From: jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Message-ID: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 20 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 05:54:12 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.109.100.252 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 1007099634 24.109.100.252 (Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:53:54 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 22:53:54 MST Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy1!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95526 The PDP-8 computer, in its many incarnations, was famous as the lowest-priced of the minicomputers. But it didn't even have load and store instructions. There was DCA, which stored the number in the accumulator and then cleared the accumulator. To load the accumulator, one had to clear it somehow and then do a TAD ("two's complement add") instruction. This must have wasted a lot of instructions. The 18-bit computers from DEC didn't have this problem. But they were never very popular. I presume this is because there was a large difference between them and the PDP-8 in terms of price. Since the two types of computer were very similar architecturally, though, I have to believe that DEC could have produced inexpensive versions of those computers that would have been close to a PDP-8 in price. John Savard http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html ###### Message-ID: <3C07860B.5A31D160@mediaone.net> From: Bob Willard Organization: BSGS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:11:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.128.73.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: typhoon.ne.mediaone.net 1007125913 24.128.73.34 (Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:11:53 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:11:53 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!chnws02.mediaone.net!chnws06.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.8.70!typhoon.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95489 John Savard wrote: > > The PDP-8 computer, in its many incarnations, was famous as the > lowest-priced of the minicomputers. > > But it didn't even have load and store instructions. > > There was DCA, which stored the number in the accumulator and then > cleared the accumulator. To load the accumulator, one had to clear it > somehow and then do a TAD ("two's complement add") instruction. > > This must have wasted a lot of instructions. > > The 18-bit computers from DEC didn't have this problem. But they were > never very popular. I presume this is because there was a large > difference between them and the PDP-8 in terms of price. Since the two > types of computer were very similar architecturally, though, I have to > believe that DEC could have produced inexpensive versions of those > computers that would have been close to a PDP-8 in price. > > John Savard > http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html I certainly would not characterize DEC's 18-bit family as "very similar architecturally" to DEC's 12-bit family. And, the first computer I bought (for my employer) was an 18-bit PDP-7; the second system I bought was a 12-bit 338 (based on the PDP-8). I spent lots of time using 7's and 8's, and I think they were vastly different; the 18-bit machines were far easier to program. -- Cheers, Bob ###### From: "Christopher McNabb" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:48:59 -0500 Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Lines: 41 Message-ID: <9u831l$229$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: morden.cc.vt.edu X-Trace: solaris.cc.vt.edu 1007128437 2121 128.173.14.41 (30 Nov 2001 13:53:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@vt.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:53:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95502 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "John Savard" wrote in message news:3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com... > There was DCA, which stored the number in the accumulator and then > cleared the accumulator. To load the accumulator, one had to clear > it somehow and then do a TAD ("two's complement add") instruction. > This wasn't (I should say "isn't", since I've got a pdp-8 at home) really too difficult. CLA CLL / Clear accumulator and Link bit TAD ONEDTA / Load some data into the accumlator DCA TWODTA / Store the accumlator into TWODTA, Then clear the accumulator TAD THRDTA / Load THRDTA (Accumlator is already clear from previous DCA) Don't have my PDP-8 Handbook handy, but I believe that quite a few IOT (Input/Output) instructions would also clear the accumulator on completion. - --- Christopher L McNabb Tel: 540 231 7554 Operating Systems Analyst Email: cmcnabb@vt.edu Virginia Tech ICBM: 37.205622N 80.414595W GMRS: WPSR255 ARS: N2UX Grid Square: EM97SD -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBPAeOSjdW9QVGGjWuEQJvSQCfQKjXT55GwElvch4Ezwd1722+2MIAoP50 D4qeXWznlkBNLQHEgl+p7Edt =Ki91 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ###### From: "Radio Ham" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:27:19 -0000 Lines: 33 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-225-67-27.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Message-ID: <3c07b475_1@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com> X-Trace: 30 Nov 2001 16:31:49 GMT, ppp-225-67-27.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com!ppp-225-67-27.friaco.access.uk.tiscali.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95557 ISTR a very ingenious XOR sub-routine. Doing it with CMA's and AND's to implement XOR via De Morgan's route was very lengthy, but there was a clever trick based on the way that a full adder works. If you remember, the Sum outputs are XOR and the carry over is the AND. Therefore if you do the TAD of two variables, and then subtract (CIA, TAD!) the AND that has been shifted left, you end up with the XOR! John Savard wrote in message news:3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com... > The PDP-8 computer, in its many incarnations, was famous as the > lowest-priced of the minicomputers. > > But it didn't even have load and store instructions. > > There was DCA, which stored the number in the accumulator and then > cleared the accumulator. To load the accumulator, one had to clear it > somehow and then do a TAD ("two's complement add") instruction. > > This must have wasted a lot of instructions. > > The 18-bit computers from DEC didn't have this problem. But they were > never very popular. I presume this is because there was a large > difference between them and the PDP-8 in terms of price. Since the two > types of computer were very similar architecturally, though, I have to > believe that DEC could have produced inexpensive versions of those > computers that would have been close to a PDP-8 in price. > > John Savard > http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html ###### From: "George R. Gonzalez" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:24:26 -0600 Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus Lines: 22 Message-ID: <9u8fdn$660$1@laurel.tc.umn.edu> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <3c07b475_1@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com> X-Trace: laurel.tc.umn.edu 1007141111 6336 160.94.124.14 (30 Nov 2001 17:25:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@laurel.tc.umn.edu X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!diablo.theplanet.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!upp1.onvoy!msc1.onvoy!onvoy.com!hardy.tc.umn.edu!laurel.tc.umn.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95509 > > There was DCA, which stored the number in the accumulator and then > > cleared the accumulator. To load the accumulator, one had to clear it > > somehow and then do a TAD ("two's complement add") instruction. > > > > This must have wasted a lot of instructions. It does seem that way at first glance, but I don't think it wasted a *lot* of instructions. Since DCA was the only way to store the AC, you always had a clear AC after a store. And the conditional tests had the optional CLA and CLL bits, so you could clear the AC and carry on any conditional test. The alternatives were not good-- an extra op code to just load would have required another op-code bit, making it a 13-bit machine word! ( Or a waay too small address field ). Regards, George ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: 30 Nov 2001 20:59:01 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 36 Message-ID: <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1007150341 366 10.0.3.2 (30 Nov 2001 19:59:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Nov 2001 19:59:01 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95558 jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) writes: > The PDP-8 computer, in its many incarnations, was famous as the > lowest-priced of the minicomputers. > > But it didn't even have load and store instructions. > > The 18-bit computers from DEC didn't have this problem. But they were > never very popular. I presume this is because there was a large > difference between them and the PDP-8 in terms of price. No larger than between PDP-8 and PDP-11. > believe that DEC could have produced inexpensive versions of those > computers that would have been close to a PDP-8 in price. Perhaps not at PDP-8 price, but a range of 4/7/9/15s at 11 price/size range would have certainly been possible. And most likely faster time to market, because simpler. And possibly faster, like the 10 was relative to the first VAXen. Actually an new 8-Accumulator 18bit would have been optimal. And no problems with 3*n bit DECtape either. And them extra 2 address bits and no wasted "byte" bit would given 8 times process address space. So no separate I/D space stuff needed. With all the 11 OSes developed for that, it would have been even bigger success. And no need to invent VAX, as the already existing 10 would have been the logical progression. Classic case of DECs self-foot-shooting. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <3C07860B.5A31D160@mediaone.net> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 30 Nov 2001 18:04:24 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 18 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 30 Nov 2001 18:08:02 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95602 Bob Willard writes: > I certainly would not characterize DEC's 18-bit family as "very > similar architecturally" to DEC's 12-bit family. And, the first > computer I bought (for my employer) was an 18-bit PDP-7; the second > system I bought was a 12-bit 338 (based on the PDP-8). I spent lots > of time using 7's and 8's, and I think they were vastly different; > the 18-bit machines were far easier to program. In broad outlines, the 12-bitters and 18-bitters were quite similar. Naturally the 18-bitters had a lot more instructions, since there was more room for an opcode. The 12-bitters and the 18-bitters were much more like each other (and to the DG Nova and the HP 1000/21xx) than they are to a PDP-11, VAX, or anything from IBM. They were similar enough that simple automated translation tools did a good job of turning PDP-8 code into PDP-9 or PDP-15 code. ###### From: jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Message-ID: <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 22 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 04:58:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.109.100.252 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 1007441881 24.109.100.252 (Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:58:01 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:58:01 MST Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy1!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95782 On 30 Nov 2001 20:59:01 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote, in part: >And no need to invent >VAX, as the already existing 10 would have been the logical progression. It's certainly true that the PDP-10 and Decsystem-20 were well loved by their users, who strongly resisted migration to the VAX. However, most of the rest of the computing world *was* using the 8-bit byte. So if DEC had come out with a 16-bit computer similar to their 18-bit line, that would not have been a bad thing. (Although the Honeywell-316 already *did* that.) But for them to modernize, and go with the PDP-11 which had multiple registers and so on, was not unreasonable. Of course, I despise their decision to go little-endian with the PDP-11, but that's just a personal preference. (Human beings can actually *read* System/360 core dumps!) John Savard http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html ###### From: Elliott Roper Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:18:44 +0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Thoth/1.4.2 (Carbon/OS X) X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 16 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!elliott Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95777 In article <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com>, John Savard wrote: > However, most of the rest of the computing world *was* using the 8-bit > byte. So if DEC had come out with a 16-bit computer similar to their > 18-bit line, that would not have been a bad thing. (Although the > Honeywell-316 already *did* that.) Of course the 16 bit PDP-8 was made. It was called the Data General Nova The founder of DG, Edson DeCastro was an ex-digit, rumoured to have founded DG after Gordon Bell's PDP-11 whas chosen as the 8's successor. Many years later, DeCastro was keynote speaker at a seminar on computer crime in Melbourne (.au). One cheeky monkey, one of my favourite DEC salesmen, asked a question from the floor..... ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: rivie@cougar.no.domain Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> Reply-To: ivie@cc.usu.edu Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.1 (NetBSD) Cache-Post-Path: hoth!unknown@208.186.13.136 X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.186.8.4 Date: 4 Dec 2001 10:28:26 -0600 X-Trace: corp.newsgroups.com 1007483306 208.186.8.4 (4 Dec 2001 10:28:26 -0600) Lines: 18 X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support, spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings. X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be tolerated!! X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS) Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!corp.newsgroups.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95791 In article <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com>, John Savard wrote: > > But for them to modernize, and go with the PDP-11 which had multiple > registers and so on, was not unreasonable. Of course, I despise their > decision to go little-endian with the PDP-11, but that's just a > personal preference. (Human beings can actually *read* System/360 core > dumps!) It's all in how you look at it. Several VMS tools printed memory dumps right-to-left so they'd be readable. -- Roger Ivie ivie@cc.usu.edu -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ###### From: jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Message-ID: <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 16 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:49:17 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.109.100.252 X-Complaints-To: abuse@powersurfr.com X-Trace: news-rep.ab.videon.ca 1007484532 24.109.100.252 (Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:48:52 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:48:52 MST Organization: Videon CableSystems Alberta Inc. Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed.nextra.ch!news.nextra.ch!nextra.at!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!cy1!cy2!newsfeed.shawcable.com!news-rep.ab.videon.ca!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95787 On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:18:44 +0000, Elliott Roper wrote, in part: >Of course the 16 bit PDP-8 was made. It was called the Data General Nova Ah, yes, based on an early design for the PDP-11. But the Nova's design wasn't at all like the PDP-8's design, even if it wasn't like the PDP-11's either. It had four general registers, and it used nearly every opcode (so the 32-bit Eclipse, which kept full compatibility, wasted a lot of space in all its new instructions - it was precisely the *wrong* architecture to build a no-mode-bit extension around). John Savard http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/index.html ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: 04 Dec 2001 22:01:07 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 46 Message-ID: <6upu5ulmy4.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1007499667 488 10.0.3.2 (4 Dec 2001 21:01:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Dec 2001 21:01:07 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95808 jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) writes: > On 30 Nov 2001 20:59:01 +0100, Neil Franklin > wrote, in part: > > >And no need to invent > >VAX, as the already existing 10 would have been the logical progression. > > However, most of the rest of the computing world *was* using the 8-bit > byte. So if DEC had come out with a 16-bit computer similar to their > 18-bit line, that would not have been a bad thing. (Although the > Honeywell-316 already *did* that.) OTOH 8bit bytes fit nicely into 9bit ones, with an spare bit left over. 8bit had to kill off 6bit bytes, but 9bit should be able to live. > But for them to modernize, and go with the PDP-11 which had multiple > registers and so on, was not unreasonable. That is why I wrote: "Actually an new 8-Accumulator 18bit would have been optimal." Having registers was the good bit of the 11. I was thinking of an set of 8 registers and using them 10 style (with 3bit AC and X fields in the instructions, and mapped as 0-7 into memory space). > Of course, I despise their > decision to go little-endian with the PDP-11, but that's just a > personal preference. I started on little endian 8bit micros. Bigendian was so confusiong initially. > (Human beings can actually *read* System/360 core > dumps!) Has also been done with 8bit micro dumps. I never did enough raw bianry to learn it. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery ###### Message-ID: <3C0D20E2.2C857588@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:53:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.178.39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1007499225 12.90.178.39 (Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:53:45 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:53:45 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed.nextra.ch!news.nextra.ch!nextra.at!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95928 John Savard wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:18:44 +0000, Elliott Roper > wrote, in part: > > >Of course the 16 bit PDP-8 was made. It was called the Data General Nova > > Ah, yes, based on an early design for the PDP-11. > > But the Nova's design wasn't at all like the PDP-8's design, even if > it wasn't like the PDP-11's either. It had four general registers, and > it used nearly every opcode (so the 32-bit Eclipse, which kept full > compatibility, wasted a lot of space in all its new instructions - it > was precisely the *wrong* architecture to build a no-mode-bit > extension around). I seem to recall a story that DG was born when deCastro and company got in a huff about their new machine designs not being accepted at DEC. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@XXXXworldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified) mailto:uce@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest) ###### Message-ID: <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@ev1.net Organization: Cannine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 04:49:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.127.202.211 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1007527775 204.127.202.211 (Wed, 05 Dec 2001 04:49:35 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 04:49:35 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95906 John Savard wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:18:44 +0000, Elliott Roper > wrote, in part: > > >Of course the 16 bit PDP-8 was made. It was called the Data General Nova > > Ah, yes, based on an early design for the PDP-11. > > But the Nova's design wasn't at all like the PDP-8's design, even if > it wasn't like the PDP-11's either. It had four general registers, and > it used nearly every opcode (so the 32-bit Eclipse, which kept full > compatibility, wasted a lot of space in all its new instructions - it > was precisely the *wrong* architecture to build a no-mode-bit > extension around). > Well IIRC, the PDP-8 and the NOVA both had *no* hardware supported stack register. And certainly the PDP-11 did have hardware support for a stack register. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: Elliott Roper Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 13:21:39 +0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <051220011321398676%elliott@yrl.co.uk> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Thoth/1.4.2 (Carbon/OS X) X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 29 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-nue1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!feeder.qis.net!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!elliott Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95873 In article <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: > Well IIRC, the PDP-8 and the NOVA both had *no* hardware supported > stack register. And certainly the PDP-11 did have hardware support > for a stack register. That's right. I did a lot of work on 8's and 11's and only one project on a Nova. It was quite 8-like, with a couple of 15 and 10-isms on the side. There was an indirect bit in each address, so you could make near useless tables of tables of tables of addresses. You would expect more than one accumulator with the luxury of 16 bit instructions, and you got four, so no surprise there. The i/o was 8-like too. IIRC. It has been a lo..ong time. It had a cute realtime operating system called RTOS. It looked useless when you read the docs, but it was amazing how often the useless looking stuff wasn't. RDOS was the other OS for it. It had disks, assembler and a Fortran compiler that was not too bad either for the time. I can still remember the RK01 bootstrap program for OS/8 though: 30: 7040 31:5031 7040 was read the disk (it started with all its internal registers 0, so it read block zero into location zero.) 5031 was jump up and down on the spot. The real bootstrap would DMA itself over the JMP . and branch back to loaction 12 or thereabouts, where it waited for the read to complete. But then everyone here knows that already ###### Message-ID: <3C0E5490.1591C7B9@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> <051220011321398676%elliott@yrl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:31:09 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.167.52 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1007573469 12.90.167.52 (Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:31:09 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 17:31:09 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed.nextra.ch!news.nextra.ch!nextra.at!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95929 Elliott Roper wrote: > > In article <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net>, Charles Richmond > wrote: > > > Well IIRC, the PDP-8 and the NOVA both had *no* hardware supported > > stack register. And certainly the PDP-11 did have hardware support > > for a stack register. > > That's right. I did a lot of work on 8's and 11's and only one project > on a Nova. It was quite 8-like, with a couple of 15 and 10-isms on the > side. There was an indirect bit in each address, so you could make near > useless tables of tables of tables of addresses. You would expect more > than one accumulator with the luxury of 16 bit instructions, and you > got four, so no surprise there. The i/o was 8-like too. IIRC. It has > been a lo..ong time. Wasn't the Nova the one that had that cute indirect address closed loop lock up? Very tireless at chasing its own tail. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@XXXXworldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. (Remove "XXXX" from reply address. yahoo works unmodified) mailto:uce@ftc.gov (for spambots to harvest) ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:57:57 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Sender: Pete Fenelon References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> <051220011321398676%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3C0E5490.1591C7B9@yahoo.com> User-Agent: tin/1.5.9-20010723 ("Chord of Souls") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.4-STABLE (i386)) X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 10 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95892 CBFalconer wrote: > > Wasn't the Nova the one that had that cute indirect address closed > loop lock up? Very tireless at chasing its own tail. > ISTR one of the later DGs put an arbitrary limit on how many times it'd indirect - it'd throw an exception at 7 or so levels... pete ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 05 Dec 2001 15:32:46 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 6 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 5 Dec 2001 15:37:18 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95995 Charles Richmond writes: > Well IIRC, the PDP-8 and the NOVA both had *no* hardware supported > stack register. And certainly the PDP-11 did have hardware support > for a stack register. IIRC, some NOVAs did have a stack. But definitely not all of them. ###### Message-ID: <3C0FB9FF.BB521A2E@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:45:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 158.252.49.15 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1007664319 158.252.49.15 (Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:45:19 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:45:19 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:45:13 PST (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed.nextra.ch!news.nextra.ch!nextra.at!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:95960 Charles Richmond wrote: > Well IIRC, the PDP-8 and the NOVA both had *no* hardware supported > stack register. And certainly the PDP-11 did have hardware support > for a stack register. I believe the only NOVA with a stack was the NOVA 3 and IIRC this was the "last" model of the NOVA architecture (if you don't consider the Eclipse to be nothing more than an advanced NOVA, IIRC all Eclipse's had stacks). I made some software changes to a NOVA 3 based system in the mid 90's but it has since been taken out of service. IIRC the NOVA models, more or less in order of appearance were, NOVA, SUPER NOVA, NOVA 1200, NOVA 800, NOVA 2, NOVA 3. I worked with the 1200, 2 and 3. The SUPER NOVA was a high performance version of the original NOVA. The NOVA 1200 was so called IIRC because its basic instruction time was 1.2 microseconds and the NOVA 800 likewise was 0.8 microseconds and thus the 1200 and 800 were replacements for the NOVA and SUPER NOVA respectively. I don't recall what was special about the NOVA 2, I only ever saw one in action (although I now have its front panel :-). All but the NOVA 3 had the same basic front panel style with miniature toggle switches for front panel switches. The NOVA 3 front panel was styled like the Eclipse front panels and was a white plastic injection molded beast with plastic bat handles much like the DEC PDP switches. Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: "Geoffrey G. Rochat" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 01:23:23 -0500 Organization: Sprint Advanced Network Services Lines: 23 Message-ID: <9uuvp5$1vp$1@news.utelfla.com> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> <3C0FB9FF.BB521A2E@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.244.119.24 X-Trace: news.utelfla.com 1007878757 2041 208.244.119.24 (9 Dec 2001 06:19:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.utelfla.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 06:19:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer1.sprintlink.net!news-in-east1.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.sprintnetops.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:96145 >> Well IIRC, the PDP-8 and the NOVA both had *no* hardware supported >> stack register. And certainly the PDP-11 did have hardware support >> for a stack register. Both the later NOVAs and the Harris 6120 CMOS PDP-8 chip used in the DECmates had hardware stacks. > >I believe the only NOVA with a stack was the NOVA 3 and IIRC this was >the "last" model of the NOVA architecture (if you don't consider the Eclipse >to be nothing more than an advanced NOVA, IIRC all Eclipse's had stacks). Check out Carl Friend's website at www.ultranet.com/~crfriend/museum/ . Not only does he provide details, he also has large collection of DG machines, many of which are on display at the RetroComputing Society of Rhode Island, (see www.osfn.org/rcs for details). ###### From: "Carl R. Friend" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 20:14:59 -0500 Organization: As little as possible! Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3C140C93.AB9A6419@rcsri.org> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> <041220011118441497%elliott@yrl.co.uk> <3c0cfe1f.4229010@news.powersurfr.com> <3C0DC2A6.2B577720@ev1.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVaWomaw2EEhQKp3cVSgGXfLTTdTISYowOjSnE2Zm0XIC0idlCsX0q4E X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Dec 2001 01:15:01 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.4.2 i586) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:96176 Eric Smith wrote: > > IIRC, some NOVAs did have a stack. But definitely not all of them. The Nova 3 was the first of the line to sport a stack. The Nova/4 was the last "large format" Nova, and it had one as well. The Micro- Novas all had hardware stacks (and looked, more or less, like 3s). Interestingly, the later Novas did _not_ use the same stack model as the Eclipse. Whereas the Eclipse had the stack bits (pointer and limit register) in core, the Nova had a "real" embedded stack register. The Nova stacks operated by way of "hijacked" I/O instructions. http://www.ultranet.com/~crfriend/museum/doco/DG/Nova/extend-instr.html shows how it works. -- +------------------------------------------------+---------------------+ | Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston | | Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA | | mailto:crfriend@ma.ultranet.com +---------------------+ | http://www.ultranet.com/~crfriend/museum | ICBM: 42:22N 71:47W | +------------------------------------------------+---------------------+ ###### From: gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: PDP-4, 9, 15: a missed opportunity? Date: 13 Dec 2001 20:53:30 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 15 Message-ID: <9vb4ga$jl0@gap.cco.caltech.edu> References: <3c071d66.4417345@news.powersurfr.com> <6ubshk9gje.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> <3c0c5717.2002446@news.powersurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zloty.ugcs.caltech.edu X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!gah Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:96568 jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) writes: >On 30 Nov 2001 20:59:01 +0100, Neil Franklin (snip) >But for them to modernize, and go with the PDP-11 which had multiple >registers and so on, was not unreasonable. Of course, I despise their >decision to go little-endian with the PDP-11, but that's just a >personal preference. (Human beings can actually *read* System/360 core >dumps!) The VAX DUMP command fixed this by writing the hex data in one direction and the ASCII data in the other direction. Kind of confusing, but almost readable. -- glen