On Jun 7, 0:36, Megan wrote:
> Pete Turnbull wrote:
> >Allison, for once I feel you're wrong. An 11/53 is a distinct processor
> I don't think that was the point of what she was saying... I think it
> was that although the *BOX* said 11/53, there was actually an 11/23
> plugged into the bus. I can understand that might be the case nowadays,
> with all the moving of boards and such... but I cannot believe that
> DEC ever marketed a machine which said 11/53 which might contain an
> 11/23 processor... someone surely would have noticed and had a problem
> with it...
Megan, I agree with what you say about boards being moved around. Of my
ten or so PDP-11 systems only three or four had the "right" processor when
I got them. But I got the distinct impression Allison was (at least at one
stage) suggesting that (early) 11/53 systems were intended to have a
processor that wasn't a distinct member of the 11/x3 family.
Allison wrote:
> Isn't the 11/53 the box name and the cpu being either an 11/73
> or 11/23B?
Well, then it's not an 11/53 any more :-)
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Received on Thu Jun 07 2001 - 02:25:28 BST