Gunther Schadow wrote:
> 
> Henry R. Bent wrote:

> Yuck! So I will have to replace the backplane. Ah sheesh. And I thought
> this would be a nice and easy way to a fast VAX.

Heh.  Exactly what I thought.  Then I learned the sad truth... you'd pretty much
have to scrap an entire machine to upgrade this thing.  Of course, I'm not even
using mine at the moment as it's providing a nice coffee table for the Oberlin
College French House lounge :-P

> Sure, but I didn't think it was NetBSDable.

The home page claims the /705A is supported in NetBSD-current, but I can't find
any confirmation of this.

> BUT
> I'm going to flame you right here and now for letting a 6620 go away
> without telling anybody about it! Flame, flame, flame, blistering heat,
> there you go :0.

I suppose I earned that since I didn't provide an explanation.  I'm the
president of the Oberlin College Linux (and free Unix) Group, and I could have
leveraged my standing to get the machine as I'm close with the director of the
computing center.  I highly doubt I could have had the machine if it was going
anywhere other than my house or the local LUG office.

> Are you absolutely sure Ultrix was never supported
> on the 6600?

You bet.  I'm 99% sure that Ultrix never supported the 4000 series in any form,
or the 6600 series.  I dunno if other SOC VAXen (like the 4000 VLC or 3100/30)
ran Ultrix - I'm not near my Ultrix 4.5 install manual.

> The 4000-200 is
> a CVAX? Riegel? Oh darn, that would mean that my 6460 would still be
> the faster one.

SOC (System-On-a-Chip) as I mentioned above.  And yeah, your 6460 at 36VUPs
could run cicles around the 5VUPs /200.  My guess at the intended market of the
4000/200 is customers who neeeded direct and full Qbus support, but who were
finding the uVAX II or 3800/3900 too slow.

-- 
Henry Bent                       henry.bent@oberlin.edu
Want the Stars Productions       http://www.wtsp.org