The XKL Toad-1 System (hereafter “the Toad”) is an extended clone of the DECSYSTEM-20, the third generation of the PDP-10 family of computers from Digital Equipment Corporation. What does that mean? To answer that requires us to step back into the intertwined history of DEC, BBN,1 SAIL,2 and other parts of Stanford University’s computing community and environs.
It’s a long story. Get comfortable. I think it will be worth your time.
The PDP-10 family (which includes the earlier PDP-6) is a typical mainframe computer of the mid-1960s. Like many science oriented computers prior to IBM’s System/360 line, the PDP-10 architecture addressed binary words which were 36 bits long, rather than individual characters as was common in business oriented systems. In instructions, memory addresses took up half of the 36 bit word; 18 bits is enough to address 262,144 locations, or 256KW, a very large memory in the days when each bit of magnetic core cost about $1.00.3 Typical installations had 64KW or 96KW attached. The KA-10 CPU in the first generation PDP-104 could not handle any more memory than that.
Another important feature of the PDP-10 was timesharing, a facility by which multiple users of the computer each was given the illusion that each was alone in interacting with the system. The PDP-6 was in fact the first commercially available system to feature interactive timesharing as a standard facility rather than as an added cost item.
In the late 1960s, virtual memory was an important topic of research: How to make use of the much larger, less expensive capacity of direct access media such as disks and drums to extend the address space of computers, instead of the very expensive option of adding more core.5 One company which was looking at the issue was Bolt, Beranek, & Newman, who were interested in demand paged virtual memory, that is, viewing memory as made up of chunks, or pages, accessed independently, and what an operating system which had access to such facilities would look like.
To facilitate this research, BBN created a pager which they attached to a DEC PDP-10, and began writing an operating system which they called TENEX for “PDP-10 Executive”6 TENEX was very different from Tops-10, the operating system provided by DEC, but was interactive in the same way as the older OS. The big difference was that more programs could run at the same time, because only the currently executing portions of each program needed to be present in the main (non-virtual) memory of the computer.
TENEX was popular operating system, especially in university settings, so many PDP-10s had the BBN pager attached. In fact, the BBN pager was also used on a PDP-10 system which ran neither TENEX nor Tops-10, to wit, the WAITS system at SAIL.7
The second generation of the PDP-10 underwent a name change, to the DECsystem-10, as well as gaining a faster new processor, the KI-10. This changed the way memory was handled, by adding a pager which divided memory up into 512 word blocks (“pages”). Programs were still restricted to 18 bits of address like previous generations, but the CPU could now handle 22 bits of address in the pager, so the physical memory could be up to four megawords (4MW), which is 16 times as much as the KA-10.
This pager was not compatible with, and was much less capable than, the BBN device, although DEC provided a version of TENEX modified to work with the KI pager for customers willing to pay extra. Some customers considered this to be too little, too late.
SAIL and the Super FOONLY
In the late 1960s, computer operating systems were an object of study in the broader area of artificial intelligence research. This was true of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, for example, where the PDP-6 timesharing monitor8 had been heavily modified to make it more useful for AI researchers. When the PDP-10 came out three years later, SAIL acquired one, attached a BBN pager, and connected it to the PDP-6, modifying the monitor (now named Tops-10) to run on both CPUs, with the 10 handing jobs off to the 6 if they called for equipment attached to the latter. By 1972, the monitor had diverged so greatly from Tops-10 that it received a new name, WAITS.
But the hardware was old and slow, and a faster system was desired. The KI-10 processor was underpowered from the perspective of the SAIL researchers, so they began designing their own PDP-10 compatible system, the Super FOONLY.9 This design featured a BBN style pager and used very fast semiconductors10 in its circuitry. It also expanded the pager address to 22 bits, like the KI-10, so was capable of addressing up to 4MW of memory. Finally, unlike the DEC systems, this system was build around the use of a fast microcoded processor which implemented the PDP-10 architecture as firmware rather than as special purpose hardware.
DECSYSTEM-20 and TOPS-20
DEC was aware of the discontent with their new system among customers; to remedy the situation, they purchased the design of the SuperFOONLY from Stanford, and hired a graduate student from SAIL to install and maintain the SUDS drawing system at DEC’s facilities in Massachusetts. The decision was made to keep the KI-10 pager design in the hardware, and implement the BBN style pager in microcode.
Because of the demand for TENEX from a large part of their customer base, DEC also decided to port the BBN operating system to the new hardware based on the SAIL design. DEC added certain features to the new operating system which had been userland code libraries in TENEX, such as command processing, so that a single style of command handling was available to all programmers.
When DEC announced the new system as the DECSYSTEM-20, with its brand new operating system called TOPS-20, they fully expected customers who wanted to use the new hardware would flock to it, and would port all of their applications from Tops-10 to TOPS-20, even though the new OS did not support many older peripherals on which the existing applications relied. The customers rebelled, and DEC was forced to port Tops-10 to the new hardware, offering different microcode to support the older OS on the new KL-10 processor.
Code Name: Jupiter
DEC focused on expanding the capabilities of their flagship minicomputer line, the PDP-11 family, for the next few years, with a planned enhancement to take the line from 16 bit mini to 32 bit supermini. The end result was an entirely new family, the VAX, which offered virtual memory like the PDP-10 mainframes in a new lower cost package.
But DEC did not forget their mainframe customer base. They began designing a new PDP-10 system, intended to include enhanced peripherals, support more memory, and run much faster than the KL-10 in the current Dec-10/DEC-20 systems. As part of the design, codenamed “Jupiter”, the limited 18 bit address space of the older systems was upgraded to 30 bits, that is, a memory size of one gigaword (1GW = 1024MW), which was nearly 2.5 times the size of the equivalent VAX memory, and far larger than the memory sizes available in the IBM offerings of the period.
Based on the promise of the Jupiter systems, customers made do with the KL-10 systems which were available, often running multiple systems to make up for the lack of horsepower. Features were added to the KL, by changes to the microcode as well as by adding new hardware. The KL-10 was enhanced with the ability to address the new 30-bit address space, although the implementation was limited to addressing 23 bits (where the hardware only handled 22); thus, although a system maxed out at 4MW, virtual memory could make it look like 8MW.
DEC also created a minicomputer sized variant of the PDP-10 family, which they called the DECSYSTEM-2020. This was intended to extend the family into department sized entities, rather than the corporation sized mainframe members of the family.11 There was also some interest in creating a desktop variant; one young engineer was well known for pushing the idea of a “10 on a desk”, although his idea was never prototyped at DEC.
DEC canceled the Jupiter project, apparently destined to be named the DECSYSTEM-40, in May 1983, with an announcement to the Large Systems customers at the semiannual DECUS symposia. Customer outrage was so great that DEC agreed to continue hardware development on the KL-10 until 1988, and software development across the family until 1993.
Stanford University Network
In 1980, there were about a dozen sites at Stanford University which housed PDP-10 systems, mostly KL-10 systems running TOPS-20 but also places like SAIL, which had attached a KL-10 to the WAITS dual processor. Three of the TOPS-20 sites were the Computer Science Department (“CSD”), the Graduate School of Business (“GSB”), and the academic computing facility called LOTS.12
At this time, local-area networking was seen as a key element in the future of computing, and the director of LOTS (whom we’ll call “R”) wrote a white paper on the future of Ethernet13 on the campus. R also envisioned a student computer, what today we would call a workstation, which featured a megabyte of memory, a million pixels on the screen, a processor capable of executing a million instructions per second, and an Ethernet connection capable of transferring a millions bits of data per second, which he called the “4M machine”.
Networking also excited the director of the CSD computer facility, whom we’ll call “L”.14 L designed an Ethernet interface for the KL-10 processors in the DEC-20s which were ubiquitous at Stanford. This was dubbed the Massbus-Ethernet Interface Subsystem, or MEIS,15 pronounced “maze“.
The director of the GSB computer facility, whom we’ll call “S”, was likewise interested in networking, as well as being a brilliant programmer herself. (Of some importance to the story is the fact that she was eventually married to L.) S assigned one of the programmers working for her to add code to the TOPS-20 operating system to support the MEIS, using the PUP protocols created at PARC for the Alto personal computer.16
The various DEC-20 systems were scattered across the Stanford campus, each one freestanding in a computer room. R, L, and S ran miles of 50ohm coaxial cable, the medium of the original Ethernet, through the so-called steam tunnels under the campus, connecting all the new MEISes together. Now, it was possible to transfer files between DEC-20s from the command line rather than by writing them to a tape and carrying them from one site to another. It was also possible to log in from one DEC-20 to another–but using one mainframe to connect to another seemed wasteful of resources on the source system, so L came up with a solution.
R’s dream of a 4M machine had borne fruit: While still at CSD, he had a graduate student create the design for the Stanford University Network processor board. L repurposed the SUN-1 board17 at the processor in a terminal interface processor (“EtherTIP”), in imitation of the TIPs used by systems connected to the ARPANET and to commercial networks like Tymnet and Telenet. Now, instead of wiring terminals directly to a single mainframe, and using the mainframe to connect from one place to another, the terminals could be wired to an EtherTIP and could freely connect to any system on the Ethernet.
A feature of the PUP protocols invented at PARC was the concept of internetworking, connecting two or more Ethernets together to make a larger network. This is done by using a computer connected to both networks to forward data from each to the other. At PARC, a dedicated Alto acted as the router for this purpose; L designated some of the SUN-1 based system as routers rather than as EtherTIPs, and the Stanford network was complete.
Stanford University also supported a number of researchers who were given access to the ARPANET as part of their government sponsored research, so several of the PDP-10s on campus were connected to the ARPANET. When the ARPANET converted to using the TCP/IP protocols which had been developed for the purpose of bring internetworking to wide area networks, our threesome were ready, and assigned programmers from CSD, GSB, and LOTS to make L’s Ethernet routers speak TCP/IP as well as PUP. TOPS-20 was also updated to use TCP/IP, by Stanford programmers as well as by DEC.
S and L saw a business opportunity in all this, and began a small company to sell the MEIS and the associated routers and TIPs to companies and universities who wanted to add Ethernet to their facilities. They saw this as a way to finance the development of L’s long-cherished dream of a desktop PDP-10. They eventually left Stanford as the company grew, as it had tapped the exploding networking market at just the right time. The company grew so large in fact that the board of directors discarded the plan to build L’s system, and so the founders left Cisco Systems to pursue other opportunities.
L moved to Redmond in 1990, where he founded XKL Systems Corporation. This company had as its business plan to build the “10 on a desk”. The product was codenamed “TOAD”, which is what L had been calling his idea for a decade and a half because “Ten On A Desktop” is a mouthful. He hired a small team of engineers, including his old friend R from Stanford, to build a system which implemented the full 30-bit address space which DEC had abandoned with the cancelled Jupiter project, and which included modern peripherals and networking capabilities.18 R was assigned as Chief Architect; his job was to insure that the TOAD was fully compatible with the entire PDP-10 family, without necessarily replicating every bug in the earlier systems.
R also oversaw the port of TOPS-20 to the new hardware, although some boards19 had a pair of engineers assigned: One handled the detailed design and implementation of the board, while the other worked on the changes to the relevant portion of the operating system. R was responsible for the changes which related to the TOAD’s new bus architecture, as well as those relating to the much larger memory which the TOAD supported and the new CPU.20
The TOAD was supposed to come to market with a boring name, the “TD-1”, but ran into trademark issues. By that time, I was working at XKL, officially doing pre- and post-sales customer advocacy, but also working on the TOPS-20 port.21 Part of my customer advocacy duties was some low-key marketing; when we lost the proposed name, I pointed out that people had been hearing about L’s TOAD for years, and we should simply go with it; S, considered the unofficial “Arbiter of Taste” at XKL, agreed with me.22 We officially introduced the XKL Toad-1 System at a DECUS trade show in the spring of 1995.