Anyone remember FCC Regs on emissions was Tops10 disk quota quandary 1335

That count doesn't matter. What mattered in 1980 was how many -10 customers would go to other manufacturers with their open and well-filled pocketbooks. You seem to keep thinking that staying in business had something to do with idealism. It didn't.

I don't know how you can count systems that ran -20 vs -10. A count of processor sales didn't reflect fact because, at some point in time, customers figured out that a KL bought under the KL-20 brand name was cheaper than a KL bought under the KL-10 brand name. So they would buy a second or third processor as a -20 and hook it up to their TOPS-10 system.

Customers who had money "got away" with this. We did not dictate what they had to run other than what software problems we'ld guarantee we'ld try to fix as part of the maintenance contracts.

Now I know you are recognizing that you are wrong in a lot of your buttumptions.

Not all pests issued copious amounts of paper. Some simply issued vitriol. At least our -10 customers didn't take that tact and try to destroy what worked for them. I often wondered why the -20 types didn't figure out a way to get your inputs to be useful and non-politic; I now know there was no way.

Because they could.

Yea? Who?

You can't even read a project report without misreading the meanings. Most of the problems had to do with hardware aspects that weren't in the specs.

Implementing RH20 on TOPS-20 benefited from TW finding all the missing pieces in the specs and figuring out all the hardware quirks. Do you think that TW didn't tell anybody else in our office area about those things? You still have no idea how we (PDP-10 development groups) did our work.

I don't enough to about PHYSIO to be able to discuss if it were a benefit or not. I do know that TOPS-10 was never funded to do a rewrite. Do you understand what that means?

That's wonderful. It has nothing to do with TOPS-10 and why we didn't do a similar thing. None, including the -20s, of the development groups ever got funding to rewrite code that was inelegant.

Correct. The PDP-10 development groups didn't have even that luxury. So what was learned from a first implementation, no matter if it was hardware or software, was communicated to the other development groups about what not to do or what to do.

That was their luxury. DEC's development groups didn't have that luxury. Designing from the ground up is an R&D project, not a production line project. The TOPS-10 and TOPS-20 developers were programmers who worked as a production line would work. Do you understand the difference between production lines in a manufacturing enviornment and R&D?

Sigh! They didn't abandon the -10. Those developers were buttigned the work. Most of us knew that idealism is a zero-calorie meal that guaranteed no future meals.

BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.