On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> [...]
>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>> game cartridges.
>>>
>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>
> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)

interesting

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> [...]
>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>> game cartridges.
>>>
>>
>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>
> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>
> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>

I thought the C64 has Basic.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Frank Slootweg wrote
>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>
>> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>
>> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>
>
> I thought the C64 has Basic.

That’s just one of the languages you were free to use.

On 1/10/2021 8:56 am, Max wrote:
> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>> programming
>>> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
>>> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>
>>    Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
>> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
>> The programming was done in some superset of C.
>>
>>    I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
>> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
>> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
>> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
>> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
>> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
>>
>
> I thought the C64 has Basic.

yes both the Vic20 and C64 retail versions for domestic use were
programmable in basic. don't know what the ones Frank was using were, or
how they could be programmed in C.

--
"A mans got to know his limitations"
- clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

On 30/09/2021 4:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 9:59 am, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 30/09/2021 10:41 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2021 3:54 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:12 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Clocky wrote
>>>>>>>> On 24/09/2021 8:04 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 9:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/09/2021 2:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sir Clive Sinclair, the visionary pioneer of computing for
>>>>>>>>>>> the British masses and creator of the legendary ZX Spectrum,
>>>>>>>>>>> has died at the age of 81. His legacy is the British tech
>>>>>>>>>>> scene as we know it today.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Born in leafy Richmond, Surrey, at the height of the Battle
>>>>>>>>>>> of Britain in July 1940, he came to epitomise the early era
>>>>>>>>>>> of British computing through his company Sinclair Research
>>>>>>>>>>> Ltd and its iconic Spectrum product line.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fondly remembered by a generation of modern-day British tech
>>>>>>>>>>> and computing leaders, the ZX Spectrum was named for its
>>>>>>>>>>> colour output, a rarity in the mostly monochrome days of 1982.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Commodore 64 was released in 1982 and shat on the ZX
>>>>>>>>>> Spectrum from a very great height in every possible way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What was better about it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Better graphics, vastly better sound, a real keyboard, better
>>>>>>>> storage (disk drives) options, expansion options and hardware
>>>>>>>> and software support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only thing "better" about the ZX is cost, but not really as
>>>>>>>> you only got some half baked toy instead of a real computer when
>>>>>>>> you bought a ZX.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And a better cpu, a Z80 rather than a cheap and nasty 6502, it
>>>>>>> also launched a bunch of programmers rather than a bunch of gamers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The C64 launched plenty of programmers who mostly moved on to the
>>>>>> Amiga.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing to move onto with the ZX
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL the ZX had a Z80 CPU that is still used to this day in various
>>>> guises,
>>>
>>> I know, I bought some not long ago.
>>>
>>>   the C64 had a 6510 which was a complete dead end.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So why does Mouser stock current production 6502's and it's derivatives?
>>> Your ignorance is showing again Keef.
>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only was the Spectrum a cheap toy with shit sound, with a
>>>>> horrible unusable keyboard, poor display and with deadly slow BASIC
>>>>> performance compared to the C64, and of course laughingly bad
>>>>> peripherals - it was also a complete dead end.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so C= computers which indeed launched generations of programmers.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>> programming tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all
>>> those ML programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>
>> Mainly professional software companies. Most users used it as a games
>> console.
>>
>>> *Nobody* programmed on that horrible ZX keyboard, it was only ever a
>>> toy for playing bad ports of games written for and on other computers
>>> that had real keyboards, real viable storage solutions, real
>>> expansion options and real users.
>>
>> The comments on various forum where real programmers post, would argue
>> with that,
>
> You clearly don't hang out in forums where "real" programmers post them
> or you wouldn't be so pig ignorant.
>
>
> it seems that a lot of IT professionals of a certain age got
>> their start with the ZX.
>>
>
> And most didn't, with many more getting their start on a C= computer.
>
>> Very few C64s ever had expansions attached,
>
> There were and still are countless expansions still being developed and
> produced. Again, your ignorance is on full display.

Countless? You have to be joking.

>  most ended up in cupboards
>> when better machines came along.
>>
>
> ZX's went in the cupboard as soon as the C64 came along and if you
> really wanted a Z80 you could buy a Commodore 128 with enhanced BASIC,
> 80 column display and with 128K but which also had a Z80, ran CP/M and
> was also 100% C64 compatible.

The Commodore 128 didn't exactly set the world on fire, it was a day
late and a dollar short.

>>> The ZX was cheap and nasty but if you were poor it was better than
>>> nothing. That's it's only virtue.
>>
>> It certainly was cheap and nasty, but it enabled a lot of kids to buy
>> on out of they pocket money.
>>
>
> So did the VIC-20 and it would give them a better start.

Just a games console.

keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
> On 30/09/2021 4:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 30/09/2021 9:59 am, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 30/09/2021 10:41 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/2021 3:54 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/09/2021 12:12 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Clocky wrote
>>>>>>>>> On 24/09/2021 8:04 am, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/09/2021 9:48 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/09/2021 2:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sir Clive Sinclair, the visionary pioneer of computing for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> British masses and creator of the legendary ZX Spectrum, has
>>>>>>>>>>>> died at the age of 81. His legacy is the British tech scene as
>>>>>>>>>>>> we know it today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Born in leafy Richmond, Surrey, at the height of the Battle of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Britain in July 1940, he came to epitomise the early era of
>>>>>>>>>>>> British computing through his company Sinclair Research Ltd and
>>>>>>>>>>>> its iconic Spectrum product line.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fondly remembered by a generation of modern-day British tech
>>>>>>>>>>>> and computing leaders, the ZX Spectrum was named for its colour
>>>>>>>>>>>> output, a rarity in the mostly monochrome days of 1982.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Commodore 64 was released in 1982 and shat on the ZX
>>>>>>>>>>> Spectrum from a very great height in every possible way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What was better about it ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Better graphics, vastly better sound, a real keyboard, better
>>>>>>>>> storage (disk drives) options, expansion options and hardware and
>>>>>>>>> software support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only thing "better" about the ZX is cost, but not really as
>>>>>>>>> you only got some half baked toy instead of a real computer when
>>>>>>>>> you bought a ZX.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And a better cpu, a Z80 rather than a cheap and nasty 6502, it also
>>>>>>>> launched a bunch of programmers rather than a bunch of gamers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The C64 launched plenty of programmers who mostly moved on to the
>>>>>>> Amiga.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing to move onto with the ZX
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFL the ZX had a Z80 CPU that is still used to this day in various
>>>>> guises,
>>>>
>>>> I know, I bought some not long ago.
>>>>
>>>> the C64 had a 6510 which was a complete dead end.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why does Mouser stock current production 6502's and it's
>>>> derivatives?
>>>> Your ignorance is showing again Keef.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not only was the Spectrum a cheap toy with shit sound, with a
>>>>>> horrible unusable keyboard, poor display and with deadly slow BASIC
>>>>>> performance compared to the C64, and of course laughingly bad
>>>>>> peripherals - it was also a complete dead end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so C= computers which indeed launched generations of programmers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>>>>> game cartridges.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>>>> programming tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all
>>>> those ML programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>>>
>>> Mainly professional software companies. Most users used it as a games
>>> console.
>>>
>>>> *Nobody* programmed on that horrible ZX keyboard, it was only ever a
>>>> toy for playing bad ports of games written for and on other computers
>>>> that had real keyboards, real viable storage solutions, real expansion
>>>> options and real users.
>>>
>>> The comments on various forum where real programmers post, would argue
>>> with that,
>>
>> You clearly don't hang out in forums where "real" programmers post them
>> or you wouldn't be so pig ignorant.
>>
>>
>> it seems that a lot of IT professionals of a certain age got
>>> their start with the ZX.
>>>
>>
>> And most didn't, with many more getting their start on a C= computer.
>>
>>> Very few C64s ever had expansions attached,
>>
>> There were and still are countless expansions still being developed and
>> produced. Again, your ignorance is on full display.
>
> Countless? You have to be joking.
>
>> most ended up in cupboards
>>> when better machines came along.
>>>
>>
>> ZX's went in the cupboard as soon as the C64 came along and if you really
>> wanted a Z80 you could buy a Commodore 128 with enhanced BASIC, 80 column
>> display and with 128K but which also had a Z80, ran CP/M and was also
>> 100% C64 compatible.
>
> The Commodore 128 didn't exactly set the world on fire, it was a day late
> and a dollar short.
>
>>>> The ZX was cheap and nasty but if you were poor it was better than
>>>> nothing. That's it's only virtue.
>>>
>>> It certainly was cheap and nasty, but it enabled a lot of kids to buy on
>>> out of they pocket money.
>>>
>>
>> So did the VIC-20 and it would give them a better start.
>
> Just a games console.

Wrong, as always.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
> On 1/10/2021 1:39 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
> >> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
> >>> game cartridges.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and programming
> >> tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all those ML
> >> programs, games and demos back then and even now?
> >
> > Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
> > production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
> > The programming was done in some superset of C.
> >
> > I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
> > (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
> > functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
> > with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
> > to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
> > one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)
> >
>
> I thought the C64 has Basic.

All these 'hobby' computers had BASIC in ROM, but you could also load
other software - such as editors, compilers, assemblers, loaders, etc. -
into RAM, which enables programming in other languages, such as
assembler, C, etc..

I used these kind of things on MSX (1 and 2) computers, another kind
of 'hobby' computer.

On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:39:43 +0000, Frank Slootweg scribed:

> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2021 5:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> [...]
>> > I'll bet that more than 95% of C64 users never did more than plug in
>> > game cartridges.
>> >
>> >
>> Unlikely given the massive amount of software, utilities and
>> programming tools compared to the ZX. Who do you think programmed all
>> those ML programs, games and demos back then and even now?
>
> Anecdote: In The Netherlands - and possibly other countries - the
> production line of the Philips shavers was controlled by C64 systems.
> The programming was done in some superset of C.

Curiosity; Year and version please?
> I had to convert the functionality to our HP 9000 Series 300 HP-UX
> (UNIX) systems and I had a very, very hard time offering a similar
> functionality in our C language. I had to resort to some fancy footwork
> with pointers to pointers and let the C-preprocessor (cpp) do some magic
> to make it look as if our C language had similar functionality as the
> one they had on the C64. It still makes my head spin! :-)

AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version must
have been butchered.

Perhaps like TCG butchered thir implementation of Fortran to be able to
print in their restricted memory size.

> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version must
> have been butchered.

C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
referred to as mainframes..) with a 64kB memory limit. There were
several commercial K&R compilers for the C64 (and Apple, and CP/M,..
Aztec C comes to mind, Databecker another) back then, and ANSI C
compilers exist today.

--
C,,

On Sat, 02 Oct 2021 12:03:47 +1000, Chris Baird scribed:

>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version must
>> have been butchered.
>
> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
> referred to as mainframes..)

Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the toys
since, they're big guys.

FWIW, I was first exposed to C in 74 when it was given to Academic
institutions and our institution had it as summer trial. The DEC PDPs
were all through the engineering faculty but the university ran a larger
DEC PDP for general student access. Mostly Basic, but C was a summer
break access treat.

> with a 64kB memory limit. There were
> several commercial K&R compilers for the C64 (and Apple, and CP/M,..
> Aztec C comes to mind, Databecker another) back then, and ANSI C
> compilers exist today.

News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> Chris Baird wrote
>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?).
>>> So the C64 version must have been butchered.
>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems
>> (that were rarely referred to as mainframes..)
> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but
> compared to all the toys since, they're big guys.

Nope, the 11s never were.
> FWIW, I was first exposed to C in 74 when it was given to
> Academic institutions and our institution had it as summer
> trial. The DEC PDPs were all through the engineering faculty
> but the university ran a larger DEC PDP for general student
> access. Mostly Basic, but C was a summer break access treat.
>> with a 64kB memory limit. There were
>> several commercial K&R compilers for the C64 (and Apple, and CP/M,..
>> Aztec C comes to mind, Databecker another) back then, and ANSI C
>> compilers exist today.
>

On 2/10/21 4:33 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>> Chris Baird wrote
>
>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>> must have been butchered.
>
>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>
>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>> toys since, they're big guys.
>
> Nope, the 11s never were.

The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*. It was
a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not particularly
powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)

>> FWIW, I was first exposed to C in 74 when it was given to Academic
>> institutions and our institution had it as summer trial. The DEC PDPs
>> were all through the engineering faculty but the university ran a
>> larger DEC PDP for general student access. Mostly Basic, but C was a
>> summer break access treat.
>
>>> with a 64kB memory limit. There were
>>> several commercial K&R compilers for the C64 (and Apple, and CP/M,..
>>> Aztec C comes to mind, Databecker another) back then, and ANSI C
>>> compilers exist today.
>>

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?).
>>>>> So the C64 version must have been butchered.
>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems
>>>> (that were rarely referred to as mainframes..)
>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but
>>> compared to all the toys since, they're big guys.
>> Nope, the 11s never were.
> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.

Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.

> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount,
> not particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)

The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>> FWIW, I was first exposed to C in 74 when it was given to Academic
>>> institutions and our institution had it as summer trial. The DEC PDPs
>>> were all through the engineering faculty but the university ran a
>>> larger DEC PDP for general student access. Mostly Basic, but C was a
>>> summer break access treat.
>>
>>>> with a 64kB memory limit. There were
>>>> several commercial K&R compilers for the C64 (and Apple, and CP/M,..
>>>> Aztec C comes to mind, Databecker another) back then, and ANSI C
>>>> compilers exist today.

On Sat, 02 Oct 2021 19:10:13 +1000, Xeno scribed:

> On 2/10/21 4:33 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>
>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>
>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>
>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>
>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>
> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*. It was
> a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not particularly
> powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)

Lol. Wodbot was a storeman and had SFA to do with real computers.

On 2/10/21 8:08 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>
>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>
>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>
>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>
>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>
>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>
> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*.  ;-)
>
> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*

Well, it looked very much like this.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg

Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
Actually, PDP11/70 rings a bell. Could have been like this below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pdp-11-70-panel.jpg

Whatever, I remember das blinkenlights and, IIRC, weren't at the bottom
as shown in the full pic. I first saw it mid 1981. I know it was in use
from at least 1978 since that was when the college began putting
apprentice records on a computer database but it may have been in use
earlier. Had lots of student use and staff use terminals connected to
it. The chap in charge of it was the one who got me hooked on computers
and we are *still* connected on LinkedIn. I was a 2nd year student
teacher at the college in 1982. After completing that year I was posted
to an outer urban tech school but moved back in the 2nd term of 1985.
The PDP had been moved to the new campus by then and replaced in the old
campus by a network of IBM PCs of which I became the administrator. Some
time after 1985, the PDP11 disappeared. It was replaced by multiple IBM
AT servers. I remained at the old campus until the end of 1994. The
administrator of the PDP11 left TAFE and started up his own educational
software company which he still has to this day.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> Xeno wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>> Chris Baird wrote

>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>>
>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>>
>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>
>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>
>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*. It was
>> a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not particularly
>> powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>
> Lol. Wodbot was a storeman

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken pig ignorant
fantasys.

> and had SFA to do with real computers.

The MSc thesis alone proves that that is a bare faced lie.

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Chris Baird wrote

>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>>>>> must have been butchered.

>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)

>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.

>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.

>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.

>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.

>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)

>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*

> Well, it looked very much like this.

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg

> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.

But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.

The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
let alone any blinken lights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>
>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>
>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>
>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>
>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>
>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>
>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>
>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>
>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>
>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>
>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>
> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.

It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like, it’s what fits
my memory recall of it. I never had much to do with it beyond accessing it
via a terminal. Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it on a daily
basis via the line printer terminal in our department.
>
> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
> let alone any blinken lights.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>
>
>
———
Xeno

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64 version
>>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>
>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were rarely
>>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>
>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>
>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>
>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>
>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>
>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>>
>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>
>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>
>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>
>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>
> It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like,

Irrelevant to the fact that plenty of 11s weren't
rack mounted and didn’t have any blinken lights.

> it’s what fits my memory recall of it. I never had much
> to do with it beyond accessing it via a terminal.

Whereas I was personally responsible for all the 11s and
Vaxes we had, bought them, installed them, ran them,
maintained them, had one of my own, at home etc etc etc.

And lots of other DEC minis before them, including an
8S, the serial one, which I designed and built a driver
for a tek sampling oscilloscope which measured fluorescent
decay at sub nanosecond levels. That’s what the MSc
thesis was about. With the data from that crunched
on the IBM 360/50 mainframe.

And the PDP9 which we did our own 9/15 interface
for and added the mag tape to with our own mag
tape controller, the design of which we stole
from DEC and did our own copy of using TTL on wire
wrap sockets on a drawer full of wire wrap sockets.

And which we did our own multi user OS for, using
the same basic idea as TSX for the 11 which came later.

Whereas you still don’t have a fucking clue about
the vast range of formats that 11s came in.

> Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
> Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it
> on a daily basis via the line printer terminal in our department.

I personally ran an IBM 360/50 in the evenings myself.

>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
>> let alone any blinken lights.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants

On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 01:17:21 +0000, Xeno scribed:

> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>
>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>> version must have been butchered.
>>
>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>> rarely referred to as mainframes..)
>>
>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>
>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>
>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>
>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>
>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>>
>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>
>>> Well, it looked very much like this.

Wodbot is delusional again and talking about something entirely different.

>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/
Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>
>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>
>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.

Because they weren't DEC PDP's.
FWIW, there were PDP clones available. TCG was one
Australian company that sold them. but there's was physically identical,
but blue/white toned instead of the red/black of DEC.
>
>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all, let alone any blinken
>> lights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants

A DEC PDP was a computer and not a terminal. Two different things and an
system such as you describe was an entirely different computer.

Wodbot seems to be describing some early 'business computer' where the
logic boards were built into the display crt.

WodBot is also dead set wrong about "rack mounting" as every biggen used
it in some form. When you took off the covers, underneath was a rack
mounting system.

News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
> Xeno wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>> version must have been butchered.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>> rarely referred to as mainframes..)
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>
>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>
>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>
>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>>>
>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>
>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.

> Wodbot is delusional again and talking about something entirely different.

You are wrong, as always.

>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/
> Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>
>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>
>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.

> Because they weren't DEC PDP's.

Corse they were, fuckwit.
http://gunkies.org/wiki/LSI-11
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11#LSI-11

> FWIW, there were PDP clones available. TCG was one
> Australian company that sold them. but there's was physically
> identical, but blue/white toned instead of the red/black of DEC.

Utterly mangled all over again with the logic cards, fuckwit.

>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all, let alone any blinken
>>> lights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants

> A DEC PDP was a computer and not a terminal.

That isn't a terminal, it’s a full LSI 11 in a VT100 case, fuckwit.

> Two different things and an system such as you
> describe was an entirely different computer.

Nope, just different packaging.

> Wodbot seems to be describing some early 'business computer'

Nope, that was something else entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Professional_(computer)

> where the logic boards were built into the display crt.

The VT103 didn’t have that, it had a full qbus backplane
in the wide section to the right of the screen with the
normal LSI11 cards plugged into that.

> WodBot is also dead set wrong about "rack mounting" as every biggen used
> it in some form. When you took off the covers, underneath was a rack
> mounting system.

But not the traditional vertical rack mount he showed a pic of, fuckwit.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>
>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>
>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>
>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>>>
>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>
>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>
>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>
>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>>
>> It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like,
>
> Irrelevant to the fact that plenty of 11s weren't
> rack mounted and didn’t have any blinken lights.
>
>> it’s what fits my memory recall of it. I never had much
>> to do with it beyond accessing it via a terminal.
>
> Whereas I was personally responsible for all the 11s and
> Vaxes we had, bought them, installed them, ran them,
> maintained them, had one of my own, at home etc etc etc.

That News 2021 fool has never had a fucking clue.

> And lots of other DEC minis before them, including an
> 8S, the serial one, which I designed and built a driver
> for a tek sampling oscilloscope which measured fluorescent
> decay at sub nanosecond levels. That’s what the MSc
> thesis was about. With the data from that crunched
> on the IBM 360/50 mainframe.
>
> And the PDP9 which we did our own 9/15 interface
> for and added the mag tape to with our own mag
> tape controller, the design of which we stole
> from DEC and did our own copy of using TTL on wire
> wrap sockets on a drawer full of wire wrap sockets.
>
> And which we did our own multi user OS for, using
> the same basic idea as TSX for the 11 which came later.
>
> Whereas you still don’t have a fucking clue about
> the vast range of formats that 11s came in.
>
>> Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
>> Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it
>> on a daily basis via the line printer terminal in our department.
>
> I personally ran an IBM 360/50 in the evenings myself.
>
>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
>>> let alone any blinken lights.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>
>

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>> Xeno wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>>> version must have been butchered.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>>> rarely referred to as mainframes..)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>>
>>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>
>> Wodbot is delusional again and talking about something entirely
>> different.
>
> You are wrong, as always.
>
>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/
>> Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>>
>>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>
>> Because they weren't DEC PDP's.
>
> Corse they were, fuckwit.
> http://gunkies.org/wiki/LSI-11
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11#LSI-11
>
>> FWIW, there were PDP clones available. TCG was one
>> Australian company that sold them. but there's was physically
>> identical, but blue/white toned instead of the red/black of DEC.
>
> Utterly mangled all over again with the logic cards, fuckwit.
>
>>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all, let alone any blinken
>>>> lights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>
>> A DEC PDP was a computer and not a terminal.
>
> That isn't a terminal, it’s a full LSI 11 in a VT100 case, fuckwit.
>
>> Two different things and an system such as you
>> describe was an entirely different computer.
>
> Nope, just different packaging.
>
>> Wodbot seems to be describing some early 'business computer'
>
> Nope, that was something else entirely.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Professional_(computer)
>
>> where the logic boards were built into the display crt.
>
> The VT103 didn’t have that, it had a full qbus backplane
> in the wide section to the right of the screen with the
> normal LSI11 cards plugged into that.
>
>> WodBot is also dead set wrong about "rack mounting" as every biggen used
>> it in some form. When you took off the covers, underneath was a rack
>> mounting system.
>
> But not the traditional vertical rack mount he showed a pic of, fuckwit.

You're right, that clown has never had a fucking clue.

On 3/10/21 12:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>>> must have been butchered.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>>> referred to as mainframes..)
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>
>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>
>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>
>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*.  ;-)
>>>
>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>
>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>
>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>>
>> It’s a PDP11, it’s what the unit at the college looked like,
>
> Irrelevant to the fact that plenty of 11s weren't
> rack mounted and didn’t have any blinken lights.
>
>> it’s what fits my memory recall of it. I never had much
>> to do with it beyond accessing it via a terminal.
>
> Whereas I was personally responsible for all the 11s and
> Vaxes we had, bought them, installed them, ran them,
> maintained them, had one of my own, at home etc etc etc.
>
> And lots of other DEC minis before them, including an
> 8S, the serial one, which I designed and built a driver
> for a tek sampling oscilloscope which measured fluorescent
> decay at sub nanosecond levels. That’s what the MSc
> thesis was about. With the data from that crunched
> on the IBM 360/50 mainframe.
>
> And the PDP9 which we did our own 9/15 interface
> for and added the mag tape to with our own mag
> tape controller, the design of which we stole
> from DEC and did our own copy of using TTL on wire
> wrap sockets on a drawer full of wire wrap sockets.
>
> And which we did our own multi user OS for, using
> the same basic idea as TSX for the 11 which came later.
>
> Whereas you still don’t have a fucking clue about
> the vast range of formats that 11s came in.

I am very aware but I was referring to the one *I* had most exposure to.
It was not my intention to boast about my computer prowess, something
you seem wont to do.
>
>> Same as when I accessed the mainframe at Footscray
>> Institute, never even got to see that machine but accessed it
>> on a daily basis via the line printer terminal in our department.
>
> I personally ran an IBM 360/50 in the evenings myself.

SFW! I really don't give much of a shit about what *you* worked on/with
back in the dark days of computing. My entry point into this thread was
where I made a point that the PDP11 was a *minicomputer*. You are simply
trying to turn this discussion into a vehicle whereby you can display
your computer prowess. Frankly, I am not interested.
>
>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all,
>>> let alone any blinken lights.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>
>

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 3/10/21 4:26 pm, News 2021 wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2021 01:17:21 +0000, Xeno scribed:
>
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> News 2021 <news21@woa.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Chris Baird wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, mainframe C was the real C from Bell(?). So the C64
>>>>>>>>>> version must have been butchered.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> C compilers were born and raised on PDP11 systems (that were
>>>>>>>>> rarely referred to as mainframes..)
>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, compared to the big guys at the time, but compared to all the
>>>>>>>> toys since, they're big guys.
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, the 11s never were.
>>>
>>>>>> The PDP11 at the college was always classed as a *minicomputer*.
>>>
>>>>> Yep, nothing even remotely like a mainframe.
>>>
>>>>>> It was a mere 16 bit machine in the usual vertical rack mount, not
>>>>>> particularly powerful, but it had lots of *das blinkenlights*. ;-)
>>>
>>>>> The LSI 11s had no vertical rack mount and no *das blinkenlights*
>>>
>>>> Well, it looked very much like this.
>
> Wodbot is delusional again and talking about something entirely different.

It would seem so.
>
>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/
> Pdp-11-40.jpg/250px-Pdp-11-40.jpg
>>>
>>>> Looks like das blinkenlights to me.
>>>
>>> But the LSI 11s didn’t look anything like that.
>
> Because they weren't DEC PDP's.
> FWIW, there were PDP clones available. TCG was one
> Australian company that sold them. but there's was physically identical,
> but blue/white toned instead of the red/black of DEC.
>>
>>> The logic cards were in the side of a VT100 terminal,
>>> renamed the VT103, no vertical rack mount at all, let alone any blinken
>>> lights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT100#Variants
>
> A DEC PDP was a computer and not a terminal. Two different things and an
> system such as you describe was an entirely different computer.

Yep, and the example pics I posted were, I suspect, sufficient to prove
my point.
>
> Wodbot seems to be describing some early 'business computer' where the
> logic boards were built into the display crt.

It would seem so. I was wondering what the hell he was on about when he
ranted on about the VT100 terminal waffle.
>
> WodBot is also dead set wrong about "rack mounting" as every biggen used
> it in some form. When you took off the covers, underneath was a rack
> mounting system.
>
Well, the PDP I *connected to* certainly fitted that description.

--

Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)