[Info-vax] TK50 - this is annoying...

[John Wallace]

On Oct 8, 9:28 pm, John Wallace <johnwalla... at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 7:28 pm, billg... at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <k4upul$8r... at iltempo.update.uu.se>,
> >         Johnny Billquist <b... at softjar.se> writes:
>
> > > On 2012-10-08 13:28, "Roßert G. Schaffrath" wrote:
> > >> On 10/7/2012 9:38 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > >>> On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
> > >>>>   I recall a VAX Magic session at a DECUS convention in the mid 80s or
> > >>>> so, where someone came up on stage, and, without saying a word of
> > >>>> explanation, set a TK50 tape drive down on the floor  and proceeded to
> > >>>> smash it to pieces with a middle sized hammer. He got a standing
> > >>>> ovation.
>
> > >>> Just having tried booting from one of those is enough to sympathize
> > >>> with that action.
>
> > >> As bad as TK50's were, they were a definite improvement over the TU58. I
> > >> recall much lost time waiting for an 11/730 bootstrapping microcode from
> > >> one of those.
>
> > > I don't entirely agree. While the TU58 was horrible as far as speed goes
> > > (and capacity), it at least didn't have the weird error behavior of the
> > > TK50.
>
> > As long as we are talking TU58's here....
>
> > Now that we have a suitable emulator for the TU58 has anyone ever tried
> > "redefining" it so that it could be run at a higher baudrate and with
> > greater capacity?  Compared to a real TU58 the emulator should scream
> > as it has no physical movement and is pretty much a random access device.
>
> > bill
> > (always looking to push the envelope!!!)
> > :-)
>
> > --
> > Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> > billg... at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> > University of Scranton   |
> > Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
>
> Did that ages ago. Must have been before 1985 as that's when I left
> there. A small collection of diskless VT103s with serial connections
> to a central MicroPDP with a DZV or was it a DHV multiport serial
> card. All running RT11. The VT103s were running odd test equipment.
> Courtesy of the TU58 protocol, they thought they were booting off TU58
> (except no seek time to speak of). A bit of software on the MicroPDP
> served out blocks from separate RT11 disk images (via LD, if I
> remember rightly, and a rather specialist DZ/DHdriver). There are disk
> size limitations in the TU58 protocol but nothing to worry a setup of
> this kind where the main goal was fast initial load of the application
> program. Incidental benefits included being cheaper and smaller
> (inches, watts) and bigger (MB of storage) and quieter than the
> alternative VT103+RXV21+RX02, and easier file transfer to/from the
> VT103s. No idea what happened to the software. Yes we did look briefly
> at MRRT11 (memory resident RT11) but it seemed quite restricted
> relative to booting ordinary RT11 from a fake TU58.

Just checking...

Everybody knows that a VT103 is a VT100 with a 4x4 Qbus backplane (the
best 4x4 by far), right? Two built in TU58s as well. Just what you
need
for a KXT11/Falcon PDP11 SBC, or maybe something slightly more
upmarket
if the power and cooling can cope.

VT103s weren't universally known? Wow. DEC marketing strikes again.