test-drb February 2010

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

175 participants
221 discussions

Start a nNew thread

IMSAI / SOL-20 / Northstar + much other for sale

by gmeanie＠gmail.com

Any of those old computers left?

14 years, 10 months

Dave's walls (was: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter)

by dm561＠torfree.net

*************Original Message: Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:36:01 -0500 From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> Subject: Re: Selling Calcomp 565 plotter <snippage> I work at home, and one very large room in my house is my office. An entire wall of my office, and most of another wall, is a row of racks: http://www.neurotica.com/misc/wall-o-pdp.jpg There's more behind where I was standing when I took the picture, but you get the idea. <more snippage> -Dave Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL ************Reply: Is that a prayer rug on the floor? Or just there to mop up spilled bits? m *******************************************************************************

14 years, 10 months

Manual Needed

by jthecman＠netscape.net

Hello Does anyone have a copy of the hp Draftmaster II manual for loan, sale, can make a copy of it? Thanks, John K

14 years, 10 months

The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog]

by roger.holmes＠microspot.co.uk

>> >>> *Every* generation of programmers has *always* looked down on their successors >>> as using tools that waste too much computer time to do too little. Of course, >>> *my* generation (started programming in 1969 on a 1401) is right. ;-) >> >> I certainly agree with you in principle, but I still wonder why even >> non-GUI application bloat has to be as bad as it is. We used to put >> 25-40 users on an 8MB VAX before it would start to swap. Now, still >> using a character based interface (which happens to be ssh vs direct >> serial connect, but that doesn't affect CLI application size), a >> program to tell me what processes are active on the system is 8MB by >> itself, vs a few dozen K bytes (I should go back and dig out one of >> those programs from the old days and port it to a modern machine to >> compare library bloat vs application bloat. Fortunately, I have my >> backups from 25 years ago). > ICBW, but I think a lot of the bloat is caused by the layer upon layer > upon layer upon layer of application interface code. My theory is that > all those layers arose because of inadequate or incompetent design in > the first place. Then too, I think we have a lot of "features" that are > rarely used and that we would be better off without, to say nothing of > all the changes for no apparent reason other than to just be different. > I also suspect that some of those spurious features are the root cause > of a lot of the security holes. Too, your "non-GUI" application is > probably actually running inside a system GUI which only emulates the > non-GUI user interface you think you're using. :-) I too started programming in 1969 but on a 7094, though as a schoolboy sending off cards one week to get results the next week. Yes of course we're right :-) I agree there are far too many levels of interface code, many with bugs in them which sometime get corrected in a different level. Take text on the Mac, there was a simple technology for drawing text in QuickDraw on Lisa, it did proportional fonts, different size text, handle descent, ascent and leading. On Mac they added a Text Editing manager. Then they had to allow for internationalized for non left to right languages, then they added kerning etc then they tried to replace the Text Editing manager with the Multi-Lingual Text Editing manager, then along came Unicode and we got ATSUI (The Apple Type Services for Unicode Imaging) and so it went on, all the old levels are still available, though deprecated and unavailable to 64 bit Apps. Trying to get a Carbon application to get Unicode text to appear at the right size on a non 72dpi screen AND print properly is somewhat of a nightmare. I would like to discuss Moore's law and how it seems to have broken down in recent years. Processor speeds are still increasing but not at the expected rate, but I wonder if the real problem is RAM speed, which does not seemed to have kept up, and no longer seems to be quoted when you buy a computer, or at least a Mac. Of course on chip and level 2 cache has made tight loops of small pieces of data acceptably fast but real world programs don't do that. Think about rotating a 12 mega pixel image for instance, yes the code is a tight loop but the data isn't. Think about rendering a 3D scene with many textured objects with accurate shadows and per pixel shading and anti-aliasing ready for printing on a A0 (about 34 inch by 44 inch) printer and complex enough not to fit the capabilities of the graphics processor so it has to be done in the main processor cores. The data being processed is far too big to fit in the caches and the output pixel maps are too, though I admit it only processes one pixel at a time. Oh and while you are at it, think about error diffusing the output. I know on the PowerPC the rotation or a one bit per pixel actually ran quicker if I turned the cache off because for every bit I fetched it loaded the cache with four words of data. Does something similar happen on Intel? By the way I spent three hours this morning showing a BBC regional news crew my 1962 mainframe, apparently it will be condensed down to three minutes. I don't have a transmission date, it didn't go out today and probably will only shown in the south east area of England but should be on the BBC web site. Oh and a couple of weeks ago I posted an old video of it on U-Tube if anyone is interested the URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsBPuUJPvKg or just Google ICT 1301 and select video. I hope to post a better one later in the year. Roger Holmes

14 years, 10 months

Western NY

by mcguire＠neurotica.com

Hey folks...Is there anyone in the western part of New York who might be willing to help me with the retrieval and temporary storage of a smallish system? It's a big deskside chassis, would need a station wagon or pickup truck type of thing. I'd be able to pick it up within the next 2-3 months. Anyone? Thanks, -Dave -- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL

14 years, 10 months

Inflation. [Was: Re: The value of assembler language programmers [was RE: ...]]

by thomas.gardner＠sbcglobal.net

> This is a good point. I was comparing dollars in early 80's dollar amounts > for the difference between the IBM and DEC offerings. There's significant > different in the number, . > ________________________________ > From: Richard <legalize at xmission.com> <snip> > > $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] > > I know we all realize that inflation is eating away at the value of > currency, but it really has picked up quite a bit in the last decade > such that even 1985 currency is quite different from today. Last time I checked we are deflating, not inflating! $5,000.00 in 2008 has the same buying power as $$4,982.21 in 2009 BTW, $5,000.00 in 1985 has the same buying power as $9,969.19 in 2009 per http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl if u trust yr government statistics :-) Tom

14 years, 10 months

Old machines in today's dollars (was Re: The value of assembler language programmers)

by ethan.dicks＠gmail.com

On 2/11/10, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote: > >> Ethan Dicks wrote: >> > For comparison, a "standard package" color IBM PC/AT (5170) >> > ... was $5K at launch in 1985, IIRC. > > $5,000 in 1985 is the equivalent of $9876.79 in 2008.[*] Interesting to note. It was expensive then, and by extension, absurdly expensive now. I routinely install enterprise-grade web servers that are well under $10K (dual-socket, quad core, 48GB of memory, 1TB internal RAID, quad gigabit NICs, etc). > I know we all realize that inflation is eating away at the value of > currency, but it really has picked up quite a bit in the last decade > such that even 1985 currency is quite different from today. Fortunately for me, I'm making more than twice as many absolute dollars as I was in 1985 (when I happened to be in college but also had a part-time, but "real", job as an electronics tech, software developer, and VMS System Manager), so economically, at least, I've made some progress over the past 25 years. ;-) > That just floors me because in 1986 I took out a $4,000 loan to get an > Amiga 1000 with dual flopppy drives and a monitor. (I also got the extra > CHIP ram expansion thingy on the front.) I also bought an A1000 in 1986. Mine didn't require a loan, but that's because I got a bare-bones 256K A1000 with no monitor, single floppy, just mouse and keyboard, for about $800. I later purchased a Skyles Electric Works CHIP RAM expansion board for under $50, IIRC (that's still on the machine!) I repurposed a Commodore 1702 monitor >from my C-64, and eventually slapped in a $50 after-market RGBI interface that I hacked to do analog RGB - still a bit fuzzy owing to the limited video bandwidth of the original product, but *much* cheaper than the going rate for a "proper" analog RBG monitor. Unfortunately for me, that monitor was stolen in a burglary in 1990, along with an A500, and a "Wedge" ISA disk interface (fortunately for me, they dumped the A1000 on the floor but didn't take it with them). I did happen to get that A1000 while I worked at the aforementioned job, and am proud that the warranty was voided before the computer even made it home. We were doing MC68000 embedded product development there, so there was no way I could help cracking the Amiga case and showing off the innards to our engineers, which started a session comparing the guts of the Amiga to our own 68K designs. I still have one of those boxes that was under development at the time - about the size of an A2000, able to be stuffed with 2MB of 41256s, and with enough proprietary slots to support 32 serial ports. It even had an early-model 3.5" disk drive. No custom chips, though, so very different from the Amiga once you got outside of the CPU/memory area. -ethan

14 years, 10 months

A few more free things (Seattle)

by derschjo＠mail.msu.edu

In my unending quest to de-clutter my house, I offer up the following (local pickup only, please, in the Seattle area); unclaimed stuff goes to RE-PC next week: - IBM PS/2 Model 70/386 - 4MB ram, one 1.44mb floppy drive, no hard drive (but sled is present). Powers up and works fine as far as I can tell. - 2x IBM PC Convertible, one printer + serial port expansion. One with backlight, one with transflective LCD screen. Two carrying cases with two different designs. One AC adapter. IBM's first "laptop." Ugliest thing in the world, and has the most impractical expansion system I've ever seen. Kinda neat, but I haven't used them in years and I don't foresee getting any use out of them, so... - Sun Ultra Enterprise 2 - 512MB ram, 2xUltraSparc IIi processor (333Mhz, IIRC) no hard drives, but I have sleds. - DEC VR262 monitor. 19" monochrome. Just traded away my VCB01 so I've no use whatsoever for this. It works, but probably needs a new capacitor or two to make it really hum. - Compaq 15/30GB DLT drive. No idea if it works; bought it years ago >from Boeing surplus but never actually put it to use as I had intended... Thanks as always... Josh

14 years, 10 months

Docs found: Honeywell Series 600/6000, DTSS

by hachti＠hachti.de

Hi Folks, I'm currently saving some documention. If it's ok I'll post what I found so far. Bit by bit. I'd like to hear comments on the stuff and estimates how and if it would be important to save the stuff. Now and today I have some Honeywell stuff from 1972/73: Honeywell Series 600/6000: ************************** Time Sharing Applications Library Guide Volume I - Mathematics DA43, Rev. 0 Volume II - Time Sharing DA44, Rev. 0 Volume II - Time Sharing, Addendum A DA44A, Rev. 0 Volume III - Industry DA45, Rev. 2 Volume III - Industry, Addendum A DA45A, Rev. 2 Volume III - Industry, Addendum B DA45B, Rev. 2 Volume IV - Industry DA46, Rev. 1 FORTRAN Manual BJ67, Rev. 1 JOVIAL Language Manual BS06 AGOL Manual BS11, Rev. 0 Biomedical (BMD) Statistical Programs BP82, Rev.0 (supercedes CPB-1183A) DTSS - Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire): ********************************************************************************* (good photocopies) DTSS Software Product Information (Draft copy) (C) 1973 DTSS, Inc. DTSS APL, Preliminary Version By Steve Poulsen, Dartmouth College (C) 1973 Trustees of Dartmouth College DTSS - The Dartmouth Time-Sharing System 7/26/72 DTSS User's Guide September 1972 (C) 1972 Trustees of Dartmouth College Catalog of Program Library in the Dartmouth Time-Sharing System - User's guide to the programming library (C) 1972 Trustees of Dartmouth College Best wishes, Philipp :-) -- http://www.hachti.de

14 years, 10 months

Algol vs Fortran was RE: VHDL vs Verilog

by trag＠io.com

> Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:28:17 -0700 > From: Ben <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> > Chuck Guzis wrote: > >> How about GOTO-less CPUs? Do any exist that completely lack a jump >> instruction of any sort (I'm not counting those where PC is mapped as >> a general register)? > > You must have a jump instruction for a loop. > Weird programing and computing... different topic. I'm not sure you would count it as a CPU, but the TI-55 programmable calculator lacked any type of jump or branch instruction, IIRC. All programs were purely linear. So, in addition to having considerably less memory, it was also limited in this way, as compared to a TI-58 or TI-59. Jeff Walther

14 years, 10 months

← Newer
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
23
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 February 2010