which might not have helped in the us market. What year was that?
richardthiebaud wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
IIRC, there was a court ruling that you can't trademark a number.
On 12 May 2023 14:28:42 GMT
greymaus <maus@darkstar.org> wrote:
which might not have helped in the us market. What year was that?
The Porche 911 has been around since the 1960s.
Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
(I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
different clock speeds.
Back in the 'good old days' of PC clones, there was a switch on the front >panel to select the faster or slower processor speed
Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer=20
(I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two=20
different clock speeds.
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:42:34 PM UTC+7, Jeff Jonas wrote:
Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
(I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
different clock speeds.
This was the case for NatSemi's lookalike version of the IBM 158, circa
1977.
originally designed by Exsysco. I don't remember the relevant model
numbers.
On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 3:42:34 PM UTC+7, Jeff Jonas wrote:
Long ago, I was told (or I read) about an early business computer
(I'm guessing circa 1960) that the manufacturer sold in two
different clock speeds.
This was the case for NatSemi's lookalike version of the IBM 158, circa 1977. originally designed by Exsysco. I don't remember the relevant model numbers.
Farfetched? I was told this by F.E.'s who claimed to have
moved the necessary wire. (Some may have been entrepreneurs
who moved the wire unbeknownst to NatSemi, pocketing
the wire's cost! :-)
I have just been researching the ICL 2900 mainframe (not that well known).
Many models were planned but never built, or cancelled. There was a model called the P2L (marketed as the 2960), and I became curious as to what a
P2S was. It would have been marketed as a 2950 (L ane S meant Large and Small).
I discovered that the two would have used the same microcode engine, and probably the same memory and other hardware. It would have been slower, probably by using a different microcode incorporating delays.
The P2S never happened; I suspect that the P2L was slow enough, as it
didn't sell that well. The P1 and P0 never happened either.
(for completeness, P3 and P4 were each radically different, and P5 never happened)
On 09/06/2023 18:20, Bob Eager wrote:
I have just been researching the ICL 2900 mainframe (not that well
known).
Many models were planned but never built, or cancelled. There was a
model called the P2L (marketed as the 2960), and I became curious as to
what a P2S was. It would have been marketed as a 2950 (L ane S meant
Large and Small).
I discovered that the two would have used the same microcode engine,
and probably the same memory and other hardware. It would have been
slower, probably by using a different microcode incorporating delays.
The P2S never happened; I suspect that the P2L was slow enough, as it
didn't sell that well. The P1 and P0 never happened either.
(for completeness, P3 and P4 were each radically different, and P5
never happened)
All these years later I can't remember the internal names, but the 2950
was a real product. We had one. As we _were_ ICL that's not a complete
guide, but google says we weren't alone.
The Wikipedia article has P2S and S1 BOTH 2950!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICL_2900_Series
It also doesn't mention the 2982 (an uprated 2980). All these years
later I can't recall the models well enough to fix Wikipedia.
It also doesn't mention the 2982 (an uprated 2980). All these years
later I can't recall the models well enough to fix Wikipedia.
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 15:43:19 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
It also doesn't mention the 2982 (an uprated 2980). All these years
later I can't recall the models well enough to fix Wikipedia.
I'm not convinced the 2982 (probably a P4L) was ever delivered, although
it's mentioned. I think the same thing happened as with the 2950, but they gave it a different name. It would have been an S series machine, probably
an S3 variant (which is all ICL made in the end), and named the 2988
(which did exist).
All these years later I can't remember the internal names, but the 2950
was a real product. We had one. As we _were_ ICL that's not a complete
guide, but google says we weren't alone.
If you are still interested after all these years, I recently gave a
lecture on a 2900 operating system (not VME):
http://emas.bobeager.uk
(link on that page)
Bob Eager wrote:
If you are still interested after all these years, I recently gave a
lecture on a 2900 operating system (not VME):
http://emas.bobeager.uk
(link on that page)
authentication required?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:01:37 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
If you are still interested after all these years, I recently gave a
lecture on a 2900 operating system (not VME):
http://emas.bobeager.uk
(link on that page)
authentication required?
It should be OK except for the 2900 series page, which is under
development. The video on the page I mentioned is the one.
On 13/06/2023 08:47, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:01:37 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:I read the slides. Interesting!
Bob Eager wrote:
If you are still interested after all these years, I recently gave a
lecture on a 2900 operating system (not VME):
http://emas.bobeager.uk
(link on that page)
authentication required?
It should be OK except for the 2900 series page, which is under
development. The video on the page I mentioned is the one.
Bob, one thing I hate you for. My computer lives in my garden office,
and I have a couple of dead pixels on the screen. Actually not pixels, they're dead thrips (small bugs) which have crawled in and died.
So when I saw that bug running around in the corner of your web page I
had a moment's panic!
Your summary of VME/K is quote interesting. As you say, ICL started a
project to re-architect it, just as you dropped it. That project
improved the system reliability enormously. Just as it was getting to a decent standard ICL decided to can the whole OS!
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 12:09:18 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/06/2023 08:47, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:01:37 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
If you are still interested after all these years, I recently gave a lecture on a 2900 operating system (not VME):
http://emas.bobeager.uk
(link on that page)
authentication required?
It should be OK except for the 2900 series page, which is under development. The video on the page I mentioned is the one.I read the slides. Interesting!
Bob, one thing I hate you for. My computer lives in my garden office,
and I have a couple of dead pixels on the screen. Actually not pixels, they're dead thrips (small bugs) which have crawled in and died.
So when I saw that bug running around in the corner of your web page I
had a moment's panic!
Your summary of VME/K is quote interesting. As you say, ICL started a project to re-architect it, just as you dropped it. That project
improved the system reliability enormously. Just as it was getting to a decent standard ICL decided to can the whole OS!
At that point I think they were spending 35% of their money on R&D, and Ed Mack was not the most popular guy, I believe.
On 18 Jun 2023, Bob Eager wrote (in article <kf8fl7F5a4vU5@mid.individual.net>):
On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 12:09:18 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 13/06/2023 08:47, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:01:37 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:I read the slides. Interesting!
Bob Eager wrote:
If you are still interested after all these years, I recently
gave a lecture on a 2900 operating system (not VME):
http://emas.bobeager.uk
(link on that page)
authentication required?
It should be OK except for the 2900 series page, which is under
development. The video on the page I mentioned is the one.
Bob, one thing I hate you for. My computer lives in my garden office,
and I have a couple of dead pixels on the screen. Actually not
pixels, they're dead thrips (small bugs) which have crawled in and
died.
So when I saw that bug running around in the corner of your web page
I had a moment's panic!
Your summary of VME/K is quote interesting. As you say, ICL started a
project to re-architect it, just as you dropped it. That project
improved the system reliability enormously. Just as it was getting to
a decent standard ICL decided to can the whole OS!
At that point I think they were spending 35% of their money on R&D, and
Ed Mack was not the most popular guy, I believe.
He should never have been allowed to have his own private OS,
diverting scarce resources away from other products.
The trouble was that the P2 (2960) and the projected 2940 (P1) and 2930
(P0) were too weak for VME/B at the time. Even the revised 2930 (S0)
wouldn't have worked.
But Mack certainly had too much power.
On 19/06/2023 09:41, Bob Eager wrote:
The trouble was that the P2 (2960) and the projected 2940 (P1) and 2930The rumour I heard was than when they put "VME/2900" (renamed VME/B) on
(P0) were too weak for VME/B at the time. Even the revised 2930 (S0)
wouldn't have worked.
the K sites it was supposed to need 1MB of extra RAM, and that was all.
The couldn't switch all sites to K because of a few odd things like
DAPs.
But Mack certainly had too much power.
I know the name, but I think he might predate me.
On 19/06/2023 09:41, Bob Eager wrote:
The trouble was that the P2 (2960) and the projected 2940 (P1) and 2930The rumour I heard was than when they put "VME/2900" (renamed VME/B) on
(P0) were too weak for VME/B at the time. Even the revised 2930 (S0)
wouldn't have worked.
the K sites it was supposed to need 1MB of extra RAM, and that was all.
The couldn't switch all sites to K because of a few odd things like DAPs.
And it turned out to be double the RAM (which was 1MB on most sites) but
more critically an extra 10% of CPU.
The rumour also said that it was somebody from the B project who wrote
the report!
But Mack certainly had too much power.I know the name, but I think he might predate me.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 07:10:07 |
| Calls: | 45 |
| Files: | 21,492 |
| Messages: | 62,773 |