someone smarter than Dave Cutler
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Peter Flass on 31 Mar 2010 18:03 jmfbahciv wrote: > Jim Stewart wrote: >> Mark Crispin wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jim Stewart posted: >>>> Anyone that takes the time to leaf through some >>>> Datamation magazines of that era would be lucky >>>> to find any reference to PDP-10's. >>> >>> Using Datamation as an historical reference is like using the >>> National Enquirier. >> >> A circular religious argument not unexpected from >> someone that believed that PDP-10's dominated the >> era. >> >> > You, obviously, have had no experience in non-IBM niches. > > /BAH Bill Clinton would love this. I guess it depends on what your definition of "dominated" is. Certainly -10's were popular in universities and research organizations. On the other hand, in 40 years I encountered exactly *one* -10, at a timesharing outfit. Naturally I loved it, but there weren't many out in the real world.
From: John Francis on 31 Mar 2010 18:16 In article <lcosn.20672$iu2.3907(a)newsfe15.iad>, Pat Farrell <pfarrell(a)pfarrell.com> wrote: > >When NT was in public beta test, it required 32MB of ram, miminal >configuration. No it didn't. We were a Beta site for NT 1.0, and I was running it on a Gateway machine (probably a Pentium 90; possibly a 486 DX2/66) with 16MB.
From: Pat Farrell on 31 Mar 2010 18:38 John Francis wrote: > Pat Farrell <pfarrell(a)pfarrell.com> wrote: >> When NT was in public beta test, it required 32MB of ram, miminal >> configuration. > > No it didn't. > > We were a Beta site for NT 1.0, and I was running it on a Gateway > machine (probably a Pentium 90; possibly a 486 DX2/66) with 16MB. By the published spec sheet, I can believe it. But no one would call what NT beta did on 16 MB "running" It was as impractical as the DEC 2040s that DEC sold with 96 KW of memory. The SCSI "requirement" was real through all the NT beta, but it loosened over time. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 31 Mar 2010 18:57 Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Jim Stewart wrote: >>> Mark Crispin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Jim Stewart posted: >>>>> Anyone that takes the time to leaf through some >>>>> Datamation magazines of that era would be lucky >>>>> to find any reference to PDP-10's. >>>> >>>> Using Datamation as an historical reference is like using the >>>> National Enquirier. >>> >>> A circular religious argument not unexpected from >>> someone that believed that PDP-10's dominated the >>> era. >>> >>> >> You, obviously, have had no experience in non-IBM niches. >> >> /BAH > > Bill Clinton would love this. I guess it depends on what your > definition of "dominated" is. Certainly -10's were popular in > universities and research organizations. On the other hand, in 40 > years I encountered exactly *one* -10, at a timesharing outfit. > Naturally I loved it, but there weren't many out in the real world. I'm a little bit reminded of the days when just about everybody used ASCII except IBM -- which meant something like 90% of the computers in the world used EBCDIC. To the best of my recollection, I never saw an IBM computer when I was an undergrad. DEC-10, VAX, PDP-11, DG Nova, CDC, Harris... yes. IBM, no. It would be easy to forget how big IBM was, if I were to go from my own university recollections. -- As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: John Levine on 31 Mar 2010 21:50
>Before TCP/IP ever was, starting in the early 60's, IBM/360 systems >ran all the airline reservations in the western world, together with >Univac 1100 and 494 systems, and Univac 418 machines ran the SITA >network on which worldwide computer communication was based: the Panam >Sabre system Now, now, SABRE was American, Pan Am's system was PANAMAC. The original SABER (they changed the spelling at some point) ran on 7090s but was ported pretty quickly to 360s. > Even before TCP/IP became fashionable, during the seventies, people > were working on the communications architectures of the times: SNA, > DCA, BNA, and so on, which evolved into X25 and X21. Well, yeah. I gather they were using telex links before that. R's, John |