Re: Power requirements? - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Power requirements? - VMS ; Upon reading the power requirements for an RL02 vs RK05, the RL02 is DEFINITELY the way to go. The RL02's power spike on spin-up is some 3 amps maximum, Where on the RK05, it's 10A! So, I think my set ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: Power requirements?

  1. Re: Power requirements?

    Upon reading the power requirements for an RL02 vs RK05, the RL02 is
    DEFINITELY the way to go.

    The RL02's power spike on spin-up is some 3 amps maximum, Where on the
    RK05, it's 10A!

    So, I think my set up will be an 11/04 (it's cheapest), an RL02, and an
    RX02.

    It may not be blinkenlights, but it's still oldskool :-)

    Now, my question is, does Mentec sell a Year-2000 compliant version of
    RT-11 to hobbyists?

    On Mar 3, 2004, at 3:46 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Julian Wolfe (FireflyST) wrote:
    >
    >> This is VERY comforting news.
    >>
    >> However, is it OK to leave the RX02 and PDP on?

    >
    > They used to do it in the datacenters all the time. :-)
    >
    >>
    >> The PDP doesn't really have any moving parts per se, so I can't see
    >> how something would break.

    >
    > Power supply could smoke. Some component on the system could fail.
    > But then, why is that any differnt than a PC? I never turn them
    > off either.
    >
    >>
    >> On the opposite side of that, I wouldn't DARE leave an RK05
    >> unattended,
    >> that's just asking for trouble!

    >
    > Why? I have RL02's and RA disks (and Fuji Eagle too) that I leave
    > running all the time. As long as you have checked them out and made
    > sure there are no major problems. I guess the big question would be
    > why would anyone want to use an RK05 in the first place. :-)
    >
    > And, anyway, if your going to be running RT-11, which is not a
    > timesharing system, unless you plan on running some really long
    > batch jobs, why would you want to leave it on anyway?
    >
    > Good luck.
    >
    > 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
    >


    ----------
    To unsubscribe (or subscribe) from (to) this list, send a message to
    info-pdp11-request@village.org, with the first line of the message
    body being "unsubscribe" or "subscribe", respectively (without the quotes).

  2. Re: Power requirements?

    Julian Wolfe wrote:
    > Upon reading the power requirements for an RL02 vs RK05, the RL02 is
    > DEFINITELY the way to go.


    RL02s are also cheaper and hold more data.

    The only reason to have an RK05, really, is to capture
    information off existing RK05 cartridges.

    > Now, my question is, does Mentec sell a Year-2000
    > compliant version of RT-11 to hobbyists?


    Yes, for the commercial price!

    Megan Gentry's site has Y2K patches for RT-11 v5.3 .


  3. Re: Power requirements?

    >Julian Wolfe wrote:

    > Upon reading the power requirements for an RL02 vs RK05, the RL02 is
    > DEFINITELY the way to go.
    > The RL02's power spike on spin-up is some 3 amps maximum, Where on the
    > RK05, it's 10A!
    > So, I think my set up will be an 11/04 (it's cheapest), an RL02, and an
    > RX02.
    > It may not be blinkenlights, but it's still oldskool :-)


    Jerome Fine replies:

    Can you help us to understand what you will be running
    on the PDP-11/04? Since it is limited to 64 KBytes
    and can run only UnMapped monitors under RT-11,
    you are severely limited. Also, at this point, considering
    the total cost, unless you specifically want a 20(?) year
    old system such as the PDP-11/04, I do not understand
    why a 25(?) year old system such as the PDP-11/23
    is to be avoided? For a really old system, the PDP-11/10
    or older still the PDP-11/20 (30 years) with blinkenlights
    would be what you really want.

    However, again it depends on what you want to run?

    As for the RL02, it should be possible to obtain at very
    low cost (zero) if you can find someone near you who
    still has some. At 60 lb. the drive is no longer very useful
    except to show what DEC had available in the early 1980s.

    > Now, my question is, does Mentec sell a Year-2000 compliant version of
    > RT-11 to hobbyists?


    YES!! and YES!! and YES!!

    As John Wilson stated, you can purchase a V05.07 distribution
    from Mentec at $ US 1600 PLUS a Unibus RT-11 license for
    well over $ US 1000, probably closer to $ US 1500. I think
    a Qbus license was about $ US 900 the last time I checked.

    You need a Unibus license for the PDP-11/04 while a
    PDP-11/23 or a PDP-11/73 need a Qbus license. A Qbus
    license may also be used to run RT-11 under Ersatz-11 as a
    PDP-11/73 system.

    Mentec also has a license for hobby users at zero cost for V05.03
    of RT-11 (you supply the distribution and DOCs) PLUS the
    changes for Y2K operation. The real catch is that you are legally
    allowed to run V05.03 of RT-11 under ONLY under the SIMH
    emulator, unlike the VMS hobby license which has been available
    for many years (almost a decade) that allows hobby users to run
    the latest versions of VMS on VAX and even Alpha hardware.

    As for Y2K operation, my current goal is to produce the needed
    Y2K changes for V05.03 of RT-11 for hobby users ASAP. But
    that has been my goal for at least 2 years. The most difficult part
    is deciding exactly how to implement the needed code in all the
    different parts of RT-11. In addition, while I am making V05.03
    Y2K compliant, I doubt it will take more than double the time to
    produce Y9K compliance. However, that really takes a number
    of decisions which would require just how the implementation
    would be compatible with all versions of RT-11 which follow.
    In the past I have attempted to initiate a discussion of the changes
    which are needed, but did not obtain any feedback. At present,
    these are the possible options I am considering:

    (a) Implement the changes completely outside the current monitors
    via a (Pseudo) Device Driver, but modify the utilities such as DIR,
    PIP, IND, MACRO, BUP, LINK, LIBR, etc. Also needed would
    be a program such as SETDAT. A Y9K implementation is not
    likely, but Y2K should be straight forward. One advantage would
    be that a single device driver for all Mapped monitors would be
    possible for all DEC distributed versions of RT-11 starting with
    V05.03 of RT-11.

    (b) Modify RMONFB.MAC and KMOVLY.MAC so that the
    program SETDAT is not needed, but still modify the utilities.

    I understand that Megan Gentry has done some of the work on
    RMONFB.MAC, but I have not seen anything recently.

    When I first mentioned Y2K code for RT-11 back around 1996,
    no commercial users were interested and no hobby users were
    willing to pay anything. At this point, I am of the opinion that
    all commercial users who needed a Y2K compliant RT-11 have
    made the purchase either from Mentec or other 3rd parties.

    So any Y9K code for hobby users will probably need to be
    so low in cost (probably zero) that there is no possible profit
    motive. I hope to achieve (b) above within a year, but would
    appreciate some discussion, NOT implementation help, as to
    how to proceed with a Y9K version. If anyone replies that
    I will be dead when a Y9K version is needed, that was the
    reason that the Y2K bug was a problem in the first place.
    I see no reason to ignore the problem just because the
    problem will not occur for almost a hundred years.

    Sincerely yours,

    Jerome Fine
    --
    To obtain the original e-mail address, please remove
    the ten characters which immediately follow the 'at'.
    If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
    address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
    e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
    obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
    'at' with the four digits of the current year.


  4. Re: Power requirements?

    >Julian Wolfe wrote:

    > Upon reading the power requirements for an RL02 vs RK05, the RL02 is
    > DEFINITELY the way to go.
    > The RL02's power spike on spin-up is some 3 amps maximum, Where on the
    > RK05, it's 10A!
    > So, I think my set up will be an 11/04 (it's cheapest), an RL02, and an
    > RX02.
    > It may not be blinkenlights, but it's still oldskool :-)


    Jerome Fine replies:

    Can you help us to understand what you will be running
    on the PDP-11/04? Since it is limited to 64 KBytes
    and can run only UnMapped monitors under RT-11,
    you are severely limited. Also, at this point, considering
    the total cost, unless you specifically want a 20(?) year
    old system such as the PDP-11/04, I do not understand
    why a 25(?) year old system such as the PDP-11/23
    is to be avoided? For a really old system, the PDP-11/10
    or older still the PDP-11/20 (30 years) with blinkenlights
    would be what you really want.

    However, again it depends on what you want to run?

    As for the RL02, it should be possible to obtain at very
    low cost (zero) if you can find someone near you who
    still has some. At 60 lb. the drive is no longer very useful
    except to show what DEC had available in the early 1980s.

    > Now, my question is, does Mentec sell a Year-2000 compliant version of
    > RT-11 to hobbyists?


    YES!! and YES!! and YES!!

    As John Wilson stated, you can purchase a V05.07 distribution
    from Mentec at $ US 1600 PLUS a Unibus RT-11 license for
    well over $ US 1000, probably closer to $ US 1500. I think
    a Qbus license was about $ US 900 the last time I checked.

    You need a Unibus license for the PDP-11/04 while a
    PDP-11/23 or a PDP-11/73 need a Qbus license. A Qbus
    license may also be used to run RT-11 under Ersatz-11 as a
    PDP-11/73 system.

    Mentec also has a license for hobby users at zero cost for V05.03
    of RT-11 (you supply the distribution and DOCs) PLUS the
    changes for Y2K operation. The real catch is that you are legally
    allowed to run V05.03 of RT-11 under ONLY under the SIMH
    emulator, unlike the VMS hobby license which has been available
    for many years (almost a decade) that allows hobby users to run
    the latest versions of VMS on VAX and even Alpha hardware.

    As for Y2K operation, my current goal is to produce the needed
    Y2K changes for V05.03 of RT-11 for hobby users ASAP. But
    that has been my goal for at least 2 years. The most difficult part
    is deciding exactly how to implement the needed code in all the
    different parts of RT-11. In addition, while I am making V05.03
    Y2K compliant, I doubt it will take more than double the time to
    produce Y9K compliance. However, that really takes a number
    of decisions which would require just how the implementation
    would be compatible with all versions of RT-11 which follow.
    In the past I have attempted to initiate a discussion of the changes
    which are needed, but did not obtain any feedback. At present,
    these are the possible options I am considering:

    (a) Implement the changes completely outside the current monitors
    via a (Pseudo) Device Driver, but modify the utilities such as DIR,
    PIP, IND, MACRO, BUP, LINK, LIBR, etc. Also needed would
    be a program such as SETDAT. A Y9K implementation is not
    likely, but Y2K should be straight forward. One advantage would
    be that a single device driver for all Mapped monitors would be
    possible for all DEC distributed versions of RT-11 starting with
    V05.03 of RT-11.

    (b) Modify RMONFB.MAC and KMOVLY.MAC so that the
    program SETDAT is not needed, but still modify the utilities.

    I understand that Megan Gentry has done some of the work on
    RMONFB.MAC, but I have not seen anything recently.

    When I first mentioned Y2K code for RT-11 back around 1996,
    no commercial users were interested and no hobby users were
    willing to pay anything. At this point, I am of the opinion that
    all commercial users who needed a Y2K compliant RT-11 have
    made the purchase either from Mentec or other 3rd parties.

    So any Y9K code for hobby users will probably need to be
    so low in cost (probably zero) that there is no possible profit
    motive. I hope to achieve (b) above within a year, but would
    appreciate some discussion, NOT implementation help, as to
    how to proceed with a Y9K version. If anyone replies that
    I will be dead when a Y9K version is needed, that was the
    reason that the Y2K bug was a problem in the first place.
    I see no reason to ignore the problem just because the
    problem will not occur for almost a hundred years.

    Sincerely yours,

    Jerome Fine
    --
    To obtain the original e-mail address, please remove
    the ten characters which immediately follow the 'at'.
    If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
    address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
    e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
    obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
    'at' with the four digits of the current year.


+ Reply to Thread