test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

by trash3＠splab.cas.neu.edu

Folks, I asked similar questions directly and got the following answers. So, don't know if it is RT, RSX, or RSTS, or even a flavor of Unix. Joe Heck -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: 11/64 conversion Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:57:43 -0400 From: Shreekrishna <skrishna at ncsu.edu> To: joe heck <trash3 at splab.cas.neu.edu> References: <44FC51AB.1020600 at splab.cas.neu.edu> Hello, I have only small information. My advisor was using the computer long back. Now the computer is in University of Texas austin. He said that the data is in PDP computer and our research group need the data . SO we need to convert the data. It is in some ASCII format though I dont know the type. So i need to ask .can the data be converted to recent file formats. File type is some ascii format. It was read from a machine. so they are basically read from the machines. compueter boot and we have the hard disc and floopy in which the data is stored. So tell me...how shall i go about...do reply thanks shree. joe heck wrote: > What is the operating system? > What are the file types or extensions? > What program created them? > What peripherals are on the PDP computer? > Does the computer boot? > How much data are you talking about? > > You need to post the answers as best as you can to these questions > before most people will even try to help. > > Joe

19 years, 9 months

Want: Sun-2 System

by steve＠radiorobots.com

Hi, Looking for a Sun-2 system for vintage apps. Please contact me off-list if you know of any for sale. Thanks, Steve Boston

19 years, 9 months

Apple power supply

by nico＠farumdata.dk

During an inexplicable urge to do some cleaning up, I found a powersupply for which I have no need. I believe it comes from an Apple (GS II?), and is identified as ASTEC, model AA13591 Input : 230V at 63W, 50/60 Hz. Output : V1 : +5VDC at 4.0Amp; V2 : +12VDC at 2.5Amp; V3 : -5VDC at 0.25Amp; V4 : -12VDC at 0.25Amp. It worked when I dismembered the system it came from. You can have it for P&P ; net weight 1250g Nico

19 years, 9 months

PDP8 and Z-machine engine

by bqt＠softjar.se

David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> skrev: > On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Johnny Billquist wrote: > > > > David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Frotz??? > > > Why on earth base it on Frotz? Frotz is written in C. You'll never get > > > anything meaningful written in C to run on a PDP-8. > > > Something written in Z80 assembly is just about equally meaningless. > > I mentioned Frotz because it seems to be used as a base for all sorts of > strange ports. The Z80 reference was part generalization and part wishful > thinking. You might be right there. :-) > > > No, you'd just have to write it from scratch. Nothing strange about > > > that, and doing something about V4 and V5 games isn't that difficult > > > either. Given a little time I sure could whip one together, but for now > > > I'll leave the exercise to someone else. > > > I've already written one Z-machine interpreter in MACRO-11. It deals > > > with anything V1 to V8, except for obvious limitations (no sounds, no > > > graphics, no mouse...) > > Where can I find this MACRO-11 interpreter? ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/zemu.tar Johnny

19 years, 9 months

commodore 64/128 question

by dougcoward＠hotmail.com

Jay, I don't see any record of your original post of this question in the cctalk digest, so I'm switching over to the cctech list. The only post on this subject is Ray's reply today. In reply to your question, I worked on the software for the Quantum Link online service including fast loader disk routines. We gave the C64 a pretty good work out, and the software ran just fine on the C128/1571. The only machine we had problems with was the SX64 where the fast loader would hang shortly after starting a disk load. They hadn't terminated the serial bus correctly which caused some ringing in the lines. But by pressing your finger against the serial bus port connector or by connecting a serial bus cable to the serial port the load would continue and finish. Remember that many pieces of C64 software back then used unimplemented opcodes in their protection schemes. I don't believe that the C128 had any problem with this software. --Doug >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:29:13 -0400 >From: Ray Arachelian <ray at arachelian.com> >Subject: Re: commodore 64/128 question >To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > <cctalk at classiccmp.org> >Message-ID: <44F9B159.3030204 at arachelian.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >By all means, go for the C128. They're a lot better. >....................... >

19 years, 9 months

PDP8 and Z-machine engine

by bqt＠softjar.se

David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Gordon JC Pearce wrote: > > >>Interesting. Looking (very quickly) at the Z-machine spec, it seems >>fairly simple. This gives me a good excuse to start on my PDP-8 >>emulator again - at least that way if I need more core, I just need to >>change a #define instead of starting a big long thread about >>semiconductor memory ;-) > > I don't mean to discourage you, but you might be in for more challenge > than you bargained for. I asked Brian Moriarty about the feasability of > porting a modern Z-machine emulator to 6502 machines such as the Commodore > 64 and Apple IIe. He replied that past V3, the abilities of these > machines were seriously taxed and that's why Infocom abandoned that class > of machines for their later work. The full discussion can be found in the > Frotz documentation. Based on this, I don't recommend using Frotz as a > starting point. > > Look instead at ZXZVM, a Z-machine emulator written in Z80 assembly for > PCW machines. It should be reasonably easy to port to CP/M and/or ZSDOS. > I'd love to see that one for my P112. Doing that may provide enough > insight to port it to the PDP8. Frotz??? Why on earth base it on Frotz? Frotz is written in C. You'll never get anything meaningful written in C to run on a PDP-8. Something written in Z80 assembly is just about equally meaningless. No, you'd just have to write it from scratch. Nothing strange about that, and doing something about V4 and V5 games isn't that difficult either. Given a little time I sure could whip one together, but for now I'll leave the exercise to someone else. I've already written one Z-machine interpreter in MACRO-11. It deals with anything V1 to V8, except for obvious limitations (no sounds, no graphics, no mouse...) Johnny -- Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

19 years, 9 months

C128-1571 questions

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

>From out in left field.. Questions and opinions solicited on Commodore C128/1571. In my ecelectic collection of machines I generally have either DEC hardware, single board computers (IMSAI IMP48, KIM-1, SC/MP, Moto6800d1, NEC TK80 and others) and CP/M machines (S100, Ampro, SB180, Kaypro, Epson, Osborne). Also the occasional oddball like the TI99/4, TRS80 and a C128. What I'm up to is why have a C128 amoung all that? It's not a great CP/M machine. It's not very representitive of most CP/M machines and from using it it's an afterthought that primary to design. So I'm considering why I should keep it or unload it. I have no real exposure to the 6502 side of the system and the Commodore side of the world so there are gaps there. So I'm trying to figure out if there is something to explore and use or it's a "collection" item. The latter being something I have, keep operational but rarely if ever use for much. Flames not desired but opinions are. Allison

19 years, 9 months

Apple SCSI

by compoobah＠valleyimplants.com

I had heard that Apple did the DB-25 thing because the HD-50 hadn't been standardized yet and they didn't have enough back-panel real estate on the Plus for a 50-pin ribbon/Centronics type. Better Apple SCSI cables have enough girth to where I think they have the grounds internally, but they are wired in the connectors up to fewer pins, or the shield, or somesuch hack. For simple scanner use, a well-shielded (thick-girth) everyhing-connected DB-25 to DB-25 is something that I've used in the past. The Apple SCSI implementation is not pushing the performance boundary at all on the external port, I think it's asynchronous SCSI-1. Q950s and many PowerMacs have dual-SCSI, so your scanner can be on "substandard" wiring without messing up your drive chain, not sure about the 800 or 840. I have an interesting SCSI cable - its a ribbon/pin-header but has shields for "external" use. I think it might have gone with the ComputerVision CADDstation that I gave away (that had all pin-header connections with some sort of funky ground wipe that would connect the shield on this cable.) Was this ever something approaching standard, or was this CV proprietary (or was it not CV SCSI and just looks like it)?

19 years, 9 months

Calculators on desktops (was Re: Octal)

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk wrot e: > > Yeah, but it's often hidden. > > Not by default. > If it has been hidden, it is because somebody > explicitly and deliberately > was trying to keep you away from it. > Without user intervention Win2K installations will > have it in accessories. > I had another search for "calculator" today to find out what directory it was stored in. In the same directory I also found a Paint program and one other program, which I can understand why they would hide them >from us. But we work in a lab and do calculations on a *daily* basis. Most of them are done by the computers (special program made by Scibertec), but some calc's we do manually. >> snip << > > > Now whenever I need it and it's not listed > > under applications (we move about alot in the > > lab and use diff computers each week), I just > > do a quick filesearch, dump it on the desktop > > and on the main drop-up (?) menu that appears > > when you click on the Start button, incase > > I have a screen full of windows. > > Now almost everyone uses it (largely because > > calc's are so hard to find in the lab). > WHY BOTHER?? > Go to Start/Run and type Calc. Didn't know you could do that. > or > Go to the command line, and type Calc. > Not sure we have permission [1] to go into the CLI mode, and perhaps we might get suspicious looks if we did. > > The "scientific" mode includes binary, octal, > > hex and decimal, aswell as proper maths > > functions. > > Yes, but it refuses to do anything but integers in > anything other than > decimal! > > 3.0h/2.0h gives 1.8h, NOT 1.0 > 11 binary/10 binary is 1.1 binary, NOT 1 > 3.14159decimal is NOT 3h. > No offense intended, but are you sure it's not set up for no decimal places, or perhaps it's just MS's programmers being lazy? :) I have never seen a hex number with a decimal point anyway... do they exist and/or serve a purpose, or was it just a demonstrate your point? [1] We don't have permission to alter the computers time, as it's part of a very large network. Certain drives (eg. drive M: ) are also locked away (not even displayed on "My Computer"). Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

19 years, 9 months

Bugs T-shirt

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote: > Hey, I've got an old T-shirt that doesn't fit me a nd > is destined to hit the > rag pile. It's a "Getting out the last bugs" shir t > with "SunStruck 4.1.89 > (Wanda)" on the back. Is this of any historical > value or is it better used to wax the Volvo? > > Cheers, > Chuck > Any chance of a pic? Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

19 years, 9 months

Commodore hacking and hardware tricks (was Re: commodore 64/128question)

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

> >Subject: Re: Commodore hacking and hardware tricks (was Re: commodore 64/128question) > From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> > Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:32:51 -0700 > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> > >At 12:55 PM -0700 9/3/06, Chuck Guzis wrote: >>On 9/3/2006 at 8:42 PM Philip Pemberton wrote: >> >>>Chuck Guzis wrote: >>>> What's a good substitute drive mechanism for the 1541/71? The drives >>>that >>>> come as factory original are pretty chintzy. Funny, I was just looking at the 1571 and it's a Newtronics/Mitsumi 48TPI two sided unit. The 1541 is from what I read a different beast. >>>I'm not sure you'd be able to swap it out - isn't the head preamp on the >>>1541 >>>motherboard, not a separate drive interface board? >>> >>Indeed it is. I hoped that perhaps generations of C128 hackers had found a >>way around this by now. Silly me. > >I think it's called hooking your C64/128 up to a PC via a X1541 (or >newer) cable, and using the PC as a drive via the appropriate >software. This is one of the solutions I'm thinking of trying. >Apparently it allows you to use the PC as a 1541, and to use emulator >images. Must be images as the '41 is GCR, the 1571 does do GCR and regualar soft sector. Allison

19 years, 9 months

Calculators on desktops (was Re: Octal)

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: > We have a winner! (very nicely done!) > It shall be your responsibility to answer for > Andrew B <aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk> 's > next query topic, and seeing to it that he follows > this. Hehe, I was gonna try and answer the first question, but I admit I had no clue about q's 2 or 3. I don't no what the IEEE format is, but I'd guess it would be Integer, Exponent, Exponent, Exponent? Besides, without a computer (or appropriate calculator) it would have taken ages to work out the binary for question 1 (the initial few bits would have been easy but the rest... urgh!). Also.... in binary with binary points what would the bits be known as that were below the binary point? If we have a value of say 11.111 which would be the first bit (bit 0)? The 2nd one (reading left to right) or the 5th one (far right)? Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

19 years, 9 months

Scanning "Results"

by THX1138＠dakotacom.net

Hi, I spent a few hours last night playing with different scanning options and figured I would share my observations. Definitely not a "scientific experiment" but, rather, "just tinkering". Image in question was just a page of text -- probably 8-10pt. Laid out in two columns, quite a bit of whitespace. The original image dimensions are about 8.5x12" (yes, 12, not 11). [Sorry, in retrospect I should have used an 8.5x11 image as this would be easier for most folks to relate to :< Instead, I just set the scanner to scan half the available area (it's a B-size scanner)] First, I did a monochrome scan at 400dpi (which is where I tend to do most of my scans). The resulting TIFF file was 2MB. When viewed "on screen", the TIFF file (i.e., eliminating any effects of the scanner software) was quite readable. No signs of jaggies, etc. I ran that image through various compressors (still sticking with TIFF). "Packed bits" yielded a file size of 360K -- as did Huffman encoding. LZW dropped this to 220K. CCITT3-1D encoding dropped it to 217K while CCITT3-2D brought it down to 131K. And, CCITT4 brought it down to 100K. I then ran the same image at 800dpi (what the heck, let's live dangerously!!). As expected, the original TIFF grew to 8M. The CCITT4 variant grew to 250K. (I didn't bother with all the other encodings as these two represent the aparent extremes of monochrome representations *EASILY* AVAILABLE TO ME). Next, I scanned the same image at 400dpi in *color*. A 24 bit TIFF took a whopping 55MB. (can you say, "Sorry, but we don't got no bananas..."). I then tried to save the image as a JPEG -- *guessing* at appropriate compression/smoothing factors to get the resulting image size down to ~1MB. (for reference, ASSUMING THESE "settings" ARE PORTABLE, 4:2:2, 77 compression, 10 smoothing, optimized but NOT progressive). I got lucky (?) and this first pass gave me a 530K image. With the 250KB *800*dpi B&W C4 TIFF in mind, I decided to push the file size even smaller. (compression increased to 90) This resulted in a 360K image. Even more squeezing (compr = 95) got this down to 250K. However, the *quality* of the image was very disappointing! The 530KB version was quite "fuzzy" (not "jaggies", since JPEGs are more continuous tone than a B&W TIFF, but, rather, "blurry"). The 360KB version began introducing noticeable artifacts that were clearly not present in the original image. This got worse in the 250K version. Bottom line: the 100KB B&W TIFF was much better looking than even the 530KB JPEG. And the 250KB B&W TIFF was so "fine" that I suspect it is overkill (I doubt anyone or anyTHING -- i.e. software -- could discriminate between that at 800dpi and the 400dpi version). I had earlier tried some gr[ea]y scale scans and convinced myself I must be doing something wrong (as the sizes were just so much larger) so I didn't pursue them. In hindsight, a more scientific approach would try to JPEG encode those monochrome representations as well. (I'm through experimenting as I have the answer *I* want/need) Somehow, I doubt they will prove to be more economical than the C4 TIFFs. [N.B. the gr[ea]yscale scans are much "softer" on the eyes (no doubt due to the continuum of "value")] So, to answer *my* initial question (ages ago), 400dpi C4 TIFFs are definitely "adequate". 800dpi are overkill. And, at ~100KB per page, they are quite "affordable". We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

19 years, 9 months

System 96 (Measurement Systems Ltd.)

by julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk

In dropping off some loaned manuals to someone earlier, I came away with a System 96 box by mistake :-) It's a nice STE bus crate (approx 16-way, without going back downstairs to count) using 3U Eurocards - the nice thing about this one being that it runs OS-9 rather than some proprietary OS/application (as is often the case with Eurocard boxes that are generally aimed at the industrial control market) As well as a 5.25" floppy drive, the machine has a small ST506 hard disk in it running via a SASI bridge (I can only see the underside at the moment, but judging by the connector pin locations it's probably an Emulex) I've got the following boards: 6809 CPU + control ROM SASI HBA + parallel + 2 x serial (for internal disk via bridge) SASI HBA + parallel + 2 x serial (for external SASI devices) FDC Memory (128KB) Memory (128KB) Memory (128KB) Memory (128KB) It was working when last used (which wasn't that long ago; it belonged to someone who still got occasional support jobs for STE bus equipment, and was their backup OS-9 box). I've got various floppies for it, but at present no documentation - that's currently packed up many miles away at the chap's other premises. Which begs the question - anyone have one of these systems with the docs, and can tell me: a) DIP switch settings for the serial lines, so I know which is the console and what line settings to use. b) DIP switch settings for the memory boards. One switch on one of the boards is jammed halfway between open and closed, so needs putting right before I try and get some life out of the machine. cheers Jules -- If you've ever wondered how you get triangles from a cow You need buttermilk and cheese, and an equilateral chainsaw

19 years, 9 months

IBM AS400 Backup Docs

by Steve＠oceanrobots.net

Hi, Can anyone point me to a copy of "/IBM AS400 Programming: Backup and Recovery Guide/", IBM Form # SC21-8079-0 from June 1988 ? Have tried all the obvious; told that "things don't go back that far". Not exactly a personal machine, but it quals under the 10 year rule. Thanks, Steve

19 years, 9 months

A/UX 1.0

by compoobah＠valleyimplants.com

Gordon wrote: >will any version of A/UX run on a Powerbook 180? Nope, no Powerbooks, no LCs (including Classics), no 68LC040 machines, no IIs without PMMUs, no AV Macs. Will run on SE/30, II+68851, II(c,f)x, IIci, IIsi, Quadra {700, 800, 900, 950, 650, 610+FPU} Not sure about IIvx, IIvi, Performa 600. Later models needed later versions, 1.x was only II+851, IIx, IIcx, 2.x ran on almost all the IIs (you need the latest 2.x for the fx), 3.x runs on the IIs and Quadras.

19 years, 9 months

commodore 64/128 question

by billdeg＠degnanco.com

<snip> > So, my question is - for the c128 people... if I really just want a > > C64, > will the C128's C64 emulation be 100% and make me happy? If so I'd like a > 128 as long as I'm going for a C64 so I have some extra functionality to > play with. But if the C128 won't run 100% of the C64 software, then I'd best > just stick with getting a C64. > > Advice? > > Jay For all intents and purposes the 128 will work as a 64 without incident. What you get with the 128 is faster file processing when used in conjuntion with a RAM expansion and 1571/1581 drives. THe OS is newer so you get BASIC 4 in 128 mode which I find useful. I switch to 64 mode only to play games. The C 128 is the most-used computer in my old computer work. For example, I can use it as a bridge between the B-128 world and the PC world. B128-->IEEE-->sfd-1001-->IEEE/serial adapter-->C128-->1571-->1581- ->720K drive PC-->Internet Bill D

19 years, 9 months

commodore 64/128 question

by jwest＠classiccmp.org

I was an avid C64 user, ran a C64 bbs for years, etc. etc. But when I got rid of it years ago, one never made it back in to my collection as I focus more on mini's than micros'. I find myself wanting to acquire a C64 for my collection and gaming fun, as that was the system I had. However, as I understand it, the C128 has a C64 emulation mode which allows it to run C64 software. I never had a C128 and don't know anything about it. So, my question is - for the c128 people... if I really just want a C64, will the C128's C64 emulation be 100% and make me happy? If so I'd like a 128 as long as I'm going for a C64 so I have some extra functionality to play with. But if the C128 won't run 100% of the C64 software, then I'd best just stick with getting a C64. Advice? Jay

19 years, 9 months

Inside my A600

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk wrote: > >> snip << > > Missing item from XU1 - there is an outline (in > white) clearly visible, with small circular metal > marks above and below where the component > should be. The outline looks a bit like this: > ______________________ > |_ | > _) | > |______________________| > > > Anyone have any idea whether this should be > missing or not? Is it possible to get my hands > on the plans (schematics?) for the PCB? > I have since discovered that the component at XU1 was apparently used to correct a timing bug with earlier Gayle revisions, ergo there is no need for it on my PCB. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

19 years, 9 months

Another C64 Question

by billdeg＠degnanco.com

Zane, wcopy+ by CMD is very easy to use. The package containing the program wcopy+ is called "CMD Utilities" WCOPY+ alows me to copy files from the 1571 (as drive 9) to a 720K PC-formatted diskette on a 1581 (as drive 10). I load wcopy+ on drive 8 first, write to a 720K PC formatted diskette in drive 10 (1581 drive). From the 720K disk you can move files to modern computer. WCOPY+ can take advantage of the extra memory of the c128 to do the copy operations faster than a c64. If you have a RAM expansion all the better. Bill D >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:03:37 -0700 >From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> >Subject: Another C64 Question >To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > <cctalk at classiccmp.org> >Message-ID: <a06200727c11f6f6c247a(a)[192.168.1.199]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > >What solutions are people using to get data on and off of their C64's? > >In the past I was able to use my old 486 with a X1541 cable and a >dedicated 1541 drive. I also had a Catweasel in my Amiga (still have >both, but the A3000 is back in its original case with no room for a 5 >1/4" drive, and up in storage), but found it to be less than a >perfect solution, at least at that time. > >I really like the look of a MMC64 (MMC adapter for the 64), but they >seem to be sold out. > > Zane

19 years, 9 months

Calculators on desktops (was Re: Octal)

by aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk

--- Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk wrote : > > Hehe, I was gonna try and answer the first > > question, but I admit I had no clue about q's > > 2 or 3. I don't no what the IEEE format is, > > but I'd guess it would be Integer, Exponent, > > Exponent, Exponent? > > I think that you would enjoy: > Schaum's Outline Series : Essential Computer > Mathematics by Seymour > Lipschutz ISBN:0-07-037990-4 > It's a much more comfortable casual read than Rose n, > etc. > Thanks. I'll see if I can find that. > > Do you understand 2's complement notation? > > IEEE floating point has > 1 bit for sign (an actual sign bit!, rather than 2 's > complement), > 8 bits for exponent (power of TWO to be multiplied > to the mantissa, > stored as a "biased" number, NOT sign bit, nor 2's > complement) > 23 bits for 24 bit mantissa (when normalized, the > high order bit is known, > and doesn't need to be stored) (Lipschutz has a > minor error on that!) > Well, I already new about signed and unsigned bytes/numbers. But the rest I don't follow 100% (not sure what mantissa is). I have learnt alot in recent years, some from groups/email lists like this and other stuff >from my recently acquired collection of 80 Microcomputing (aka 80 Micro) - I now have issues 1 to 60 (just got the last 40 to get) ;) > > Besides, without a computer (or appropriate > > calculator) it would have taken ages to > > work out the binary for question 1 (the initial > > few bits would have been easy but the rest... > > urgh!). > > with practice, it gets easier, like any other bina ry > conversion > Like lot's of things in life, the more you do it the better/quicker you are a it. > > > > Also.... in binary with binary points what would > > the bits be known as that were below the > > binary point? > > If we have a value of say 11.111 which would > 3.875 3 7/8 > If you have CARPENTRY experience, then making .875 > out of one half, plus > one quarter, plus one eighth becomes more obvious > > be the first bit (bit 0)? The 2nd one (reading > > left to right) or the 5th one (far right)? > > There isn't a fixed standard for naming them. > Some people use 0 through 7 (or whatever) for the > bits to the left of the > binary point, and use NEGATIVE numbers for the bit s > to the right, which > keeps the bit "name" matching the power of two. > But, not everybody likes to do it that way. > That sounds like a sensible way to me. Regards, Andrew B aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk

19 years, 9 months

Calculators on desktops (was Re: Octal)

by rickb＠bensene.com

My idea of the best calculator on the desktop is an HP 9100A/B or 9810, 9820, or 9830, Wang 720C, IME-86S, or a Tektronix 31. No native octal, but they can be programmed to do octal math. It's on-topic, these things are over 30 years old. Rick Bensene The Old Calculator Web Museum http://oldcalculatormuseum.com

19 years, 9 months

A/UX 1.0

by aek＠bitsavers.org

> just curious on what 1.0 looks like http://www.aux-penelope.com/AUX_1.0.htm This pre-dates the MAE.

19 years, 9 months

Livermore Swapmeet

by marvin＠rain.org

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 :).

19 years, 9 months

age cutoff

by jwest＠classiccmp.org

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 criteria. 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 ideas. 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 :) Jay

19 years, 9 months

Jump to page:

2026

2025

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