> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McGuire [mailto:mcguire@neurotica.com]
> On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> > BTW, when the NEXT boxes first came out, we had a few of
> them sitting around
> > for people to look at and play with. I personally was not
> impressed. They
> > were EXTREMELY low on gigaflops per picobuck and, aside
> from the OS, I don't
> Compared to what?
I can support this particular one of Dick's comments, given
that the performance of the M68K-ish chip in the NeXT boxes
was generally accepted at the time to be lower than that of,
for instance, MIPS, and probably M88K.
OTOH, the systems (from my personal experience) were (are!) more
than fast enough to be wonderful desktop machines, and I can't
relate at all to his comparing the GUI to a Macintosh.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
And talk about power usage: the building has a
2 megawatt line coming into it.
We have two 10 MW lines here, does that count? 8^)=
Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This email is intended only for the above named addressee(s). The
information contained in this email may contain information which is
confidential. The views expressed in this email are personal to the sender
and do not in any way reflect the views of the company.
If you have received this email and you are not a named addressee please
delete it from your system and contact Merlin Communications International
IT Department on +44 20 7344 5888.
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
Well, it's been some years ago, and I've only done a pretty small amount
of assembly-language programming on the DEC-10 (or PDP-10) besides much
more FORTRAN, but the reason for me to learn MACRO-10 was byte handling,
so let me tell you...
Allison wrote:
>
> 6bits was the "byte" size for the PDP-8 (swap acc halves).
> 9bits was the byte size for the PDP-10, I believe IBM360 and CDC6600
> 12 bits was link-8, PDP-8 and PDP-12 (likely others).
> 9/18 the pdp7 (first home of unix).
One of the more interesting features of PDP-10 architecture was that
there is no fixed byte size. The instructions dealing with bytes (e.g.,
ILDB = Increment and LoaD Byte) address part of a 36-bit word by using a
so-called "byte pointer", which is a (36-bit) word that defines the
address (18 bits) and size (6 bits, IIRC) of the bytes being handled.
This way, the same ILDB instruction can handle 5-bit bytes while reading
old paper tapes as conveniently as 8-bit bytes when handling
multinational character sets.
Common byte sizes were 6 (for the SIXBIT code, a reduced character set
for use in the file system and other places to encode identifying names)
and 7 (for ASCII, parity not being stored). The 7-bit bytes left you
with one bit unused, and 5 (yes, five!) characters could be stored in a
word. This confused many FORTRAN-IV programs: they relied on handling
strings in INTEGER arrays, and assumed the INTEGER*4 data type to be
able to store four characters in 32 bits...
A typical example was the FLECS translator: to port this from a 32-bit
Siemens system to the 36-bit DEC-10, I had to rewrite the string
manipulation routines as well as all the DATA statements that contained
strings (regroup from four to five characters per INTEGER word). Later,
replacing two FORTRAN routines with MACRO-10 made the translator run at
about 2.5 times the original speed.
If anybody wants to know more about this machine, let me know: what
memory doesn't serve right any more will happily get looked up in "the
Gorin", something like the bible for MACRO-10 programmers. I still have
it, and you'll not find mine at eBay as long as I can read it myself.
--
Andreas Freiherr
Vishay Semiconductor GmbH, Heilbronn, Germany
http://www.vishay.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R. D. Davis [mailto:rdd@rddavis.org]
> Which is why I use FreeBSD and Solaris. There also appears to be a
> certain Linux versus anything else attitude, including Linux vs. other
> UNIX-like, and UNIX flavors. It wasn't too long ago when most people
> who wrote free software for *NIX systems made an attempt to make it as
> portable as possible, so that it could be compiled on most *NIX-like
I'm not sure. I think that -- in my experience -- most people who write,
or have written, software for Unix, don't particularly care to test it
on multiple platforms.
Generally I try at least five or six with my own code, but I don't think
that's common. (For the curious: Linux Intel, NetBSD/SPARC, IRIX/MIPS,
HP/UX/HPPA, SunOS 4/SPARC, AT&T Unix/MC68k) ... and no, I have not so
far actually released anything. Mostly this is just stuff for my own use.
> platforms. Many of the Linux hackers, however, it appears, tend to
> write their software for Linux, and only Linux, systems, ignoring the
Perhaps that's all they've got, and they don't care to install anything
else? It's certainly their spare time, to do with as they please. Not
that I'm saying it's the correct thing to do, but I won't automatically
fault them for it.
> fact that they wouldn't have their Linux software to play with if
> other *NIX hackers hadn't written portable code. For example, the
> Free Software Foundation from which Linux snatched most of it's
> utility programs, etc.
GNU software is often incredibly portable, but I blame this on the
fact that the code is ported by other individuals than those who
wrote it.
At any rate, this is getting even further off-topic.
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> John Foust wrote:
>
> > Or for that matter, the seven "heads" could be displaced
> > along the path of the tape, and the software would handle
> > the realignment of the time domain. Or you could read
> > less than 7 tracks at a time, and reassemble in software.
>
> Nope --- I would guess a 7 track head is needed, as you only get one
> time to read the tape.
Ben- watcha mean? I've shoeshined 9-tracks to death on one
drive, then handed them to someone else who read them first
pass on a different drive.
Maybe 7-track tapes from 1961, but so far I've got nothing
older than about 1972...
-dq
I hope to start hooking up a mix of hardware very soon and have over the
last week picked up a Linksys Fast Ethernet 5-Port Workgroup Hub model
FEHUB05W ($2.92), a Linksys EtherFast cable/DSL Router model BEFSR41
($20), and a Katron 10BASE-T Ethernet hub 8 Plus model Hub/8 ($10) and
now have tofigure which to use?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: R. D. Davis [mailto:rdd@rddavis.org]
> Just talk louder and be more persistent; they'll reach a point where
^^^^^^
More loudly ;)
> they'll either listen or fire you; it the later, no great loss since
> it doesn't sound like they're worth working for.
Actually, aside from having no clue how to run their computer systems,
they're really good people, and I like them. That's my dilemma. I
put up with them because I really do like my job, and especially in
the current market, that makes me very lucky.
> > agreed to follow their rules, and will have to do that
> until they make
> > more sane rules.
> Why?
I'm at a loss as to how I can make things any more clear. :/ Sorry.
> > In other words, when I took their job, I gave them
> > my word.
> You gave them your word that you'd act like a good little obedient
> dimwit? Why would anyone promise to do that? I suggest that you
> run emacs and invoke doctor ("M-x doctor") to get some help. ;-)
Actually, I prefer the stand-alone eliza program.
> One can always refuse to work with that Micro$oft rubbish. Perhaps you
The other option is to do the best you can with the crap that they already
have, and if (when!) that's ever not good enough, to explain exactly why.
> could educate your employer's clients; tell them all about the big
> mistakes that they're making by wanting to use that Micro$oft
> virusware which is broken, and otherwise annoying, by design. Don't
> mince words, tell it like it is, and tell them that no reasonably
> intelligent computer hacker would work with that rubbish unless it was
> as part of a project to change over to a UNIX system, or VMS, or even
> CP/M... that is, changing over to a system that doesn't destroy data
I have made it extremely clear in the past (... and yes, I used just these
words) that "we'd be much better off using CP/M." I'll probably make that
statement many more times, and I don't really expect they'll change
anything because of it. Perhaps I can have some kind of influence on new
projects during the initial design stage by voicing my objection to the
use of any microsoft product.
Again -- this time to them -- I have no idea how I can make it any more
clear.
> and do other peculiar things with files. Ask them why they like
> operating systems that molest data... someone needs to make an "Eddy
> Electron" like film, that's Monty Pythonish, called "Pfe$ter, the
> Micro $oft Mole$ter," showing him doing strange things with bits of
> data as they flow through the computer.
Sort of an "educational" film, like "Data Flows Red on The Hard Disk?"
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
> > > > 9bits was the byte size for the PDP-10, I believe IBM360 and CDC6600
> > >
> > > Na, the /360 was a plain 8 Bit/Byte machine, but I think you're
> > > right about the CDC. AFAIR there was a Bull machine using 9 Bit Bytes,
> > > and 18 Bit integers.
> > You sure about the CDC-6600? The complete word length was 60 bits, and I
> > seem to recall that for the purposes of characters, there were 10 6 bit
> > characters stored per word. http://www.scd.ucar.edu/computers/gallery/cdc/6600.html
> The PPUs were 12 bitters.
>
> Sorry, yes, I should think before writeing. Of course,
> the CDCs used weired 6 Bit teleype codings for character
> representation.
The CDC 6000 Series and its follow-ons were machines that had a
Central processor with a 60-bit word and Peripheral & Control Processors
that had a 12-bit word (ignoring the 64-bit word and 16-bit words
of the 180 Series).
As most definitions of "byte" revolve around it being a basic
unit of *storage*, I would point out that 12-bits was the smallest
unit of storage that could be manipulated without shifting & masking.
Its *character* size, therefore, being 6-bits, was different from its
*byte* size...
This made implementing a C compiler a large headache, I'm told...
-dq
Pete Turnbull wrote:
>On Apr 21, 2:34, Chad Fernandez wrote:
>> I'm finally going to work on hooking up a home network, so I guess I
>> need a hub. What should I look for? I don't know much about networks
>> yet. I have potentially 7 computers that I'd like to have connected.
>> It'll need to be 10Base-T, but 100base-T may be involved too. I
>> thought
>> I'd look for something on Ebay, hopefully, not too expensive. Maybe
>> something commercial grade, However. I thought about something
>> from IBM
>> or 3Com, any suggestions??
>
>Go for autosensing 10/100baseT. If you're going to spend any amount of
>money, you want to protect your investment by including 100baseT
>capability
>even if you don't need it right now.
>
>If you see a decent modern 3Com hub or switch, that's fine but most
>of the
>second-hand stuff I've seen is 10baseT only. I wouldn't bother
>looking for
>IBM. Baystack, 3Com, HP, Cisco are the ones you're likely to see. And
>Netgear, which is almost entirely unmanaged kit, but quite good quality.
My two pence worth...
I'd not touch 3Com with a bargepole if I were you, particularly
if it's "commercial grade" you're after. 3Com decided commercial
customers weren't worth their bother some time ago. This is only
a direct problem if their crock-of-!"?% CoreBuilder/SuperStack
boxes bring down your entire network on a regular basis of course.
And only a major problem if one of said boxes going down
automatically crashes the so-called redundant failover.
Unfortunately, 3Com equipment has satisfied both the above
criteria too many times for my liking.
That rant over with, more important piece of advice: If you go for
a used HP switch, and it's advertised as 100Mb/s, make sure it
is actually 100baseT you are getting. HP had their own standard
(100VG) that will not work with 100baseT kit (at least some are
100VG only - they won't even downgrade to 10baseT.)
If it's "commercial" stuff you're after (which I generally interpret
as meaning 19" rackmount kit with redundant failover options
and a whole host of SNMP security holes to close down
before you can actually put into service,) then I'm afraid Cisco
are a good bet.
Other than that, I've got a Netgear hub at home that has
never caused me a day of trouble. And it fits my criteria
of being in a metal box :-). (IMHO, if the case is made of
cheap plastic, then what's inside probably is as well...[*])
Alternatively, you could try building yourself a Teddy Borg:
http://draco.mit.edu/teddyborg/
Cheers,
Tim.
[*] Cheap, that is. Not necessarily plastic. But probably ;-).
--
Tim Walls at home in Croydon - Reply to tim(a)snowgoons.fsnet.co.uk
Well now, I just saw the NCSC at Urbana. Each air handler there (there are
2) is about the size of 4 semi trailers parked side-by-side. And talk about
power usage: the building has a 2 megawatt line coming into it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay West [mailto:jwest@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:01 AM
To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: One-upsmanship
I think that certainly one of the criteria should be the HVAC required...
"My computer requires more tons of AC cooling than yours"
Jay West