Talk:PDP-10 - Revision history

Jnc: /* Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? */ OK, I will set it up

2024-01-10T00:15:22Z

‎Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category?: OK, I will set it up

Larsbrinkhoff: /* Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? */ Let's categorize.

2024-01-09T06:11:37Z

‎Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category?: Let's categorize.

Jnc: /* Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? */ I think you are right about Tymshare; what about the category?

2024-01-08T20:35:00Z

‎Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category?: I think you are right about Tymshare; what about the category?

Larsbrinkhoff: /* Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? */ Tymshare?

2024-01-08T18:01:44Z

‎Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category?: Tymshare?

Jnc: /* Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? */ new section

2024-01-08T17:37:19Z

‎Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category?: new section

Larsbrinkhoff: /* KL20? */ KL20 = KS10!

2022-11-03T06:22:55Z

‎KL20?: KL20 = KS10!

Jnc: /* KL20? */ It is synchronous

2022-11-02T20:50:03Z

‎KL20?: It is synchronous

Jnc: /* KL20? */ Hmm, maybe it is the KS10

2022-10-27T12:27:28Z

‎KL20?: Hmm, maybe it is the KS10

Larsbrinkhoff: /* KL20? */ Theory: KS10.

2022-10-27T11:32:13Z

‎KL20?: Theory: KS10.

Jnc: /* KL20? */ new section

2022-10-27T10:24:58Z

‎KL20?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 10 January 2024
Line 57:		Line 57:

	::: Right, they started as an SDS shop and Ann Hardy turned the Berkeley Timesharing System into a hardened production system called TYMCOM. I think when Tymshare bought CCC in Seattle, they got their PDP-10s and programmers (some SAIL alumni), which turned them onto the 36-bit path. Tymshare apparently also had IBM 370 machines. I read "The Tym Before..." but I don't recall all details. They also brought in Engelbart's ARC, see e.g. [[August]]. Anyway, many PDP-10s. Like CompuServe licensed to build their own Systems Concepts machines, Tymshare licensed from Foonly and made their own versions, e.g. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sri/arc/augment_engine/26KL_Brochure_Oct83.pdf		::: Right, they started as an SDS shop and Ann Hardy turned the Berkeley Timesharing System into a hardened production system called TYMCOM. I think when Tymshare bought CCC in Seattle, they got their PDP-10s and programmers (some SAIL alumni), which turned them onto the 36-bit path. Tymshare apparently also had IBM 370 machines. I read "The Tym Before..." but I don't recall all details. They also brought in Engelbart's ARC, see e.g. [[August]]. Anyway, many PDP-10s. Like CompuServe licensed to build their own Systems Concepts machines, Tymshare licensed from Foonly and made their own versions, e.g. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sri/arc/augment_engine/26KL_Brochure_Oct83.pdf
		+	::: I wouldn't mind a category. It would be handy if you want to search around for some PDP-10 shop. I guess we might then also need similar for PDP-11, VAX, IBM, CDC, etc. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 07:11, 9 January 2024 (CET)

−	::: I ~~wouldn~~'t mind a ~~category~~. It would be ~~handy if you want to search around for some~~ PDP-10 ~~shop.~~ I ~~guess we might then also need similar for PDP-11~~, ~~VAX~~, ~~IBM~~, ~~CDC, etc~~. [[User:~~Larsbrinkhoff~~\|~~Larsbrinkhoff~~]] ([[User talk:~~Larsbrinkhoff~~\|talk]]) 07:11, 9 January 2024 (CET)	+	:::: Argh, I'd never heard of the Gregory book; you should have added it to the [[Tymshare]] article! Never mind; I have done so now (and ordered a copy for myself).
		+	:::: The thought of having a [[:Category: VAX Users]] freaked me out so badly (it would be like having a [[:Category: IBM 360 Users]] - ''everybody'' would be in it) I almost regretted suggesting [[:Category: PDP-10 Users]]! I think I have recovered, though, and it might be a useful tool, so I will set it up. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 01:15, 10 January 2024 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:11, 9 January 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:

	:: What about [[:Category: PDP-10 Users]]? Is that worth having? [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 21:34, 8 January 2024 (CET)		:: What about [[:Category: PDP-10 Users]]? Is that worth having? [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 21:34, 8 January 2024 (CET)
		+
		+	::: Right, they started as an SDS shop and Ann Hardy turned the Berkeley Timesharing System into a hardened production system called TYMCOM. I think when Tymshare bought CCC in Seattle, they got their PDP-10s and programmers (some SAIL alumni), which turned them onto the 36-bit path. Tymshare apparently also had IBM 370 machines. I read "The Tym Before..." but I don't recall all details. They also brought in Engelbart's ARC, see e.g. [[August]]. Anyway, many PDP-10s. Like CompuServe licensed to build their own Systems Concepts machines, Tymshare licensed from Foonly and made their own versions, e.g. http://bitsavers.org/pdf/sri/arc/augment_engine/26KL_Brochure_Oct83.pdf
		+
		+	::: I wouldn't mind a category. It would be handy if you want to search around for some PDP-10 shop. I guess we might then also need similar for PDP-11, VAX, IBM, CDC, etc. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 07:11, 9 January 2024 (CET)

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ::: I think we can conclude that the "KL20" indeed refers to the KS10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff|talk]]) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (CET)
-== Add a 'PDP-10  Users' category? ==
+== Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? ==
 I thought of this while doing [[Compuserve]]; they had a mid-sized ''fleet'' of PDP-10's. I have this vague memory that another service bureau had a lot of them as well - or am I forgetting that it was Compuserve I'm thinking of? And of course there are also BBN, ISI, SRI, SAIL, MITAI, LCS etc . . . who else?
 : I think Tymshare fits the bill. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 8 January 2024
Line 49:		Line 49:

	I thought of this while doing [[Compuserve]]; they had a mid-sized ''fleet'' of PDP-10's. I have this vague memory that another service bureau had a lot of them as well - or am I forgetting that it was Compuserve I'm thinking of? And of course there are also BBN, ISI, SRI, SAIL, MITAI, LCS etc . . . who else?		I thought of this while doing [[Compuserve]]; they had a mid-sized ''fleet'' of PDP-10's. I have this vague memory that another service bureau had a lot of them as well - or am I forgetting that it was Compuserve I'm thinking of? And of course there are also BBN, ISI, SRI, SAIL, MITAI, LCS etc . . . who else?
		+
		+	: I think Tymshare fits the bill. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 8 January 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:

	::: I think we can conclude that the "KL20" indeed refers to the KS10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (CET)		::: I think we can conclude that the "KL20" indeed refers to the KS10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (CET)
		+
		+	== Add a 'PDP-10 Users' category? ==
		+
		+	I thought of this while doing [[Compuserve]]; they had a mid-sized ''fleet'' of PDP-10's. I have this vague memory that another service bureau had a lot of them as well - or am I forgetting that it was Compuserve I'm thinking of? And of course there are also BBN, ISI, SRI, SAIL, MITAI, LCS etc . . . who else?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:22, 3 November 2022
Line 43:		Line 43:

	:: It is. (Actually, it's the main system bus; but that's a detail. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 21:49, 2 November 2022 (CET)		:: It is. (Actually, it's the main system bus; but that's a detail. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 21:49, 2 November 2022 (CET)
		+
		+	::: I think we can conclude that the "KL20" indeed refers to the KS10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 2 November 2022
Line 41:		Line 41:
	:: So maybe it really is the KS10; that certainly is cost-reduced over the KL10.		:: So maybe it really is the KS10; that certainly is cost-reduced over the KL10.
	:: If I get a chance, I'll read the KS10 tech manual and see if its main memory bus is synchronous. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 14:27, 27 October 2022 (CEST)		:: If I get a chance, I'll read the KS10 tech manual and see if its main memory bus is synchronous. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 14:27, 27 October 2022 (CEST)
		+
		+	:: It is. (Actually, it's the main system bus; but that's a detail. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 21:49, 2 November 2022 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 27 October 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:

	: I checked the paper, and the most likely explanation I can see is that what it refers to as "KL20" really is the KS10. The paper is from 1978, just about when the KS10 went to market, so presumably the name may have been in flux. Under this theory, the phrase "integrating the ... PDP-11 interfaces onto a single ... bus" would refer to the KS10 having Unibus rather than the legacy PDP-10 buses. Note that it does not really say the KL20 has a PDP-11, just the interfaces of a PDP-11. No, the Massbus isn't integrated, so that's a point against. Note also the list of five implementations: "PDP-6, KA-10, KI-10, KL10 and KL20", where the KL20 sits exactly where you would expect the KS10. It certainly fits the theory that the KS10 is massively cost-reduced over a KL10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 13:31, 27 October 2022 (CEST)		: I checked the paper, and the most likely explanation I can see is that what it refers to as "KL20" really is the KS10. The paper is from 1978, just about when the KS10 went to market, so presumably the name may have been in flux. Under this theory, the phrase "integrating the ... PDP-11 interfaces onto a single ... bus" would refer to the KS10 having Unibus rather than the legacy PDP-10 buses. Note that it does not really say the KL20 has a PDP-11, just the interfaces of a PDP-11. No, the Massbus isn't integrated, so that's a point against. Note also the list of five implementations: "PDP-6, KA-10, KI-10, KL10 and KL20", where the KL20 sits exactly where you would expect the KS10. It certainly fits the theory that the KS10 is massively cost-reduced over a KL10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 13:31, 27 October 2022 (CEST)
		+
		+	:: Very good point that it doesn't say 'PDP-11s', but "PDP-11 interfaces". And maybe the "integrating the Massbus controllers and PDP-11 interfaces" refers to the fact that they all talk to the KS10 memory through a UNIBUS interfaced to the memory.
		+	:: So maybe it really is the KS10; that certainly is cost-reduced over the KL10.
		+	:: If I get a chance, I'll read the KS10 tech manual and see if its main memory bus is synchronous. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 14:27, 27 October 2022 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 27 October 2022
Line 35:		Line 35:

	The 'KL20' can't be the KS10, as that has no PDP-11's, and its Massbus controllers are on a UNIBUS. (Although the main memory bus might be synchronous, I don't recall the details). Equally, it probably can't be the later TOPS-20 KL10 machines (such as the 2060); although they look quite different, and have only an internal memory bus, other than that they are internally basically identical to the earliest KL10's, and also can't really be described as a "cost-reduced" machine. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 12:24, 27 October 2022 (CEST)		The 'KL20' can't be the KS10, as that has no PDP-11's, and its Massbus controllers are on a UNIBUS. (Although the main memory bus might be synchronous, I don't recall the details). Equally, it probably can't be the later TOPS-20 KL10 machines (such as the 2060); although they look quite different, and have only an internal memory bus, other than that they are internally basically identical to the earliest KL10's, and also can't really be described as a "cost-reduced" machine. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 12:24, 27 October 2022 (CEST)
		+
		+	: I checked the paper, and the most likely explanation I can see is that what it refers to as "KL20" really is the KS10. The paper is from 1978, just about when the KS10 went to market, so presumably the name may have been in flux. Under this theory, the phrase "integrating the ... PDP-11 interfaces onto a single ... bus" would refer to the KS10 having Unibus rather than the legacy PDP-10 buses. Note that it does not really say the KL20 has a PDP-11, just the interfaces of a PDP-11. No, the Massbus isn't integrated, so that's a point against. Note also the list of five implementations: "PDP-6, KA-10, KI-10, KL10 and KL20", where the KL20 sits exactly where you would expect the KS10. It certainly fits the theory that the KS10 is massively cost-reduced over a KL10. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 13:31, 27 October 2022 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 27 October 2022
Line 25:		Line 25:

	::: Well ok, if you think they are important, sure why not? Now that I have a READ IN switch to play with, I think it would be interesting to describe hardware read-in in detail. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 13:41, 21 October 2022 (CEST)		::: Well ok, if you think they are important, sure why not? Now that I have a READ IN switch to play with, I think it would be interesting to describe hardware read-in in detail. [[User:Larsbrinkhoff\|Larsbrinkhoff]] ([[User talk:Larsbrinkhoff\|talk]]) 13:41, 21 October 2022 (CEST)
		+
		+	== KL20? ==
		+
		+	The CACM paper "The Evolution of the DECsystem 10" contains the following interesting sentence:
		+
		+	: The cost-reduced KL20 evolved by integrating the Massbus controllers and PDP-11 interfaces onto a single high-speed, synchronous bus.
		+
		+	but I've never heard of a KL20, or any system that could be described that way (below). OTOH, two of the authors (C. G. Bell, A. Kotok, T. N. Hastings, and R. Hill) were in a position to know authoritatively. Perhaps one of the other two added this erroneously, and the two main authors didn't catch it? Or perhaps this is a reference to a later-cancelled machine?
		+
		+	The 'KL20' can't be the KS10, as that has no PDP-11's, and its Massbus controllers are on a UNIBUS. (Although the main memory bus might be synchronous, I don't recall the details). Equally, it probably can't be the later TOPS-20 KL10 machines (such as the 2060); although they look quite different, and have only an internal memory bus, other than that they are internally basically identical to the earliest KL10's, and also can't really be described as a "cost-reduced" machine. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 12:24, 27 October 2022 (CEST)