On April 21, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Those are "nice" but not necessary. I'm happy with the M$ stuff that Bill
> sent me years back. I'm apparently not on "the list" any longer and haven't
Knowing Bill Gates does *not* make you cool in this crowd. ;)
> I'm really not complaining at all. It was he who cast the first stone. I
> just made the observation that thinking of UNIX as appropriate for the era is
> totally off-base and the market has surely vindicated that view. UNIX may be
> fine for some things, but not for personal computing.
Wow, I guess I'd better run out and buy a Windows box. I wonder if
there are any stores open this late. I sure hope so, because all of
my UNIX boxes are probably about to stop performing all of my personal
computing, and I still have a lot of stuff to do tonight.
> Workstations are overrate, if you ask me, though they may have had their day.
> Hardware dedicated to UNIX concepts is just no longer what's wanted. Say what
Not for suits, no. But suits seldom know what's best for even
themselves. You strike me as an intelligent person, which is why I'm
surprised at your viewpoints. I'd think you'd be interested in more
modern technology. To each his own, more power to you.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big."
St. Petersburg, FL -Den
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??
What do you mean by "commercial grade"? The difference between upmarket
devices and small SOHO devices is mostly that the ones used in larger
commercial networks are managed devices. That means you can configure them
remotely (with SNMP or a web interface), get statistics from them, etc.
You really want a switch rather than a hub. Not many people are making
hubs (repeaters) these days, even at the low end of the market. A switch
will ultimately give better throughput, especially in a peer-to-peer
network.
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.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
On April 22, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
> -spc (But I do want to say the PDP-8 was a 12 bit system for some reason ... )
For a very good reason...it *is*! ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big."
St. Petersburg, FL -Den
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?
> The problem with these machines, as borne out by the market, is that they
> weren't what the home user wanted. They weren't what I wanted either. I
That's it, I've finally figured it out. You work for Microsoft's
marketing department. How nice.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big."
St. Petersburg, FL -Den
>> Will a Dayna EtherPrint-T work for connecting, say, a LocalTalk Mac into an
>> EtherTalk network, or does it only work for printers? In other words, is it
>> a true LocalTalk-to-EtherTalk bridge?
>
>I don't think the Mac supports encoding/decoding TCP/IP packets via
>localtalk. From what I understand Ethertalk (what mac compatible
>printers talk on ethernet) is essentially localtalk wrapped with an
>ethernet packet. :-/ TCP/ip is a different protocol on the same
>computer and that is only supported through PPP(remote access) and ethernet.
These are actually two different things.
1: Localtalk bridged to EtherTalk (appletalk over ethernet). That is what
the Dayna box does. It is good only for AppleTalk uses (file sharing,
printer sharing...).
2: TCP/IP over Appletalk. That is known as MacIP. AppleTalk does not
natively carry TCP/IP, so a localtalk to ethertalk bridge will not pass
TCP/IP simply because TCP/IP can't exist on localtalk (well, I won't say
can't, but isn't done with any native Apple hardware). However, you CAN
use MacIP, which is Apple's answer to TCP/IP over Appletalk. That is
TCP/IP wrapped in an AppleTalk packet. That will be passed by a Localtalk
to Ethertalk bridge, simply because the bridge won't know it is not
Appletalk.
The problem you get into with MacIP is you need something to unwrap it on
the other end and pass it to the internet (or whatever TCP/IP application
you are using it for). MacIP doesn't work as straight TCP/IP.
If you are looking to do localtalk with TCP/IP, a much better solution is
to find an old 030 or better box with ethernet (LC2 or 3 works great),
and run Sustainable Softworks' IPNetRouter. They have a MacIP router
built into it. Then, run Apple's LaserWriter Bridge if you ALSO want to
route straight Appletalk using the mac based bridge (IPNetRouter will
only examine the MacIP portion, so it won't pass a regular appletalk
connection for things like Appleshare, file sharing, and printer sharing,
as a result you need Apple's free LaserWriter bridge, which the newest
version (2.??) IIRC will bridge for a full appletalk network and not just
printers).
I would also guess that older versions of AppleShare Server might have a
MacIP router built in. Apple must have offered a solution for it, I can't
believe they would provide all the client end tools and not have some way
of unwrapping it other than depending on a 3rd party program (which is
the only app I have seen that does it, but I am sure there must be
others).
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)conman.org>
>> 8080/z80 and if it was DOS you could bet on 808x. Unix back then
meant
>> MIPS, VAX, PDP-11, SUN/sparc, 68000, Z8000, and a few dozen I likely
missed.
>
> That doesn't make sense. UNIX you state as being easily ported, even
>though as a kernel it has to hit the hardware pretty hard, yet you state
>applications as not being portable at all, because of the underlying
>hardware and processor (which the application shouldn't care about). If
>anything, I would think the opposite would be true.
You forget I guess. All cpus are from intel. At one time unix was on
machines
of different word size and instruction set. So an app while easily
ported to a new
platform, it was not without some problems. Like each version of unix
was not
always the same as another. Some of those were those little things like
the apps programmer needed a target machine and OS to verify on. So
"portable" is not
the same as "ported to".
> Now, speaking as a programmer who's done cross platform programs, I've
>come to the conclusion that writing portable software isn't difficult
and
>with enough experience it becomes quite easy in fact. It's programmers
that
>make unwarrented assumptions about their code or platform that make for
>unportable applications.
I didn't say it wasn't possible only that saying the OS is unix meant it
was
not always a slam dunk and that compliation was often required.
> Granted, on the 8-bit systems you often times had to code in Assembly,
>both for speed and size reasons (and because compilers for such systems
>weren't good enough) but when you get to UNIX the whole point was to
avoid
>assembly in the first place [1]. Therefore, you are writing in a higher
>level, more portable language and then it becomes possible to write code
>that will run across platforms. Heck, I've written a program that has
>compiled across several different UNIX platforms (SGI, Linux on the x86,
>Linux on the DEC Alpha, OpenBSD, FreeBSD) without problems [2] and
you'll
>notice that there is at least one 64-bit architecture listed there. The
>same code was successfully compiled (with one line of code change, plus
a
>few other lines to get the correct header files loaded) under Microsoft
>Windows. Okay, it may not have been optimum code under Windows, but it
>still ran with minimum of changes or fuss.
Thanks for the tutorial, I heard it back it 82 also. Experence however
proved
otherwise in practical terms.
>[2] Okay, one problem---the DEC Alpha port crashed, but it was tracked
> down to a bug in the C library call memchr().
In the past 1983-1988 that was far more commonplace to have incompatable
compilers libraries.
Allison
> Concerning my capacity to provide support, let me steal a quote from
>the Jerry Springer Show.
>
> "Yew don't knoooow me! Yew don't know who Ah am!"
ROFL!!!
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
On April 19, William Donzelli wrote:
> > FWIW the AS/400 is essentially the follow-on to the System/36, to the
> > point of having a highly-evolved software environment allowing S/36
> > applications to run un-modified on AS/400. Supposedly there is some
> > dotted-line relationship to S/38 as well, but I don't have any real
> > information about that.
>
> The other way round, architecturally. AS/400 gained most from S/38 and
> FS. The whole AS/400 family was designed to replace S/32, S/34, S/36, and
> S/38.
The AS/400 grew primarily out of the S/36 architecture but
incorporated many architectural features of the S/38. It has a good
deal of application compatibility with both the S/36 and the S/38.
The S/38 (which came out before the S/36) is otherwise a fairly
different machine from the S/32, S/34, and S/36.
The lineage:
System/3, 1969
System/32, 1975
System/34, 1977
System/38, 1978
System/36, 1983
AS/400 family, 1988
The last model of the System/36 line, the 5363, was "enhanced" (though
I don't know how) and renamed "AS/Entry"...it seems to me that they
followed the numbering scheme, but loosely. I don't have any hard
information about this, but I'm guessing this is how they got to where
they are now. I've put the possible "steps" through the naming system
in brackets below.
...
System/36
AS/Entry
[AdvancedSystem/36]
Advanced36
[AdvancedSystem/40]
[AS/40]
AS/400
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "Mmmm. Big."
St. Petersburg, FL -Den
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: HeathKit H11 Computer
Date: 22 Apr 2002 01:36:44 GMT
From: jedchilds(a)aol.com (Jed Childs)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp11
HeathKit H11 Computer
Complete with manuals DecWriter I/O, paper tapes, punch, reader, cpu and
extra
cards. $500 come and get it. Or write here or email.
Jed
>In case anyone is interested, the Apple-1 sold for $14,000, right at the
>reserve price.
So then that's a 'No' on my offer of $30 + shipping? :-)
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
