test-drb September 1998

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

154 participants
649 discussions

by JRichardson＠softwright.co.uk

>> One of the most interesting programs I've seen this week is >> the VNC ("virtual network computing") software at >> <http://www.orl.co.uk/vnc/index.html> . Is this for real!? Has anyone tried it? Sounds too good to be true! I've seen a remote desktop facility for NT before and it had a bad habit of crashing the NT machine on which the server was running. This software sounds awesome though, if it works... cheers Jules >

25 years, 10 months

GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)

by dastar＠ncal.verio.com

On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Dominique Cormann wrote: > You brought up the perfect example of how it *isn't* just marketing. > > The imac did well because of: > > * Good marketing of the product and... > > * Realizing that non-geek ppl want an attractive computer that is as > simple to use as any other electric appliance in the house (it should > packaged similar to other attractive household appliances). Do you think the socially retarded engineers at Apple designed the case? Hardly. I can guarantee you it was someone more affiliated with the marketing department. > * People wanted a cheaper mac Engineers didn't decide this. If engineers had their way your computer you'd be able to stick your dirty dishes inside your computer and have it wash them while you surf the web. Engineers aren't mindful of cost (and therefore price). However, marketers are. As for the next three of your points, it is speculation (and opinion) on your part. > * They have attractive educational discounts and bundles. (The > university I go too cannot stock enough of these things, to meet student > demand). Marketing. > * This computer is far easier to network up in large groups. (Another > plus for schools). I would guess marketing had a hand in defining this. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people are getting pissed by now of this pointless argument. I'll move it offline. Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever onward. September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0 See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! [Last web site update: 09/12/98]

25 years, 10 months

Classic Computers FS

by WHoagIII＠aol.com

Gentlepeople: Sorry, I am located in Portland, Oregon. I also have a bunch of 8" floppys both HH & FH, Shugart, Tandon, CDC, Mitsubishi & NEC. Also some 8"HDs, Quantum etc. All untested. Any interest? Paxton Hoag

25 years, 10 months

GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< > It would take the PC getting to the 386 before it had the < > performance perceived to be needed to attract attention. < < The 386 was important, but not because of performance. Virtual memory, < flat 32-bit address space, and V86 mode were all essential to the succes < of Windows 3. Isn't that what I meant! Performance is not exclusivly a speed metric. All those features of the 386 (its 32bitness) is the performance improment required to make GUI software more praticeable. However it's address space while better than the 286 is anything but flat. Look at teh 68k for the definition of a flat address space. < Have you ever tried GEOS? It is a very acceptable GUI with nice Yes, long time ago. Allison

25 years, 10 months

CP/M-86 / MSDOS / DRDOS / GEM / Windows

by Marty＠itgonline.com

I have a (unsealed) copy of DOS 1.1 as well. I've never seen a copy of DOS 1.0.... still looking.... Unfortunately I was out killing brain cells at the time DOS 1.0 was released and have only vague hazy recollections that come and go with intermittant flashbacks. What was the question again? Marty ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: CP/M-86 / MSDOS / DRDOS / GEM / Windows Author: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu at internet Date: 9/18/98 1:16 PM On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Marvin wrote: > I've been looking for a number of years now for DOS 1.0. The best I have > been able to do was to buy a still shrinkwarpped DOS 1.1 a few years ago. > Does anyone know/remember how long DOS 1.0 was actually out before it was > upgraded? I too have a DOS 1.1 package. I'm wondering if 1.0 was only release WITH the PC, and was not available separately as the 1.1 upgrade was? Someone who was paying attention back then then should be able to shed some light on this. Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever onward. September 26 & 27...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0 See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details! [Last web site update: 09/12/98] ------ Message Header Follows ------ Received: from lists3.u.washington.edu by smtp.itgonline.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.9i(b5) for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1998Sep18.131632.1767.64218; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:16:40 -0400 Received: from host (lists.u.washington.edu [140.142.56.13]) by lists3.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with SMTP id KAA11825; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:31 -0700 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id KAA43978 for <classiccmp(a)lists.u.washington.edu>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:26 -0700 Received: from mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (mailhub2.ncal.verio.com [204.247.247.54]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW98.06) with ESMTP id KAA12449 for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:25 -0700 Received: from shell1.ncal.verio.com (dastar(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com [204.247.248.254]) by mailhub2.ncal.verio.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA15780 for <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>; Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980918101330.2754H-100000(a)shell1.ncal.verio.com> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu Sender: CLASSICCMP-owner(a)u.washington.edu Precedence: bulk From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com> To: "Discussion re-collecting of classic computers" <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> Subject: Re: CP/M-86 / MSDOS / DRDOS / GEM / Windows In-Reply-To: <3602751A.2B676A5F(a)rain.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers <classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 beta -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

25 years, 10 months

GUIs 'forced' on people (was Re: Here's something to consider.)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< I feel that people also dismissed the first Mac for the same reason. (I < had limited apps to start with, but wider initial acceptance would've po < changed that.) If they had gone on ease of use, elegance of interface, a < technological superiority, they wouldn't have bought slow, clunky DOS-ba < XT's instead. The Amiga suffered the same fate. Drastically superior < technically, but perceived by the business world as only a toy. Multimed < for games and kids until Gates and IBM told them that this new "multimed < thing they came up with was going to be the wave of the future. Ok, Boys and Girls. Fetch a cup of your favorite drink and follow along. There were events and products that had to happen before we could make the quantum leap of faith to GUI interfaces. One of which was a competent and reasonably inexpensive platform to execute on. this is about technology convergence on a set of parameters needed to produce a GUI based system. I will touch on a few of them here. At the time people were looking for more serious machines the Apples were in businesses as were trs80s. S100 crates however were acknowledge as more potent *IF* the user was willing to get into the guts. At the time of the 5150 intro S100 crates with 6mhz z80s and 8mhz 8088s were on the desks of some (compupro 8/16 for example) and setting the standard for performance that PC would not achieve for several years. The problem as I saw it back then (1980 -early 82)was the number of possible systems you could buy and their attractiveness beyond appearance. Apples were fast, had graphics and were fairly easy to configure and find tons of cheap software. Many vendors also supported Apples with hardware add ons like the Softcard extending it's performance and range of executeable software. TRS80s were popular as they also offered a soft introduction for the hardware timid. Game software may have factored in the Apple success at the time as well. BUT, they were 8bit systems. Those that needed raw computing power and couldn't afford the cost of a decent PDP-11, Nova or HP system would bite the hardware bullet and go S100, Multibus, STD or VME busses for it.They also eyed the 68000 and 8086 series of 16bit cpus for a bit more computational power and larger address spaces that their bigger programs would need. The XT at first really was lackluster. It wasn't until it started showing up with a 5 or 10 mb hard disks and at least 256-512k of ram that people could see it as a potential engine of greater performance than the Apple or the others of the time. It offered the prople that hit the hardware path something less hardware intensive like the Apple or TRS80 but with the potential of 16bit performance. That last item was selling hard at the time as the next place to be and it wasn't IBM alone saying that. Even the S100 oriented knew that already. You see the idea of graphics, WYSIWYG text editing and other memory intensive tasks were already being seen in products like DBASE, Multiplan and others. This extended to push people from the floppy to larger fixed drives as well. So in the end it was the need for more performance that would alter the shape of the early 80s computer market with the outcome fairly uncertain till the late 80s. There is no small coincidence that when 8bit systems were common storage of hundres of kilobytes were adaquate. The 8088 made megabyte a word used and storage was in the same range. The 80286 and the 68000 would stay in the megabyte range but the software was using more of it and the storage formerly in the 5-10mb range was now reaching for the 40-80mb or more realm. The advent of the 32bit 386 and the faster 68010/020 made memories also move from the 512k to 2mb range in to the serious 2-8mb range with disks pushing the 100mb region and growing fast this would push RLL, EDSI and eventually IDE is the quest for more space. One more notch up. While GUIs aren't mentioned as yet, they were not the standard. Computer performance and graphics had to come up a notch or two to support that and offer acceptable prformance. Its offering of a less complex user interface would take many years to be realized and those already knowledgable of command lines saw them as slow and awkard as they sometimes were. It would take one more notch up to 32bit computing to establish the platform that GUIs needed to succeed. When it happend those timid people looking for a computer solution without the languages and hardware jumped on the bandwagon. Since Apple chose the 68000 series there were there a bit sooner and had polish off some of the rough edges. They were first, best didn't really matter. It would take the PC getting to the 386 before it had the performance perceived to be needed to attract attention. What was missed is that in the time line GUIs needed 32bit cpus. The VAX, ECLIPSE, SUN and other worstations already knew that but at $50,000 or so they were not in the running. We are talking in the under $5000 bracket throughout this dicertation. Graphics require big address spaces or at least larger than a 16bit word could easily provide. Motorola was already there with the 68000 and Intel was still working their way to it and the 286 a 16 bit cpu was not it yet! So from the time of the PC introduction to the day of the GUI is long, nearly seven years and lot's of other things had to happen along the way, each significant in it own right and also contributing to system as we know them now. Allison

25 years, 10 months

Gooeys

by jfoust＠threedee.com

At 06:36 PM 9/17/98 -0700, Sam wrote: > >One of the most useful aspects of Linux when I was using it way back when >was the virtual terminals. One of the most interesting programs I've seen this week is the VNC ("virtual network computing") software at <http://www.orl.co.uk/vnc/index.html> . It's graphical remote-control software like the Win-world's pcAnywhere program, but it's not platform-specific. They hand out source code and define the protocol, and there are servers available for several platforms, and viewers (controlling ends) for even more platforms. Incredibly, you can control your Windows or Unix X Window box from an old DOS box, a Palm Pilot, or many other machines. It runs over TCP/IP, but I'm sure eventually someone will adapt it to direct serial or dial-up interface. What does this mean for the classic collector? To me, it means being able to control old machines from different rooms, or to put old computers to better use, allowing me to peek into windows of my present-day computers. - John

25 years, 10 months

Classic Computers FS

by WHoagIII＠aol.com

Gentlepeople; I am liquidating my warehouse and I have a lot of collectable computers for sale. Following is a rough list of what I have. If interested please e-mail whoagiii(a)aol.com. Paradise Convertable DBS 16 (MPM) IBC IMI 5021H Onyx C5000 Vector 4 Vector 3 Kaypro II Zeus 4 Mindset CPU only Zorba Plexus P/55 Chieftain S50 Altos 8000-12 with MTU (tape) Altos 580s & 586 uSci Cromemco systems 1, 2 & 3 XORI Ampro Little Board 80186 MS-Dos Lomas Data Products S100 Kurtzweil/AI KUSPPC CPU only Morrow Decision 1 with HD/Floppy Compupro S100 Televideo 8/16-40 Xerox 820, 8/16 Multibus dual Sun Intel iPDS 8080 Portable(several) wi E-prom Programmer Intel Multibus 310s, 330s & 380s Heath/Zenith Dual 8" HH Floppy Disk Drives 2 other Dual 8" HH Floppy Disk Drives Misc 5" Hard and floppy external disk drives & cases DEC Vax 730 Wi R80 DEC TU 81 Plus Several RA 81s DEC MINK 11s DEC Rainbows & 350s Tek 43XX & Tek terminals (Many 4025, 4028, 4029, 4105, 4107, 4108, 4109, 4208, 4211, Mice Keyboards) HP Integrals HP 150 I & II HP 9810A, 9815B, 9825B, 9830B, 9845B, Many peripherals and interface cables. Separate list availiable on request. I am open to reasonable offers. Please reply to my e-mail address and not the list. I am able to ship UPS, FedEX or USPS and with special arrangements, commercial trucking. Paxton Whoagiii(a)aol.com

25 years, 10 months

CP/M-86 / MSDOS / DRDOS / GEM / Windows

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< CP/M actually stands for Control Program/Monitor. Yes. Taken from the first paragraph of An Introduction to CPM features and facilities version 1.4 1976. (my V1.4 manual!) QUOTE: CP/M is a monitor control program for microcomputer system development which uses IBM-compatable flexible disks for backup storage. Using a mainframe based upon Intel's 8080 microcomputer, CP/M provides a general enviornment for program construction, storage, and editing, along with assembly and program check-out facilities. It goes on from there. < While I don't know for sure, I suspected PL/M stands for Programming < Language/Monitor and not Programming Language/Microprocessor. No, PL/M is Programming Language/Microprocessor It derives it's structure from PL/1 and can be viewd as an integer version of it like smallc is to full C. < By 1978, Sharp and Zenith had yet to even create computer divisions, le < alone have computers running CP/M. Zenith at the time was doing TVs and would later aquire Heathkit who did already have products (H8 and H11). generally speaking the japanese companies like Sharp, NEC, Epson and other would be a bit later. Allison

25 years, 10 months

CP/M-86 / MSDOS / DRDOS / GEM / Windows

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< I have to admit that I'd love to know (from Gary) whether the < similarities between CP/M PIP and RT-11 (or even OS/8) are < simply coincidental or if there is something more to it... Gary was a DEC system user and did a fair amount of cross development on DEC platforms. DEC systems (PDP-8, PDP10, PDP-11 and later VAX) were the models he knew and had used. There is no coincidence that CP/M and DEC command lines and utilities were so similar. Allison

25 years, 10 months

← Newer
1
...
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
...
65
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb September 1998