15 May
2007
15 May
'07
11:45 p.m.
I had not planned to sent that one untill I could edit it a bit :(
Here is a link to a ygam chart I generated for that mutterings and it includes
a link to the page.
http://ygams.com/ygams.lsp?Switchtech
Bob
On Wed, 16 May 2007 01:26:50 +0200, from at fu3.org wrote:
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 credibility of the
instruction set
> against the Motorola 6800 family.
> Motorola ended up cutting their own deal providing AMD trading some VMOS memory 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 updates in
years, I am personally
> thankful that this person was just enough of a geek to have built a nice hobby 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 current beta and
examples of
> the internet footprinting tool)
>
> >From page header
> <title>My Virtual PC Museum</title>
> <meta content="John B. Sandlin" name="Author" />
> <meta content="07/15/2002 PCs I've Owned"
name="Description" />
> <meta content="John Sandlin" name="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 something has been published
and
> indexed gets indexed by someone!
>
> There is little question this is fresh meat, none of the search engines have 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 violate 6 or
more software patents...
> Just in its transmission, not including any possible problems someone might have with
it's content !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>