On November 13, Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
> > > Here's a picture of John at the console demonstrating the machine to a
> > > group of us at the last VCF Europa:
> >
> > How big is it in total?
>
> This photo might yield up a clue:
>
> http://members.iglou.com/dougq/cdc/cyber960.jpg
Ooooohhhh what a beautiful machine! The Dell box in the foreground
really offends my sensibilities, though.
I wonder what it would take for me (someone with NO spending money
right now) to get that machine...
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL
---- On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Eric J. Korpela
(korpela(a)ssl.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> > Actually Xenix was never a Microsoft
branded product.
>
> Maybe true, but it was certainly plastered
with Microsoft copyrights.
> All the
> scripts and headers in the Tandy 16/6000
version were copyright
> Microsoft.
>
> > Then again Xenix was the clear proof
that M$ can not even compy a
> great OS
> > correctly. I remember using a version of
Xenix that only allowed 8.3
> > naming of files (like M$-DOS)! Typical
M$ "innovation"... pheb!
>
> I doubt it. I think early versions of
Xenix had the v7 filename
> limits.
> I've never seen one that recognized
extensions as anything special.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
I've never seen the 8.3 in Xenix...
IIRC Microsoft had the SysV standard 13
character file names in Xenix like SysIII
(and IIRC v7).
It was BSD which did symbolic links and IIRC
255 character file names in the 4.2 BSD
Fast File System... SysV got this in SVR4
(about 1989 or so)...
Research had this in Edition 10...
Bill
On November 13, Eric Dittman wrote:
> > Looking to upgrade one of my Mv2's and came across
> > an auction item with a ka650-ba with 2 16 meg mem
> > cards. The price is right - but it goes on to explain that
> > the -ba is a single user cpu - which seems silly to me.
> > Is there some special thing about this cpu that will only let
> > it run single license VMs or Ultrix? I can't see how they
> > limit that. Is the this bullsh*t? I can't find any google refs
> > that will support the single user claim..
>
> The -BA was the VAXserver model, which has a different license
> from the -AA. The only difference is the ROMs.
Hmm...I think I have a KA650-AA; if the difference is just the ROMs
I'd be happy to burn a set for you, Heinz...
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL
Looking to upgrade one of my Mv2's and came across
an auction item with a ka650-ba with 2 16 meg mem
cards. The price is right - but it goes on to explain that
the -ba is a single user cpu - which seems silly to me.
Is there some special thing about this cpu that will only let
it run single license VMs or Ultrix? I can't see how they
limit that. Is the this bullsh*t? I can't find any google refs
that will support the single user claim..
regards,
Heinz
> Hmm... Any chance that it runs PLATO? I'd be happy to help with a
> coordinated rescue. I live in Delaware, but have been doing some weekly
> travel to Atlanta to work on a project.
ISTR that they were a PLATO site, but I've no idea whether this
system was running it or not. Yes, it should run, given the
proper peripheral equipment (again ISTR PLATO had unique site
hardware requirements).
Bear in mind that PLATO is a commercial product still marketed
as NovaNET (I believe it's getting yet another name at this
moment), so you'd be hard pressed to get legal permission to
run it.
I suppose you've seen my gallery of PLATO (NovaNET) screen
shots; I need to get them moved to the site Jay West said
he'd make available so I can add the second gallery.
-dq
> Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
> >
> > > While it is true the 8086/8088 is really only a 8 bit cpu,
> >
> > No, the 8086 is a 16-bit cpu with a 16-bit data path; the 8088
> > otoh is a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit datapath (or a 16-bit multiplexed
> > data path, if you prefer).
>
> You have not tried to program it have you? There are too many limitations
that
> catch you off guard. The 6809 is a better 16 bit processor than the intel
product.
> Just what a 16 bit cpu is a gray area other than 8080,6502,1802 are 8 bits
and the
> PDP-11 is 16 bit cpu.
I'm not gonna get in a snow-marking match on hours spent
under the hood... however you are correct in that it's not
a very orthogonal processor, and non-orthanogoanl machines
are indeed full of "gotcha"s. Having started with orthogonal
machines like the CDC-6600 and IBM 370/158, I found even the
8-bit 8080 a pain to work with, and wrote macros to do all
the really important work. I carried that forward to my 8086/8
days, and thus didn't have much in the way of difficulty. I
had arithmetic macros for 8, 16, and 32-bit operations, and
macros to do conversions between them.
I worked briefly with the 6800, and more recently, the 6802,
and they are certainly a bit more orthogonal, but still too
primitive for my tastes. A Coco running OS/9 might be in my
future but I wouldn't spend anything for one, it'd have to be
free.
As to the distinction, I bow to Allison's better wording.
Regards,
-dq
> While it is true the 8086/8088 is really only a 8 bit cpu,
No, the 8086 is a 16-bit cpu with a 16-bit data path; the 8088
otoh is a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit datapath (or a 16-bit multiplexed
data path, if you prefer).
Regards,
-dq
From: Douglas Quebbeman <dhquebbeman(a)theestopinalgroup.com>
>> While it is true the 8086/8088 is really only a 8 bit cpu,
>
>No, the 8086 is a 16-bit cpu with a 16-bit data path; the 8088
>otoh is a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit datapath (or a 16-bit multiplexed
>data path, if you prefer).
I'd rephrase the latter as:
The 8088 has the same 16-bit core CPU as 8086 with an 8-bit wide
_external_ datapath.
Whats important about the 8088 is it was the first(or one of the first) to
seperate the CPU core (control, alu and registers) from the bus interface.
Then again you have Z280, an 8bit cpu with an 16bit wide external data path.
Hows that for a switch?
Allison
Rumor has it that Paul R. Santa-Maria may have mentioned these words:
>I have AMPI (Amerifcan Micro Products, Inc.) FORTH with plastic case,
>manual, and cassette tape (condition unknown) for the TRS Model 100.
>Can anyone use this?
>
>Paul R. Santa-Maria
>Monroe, Michigan USA
Do you have any way of making a copy of this - for archival purposes? Rick
Hanson of Club 100 might be intersted in archiving this for history's sake
- he's been in the business of selling/supporting/refurbishing Model
100/102/200's since 1983.
He can be contacted at rick(a)the-dock.com, and his website is:
http://www.the-dock.com/club100.html -- and coming soon:
http://www.club100.org/
Thanks!
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
On November 11, Richard.Sandwell(a)roebry.co.uk wrote:
> I have an Apricot Xen 'mainframe' which is a 286 based msdos generic from
> 1986. Its not ibm compatible. Comically, it does have a copy of Windows V1
> on its disk which runs, well, like all versions of windows ;-)
> Its role was a fileserver for an ms-net network, hence the awful
> 'mainframe' name. I've always been intrigued that there was a port of
> xenix available for this machine - anyone know anything about that, or
> about xenix on a 286 based system in general?
I ran SCO Xenix 286 on a few 286 systems back in 1988 or so. It was
abyssmal. I don't remember much about it...I think I blocked it
out. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL
