[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org>

    > I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor. In
    > my paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all
    > about porting V6 to the thing.

I did a google for that, but couldn't find it. Is it available anywhere
online? (I'd love to read it.) I seem to recall vaguely that AUUGN stuff were
online, but if so, I'm not sure why the search didn't turn it up.


    > I vaguely remember that the LTC had to be disabled during the boot
    > process, for example, with an external switch.

I think you might be right, which means the simulated 11/23 I tested on
wasn't quite right - but keep reading!

I remember being worried about this when I started doing the V6 11/23 version
a couple of months back, because I remembered the 11/03's didn't have a
programmable clock, just a switch. So I was reading through the 11/23
documentation (I had used 11/23s, but on this point my memory had faded),
trying to see if they too did not have a programmable clock.

As best I can currently make out, the answer is 'yes/no, depending on the
exact model'! E.g. the 11/23-PLUS _does_ seem to have a programmable clock
(see pg. 610 of the 1982 edition of "microcomputers and memories"), but the
base 11/23 _apparently_ does not.

Anyway, the simulated 11/23 (on Ersatz11) does have the LTC (I just checked,
and 'lks' contains '0177546', so it thinks it has one :-).


But this will be easy to code around; if no link clock is found (in main.c),
I'd probably set 'lks' to point somewhere harmless (054, say - I'm using
050/052 to hold the pointer to the CSW, and the software CSW if there isn't a
hardware one). That way I can limit the changes to be in main.c, I won't have
to futz with clock.c too.

	Noel

PS: On at least the 11/40 (and maybe the /45 too), the line clock was an
option! It was a single-height card, IIRC.

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Dave Horsfall]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> > I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor. In 
> > my paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all 
> > about porting V6 to the thing.
> 
> I did a google for that, but couldn't find it. Is it available anywhere 
> online? (I'd love to read it.) I seem to recall vaguely that AUUGN stuff 
> were online, but if so, I'm not sure why the search didn't turn it up.

There was a project a few years ago to scan all issues of AUUGN 
(Australian Unix Users Group Newsletter); the last I heard was that all 
issues had been obtained, and handed over to some Google mob for 
archiving.  Apparently the scanning process is destructive but makes for 
an ideal copy for as many as you like.  The originals, being up to 40 
years or so old, would have been in bad shape anyway.

A search for "auugn" reveals a few pointers, but AUUG itself dissolved a 
few years ago because we had achieved our purpose i.e. bring Unix to the 
mass market in Australia (its competition at the time was RSTS, RSX, and 
PICK of all things).  Guess which one survived?  Concurrent CP/M never 
really had a hold, MS-DOS thankfully died (I was still using CP/M at the 
time; heck, I even had UUCP on it, which was pretty impressive considering 
that the Microbee didn't have a serial port), and I predict that Windoze 
will go the way of the Irish potato crop and for the same reason.

Warren may know more about the archived issues.

> > I vaguely remember that the LTC had to be disabled during the boot 
> > process, for example, with an external switch.
> 
> I think you might be right, which means the simulated 11/23 I tested on 
> wasn't quite right - but keep reading!

It was hilarious, in a morbid sort of way.  I cottoned on when the 
bootstrap process crapped itself for no apparent reason (it got 
interrupted when no ISR was in place), and we'd occasionally forget to 
enable it...

> I remember being worried about this when I started doing the V6 11/23 
> version a couple of months back, because I remembered the 11/03's didn't 
> have a programmable clock, just a switch. So I was reading through the 
> 11/23 documentation (I had used 11/23s, but on this point my memory had 
> faded), trying to see if they too did not have a programmable clock.
> 
> As best I can currently make out, the answer is 'yes/no, depending on 
> the exact model'! E.g. the 11/23-PLUS _does_ seem to have a programmable 
> clock (see pg. 610 of the 1982 edition of "microcomputers and 
> memories"), but the base 11/23 _apparently_ does not.

I never saw the -PLUS, so I can't help you there, and my shelf of DEC and 
Unix etc manuals disappeared during several moves.

> Anyway, the simulated 11/23 (on Ersatz11) does have the LTC (I just 
> checked, and 'lks' contains '0177546', so it thinks it has one :-).

Quite likely.  I came up with a battery of tests at boot time, in order to 
determine just what sort of a model it was e.g. did it have the SLR and so 
on.  Same thing for illegal instructions, such as floating point.  We had 
/40s all over the place (some dedicated ones had no MMU, and ran a custom 
program to talk 200-UT to a remote Cyber), two or three /70s (I had no 
responsibility for those, but we shared code a lot), a /60 (interesting 
box), and a sprinkling of /23s.

> But this will be easy to code around; if no link clock is found (in 
> main.c), I'd probably set 'lks' to point somewhere harmless (054, say - 
> I'm using 050/052 to hold the pointer to the CSW, and the software CSW 
> if there isn't a hardware one). That way I can limit the changes to be 
> in main.c, I won't have to futz with clock.c too.

Speaking of the CSW, we came up with some amusing idle patterns.  The 
boxes with the octal display displayed rotating 1s (I had to determine 
whether it had an octal display or a real one somehow; I've long since 
forgotten).

> PS: On at least the 11/40 (and maybe the /45 too), the line clock was an 
> option! It was a single-height card, IIRC.

Yeah; the aforementioned low-end /40s had quite an impressive program that 
scheduled by the use of co-routines (no LTC either).  It emulated the CDC 
Remote Batch Station (we briefly had one of those too; it was S L O W).

Fun days!

-- Dave

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Warren Toomey]

The old AUUG newsletters are all at http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/AUUGN/

Cheers, Warren

On 29 July 2014 08:23:12 AEST, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> > I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor.
>In 
>> > my paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all
>
>> > about porting V6 to the thing.
>> 
>> I did a google for that, but couldn't find it. Is it available
>anywhere 
>> online? (I'd love to read it.) I seem to recall vaguely that AUUGN
>stuff 
>> were online, but if so, I'm not sure why the search didn't turn it
>up.
>
>There was a project a few years ago to scan all issues of AUUGN 
>(Australian Unix Users Group Newsletter); the last I heard was that all
>
>issues had been obtained, and handed over to some Google mob for 
>archiving.  Apparently the scanning process is destructive but makes
>for 
>an ideal copy for as many as you like.  The originals, being up to 40 
>years or so old, would have been in bad shape anyway.
>
>A search for "auugn" reveals a few pointers, but AUUG itself dissolved
>a 
>few years ago because we had achieved our purpose i.e. bring Unix to
>the 
>mass market in Australia (its competition at the time was RSTS, RSX,
>and 
>PICK of all things).  Guess which one survived?  Concurrent CP/M never 
>really had a hold, MS-DOS thankfully died (I was still using CP/M at
>the 
>time; heck, I even had UUCP on it, which was pretty impressive
>considering 
>that the Microbee didn't have a serial port), and I predict that
>Windoze 
>will go the way of the Irish potato crop and for the same reason.
>
>Warren may know more about the archived issues.
>
>> > I vaguely remember that the LTC had to be disabled during the boot 
>> > process, for example, with an external switch.
>> 
>> I think you might be right, which means the simulated 11/23 I tested
>on 
>> wasn't quite right - but keep reading!
>
>It was hilarious, in a morbid sort of way.  I cottoned on when the 
>bootstrap process crapped itself for no apparent reason (it got 
>interrupted when no ISR was in place), and we'd occasionally forget to 
>enable it...
>
>> I remember being worried about this when I started doing the V6 11/23
>
>> version a couple of months back, because I remembered the 11/03's
>didn't 
>> have a programmable clock, just a switch. So I was reading through
>the 
>> 11/23 documentation (I had used 11/23s, but on this point my memory
>had 
>> faded), trying to see if they too did not have a programmable clock.
>> 
>> As best I can currently make out, the answer is 'yes/no, depending on
>
>> the exact model'! E.g. the 11/23-PLUS _does_ seem to have a
>programmable 
>> clock (see pg. 610 of the 1982 edition of "microcomputers and 
>> memories"), but the base 11/23 _apparently_ does not.
>
>I never saw the -PLUS, so I can't help you there, and my shelf of DEC
>and 
>Unix etc manuals disappeared during several moves.
>
>> Anyway, the simulated 11/23 (on Ersatz11) does have the LTC (I just 
>> checked, and 'lks' contains '0177546', so it thinks it has one :-).
>
>Quite likely.  I came up with a battery of tests at boot time, in order
>to 
>determine just what sort of a model it was e.g. did it have the SLR and
>so 
>on.  Same thing for illegal instructions, such as floating point.  We
>had 
>/40s all over the place (some dedicated ones had no MMU, and ran a
>custom 
>program to talk 200-UT to a remote Cyber), two or three /70s (I had no 
>responsibility for those, but we shared code a lot), a /60 (interesting
>
>box), and a sprinkling of /23s.
>
>> But this will be easy to code around; if no link clock is found (in 
>> main.c), I'd probably set 'lks' to point somewhere harmless (054, say
>- 
>> I'm using 050/052 to hold the pointer to the CSW, and the software
>CSW 
>> if there isn't a hardware one). That way I can limit the changes to
>be 
>> in main.c, I won't have to futz with clock.c too.
>
>Speaking of the CSW, we came up with some amusing idle patterns.  The 
>boxes with the octal display displayed rotating 1s (I had to determine 
>whether it had an octal display or a real one somehow; I've long since 
>forgotten).
>
>> PS: On at least the 11/40 (and maybe the /45 too), the line clock was
>an 
>> option! It was a single-height card, IIRC.
>
>Yeah; the aforementioned low-end /40s had quite an impressive program
>that 
>scheduled by the use of co-routines (no LTC either).  It emulated the
>CDC 
>Remote Batch Station (we briefly had one of those too; it was S L O W).
>
>Fun days!
>
>-- Dave
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20140729/7f20e217/attachment.html>

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, I wrote:

> We had /40s all over the place (some dedicated ones had no MMU, and ran 
> a custom program to talk 200-UT to a remote Cyber), two or three /70s (I 
> had no responsibility for those, but we shared code a lot), a /60 
> (interesting box), and a sprinkling of /23s.

Oops; upon re-reading my article, we had a sprinkling of /34s, with just
the one /23.  I think.

I'd like to believe that I was the first in Australia to port V6 to the 
/34, the /23, and the /60 (I did a paper on that as well), but if others 
in the rest of the world beat me to it then I never heard about it.

-- Dave

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Milo Velimirović]

On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:
[snip]

> There was a project a few years ago to scan all issues of AUUGN 
> (Australian Unix Users Group Newsletter); the last I heard was that all 
> issues had been obtained, and handed over to some Google mob for 
> archiving.  Apparently the scanning process is destructive but makes for 
> an ideal copy for as many as you like.  The originals, being up to 40 
> years or so old, would have been in bad shape anyway.

Sounds like what Vernor Vinge was describing in 'Rainbows End' -- a cautionary tale for librarians about destructive digitization/digitisation, among other themes.

 - Milo

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Clem Cole]

    I can not speak for Australia. I lived the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh
Edition changes in the mid-late 1970s.
    At CMU, in the USA we had an early /34 running Fifth Edition in the EE
Department summer of 75/76 ish - right after the /34 came out.  There were
lots of 40's around campus and at the time were popular because CMU hacked
them (i.e. the E or Extended version of the 40), but I remember Gordon Bell
got the EE Dept a "deal" on the new single board 11 - i.e. the /34 & it was
significantly cheaper.

    We got V6 shortly there after when a couple folks made a road trip to
NJ to see Ken and the EE system did not run V5 very long [frankly, I do not
remember much about it].   I do remember that we had boot strapped /34 from
some 11/40E's in CS - I remember the lack of switch register issue, but I
also seem to remember it was easy fix in m40.s.  I've forgotten all the
differences, but I recall that they were small.  I do have memories of
going back and forth between the CS and EE bldgs a couple of times until we
got it right.

   The bigger issue that bit us was we had to careful about the fact that
the CS folks had implemented CSAVE/CRET in the WCS of the 11/40Es and
hacked on the C compiler to generate that - so binaries from CS could not
move to EE unless that hack was turned off  [BTW: That job in EE was my
first experience with C].

      The late Ted Kowalski showed up at CMU a few weeks later for his OYOC
year and updated the EE machine to be V6++ system [and also he had copies
of the proofs from Dennis's upcoming book on C ].  Being CMU, we had a lot
of BLISS hackers at the time - so Ted singing C praises was quite a stir --
I was not yet really indoctrinated with the merits of C and remember
arguing with him since at the time the C compilers were not nearly as
polished as the CMU BLISS compilers - although it ran natively which
BLISS/11 could not do].

    At the time, a big thing Ted did was introduce us to stdio.   Until
then most of the our C code was pretty hackneyed - I seem to remember
something called the portable C library for V6 (I do not remember it as
part of V5 but have been).   However, Ted's V6+ compilers used stdio and it
quickly because the EE standard.   They must have migrated to CS, but I've
forgotten because by them most of my hacking was on the EE system.

     Ted was working on this really cool program to fix the file system
[fsck] - although a number of us worked with him and it was working with
that code - that I started to see what a great language it was and ended up
writing way more C than anything else.

     I would clone the EE /34 system for a new job at CMU's Mellon
Institute but by then DEC had created the /34A [I've forgotten the
differences].  Mellon was the first time I ran into a UNIX vs. XX war.  One
of the grad students wanted to run RSX-11 - since DEC "supported it."   As
a lowly undergrad I was really pleased I won when the EE prof
behind  Mellon Institute agreed we "seemed to have something" working
really well in the Dept [plus it must have helped that the Biomed team,
also decided to clone the EE system for their research and not use RSX].

      As for the 11/60, upon graduation, I spent my first weekend in Oregon
in late 1979, helping Steve Glaser update the Teklabs /60 to be more CMU
like - but that was likely based on V6.  I do not remember when we cut V7
in at Tek, it had been released and I don't remember the details for CMU -
we had to be running V7 by the time I left.  At Tek, by the end of 1979, we
had done such a good job with the /60 that we managed to get an 11/70
(without any budget for it which was quite a trick).  So, I spent my first
Oregon Christmas bringing V7 up on that system - with the infinite storage
capacity of 3 RP06s [oh boy].  My faint memory is that Tek had a V7
license, but Steve had not yet managed to get V7 running on the /60, only
V6.

     Also, early in Winter/Spring of '79 before I had left  Dan Klein and I
had gone on strike to force CMU to buy a commercial license for Mellon
institute -- which was not using UNIX for teaching for paid research.   CMU
would be the first University to get a commercial license, I believe
Case-Western followed suite the next fall when Fred Park returned from
Tek-Labs after heard me talk about what CMU did that summer.

Clem




On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, I wrote:
>
> > We had /40s all over the place (some dedicated ones had no MMU, and ran
> > a custom program to talk 200-UT to a remote Cyber), two or three /70s (I
> > had no responsibility for those, but we shared code a lot), a /60
> > (interesting box), and a sprinkling of /23s.
>
> Oops; upon re-reading my article, we had a sprinkling of /34s, with just
> the one /23.  I think.
>
> I'd like to believe that I was the first in Australia to port V6 to the
> /34, the /23, and the /60 (I did a paper on that as well), but if others
> in the rest of the world beat me to it then I never heard about it.
>
> -- Dave
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20140729/0d535524/attachment.html>

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Clem Cole]

Warren,

Thanks for the pointer.  Boy that takes me back.   I loved looking at the
old ads including the one for the BBN C/70 - with it's "resistor to
resistor" instructions [check out the typo about page 59].

You made my day,

Clem


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 03:49:47PM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> > I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor.  In
> my
> > paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all about
> > porting V6 to the thing.
>
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/AUUGN/AUUGN-V03.2.pdf
> page 11
>
> :-) Warren
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20140729/c390027a/attachment.html>

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[SPC]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1239 bytes --]

2014-07-29 0:38 GMT+02:00 Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com>:

>
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 03:49:47PM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> >> I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor.  In
> my
> >> paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all about
> >> porting V6 to the thing.
> >
> > http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/AUUGN/AUUGN-V03.2.pdf
> > page 11
>
> Back in the days when people were succinct. There have been posts in this
> thread that are longer…
>
> Warner :)
>
>
I got one operative PDP-11/23-PLUS. with 4MB. I'm open to (and I'd like
too) install V6 or even V7M on it.


Gracias | Regards - Saludos | Greetings | Freundliche Grüße | Salutations
​
-- 
*Sergio Pedraja*
-- 
mobile: +34-699-996568
twitter: @sergio_pedraja | skype: Sergio Pedraja
--
http://plus.google.com/u/0/101292256663392735405
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sergiopedraja
http://spedraja.wordpress.com
-----
No crea todo lo que ve, ni crea que está viéndolo todo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20140729/9a8fcf45/attachment.html>

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Warner Losh]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]


On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 03:49:47PM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>> I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor.  In my 
>> paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all about 
>> porting V6 to the thing.
> 
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/AUUGN/AUUGN-V03.2.pdf
> page 11

Back in the days when people were succinct. There have been posts in this thread that are longer…

Warner :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20140728/a520c7cc/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Warren Toomey]

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 03:49:47PM +1000, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor.  In my 
> paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all about 
> porting V6 to the thing.

http://minnie.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/AUUGN/AUUGN-V03.2.pdf
page 11

:-) Warren

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Ron Natalie]

We had miniunix that we were running on a 11/40 without mm moved to the 11/03 in the lab at JHU.   We replaces that with an 11/23 running our own v6-derived kernel with little difficulty.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 26, 2014, at 9:37 PM, Mark Longridge <cubexyz at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I was digging around trying to figure out which Unixes would run on a
> PDP-11 with QBUS.  It seems that the very early stuff like v5 was
> strictly UNIBUS and that the first version of Unix that supported QBUS
> was v7m (please correct me if this is wrong).
> 
> I was thinking that the MicroPDP-11's were all QBUS and that it would
> be easier to run a Unix on a MicroPDP because they are the most
> compact. So I figured I would try to obtain a Unix v7m distribution
> tape image. I see the Jean Huens files on tuhs but I'm not sure what
> to do with them.
> 
> I have hopes to eventually run a Unix on real hardware but for now I'm
> going to stick with simh. It seems like DEC just didn't make a desktop
> that could run Bell Labs Unix, e.g. we can't just grab a DEC Pro-350
> and stick Unix v7 on it. Naturally I'll still have fun checking out
> Unix v5 on the emulator but it would be nice to eventually run a Unix
> with all the source code at hand on a real machine.
> 
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Dave Horsfall]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Bill Pechter wrote:

> Version 5.x supported the Pro325/350.  I assume the 380 also worked.They 
> did the emulation for the screen. IIRC they did VT52 console support so 
> K52 worked.  I don't think they added VT100 support.

I vaguely recall getting Minix to run on a 350.  It was as slow as all get 
out and paddle, so the project was abandoned.

> --
>   d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN.  Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
>  pechter-at-gmail.com

Indeed...

-- Dave

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Bill Pechter]

Version 5.x supported the Pro325/350.  I assume the 380 also worked.
They did the emulation for the screen. IIRC they did VT52 console support
so K52 worked.  I don't think they added VT100 support.

The Pro was a pretty nice RT box.  Too bad they didn't use that instead of
the annoying menu driven POS.

Venix for the Pro was a free download on the net when I last looked.

It's still mentioned here as a download.

http://www.vintage-computer.com/dec_pro_350.shtml


Bill


--
  d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN.  Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
 pechter-at-gmail.com


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:02 AM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Norman Wilson scripsit:
>
> > I think the P/OS, the standard OS shipped with those systems, was a
> > hacked-up RSX-11M.
>
> Several sources agree that it was, and speak of a menu shell.
>
> > I don't know whether there was ever an RT-11 for the Pro.
>
> <http://www.vintage-computer.com/dec_pro_350.shtml> claims that
> RT-11 ran: whether stock or modified, the page doesn't say.  This
> is confirmed by a squib in InfoWorld 6:23 (June 4, 1984) on p. 84
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=vi4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84>, which also
> speaks of a V7 derivative called VII-M.  Venix 2.0 (aka System III) was
> definitely available.
>
> --
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> Evolutionary psychology is the theory that men are nothing but horn-dogs,
> and that women only want them for their money.  --Susan McCarthy (adapted)
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20140727/f5a54f73/attachment.html>

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[John Cowan]

Norman Wilson scripsit:

> I think the P/OS, the standard OS shipped with those systems, was a
> hacked-up RSX-11M.

Several sources agree that it was, and speak of a menu shell.

> I don't know whether there was ever an RT-11 for the Pro.

<http://www.vintage-computer.com/dec_pro_350.shtml> claims that
RT-11 ran: whether stock or modified, the page doesn't say.  This
is confirmed by a squib in InfoWorld 6:23 (June 4, 1984) on p. 84
<http://books.google.com/books?id=vi4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA84>, which also
speaks of a V7 derivative called VII-M.  Venix 2.0 (aka System III) was
definitely available.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
Evolutionary psychology is the theory that men are nothing but horn-dogs,
and that women only want them for their money.  --Susan McCarthy (adapted)

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Dave Horsfall]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> That may or may not be true; let me explain. The 11/23 is almost 
> indistinguishable, in programming terms, from an 11/40. There is only 
> one very minor difference (which UNIX would care about) that I know of - 
> the 11/23 does not have a hardware switch register.

I recall that there were other differences as well, but only minor.  In my 
paper in AUUGN titled "Unix on the LSI-11/23" it will reveal all about 
porting V6 to the thing.

I vaguely remember that the LTC had to be disabled during the boot 
process, for example, with an external switch.  Then again, I could be 
thinking of some other weird box to which I'd ported V6.  As far as I 
know, it was the first such port in Australia (if there were others then I 
never heard about them).

-- Dave

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Norman Wilson]

Many Q-bus devices were indeed programmed exactly as if
on a UNIBUS.  This isn't surprising: Digital wanted their
own operating systems to port easily as well.

That won't help make UNIX run on a Pro-350 or Pro-380,
though.  Those systems had standard single-chip PDP-11
CPUs (F11, like that in the 11/23, for the 350; J11,
like that in the 11/73, for the 380), but they didn't
have a Q-bus; they used the CTI (`computing terminal
interconnect'), a bus used only for the Pro-series
systems.  DEC's operating systems wouldn't run on
the Pro either without special hacks.  I think the
P/OS, the standard OS shipped with those systems, was
a hacked-up RSX-11M.  I don't know whether there was
ever an RT-11 for the Pro.  There were UNIX ports but
they weren't just copies of stock V7.

I vaguely remember, from my days at Caltech > 30 years
ago, helping someone get a locally-hacked-up V7
running on an 11/24, the same as an 11/23 except is
has a UNIBUS instead of a Q-bus.  I don't think they
chose the 11/24 over the 11/23 to make it easier to
get UNIX running; probably it had something to do with
specific peripherals they wanted to use.  It was a
long time ago and I didn't keep notebooks back then,
so the details may be unrecoverable.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: Mark Longridge <cubexyz at gmail.com>

    > I was digging around trying to figure out which Unixes would run on a
    > PDP-11 with QBUS. It seems that the very early stuff like v5 was
    > strictly UNIBUS and that the first version of Unix that supported QBUS
    > was v7m (please correct me if this is wrong).

That may or may not be true; let me explain. The 11/23 is almost
indistinguishable, in programming terms, from an 11/40. There is only one
very minor difference (which UNIX would care about) that I know of - the
11/23 does not have a hardware switch register.

Yes, UNIBUS devices can't be plugged into a QBUS, and vice versa, _but_ i)
there a programming-compatible QBUS versions of many UNIBUS devices, and ii)
there were UNIBUS-QBUS converters which actually allowed a QBUS processor to
have UNIBUS peripherals.

So I don't know which version of Unix was the first run on an 11/23 - but it
could have been almost any.

It is quite possible to run V6 on an 11/23, provided you make a very small
number of very minor changes, to avoid use of the CSWR. I have done this, and
run V6 on a simulated 11/23 (I have a short note explaining what one needs to
do, if anyone is interested.) Admittedly, this is not the same as running it
on a real 11/23, but I see no resons the latter would not be doable.

I had started in on the work needed to get V6 running on a real 11/23, which
was the (likely) need to load Unix into the machine over a serial line. WKT
has done this for V7:

  http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Tools/Tapes/Vtserver/

but it needs a little tweaking for V6; I was about to start in on that.


    > I have hopes to eventually run a Unix on real hardware

As do a lot of us... :-)

    > It seems like DEC just didn't make a desktop that could run Bell Labs
    > Unix, e.g. we can't just grab a DEC Pro-350 and stick Unix v7 on it.

I'm not sure about that; I'd have to check into the Pro-350. If it has memory
mapping, it should not be hard.

Also, even if it doesn't have memory mapping, there was a Mini-Unix done for
PDP-11's without memory mapping; I can dig up some URLs if you're interested.
The feeling is, I gather, very similar.

    > it would be nice to eventually run a Unix with all the source code at
    > hand on a real machine.

Having done that 'back in the day', I can assure you that it doesn't feel
that different from the simulated experience (except that the latter are
noticeably faster :-).

In fact, even if/when I do have a real 11, I'll probably still mostly use the
simulator, for a variety of reasons; e.g. the ability to edit source with a
nice modern editor, etc, etc is just too nice to pass up! :-)

	Noel

[TUHS] First Unix that could run on a PDP-11 with QBUS

[Mark Longridge]

Hi folks,

I was digging around trying to figure out which Unixes would run on a
PDP-11 with QBUS.  It seems that the very early stuff like v5 was
strictly UNIBUS and that the first version of Unix that supported QBUS
was v7m (please correct me if this is wrong).

I was thinking that the MicroPDP-11's were all QBUS and that it would
be easier to run a Unix on a MicroPDP because they are the most
compact. So I figured I would try to obtain a Unix v7m distribution
tape image. I see the Jean Huens files on tuhs but I'm not sure what
to do with them.

I have hopes to eventually run a Unix on real hardware but for now I'm
going to stick with simh. It seems like DEC just didn't make a desktop
that could run Bell Labs Unix, e.g. we can't just grab a DEC Pro-350
and stick Unix v7 on it. Naturally I'll still have fun checking out
Unix v5 on the emulator but it would be nice to eventually run a Unix
with all the source code at hand on a real machine.

Mark