From: aap@papnet.eu (Angelo Papenhoff)
Subject: [TUHS] [TUHS} PDP-11, Unix, octal?
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:53:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170118065351.GA57704@indra.papnet.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEoi9W6A9ttt-LAhKAGFeGf5UaVhiqoVfaNmJ3dooB2obPqNkg@mail.gmail.com>
On 17/01/17, Dan Cross wrote:
> A question about 36 bit machines....
>
> In some of the historical accounts I've read, it seems that before the
> PDP-11 a pitch was made for a PDP-10 to support the then-nascent Unix
> efforts. This was shot down by labs management and sometime later the
> PDP-11 arrived and within a decade or so the question of byte width was the
> creatively settled for general purpose machines.
>
> The question then is twofold: why a PDP-10 in the early 70s (instead of,
> say, a 360 or something) and why later the aversion to word-oriented
> machines? The PDP-7 was of course word oriented.
>
> I imagine answers have to do with cost/performance for the former and with
> regard to the latter, a) the question was largely settled by the middle of
> the decade, and b) by then Unix had evolved so that a port was considered
> rather different than a rewrite. But I'd love to hear from some of the
> players involved.
Doesn't exactly answer your question, but from the "Oral History of Ken
Thompson":
Q: As I recall this - once upon a time weren't you trying to get a
PDP-10 or something like that for the lab?
Ken Thompson: Yes, we were arguing that the Multi[cs] machine should be
replaced with a PDP-10. And there was such a huge backlash from
Multi[cs] that it was pretty soundly turned down. It was probably a good
idea, the -10 is a kind of trashy machine with 36 bits - the future just
left it behind.
"the -10 is a kind of trashy machine with 36 bit"
I'm not sure whether I can still like UNIX now :( I hope this is the bad
(?) experience with Multics on the GE-645 speaking.
"the future just left it behind"
More like DEC didn't want internal competition with the VAX.
aap
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-18 6:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-18 2:33 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-18 3:06 ` Steve Johnson
2017-01-18 3:36 ` Dan Cross
2017-01-18 6:53 ` Angelo Papenhoff [this message]
2017-01-18 7:31 ` ron minnich
2017-01-18 8:09 ` Angelo Papenhoff
2017-01-18 21:04 ` Steve Johnson
2017-01-18 21:42 ` Charles Anthony
2017-01-18 6:04 ` Lars Brinkhoff
2017-01-18 18:47 ` Peter Jeremy
2017-01-18 18:58 ` Charles Anthony
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-01-18 14:28 Nelson H. F. Beebe
2017-01-17 2:23 Doug McIlroy
2017-01-18 16:47 ` Clem Cole
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170118065351.GA57704@indra.papnet.eu \
--to=aap@papnet.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).