Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!elroy!devvax!jplpro!des From: des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: QM-1 or like machines??? Message-ID: <329@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Date: Thu, 3-Sep-87 18:33:58 EDT Article-I.D.: devvax.329 Posted: Thu Sep 3 18:33:58 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 12:22:08 EDT References: <63900006@convex> <43700020@uicsrd> <1978@kitty.UUCP> Sender: news@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV Reply-To: des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA. Lines: 96 Summary: Boat Anchor-IX In article <1978@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps >today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) We actually made 2.7bsd UNIX run on a QM-1. Well, we had to make it rather brain damaged, like, say, UNIX on an International BM PC. I really never did figure out WHY we hosted UNIX on it, however... re QM-X, I was always amazed at that one. It was basically a QM-1 running 360/370 instructions. Since the QM-1 emulated an 8080 in approximately real-time, I can't quite figure out WHY anyone would buy one. I guess Nanodata never found anybody that dumb either... I did like the blinking lights! It was fun showwing off to neophytes, And the heat! Imagine working in a computer room all day, without needing a sweater! Yup, the poor system mothers for those lowley Vax, eclipse, and PDP/11 hackers had to freeze, while I got to bask in tropical warmth at the QM-1 ... Summary: Boat Anchor-IX Expires: References: <63900006@convex> <43700020@uicsrd> <1978@kitty.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA. Keywords: In article <1978@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps >today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) We actually made 2.7bsd UNIX run on a QM-1. Well, we had to make it rather brain damaged, like, say, UNIX on an International BM PC. I really never did figure out WHY we hosted UNIX on it, however... re QM-X, I was always amazed at that one. It was basically a QM-1 running 360/370 instructions. Since the QM-1 emulated an 8080 in approximately real-time, I can't quite figure out WHY anyone would buy one. I guess Nanodata never found anybody that dumb either... I did like the blinking lights! It was fun showwing off to neophytes, And the heat! Imagine working in a computer room all day, without needing a sweater! Yup, the poor system mothers for those lowley Vax, eclip Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: QM-1 or like machines??? Summary: Expires: References: <63900006@convex> <43700020@uicsrd> <1978@kitty.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA. Keywords: In article <1978@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <43700020@uicsrd>, lawrie@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes: >> >> >> There was once a company named Nanodata which built a machine called the >> >> QM-1. The QM-1 had two levels of "micro-code" (one called nano-code and >> >> the other call micro-code). It was intended to be used to emulate >> >>> architectures. > > Actually, Nanodata Corp. is still alive and eeking out a bare >subsistence in Cheektowaga, NY. From what I understand, all they do >now is maintain systems which they once built; I don't believe that >they still make the QM-1 or any successor. > Nanodata Corp. filed bankruptcy about 5 years or so ago. Most >of their assets along with "One Computer Place" in downtown Buffalo, NY >were sold to pay creditors. > From what I understand, the thing that killed Nanodata Corp. >(besides spending too much money too fast) was their "QM-X", which was >a machine to compete with the IBM 360/370. The QM-X had a number of >design problems, and Nanodata was just too small to compete in the >dog-eat-dog business computer world of the early 80's. I don't believe >that any QM-X was ever sold, but they sure spent a lot of money trying... > My organization did some subcontract work for Nanodata Corp. >around 1979/1980, so I got to know them. The QM-1 (at the time) was >an impressive machine with some of the densest multi-layer PC boards >I have ever seen (at the time). The QM-1 used a huge 5 volt @ 300 ampere >Lambda power supply to run a board set less than 2 feet on a side >(when viewed from the front). That's a lot of power and a lot of >logic... > Anyone have a QM-1? If only Nanodata had prospered perhaps >today we would have QM-UNIX... :-) > ><> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York ><> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry ><> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ ><> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"