> -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Curious > Marc > Sent: 12 July 2016 08:58 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: IBM 360/30 in verilog > > Darn. My hopes are shattered. Lots of Verilog in my future, that is if we can > find 360/50 ALDs... > Marc >
It actually might be easier to produce a generic S/360 clone in FPGA using the POP rather than individual ALU's. Having built a very simple CPU (in VHDL not Verilog) and planning to start on a more complex (Ferranti Pegasus) Of course it wouldn't be cycle accurate, but perhaps that wouldn't be important. > > On Jul 12, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Jon Elson <el...@pico-systems.com> wrote: > > > >> On 07/11/2016 07:35 PM, Curious Marc wrote: > >> Thanks for the detailed answer. I see the front panels look remarkably > similar though. Short of redoing a 360/50 on an FPGA (I'd need to retire to > have enough time for this one!), could I use the /50 panel with the /65 > emulator? > > Not really! The 360/50 had 4 "rollers" for 4 rows of lights, and one row of > data switches, and 2 rows of dedicated lights. > > > > The 360/65 had 6 rollers with 6 rows of lights, plus TWO rows of data > switches, and pretty much no dedicated lights other than associated with the > rollers. > > > > Both had a row of address switches under the data switches. > > > > So, yes, in GENERAL, they had a similar look and layout, but in detail, there > was a lot different, some of it specifically related to the memory word width. > > > > The only machine that looked really different was the 360/30, that had a > panel more reminiscent of the 1401. > > And, of course, the 360/85, which was really a prototype of the 370/165. > As far as software was concerned, it was just a really fast 360, but the > hardware was MUCH more advanced. > > > > Jon
