - we're talking the core of >the OS here, Yes, I'm talking about that, too. > of course, not all of the utilities etc. that constitute the bulk >of the code. However, if you needed to make an interface change at the syscall >level, you'd need to recompile everything. Really? Most of TOPS-10's rebuilds had to do with hardware changing, not software. Oh, I see. ARe you talking about adding a new syscall? That would be a new feature; it's safer to do a complete rebuild, especially if the syscall had anything to do with disk I/O user-mode code interfaces. > >And anyway, I can't think of a problem that would have required a rebuild. >Significantly upgrading a subsystem, like the batch or print job management, Nah, on the -10 that was at the app level. >would have been much easier with the source - but as I said, DEC customers >never considered such things until (too) late, in contrast to IBM's customers. Our device tables, command tables, and all fields associated with them were generated by macros based on the questions answered at MONGEN time (a program that queried the sysmanger what hardware and software features he wanted to put on his computer system). The best way to make any changes to those would be to do it the "right way". Fumble fingers can destroy machines. /BAH
From: david20 on 30 Mar 2007 08:23 In article <460c4445$0$28173$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: >Andrew Swallow wrote: >> >> Hmmm. If the VAX and ALPHA instruction sets are now public source then >> clones can be made. Using a PC or Apple bus permits off the shelf ram >> modules and disk drives can be purchased. Writing the CPUs in C or VHDL >> will allow them to be tested on a FPGA and manufactured as ASICs. >> Recompiling the ASIC every 18 months will permit the processor board to >> speed up as the chip foundries reduce gate sizes. > >I'd buy one. > >> >> A CPU on an ASIC will be able to match block move instructions performed >> by the emulator, other instruction should be 5 to 10 times faster. >> >> To keep the general public happy running programs by clicking a mouse >> will be needed. Someone is going to have fun converting clerical >> software like OpenOffice. New native mode device handlers will need >> writing to support the standard peripherals. A way of emulating the PC >> which allows device handlers written in X86 to run thereby permits users >> to buy other hardware modules in the shops. > >VMS has DECWindows, which, I believe, is X-Windows (yes, I know its >official name is longer...). You've got the GUI support for an Open >Office port. You'd just need to build a library that fron-ended VMS >system calls. > There is a project to port Open Office to VMS (Though I believe just on Alpha and Itanium) see http://www.oooovms.dyndns.org/ David Webb Security team leader CCSS Middlesex University >> >> VAX/VMS the reliable alternative to Windows PCs. >> > >A Marchant calculater is a reliable alternative... >
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Mar 2007 08:18 In article <mL2dndkRKfoabpbbRVnyvQA(a)bt.com>, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <6meeue.322.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, >> Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >[snip] >>> Lastest pc press blurbs. Vista only runs around 80 of 150 >>> identified critical XP applications. >> >> So can we make a reasonable assumption that the load tests >> involved all games and not critical apps? > >Or the games were written in the last 2 years and developed on >the beta version of Vista. Sigh! I don't know what I'm going to do with you. I wasn't talking about new games. The gamers have been furiously typing and installing their old games and haven't complained. Now, either the gamers have become jaded and don't play as they used to (I have almost eliminated this case) or Vista can play all the old games consistently. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 30 Mar 2007 08:21 In article <MPG.2075a1a27f7217af98a25a(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eug9l1$8qk_002(a)s879.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <56srafF2arjf6U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >Morten Reistad wrote: >> >> In article <56qh33F29t3i0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> >> Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>Andrew Swallow wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>In article <Vf-dnSMExMAU4JvbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)bt.com>, >> >>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow(a)btopenworld.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>In article <rqh3ue.6m61.ln(a)via.reistad.name>, >> >>>>>>> Morten Reistad <first(a)last.name> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>[snip] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>The decision of May 17th 1983 couldn't have been much different. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>After all, people want to upgrade their computers in the most >> >>>>>>>>>effective way possible - and the most effective way is the one that >> >>>>>>>>>requires them to spend the least money converting their own programs >> >>>>>>>>>and data. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>So if nobody makes PDP-10 computers any more, there's no particular >> >>>>>>>>>benefit to their owners doing their next upgrade with DEC - and a >> >>>>>>>>>motive not to do so, so as to punish this behavior. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>Under what circumstances would abandoning their 10 and 20 >> >>>>>>>>>customers be >> >>>>>>>>>rational? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>This is where I have an issue with DEC. It was the abandonment of the >> >>>>>>>>customers. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>No, no. _PDP-10_ customers. This was Bell's doing through and >> >>>>>>>through. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>Worse DEC dropped the PDP-11 customers, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Sigh! Now _when_ are you talking about. This was not true in >> >>>>>the early 80s. When the PDP-11 product line was sold off, Bell >> >>>>>was long gone. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>There is no law that bans a company from repeating the same mistake. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>>LSI-11 customers, PDP-8 >> >>>>>>customers and the VAX/VMS customers. Eventually the company runs >> >>>>>>out of customers. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>You are talking about the 90s when the plan was to strip the company >> >>>>>down to its help desk, which is the only piece that Compaq wanted. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>What is really sad is that they trashed it and then HP seems to have >> >>>>>completed the job. >> >>>>>/BAH >> >>> >> >>>They probably would have run out of pdp-8 and pdp-11 customers sooner or >> >>>later. And by the early 80's I would think those systems were in the >> >>>down part of the lifecycle. >> >> >> >> >> >> LSI11 based support systems everywhere could have made the mainframes >> >> last until the 8600 was out, and could have assisted in a transition. >> >> >> >> Perhaps. Prime tried this strategy, but got bought out and gutted midway >> >> in the process. >> >> >> >> DEC _did_ come back with the alpha, just as soon as they had managed >> >> to deVAXify their brains. Except, by then the trust in the company had >> >> evaporated. >> >> >> >> Snake oil, may 17th and all that. >> >> >> >> We keep harping on this. I have wondered why. I think this is a discussion >> >> of today's dangers by proxy. >> >> >> >> The important lesson from the events is that you should never, ever >> >> have a single source for the equipment that runs your business critical >> >> systems. Even if it is DEC, IBM, HP or a similar blue-chip giant. >> >> >> >> Because even DEC folded on us. Not as spectacularly as International >> >> Harvester a century before, but enough to shake us all. >> >> >> >> DEC was a company with a reputation far ahead of today's HP or Microsoft. >> >> Somewhat like a reconsituted IBM of today, or Intel, or Apple. These >> companies >> >> are/were blue-chip giants that constitute a core of IT technology. >> >> >> >> But the lesson is that if DEC can implode, so can they. >> >> >> >> The lesser ones all imploded. Wang, Prime, Norsk Data, ICL, Honeywell, >> >> NCR, Siemens, DG and more all imploded in that decade. In our guts, >> >> we kind of expected somesuch to happen. It was DEC that shook us. >> >> >> >> Today we wouldn't be much shaken if HP/Compaq, Dell, Lenovo, TCI, Via, Sun, >> >> or even AMD implodes. It will be momentarily painful for us as customers, >> >> but we will migrate elsewhere. Workers and PHB's can follow the business >> >> that moves without too much trouble. >> >> >> >> It is when outfits like Apple, IBM, Intel or Microsoft folds that we >> >> are shaken, all of us. >> >> >> >> The lesson from DEC is that it can happen. >> >> >> >> Always have a Plan B. >> >> >> >> -- mrr >> > >> >Note that IBM damn near folded in the early 90's as well during the last >> >days of the reign of John Akers. >> >> Of course. IIRC, IBM had a crisis in the 80s(?); the reason it >> survived that one was due to having enough money to carry them >> through. >> >The '70s were pretty bad. Ah, maybe it was the 70s. I can't remember dates very well. > I remember walking out to the P'ok >production floor and seeing only one or two processors in final test >with "Departent of Agriculture" (going to a three-letter government >agency, sure) <GRIN> Right. A lot of farmers were tech-savvy. >in the '70s. The 303x came out in '80 and things were >hopping around P'ok, at least, for the next decade. JMF used to spy on the productions floors, too, to get a feeling of the real business that was getting done. /BAH
From: Jan Vorbrüggen on 30 Mar 2007 08:34
> An example where a rebuild would be necessary is if the original > build goofed the MONGEN (that was the questionaire the monitor > used to determine which hardware devices, tables (lengths) etc. > would be on the system it was supposed to run. Just reboot. > Another reason would have been if a table or list was too short > and extending it via patching would create more problems. It > would be a more controlled experiment if the list were extended > via a rebuild rather than patching. Just reboot. > PS. Extending fields would be a better reason for a rebuild. Agreed. > Another reason to do a build would be to incorporate the thousands > "patches" you had done to make sure that all would work as > coded in the sources. That way you can resume your debugging > and testing with a monitor that you know has all fixes set in > ASCII bits. This was one of the most important steps in our > source maintenance procedures. That's why the VMS guys do their nightly build. No reason for a customer to do that. Jan |