DEC and the Bell System?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Per the recent thread on DEC history,...

Bell Labs began using DEC mini-computers to develop a variety of
applicaitons to support central office administration--such as
tracking cable assignment records or repair requests. They were also
used to generate test data to shakedown switches and test trunks. A
number of applications were developed

As we know, Bell used DEC machines to develop Unix.

Would anyone know why Bell chose DEC for these needs? Was DEC the
best hardware provider for the applications? There were other
platforms available--some IBM and other minis, or using a mianframe as
a central processor and remote terminals.

[Peter Flass]

The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970. The IBM Series/1 didn't come out
until 1976 (according to Wikipedia). The Series/1 was a good box, but
obviously too late for AT&T. Besides, although I haven't compared them
in detail it's possible that IBM hobbled the Series/1 so as not to cut
in to their mainframe business, or at least there might have been a
perception of such.

--
Pete

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 20, 10:45 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970.  The IBM Series/1 didn't come out
> until 1976 (according to Wikipedia).  The Series/1 was a good box, but
> obviously too late for AT&T.  Besides, although I haven't compared them
> in detail it's possible that IBM hobbled the Series/1 so as not to cut
> in to their mainframe business, or at least there might have been a
> perception of such.

The IBM 1130 was a very popular mini computer at the time, though it
was Fortran batch oriented. HP had its 2000 computer, which supported
terminals.

The other option was to hang terminals off their mainframes; though
apparently mni's.

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
> The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970. The IBM Series/1 didn't come out
> until 1976 (according to Wikipedia). The Series/1 was a good box, but
> obviously too late for AT&T. Besides, although I haven't compared
> them in detail it's possible that IBM hobbled the Series/1 so as not
> to cut in to their mainframe business, or at least there might have
> been a perception of such.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#36 What Makes code storage management so cool?

mentions 1800, system/7 and series/1.

there is joke that the officially released system for series/1 was some
number of old kingston os/360 MFT developers retiring to Boca and
attempting to recreate MFT as RPS ... a heavy weight and very slow
implementation

folklore is that summer physics grad. student at San Jose Research first
did EDX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Series/1

another major user of series/1 was one of the credit card financial
networks.

after IBM bought ROLM ... ROLM did a large series/1 order (a full years
manufacturing capacity) and series/1 became hard to come by.

i was getting funding for various parts of HSDT ... some past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#hsdt

with T1 and faster speed links. None of the 37x5 boxes supported
anything faster than 56kbit ... the last mainframe controller to even
support T1 was the 2701 ... and customers were starting to have
problems keeping the (in some cases 20+yr old) boxes in service

however, there was a special, custom series/1 "Zirpel" card done by FSD
for gov. contracts. one of the strings for some of the HSDT funding
... was that I also be able to demo series/1 w/zirpel cards running
at T1 ... which met that I had get some series/1 boxes.

it turns out that a former co-worker at IBM was then at ROLM running
dataprocessing operations (and responsible for all the equipment orders)
... and I had to do a little horse-trading ... to get a couple of their
series/1 allocation.

that activity was orthogonal to the later series/1 activity trying
to turn out a series/1 ncp/vtam emulator (done by one of the baby
bells) as a product. other recent references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#57 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#58 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#61 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#43 IBM 7070 Question

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[John Levine]

>> The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970. �The IBM Series/1 didn't come out

>> until 1976 ...

>The IBM 1130 was a very popular mini computer at the time, though it
>was Fortran batch oriented. HP had its 2000 computer, which supported
>terminals.

You couldn't easily use the 1130 for realtime work. Its big brother
the IBM 1800, which was program compatible and much faster and had
better I/O was a fine realtime system but was very expensive.

One of the things that DEC did right was to make it easy to attach
random stuff to their computers. The I/O buses were simple, and you
could build interfaces from the same kinds of modules used to build
the computers.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Mon, 2013-05-20, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
...

> Would anyone know why Bell chose DEC for these needs? Was DEC the
> best hardware provider for the applications? There were other
> platforms available--some IBM and other minis, or using a mianframe as
> a central processor and remote terminals.

I'm suddenly reminded Dennis is no longer here to answer such things :-(

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 20, 2:16 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >> The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970.  The IBM Series/1 didn't come out
> >> until 1976 ...
> >The IBM 1130 was a very popular mini computer at the time, though it
> >was Fortran batch oriented.  HP had its 2000 computer, which supported
> >terminals.
>
> You couldn't easily use the 1130 for realtime work.  Its big brother
> the IBM 1800, which was program compatible and much faster and had
> better I/O was a fine realtime system but was very expensive.

The applications were administrative, not "real time". (There were
separate uses of mini computers connected directly to switchgear, but
that's a separate topic). Anyway, I'm not sure if those
administrative applications were on-line or batch. The 1130 could be
used for on-line work, especially for a single user, but other mini-
computers might have been better for the task.

I'm just curious why DEC was chosen over HP, DataGeneral, etc.

> One of the things that DEC did right was to make it easy to attach
> random stuff to their computers.  The I/O buses were simple, and you
> could build interfaces from the same kinds of modules used to build
> the computers.

For administrative applications this wasn't significant. However,
when connected to switchgear, it was significant. IIRC, DEC machines
were used to replaced punched-plate routing cards for toll switching,
and possibly to record AMA instead of paper tape. (IBM's System/7 was
also used for this.)

[Michael Black]

But since they were buying DEC for whatever reasons, why not stick with
them?

Michael

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> writes:
> You couldn't easily use the 1130 for realtime work. Its big brother
> the IBM 1800, which was program compatible and much faster and had
> better I/O was a fine realtime system but was very expensive.
>
> One of the things that DEC did right was to make it easy to attach
> random stuff to their computers. The I/O buses were simple, and you
> could build interfaces from the same kinds of modules used to build
> the computers.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#71 DEC and the Bell System?

random trivia ... a 360 channel attach 2250m1 controller & display was
around $100k .... a 2250m4 was also around $100k ... a 2250/1130 combo.

univ. had 2250m1 attached to the 360/67 ... lincoln labs had done
a 2250m1 library for cms. I took it and interfaced it to the
cms editor ... so I could play with 2250

science center
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

and the person responsible for the internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

had ported spacewars from pdp1 to the 2250m4/1130 ... some
past posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#67 oddly portable machines
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000g.html#24 A question for you old guys -- IBM 1130 information
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#71 Z/90, S/390, 370/ESA (slightly off topic)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#13 5-player Spacewar?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#20 6600 Console was Re: CDC6600 - just how powerful a machine was
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#22 Computer Terminal Design Over the Years
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#17 PLX
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#29 Vector display systems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003m.html#14 Seven of Nine
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003o.html#10 IS CP/M an OS?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#45 who were the original fortran installations?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004f.html#32 Usenet invented 30 years ago by a Swede?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005e.html#64 Graphics on the IBM 2260?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005k.html#22 Where should the type information be?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005u.html#4 Fast action games on System/360+?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006e.html#28 MCTS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#41 Tek 4010, info and prices
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#62 PC premiered 40 years ago to awed crowd
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010d.html#74 Adventure - Or Colossal Cave Adventure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#45 My first mainframe experience
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011m.html#49 CMS load module format
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011n.html#9 Colossal Cave Adventure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011o.html#21 The "IBM Displays" Memory Lane (Was: TSO SCREENSIZE)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#38 Invention of Email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#6 Burroughs B5000, B5500, B6500 videos
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#77 Spacewar! on S/360

[Jon Elson]

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:


>
> mentions 1800, system/7 and series/1.

Glad you mentioned the system/7. It was much closer to a PDP-11
than anything else at the time, but I THINK it was quite a bit
more expensive than the PDP-11. I took one apart to see what was
in it, and it looked like it was a lot more expensive to make, too.
There were a bunch of boxes that hung onto a frame, each had a little
backplane section and power and signal cables, and a tangential blower.
The PDP-11 had small backplane sections at that time, too, but
they were all screwed into a single main cabinet with a few boxer
fans. I thought the System/7 just had an AWFUL lot of hand wiring
for a 16-bit computer.

Jon

[Peter Flass]

On 5/20/2013 10:51 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 20, 10:45 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970. The IBM Series/1 didn't come out
>> until 1976 (according to Wikipedia). The Series/1 was a good box, but
>> obviously too late for AT&T. Besides, although I haven't compared them
>> in detail it's possible that IBM hobbled the Series/1 so as not to cut
>> in to their mainframe business, or at least there might have been a
>> perception of such.
>
> The IBM 1130 was a very popular mini computer at the time, though it
> was Fortran batch oriented. HP had its 2000 computer, which supported
> terminals.

I should ask on the 1130 group if anyone has ported C to the 1130, it
would be interesting. However, the architecture had some "features"
that pretty much limited it to single-user.

--
Pete

[Rich Alderson]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:

> On 5/19/2013 11:13 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>> As we know, Bell used DEC machines to develop Unix.

Yes, on the PDP-7, an 18-bit word-oriented machine that they had obsoleted in
whatever application it had served. The researchers wanted a Decsystem-10
(which is to say, a 2nd generation PDP-10 using the KI10 processor). Cf. the
history article in the famous issue of BSTJ.

(Ah, dmr, we miss you.)

> The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970. The IBM Series/1 didn't come out
> until 1976 (according to Wikipedia). The Series/1 was a good box, but
> obviously too late for AT&T. Besides, although I haven't compared them
> in detail it's possible that IBM hobbled the Series/1 so as not to cut
> in to their mainframe business, or at least there might have been a
> perception of such.

The Series/1 was a mediocre box, by the accounts of my friends who had to use
them. Slow, expensive, and requiring much maintenance.

--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 20, 6:44 pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> I should ask on the 1130 group if anyone has ported C to the 1130, it
> would be interesting.  However, the architecture had some "features"
> that pretty much limited it to single-user.

I think by the time C became popular enough for export the 1130's days
were over.

We had a BASIC timesharing service run off an 1130 and it was quite
slow. It was replaced with an HP-2000C system which ran far faster,
supported more users, and had a far superior BASIC. But I don't know
the price of the 1130 vs. the HP.

My impression was the 1130 worked best at problems with some number
crunching but relatively little I/O. (People who ran such problems on
it reported good speed.)

A small rapid transit system got an 1130 in 1968 to handle various
administrative tasks, including maintenance tracking, and was happy
with it.

[Peter Flass]

On 5/20/2013 10:24 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 20, 6:44 pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I should ask on the 1130 group if anyone has ported C to the 1130, it
>> would be interesting. However, the architecture had some "features"
>> that pretty much limited it to single-user.
>
> I think by the time C became popular enough for export the 1130's days
> were over.

Yes, as a real machine. There are currently a couple of emulators and I
believe someone has developed an updated 1130 architecture - upward
compatible, but with additional instructions. There's actually a fair
amount of hobbyist 1130 activity today, I guess appropriate for the NG,
a guy is developing an FPGA implementation.

http://ibm1130.blogspot.co.uk/


--
Pete

[Shmuel Metz]

In <kndcfp$hm$1...@dont-email.me>, on 05/20/2013

at 10:45 AM, Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> said:

>The PDP-11 was introduced in 1970.

Yes, but the first Unix was on the PDP-7, after BTL withdrew from
Multics.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 20, 2:59 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> But since they were buying DEC for whatever reasons, why not stick with
> them?

That's a good point. I checked the Bell Labs history, and one
application of real-time computers was in traffic counts and studies.
The computer took periodic samples of traffic load of the switchgear*,
then passed this information along to network monitor managers, and,
further processed the raw data for network planning**. The
flexibility of PDP's I/O likely made it easy to interface with Bell's
own equipment, whether it was electro-mechanical or electronic.


*Previously done manually by people walking around with clipboards
viewing individual switchtrains and noting usage.

**Switchgear and trunk lines were expensive. The goal was to have
just enough to meet peak service demands so as to provide good
service, but not an excessive amount which would be wasteful. The
BSTJ has some articles on this--heavy duty math involved.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<44dcc784-4269-4ea8...@s6g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> **Switchgear and trunk lines were expensive. The goal was to have
> just enough to meet peak service demands so as to provide good
> service, but not an excessive amount which would be wasteful. The
> BSTJ has some articles on this--heavy duty math involved.

But not enough to handle the biggest peaks, I remember my parents
having trouble getting through to out of town family on holidays.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx