From fu3.org@gmail.com Tue May 15 18:26:50 2007
From: fu3.org@gmail.com
To: test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org
Subject: WAS: Nice PC-museum..
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 01:26:50 +0200
Message-ID: <310f50ab0705151626m12830a25gbadd6615264680b5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200705152059.l4FKxmhP084056@keith.ezwind.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8949347831159533284=="

--===============8949347831159533284==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bob,

I have no idea who this person is, and unfortunately I've forgotten
what page(s) I followed to get there.


-If you snip out all but the domain name from the URL I posted, it
seems that _that_ might be your very guy.

(Try navigating through the/his "Hobbies" link onto the computer
museum, and decide for yourself.. -It's at the bottom of that
"Hobbies" page..) - - - Front page updated little over a year ago, so,
further inquiries doesn't seem all that impossible, if anyone should
be so inclined.


2007/5/15, Bob Bradlee <caveguy at sbcglobal.net>:
> On 15 May 2007 10:35:15 -0700, Geoff Reed wrote:
>
> >although I don't remember the Z-80 being a clone of the 8085 CPU like the =
author
> >of that site claims.  (or has my memory gone faulty?)
>
> I have heard before from those who equate the entire Intel 808x family as a=
 class.
> >From their perspective the Z-80 was designed around and expanded upon the =
8080 instruction set licenced
> from Intel!
> The deal gave 8080 programmers a second source, which raised the credibilit=
y of the instruction set
> against the Motorola 6800 family.
> Motorola ended up cutting their own deal providing AMD trading some VMOS me=
mory masks for the 68xx
> mask set, which they both second sourced for each other to a set of common =
customers who demanded a
> second source be available before they would finalize a design.
>
> I agree Clone might not be the correct word choice, but by todays business =
standards is not that far off the
> mark.
>
> As to the website in question, a quick look revealed it has not been update=
s in years, I am personally
> thankful that this person was just enough of a geek to have built a nice ho=
bby page. but how managed to
> keep it unnoticed ?
>
> This raises the question of "how much unnoticed?", I ran the page title and=
 meta content into YGAMS and
> came up with some very interesting footprint info. (see YGAMS.COM for the c=
urrent beta and examples of
> the internet footprinting tool)
>
> >From page header
>         <title>My Virtual PC Museum</title>
>         <meta content=3D"John B. Sandlin" name=3D"Author" />
>         <meta content=3D"07/15/2002 PCs I've Owned" name=3D"Description" />
>         <meta content=3D"John Sandlin" name=3D"Keywords" />
>
>  "John B Sandlin" came up as a known with a YGAMS of ~253
> The Title "My Virtual PC Museum" only hit ~ 2 on this side of never seen !
> and  "07/15/2002 PCs I've Owned" ~ 0 proves this has never been indexed.
>
> It looks to me that these pages have been unseen and hiding for many years =
behind more than just robots.txt
> files. Believe me a YGAMS of 0 is almost impossible to maintain once someth=
ing has been published and
> indexed gets indexed by someone!
>
> There is little question this is fresh meat, none of the search engines hav=
e seen it YET, but that could
> change as soon as this mutterings got indexed, if I had but included a link=
 to the page in question.
>
> BTW: Does anone here know who this is ?
>
> Back to my rat-killen, I have wasted enough time today muttering :)
>
> Bob Bradlee
>
> I am still trying to get my head around the fact that this email may violat=
e 6 or more software patents...
> Just in its transmission, not including any possible problems someone might=
 have with it's content !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--===============8949347831159533284==--