test-drb January 1999

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

189 participants
897 discussions

by roblwill＠usaor.net

Where would I get a copy of Norton? (one of the many useful utilities I don't have) There's no Undelete. It has some Bull-ized version of DOS 3.2. ///--->>> -Jason Willgruber (roblwill(a)usaor.net) ICQ#: 1730318 <http://members.tripod.com/general_1> > >Why don't you use UNDELETE or Norton and see if you can recover some files >in the ARCNET directory and/or others. If UNDELETE is not in the DOS >directory, I'd bring Norton to it on a floppy rather than write it to the >disk. > > - don

25 years, 7 months

Bubble memory

by rigdonj＠intellistar.net

At 04:31 PM 1/19/99 -0800, you wrote: >Speaking of Bubble memory has anyone ever run across an Apple ][ bubble >memory card? No but I have a new Intel one for a PC. Joe

25 years, 7 months

Sanyo 55x detractors (was:RE: IBM Floppy...)

by allisonp＠world.std.com

< I nominate the Sanyo 550 series computers as THE worst computer ever sol <in the US! < < I also nominate the Sanyo 550 computers has having THE worst <documentation of any computer ever sold in the US! < < Any seconds? No but I'd counter that the average PC from the late AT clones on may set a new standard for non documentation. Allison

25 years, 7 months

Multiuser computing invented!

by kurtkilg＠geocities.com

Thought you folks might get a kick out of this ad in the new PC World: "This revolutionary new technology allows you to add a 2nd PC for only $149 to your existing Win95/98 PC (100 KHz (sic) or faster). With our _Buddy System_ - internal card installed in the main PC, up to 50 feet of cable and a little connector box, you can hook up a monitor, keyboard, mouse and create a new, completely independent PC. Consider this: Both PC's can concurrently run any software you have on the main PC..." Hehe...Made by Vega Technologies. Just call 1-888-654-5415 or visit www.vegatechnologies.com

25 years, 7 months

Disasters and Recovery

by mtapley＠swri.edu

Ward Griffiths wrote: >...I really wouldn't expect a modern computer to manage more >than a few decades at best unless somebody developed a functional >"stasis field", and we need a major breakthrough in theoretical >physics -- and the followup engineering -- for that to happen. >... Ward, I'm surprised! There are at least two ways to do this with current physics: 1) put it way down deep in a gravity well. It'll have to be a *big* gravity well to get the potential difference without generating tidal stresses severe enough to threaten the structure of the computer. Pull it back out when you are ready for it. 2) Accelerate it up to near 300,000 km/sec. Take a couple of months, of course, else you'll generate acceleration-induced specific forces which again might be dangerous to the classic computer. Run it in a big circle, then decelerate it again at the destination date. It'll be in *much* better shape than its twins left at home, per Al Einstein's classic. Followup engineering, I admit, needs a breakthrough or two..... - Mark - Mark ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Large Asteroids headed toward planets inhabited by beings that don't have technology adequate to stop them: Think of it as Evolution in Fast-Forward.

25 years, 7 months

OT Re: Reading age of 3 (was: Re: Computers for children)

by sinasohn＠ricochet.net

At 07:53 PM 1/17/99 +0000, you wrote: >Of course being cynical, I could say that it's easier on the teacher to >have to teach less complex stuff. I am not saying the the lowest students >are the easiest to teach, but the brightest ones certainly aren't. The >latter are likely to question just about everything that the teacher says >(as I was known to do...) Actually, that's not true. The easiest thing for the teacher to do is to give kids lessons that a) interest them and b) are at their level. Lessons that are too difficult are frustrating and lessons that are too simple are boring. Either way, you end up with kids looking for something else to do, which is generally cause trouble (for the teacher.) (Speaking from experience on both sides of the issue.) --------------------------------------------------------------------- O- Uncle Roger "There is pleasure pure in being mad roger(a)sinasohn.com that none but madmen know." Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates San Francisco, California http://www.sinasohn.com/

25 years, 7 months

OT: Alien Media (was Disasters and Recovery)

by Philip.Belben＠pgen.com

> IC memory is a problem. Will they know what logic levels and supply > voltages to apply. Will data books survive? Very few of them are anything > like archival quality... > > It's things like that (+5V logic supply rails, TTL thresholds) that > we'll probably forget to include, but which might be _very_ important. Depending on how long we expect to elapse before the archaeologists get around to digging it up, I would tend to include copies of suitable reference books with whatever else is in the capsule. To take it to extremes, things like the definition of a volt may be needed... Philip.

25 years, 7 months

TK50Z-GA EPROM

by ddameron＠earthlink.net

At 09:07 PM 1/18/99 +0000, Tony wrote: >> Hmm. You're comparing CMOS with TTL. The traditional EPROMs are not TTL >> but NMOS - very similar components (at the transistor level) to CMOS, but > >Were some of the early EPROMS PMOS? The 1702 might have been (the supply >voltages look like PMOS supply rails), but it's not stated in either the >Intel or NatSemi data sheets. > Yes, as well as National's (5203), as well as families like Intel's 1101, 4004, 4040, 8008, etc. My guess back then = around 1974, was NMOS was not used (much) yet, so MOS only meant pMOS. Another giveaway would be the negative Vdd. It puzzled me for a bit that some pMOS chips had no ground (0 Volt) pin, a 1101, for example, ran off a 14 Volt supply with the positive tied to 5 Volts so the pMOS outputs could drive TTL. Am sure there were very many others such as the AY-5-1013 UART and 2513 (in)famous character generator... One of Intel's last pMOS products was the 1103 1K ram. I seem to remember it was marketed as a replacement RAM for various mini's. This is _only_ 25 years ago, does anyone have a system RAM board running with these? (Connecting the thread for 100 year old systems.) -Dave

25 years, 7 months

OT: Bomber navigation [WAS: Long term data storage (was: Disasters and Recovery]

by gregorym＠cadvision.com

At 09:46 PM 1/18/99 -0500, you wrote: > >On-board instrumentation on German aircraft was not that good (as it was >also not that good on English or American planes early in the War) during >the Blitzkrieg. Landmarks were often crucial. Stonehenge _may_ have been >a landmark, but there weren't that many targets (none that I can think of) >beyond it for bombing raids from the usual directions -- at most, it would >have clued the navigator to tell the pilot to turn around. > >Stonehenge was definitely neither bulldozed nor bombed. It would show, and >too many people have examined it since then. (And a number of groups held >ceremonies there during the war, not always with the permission of the >government despite the fact that they were on the same side). > >-- >Ward Griffiths <mailto:gram@cnct.com> <http://www.cnct.com/home/gram/> > >WARNING: The Attorney General has determined that Alcohol, Tobacco, >and Firearms can be hazardous to your health -- and get away with it. > On the contrary, German aircraft during the Blitz used two fairly sophisticated systems of radio navigation called Knickebein and X-Geraet. The former used overlapping Lorenz beams to guide bombers along the flightpath to their targets, using super-sensitive versions of their blind-landing receivers. The latter used radio beams that intersected over the target; one beam provided flightpath direction, the second announced when the target was reached. The British expended a lot of time and energy locating and jamming the signals, and later copied the system when Bomber Command went on the offensive (called Oboe, I think). My apologies if the details above are inaccurate; it's been a long time since I read R.V. Jones' Most Secret War (great book, BTW). Mark Gregory.

25 years, 7 months

mac tool

by SUPRDAVE＠aol.com

In a message dated 1/19/99 9:05:53 PM EST, lemay(a)cs.umn.edu writes: << Does anyone know where I can get the tool you need to use to crack open teh case of an old MacIntosh? I seem to recall that in addition to special torx tools, probably one with an extra long shaft, that you needed something to pop the case open... I'd like to upgrade the tiny hard drive in a mac se, and maybe in a mac plus 1 Meg, to use a 250 meg scsi drive. Any idea if these units will run system 7? >> yes, they will run system 7, but make sure you have 4 meg. also, get the updates so you're running 7.01 or 7.1 system 6.0.8 is smaller and faster too. you dont need a mac cracker to open those compact models. here's two hints: 1. once all screws are removed, try pressing on the scsi and and floppy drive connectors on the back while holding the back half of the mac. that usually seperates it. or, 2. undo all screws, then start them back in their holes about one turn. use your torx tool to press against the screws while holding the back half of the mac. when it seperates, remove all screws and take the back half off.

25 years, 7 months

← Newer
1
...
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
...
90
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 January 1999