On 2022-03-08, D.J <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 17:03:45 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>>D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 14:30:52 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Stephen M. Jones" <smj@ma.sdf.org> writes:
>>>>>On Saturday March 5th, 2022 SDF will kick off its TOPS-20 Boot Camp series
>>>>>on https://twitch.tv/sdfpubnix at 1PM Pacific Time (9PM GMT). Registration
>>>>>is open at https://twenex.org/?bootcamp which includes access to SDF's
>>>>>XKL Toad-2 and is offered at no cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you cannot attend an archive of the live stream (approximately
>>>>>1 hour long) will be posted to the fediverse via SDF's Peertube instance,
>>>>>https://toobnix.org
>>>>>
>>>>>Looking forward to doing a "TOPS-20 Boot Camp for VMS Users", though any User
>>>>>of any operating system background is certainly welcome, kid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Can you refresh my memory on the advantages and disadvantages of the PDP-10
>>>>vs. the VAX-11/780? From a technical standpoint, not from a nostalgia or DEC politics
>>>>standpoint? My migration at the time was from a PDP-8 to PDP-11 to VAX-11.
>>>
>>>I didn't have access to the 11/780. The campus I was on had the
>>>11/730. What differences for it ?
>>
>>From the perspective of the average user, there was no difference
>>between the 11/730, 11/750 or 11/780 other than absolute performance.
>
> I know the 730 I used was slower than the 780 on main campus. I think
> it used fewer vt102 terminals as well.
>
> One of the professors tried to run ADA on the 730. Incredibly slow.
> --
> Jim

The only advantage with the 730 I used was it had the REAL*16 (128 bit IEEE floating point) built in, the 750 & 780 machines required upgrades. So the 730 was actually faster for operations using real*16 operations.

It was also faster because nobody wanted to use it.

On Mo 07 Mär 2022 at 11:47, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> I’m always amazed when I try to use some piece of software I used to use
> years ago how primitive it seems now. Back then non-ISPF TSO or DOS EDLIN
> seemed like usable, if not much fun, pieces of software. Playing with old
> systems like TSS or Multics it seems like my biggest problem is lack of a
> decent editor.

Well, on Multics you have Emacs!
That should be enough for everyone :-)

'Andreas

On Tue, 08 Mar 2022 10:08:26 +0100
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:

> On Mo 07 Mär 2022 at 11:47, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> > I’m always amazed when I try to use some piece of software I used to use
> > years ago how primitive it seems now. Back then non-ISPF TSO or DOS
> > EDLIN seemed like usable, if not much fun, pieces of software. Playing
> > with old systems like TSS or Multics it seems like my biggest problem
> > is lack of a decent editor.
>
> Well, on Multics you have Emacs!

Right that's the user environment sorted out - now we just need a
decent editor.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>
>>>> I do not know VMS (or RSTS/E or RSX) internals. Is DCL a separate program,
>>>> like the TOPS-20 EXEC? Or an interaction with the monitor/kernel?
>>
>>> VMS is an odd beast in that respect. The VAX had a four privilege
>>> rings (aside: interestingly enough, the relatively recent ARMv8
>>> architecture also has four privilege rings (with a fifth coming soon)).
>>
>>> The kernel ran in the most privileged ring, Kernel Mode. RMS (mainly
>>> derived from RSX-11, IIRC, and authored by Andy Goldstein (IIRC again))
>>> ran in the next most privileged ring (Executive Mode). The Command
>>> Interpreter (DCL) ran in the next ring (Supervisor Mode), and user
>>> applications ran in the least privileged ring (User Mode).
>>
>> Interestingly, the *2nd generation* PDP-10, the KI-10 processor, implemented a
>> 4-level privilege model: Kernel, Executive, Public, and User. Tops-10 ran
>> mostly in Executive mode, with only some of the most sensitive routines done in
>> Kernel mode. Public mode was a user-level mode (i.e., no privileged
>> instructions such as I/O operations) which allowed for system services similar
>> to dynamic libraries in modern Unix-style operating systems, but serving a
>> different purpose. User mode was the bog standard mode for any program not
>> requiring elevated privileges.
>>
>> (Public mode was used by the system services such as spoolers so that user
>> programs did not need to use system calls to interact with unit record
>> equipment.)
>>
>>> As with most[*] ring-based privilege architectures, ring switches were
>>> expensive and I believe once they went to Alpha, that architecture was
>>> pretty much dead.
>>
>> The KI model was not ring-based in the way that I understand rings (based on
>> early Multics writings, mostly); it was simply a matter of a couple of bits in
>> the process status.
>
> It's changing between rings that is the primary issue as that often
> includes a change in the memory context (e.g. x86 segment, active page
> table) resulting in a performance hit. E.g. UUO's/system calls.
>

Some systems (Sigma) had different register sets for different processor
modes. Memory is cheap these days, why not different caches?

--
Pete

Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
> On Mo 07 Mär 2022 at 11:47, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> I’m always amazed when I try to use some piece of software I used to use
>> years ago how primitive it seems now. Back then non-ISPF TSO or DOS EDLIN
>> seemed like usable, if not much fun, pieces of software. Playing with old
>> systems like TSS or Multics it seems like my biggest problem is lack of a
>> decent editor.
>
> Well, on Multics you have Emacs!
> That should be enough for everyone :-)

I’ve managed to get fifty years in without having to learn emacs. I don’t
want to have to start now.

--
Pete

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>>>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>
>>>>> I do not know VMS (or RSTS/E or RSX) internals. Is DCL a separate program,
>>>>> like the TOPS-20 EXEC? Or an interaction with the monitor/kernel?
>>>
>>>> VMS is an odd beast in that respect. The VAX had a four privilege
>>>> rings (aside: interestingly enough, the relatively recent ARMv8
>>>> architecture also has four privilege rings (with a fifth coming soon)).
>>>
>>>> The kernel ran in the most privileged ring, Kernel Mode. RMS (mainly
>>>> derived from RSX-11, IIRC, and authored by Andy Goldstein (IIRC again))
>>>> ran in the next most privileged ring (Executive Mode). The Command
>>>> Interpreter (DCL) ran in the next ring (Supervisor Mode), and user
>>>> applications ran in the least privileged ring (User Mode).
>>>
>>> Interestingly, the *2nd generation* PDP-10, the KI-10 processor, implemented a
>>> 4-level privilege model: Kernel, Executive, Public, and User. Tops-10 ran
>>> mostly in Executive mode, with only some of the most sensitive routines done in
>>> Kernel mode. Public mode was a user-level mode (i.e., no privileged
>>> instructions such as I/O operations) which allowed for system services similar
>>> to dynamic libraries in modern Unix-style operating systems, but serving a
>>> different purpose. User mode was the bog standard mode for any program not
>>> requiring elevated privileges.
>>>
>>> (Public mode was used by the system services such as spoolers so that user
>>> programs did not need to use system calls to interact with unit record
>>> equipment.)
>>>
>>>> As with most[*] ring-based privilege architectures, ring switches were
>>>> expensive and I believe once they went to Alpha, that architecture was
>>>> pretty much dead.
>>>
>>> The KI model was not ring-based in the way that I understand rings (based on
>>> early Multics writings, mostly); it was simply a matter of a couple of bits in
>>> the process status.
>>
>> It's changing between rings that is the primary issue as that often
>> includes a change in the memory context (e.g. x86 segment, active page
>> table) resulting in a performance hit. E.g. UUO's/system calls.
>>
>
>Some systems (Sigma) had different register sets for different processor
>modes. Memory is cheap these days, why not different caches?

Indeed, it's difficult to compare systems designed 40 to 50 years ago
with modern processors.

But even today, nobody uses more than two of the four rings on Intel
processors. (well, technically, one can consider VM-X/SVM a ring,
and SMM mode can also be considered a ring, and in both cases,
crossing the ring boundary isn't cheap - see VMEXIT).

On 2022-03-08 05:13, Fred Smith wrote:
> On 2022-03-08, D.J <chucktheouch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 17:03:45 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>> D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I didn't have access to the 11/780. The campus I was on had the
>>>> 11/730. What differences for it ?
>>>
>> >From the perspective of the average user, there was no difference
>>> between the 11/730, 11/750 or 11/780 other than absolute performance.
>>
>> I know the 730 I used was slower than the 780 on main campus. I think
>> it used fewer vt102 terminals as well.

Like Chuck said. Performance.

>> One of the professors tried to run ADA on the 730. Incredibly slow.
>> --
>> Jim
>
> The only advantage with the 730 I used was it had the REAL*16 (128 bit IEEE floating point) built in, the 750 & 780 machines required upgrades. So the 730 was actually faster for operations using real*16 operations.

VAX don't do IEEE floating point. But yes, H_FLOAT in hardware was an
addon on those machines. Otherwise it had to be done in software, which
was indeed slower.

> It was also faster because nobody wanted to use it.

Only if the larger machines were in use, of course. :-)
But yeah. Being along on a machine usually helped.

Johnny

On 2022-03-08 10:08, Andreas Eder wrote:
> On Mo 07 Mär 2022 at 11:47, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> I’m always amazed when I try to use some piece of software I used to use
>> years ago how primitive it seems now. Back then non-ISPF TSO or DOS EDLIN
>> seemed like usable, if not much fun, pieces of software. Playing with old
>> systems like TSS or Multics it seems like my biggest problem is lack of a
>> decent editor.
>
> Well, on Multics you have Emacs!

Really? EMACS start off on PDP-10s, written in TECO. Not saying that
there couldn't have been a version for Multics, but that was mostly a
crowd that eventually gave us things like ed and vi.

> That should be enough for everyone :-)

Of course. And others will disagree. :-)

Johnny

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>>>>>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> I do not know VMS (or RSTS/E or RSX) internals. Is DCL a separate program,
>>>>>> like the TOPS-20 EXEC? Or an interaction with the monitor/kernel?
>>>>
>>>>> VMS is an odd beast in that respect. The VAX had a four privilege
>>>>> rings (aside: interestingly enough, the relatively recent ARMv8
>>>>> architecture also has four privilege rings (with a fifth coming soon)).
>>>>
>>>>> The kernel ran in the most privileged ring, Kernel Mode. RMS (mainly
>>>>> derived from RSX-11, IIRC, and authored by Andy Goldstein (IIRC again))
>>>>> ran in the next most privileged ring (Executive Mode). The Command
>>>>> Interpreter (DCL) ran in the next ring (Supervisor Mode), and user
>>>>> applications ran in the least privileged ring (User Mode).
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, the *2nd generation* PDP-10, the KI-10 processor, implemented a
>>>> 4-level privilege model: Kernel, Executive, Public, and User. Tops-10 ran
>>>> mostly in Executive mode, with only some of the most sensitive routines done in
>>>> Kernel mode. Public mode was a user-level mode (i.e., no privileged
>>>> instructions such as I/O operations) which allowed for system services similar
>>>> to dynamic libraries in modern Unix-style operating systems, but serving a
>>>> different purpose. User mode was the bog standard mode for any program not
>>>> requiring elevated privileges.
>>>>
>>>> (Public mode was used by the system services such as spoolers so that user
>>>> programs did not need to use system calls to interact with unit record
>>>> equipment.)
>>>>
>>>>> As with most[*] ring-based privilege architectures, ring switches were
>>>>> expensive and I believe once they went to Alpha, that architecture was
>>>>> pretty much dead.
>>>>
>>>> The KI model was not ring-based in the way that I understand rings (based on
>>>> early Multics writings, mostly); it was simply a matter of a couple of bits in
>>>> the process status.
>>>
>>> It's changing between rings that is the primary issue as that often
>>> includes a change in the memory context (e.g. x86 segment, active page
>>> table) resulting in a performance hit. E.g. UUO's/system calls.
>>>
>>
>> Some systems (Sigma) had different register sets for different processor
>> modes. Memory is cheap these days, why not different caches?
>
> Indeed, it's difficult to compare systems designed 40 to 50 years ago
> with modern processors.
>
> But even today, nobody uses more than two of the four rings on Intel
> processors. (well, technically, one can consider VM-X/SVM a ring,
> and SMM mode can also be considered a ring, and in both cases,
> crossing the ring boundary isn't cheap - see VMEXIT).
>

OS/2 uses three (and no, it’s not completely dead yet)

--
Pete

Peter Flass wrote:
> I’ve managed to get fifty years in without having to learn emacs. I don’t
> want to have to start now.

I'd be very impressed if you had 50 years of Emacs experience!
I wouldn't be surprised to see it as a requirement in a job listing
though.

Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Not saying that there couldn't have been a[n Emacs] version for
> Multics

You seem vague. I'm here to tell you Multics Emacs was started on March
3rd 1978 around 10pm.

On 2022-03-08, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>
>> On Mo 07 Mär 2022 at 11:47, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m always amazed when I try to use some piece of software I used to use
>>> years ago how primitive it seems now. Back then non-ISPF TSO or DOS EDLIN
>>> seemed like usable, if not much fun, pieces of software. Playing with old
>>> systems like TSS or Multics it seems like my biggest problem is lack of a
>>> decent editor.
>>
>> Well, on Multics you have Emacs!
>> That should be enough for everyone :-)
>
> I’ve managed to get fifty years in without having to learn emacs.
> I don’t want to have to start now.

I took a look at emacs a couple of years ago.
I found its mindset to be too foreign for me,
e.g. in things like tab handling.

My fingers speak vi. That's usually enough.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 2022-03-08 19:59, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> Not saying that there couldn't have been a[n Emacs] version for
>> Multics
>
> You seem vague. I'm here to tell you Multics Emacs was started on March
> 3rd 1978 around 10pm.

Of course I am vague. I've never used Multics... But I've used the
original Emacs more than enough...

And by 1978 I thought Multics was pretty dead. (Ok, Honeywell did
continue until 1985 on the thing...)

Johnny

On 08/03/2022 14:49, Peter Flass wrote:
> Some systems (Sigma) had different register sets for different processor
> modes. Memory is cheap these days, why not different caches?

Because you'll get more bang for your buck by having one big cache
instead of two small ones.

Cache still isn't cheap.

Andy

Johnny Billquist wrote:
> And by 1978 I thought Multics was pretty dead.

Why would you think that? I hope you're not influenced by Unix
mythology that would have Multics "failing" in 1969.

Data for new Mulitics installations per year from
https://multicians.org/sites.html

1967: 3
1970: 1
1971: 1
1972: 2
1973: 1
1974: 3
1975: 1
1976: 2
1977: 4
1978: 3
1979: 7
1980: 11
1981: 8
1982: 10
1983: 13
1984: 4
1985: 3
1986: 1
1987: 2

Maybe not 100% accurate but should give a rough idea.

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On 08/03/2022 14:49, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Some systems (Sigma) had different register sets for different processor
>> modes. Memory is cheap these days, why not different caches?
>
>Because you'll get more bang for your buck by having one big cache
>instead of two small ones.
>
>Cache still isn't cheap.

Indeed. However, many high-end server processors[*] implement some form of
programmable cache partitioning where portions of the cache (at any or
all levels of hierarchy) can be reserved for certain applications (or rings), and
then there are PCI Express steering tags, which allow inbound DMA to
be directed to one or more of the cache levels without going through
memory first.

[*] e.g. ARMv8 processors like the Neoverse N2 with MPAM.

Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> writes:

> Peter Flass wrote:
>> I've managed to get fifty years in without having to learn emacs. I don't
>> want to have to start now.

> I'd be very impressed if you had 50 years of Emacs experience!
> I wouldn't be surprised to see it as a requirement in a job listing
> though.

I have 45 years of EMACS experience...

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

On Tue, 08 Mar 2022 19:47:05 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I took a look at emacs a couple of years ago.
> I found its mindset to be too foreign for me,
> e.g. in things like tab handling.
>
> My fingers speak vi. That's usually enough.

I have exactly the opposite. I started UNIX in 1975, although vi took a
while to appear. I continued to use 'ed' because my terminal was a bit
basic.

Then I got a PC with a simplified emacs that was marketed as part of a
'word processor'. My fingers know that (but I also use 'ed' in extremis,
usually in single user mode on a basic console).

--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:

Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> writes:

> I'd be very impressed if you had 50 years of Emacs experience!
> I wouldn't be surprised to see it as a requirement in a job listing
> though.

I have 45 years of EMACS experience...

I have 46.

And I'd be suprised if anybody here can beat that, since I started using
it during the week after its first "official" release.

--
Alan Bawden

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-8, Peter Flass wrote:

(snip)

> It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
> than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.

At the place I was in 1982, or maybe 1983, a TOPS-20 system was replaced
with four VAX. Three 11/750 and one 11/730. That was done very fast, as
they sold the TOPS-20 system, and had to deliver it very soon.

It seems that they didn't think the VAX hardware was so much faster.

Alan Bawden wrote:
> Rich Alderson wrote:
>> I have 45 years of EMACS experience...
>
> I have 46. And I'd be suprised if anybody here can beat that, since I
> started using it during the week after its first "official" release.

Only those developing "?MACS" could top that, but it will still be 46
years.

Do you have a (rough) date for this "official" release? Backup records
have some early timestamps but there is no way to tell what would be
considered released or still in develoment.

The change of name from ?/?MACS to E/EMACS can be narrowed down to
November 10-11th 1976, but that is not to say it was "released" at that
point.

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 8:48:43 AM UTC-8, D.J. wrote:
(snip)

> I didn't have access to the 11/780. The campus I was on had the
> 11/730. What differences for it ?
When I knew this, about when the 11/750 came out, the 750 was
about 60% of the speed, and 40% of the price, compared to the 780.

As well as I remember, it was the same ratios for 730 vs. 750.

For those who don't multiply fast, and who believe in simple rules
for processor pricing and performance, that means 36% of the speed
and 16% of the price.

One thing, though. The 11/730 has H-float standard, where it is optional
on the others (and software emulated if needed).

On 2022-03-09 07:46, gah4 wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:06:38 AM UTC-8, Peter Flass wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> It would have to be hard to tell, since the VAX hardware was a lot faster
>> than the PDP-10. I enjoyed working with both systems.
>
> At the place I was in 1982, or maybe 1983, a TOPS-20 system was replaced
> with four VAX. Three 11/750 and one 11/730. That was done very fast, as
> they sold the TOPS-20 system, and had to deliver it very soon.
>
> It seems that they didn't think the VAX hardware was so much faster.

Depends on what hardware people are talking of.

Johnny

On 2022-03-09 06:46, Alan Bawden wrote:
> Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> writes:
>
> Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> writes:
>
> > I'd be very impressed if you had 50 years of Emacs experience!
> > I wouldn't be surprised to see it as a requirement in a job listing
> > though.
>
> I have 45 years of EMACS experience...
>
> I have 46.
>
> And I'd be suprised if anybody here can beat that, since I started using
> it during the week after its first "official" release.

I'm at a lowly 39. :-)

Johnny

On 2022-03-08 22:20, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> And by 1978 I thought Multics was pretty dead.
>
> Why would you think that? I hope you're not influenced by Unix
> mythology that would have Multics "failing" in 1969.
>
> Data for new Mulitics installations per year from
> https://multicians.org/sites.html
>
> 1967: 3
> 1970: 1
> 1971: 1
> 1972: 2
> 1973: 1
> 1974: 3
> 1975: 1
> 1976: 2
> 1977: 4
> 1978: 3
> 1979: 7
> 1980: 11
> 1981: 8
> 1982: 10
> 1983: 13
> 1984: 4
> 1985: 3
> 1986: 1
> 1987: 2
>
> Maybe not 100% accurate but should give a rough idea.

You know, with those numbers, to me, that means dead. :-)

Johnny