Tomorrow (Sunday) is the monthly Livermore swapmeet, and I'll again be going up
there to drop stuff off. I'll have a spot there to get rid of jun^h^h^h stuff
and will be in a white Dodge van this time. If you've bought stuff on VCM and
will be there, let me know (if you haven't already) and we'll both save the
bother and expense of shipping :).
I'm not entirely sure of the best way to phrase it. But for what it's worth,
I personally think the cutoff for OS's should be win95, exclusive.
In other words, win95, 98, 98SE, NT, 2000, and XP are off-topic. However,
Windows up to 3.x, and Windows for workgroups are on-topic.
You really must separate hardware from software. The above is my feelings
for software. For hardware, I think 386 and 486 architecture is on-topic.
Pentium 4 certainly isn't on-topic. But what about P1,2,3? I don't know. If
the discussion is just the hardware, I certianly don't think there's a
problem with talk of P1 and 2 anyways.
Unfortunately, the above comes across as being windows bigoted. It most
certainly isn't. My criteria is more what I posted on the list a year ago.
It's kinda like... when I tell non-computer people what kind of computers
I'm interested in. I usually tell them "systems with blinking lights"
because that's the EASY way to say it. In fact, it has nothing to do with
blinking lights. It just so happens that most of the systems I want HAPPEN
(unrelated) to have blinking lights. So, the above looks like I'm
anti-windows, that's not the case. But it is the outward result of other
Which is also why I don't favor a specific list of systems/environments. I'd
rather "teach a man to fish", than give him a list of what varieties of fish
there are. So I'd rather come up with a rule that can be applied by anyone
to get a reasonable determination. That may be impossible, I'm open to
One list thing.... as a note about my future thoughts - I firmly believe
that whatever the final "rule" is, it will eventually have to be changed.
Again, that's why I don't like a "hardware list". What is off-topic today
may well be on-topic tomorrow. So the rule will have to be changed in the
future, OR, it will have to be defined in such a way that its application is
sound for future systems.
Please take the above as just my own personal thoughts, and not some edict
>from the list admin :)
> HP developed an OCR engine called Tesseract that is supposed to be
> pretty good. They released it to the open-source world, and Google has
> picked it up and started working on it.
classiccmp list member James Markevitch has been working on an OCR program
as well, optimized for column formated input, like listings.
I was just talking to Doron Swade (the person responsible for the Difference
Engine at the British Science Museum) and he is interested in OCR of
mathematical tables (also column-oriented like listings).
From: "Jay West" <jwest at classiccmp.org>
> > I seem to recall a supercomputer made by Intel that used Pentiums. I
> > forget the name though, but it was quite a behemoth of a machine from what
> > little I recall (many CPUs).
>Wasn't that "The Connection Machine"?
Nope. Connection Machines were made by Thinking Machines, Inc., and they
don't use Pentiums. They use gobs (up to something like 16k) of proprietary
The ASCI Red supercomputer built by Intel used PPros; see
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/aries/course/notes/ascii_red.pdf. I think
the compute nodes were pretty off-the-shelf SMP PPro designs, so some might
consider it off-topic.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 23:45:47 -0400 (EDT), der Mouse
<mouse at Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
>>> I have never seen a hex number with a decimal point anyway...
> Nor will you; as Fred already pointed out, it's a hexadecimal point.
> That aside, they do exist, though they're rare. While practically
> everything these days uses IEEE floating-point, which is binary-based,
> there have been machines with floating-point arithmetic that worked in
> other bases, like octal or hex. For them, speaking of the "decimal"
> point in a number printed in hex notation makes perfect sense.
In the embedded world, the use of fixed point arithmetic is rampant.
If you use a fixed point DSP, the use of pointed hexadecimal makes
life infinitely easier than having to continually convert between
decimal and hex. The issues of underflow/overflow are immediately
obvious. The last time I checked, those little buggers outnumber the
number of IEEE floating-point PCs of all flavors ever made.
>> As quick exercises, 1) what is the binary fraction for PI?
By way of trusty Mathematica: Pi to 1000 decimal places converted to
Paul Thompson wrote:
>I have a mips ultrix machine so my console doesn't work the same, but
google around some. It >would be BOOT/R5:00000001 DKAxxx or something
similar. I have a boot manual around >somewhere if google isn't
I used your suggested boot command, but still got the same experience
with the hang after the failed chdir's.
I did try a whole sequence of things, though, based on your model: I
eventually found a combination that worked: BOOT/R5:00000002 DKA300. I
tried /R2:00000001, /R3:00000001, and /R4:00000001, which don't work,
before hitting on this.
Later, while doing some more scanning of my looks-pretty-complete ULTRIX
docset, I learned that the correct command for single-user boot is:
BOOT/R2 DKAxxx. BOOT/R3 DKAxxx is the multi-user boot string. I found
this in the _Guide to System Shutdown and Startup_ section.
> /etc/fstab would probably be the spot to get rid of the nfs mounts,
> once single user mode is accomplished.
I'll double check the /etc/fstab and modify it perhaps. In the end,
though, looks like this system was setup with an extremely minimalist
install of ULTRIX. There are a few commands in /bin, but almost every
other useful tool is a slink to something on /usr, which itself is an
NFS mount to some unknown box, long gone to me.
I think I'll just install NetBSD (if I can get a larger drive!), use it
as a MOP server to revive the other uVAXen, and finally get their disks
imaged, which was the original goal.
Of course, I do have a couple of Debian boxes that could serve the MOP
stuff, but I'll still need to figure out what image I can use, probably
a NetBSD. The only real trouble is that one or two of the other VAXen
don't have ethernet installed. I do have a spare DEQNA, so I'll try that.
Well, off to the lab!
> I have a 5400 with a R215F and a DECstation 5000/260.
> I can provide some help with those for sure.
Super! I'll no doubt lean on you extensively when I get to that
system. Gotta get these VAXen imaged first, then I'll work on that
system. With it's DSSI drives, it should be interesting to get them
imaged. Given that there's not a xBSD port for this system, I can only
hope that there is a working ULTRIX set up on it.
OK guys, I've been trying to stay out of this thread but I'm getting tired of it.
It seems to be generally accepted that
emulations and reimplementations of classic architectures are on topic. Can we please
stop asking about everyone's pet implementation or remake?
I'm sorry about creating noise with the pickle thread - let's get over it.
O.K. - this is pushing it alot, but I'd rather buy from someone I know than
an e-bay unknown.
I'm looking for an UltraSPARC IIi module for Sun Darwin boards
(Ultra 5/10), 333MHz or 360MHz. Thought someone might
have upgraded and have one in their junk box.
$9+ shipping for 333, perhaps more for a 360?
>On Aug 31, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Brad Parker wrote:
>>I think I still have them somewhere. It was a/ux 1.0, however, so
>>not very interesting.
>I think you'd find there to be more than a few folks on this list who
>would find it quite interesting, myself included.
Yes, and wouldn't you know it, I passed up a bunch of Spocks (IIx Macs)
a few months ago because I didn't know what I'd do with them.
Tony Duell wrote:
You only need the digits 0-7. At one time there was considerable
resistance to using letters as digits, a second-hand book I bought last
week thinkks it's most unsatisfactory to do this.
Billy: This brings up a question I had for the group. In the early '60's,
hex was not very popular. And it hadn't become a standard to use A-F. I
worked on one hex machine that used lower case i,j,k,l,m,n and another that
used upper case U, V, W, X, Y, and Z.
Does anyone remember using any other notations? There must have been many
Tony Duell wrote:
Word lengths tend not to be multiples of 3 bits. This means, for example you
can't easily split 16 bit word into bytes, or combine 2 bytes into a word
when you write them in Octal. In hex it's trivial. There were various
split octal notations where you convert each part separately, but they
get confusing fast.
But basically it's just another way of writing numbers which is useful
sometiimes (particularly if 'you're misisng 2 fingers' as Tom Lehrer put it.
I took a C class many years back where the instructor started out with the
statement that all computers use word sizes that are multiples of 8 bits. I
couldn't help laughing. After class, I explained to her why and described
the G-15, RPC-4000, etc. I feel a little that way now on the discussion of
octal - how soon we forget.
I want to mention to Tony that I've worked on computers for 40+ years that
were multiples of 3. And at one time, they were the biggest and the fastest
in the world. The CDC 1604, and 3400, 3600, and 3800 were 48 bits. The
924, 3100, 3200, 3300, and 3500 were 24 bits. The 140, 160, 160-A and 8090
were 12 bits. (The 160-G was 13 bits, but every family has one. Besides it
was still an octal machine.)
And of course, all the 6600 and 7600 machines were 60 bits. For 20 years,
these machines dominated the large computer market place.
All of these systems were octal oriented. Hex was never brought up in
Then there's the DEC systems of 12 and 18 bits. And many others (3x bit)
among the "7 Dwarves".
Octal was widely used for the first two generations of computing. Hex is a
Johnny-come-lately, with the prime populizar being the IBM 360.
I've often wondered why dentists didn't use octal/hex to number teeth? 32
for a complete set, divided into 4 quadrants of 8.