There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.

http://www.openvmsplanet.org/


Cheers!

K.C.

Keith Cayemberg wrote:

> 
> There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.
> 
> http://www.openvmsplanet.org/

Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat with someone 
from the booth. I asked how they would compare with Ken Farmer's openvms.org. 
Their answer did not convince me.

To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as Ken's is.

my 2 euros

D.

Didier Morandi wrote:

> Keith Cayemberg wrote:
> 
>>
>> There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.
>>
>> http://www.openvmsplanet.org/
> 
> 
> Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat with 
> someone from the booth. I asked how they would compare with Ken Farmer's 
> openvms.org. Their answer did not convince me.
> 
> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as Ken's is.
> 
> my 2 euros
> 
> D.

Well, from their ABOUT page (see their statement below) they appear to 
have good intentions. I don't see it as a direct competition with 
OpenVMS.Org in the first place, but rather an extra OpenVMS resource. 
Please consider their exists many hundreds of such sites for Windows, 
Unix or Linux. OpenVMS still has some catching up to do. :-)  I'm 
willing to give the site the benefit of a doubt, and see how it 
develops. That doesn't mean I will reduce my attention or participation 
in Ken's Websites one iota. Indeed, I have lots of ideas for future 
submissions in the works. ;-)

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg


ABOUT...
OpenVMS PLANET is a unique community that strives to provide current, 
timely and interesting content to OpenVMS users, and to serve as an 
advocate for the OpenVMS operating system and affiliated products.  We 
believe that OpenVMS�s security, reliability, and availability can meet 
current and future business demands, and that its future is dependent 
upon having a strong, active community of users, advocates, and 
educators.  OpenVMS PLANET strives to serve as a forum for advocacy and 
education, and to provide resources, opportunities, and forums for 
OpenVMS system personnel and hobbyists.

OpenVMS PLANET is, above all, your community.  We welcome your feedback 
and suggestions for improving the site, and we encourage you to use this 
forum as a means to create dynamic connections to other OpenVMS users. 
  The future is in your hands, and we believe it�s a bright one.

Didier Morandi wrote:
> Keith Cayemberg wrote:
>
> >
> > There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.
> >
> > http://www.openvmsplanet.org/
>
> Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat with someone
> from the booth. I asked how they would compare with Ken Farmer's openvms.org.
> Their answer did not convince me.
>
> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as Ken's is.
>
> my 2 euros
>
> D.


You mean 2 errors! OK, one error. "Fiendly" is not a complementary
term! :-)

In article <1119045473.216316.179570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
> Didier Morandi wrote:

>> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as Ken's is.
>>
>> my 2 euros
>>
>> D.
> 
> 
> You mean 2 errors! OK, one error. "Fiendly" is not a complementary
> term! :-)

In fact, it is not even a complimentary term !

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <1119045473.216316.179570@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>>
>>Didier Morandi wrote:
> 
> 
>>>To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as Ken's is.
>>>
>>>my 2 euros
>>>
>>>D.
>>
>>
>>You mean 2 errors! OK, one error. "Fiendly" is not a complementary
>>term! :-)
> 
> 
> In fact, it is not even a complimentary term !

If I add to my post an addendum (how could an addendum not be added?) with 
"Friendly" instead, does this solve your problem, Gentlemen? :-)

D.

Didier Morandi wrote:
> Keith Cayemberg wrote:
> 
>>
>> There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.
>>
>> http://www.openvmsplanet.org/
> 
> 
> Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat with 
> someone from the booth. I asked how they would compare with Ken Farmer's 
> openvms.org. Their answer did not convince me.
> 
> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as Ken's is.

You once asked me "What's wrong with making $$$?"  :-)

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486

Dave Froble wrote:
> Didier Morandi wrote:
> 
>> Keith Cayemberg wrote:
>>
>>> There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.
>>>
>>> http://www.openvmsplanet.org/
>>
>> Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat 
>> with someone from the booth. I asked how they would compare with Ken 
>> Farmer's openvms.org. Their answer did not convince me.
>>
>> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as 
>> Ken's is.
> 
> You once asked me "What's wrong with making $$$?"  :-)

Correct. There is nothing wrong. What I mean is that Ken's is a fRiendly site, 
that new one seems to me to be more business oriented. There was no negative 
tone in my sentence. As I'm currently doing the same with my site for VMS 
consulting in Europe, I would be badly positionned (as we say in French :-)

Btw, I'm starting a book: The VAX/VMS to Itanium migration (in French). If you 
have ideas, please forward to didier dot morandi at freesurf dot fr and your 
name and data will be mentioned in the ack page if you want to.

When a publisher is ok for publication, I will translate it in English and 
submit it to DP.

If we do not help those VAX/VMS Customers to be convinced that THEY DO NOT HAVE 
ANY OTHER OPTION that going I64, "we" will loose them all in 8 years time (end 
of VAX support).

D.
-- 
Didier MORANDI - Expert informaticien - VMS / SAP
  13 chemin du Gu�, 1213 Petit-Lancy (GE) Suisse
T�l. : +33(0)6 7983 6418 ~ www.didiermorandi.com

Didier Morandi wrote:
> Btw, I'm starting a book: The VAX/VMS to Itanium migration (in French). If you
> have ideas, please forward to didier dot morandi at freesurf dot fr

By the time your book is ready, the port to the 8086 will be well underway.

Didier Morandi wrote:
> Dave Froble wrote:
> 
>> Didier Morandi wrote:
>>
>>> Keith Cayemberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC Group.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openvmsplanet.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat 
>>> with someone from the booth. I asked how they would compare with Ken 
>>> Farmer's openvms.org. Their answer did not convince me.
>>>
>>> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as 
>>> Ken's is.
>>
>>
>> You once asked me "What's wrong with making $$$?"  :-)
> 
> 
> Correct. There is nothing wrong. What I mean is that Ken's is a fRiendly 
> site, that new one seems to me to be more business oriented. There was 
> no negative tone in my sentence. As I'm currently doing the same with my 
> site for VMS consulting in Europe, I would be badly positionned (as we 
> say in French :-)
> 
> Btw, I'm starting a book: The VAX/VMS to Itanium migration (in French). 
> If you have ideas, please forward to didier dot morandi at freesurf dot 
> fr and your name and data will be mentioned in the ack page if you want to.
> 
> When a publisher is ok for publication, I will translate it in English 
> and submit it to DP.
> 
> If we do not help those VAX/VMS Customers to be convinced that THEY DO 
> NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION that going I64, "we" will loose them all in 8 
> years time (end of VAX support).
> 
> D.

I'm really beginning to wonder about emulation of specific hardware. 
Face it, anyone on VAX isn't too worried about speed, new features, and 
such.  They have a solution, and they want to continue to have a solution.

We've read statements that Charon VAX on some of the latest hardware is 
faster than any 'real' VAX.  As long as the emulator is supported, VMS 
on VAX is supported, and the new hardware is supported, there exists a 
'solution'.

If HP won't continue to support VAX, though at this time I have to 
wonder just what that means since so few new features make it to VAX, 
then perhaps someone else could do so.  It's happened with some of the 
PDP-11 Operating Systems.

Dave

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486

JF Mezei wrote:
> Didier Morandi wrote:
> 
>>Btw, I'm starting a book: The VAX/VMS to Itanium migration (in French). If you
>>have ideas, please forward to didier dot morandi at freesurf dot fr
> 
> 
> By the time your book is ready, the port to the 8086 will be well underway.

ha ha ha

D.

Dave Froble wrote:

> 
> I'm really beginning to wonder about emulation of specific hardware. 
> Face it, anyone on VAX isn't too worried about speed, new features, and 
> such.  They have a solution, and they want to continue to have a solution.
> 
> We've read statements that Charon VAX on some of the latest hardware is 
> faster than any 'real' VAX.  As long as the emulator is supported, VMS 
> on VAX is supported, and the new hardware is supported, there exists a 
> 'solution'.
> 
> If HP won't continue to support VAX, though at this time I have to 
> wonder just what that means since so few new features make it to VAX, 
> then perhaps someone else could do so.  It's happened with some of the 
> PDP-11 Operating Systems.

This is what I wrote on that subject end of 2003:

http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxvms2itanium_200310en.pdf
http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxvms2itanium_200311en.pdf
http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxvms2itanium_200312en.pdf

And the conclusion from the "field" is that a Windoz PC is NOT a serious 
replacement for an ever working VAX.

D.
D.

Dave Froble wrote:

> I'm really beginning to wonder about emulation of specific hardware. 
> Face it, anyone on VAX isn't too worried about speed, new features, and 
> such.  They have a solution, and they want to continue to have a solution.
> 
> We've read statements that Charon VAX on some of the latest hardware is 
> faster than any 'real' VAX.  As long as the emulator is supported, VMS 
> on VAX is supported, and the new hardware is supported, there exists a 
> 'solution'.
> 
> If HP won't continue to support VAX, though at this time I have to 
> wonder just what that means since so few new features make it to VAX, 
> then perhaps someone else could do so.  It's happened with some of the 
> PDP-11 Operating Systems.

Look at the Vax/VMS to Itanium Migration Letters I wrote on that subject in 2003 
http://www.didiermorandi.com/products.htm

D.

may be off subject but there is a FREEVMS initiative ...


Look into google

Dans un message Dave Froble disait :

> Didier Morandi wrote:
>> Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>> Didier Morandi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Keith Cayemberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a new OpenVMS community website sponsored by the PARSEC
>>>>> Group.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openvmsplanet.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. They had a booth in the Sheraton Tara last week. I hat a chat
>>>> with someone from the booth. I asked how they would compare with
>>>> Ken Farmer's openvms.org. Their answer did not convince me.
>>>>
>>>> To me it is a gateway towards making $$$, not a fiendly corner as
>>>> Ken's is.
>>>
>>>
>>> You once asked me "What's wrong with making $$$?"  :-)
>>
>>
>> Correct. There is nothing wrong. What I mean is that Ken's is a
>> fRiendly site, that new one seems to me to be more business
>> oriented. There was
>> no negative tone in my sentence. As I'm currently doing the same
>> with my site for VMS consulting in Europe, I would be badly
>> positionned (as we
>> say in French :-)
>>
>> Btw, I'm starting a book: The VAX/VMS to Itanium migration (in
>> French).
>> If you have ideas, please forward to didier dot morandi at freesurf
>> dot
>> fr and your name and data will be mentioned in the ack page if you
>> want to.
>>
>> When a publisher is ok for publication, I will translate it in
>> English
>> and submit it to DP.
>>
>> If we do not help those VAX/VMS Customers to be convinced that THEY
>> DO
>> NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION that going I64, "we" will loose them all
>> in 8 years time (end of VAX support).
>>
>> D.
>
> I'm really beginning to wonder about emulation of specific hardware.
> Face it, anyone on VAX isn't too worried about speed, new features,
> and such.  They have a solution, and they want to continue to have a
> solution.
>
> We've read statements that Charon VAX on some of the latest hardware
> is faster than any 'real' VAX.  As long as the emulator is supported,
> VMS
> on VAX is supported, and the new hardware is supported, there exists a
> 'solution'.
>
> If HP won't continue to support VAX, though at this time I have to
> wonder just what that means since so few new features make it to VAX,
> then perhaps someone else could do so.  It's happened with some of the
> PDP-11 Operating Systems.
>
> Dave

-- 
Michel HERRSCHER CONSULTANT
Pr�sident WINDASSO - Association des utilisateurs WxxDEV(c)
Tel : +33450870912 Fax:+33450871741
http://www.windasso.org

Michel HERRSCHER wrote:
> may be off subject but there is a FREEVMS initiative ...

We know, Michel... http://www.freevms.org/

:-)

D.

Didier Morandi wrote:
> Dave Froble wrote:
> 
>>
>> I'm really beginning to wonder about emulation of specific hardware. 
>> Face it, anyone on VAX isn't too worried about speed, new features, 
>> and such.  They have a solution, and they want to continue to have a 
>> solution.
>>
>> We've read statements that Charon VAX on some of the latest hardware 
>> is faster than any 'real' VAX.  As long as the emulator is supported, 
>> VMS on VAX is supported, and the new hardware is supported, there 
>> exists a 'solution'.
>>
>> If HP won't continue to support VAX, though at this time I have to 
>> wonder just what that means since so few new features make it to VAX, 
>> then perhaps someone else could do so.  It's happened with some of the 
>> PDP-11 Operating Systems.
> 
> 
> This is what I wrote on that subject end of 2003:
> 
> http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxvms2itanium_200310en.pdf
> http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxvms2itanium_200311en.pdf
> http://www.didiermorandi.com/vaxvms2itanium_200312en.pdf
> 
> And the conclusion from the "field" is that a Windoz PC is NOT a serious 
> replacement for an ever working VAX.

If all we end up with is x86, then everything is a PC.  A PC running a 
VAX emulator would then allow you to run a decent operating system.  If 
the alternative is a PC running windows, then maybe the conclusion needs 
to change.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486

In article <11bbb25ri2v5779@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> 
> If all we end up with is x86, then everything is a PC.  A PC running a 
> VAX emulator would then allow you to run a decent operating system.  If 
> the alternative is a PC running windows, then maybe the conclusion needs 
> to change.

   Will you be happier when your PC is running MacOS?  I'm sure simh
   will run just find that way.

In article <EnUI5cN11NtI@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <11bbb25ri2v5779@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> 
>> If all we end up with is x86, then everything is a PC.  A PC running a 
>> VAX emulator would then allow you to run a decent operating system.  If 
>> the alternative is a PC running windows, then maybe the conclusion needs 
>> to change.
> 
>    Will you be happier when your PC is running MacOS?  I'm sure simh
>    will run just find that way.
> 

SIMH will run just fine n a PC now under FreeBSD.  Why would anyone
want to run MacOS on a PC?

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> SIMH will run just fine n a PC now under FreeBSD.  Why would anyone
> want to run MacOS on a PC?

Because Steve told us during his keynote last week that it was possible since 
version 10.0-0 of MAC OS X...

D.

In article <42b6f600$0$19049$636a15ce@news.free.fr>,
	Didier Morandi <prenom.nom@freesurf.fr> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>> SIMH will run just fine n a PC now under FreeBSD.  Why would anyone
>> want to run MacOS on a PC?
> 
> Because Steve told us during his keynote last week that it was possible since 
> version 10.0-0 of MAC OS X...

That doesn't answer the question "Why?".  If the desire is to run
SIMH in order to run VMS on a PC, this has been possible since the
very first version of SIMH to simulate a VAX.  MAC OSX was not
needed then and it certainly isn't now.  Having targeted the x86
architecture from it's earliest point I would expect FreeBSD to
do the job better and more efficiently than MAC OSX which only 
decided to include x86 as an afterthought.

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 <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <3hnqvjFhpdmtU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
> SIMH will run just fine n a PC now under FreeBSD.  Why would anyone
> want to run MacOS on a PC?

   Don't ask me, ask Steve Jobs.  It was his decision. (OK, Intel based
   Macs might not quite be PCs, wait and see.)

   OBTW, simh runs just fine under MacOS already.

In article <3hobd3Fi1hfpU1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
> That doesn't answer the question "Why?".  If the desire is to run
> SIMH in order to run VMS on a PC, this has been possible since the
> very first version of SIMH to simulate a VAX.

   IIRC the OP didn't care for Windows.  Lynux, FreeBSD, and soon
   MacOS are all alternatives.

   Hm, maybe I can get simh up and running on my Pro350.  At least that
   way I'll know it will actually be slower than the real thing.  And my
   Pro will have something better to do than run Empire.

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <3hnqvjFhpdmtU2@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
>>SIMH will run just fine n a PC now under FreeBSD.  Why would anyone
>>want to run MacOS on a PC?
> 
> 
>    Don't ask me, ask Steve Jobs.  It was his decision. (OK, Intel based
>    Macs might not quite be PCs, wait and see.)


Friends, the problem with PCs is not the cpu it's the M$ OS.

D.

In article <42b73f8f$0$32421$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Didier Morandi <prenom.nom@freesurf.fr> writes:
> 
> Friends, the problem with PCs is not the cpu it's the M$ OS.
> 

   Pentium math is OK with your financials, then?

In article <C+mxl1bPAY5l@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <42b73f8f$0$32421$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Didier Morandi <prenom.nom@freesurf.fr> writes:
>> 
>> Friends, the problem with PCs is not the cpu it's the M$ OS.
>> 
> 
>    Pentium math is OK with your financials, then?

Wasn't the Pentium math problem in floating point ?

If I do financials in floating point I have bigger problems than Pentium.

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <C+mxl1bPAY5l@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> 
>>In article <42b73f8f$0$32421$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Didier Morandi <prenom.nom@freesurf.fr> writes:
>>
>>>Friends, the problem with PCs is not the cpu it's the M$ OS.
>>>
>>
>>   Pentium math is OK with your financials, then?

Excellant shot!

> Wasn't the Pentium math problem in floating point ?
> 
> If I do financials in floating point I have bigger problems than Pentium.

It's in my (usually feeble these days) mind that some VAXs running VMS 
used the floating point processor for some calculations.  Neither the 
operands not the result were floating point, but the FP processor was 
used for performance.  I just cannot remember the details.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486

In article <11bgjmh48p19l2e@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> In article <C+mxl1bPAY5l@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> 
>>>In article <42b73f8f$0$32421$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Didier Morandi <prenom.nom@freesurf.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>>Friends, the problem with PCs is not the cpu it's the M$ OS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>   Pentium math is OK with your financials, then?
>
>Excellant shot!
>
>> Wasn't the Pentium math problem in floating point ?
>> 
>> If I do financials in floating point I have bigger problems than Pentium.
>
>It's in my (usually feeble these days) mind that some VAXs running VMS 
>used the floating point processor for some calculations.  Neither the 
>operands not the result were floating point, but the FP processor was 
>used for performance.  I just cannot remember the details.

When the FP processor on my 11/750 was flaking out, the password hash
calculations didn't work and people couldn't log in.  If I reset their
passwords from an already-logged-in SYSTEM account, they could log in, but
later the flaky FP would go back to the former state and the new hashes
wouldn't work while the old ones did.  (It took a long time
to figure out that it was the FP processor, because we used the 750 for
database, email, admin applications and the 780 for heavy calculation.)

-- Alan

Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing wrote:
> In article <11bgjmh48p19l2e@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> 
>>Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>>
>>>In article <C+mxl1bPAY5l@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <42b73f8f$0$32421$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Didier Morandi <prenom.nom@freesurf.fr> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Friends, the problem with PCs is not the cpu it's the M$ OS.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Pentium math is OK with your financials, then?
>>
>>Excellant shot!
>>
>>
>>>Wasn't the Pentium math problem in floating point ?
>>>
>>>If I do financials in floating point I have bigger problems than Pentium.
>>
>>It's in my (usually feeble these days) mind that some VAXs running VMS 
>>used the floating point processor for some calculations.  Neither the 
>>operands not the result were floating point, but the FP processor was 
>>used for performance.  I just cannot remember the details.
> 
> 
> When the FP processor on my 11/750 was flaking out, the password hash
> calculations didn't work and people couldn't log in.  If I reset their
> passwords from an already-logged-in SYSTEM account, they could log in, but
> later the flaky FP would go back to the former state and the new hashes
> wouldn't work while the old ones did.  (It took a long time
> to figure out that it was the FP processor, because we used the 750 for
> database, email, admin applications and the 780 for heavy calculation.)
> 
> -- Alan

I cannot be sure, but I think it was the 750 that used the FP processor, 
if it had one, for some integer calculations.  It's been a long time.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc.              E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486

In article <11bgjmh48p19l2e@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> 
> It's in my (usually feeble these days) mind that some VAXs running VMS 
> used the floating point processor for some calculations.  Neither the 
> operands not the result were floating point, but the FP processor was 
> used for performance.  I just cannot remember the details.

   Probably model dependent.  On the 11/780 the floating point
   accelerator (a slightly different concept than an FP processor)
   was used for all arithmetic calcuations, including addressing, that
   it could possibly* be used for, except the INDEX instruction.  Which
   is why the compiler writers never used the powerfull INDEX
   instruction.

---------------
* some integer operations were not sufficiently fleshed out prior to
reaching the CPU

On 22 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500, Bob Koehler  
<koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:

>   Probably model dependent.  On the 11/780 the floating point
>    accelerator (a slightly different concept than an FP processor)
>    was used for all arithmetic calcuations, including addressing, that
>    it could possibly* be used for, except the INDEX instruction.  Which
>    is why the compiler writers never used the powerfull INDEX
>    instruction.

PL/I uses it.

In article <opsss2z5wuzgicya@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:
> On 22 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500, Bob Koehler  
> <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
> 
>>   Probably model dependent.  On the 11/780 the floating point
>>    accelerator (a slightly different concept than an FP processor)
>>    was used for all arithmetic calcuations, including addressing, that
>>    it could possibly* be used for, except the INDEX instruction.  Which
>>    is why the compiler writers never used the powerfull INDEX
>>    instruction.
> 
> PL/I uses it.

  Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the VAX-11
  series was the VAX model line.  Certainly by MicroVAX days the
  compilers were tuned to later models.

  I still recall that a DO loop copying individual characters of a
  CHARACTER string was faster than an assignment on our MV II
  because the latter generated a MOVC3 which was in the emulated 
  instruction subset, the compiler being tuned to processors which 
  implemented MOVCx in hardware.
   

Hi,

>   Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the VAX-11
>   series was the VAX model line.

Having just dug up a copy of my C.V. for Didier, I can testify to the fact
that in 1983 I was studying at Perth Tech. using the PL/I compiler (a second
year unit) on VAX/VMS. I think it was an 11/750 but they soon moved to
11/780 then 11/785.

Ahhh, but life was simple then. . .no pressure; only fun. . .James St wasn't
closed off. . .beer and Plaka kebabs were cheap. . .and we all got Friday
afternoons off to go to the beach. . . Now where did I leave that womb :-)

I actually liked PL/I, but then I *LOVED* RSTS/E Basic-plus-2 *AND* VAX
BASIC. But hey, someone told me that COBOL would be my bread and butter, and
they weren't far wrong. (RSTS/E Assembler has also seen me through some
sticky situations as well!)

Regards Richard Maher

"Bob Koehler" <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:+hzu1OejihBc@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <opsss2z5wuzgicya@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com>
writes:
> > On 22 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500, Bob Koehler
> > <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
> >
> >>   Probably model dependent.  On the 11/780 the floating point
> >>    accelerator (a slightly different concept than an FP processor)
> >>    was used for all arithmetic calcuations, including addressing, that
> >>    it could possibly* be used for, except the INDEX instruction.  Which
> >>    is why the compiler writers never used the powerfull INDEX
> >>    instruction.
> >
> > PL/I uses it.
>
>   Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the VAX-11
>   series was the VAX model line.  Certainly by MicroVAX days the
>   compilers were tuned to later models.
>
>   I still recall that a DO loop copying individual characters of a
>   CHARACTER string was faster than an assignment on our MV II
>   because the latter generated a MOVC3 which was in the emulated
>   instruction subset, the compiler being tuned to processors which
>   implemented MOVCx in hardware.
>

On 23 Jun 2005 08:31:27 -0500, Bob Koehler  
<koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:

>  Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the VAX-11
>   series was the VAX model line.  Certainly by MicroVAX days the
>   compilers were tuned to later models.

Actually the PL/I port was started in February 1978.   This was all  
descibed in
"Engineering a Compiler" by Anklam, Cutrler, et.al. Digital Press, 1982.   
It was this
port that created VCG, which demonstarted the concept of a common backend  
for
multiple compiler front-ends.  Digital, however, never exploited to the  
extent
the Prime and others did, until the development of GEM, which from this  
perspective
is the historical antecedent to VCG.

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <opsss2z5wuzgicya@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> writes:
> 
>>On 22 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500, Bob Koehler  
>><koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  Probably model dependent.  On the 11/780 the floating point
>>>   accelerator (a slightly different concept than an FP processor)
>>>   was used for all arithmetic calcuations, including addressing, that
>>>   it could possibly* be used for, except the INDEX instruction.  Which
>>>   is why the compiler writers never used the powerfull INDEX
>>>   instruction.
>>
>>PL/I uses it.
> 
> 
>   Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the VAX-11
>   series was the VAX model line.  Certainly by MicroVAX days the
>   compilers were tuned to later models.
> 
>   I still recall that a DO loop copying individual characters of a
>   CHARACTER string was faster than an assignment on our MV II
>   because the latter generated a MOVC3 which was in the emulated 
>   instruction subset, the compiler being tuned to processors which 
>   implemented MOVCx in hardware.
>    

I don't think MOVCs were ever emulated.  CMPCs, MOVTUC, MATCHC, etc. were.

As for the INDEX instrunction, the VAX Pascal compiler uses it a TON.  I 
never heard a recommendation to avoid the INDEX instruction even on a 
780.  There were others we did avoid however (SOBxxx, AOBxxx come to mind).

-- 
John Reagan
HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader
Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <bCAue.7549$T77.1079@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> writes:
> 
> I don't think MOVCs were ever emulated.  CMPCs, MOVTUC, MATCHC, etc. were.	

   When I saw the performance issue, I looked it up.  I don't have my
   subsetting reference handy but I'm pretty sure MOVCx was in the
   same subset as CMPC, MOVTx, ...  And the rule was no splitting up	
   a defined subset.

> As for the INDEX instrunction, the VAX Pascal compiler uses it a TON.  I 
> never heard a recommendation to avoid the INDEX instruction even on a 
> 780.  There were others we did avoid however (SOBxxx, AOBxxx come to mind).

   I don't think there was a recommendation, just that the compilers
   available through VMS 2.x (Fortran and COBOL, maybe PASCAL, I'm not
   sure) didn't use it because the 11/780 ran faster that way.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 19:03:12 +0100, John Laird  
<nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:32:23 GMT, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> wrote:
>
>> As for the INDEX instrunction, the VAX Pascal compiler uses it a TON.
>
> I'm fairly certain the Fortran compiler uses it heavily for array  
> indexing,
> at least when bounds checking is on.  Indeed, I'd maybe even wager a  
> small
> amount it was included in the instruction set for that purpose.
>
The VAX Architecture handbook (1981) gives three examples in Cobol, PL/I
and Fortan.  It was included because it is a useful construct in those
languages.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:32:23 GMT, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> wrote:

>As for the INDEX instrunction, the VAX Pascal compiler uses it a TON.

I'm fairly certain the Fortran compiler uses it heavily for array indexing,
at least when bounds checking is on.  Indeed, I'd maybe even wager a small
amount it was included in the instruction set for that purpose.

-- 
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <bCAue.7549$T77.1079@news.cpqcorp.net>, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> writes:
> 
>>I don't think MOVCs were ever emulated.  CMPCs, MOVTUC, MATCHC, etc. were.	
> 
> 
>    When I saw the performance issue, I looked it up.  I don't have my
>    subsetting reference handy but I'm pretty sure MOVCx was in the
>    same subset as CMPC, MOVTx, ...  And the rule was no splitting up	
>    a defined subset.
> 

According to the DEC STD 032 (VAX Architecture Standard) Rev J 1989:

The base instruction group which all VAX processors announced after 1986 
must implement include MOVC3, MOVC5, CMPC3, CMPC5, LOCC, SKPC, SPANC, 
and SCANC.

There are two "application-extension" groups that must either be 
implemented or omitted as a group.

Group 1, packed decimal (MOVP, CMPP3, CMPP4, ADDP4, ADDP6, SUBP4, SUBP6, 
CVTLP, CVTPL, CVTPT, CVTTP, CVTSP, ASHP, MULP and DIVP.

Group 2, extendec accuracy with 29 H-floating and octaword instructions.

There then are emulated-only groups where a processor can pick or choose 
which instructions to implement or emulation on a per-instruction basis

- Five string instructions: MATCHC, MOVTC, MOVTUC, CRC, and EDITPC

- Twelve floating-point instructions: ACB{F,D,G,H}, EMOD{F,D,G,H] and 
POLY{F,D,G,H}


Now looking back through the edit history, I do some comments about 
"MicroVAX" subsets in the Rev 6 1983 and Rev D 1985 timeframe, but I 
don't have anything but Rev J in my possession.

Given the wording "all VAX processors announced after 1986" certainly 
lets me believe that early MicroVAXen (especially MicroVAX I) 
implemented fewer.

-- 
John Reagan
HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader
Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <r7ulb11qvoqob119hs43gb9lqlgi9ol1h0@4ax.com>, John Laird <nospam@laird-towers.org.uk> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:32:23 GMT, John Reagan <john.reagan@hp.com> wrote:
> 
>>As for the INDEX instrunction, the VAX Pascal compiler uses it a TON.
> 
> I'm fairly certain the Fortran compiler uses it heavily for array indexing,
> at least when bounds checking is on.  Indeed, I'd maybe even wager a small
> amount it was included in the instruction set for that purpose.

   I checked the output of the Fortran compiler back when I had my
   second 11/780 and had learned Macro-32.  Lots of array indexing, no
   INDEX instructions.

   I beleive it was included in the instruction set to make array
   indexing easier.  It just wasn't generated by the compiler because
   it ran slower.

"Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:

>>   Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the VAX-11
>>   series was the VAX model line.

> Having just dug up a copy of my C.V. for Didier, I can testify to
> the fact that in 1983 I was studying at Perth Tech. using the PL/I
> compiler (a second year unit) on VAX/VMS. I think it was an 11/750
> but they soon moved to 11/780 then 11/785.

Nope, it was a 780 then. I know because I compiles SPICE on it and everthing
stopped because no one had told me that the account run at prio 15 by default!

> Ahhh, but life was simple then. . .no pressure; only fun. . .James
> St wasn't closed off. . .beer and Plaka kebabs were cheap. . .and we
> all got Friday afternoons off to go to the beach. . . Now where did
> I leave that womb :-)

> I actually liked PL/I, but then I *LOVED* RSTS/E Basic-plus-2 *AND*
> VAX BASIC. But hey, someone told me that COBOL would be my bread and
> butter, and they weren't far wrong. (RSTS/E Assembler has also seen
> me through some sticky situations as well!)

You didn't know Bruce Cook by any chance?

-- 
Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.
                                             West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Hi Paul,

> You didn't know Bruce Cook by any chance?

Doesn't ring any bells, but then I have enough trouble with short -term
memory these days.

Cheers Richard Maher

<prep@prep.synonet.com> wrote in message
news:87zmterce1.fsf@prep.synonet.com...
> "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@hotspamnotmail.com> writes:
>
> >>   Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the
VAX-11
> >>   series was the VAX model line.
>
> > Having just dug up a copy of my C.V. for Didier, I can testify to
> > the fact that in 1983 I was studying at Perth Tech. using the PL/I
> > compiler (a second year unit) on VAX/VMS. I think it was an 11/750
> > but they soon moved to 11/780 then 11/785.
>
> Nope, it was a 780 then. I know because I compiles SPICE on it and
everthing
> stopped because no one had told me that the account run at prio 15 by
default!
>
> > Ahhh, but life was simple then. . .no pressure; only fun. . .James
> > St wasn't closed off. . .beer and Plaka kebabs were cheap. . .and we
> > all got Friday afternoons off to go to the beach. . . Now where did
> > I leave that womb :-)
>
> > I actually liked PL/I, but then I *LOVED* RSTS/E Basic-plus-2 *AND*
> > VAX BASIC. But hey, someone told me that COBOL would be my bread and
> > butter, and they weren't far wrong. (RSTS/E Assembler has also seen
> > me through some sticky situations as well!)
>
> You didn't know Bruce Cook by any chance?
>
> -- 
> Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,
> +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.
>                                              West Australia 6076
> comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
> EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

John Reagan wrote:

> Bob Koehler wrote:
> 
>> In article <opsss2z5wuzgicya@hyrrokkin>, "Tom Linden" <tom@kednos.com> 
>> writes:
>>
>>> On 22 Jun 2005 13:20:44 -0500, Bob Koehler  
>>> <koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Probably model dependent.  On the 11/780 the floating point
>>>>   accelerator (a slightly different concept than an FP processor)
>>>>   was used for all arithmetic calcuations, including addressing, that
>>>>   it could possibly* be used for, except the INDEX instruction.  Which
>>>>   is why the compiler writers never used the powerfull INDEX
>>>>   instruction.
>>>
>>>
>>> PL/I uses it.
>>
>>
>>
>>   Interesting.  I don't recall a PL/I compiler in the days when the 
>> VAX-11
>>   series was the VAX model line.  Certainly by MicroVAX days the
>>   compilers were tuned to later models.
>>
>>   I still recall that a DO loop copying individual characters of a
>>   CHARACTER string was faster than an assignment on our MV II
>>   because the latter generated a MOVC3 which was in the emulated   
>> instruction subset, the compiler being tuned to processors which   
>> implemented MOVCx in hardware.
>>    
> 
> 
> I don't think MOVCs were ever emulated.  CMPCs, MOVTUC, MATCHC, etc. were.
> 
> As for the INDEX instrunction, the VAX Pascal compiler uses it a TON.  I 
> never heard a recommendation to avoid the INDEX instruction even on a 
> 780.  There were others we did avoid however (SOBxxx, AOBxxx come to mind).


Monitor was written in PL1
> 

In article <Ksmve.117664$VH2.93318@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Beach Runner <bob@nospam.com> writes:
> 
> Monitor was written in PL1

   And shipped with 3.0.  It replaced sys$system:display.exe, which
   may not have been written in PL/I.