test-drb

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

101090 discussions

ST225 and RLL (was: Re: free DEC M7555 card)

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

From: Glen Goodwin <acme_ent(a)bellsouth.net> >> RLL though RLL may/may_not be reliable with that drive. I have used >ST225s >> with RLL controllers to get ~30mb from them (st225 is 20mb MFM). > >What's your success rate with this? I tried it a couple of times years ago >and encountered some very subtle but nasty data corruption. I used it with one PC based system with excellent results. However, up front I assumed it may be twitchy so I used the best ST225 (minimum surface defects) I had , shortest cables usable, and didn't format it until it was warmed up to operating temp and the controller was a WD1005 (memory test here). I'd never do it with an ST251 as they were flaky in my book even for MFM. I found the best candidate for this was Quantum D540s a 30mb MFM drive. Allison

23 years, 11 months

So-Called Real Programmers and FORTRAN

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

From: Carlos Murillo <carlos_murillo(a)epm.net.co> >I went from HP3000 BASIC to UCSD Pascal. I liked it. In retrospect, >the things that suck about Pascal are the argument passing mechanism >and strings. C is better essentially because it lets you manage >memory directly, without predefined string sizes. And it lets you >handle the guts. When I dont want to see the underlying machine Pascal is very nice and has proven very portable. When I need to get at the underlying machine and don't wish to use assembler then C wins usually at the expense of some portability. >(portable) code, and Matlab and FORTRAN rule in that realm. Yes, FORTRAN. :-) Fortran is old but well proven. Allison

23 years, 11 months

So-Called Real Programmers and FORTRAN

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> >> From: Allison [mailto:ajp166@bellatlantic.net] > >> I disagree. The UCSD version was an excellent teaching tool but > >> slower than sludge due to the P-code thing. Later implementations > >> namely JRT and Borland were very useful tools. > > > >I'm also of that opinion. I like Pascal, and Modula, and Oberon... > >Chris > > I went from HP3000 BASIC to UCSD Pascal. I liked it. In retrospect, > the things that suck about Pascal are the argument passing mechanism > and strings. C is better essentially because it lets you manage > memory directly, without predefined string sizes. And it lets you > handle the guts. My only problem with Pascal argument passing was the lack of support for missing arcguments (or short lists as some call them). Modula-2 corrected that omission. > But I am not a C programmer in general (except when programming > microcontrollers in RT applications); I write mostly scientific numerical > (portable) code, and Matlab and FORTRAN rule in that realm. Yes, FORTRAN. :-) > My stuff runs under Solaris, AIX, Linux, HPUX, and Win32, using gcc/g77, > HP f77, Sun fortran, xlf. Been working on a utility in F77 myself, just recently... -dq

23 years, 11 months

Installation Ease (Was: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor)

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> [1] RedHat, and I believe SuSE, offer true walkaway install scripts. > From a RH box, you can use a GUI point&click interface to set up a boot > floppy that will install exactly what you want, How you want it. Insert > floppy, turn on power, go away for ~25 minutes, come back, remove > floppy, reboot. Gorgeous. Slackware 7.0, once you finish answering the up-front questions, runs by itself, although you can also choose a "hand-holding" mode... -dq

23 years, 11 months

L@@K R@RE On-topic posting! (SunOS4.0.2)

by alan.pearson＠cramer.com

Sorry to dilute the Unix/Windows/Mac flamewar with a vaguely on-topic posting, but does anyone have, or know of a site where I can get images of the SunOS4.0.2 install floppies (NOT tape) for the Sun 386i? I've got the original disks but they were used to hold "something else" long ago - now I'd like to restore them to their former glory :-) There used to be a set of images on an FTP site in one of the London universities, but they've gone :( Any pointers? Haven't found anything by googling, and I've been looking for a week or so now. This is my last resort, since I'm fully expecting to be flamed to a crisp for showing interest in a Unix variant :-) Cheers Al.

23 years, 11 months

9-Track Tape Density Terminaology Query

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

Bob Shannon wrote: > Nothin' says Vintage Computer better than a mini with the switch > register blinking and 10 inch reels of tape jumping back and forth. > > Not even an Altair or Imsai can touch that. (for those of > you who lack room for CPU's that don't fit on a chip) If I could stand and watch a 10-reel merge-sort again, I would just cry. > Now cold-booting from 9-track mag tape, thats pure Vintage Computing > (without the nasty cuts of paper tape)! Now, that one, I did just the other day! -dq

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?

by nemesis-lists＠icequake.net

Ben Franchuk wrote: > In my view that what I don't like about linux/unix -- the design > of the architecture is still based on very primitive user I/O devices > and a mode of computing that is not realistic today. It's quite realistic if you depend on programs being able to talk to each other, and being able to operate them in a simplistic manner when necessary. For end users, it might be inconvenient (which is why we now have multiple abstractions in the form of desktop environments, GUI programs, and what-have-you), but the mere existence of the capability for a simplistic interface does not force the user to go through that interface. e.g., you can use vi or pico if it suits you, and it's definitely easier for a script to use something like 'ed', but as a user, you're obviously not forced into only using those programs, as there are programs with arguably much more intuitive interfaces to do the same tasks. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by nemesis-lists＠icequake.net

> The UNIX mindset is different: "It doesn't work? Hmm - lets find > out why. And fix it/make somebody fix it." - smells of good old > engineering. Precisely. Windows was designed to be a consumer operating system. UNIX was designed to be a techie's operating system. Case closed. Argument over. This is why UNIX vs Windows arguments hardly make sense, and get old. If you consider yourself a consumer, feel free to indulge yourself in the prettiness and dumbness of Windows, and not feel ashamed for it. Or, discover that a Linux distribution designed for end-user friendliness suits your needs too, and use that instead. Either way, why does it matter which is better designed or more powerful? As a consumer/user, you are concerned only with what you can use the operating system for. Why get in shouting matches over who does what better? It's irrelevant. If you're a techie, well, you're likely not using Windows anyway, having long discovered that its limitations and inconsistencies do not suit your manner of productivity. If you notice other techies being hampered by Windows, you probably introduce alternative systems to them, because you feel that it can improve their productivity. In other words, use what works best for you, and that you feel comfortable using. That's the pragmatic-modern view. However, this is ignoring the obvious problem with Microsoft and pure monopolistic capitalism, destroying innovation and limiting choice. Microsoft is proving that the idealistic concept of a "free market" really is bogus in some ways. HOWEVER: It is quite possible to decrease MS's market share and force them to play fair like everyone else. To do so, the goal is to _reduce the market share of Windows machines_. Very simple. Whether you're a MS fan or not, this is the only solution that makes sense in the long run. (A monopoly is good for nobody in the long run, not even its supporters.) Whether the machines run some flavor of UNIX or any other operating system is a moot issue -- it just so happens that most of the alternative operating systems that exist today are UNIX-based. If you'd rather use FoobarOS or CP/M, go for it. As a user or a developer of an alternative system: If you care about the system, work to improve it, and attract others to your platform by virtue of its capabilities. Perpetuating endless arguments is a waste of effort -- instead of arguing in circular fashion (Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh! Nuh-uh! ....), demonstrate in a practical manner how your platform is superior, and only when asked or otherwise appropriate. Be open, but don't shove it down people's throats. You'd be surprised how many people listen to reason, even when they themselves are not necessarily reasonable folk. A carefully constructed, relevant argument goes a long way towards promoting one's beliefs. I love 'nix as much as the next guy; but I also am quite fond of reason, ethics, and integrity. That's why I won't play dirty to beat MS into submission, even though _they_ reached their current position by playing dirty. A goal I'd much rather achieve is beating them at their own game, by simply being _better_ at it. Result? A better MS, better alternatives, and a fair market. Competition sorts out the market, but there has to be competition first. Free (as in beer) software is a great start to dislodge the 20-year Wintel monopoly. It gives people a glaringly obvious reason to move to a platform that is (in the opinions of its developers) better supported, more consistent, and has an open, flat development model, where every user and developer are equally powerful in driving its future. The initial shock of moving out of the grasp of MS may suck sometimes, but once gotten over, few go back. An idealistic wet dream? Probably. But I won't stop trying. I'll continue working to give people reasons _why_ they should use my platform, and hope that others do the same. (WARNING: 2am grogginess may be present in post) -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?

by nemesis-lists＠icequake.net

> Now I won't use anything else but vi, because it's fast, flexible and very > light on termcap (unlike a certain *ahem*PICO*ahem* other editor > *ahem*PICO*ahem* I could mention). It was well worth the effort. One of my > persistent threats is to write a stripped down vi clone for the C64. There's also a rewritten 'vi' called 'vim', for "vi improved". I was hesitant to use it at first, since it's much bigger/more bloated than good old BSD vi, but I've found that no editor in existence gets along better with funky terminals and termcaps on various UNIX systems than vim does. Some other niceties are a full command history, full undo history, and session recording. The full undo has saved my ass numerous times compared to the one-level undo of BSD vi. The command history is great when you want to edit a previous s-expression without typing the whole (blasted, cryptic, unreadable) thing over again. :) Session recording lets you use vim as a sed-like filter to automate making the same changes to numerous files. Highly recommended -- and it comes with a nice tutorial too for introducing newbies. And a GTK+ verson for those that prefer windowing. -- Ryan Underwood, <nemesis at icequake.net>, icq=10317253

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by Robert_Feldman＠jdedwards.com

<pedantic>My dictionary says John McIntosh discovered a late-maturing variety of red apple in Ontario in 1796. Said variety of apple is now named for him. Apple Computer chose a different spelling to name a line of their computers to play on the word "apple", but to be different.</pedantic -----Original Message----- From: Chris [mailto:mythtech@mac.com] Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:33 PM To: Classic Computer Subject: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor >It's spelled WITH the 'a' in it at the grocery store ... they are a mite >tart, >but make decent pie ... Humm... I'll have to check that if I go to the store tonight, I could have sworn they list them as McIntosh Apples on the shelf tag and the little annoying fruit stickers stuck on them. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by acme_ent＠bellsouth.net

> From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)conman.org> > So why do people expect to get immedate work out of a computer without > training? Because Bill Gates said they could. Glen 0/0

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

>Is there some reason why people aren't flocking to this >the way they did to the original Windows? Because no one in the unix community has had the deep pockets to do the advertising blitz that MS did to cause people to want Windows. MS has NEVER sold a "superior" product... they have just done a great job of making people think it is better (usually thru lies, half truths, or errors of omission), and convincing the purchasers that MS products are what they want. Oh, and lets not discount their monopoly practices that have helped insure people use their products, and artificially inflate the counts of people that want to use it. Again, praying on the fact that most people are too ignorant, or don't care enough, to search for a better alternative. If someone can accomplish the task they want to do, and they can do it with some degree of ease and expediency, they are not apt to change the status quo. They are unlikely to investigate the fact that there may be better, faster, more capable ways of doing their tasks... Microsoft knows this, so they make sure their products are just good enough to make it past the initial break in time period (or in some cases, make sure it is sufficiently difficult to install or use the competition), and then they know most people will continue to use the product because "that's what they are used to". All of this has NOTHING to do with how good the product is, and everything to do with the psychology of marketing. And I don't think there is anyone that can argue the fact that MS has the best damn marketing department anywhere. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com] > I've also got some *nix experience, and, frankly, anything > that requires I > recompile the OS just to install a driver is too much > trouble. I've done > that, but hopefully never will again. I thought I would mention here that Unix has had dynamically loadable kernel modules for a while. I know from experience that the Unix PC O/S (at least from 3.0) uses them for graphics stuff. IRIX has also had them, after a fashion, for a while. (Actually, IRIX has a "sysgen," but technically it's a re-link, not a re- compile) Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

Cryptic Unix Arcana (was: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?)

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

> From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc(a)conman.org> > Message-Id: <200205070202.WAA10268(a)conman.org> > Subject: Cryptic Unix Arcana (was: Re: APPLEVISION Monitor, Anything !Windows = Cryptic ?) OH... MY... GOD! Sombody actually changed the subject line of this thread-from-Hell-that-just-wont-go-away! Thank you, Sean... this might revive my interest... ;)

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

> Why Apple Computer changed the spelling, I don't know. IIRC, in "The Mac Bathroom Reader" they said they changed it simply to be slighty different than the fruit. But who knows if that is correct. -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by mythtech＠mac.com

> First off, a Mac mouse has one button. That is a conscience design choice >made by Apple. No confusing the user with this ``left button/right button'' >choice---there's just ``the button'' on the mouse. Simply saying ``use the >left mouse button'' may cause confusion because not everyone is right >handed. On a right-handed mouse (or a mouse to the right side of the user) >the left-button is used as the primary button, which is also under the index >finger of the user. The right-button will be under the middle finger (or >ring finger for three-button mice). Some people say this is a hogwash arguement. I personally would like to see Apple issue a two button mouse, but as long as 3rd parties are doing it, I'm probably not going to argue. But I CAN tell you, probably the most recurring statement I give over the phone for windows tech support is "unless I specify right-click, it is always left-click"... and this is to people that use the Windows PC every day... and they still are unsure which button to click at a given point in time. And despite that friendly reminder, they mess it up time and time again ("I clicked, but no menu popped up" or the opposite "I clicked, but all that happened was this menu appeared"). I will freely admit, when it comes to that issue, it is MUCH nicer on the Mac. I just say "click" and they have no issues. If I want them to use the context menu I can then specify "hold the control key", but then, on the Mac, it is rare that I tell them to access a context menu, as there are few times it is of any additional help except to a more advanced user. Unlike in windows, where the context menu is almost a neccessity for doing some actions... try it, create a new folder on the windows desktop... without using contextual menus... now, try to explain that process to someone that is having a hard time grasping left and right clicks, and tell my if it is easier than just explaining "put the arrow on the desktop someplace that has no icons, right click on the desktop, choose NEW from the menu that pops up, choose Folder from the submenu that pops out" (we will discount the repeat the process that occurs when the person that can't handle a mouse clicks off the menu or clicks on the wrong thing). Or for the Mac varient... "hold the command key down, it looks like a cloverleaf, has an apple symbol on it, its next to the spacebar.... press the letter N".... There's no step 3... there's no step 3! -chris <http://www.mythtech.net>

23 years, 11 months

So-Called Real Programmers and FORTRAN

by acme_ent＠bellsouth.net

> From: Ben Franchuk <bfranchuk(a)jetnet.ab.ca> > I think small and clean ( bootstrap able too is handy) languages are few > and far between. C was that at one time, but not any more. While I don't > expect complers to run in 64kb I think 64 Meg is far too much bloat. So, use an older C compiler. I still use Turbo C++ 1.0. The C++ implementation sucks, but for "real" C code under MS-DOS, it still kicks ass, and runs in 640 Kb. I wish I had something as good for CP/M-86 :>( Glen 0/0

23 years, 11 months

ST225 and RLL (was: Re: free DEC M7555 card)

by acme_ent＠bellsouth.net

> From: Allison <ajp166(a)bellatlantic.net> > No, a St251 would not interface to EDSI. It will interface to both MFM and > RLL though RLL may/may_not be reliable with that drive. I have used ST225s > with RLL controllers to get ~30mb from them (st225 is 20mb MFM). What's your success rate with this? I tried it a couple of times years ago and encountered some very subtle but nasty data corruption. Glen 0/0

23 years, 11 months

So-Called Real Programmers and FORTRAN

by carlos_murillo＠epm.net.co

At 10:51 AM 5/6/02 -0500, you wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Allison [mailto:ajp166@bellatlantic.net] >> I disagree. The UCSD version was an excellent teaching tool but >> slower than sludge due to the P-code thing. Later implementations >> namely JRT and Borland were very useful tools. >I'm also of that opinion. I like Pascal, and Modula, and Oberon... >Chris I went from HP3000 BASIC to UCSD Pascal. I liked it. In retrospect, the things that suck about Pascal are the argument passing mechanism and strings. C is better essentially because it lets you manage memory directly, without predefined string sizes. And it lets you handle the guts. But I am not a C programmer in general (except when programming microcontrollers in RT applications); I write mostly scientific numerical (portable) code, and Matlab and FORTRAN rule in that realm. Yes, FORTRAN. :-) My stuff runs under Solaris, AIX, Linux, HPUX, and Win32, using gcc/g77, HP f77, Sun fortran, xlf. carlos. -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org

23 years, 11 months

Osborne software (was: New haul/request for info)

by acme_ent＠bellsouth.net

> From: Pat Finnegan <pat(a)purdueriots.com> > - Altos 580-B02, dual 5-1/4" drives, software > - Altos 8000-15A, dual 8" floppies > - "User manual" for the Altos Series 5, Xerox'd > - Televideo TV-925 w/user manual and maintenance manual > - 3xOsborne-1's, at least two need some repair. > - Commodore VIC20 with "all the fixin's" Nice job! > I've managed to get an Osborne 1 to power up, it looks to have a stuck bit > on the video memory (bad DRAM perhaps). I don't have software. Does > anyone have software for this? I have tons of the stuff. Let me know what you want. Glen 0/0

23 years, 11 months

NU 1.0

by crichter＠researchsource.com

Hello. I have joined the list into the see if any of you subscribers have a copy of Norton Utilities 1.0. This is the original NU issued in 1982 on one double-sided 5.25 floppy. I don't know whether this came out after DOS 1.0 and before DOS 1.25 or came out after DOS 1.25. I do know that DOS 2.0 came out in March 1983 and NU 1.X was superceded shortly thereafter by NU 2.0. I am only looking for an NU diskette or copy that was before NU 2.0. If you have an old diskette and know what is on it but don't know the version, I will be able to tell you whether you have 1.X or something later. I am doing this research for a client who will buy at market price or better. Please email me or call me at 202-778-0002 and tell me what you have. Thank you Ceceile Ceceile Kay Richter mailto:crichter@ResearchSource.com

23 years, 11 months

9-Track Tape Density Terminaology Query

by dquebbeman＠acm.org

Should have asked this 20 years ago when everyone remembered (well, those of you who'd been weaned by that point, anyway...). 200, 556, 800, 1600bpi: bpi, bits per inch. I understand this one. 3200 cpi: is this characters-per-inch? 6250 fcpi: what, "framed" characters per inch? One certainly can't figure this out merely by looking at the capacities of the various modes... Mostly just a curiosity, nothing really hinges on this... -dq

23 years, 11 months

APPLEVISION Monitor

by csmith＠amdocs.com

> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Erlacher [mailto:edick@idcomm.com] > It's not difficult to do, since everything ends up in > "MyDocuments" as a > default. Now, with very little effort at all, you CAN, I don't remember that working too well under windows 95 -- possibly it's been fixed since then. I haven't paid much attention to that part. > indeed, lose a file. > However, if you use the Find command (assuming you know the > name of the file, > or at least an extension), there's some help there. That's But if you've never seen a computer, how are you supposed to know what an extension is? Or how do you tell where to "find" the find command? :) > better than I did > with the Apple "finder," whatever that is... Yep, "finder" is a pretty stupid name, and so is "chooser," but no more stupid than "explorer" (any of the three ;) "Excel" -- what does it do again? "Access..." Yep, that's great too. "Power Point..." It must be a software implementation of a hunting dog. To be clear, "finder" does actually provide the "find" command to find a file. Chooser actually does provide a list of "stuff" and let you "choose" something off of the list (for all that it's worth :) The names aren't sufficient at all, though. > Excel. It worked > fine, though, at least within the limits of himem.sys and > smartdrv.sys, both > of which were flawed in that incarnation. Well, you've just hit on my main complaint with windows again... but we've covered that. Chris Christopher Smith, Perl Developer Amdocs - Champaign, IL /usr/bin/perl -e ' print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl Hacker.")."\x08!\n"); '

23 years, 11 months

Need IDT 7M624 Info

by djg＠drs-esg.com

I have the datasheet. It is a 64kx16 static ram module. Can be configured as 64kx16, 128kx8 or 256kx4. Offered 25 to 65ns access time. If you need more email me, the datasheet is 8 pages. Mine is 1990. David Gesswein http://www.pdp8.net/ -- Run an old computer with blinkenlights.

23 years, 11 months

2708 Programming Algorithm?

by dwightk.elvey＠amd.com

>From: "Richard Erlacher" <edick(a)idcomm.com> > >Now I'm really confused, Joe. Thanks for stirring the coals, though. > >I can't find any Intel memory data before '82, and by that time they were on >5-volt-only EPROMs all the way. The brocheure I'm thinking of, with respect >to that 8748 evaluation board, has the "it's a 5-volt world" slogan that Intel >liked to use in promoting the 2716 back then, but I'll find the '78 8748 book >eventually, since I just looked at it yesterday. > >'t seems like I'll never learn to keep house ... > >Dick > Hi I believe the half bad 2716 of Intel's were call either 2758 or 2508, not 8708. I'm almost sure that the 8708 was the one that could handle the negative bus levels on the input, as I said earlier. You are correct that they sold the H and the L version for the level to put on the A10. Dwight

23 years, 11 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