Talk:IBM 6150 RT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

PC RT[edit]

I don't think it's correct to state that the term "PC RT" is incorrect, when in fact, IBM themselves use this term (some in official documentation) to refer to this hardware. [1] Oregonerik 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


What's called a microkernel here seems to be what is normally referred to as a hypervisor. Housel (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It really was a microkernel. The OS'es that sat on top of it were gutted, as they did not have control over virtual memory, drivers for keyboard, mouse, or even for accessing the various disk partitions. This caused a lot of pain when the rs/6000 came out, since all of these missing pieces had to be added to the AIX kernel. Of course, on a machine with 4MB-16MB of RAM total, everything was smaller, simpler back then.
By contrast, hypervisors trick the OS into thinking that it's running on "bare metal"; AIXv2 did *not* run on bare metal. -- However AOS did (and you could not run AIX if you were booted into AOS, because the microkernel was absent). linas (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems a lot like paravirtualization, which is still a hypervisor. The RT's VM could host multiple OSes at once so it's not like the usual microkernel. (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

X10R4 vs. X10.4[edit]

Someone changed X10.4 in the earlier article to X10R4. I'm pretty sure that the traditional notation was with the dot, not the letter R. The R should up sometime around X11R2 or R3 or somthing like that, right? Memory fading ... linas (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems to have been referred to as X10R4 at the time: eg. [2] [3]. Letdorf (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
Huh. OK. Maybe we just called it X10.4 within IBM only ... or maybe those old neurons are just remembering wrong. linas (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pfft. Of course, typing in "X10.4 release" into the search bar also provides a number of hits too: [4]. So maybe my memory ain't so bad after all. 69 hits for "X10.4 release", 45 hits for "X10R4 release". linas (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)