Talk:Incompatible Timesharing System

From Computer History Wiki
Revision as of 17:20, 13 April 2021 by Jnc (talk | contribs) (MC configuration: Tape drive probably a TU40, and it prbably had its own DF10; DEC memory may have been MH10's)
Jump to: navigation, search


I'm pretty sure that by the time I got to Tech Sq (in 1977), the PDP-6 was no longer in use. It wasn't physically removed until some years later, though. Jnc (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2017 (CET)

Right. I have collected all information I have found on each of the classical ITS machines here: [1], but I figured it was too much for this page. User:Larsbrinkhoff 18:14, 14 December 2017 (CET)


Comment on "after Multics was done". I believe both Multics and ITS were developed around the same time. User:Larsbrinkhoff 11:11, 15 December 2017 (CET)

Well, the planning for Multics I believe started first; 1964 or so (the timeline on the Multicians site doesn't give the exact date, but they selected GE in 1964, so it was certainly underway then). The first boot of a Multics came in December '67. As for ITS, the AI Lab history, "A Marriage of Convenience: The Founding of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory" implies that it was started, and finished, sometime in '67, on a PDP-6 already owned by the Lab, but no specific date is given. Jnc (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2017 (CET)
It seems right that Multics implementation started well before that of ITS. But they become operational at about the same time; actually ITS was first. Project MAC Progress Report IV has this to say: "A time-sharing system for the PDP-6 went into operation in July 1967." User:Larsbrinkhoff 15:31, 15 December 2017 (CET)
Good find! I'll add that to the article. Jnc (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2017 (CET)


I found this posted to alt.sys.pdp10: "The [TENEX] exception model for system calls was as ugly as their hardware, instead of adopting an ITS-like PCLSR approach - another step backwards from the 940 system, which in essence had simplified PCLSR." Larsbrinkhoff (talk)

MC configuration

So I'm trying to work out MC's configuration. (I know, I know, I could look in CONFIG >, but I'm lazy.) Here's what I remember/can work out:

  • 8 MF10's
  • (later) An Ampex? 'external' memory box was added
  • 3 RP04's
  • So, therefore, some sort of MASSBUS controller, but since it was a KL10 Model A, not an RH20; probably an RH10
  • That would have needed a DF10
  • A TM10 of some sort; dunno if that had a separate DF10, or shared the one the RH10 used
  • Some sort of high-end DEC magtape drive
  • A DL10
  • Later, first one, and then a second Trident drive, attached to the DL10 PDP-11
  • The front-end -11 had a bunch of serial lines, probably a DH11
  • CHAOSNET eventually on the DL10 PDP-11
  • I'm not sure why they initially acquired the DL10+PDP-11 (i.e. what it did to begin with); probably more serial lines

Well, that's a start. Jnc (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2021 (CEST)

According to SYSDOC;POOR MC, the tape drive was a TU40 or TU41 (probably TU40). Also, it seems from things said there that it did have its own DF10. Jnc (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (CEST)
I have tried to summarize changes to CONFIG > for all machines over the years:
Most of what you wrote seems spot on. I can see there was a third T-300. Yes, initially the DL10 front end was just a normal DC76 handling terminals. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
Where is CONFIG > now? I looked here: here but it doesn't seem to be there. Jnc (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
Many (all maybe?) versions are here: Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
Ah, thanks.
It looks like it doesn't say what kind of tape drive it was; it was a TU77, or something. If we ever get good photos of the machine, we should be able to tell (also, if there was a second DF10).
I wonder why they did the whole DL10 thing just to get a few more serial lines. Maybe the DTE20 one was maxed out?
I see from the IOELEV/KLDCP source that the DTE20 -11 had a TU56; I vaguely remember that. Jnc (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
I only know of one photo of MC when at MIT, the one on the ITS page, but there's no tape drive. I saw MC in LCM storage, but I don't remember any peripherals. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
Here is the layout of the machine, as best as I can remember it. The tape drive would not have been in the field of that image.
A couple of notes. I'm sure of the CPU, MF10's, Fabridrek Ampex, RP04's, Tape, Trident and DL10 locations. The RH10/DF10 were I think in that corner, but I'm not positive, and I don't remember which order. Ditto for the order of the DL10 and its PDP-11 (which I think was an 11/40). I think the TM10 was there somewhere, but I'm kind of guessing; I don't think it was next to the drive, but it might have been. Jnc (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
Ah, looking at that image, it's taken from just in front of the Ampex; you can see a corner of it. The RH10/DF10 are indeed in that corner; you can also see a bit of the RP04's behind them. The tape drive would be behind the camera; too bad we don't have a shot in that direction. Jnc (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2021 (CEST)

Very interesting, thanks! I suggest copying your comment to File_talk:Mit-mc.jpg. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2021 (CEST)

Probably Talk:Incompatible Timesharing System would be better. I'll move the whole thread there. Jnc (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2021 (CEST)
Done. Jnc (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2021 (CEST)

I wish we could confirm what the new memory was; it was probably an Ampex ARM10, since other KL10's are reported to have had those (e.g. Guy S's machine); maybe some mail log file, or Moon's ITS changes log file, will mention it. Ah, there's an image of one the CHM has/had here (inside here), and that is indeed what was added to MC. (Well, I don't remember the inside well, but the outside matches.)

Every so often a module (CHM image here; they were huge, physically) would fail, and we'd have to take the machine out of 4-way interleave; same thing when an MF10 failed. Jnc (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2021 (CEST)

Also, in SYSDOC;POOR MC, MOON (who knew more about MC than any other human) refers to "MH10 C". So maybe my memory flaked (again, sigh) and they're actually MH10's, not MF10's. Jnc (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2021 (CEST)
There is a lot about failing Ampex ARM10 modules in Moon's files, so I would assume that confirms your recollection. I don't have any good, clear information about which ITS machines had what kind of memory, but Ampex is generally mentioned a lot. Given a lot of time, one could probably dig out an uneven coverage of part numbers, serial numbers, prices, dates, etc. Larsbrinkhoff (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2021 (CEST)