rewriting legacy OS for new iron

From: Lyle Bickley <>
Date: Tue Sep 14 11:04:51 2004

In a past life ;-) I used and worked with RSTS/E running on an 11/70 -
including creating a lot of software, adding libraries, etc. - while running
the Quant. Analysis Group at Fidelity.

I now have RSTS/E running on my 11/83 - including the same account (and my
personal software) that I worked with over twenty five years ago.

To port RSTS/E to Intel would be a major chore. RSTS/E supports the RT, RSX
BASIC-PLUS, BASIC-PLUS2, TECO, etc. run-time systems. It "automagically" can
run programs from any of those "OS"es!

So porting RSTS/E would mean porting all of those runtimes and their
associated libraries (RT, RSX, etc.) as well. Whew!!!

I thinks its a LOT easier (and more fun) to simply run it on real DEC hardware
- or if you can't create that environment - run it on Intel via the SIMH or
ERSATZ emulators.


On Tuesday 14 September 2004 07:17, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Ron" == Ron Hudson <> writes:
> Ron> Would there be any interest in re-writing somthing like RSTS/E,
> Ron> ITS, TWENEX or one of the other legacy OS to work on x86
> Ron> machines? The idea would be to do something like Linux has done
> Ron> for unix but for one of the other OSs, I think all the ones I
> Ron> mentioned ran on pdp machines, whatever we choose to write could
> Ron> have once run on anything.
> What would it mean to "run" such an OS on an x86? Consider RSTS,
> which is the only one of those three I know well. The OS itself is
> 100% assembly language. The system services are defined in terms of
> request blocks in low user memory along with system call instructions
> (EMT opcode of the PDP-11). Applications were generally written in
> Basic-Plus (or -2), or in PDP11 assembler; rarely in some other
> language such as TECO, or FORTH, or others.
> I could imagine creating a Basic-Plus environment that emulates that
> aspect of RSTS. I could also imagine a BP2 compiler that generates
> X86 code. The surrounding machinery -- "run time systems", the system
> service semantics, etc. -- that would be tricky. Assuming you get
> that far, you have a user mode analog of the original, so old
> applications (if written in Basic-Plus or BP2) would run. The same
> would go for TECO. Assembly language applications have no chance
> short of running an emulator at least for user mode. The same goes
> for FORTH, since it tends to hook right into the assembly style system
> service API, though obviously you could replace just that small part
> and keep the rest.
> paul

Lyle Bickley
Bickley Consulting West Inc.
"Black holes are where God is dividing by zero"
Received on Tue Sep 14 2004 - 11:04:51 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:29 BST