<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>That is an extremely difficult question to answer; they all had
their quirks and advantages, which is not surprising given that
they targeted very different markets. As a whole, I would say
that the quality of DEC's documentation was the same on all the
platforms; I found it easier to wade through than IBM's VM/CMS
docs.</p>
<p>In terms of raw capacity, probably the later mainframe operating
systems would be the best choice as these most approximate what is
available today on commercial platforms (with the clear exception
of the graphics interface). What matters is the address space and
functionality:<br>
</p>
<ol>
<li>VMS started out on a 32 bit platform as a high super-mini
computer. DEC soon grew this into low mainframe class with the
VAX 8650 series, the Alpha being a completely modern platform.
VMS is an acquired taste; some people think DCL is great and
others...</li>
<li>Tops-10 started as a mainframe platform and was eventually
rewritten to have symmetric multi-processing. The command
interface is simple enough. The process paradigm is limited in
that there is a one-to-one mapping of one process per job. The
address space had been limited to 256K, but I think they may
have done Extended Addressing. I believe TCP/IP may have been
available from a 3rd party vendor.<br>
</li>
<li>Tops-20 is more modern, having a multi-process per job
architecture and a 30 bit address space. Many Unix programs are
easily ported. It ran the most networking protocols, including
TCP/IP. It is quite easy to learn due to the COMND% interface,
which provides completions, guiding, prompting and recognition.
There was a time when there were more of these systems on the
ARPAnet then Unix. I have been looking to write an IP6
interface after I complete some more items on my To Do list.</li>
</ol>
<p>But the mini-computer operating systems are just plain cool. It
is amazing what they squeezed into the PDP-8's 12 bit address
space and PDP-11's run some of the most interesting collection of
OS's that I've ever seen.</p>
<p>It really all depends on what you feel like playing with; it's a
profitable learning experience all around.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f2e649bb-c1f9-5c23-bc39-cebb3eca5957@suddenlink.net">
<blockquote type="cite">
<hr width="100%" size="2">On 12/20/19 7:07 PM, Bill Cunningham
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<hr width="100%" size="2">On 12/20/2019 5:44 PM, Johnny
Billquist wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<hr width="100%" size="2">On 2019-12-20 23:00, Paul Koning
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<hr width="100%" size="2">On Dec 20, 2019, at 3:46 PM, Lee
Gleason <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:lee.gleason@comcast.net"><lee.gleason@comcast.net></a> wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">-----Original Message----- Do I have
any volunteers who operate something besides VMS? I'd be
interested in RSX(+), IAS, RSTS and OS-8. They never did
DECnet on RT-11, did they?
<br>
</blockquote>
If you run across anyone with DECET-IAS, please let me
know...
<br>
</blockquote>
Did that exist? I'm fairly sure it did. What about DECnet
for RSX-11/D? Not so sure about that one.
<br>
</blockquote>
Both existed. See the spd at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/spd/">http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/spd/</a>
<br>
<br>
Johnny
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Nice link! Tell me if one OS was going to be learned, I would like
anyone out there who knows, what would it be? RSX RT DECnet VMS or
what? Taking into consideration, easiness to learn because it
would take some time. And Availability or modernized tools like
VMS has of example, TCP/IP.
<br>
<br>
Bill
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>