> I guess the closest would be the DH-11
The DZ and DH are totally different beasts. The DZ had a 256 word input silo
and interrupt per output character, while the DH was DMA.
There is certainly support for DZ's in V7. It shouldn't be too hard to back port
it to V6
Hi
I tried the latest simulator from Bob Supnik, Simh V2.9-6.
It simulates DZ11 multiline controllers. Are they supported in UNIX V6.
If not, which of the supported ones are closest to DZ11, so I would write
a driver for them.
TIA
Wolfgang
Since I'm no longer employed, I don't have access to any Unix or Windows
boxes to run a PDP/11 emulator. I do have my home computer: a G4 Mac
running MacOS 9.1. Are there any precompiled PDP/11 emulator binaries out
there? I've found a nice PDP/8 emulator, but so far the PDP/11 has eluded
me. I'd like to be able to boot up PDP/11 Unix when the nostalgia urge hits
me.
Oh, BTW, if you know of any jobs in the New York City (NY, NY USA) area for
a 20-year veteran system administrator, I'd love to hear from you!
--
Frank
"They haven't got Brains, any of them, only grey fluff that's blown into
their heads by mistake, and they don't Think."
* Eeyore, "The House at Pooh Corner"
If you want to play with Harti's p11
running 2.11BSD, you can telnet to
madison.onespeeddave.com on any of
ports 10001 through 10006.
I'll give you an account if you
want one. Just tell me what
userid and initial password you
want. Also tell me what you'll do
with your account.
This flavor of the emulator is
running without a tape drive and
a network interface card.
FWIF, madison is a 96MB P2-333 running NetBSD.
Paul,
> Bleh, sorry for the blank post... notes went schitzo....
*smile*
> If MS can release WinCE source, then they would probably do
> the same for XENIX.... both PDP/11 and the x86 version perhaps...
> Its not like we want the source... just a tape image would do me :)
> Perhaps there is someone in MS who knows of XENIX's existance and
> can help.... I'll have a word with a friend of mine who works
> there :)
Yeah, I agree. I personally think MS would release Xenix, as it no
longer has any commercial value whatsoever to them. The hardest part
might be finding people within who know about it, and who can point
us in the right (legalese) direction. Once MS signs off on it, the
people at SC(O)aldera won't have a problem with releasing the tapes.
Cheers,
Fred
InterNetworking en Network Security Consultant
MicroWalt Corporation (Netherlands), Korte Heul 95, 1403 ND BUSSUM
Phone +31 (35) 6980059 FAX +31 (35) 6980215 http://WWW.MicroWalt.NL/
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen is uitsluitend bestemd voor de
geadresseerde. Openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, verspreiding aan
derden is niet toegestaan. Er wordt geen verantwoordelijkheid
genomen voor de juiste en volledige overbrenging van de inhoud van
dit bericht, noch voor de tijdige ontvangst ervan.
Hi all,
This is a general announcement :)
I have been working on getting to know the format used by the Ultrix-32
"setld" tapes for system (boot) tapes, and I am happy to announce that I
can now create bootable TK50 tapes from any valid Ultrix-32 CD-ROM dist
kit.
Once I get my stuff here sorted out (I am in the midst of redoing all my
computer stuff...) I will post the HOWTO (in PDF format, no less !) and
associated files on my web server.
I was able to successfully install Ultrix-32/VAX V4.5 on a MicroVAX 3300
with TK50 tape and no errors.
Next project is to get the V4.4 or V4.5 source to add CPU support for the
4000 series, and, eventually, add DSSI support for the SHAC chipset.
Anyone have pointers to source kits newer than V4.2 ?
Cheers,
Fred
--
InterNetworking, Network Security and Communications Consultants
MicroWalt Corporation (Netherlands), Postbus 8, 1400 AA BUSSUM
Phone +31 (35) 6980059 FAX +31 (35) 6980215 http://WWW.MicroWalt.NL/
Dit bericht en eventuele bijlagen is uitsluitend bestemd voor de
geadresseerde. Openbaarmaking, vermenigvuldiging, verspreiding aan
derden is niet toegestaan. Er wordt geen verantwoordelijkheid
genomen voor de juiste en volledige overbrenging van de inhoud van
dit bericht, noch voor de tijdige ontvangst ervan.
Bleh, sorry for the blank post... notes went schitzo....
If MS can release WinCE source, then they would probably do the same for
XENIX.... both PDP/11 and the x86 version perhaps...
Its not like we want the source... just a tape image would do me :)
Perhaps there is someone in MS who knows of XENIX's existance and can
help.... I'll have a word with a friend of mine who works there :)
Regards,
Paul.
Frank Wortner <frank(a)wortner.com>
Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
04/03/2002 04:31
To: <asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk>, <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [pups] Interesting PDP/Xenix History
on 4/2/02 5:38 PM, asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk at asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk
wrote:
I wrote to SCO/Caldera a while back about this one... Here's a quote
from the mail I got in reply:
"XENIX will never be released under any license, as it is too full of
Microsoft copyrights...?
Well, there?s always the possibility that Microsoft could see fit to make
a ?hobby? PDP/11 XENIX license available. Why not?
--
Frank
"Don't Blame Me."
* Eeyore, "Winnie the Pooh"
Frank Wortner <frank(a)wortner.com>
Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
04/03/2002 04:31
To: <asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk>, <pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org>
cc:
Subject: Re: [pups] Interesting PDP/Xenix History
on 4/2/02 5:38 PM, asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk at asmodai(a)unixware.org.uk
wrote:
I wrote to SCO/Caldera a while back about this one... Here's a quote
from the mail I got in reply:
"XENIX will never be released under any license, as it is too full of
Microsoft copyrights...?
Well, there?s always the possibility that Microsoft could see fit to make
a ?hobby? PDP/11 XENIX license available. Why not?
--
Frank
"Don't Blame Me."
* Eeyore, "Winnie the Pooh"
I wrote to SCO/Caldera a while back about this one... Here's a quote
from the mail I got in reply:
"XENIX will never be released under any license, as it is too full of
Microsoft copyrights, and "sanitizing" the source to remove such code
would render the product useless, and would be a MASSIVE undertaking."
Looks like we wont get Xenix in source format unless Microsoft want us to
have it.
Regards,
Paul.
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that
cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go
wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or
repair" - Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com>
Sent by: pups-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org
03/25/2002 10:38
To: pups(a)minnie.tuhs.org
cc:
Subject: Re: [pups] Interesting PDP/Xenix History
Frank Wortner wrote:
>
> on 3/23/02 11:26 PM, Warren Toomey at wkt(a)minnie.tuhs.org wrote:
>
> > In article by Martin Crehan:
> >> From a thread on Slashdot about Microsoft's Ancient History w/Unix
> >> http://slashdot.org/articles/02/03/23/1422243.shtml?tid=130
> >>
> >> First Unix/Xenix (Score:1)
> >> by presearch on Saturday March 23, @01:58PM (#3213453)
> >> (User #214913 Info)
> >
> > I've left a comment in the thread asking if they would
> > donate a copy of the tape's contents to our Archive.
>
> I also remember running PDP/11 Xenix. The article is basically correct,
> although Microsoft (or HCR) did add a working paging system that enabled
> simulation of split I&D on small PDP/11s like the 11/23, 11/34, and
11/40.
> I also remember that my copy of the installation document had been
printed
> by Microsoft's PDP/10 (referred to as the "Microsoft Heating Plant" :-)
in
> the printout). I wish I still had the tape and that printout. Sigh
...
>
> --
> Frank
Would SCO->Caldera have copies of this? SCO did the Intel port of Xenix
so they would probably have started with the PDP source. Would tapes be
copyright to Microsoft?
I doubt that they would release the source for the Intel version as it
is still in use today although I don't think that SCO/Caldera will sell
it anymore.
Rob.
_______________________________________________
PUPS mailing list
PUPS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups
HI!
After a week or so of trying, I finally got 2.11BSD to recognize a KFQSA
in a PDP-11/73. The problem seems to be that 2.11BSD sets an MSCP packet
length of 64 bytes, but the KFQSA must have this field set to 60 bytes.
There is some confusion about if the header is part of the packet or
not. For the KFQSA, it is not included in the length. After that, life
is good........
Unfortunately I trashed my 2.11BSD installation in the process. :-( I
did a backup I think.....
Anyway, KFQSA modules are not that expensive and RF drives are pretty
cheap, so it is another solution to the lack of disk drives for QBus
PDPs. As long as you have a VAX for configuration. A 390MB RF71 is a
useful size for 2.11BSD.
After I get things put back together, I will send off a patch to sms for
the next release.... :-)
-chuck
