VMS on Raspberry Pi 5

Is that a single CPU, as I stated?

I had one of the really small 4 function calculators in 1975. IIRC it wasn't all that slow (similar speed to a slide rule if each calculation required both slide and cursor to be moved for each calculation) but its main drawbacks was being really too small and fiddly, I used to be pretty good with the mechanical, electrically driven FACIT desktop calculators and I'd say the Sinclairs were just a little faster than those Facits.

However, I got an HP 21 (RPN0 calculator in 1977 and that was much faster AND much stronger and better made: still have it and it still works, but got an HP 21 (programmable too). That got replaced by an HP 28s in 1990 and is still in daily use.

Chap I shared an office with at SLAC back in the 80s was one of these hoarders. We not only had the current set of VMS doc in the office, but the complete previous set too, while he had the set before that in his garage at home.

He was the sort of chap who, if you asked him for the 3-page doc that you'd loaned him a month previously, could unerringly poke into the 3-foot high pile (er, one of the piles, sorry), on his desk and pull it out straight away, with zero search time. This made complaining about the paper piles futile. "Works for me!"

I was part of one, fairly large, project on VAX/VMS. I thought the oddest part of it was the way the usual collection of programmer's utilities were implemented as a handful of multi-function development tools, i.e. one program that handled all source file management tasks, another to take care of all comms tasks, etc. I've never met any other OS that was structured that way.

Several years later I did another project on DEC Alpha Servers running Tru64 UNIX, which I preferred to VMS, being a UNIX fanatic. Tru64 UNIXwas pretty much a straight-forward port of UNIX System V functions and programing tools onto a MACH-based kernel. This was amazingly fast for the era and fairly bullet-proof.

No this was the earlier scientific calculator, and a few years earlier. When you pressed a function, the screen would go blank for about 7 seconds. |But at the time, and the price it was phenomenal!

That's one VUPS. But the Pi emulator is about thirty.

Hmm, I remember it as being faster. Which machine was about 30 VUPS?

--scott

Correction: the HP 21 is nor programmable but the HP 28S is.

Yes.

But VUPS benchmarks are usually/always single-threaded so it would not run much faster with 6 CPU's. 6 CPU's is 6 x 7 or 6 x 32 VUPS not 42 or 192 VUPS.

Arne

The 6000 used the NVAX, correct? On a VAXstation 4000 Model 90A I get 26-27 VUPS. I'd think the 6000 would be similar.

Depends on what 6000.

(1-6 CPU's)

Arne

The HP21 came out in 1975 was functionally identical to the earlier HP35, but was a bit smaller and using a different case design and runs off two AA NiCd cells.

The HP28S came out in 1988 and is quite flat (160 x 90 x 19 mm) and runs for around a year on a set of three N-batteries.

Alas yes ........

Hmmmm - but WHO is buying such licenses, and for WHAT ??? VMS is allegedly WELL obsolete, yet they're making money from ports.

Admittedly it will be difficult to separate VMS from the hardware/peripherials it was written for. However if it can be ported, more or less, to i86 then it should be less of a prob to port THAT to ARM.

Plan-9 was writ to be "more portable". It is kinda hard to deal with regardless of underlying hardware however. It was intended for "distributed systems", not use on a single box/processor, so you get that added complexity thrown in for free.

There are some "ancient systems" that still see use. DOS is one of them - compact/efficient and still fair for embedded projects. CP/M derivs are also seen. OS9 is another - and yes it's still developed and for-sale. Most of the "big iron" systems from the 60s/70s went away however. "Simplicity" seems to play a role in "longevity". VMS ... well, it was REALLY GOOD ... so, somewhere, it's hanging on - enough so people will PAY for it.

Z/OS is still around and capable of running OS-360 binary applications as well as more modern unix based systems.

Depending on the instructions and data, the overhead is somewhere between 10:1 to 100:1. In some extreme cases it can be way worse.

Johnny

What other OSes do you have experience with?

Source management is usually handled by one single program, even on most systems today. Be that cvs, svn, git or whatever.

And have you ever looked at find under Unix? That's a swiss army knife if you ever saw one...

Johnny

No, that came back with the *wrong* answer...if it worked at all.

ICL: UDAS, OLDAS, George 1`,2 and 3, VME/B Stratus: VOS IBM: OS/400 DEC: VAX/VMS, TruUNIX (Alpha server) PC: DOS, Windows, Unix, RedHat Linux

Indeed, I used CVS for years, now using Git

Use it a lot, also apropos,

Last one among the common with separate executables was probably RCS.

But I really don't see the big difference between:

vcsname vcscommand ... running vcsname.exe

and

vcscommand ... running vcscommand.exe

Arne

Do you mean Unix find or Gnu find? Gnu people lost track of the Unix Paradigm long ago.

bill