From: fdc@columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: 36 bits Date: 16 Feb 2001 17:20:55 -0500 Organization: Columbia University Lines: 18 Message-ID: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: watsol.cc.columbia.edu X-Trace: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu 982362172 22633 128.59.39.139 (16 Feb 2001 22:22:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: postmaster@columbia.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2001 22:22:52 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!naxos.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!phl-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!news-not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3034 Shifting gears from the annoying Kermit discussion... As you probably know, the "DEC-20s at Columbia" article was Slashdotted a few weeks ago, which spawned the typical reaction from kiddies: What??? 36 bits??? We all know that 36 bits go back to the PDP-6 (1964), so 36 bits ruled the roost from 1964 to 1983 -- 19 years, right? But we also know, or at least suspect, that the PDP-6 must have been inspired at least in part by the IBM 7094, also a 36-bit machine, which is not only where LISP came from (CARs and CDRs), but the first timesharing (MIT's CTSS). The 7094 was preceded by the 7090, which in turn was preceded by the 709 and that by the 701. The 701 was the world's first production computer using binary (not decimal) logic, and it had 36-bit words. So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years, which is way longer than 16, 32, or 64 bits have ruled, so really, 36 bits are normal and everything else is strange. - Frank ###### From: "Zane H. Healy" Subject: Re: 36 bits Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> Organization: Aracnet User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.18 (i686)) Lines: 18 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:42:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.99.193.21 X-Complaints-To: news@aracnet.com X-Trace: typhoon.aracnet.com 982377739 216.99.193.21 (Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:42:19 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:42:19 PST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!typhoon.aracnet.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3095 Mark Crispin wrote: > On 16 Feb 2001, Frank da Cruz wrote: >> So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years > Try 1952 until 1988. DEC announced the cancellation in 1983, but new > hardware and software came out for 5 years thereafter. In fact, there was > even a new KL10 variant. > So, 36-bits lasted 36 years. Weren't some of the Honeywell computers such as the DPS-8's 36-bit also? I believe Honeywell/Group Bull did them till sometime in the 90's (might still be doing them for all I know). Or am I missing the point. Zane ###### From: gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: 17 Feb 2001 06:53:36 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Lines: 20 Message-ID: <96l75g$qsh@gap.cco.caltech.edu> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: seniti.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!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.twtelecom.net!newsfeed.cs.wisc.edu!loops.cs.wisc.edu!uchinews!nntp-server.caltech.edu!gah Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3091 fdc@columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) writes: >But we also know, or at least suspect, that the PDP-6 must have been >inspired at least in part by the IBM 7094, also a 36-bit machine, which is >not only where LISP came from (CARs and CDRs), but the first timesharing >(MIT's CTSS). The 7094 was preceded by the 7090, which in turn was >preceded by the 709 and that by the 701. The 701 was the world's first >production computer using binary (not decimal) logic, and it had 36-bit >words. So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years, which is >way longer than 16, 32, or 64 bits have ruled, so really, 36 bits are >normal and everything else is strange. I asked not long ago, with all the interest in emulators and software for old machines, if anyone was interested in getting 7090 or 7094 software running. (after finding any). Also, how about the 704? I would say that 32 bits started at least with S/360 around 1964, and still going, so 37+ years. -- glen ###### From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: 17 Feb 2001 17:33:36 GMT Organization: TSS Inc. Lines: 19 Message-ID: <96mclg$2d6k$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: citadel.in.taronga.com X-Trace: citadel.in.taronga.com 982431216 79060 10.0.0.43 (17 Feb 2001 17:33:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@taronga.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Feb 2001 17:33:36 GMT X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.dplanet.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!news.kjsl.com!news.usenet2.org!citadel.in.taronga.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3094 In article , Mark Crispin wrote: >On 16 Feb 2001, Frank da Cruz wrote: >> So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years >Try 1952 until 1988. DEC announced the cancellation in 1983, but new >hardware and software came out for 5 years thereafter. In fact, there was >even a new KL10 variant. >So, 36-bits lasted 36 years. Longer than that. The Unisys Clearpath (1100/2200 based) servers are still in production. -- Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC. WWFD? "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept" -- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans) ###### From: berd_kalamunda@techemail.com (Rolie Baldock) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:05:46 GMT Message-ID: <3a8ef44a.2939860@news.m.iinet.net.au> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.69.175 X-Trace: news.iinet.net.au 982447375 27400 emut7d@203.59.69.175 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!news.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3106 Hello Frank, If you stick to the philosophy of maximising the LCM you would choose a multiple of three 8 bit bytes that is 24 bits 48 bits or 96 bits. This would maximise the use of bits when you consider that there are 3 primary colours. Lets face it when the PDP-6 (I extensively programmed it in assembly) was king there were no VGA monitors. ASCII was a bit wasteful as there were four 8 bit bytes to a word with 4 bits left over so some of the time we used SIXBIT. On 16 Feb 2001 17:20:55 -0500, fdc@columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) wrote: > >Shifting gears from the annoying Kermit discussion... As you probably >know, the "DEC-20s at Columbia" article was Slashdotted a few weeks ago, >which spawned the typical reaction from kiddies: What??? 36 bits??? We >all know that 36 bits go back to the PDP-6 (1964), so 36 bits ruled the >roost from 1964 to 1983 -- 19 years, right? > >But we also know, or at least suspect, that the PDP-6 must have been >inspired at least in part by the IBM 7094, also a 36-bit machine, which is >not only where LISP came from (CARs and CDRs), but the first timesharing >(MIT's CTSS). The 7094 was preceded by the 7090, which in turn was >preceded by the 709 and that by the 701. The 701 was the world's first >production computer using binary (not decimal) logic, and it had 36-bit >words. So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years, which is >way longer than 16, 32, or 64 bits have ruled, so really, 36 bits are >normal and everything else is strange. > >- Frank --Rolie Baldock. email: Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email ###### Message-ID: <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:57:41 -0800 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.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: taydal-207-55-144-176.ev1.net X-Trace: newsa.ev1.net 982494122 taydal-207-55-144-176.ev1.net (18 Feb 2001 05:02:02 -0600) Lines: 22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!Amsterdam.Infonet!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!skynet.be!europa.netcrusader.net!208.184.7.66!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!newsa.ev1.net Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3110 Frank da Cruz wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > But we also know, or at least suspect, that the PDP-6 must have been > inspired at least in part by the IBM 7094, also a 36-bit machine, which is > not only where LISP came from (CARs and CDRs), but the first timesharing > (MIT's CTSS). The 7094 was preceded by the 7090, which in turn was > preceded by the 709 and that by the 701. The 701 was the world's first > production computer using binary (not decimal) logic, and it had 36-bit > words. So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years, which is > way longer than 16, 32, or 64 bits have ruled, so really, 36 bits are > normal and everything else is strange. > The first Lisp was actually done on an IBM 704...*not* an IBM 7090... although *older* versions of the Jargon file said the 7090. I have it on *very* good authority that the first Lisp was done on the IBM 704. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: 18 Feb 2001 15:26:58 GMT Organization: Columbia University Lines: 20 Message-ID: <96opk2$q4v$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu X-Trace: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu 982510018 26783 128.59.39.2 (18 Feb 2001 15:26:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: postmaster@columbia.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Feb 2001 15:26:58 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!panix!newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!fdc Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3107 In article <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: : ... : The first Lisp was actually done on an IBM 704...*not* an IBM 7090... : although *older* versions of the Jargon file said the 7090. I have it on : *very* good authority that the first Lisp was done on the IBM 704. : Actually after sending that message, I had tracked it back to the 709. But I have never been able to find an authoritative reference stating which IBM model LISP was developed on. The 700 series were binary vacuum tube logic computers. The 704 was a 701 with core (rather than CRT) memory, floating-point arithmetic, and a bunch of new instructions. 123 of them were sold from 1955 to 1960. There was also a 705, but it had a 35-bit (not 36-bit) word -- 5 characters per word (sounds familiar?) The 709 succeeded the 704, adding overlapped i/o, indirect addressing, and decimal instructions. The 7090 was a 709 with transistor, rather than vacuum-tube, logic, and the 7094 was a faster 7090. - Frank ###### Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits From: jeverett@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) Organization: Everett Associates X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.8 (x86 32bit) References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6LSj6.2251$ws2.139496@ord-read.news.verio.net> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:28:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.238.70.4 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: ord-read.news.verio.net 982513730 157.238.70.4 (Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:28:50 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:28:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.tele.dk!204.71.34.15!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!ord-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3108 In article , mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU says... > >On 16 Feb 2001, Frank da Cruz wrote: >> So in fact, 36 bits ruled from 1952 to 1983 -- 31 years > >Try 1952 until 1988. DEC announced the cancellation in 1983, but new >hardware and software came out for 5 years thereafter. In fact, there was >even a new KL10 variant. > >So, 36-bits lasted 36 years. Yes, "lasted" would be a much more appropriate term than "ruled". Have we forgotten that the late '50s and early '60s were "ruled" by byte oriented machines such as the IBM 1401 and it's various semi-clones (such as the Honeywell 200). Actually the term "byte" wasn't at that time used to describe this class of machines, they were contemporaneously refered to as character machines. In the mid-'60s IBM introduced the 360 series, which spearheaded the trend toward 32-bit machines. By 1970, 32 bits "ruled". The best that can be said of 36-bit machines is that they "ruled" a relatively small backwater of computing. -- jeverettwwacom (John Everett) http://www.wwa.com/~jeverett ###### From: Lars Brinkhoff Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Organization: nocrew Lines: 9 Sender: lars@junk.nocrew.org Message-ID: <853ddb901b.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <96mclg$2d6k$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:05:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.73.17.42 X-Complaints-To: abuse@defero.net X-Trace: news.defero.net 982530311 212.73.17.42 (Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:05:11 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:05:11 MET Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news-sto.telia.net!news.defero.net!junk.nocrew.org!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3123 peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > The Unisys Clearpath (1100/2200 based) servers are still in > production. Is the Clearpath architecture that of the old UNIVAC 1100 series? 36-bit, word-addressed, one's complement integer representation? -- http://lars.nocrew.org/ ###### From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: 18 Feb 2001 21:55:53 GMT Organization: TSS Inc. Lines: 16 Message-ID: <96pgd9$10a7$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <96mclg$2d6k$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> <853ddb901b.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: citadel.in.taronga.com X-Trace: citadel.in.taronga.com 982533353 33095 10.0.0.43 (18 Feb 2001 21:55:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@taronga.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Feb 2001 21:55:53 GMT X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!news.kjsl.com!news.usenet2.org!citadel.in.taronga.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3128 In article <853ddb901b.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: >peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> The Unisys Clearpath (1100/2200 based) servers are still in >> production. >Is the Clearpath architecture that of the old UNIVAC 1100 series? >36-bit, word-addressed, one's complement integer representation? Yep. Running OS2200, AKA Exec/1100. -- Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC. WWFD? "Be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept" -- Matthew 10:16 (l.trans) ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net> <96opk2$q4v$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 18 Feb 2001 15:31:16 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 12 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: 18 Feb 2001 15:31:58 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.dplanet.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!news.kjsl.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3135 fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) writes about early IBM mainframes: > The 704 was a 701 with core (rather than CRT) memory, floating-point > arithmetic, and a bunch of new instructions. ISTR that the 704 instruction set was mostly incompatible with the 701. Also, 701s were retrofitted with core memory. > There was also a 705, but it had a 35-bit (not 36-bit) word -- 5 characters > per word (sounds familiar?) The 702, 705, and 705 III were character-oriented machines. They did NOT have a 35-bit word. ###### From: Sean Case Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Organization: Marginal References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <96mclg$2d6k$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> <853ddb901b.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <96pgd9$10a7$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) Message-ID: Lines: 26 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:57:51 +1100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.8.0.7 X-Complaints-To: news@pacific.net.au X-Trace: nostril.pacific.net.au 982565687 61.8.0.7 (Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:54:47 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:54:47 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!news-in-austin.nuthinbutnews.com!feed2.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.zip.com.au!203.12.97.119.MISMATCH!nostril.pacific.net.au!gsc Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3139 In article <96pgd9$10a7$1@citadel.in.taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > In article <853ddb901b.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>, > Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > >Is the Clearpath architecture that of the old UNIVAC 1100 series? > >36-bit, word-addressed, one's complement integer representation? > Yep. Running OS2200, AKA Exec/1100. Just to clarify: the ClearPath IX and IE machines are Univac 1100 architecture, while the ClearPath NX and LX use the Burroughs Large Systems (aka A-series) architecture. (48 bits + type tags, stack machine.) Don't ask me why they're all called ClearPath. (Deep down inside, OS 2200 still thinks of itself as EXEC-8.) Sean Case -- Sean Case gsc@zipworld.com.au Code is an illusion. Only assertions are real. ###### Message-ID: <3A90CEA0.3CD3F98D@ev1.net> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:43:27 -0800 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.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net> <96opk2$q4v$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.55.148.207 X-Trace: newsa.ev1.net 982561613 207.55.148.207 (18 Feb 2001 23:46:53 -0600) Lines: 42 X-Authenticated-User: richmond Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!newsa.ev1.net Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3143 Frank da Cruz wrote: > > In article <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net>, > Charles Richmond wrote: > : ... > : The first Lisp was actually done on an IBM 704...*not* an IBM 7090... > : although *older* versions of the Jargon file said the 7090. I have it on > : *very* good authority that the first Lisp was done on the IBM 704. > : > Actually after sending that message, I had tracked it back to the 709. But > I have never been able to find an authoritative reference stating which IBM > model LISP was developed on. > In his book _Anatomy of Lisp_ (ISBN: 0-07-001115-X), John Allen states in a footnote on page 13 concerning CAR and CDR: "These names are hold-overs from the original implementation of LISP on an IBM 704. That machine had partial-word instructions to reference the address and decrement parts of a machine location. The a of car comes from "address", the d of cdr comes from "decrement". The c and r come from "contents of" and "register". Thus car could be read "contents of address part of register"." In 1996, I emailed Professor McCarthy myself and got the following confirmation from him: > John Allen's account is correct, and the original implementation was > indeed on the 704. All this is included in my history of Lisp. > However, Herbert Stoyan makes some corrections. See my history Web > page > > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/. > If this is *not* enough "authoritative reference" for you, you are welcome to email Professor McCarthy yourself at to get your own confirmation... -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz) Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:25:26 GMT Organization: Columbia University Lines: 12 Message-ID: <96rdt6$36b$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <3A8FC6C5.68C3FB16@ev1.net> <96opk2$q4v$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu> <3A90CEA0.3CD3F98D@ev1.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu X-Trace: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu 982596326 3275 128.59.39.2 (19 Feb 2001 15:25:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: postmaster@columbia.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Feb 2001 15:25:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.seicom.net!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!news.tmr.net!news.vew-telnet.net!do.de.uu.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.online.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!panix!newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!fdc Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3138 In article <3A90CEA0.3CD3F98D@ev1.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: : ... : If this is *not* enough "authoritative reference" for you, you are : welcome to email Professor McCarthy yourself at : to get your own confirmation... : It's plenty authoritative. Like I said, I had not seen an authoritative reference (none of my LISP books, e.g. Guy Steele's, says a word about this). Now have I have seen one. Thanks. - Frank ###### From: "David W. Schroth" Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: 36 bits Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:31:17 -0600 Organization: Unisys Lines: 24 Message-ID: <3A916675.35853050@unisys.com> References: <96k947$7u1$1@watsol.cc.columbia.edu> <96mclg$2d6k$1@citadel.in.taronga.com> <853ddb901b.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: dws3.rsvl.unisys.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: si05.rsvl.unisys.com 982607476 91077 192.61.204.21 (19 Feb 2001 18:31:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@rsvl.unisys.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Feb 2001 18:31:16 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!netnews.com!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!eanews1.unisys.com!si05!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.sys.pdp10:3115 Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > > peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > The Unisys Clearpath (1100/2200 based) servers are still in > > production. > > Is the Clearpath architecture that of the old UNIVAC 1100 series? > 36-bit, word-addressed, one's complement integer representation? > With some extensions to the original architecture, yes. One can still run, unchanged, programs written on and for an 1108. Maximum memory supported is around 32GB. The architecture had paging added around 1990. And the OS has supported SMP for longer than I've been working on it. > -- > http://lars.nocrew.org/ Regards, David W. Schroth