INFO-VAX Sun, 02 Dec 2007 Volume 2007 : Issue 659 Contents: Re: 20+ year old encrypted source code Re: bot infected computers in the millions - robing businesses! Re: bot infected computers in the millions - robing businesses! Re: HP loses another large customer Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue Re: Singapore Server Rescue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:40:28 GMT From: "Jeffrey H. Coffield" Subject: Re: 20+ year old encrypted source code Message-ID: FrankS wrote: > Here are the first and last block of one file, generated using the > $DUMP command. This is supposed to be a file containing BASIC source > code. (Apologies for the formatting, but I don't think I can force it > into Courier or other fixed-pitch font.) > > VBN 1 > 7C15A6FE 9C7C833F 7B565089 ED3B182B +.;í.PV{?.|.؟؟.| 000000 > 314470E0 2CD98A9B 266C1F5E B999EEF0 ؟î.¹^.l&..Ù,àpD1 000010 > 4245A10D 0AB2831A 56034F61 AEF8FFA6 ؟.ø؟aO.V..²..¡EB 000020 > F0B0207C 4AB7B2C3 BD5D4169 CB135B3F ?[.ËiA]½Ã²·J| °؟ 000030 > 971ACA75 479A3D02 31B5BEC6 C2E099FE ؟.àÂÆ؟µ1.=.GuÊ.. 000040 > C1533315 5226309D 240FA8A5 4EB02BB8 ؟+°N¥¤.$.0&R.3SÁ 000050 > 0AFA9498 3C5AB0DE 69EF45C5 52465ADF ßZFRÅEïi؟°Z<..ú. 000060 > 8D2CDC32 E86AAA3C B2F0555C C600384A J8.Æ\U؟²<ªjè2Ü,. 000070 > EDC2470E 9A2BE04C 792F3EBB 31B6FD4F Oÿ¶1»>/yLà+..GÂí 000080 > B3D36372 6CB3601F EEAED045 489204AC ؟..HE؟؟î.`³lrcÓ³ 000090 > 7CEAE6D5 A2FC19C4 01A989B5 16A85125 %Q¤.µ.©.Ä.ü¢Õæê| 0000A0 > F821FB82 CC92ACE1 8DC1670F B97E4BC8 ÈK~¹.gÁ.á؟.Ì.û!ø 0000B0 > BB39B1C9 C982FE86 C6CD194A EF811789 ...ïJ.ÍÆ.؟.Éɱ9» 0000C0 > CC62F340 7FE97BFE FDB9EADD 0EA27B19 .{¢.Ÿê¹ÿ؟{é.@óbÌ 0000D0 > 9C693956 DB3A016C 84B2C0A0 97916B4E Nk...À².l.:ÛV9i. 0000E0 > A3E12F19 3B07A9AE 4AFD8282 EA6993B4 ؟.iê..ÿJ؟©.;./ᣠ0000F0 > F57959A7 C22BA96F E16916CC 7FD5998A ..Õ.Ì.iáo©+§Yyõ 000100 > C5BAC6DF 799A80B2 103B075B 8C17425C \B..[.;.²..yßƺŠ000110 > 56459D72 52B77F34 92E0F372 1042F377 wóB.róà.4.·Rr.EV 000120 > AA586FBB 7233334F 241381B7 070DDB6E nÛ..·..$O33r»oXª 000130 > 7A347688 DBEF4F4A 7C77B672 7A7714F3 ó.wzr¶w|JOïÛ.v4z 000140 > ECF4D692 89FBD079 F5B3E7B3 C8B7CBEE î˷ȳç³õy؟û..Öôì 000150 > D803AB24 C41D0A3C 0D3BEFB3 15C63331 13Æ.³ï;.<..Ä$«.Ø 000160 > 6825D8FF A112ACEF DFAB42CE 0F4939D5 Õ9I.ÎB«ßï؟.¡.Ø%h 000170 > B789A50C A222F7BA FFC27559 37C08E30 0.À7YuÂ.ºœ"¢.¥.· 000180 > BCAC2B96 0B09A785 8D8C82C2 31110D27 '..1Â....§...+؟¼ 000190 > 2BBEF8F4 2310BA95 6B5581C0 BD1DB891 .؟.½À.Uk.º.#ôø؟+ 0001A0 > 588E5913 E58FABE2 F2879C93 ADF11324 $.ñ؟...òâ«.å.Y.X 0001B0 > 3CBC3758 9B94F91B B04BA599 CD2D5BC3 Ã[-Í.¥K°.ù..X7¼< 0001C0 > 58B69E30 2536CAB9 5C306C97 20A600BD ½.؟ .l0\¹Ê6%0.¶X 0001D0 > CA1DB2D0 EE517B97 F52F3A1F 17F93CE0 à<ù..:/õ.{Qî؟².Ê 0001E0 > E5C5202E 5A612637 4A46E93C 77C9DC78 xÜÉw<éFJ7&aZ. Åå 0001F0 > > VBN last > 4B15ECB3 A0C20D43 87A90C4E 2B6750D6 ÖPg+N.©.C.Â.³ì.K 000000 > 00DF8D2D 08D01BE5 FB918CCB 7848AEAA ª؟HxË..ûå.؟.-.ß. 000010 > E1127A6A 3E865065 133FA008 37C8026B k.È7..?.eP.>jz.á 000020 > C6526133 D6C49F86 0B61155D ADA58679 y.¥؟].a...ÄÖ3aRÆ 000030 > C1875EEB 80E3992C A44E51B9 F2EA217D }!êò¹QN؟,.ã.ë^.Á 000040 > 8B2C7DA7 788795AA 6B4AB5AD 5310A67A z؟.S؟µJkª..x§},. 000050 > E78C4E92 1C1C5425 43BDAACF 943DEF5D ]ï=.Ϫ½C%T...N.ç 000060 > FDE8221D DB4837DB C0548F3B E939548C .T9é;.TÀÛ7HÛ."èÿ 000070 > 2B6020E5 DEB530F2 0210AEDE A132EE52 Rî2¡؟؟..ò0µ؟å `+ 000080 > BC7E60E0 595F6045 BC678C6A 01E9A6AF ؟؟é.j.g¼E`_Yà`~¼ 000090 > 905A3DD2 C250C8D1 EB5021B0 08409664 d.@.°!PëÑÈPÂÒ=Z. 0000A0 > 2CDD1D46 CCDFAA7C D5E158E8 F07C5E3C <^|؟èXáÕ|ªßÌF.Ÿ, 0000B0 > 373B8B5F 9093E2C6 9CA99ECF 1BF74368 hCœ.Ï.©.Æâ.._.;7 0000C0 > 2B1E03FA 94A315FB 6ADF3CAA 525D9D86 ..]Rª<ßjû.£.ú..+ 0000D0 > 6BDA75C5 30A2E7BF A709558D DD84CEA0 .Î.Ÿ.U.§¿ç¢0ÅuÚk 0000E0 > 5BB9BC2D BD927690 20154AD1 22CC07CC Ì.Ì"ÑJ. .v.½-¼¹[ 0000F0 > 1E0A91C9 EAAD35A5 B99E79B9 6120A3AD ؟£ a¹y.¹¥5؟êÉ... 000100 > 021F100F A43852A1 AE86761F 64B8BBD4 Ô»؟d.v.؟¡R8؟.... 000110 > 2A618013 FB9103F1 3F07F8E8 15E10364 d.á.èø.?ñ..û..a* 000120 > DC226877 026EB5FD 81372C2A B5C4CB1E .Ëĵ*,7.ÿµn.wh"Ü 000130 > BFF5489A 75F8B7B8 CF46A375 274B790B .yK'u£FÏ؟·øu.Hõ¿ 000140 > A0B50C6E 0F4FFA3D 31E14B52 DCC56CD8 ØlÅÜRKá1=úO.n.µ. 000150 > 00000000 00000000 281D2BBF E761B3A1 ¡³aç¿+.(........ 000160 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000170 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000180 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 000190 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0001A0 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0001B0 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0001C0 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0001D0 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0001E0 > 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 ................ 0001F0 Do you have any unencoded Basic files? Basic may or may not start with a line number but if the programmer(s) were consistent then the first line and the last line of a main program and the last line of a subprogram would probably be the same. Is there a similar start and end to the files? If so then it's probably some sort of substitution encoding. Also, do you have any idea of how large the encoded file is relative to an unencoded one. A zipped text file would be about 1/6th the size of the original. Jeff Coffield ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2007 01:15:54 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: bot infected computers in the millions - robing businesses! Message-ID: <5refaaF142aklU2@mid.individual.net> In article , "Tom Linden" writes: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:05:58 -0800, Richard B. Gilbert > wrote: > >> "Coito ergo sum!" - Randall Garrett >> > > gee! > Does that really mean what I think it does? :-) bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:36:19 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: bot infected computers in the millions - robing businesses! Message-ID: <47520C13.3060506@comcast.net> Bill Gunshannon wrote: > In article , > "Tom Linden" writes: > >>On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:05:58 -0800, Richard B. Gilbert >> wrote: >> >> >>>"Coito ergo sum!" - Randall Garrett >>> >> >>gee! >> > > > Does that really mean what I think it does? :-) > > bill > Yes it does. If I translated into the English crudity, we'd have to x-rate it! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2007 01:08:27 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: HP loses another large customer Message-ID: <5reesaF142aklU1@mid.individual.net> In article <5481e772-e9be-446f-804f-4d30e3c8ab78@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, yyyc186 writes: > On Nov 26, 7:36 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: >> That is utterly absurd. Businesses have been running their operations >> on Unix for decades. Until the advent of cheap PC's capable of running >> Unix it was frequently done with the entire business on one machine. >> Heck, Dennis Ritchie shared the machine he was developing Unix on with >> people doing real business applications!!! >> > > Point of order. When he did that the PDP was running RSX. Sorry, but no. Extracted from: The Evolution of the Unix Time-sharing System Dennis M. Ritchie Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, 07974 At the time of the placement of the order for the PDP-11, it had seemed natural, or perhaps expedient, to promise a system dedicated to word processing. During the protracted arrival of the hardware, the increasing usefulness of PDP-7 Unix made it appropriate to justify creating PDP-11 Unix as a development tool, to be used in writing the more special-purpose system. By the spring of 1971, it was generally agreed that no one had the slightest interest in scrapping Unix. Therefore, we transliterated the roff text formatter into PDP-11 assembler language, starting from the PDP-7 version that had been transliterated from McIlroy's BCPL version on Multics, which had in turn been inspired by J. Saltzer's runoff program on CTSS. In early summer, editor and formatter in hand, we felt prepared to fulfill our charter by offering to supply a text-processing service to the Patent department for preparing patent applications. At the time, they were evaluating a commercial system for this purpose; the main advantages we offered (besides the dubious one of taking part in an in-house experiment) were two in number: first, we supported Teletype's model 37 terminals, which, with an extended type-box, could print most of the math symbols they required; second, we quickly endowed roff with the ability to produce line-numbered pages, which the Patent Office required and which the other system could not handle. During the last half of 1971, we supported three typists from the Patent department, who spent the day busily typing, editing, and formatting patent applications, and meanwhile tried to carry on our own work. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: 2 Dec 2007 00:42:51 GMT From: billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) Subject: Re: NASA gets SGI 2048-core Itanium 2 supercomputer Message-ID: <5redcaF14d6hgU1@mid.individual.net> In article , david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes: > In article <5ragurF139h2rU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >>In article <2e0f3$474fc65d$cef8887a$6850@teksavvy.com>, >> JF Mezei writes: >>> Dr. Dweeb wrote: >>>> Can someone give me one, clear, unequivocal reason why manned space flight >>>> out of earth's orbit in any way justifies its cost relative to unmanned >>>> missions (which are massively less expensive) to other solar system bodies? >>> >>> >>> When Christopher Columbus set out, he was hoping to find a way to india >>> by going west. He didn't find what he was looking for. But he found >>> something totally unexpected. >> >>Hardly. Christopher Columbus was much closer to NASA than most people >>give him credit for. He knew there was no direct westerly path to India. > > In that case he either had inside information that America existed (there have > I believe been claims that he had seen a Map which might have been produced by > previous Viking explorers) or he was suicidal. If he had no knowledge of > America's existence and knew there was noway for him to reach India then what > was he trying to do ? The money he "conned" out of the Spanish wouldn't do > him much good in Davey Jone's Locker. > >>He conned Spain into financing a junket that could not possibly accomplish >>what he told them it would. Either that, or he was truly the biggest >>idiot the world has ever seen. The map was located in Turkey and supposedly there are records of his having had access to it. In any event, you basicly agreed with me completely. He was either an idiot or a con-man. Take your pick. What he was not was a great explorer. bill -- Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. University of Scranton | Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:56:51 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: Lee K. Gleason schrieb: > I don't want to sound too negative, but, even at this late a date, if > every UNIX machine ever made were to go unrescued into a Singapore > scrapyard, I'd be damned glad..... leaving your malicious mindset uncommented, you should at least consider the fact that nowadays a UNIX machine is not much different from a VMS machine, on the hardware side. In fact it has been this way since the introduction of the alpha. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:43:55 -0600 From: "Lee K. Gleason" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message news:fise8s$t9d$01$1@news.t-online.com... > Lee K. Gleason schrieb: > > > I don't want to sound too negative, but, even at this late a date, if > > every UNIX machine ever made were to go unrescued into a Singapore > > scrapyard, I'd be damned glad..... > > leaving your malicious mindset uncommented, you should at least > consider the fact that nowadays a UNIX machine is not much > different from a VMS machine, on the hardware side. > In fact it has been this way since the introduction of the alpha. Ummm...no doubt...and I suppose I approve of anything that is currently running VMS...but, truth to tell, I am not a fan of the architecture of the Alpha or the Itanium. With their non-orthogonal instructions sets, pitiful handful of simple instructions, and performance that is highly dependent on pipelines and out of order execution, I find none of the almost Bach like beauty that was the VAX running VMS. Except for the fact that VMS can run on them, they appeal to me no more than the horror that is the X86 architecture. Yes, they are orders of magnitude faster than VAXen were. but, given 20 more years of development, a VAX like CISC architecture would have advanced in performance as well - who knows what it would be like if it had continued? -- Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR Control-G Consultants lee.gleason@comcast.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:00:40 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <4751CB78.2050702@comcast.net> Lee K. Gleason wrote: > "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message > news:fise8s$t9d$01$1@news.t-online.com... > >>Lee K. Gleason schrieb: >> >> >>> I don't want to sound too negative, but, even at this late a date, if >>>every UNIX machine ever made were to go unrescued into a Singapore >>>scrapyard, I'd be damned glad..... >> >>leaving your malicious mindset uncommented, you should at least >>consider the fact that nowadays a UNIX machine is not much >>different from a VMS machine, on the hardware side. >>In fact it has been this way since the introduction of the alpha. > > > Ummm...no doubt...and I suppose I approve of anything that is currently > running VMS...but, truth to tell, I am not a fan of the architecture of the > Alpha or the Itanium. With their non-orthogonal instructions sets, pitiful > handful of simple instructions, and performance that is highly dependent on > pipelines and out of order execution, I find none of the almost Bach like > beauty that was the VAX running VMS. Except for the fact that VMS can run on > them, they appeal to me no more than the horror that is the X86 > architecture. > > Yes, they are orders of magnitude faster than VAXen were. but, given 20 > more years of development, a VAX like CISC architecture would have advanced > in performance as well - who knows what it would be like if it had > continued? > I believe that they are orders of magnitude faster BECAUSE they run a RISC instruction set. Yes, the VAX was a dream to program but it was a nightmare in silicon! Given ten more years of development, it would still have been slower than the Alphas built at the end of the same ten years! If you use a high level language, the compiler will almost certainly generate better code than you could write yourself and with a lot less effort on your part. I have NEVER worried about pipelines and out of order execution on the Alpha because I never tried to write anything in Macro for that architecture. If you want a VAX, I have a couple that I'm not using and I might be persuaded to offer one on e-Bay. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:43:43 GMT From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: In article , "Lee K. Gleason" writes: > > > >"Michael Kraemer" wrote in message >news:fise8s$t9d$01$1@news.t-online.com... >> Lee K. Gleason schrieb: >> >> > I don't want to sound too negative, but, even at this late a date, if >> > every UNIX machine ever made were to go unrescued into a Singapore >> > scrapyard, I'd be damned glad..... >> >> leaving your malicious mindset uncommented, you should at least >> consider the fact that nowadays a UNIX machine is not much >> different from a VMS machine, on the hardware side. >> In fact it has been this way since the introduction of the alpha. > > Ummm...no doubt...and I suppose I approve of anything that is currently >running VMS...but, truth to tell, I am not a fan of the architecture of the >Alpha or the Itanium. With their non-orthogonal instructions sets, pitiful >handful of simple instructions, and performance that is highly dependent on >pipelines and out of order execution, I find none of the almost Bach like >beauty that was the VAX running VMS. Except for the fact that VMS can run on >them, they appeal to me no more than the horror that is the X86 >architecture. I happen to like the Alpha. Alpha is/was a thing of beauty juxtaposed next to the EPIC 'squonk' VMS runs on today. > Yes, they are orders of magnitude faster than VAXen were. but, given 20 >more years of development, a VAX like CISC architecture would have advanced >in performance as well - who knows what it would be like if it had >continued? Who knows. :( -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" http://tmesis.com/drat.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:49:53 -0800 (PST) From: Bob Gezelter Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <6fbb0102-674b-4678-8f54-cda6485c2429@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 1, 3:43 pm, "Lee K. Gleason" wrote: > "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message > > news:fise8s$t9d$01$1@news.t-online.com... > > > Lee K. Gleason schrieb: > > > > I don't want to sound too negative, but, even at this late a date, if > > > every UNIX machine ever made were to go unrescued into a Singapore > > > scrapyard, I'd be damned glad..... > > > leaving your malicious mindset uncommented, you should at least > > consider the fact that nowadays a UNIX machine is not much > > different from a VMS machine, on the hardware side. > > In fact it has been this way since the introduction of the alpha. > > Ummm...no doubt...and I suppose I approve of anything that is currently > running VMS...but, truth to tell, I am not a fan of the architecture of the > Alpha or the Itanium. With their non-orthogonal instructions sets, pitiful > handful of simple instructions, and performance that is highly dependent on > pipelines and out of order execution, I find none of the almost Bach like > beauty that was the VAX running VMS. Except for the fact that VMS can run on > them, they appeal to me no more than the horror that is the X86 > architecture. > > Yes, they are orders of magnitude faster than VAXen were. but, given 20 > more years of development, a VAX like CISC architecture would have advanced > in performance as well - who knows what it would be like if it had > continued? > > -- > > Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR > Control-G Consultants > lee.glea...@comcast.net Lee, With all due respect, I must agree with Richard that while the VAX was on the surface a coder's dream, the complexity of producing high performance in the minimum amount of silicon was a great challenge. Indeed, I have often commented that it is really not a question of "beauty". Instruction sets are inherently a compromise in the real world. When main memory was expensive and had limited speed, CISC instruction sets, which function in some ways as a form of compression, were an advantageous tradeoff; witness the fact that the VAX and IBM/360 were both CISC architectures. This pendulum has since swung in the opposite direction, giving us both RISC, and in turn EPIC, which strive to place ever more emphasis on code generation, and simplify the hardware in favor of higher memory speeds and cache sizes. Since almost all code is generated by programs at this point, it is not that much harder to generate this code than the earlier CISC code. In fact, in many ways, it is easier. Optimizing performance has always been a challenge, and it remains so. - Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:53:50 +0100 From: Michael Kraemer Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: Lee K. Gleason schrieb: > > Ummm...no doubt...and I suppose I approve of anything that is currently > running VMS...but, truth to tell, I am not a fan of the architecture of the > Alpha or the Itanium. With their non-orthogonal instructions sets, pitiful > handful of simple instructions, and performance that is highly dependent on > pipelines and out of order execution, I find none of the almost Bach like > beauty that was the VAX running VMS. Except for the fact that VMS can run on > them, they appeal to me no more than the horror that is the X86 > architecture. > > Yes, they are orders of magnitude faster than VAXen were. but, given 20 > more years of development, a VAX like CISC architecture would have advanced > in performance as well - who knows what it would be like if it had > continued? If DEC had followed that path they would have gone out of business even earlier. In the late 1980s / early 90s people left the VAX in favour of RISC in droves. What kept DEC at least partially competitive was their excursion into Mips based systems and later the alpha (and even that didn't pan out in the end). Cranking up clock speed for an extreme CISC architecture like the VAX would have been very costly and certainly they didn't have 20 years time to achieve it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:28:20 -0600 From: "Lee K. Gleason" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <8radnc9UBbwMQszanZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in message news:4751CB78.2050702@comcast.net... > > > If you use a high level language, the compiler will almost certainly > generate better code than you could write yourself and with a lot less > effort on your part. I have NEVER worried about pipelines and out of > order execution on the Alpha because I never tried to write anything in > Macro for that architecture. > Again, no doubt...but if you only worked in a high level language on VAXen, you missed the silent symphony that went on behind the scenes. And there are plenty of us who did the vast majority of their work in Macro-32...or, as it happened in my case, toward the end of the VAX days, my most often used programming language was Patch...and due to the elegant design of the VAX architecture, that was still a joy, instead of the ugly chore it is on other architectures I've had to work with since. Okay, so as others have pointed out, VAX CISC is apparently a dead issue, performance wise. I don't know enough about physical architecture to dispute that....But, I wasn't in that much of a hurry... > If you want a VAX, I have a couple that I'm not using and I might be > persuaded to offer one on e-Bay. > Ah, no thanks, it's to laugh...VAXen, I have many. Too many, my wife says. She's tired of having to squeeze past the stack of 3100s I rescued, and some of the larger bits of DEC gear I've collected I can only see across the room - can't reach 'em anymore., due to the intervening boxes. These days, it's like it says in Ecclesiastes "A time to cast away stones", or bulky computers in my case. I've been trimming my DEC collection of late - nowadays, I'm gathering PDP-11 curiousities more than anything else. Still looking for a PRO Series DECNA (ethernet adapter), IAS distribution tapes (my all time favorite OS), or a working PDT-11/130 (always wanted to run the variant of RT-11 it used), if anyone has any of thise kicking around... -- Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR Control-G Consultants lee.gleason@comcast.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:30:04 -0800 (PST) From: "winston19842005@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: On Dec 1, 5:28 pm, "Lee K. Gleason" wrote: > "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in messagenews:4751CB78.2050702@comcast.net... > > > > > If you use a high level language, the compiler will almost certainly > > generate better code than you could write yourself and with a lot less > > effort on your part. I have NEVER worried about pipelines and out of > > order execution on the Alpha because I never tried to write anything in > > Macro for that architecture. > > Again, no doubt...but if you only worked in a high level language on VAXen, > you missed the silent symphony that went on behind the scenes. And there are > plenty of us who did the vast majority of their work in Macro-32...or, as it > happened in my case, toward the end of the VAX days, my most often used > programming language was Patch...and due to the elegant design of the VAX > architecture, that was still a joy, instead of the ugly chore it is on other > architectures I've had to work with since. > > Okay, so as others have pointed out, VAX CISC is apparently a dead issue, > performance wise. I don't know enough about physical architecture to dispute > that....But, I wasn't in that much of a hurry... > > > If you want a VAX, I have a couple that I'm not using and I might be > > persuaded to offer one on e-Bay. > > Ah, no thanks, it's to laugh...VAXen, I have many. Too many, my wife says. > She's tired of having to squeeze past the stack of 3100s I rescued, and some > of the larger bits of DEC gear I've collected I can only see across the > room - can't reach 'em anymore., due to the intervening boxes. These days, > it's like it says in Ecclesiastes "A time to cast away stones", or bulky > computers in my case. I've been trimming my DEC collection of late - > nowadays, I'm gathering PDP-11 curiousities more than anything else. Still > looking for a PRO Series DECNA (ethernet adapter), IAS distribution tapes > (my all time favorite OS), or a working PDT-11/130 (always wanted to run > the variant of RT-11 it used), if anyone has any of thise kicking around... Ooh, PDP-11... I wonder what the history of DEC would've been if they'd passed up on VAXen and stuck with the PDP-11... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:18:54 -0800 (PST) From: "winston19842005@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <7ecbdef4-709d-4540-806f-d8b670f96d7f@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> On Dec 1, 6:53 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > winston19842...@yahoo.com wrote: ... > > > Ooh, PDP-11... I wonder what the history of DEC would've been if > > they'd passed up on VAXen and stuck with the PDP-11... > > If they had survived at all, they would be a very small company serving > a very small niche market. Sixteen bit machines are an interesting > curiousity these days, sixty-four bits is all the rage! > > I worked, briefly, with a Micro 11/23. It was an interesting experience > but not very productive. The disk was barely big enough to install > RSX11M. Bigger disks were not available from Digital! We bought one > from Emulex. The memory was insufficient for any serious work unless we > used overlays. Etc, etc. The boss finally bought a VAX 8200 that we > found ever so much more satisfactory. Only if you assume the PDP-11 was the beginning and the ending of that line. I wouldn't compare a Vax 11/785 to a 7000 series, for example. I started at a company that had 11/785's, 8600's, and PDP-11/44's 11/70's. I ended (meaning I don't care for my c.v. since) at a company that used 7000 series Vaxen (which were pretty damn fast compared to our one 6000 series) and Alpha on the backend of all the other clusters (Vaxen front-end, I think 7000's...) So, the question becomes, starting with the PDP-11, if they'd stayed with it, expanded it, what would have come out of it? And what would DEC look like today, perhaps never being bought out by Compaq and HP (my tenure with that last position was during both transitions). Heck, I actually worked at Digital's offices in Alpharetta, GA... that was cool, albeit as a temp... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:39:33 GMT From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: On 2007-12-02, winston19842005@yahoo.com wrote: > So, the question becomes, starting with the PDP-11, if they'd stayed > with it, expanded it, what would have come out of it? Ah, well, let's see... the address space was kinda cramped, so you'd need some sort of virtual address extension... -- roger ivie rivie@ridgenet.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:53:10 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <4751F3E6.3030308@comcast.net> winston19842005@yahoo.com wrote: > On Dec 1, 5:28 pm, "Lee K. Gleason" wrote: > >>"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote in messagenews:4751CB78.2050702@comcast.net... >> >> >> >> >>>If you use a high level language, the compiler will almost certainly >>>generate better code than you could write yourself and with a lot less >>>effort on your part. I have NEVER worried about pipelines and out of >>>order execution on the Alpha because I never tried to write anything in >>>Macro for that architecture. >> >>Again, no doubt...but if you only worked in a high level language on VAXen, >>you missed the silent symphony that went on behind the scenes. And there are >>plenty of us who did the vast majority of their work in Macro-32...or, as it >>happened in my case, toward the end of the VAX days, my most often used >>programming language was Patch...and due to the elegant design of the VAX >>architecture, that was still a joy, instead of the ugly chore it is on other >>architectures I've had to work with since. >> >> Okay, so as others have pointed out, VAX CISC is apparently a dead issue, >>performance wise. I don't know enough about physical architecture to dispute >>that....But, I wasn't in that much of a hurry... >> >> >>>If you want a VAX, I have a couple that I'm not using and I might be >>>persuaded to offer one on e-Bay. >> >> Ah, no thanks, it's to laugh...VAXen, I have many. Too many, my wife says. >>She's tired of having to squeeze past the stack of 3100s I rescued, and some >>of the larger bits of DEC gear I've collected I can only see across the >>room - can't reach 'em anymore., due to the intervening boxes. These days, >>it's like it says in Ecclesiastes "A time to cast away stones", or bulky >>computers in my case. I've been trimming my DEC collection of late - >>nowadays, I'm gathering PDP-11 curiousities more than anything else. Still >>looking for a PRO Series DECNA (ethernet adapter), IAS distribution tapes >>(my all time favorite OS), or a working PDT-11/130 (always wanted to run >>the variant of RT-11 it used), if anyone has any of thise kicking around... > > > Ooh, PDP-11... I wonder what the history of DEC would've been if > they'd passed up on VAXen and stuck with the PDP-11... If they had survived at all, they would be a very small company serving a very small niche market. Sixteen bit machines are an interesting curiousity these days, sixty-four bits is all the rage! I worked, briefly, with a Micro 11/23. It was an interesting experience but not very productive. The disk was barely big enough to install RSX11M. Bigger disks were not available from Digital! We bought one from Emulex. The memory was insufficient for any serious work unless we used overlays. Etc, etc. The boss finally bought a VAX 8200 that we found ever so much more satisfactory. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 17:18:25 -0800 (PST) From: "winston19842005@yahoo.com" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <979e840c-0388-4448-89d1-2001e91ab5de@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> On Dec 1, 7:39 pm, Roger Ivie wrote: > On 2007-12-02, winston19842...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > So, the question becomes, starting with the PDP-11, if they'd stayed > > with it, expanded it, what would have come out of it? > > Ah, well, let's see... the address space was kinda cramped, so you'd > need some sort of virtual address extension... You are so funny! The Vax was nothing like a PDP-11 with a "virtual address extension". Maybe it should've been! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:31:42 -0500 From: "Richard B. Gilbert" Subject: Re: Singapore Server Rescue Message-ID: <47520AFE.8000700@comcast.net> Roger Ivie wrote: > On 2007-12-02, winston19842005@yahoo.com wrote: > >>So, the question becomes, starting with the PDP-11, if they'd stayed >>with it, expanded it, what would have come out of it? > > > Ah, well, let's see... the address space was kinda cramped, so you'd > need some sort of virtual address extension... ------------------------------ End of INFO-VAX 2007.659 ************************