#computerhistory — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #computerhistory, aggregated by home.social.
-
We've tested OS/2 Warp 4.52 with Super Socket 7 [1998] on 86Box!
#OS2 #OS2Warp #OS2Warp4 #IBM #Retrocomputing #Computers #TechNews #TechUpdates #ComputerHistory
https://officialaptivi.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/os-2-warp-4-52-on-86box-with-super-socket-7-1998/
-
We've tested OS/2 Warp 4.52 with Super Socket 7 [1998] on 86Box!
#OS2 #OS2Warp #OS2Warp4 #IBM #Retrocomputing #Computers #TechNews #TechUpdates #ComputerHistory
https://officialaptivi.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/os-2-warp-4-52-on-86box-with-super-socket-7-1998/
-
We've tested OS/2 Warp 4.52 with Super Socket 7 [1998] on 86Box!
#OS2 #OS2Warp #OS2Warp4 #IBM #Retrocomputing #Computers #TechNews #TechUpdates #ComputerHistory
https://officialaptivi.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/os-2-warp-4-52-on-86box-with-super-socket-7-1998/
-
We've tested OS/2 Warp 4.52 with Super Socket 7 [1998] on 86Box!
#OS2 #OS2Warp #OS2Warp4 #IBM #Retrocomputing #Computers #TechNews #TechUpdates #ComputerHistory
https://officialaptivi.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/os-2-warp-4-52-on-86box-with-super-socket-7-1998/
-
We've tested OS/2 Warp 4.52 with Super Socket 7 [1998] on 86Box!
#OS2 #OS2Warp #OS2Warp4 #IBM #Retrocomputing #Computers #TechNews #TechUpdates #ComputerHistory
https://officialaptivi.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/os-2-warp-4-52-on-86box-with-super-socket-7-1998/
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@lobsters/116535637378554752
I found amazing to look at the past to understand why somethings are like that.
That a very good example with this analyse of the #ascii #legacy characters system.
#computer #computerhistory -
Thank you!
Indeed your post is a good read and instructive on many counts.Three notes:
(1)
«=====
(LOOP FOR X FROM 3 TO 5 COLLECT X)
(3 4 5)(LOOP COLLECT X FOR X FROM 3 TO 5)
(3 4 5 6)
=====»This is an important example (and a good catch), which has "procedural" written all over it and it shows that `loop' isn't actually declarative—it can only be viewed as such, carefully.
It seems to me that it would be interesting to fix the second case, rather than prohibit it, _but_ it may be difficult to justify the effort.
(Regrettably, I can't recall exactly what the _current_ Common Lisp specification says, but I'll check later.)(2)
Yes, I have always found the design and history of the pathname system very instructive, in more ways than I can elaborate now.
And let no one forget about logical pathnames, too."LOSSAG" fit in a single 36-bit word, didn't it?
As a footnote, a long time ago I was something of a user of old IBM mainframe operating systems like VM/370¹, which did not have directories and separated a file name from a file type with a space (each up to eight characters, no lower case).
_________
¹ Bulgaria was lagging behind the technological times then.(3)
It's interesting to mention an emulator in this context.
I can see a weak analogy to historical reconstructions.
(There are many people who do them, mostly as recreation.
I have been to some, watching horse riders shoot arrows and sheltering in a 7th-century-model tent from the rain.)#CommonLisp
#ComputerHistory
#DeclarativeProgramming
#DeclarativeStyle
#History
#Lisp
#ProceduralProgramming
#ProceduralStyle -
As part of my history project, I was looking for a document I wrote that offered specific advice on converting Maclisp and Zetalisp to Common Lisp.
I had to laugh when I found it. It's already published as part of the Sunday Morning Edition of the Pitmanual (the webbed version of the Revised Maclisp Manual, the printed version of which was the Saturday Evening Edition).
The printed version does not contain the conversion guide. It was an "extra" I through in as part of the webbing. But it's perhaps hard to find, so I thought I'd say it out loud. It's several pages that begin here:
https://maclisp.info/pitmanual/cl-conv-01-intr.html
#Lisp #Maclisp #Zetalisp #CommonLisp #KentsHistoryProject #Lisp #ComputerHistory
-
I couldn't find a copy of the memo named "Loop Iteration Macro" by Glenn Burke and David Moon, January 1981 (MIT/LCS/TM-169) at MIT's dSpace site, or anywhere else. So I scanned in my copy and have uploaded it to my web site.
NOTE WELL: This document was written prior to CLTL and describes a facility that was available in MACLISP and the Lisp Machine's Zetalisp. Common Lisp drew design ideas from this, but the syntax, semantics, and associated functions/macros described in this are NOT the same as what Common Lisp offers.
For example, my recollection from long ago (which I did not re-check before making this post) is that there are other differences in syntax because this earlier version of Loop was underconstrained in the ordering of the keywords in a way that let you write some expressions that the committee felt might confuse people with their results.
But also, for reasons that slip my mind, Common Lisp did not adopt the define-loop-path macro that is described starting on page 19.
http://nhplace.com/kent/History/maclisp/MIT-LCS-TM-169-Loop-Iteration-Macro.pdf
#lisp #maclisp #loop #iteration #ComputerHistory #KentsHistoryProject #lisp #LispM #Zetalisp #CommonLisp
cc @screwlisp
-
In going through some old papers, I ran across these very interesting documents from long ago that I can't seem to find public reference to. They seem to offer some important historical insight about the Dylan language. This is from back when Dylan was called Ralph as a working title. In those days, the still-being-designed Lisp-like language had not yet moved to an infix syntax, and it looked and acted more like Scheme with an object system similar in spirit to CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System).
My understanding is that there were some fairly deliberate choices made to NOT target the Lisp or Scheme community as users, which is part of why the move to infix. I think they wanted to appeal to a disaffected C++ crowd, but ultimately lost out to Java for that bid, and then having left the Lisp user base behind, ended up with a very small community as a result.
But I still think there could be things the Scheme community would want to glean from this snapshot of history.
I've included a scan of an email proposal I got from Dave Moon while he and I were at Symbolics, with his proposal for how to add conditions to the language. Note that Dylan did eventually go public and did have a condition system, so you could also just study that design directly. But what's useful here is to see how all that looked syntactically in a Scheme-like syntax. But, in that regard, I recommend starting by looking at the language itself.
[0] Ralph: A Dynamic Language with Efficient Application Delivery, by Andrew LM Shalit, July 25, 1991.
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-1991-07-25.pdf[1] Ralph Conditions (part 1 of 2)
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-moon-conditions-proposal-v1.1-part-1-of-2-1991-08-14.pdf[2] Ralph Conditions (part 2 of 2)
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-moon-conditions-proposal-v1.1-part-2-of-2-1991-08-14.pdfcc @sigue @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp
#DylanLang #RalphLang #ComputerHistory #Harlequin #Lisp #CommonLisp #ConditionSystem #ConditionHandling #ErrorSystem #Scheme #SchemeLang #CLOS #AppleHistory #KentsHistoryProject
-
In going through some old papers, I ran across these very interesting documents from long ago that I can't seem to find public reference to. They seem to offer some important historical insight about the Dylan language. This is from back when Dylan was called Ralph as a working title. In those days, the still-being-designed Lisp-like language had not yet moved to an infix syntax, and it looked and acted more like Scheme with an object system similar in spirit to CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System).
My understanding is that there were some fairly deliberate choices made to NOT target the Lisp or Scheme community as users, which is part of why the move to infix. I think they wanted to appeal to a disaffected C++ crowd, but ultimately lost out to Java for that bid, and then having left the Lisp user base behind, ended up with a very small community as a result.
But I still think there could be things the Scheme community would want to glean from this snapshot of history.
I've included a scan of an email proposal I got from Dave Moon while he and I were at Symbolics, with his proposal for how to add conditions to the language. Note that Dylan did eventually go public and did have a condition system, so you could also just study that design directly. But what's useful here is to see how all that looked syntactically in a Scheme-like syntax. But, in that regard, I recommend starting by looking at the language itself.
[0] Ralph: A Dynamic Language with Efficient Application Delivery, by Andrew LM Shalit, July 25, 1991.
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-1991-07-25.pdf[1] Ralph Conditions (part 1 of 2)
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-moon-conditions-proposal-v1.1-part-1-of-2-1991-08-14.pdf[2] Ralph Conditions (part 2 of 2)
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-moon-conditions-proposal-v1.1-part-2-of-2-1991-08-14.pdfcc @sigue @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp
#DylanLang #RalphLang #ComputerHistory #Harlequin #Lisp #CommonLisp #ConditionSystem #ConditionHandling #ErrorSystem #Scheme #SchemeLang #CLOS #AppleHistory #KentsHistoryProject
-
In going through some old papers, I ran across these very interesting documents from long ago that I can't seem to find public reference to. They seem to offer some important historical insight about the Dylan language. This is from back when Dylan was called Ralph as a working title. In those days, the still-being-designed Lisp-like language had not yet moved to an infix syntax, and it looked and acted more like Scheme with an object system similar in spirit to CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System).
My understanding is that there were some fairly deliberate choices made to NOT target the Lisp or Scheme community as users, which is part of why the move to infix. I think they wanted to appeal to a disaffected C++ crowd, but ultimately lost out to Java for that bid, and then having left the Lisp user base behind, ended up with a very small community as a result.
But I still think there could be things the Scheme community would want to glean from this snapshot of history.
I've included a scan of an email proposal I got from Dave Moon while he and I were at Symbolics, with his proposal for how to add conditions to the language. Note that Dylan did eventually go public and did have a condition system, so you could also just study that design directly. But what's useful here is to see how all that looked syntactically in a Scheme-like syntax. But, in that regard, I recommend starting by looking at the language itself.
[0] Ralph: A Dynamic Language with Efficient Application Delivery, by Andrew LM Shalit, July 25, 1991.
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-1991-07-25.pdf[1] Ralph Conditions (part 1 of 2)
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-moon-conditions-proposal-v1.1-part-1-of-2-1991-08-14.pdf[2] Ralph Conditions (part 2 of 2)
https://nhplace.com/kent/History/dylan/ralph-moon-conditions-proposal-v1.1-part-2-of-2-1991-08-14.pdfcc @sigue @ramin_hal9001 @screwlisp
#DylanLang #RalphLang #ComputerHistory #Harlequin #Lisp #CommonLisp #ConditionSystem #ConditionHandling #ErrorSystem #Scheme #SchemeLang #CLOS #AppleHistory #KentsHistoryProject
-
I ran across and scanned an old document recently that describes the command set for TECO-based Emacs on the MIT ITS operating system in the very early 1980s, probably, although the document is not dated.
I think I either produced it, or had a hand in how it was produced. But in any case, the grouping and layout suits me in terms of describing why certain commands are related to one another, and making it easier to see why particular letters were chosen as mnemonics.
TECO was the language Emacs was originally implemented in, before it was ported to gnu. ITS was an MIT-written operating system for the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-10, a main frame processor whose architecture also spanned the TOPS-20 operating system (though I'm blurring some details).
http://nhplace.com/kent/History/emacs/Emacs-Command-Index.pdf
This is part of an ongoing project where I'm sifting some things in boxes at my house, trying to get rid of stuff I don't need. Some of it is getting scanned, other things just going to the trash.
#emacs #ComputerHistory #ITS #TECO #Lisp #KentsHistoryProject
-
Rare 1999 footage of Steve Jobs talking to Apple employees out in Cupertino, the week after launching the iBook.
https://spyglass.org/made-apple-great-again/
via https://mjtsai.com/blog/2026/04/21/the-quadrant-was-now-complete/
-
The next five greatest operating systems:
10. Atari TOS (the ST seemed like the future of computing, until Amiga forever left it in the dust)
9. Windows XP (finally, Windows NT is for everyone!)
8. Apple DOS (suddenly, everyone began to take the Apple II seriously)
7. Windows 7 (Microsoft perfection)
6. Macintosh "System 1" ("[...] something about mice and pull-down menus and icons that appeal to people previously intimidated by A>"—BYTE) -
You can pick up the document 'Signalling and Handling Conditions' from this index page:
It was longer than I thought it would be, but I think you'll find it interesting to see what the Zetalisp condition system (which inspired the Common Lisp condition system) looked like.
In spirit, it was much the same. The biggest differences are:
* The CL system has 'active' restarts, where the ZL system had a passive thing where you returned a value to the case context and hoped that it would do the thing you wanted. It felt quite a bit more error-prone (if you'll pardon the reuse of 'error' here, maybe I should say 'mistake-prone').
* The ZL condition system offers a lot of really low-level stuff that did not seem proper for CL.
* The set of operations offered in ZL was richer, but also a lot more complicated, I thought, and I worried people would not really see what it was trying to do.
* Obviously, the ZL system was based on Flavors, not CLOS, and made reference to a lot of LispM-specific packages.
* The document was published in January, 1983 and identifies itself as part of Symbolics Release 4.0.
There are other differences as well.
#Zetalisp #LispMachine #LispMachines #Symbolics #LispM
#ConditionHandling #ConditionSystem #ErrorSystem #ErrorHandling #CommonLisp #CL #Flavors #CLOS #History #ComputerHistory
#InternetArchive #Bitsavers -
You can pick up the document 'Signalling and Handling Conditions' from this index page:
It was longer than I thought it would be, but I think you'll find it interesting to see what the Zetalisp condition system (which inspired the Common Lisp condition system) looked like.
In spirit, it was much the same. The biggest differences are:
* The CL system has 'active' restarts, where the ZL system had a passive thing where you returned a value to the case context and hoped that it would do the thing you wanted. It felt quite a bit more error-prone (if you'll pardon the reuse of 'error' here, maybe I should say 'mistake-prone').
* The ZL condition system offers a lot of really low-level stuff that did not seem proper for CL.
* The set of operations offered in ZL was richer, but also a lot more complicated, I thought, and I worried people would not really see what it was trying to do.
* Obviously, the ZL system was based on Flavors, not CLOS, and made reference to a lot of LispM-specific packages.
* The document was published in January, 1983 and identifies itself as part of Symbolics Release 4.0.
There are other differences as well.
#Zetalisp #LispMachine #LispMachines #Symbolics #LispM
#ConditionHandling #ConditionSystem #ErrorSystem #ErrorHandling #CommonLisp #CL #Flavors #CLOS #History #ComputerHistory
#InternetArchive #Bitsavers -
You can pick up the document 'Signalling and Handling Conditions' from this index page:
It was longer than I thought it would be, but I think you'll find it interesting to see what the Zetalisp condition system (which inspired the Common Lisp condition system) looked like.
In spirit, it was much the same. The biggest differences are:
* The CL system has 'active' restarts, where the ZL system had a passive thing where you returned a value to the case context and hoped that it would do the thing you wanted. It felt quite a bit more error-prone (if you'll pardon the reuse of 'error' here, maybe I should say 'mistake-prone').
* The ZL condition system offers a lot of really low-level stuff that did not seem proper for CL.
* The set of operations offered in ZL was richer, but also a lot more complicated, I thought, and I worried people would not really see what it was trying to do.
* Obviously, the ZL system was based on Flavors, not CLOS, and made reference to a lot of LispM-specific packages.
* The document was published in January, 1983 and identifies itself as part of Symbolics Release 4.0.
There are other differences as well.
#Zetalisp #LispMachine #LispMachines #Symbolics #LispM
#ConditionHandling #ConditionSystem #ErrorSystem #ErrorHandling #CommonLisp #CL #Flavors #CLOS #History #ComputerHistory
#InternetArchive #Bitsavers -
You can pick up the document 'Signalling and Handling Conditions' from this index page:
It was longer than I thought it would be, but I think you'll find it interesting to see what the Zetalisp condition system (which inspired the Common Lisp condition system) looked like.
In spirit, it was much the same. The biggest differences are:
* The CL system has 'active' restarts, where the ZL system had a passive thing where you returned a value to the case context and hoped that it would do the thing you wanted. It felt quite a bit more error-prone (if you'll pardon the reuse of 'error' here, maybe I should say 'mistake-prone').
* The ZL condition system offers a lot of really low-level stuff that did not seem proper for CL.
* The set of operations offered in ZL was richer, but also a lot more complicated, I thought, and I worried people would not really see what it was trying to do.
* Obviously, the ZL system was based on Flavors, not CLOS, and made reference to a lot of LispM-specific packages.
* The document was published in January, 1983 and identifies itself as part of Symbolics Release 4.0.
There are other differences as well.
#Zetalisp #LispMachine #LispMachines #Symbolics #LispM
#ConditionHandling #ConditionSystem #ErrorSystem #ErrorHandling #CommonLisp #CL #Flavors #CLOS #History #ComputerHistory
#InternetArchive #Bitsavers -
You can pick up the document 'Signalling and Handling Conditions' from this index page:
It was longer than I thought it would be, but I think you'll find it interesting to see what the Zetalisp condition system (which inspired the Common Lisp condition system) looked like.
In spirit, it was much the same. The biggest differences are:
* The CL system has 'active' restarts, where the ZL system had a passive thing where you returned a value to the case context and hoped that it would do the thing you wanted. It felt quite a bit more error-prone (if you'll pardon the reuse of 'error' here, maybe I should say 'mistake-prone').
* The ZL condition system offers a lot of really low-level stuff that did not seem proper for CL.
* The set of operations offered in ZL was richer, but also a lot more complicated, I thought, and I worried people would not really see what it was trying to do.
* Obviously, the ZL system was based on Flavors, not CLOS, and made reference to a lot of LispM-specific packages.
* The document was published in January, 1983 and identifies itself as part of Symbolics Release 4.0.
There are other differences as well.
#Zetalisp #LispMachine #LispMachines #Symbolics #LispM
#ConditionHandling #ConditionSystem #ErrorSystem #ErrorHandling #CommonLisp #CL #Flavors #CLOS #History #ComputerHistory
#InternetArchive #Bitsavers -
A subjective #list of the five greatest operating systems of all time, with terse reasonings:
5. CP/M (the original micro OS of choice)
4. Alto Executive ("we're still living in the Xerox Alto's world"—IEEE)
3. AmigaOS 1 series (the most elegant home computer OS)
2. MS-DOS (it seemed like every business with a computer had this at some point before Wintel swept the consumer market)
1. Unix (chances are, you are using a Unix-like OS or compatibility layer) -
A subjective #list of the five greatest operating systems of all time, with terse reasonings:
5. CP/M (the original micro OS of choice)
4. Alto Executive ("we're still living in the Xerox Alto's world"—IEEE)
3. AmigaOS 1 series (the most elegant home computer OS)
2. MS-DOS (it seemed like every business with a computer had this at some point before Wintel swept the consumer market)
1. Unix (chances are, you are using a Unix-like OS or compatibility layer) -
A subjective #list of the five greatest operating systems of all time, with terse reasonings:
5. CP/M (the original micro OS of choice)
4. Alto Executive ("we're still living in the Xerox Alto's world"—IEEE)
3. AmigaOS 1 series (the most elegant home computer OS)
2. MS-DOS (it seemed like every business with a computer had this at some point before Wintel swept the consumer market)
1. Unix (chances are, you are using a Unix-like OS or compatibility layer) -
A subjective #list of the five greatest operating systems of all time, with terse reasonings:
5. CP/M (the original micro OS of choice)
4. Alto Executive ("we're still living in the Xerox Alto's world"—IEEE)
3. AmigaOS 1 series (the most elegant home computer OS)
2. MS-DOS (it seemed like every business with a computer had this at some point before Wintel swept the consumer market)
1. Unix (chances are, you are using a Unix-like OS or compatibility layer) -
Apple Lisa, MacIntosh, and a box
Computer History Museum
Mountain View, CAA #ThrowbackThursday in honor of Apple's 50th anniversary.
At right a Lisa, in the middle the MacIntosh, and then some sort of ugly box 😉 Monitors above (somewhat cut off) display typical OS screens.
#photo #technology #Apple50 #computerHistory #SiliconValley #California
-
#Tech #Computer #RetroTech #Retro #RetroTechnology #RetroComputers #VintageComputer #RetroComputing #Magazine #VintageAd #VintageTech #ComputerHistory #RetroHardware #VintageHardware #OldSchoolHardware #ComputerHardwareHistory #ClassicHardware #RetroComputingHardware #LegacyHardware #HardwareThrowback
-
In the decade after Ward Christensen and Randy Suess created the first BBS, there was a growing tension between commerce and the common good.
BBSes were born in a spirit of openness and sharing, but it wasn't just a hobby anymore, according to folks like Jack Rickard and Phil Becker. It was "an emerging growth industry of unprecedented opportunity."
https://breakintochat.com/blog/2026/03/16/business-of-bbsing-ansi-art-and-webcomics-part-4/
#retrocomputing #ansiart #textmode #ansi #bbs #bbsing #computerhistory #history #mastoart #comics #digipres
-
In the early 1990s, as BBSes turned into businesses, some sysops and developers started making real money.
Could ANSI artists and publishers do the same?
https://breakintochat.com/blog/2026/03/16/business-of-bbsing-ansi-art-and-webcomics-part-4/
Part 4 of my series "ANSI art and webcomics" is here!
#retrocomputing #ansiart #textmode #ansi #bbs #bbsing #computerhistory #history #mastoart #comics #digipres
-
Israel just committed a crime against computer history. By destroying the last F14's they effectively destroyed the first microprocessor ever made. Its like when the Soviets demolished Königsberg Castle.
#computerhistory #Israel #iranwar #computer #use #history #microprocessor #iran
-
Le Compaq Portable 486 illustre parfaitement une période charnière de l’histoire informatique.
Au début des années 1990, la mobilité signifiait transporter un ordinateur de près de 8 kg, doté d’un processeur 486 et d’une architecture proche d’un PC de bureau.La fin de l’ère des machines à coudre !
#RetroComputing #ComputerHistory #Compaq #486 #VintageComputer #TechHistory
-
#Tech #Computer #RetroTech #Retro #RetroTechnology #RetroComputers #VintageComputer #RetroComputing #Magazine #VintageAd #VintageTech #ComputerHistory #RetroHardware #VintageHardware #OldSchoolHardware #ComputerHardwareHistory #ClassicHardware #RetroComputingHardware #LegacyHardware #HardwareThrowback
-
Von der ersten Morsecode-Nachricht 1843 bis zu Current Loop → V.24, ASCII als Standardbasis und dem KERMIT-Protokoll (1981): Wie Telegraphie zur Computerkommunikation wurde und warum USB-zu-V.24-Adapter bis heute Sinn ergeben.
Thema am 12.02. in der Reihe „Abends im Computermuseum“, live auf Twitch.
➡️https://www.f05.uni-stuttgart.de/informatik/fachbereich/computermuseum/aktuelles/Veranstaltungsreihe-Abends-im-Computermuseum---Naechster-Termin-12.02.2026---19-Uhr/#ComputerMuseum #UniStuttgart #ComputerHistory #Telegraphie #ASCII #Kermit #Twitch
-
SFD-1001 Case Mystery: Doug’s $30 “Unobtanium” Surprise
#Commodore64 #SFD1001 #CommodorePET #RetroComputing #VintageComputing #RetroHardware #FloppyDisk #IEEE488 #SCSI #DataStorage #HardwareHack #RetroTech #ComputerHistory #10MinuteAmigaRetroCast
https://theoasisbbs.com/sfd-1001-case-mystery-dougs-30-unobtanium-surprise/?fsp_sid=1467 -
Taken from a social media post by Michel Talbot.
Let me add that in this context, Operating System Programmer is akin to a hero in an ancient Greek myth.***
PDP-6
Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, Massachusetts, United States (February 26, 1964)Standing:
Peter Sampson, Operating System Programmer
Leo Gossell, Diagnostic Software Programmer
Chester Gordon Bell, PDP-6 System Designer (Creator)
Alan Kotok, Operating System Lead
Russell Doane, Circuit Design Engineer
Bill Kellicker, Programmer
Bob Reed, Hardware Technician
George Vogelsang, Draftsman.
Sitting:
Lydia Lowe (McKalip), Secretary to C. Gordon Bell
Bill Colburn, PDP-6 Project Engineer
Ken Senior, Field Service Technician
Ken Fitzgerald, Mechanical Engineer
Norman Hurst, Programmer
Harris Hyman, Operating System ProgrammerReferences
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-6>
PDP-6 System Description, DEC 1964 (4 MB) <https://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp6/brochures/F-61_PDP-6_Brochure_196402.pdf>
Digital Equipment Corporation PDP Tree by G.Bell, 1980 (Wall Poster) 1700×1141 <https://landley.net/history/mirror/dec/bell/DEC%20PDP_Tree_Poster_1980.jpg>#ComputerHistory
#DEC
#Demigods
#DigitalEquipmentCorporation
#PDP
#PDP6
