6 Aug
2006
6 Aug
'06
4:16 p.m.
On Sunday 06 August 2006 03:52 pm, Don wrote:
<...>
OTOH, after my initial exposure to DOS (and for quite some time after that
time during which I was still using CP/M) I thought that subdirectories were
a rather neat concept and that it should be possible to implement them in
something that was pretty close to CP/M. The concept is already partially
dealt with in terms of "library files", though that could've gone further
than it did. Maybe someday I'll return to that to play with the idea.
OTOH I like the idea of unwritten eprom locations showing up as they do, it
makes for a handy "oops!" vector without too much coding needed.
<...>
If the Google vision materializes, we'll be back
to the "mainframe with
terminals" architecture -- though those "terminals" will be considerably
more graphical and empowered AND the "mainframe" will undoubtedly be a
cluster of boxes instead of a single chassis.
Any of you guys done anything with clustering? I'm seeing references to it in
the linux context but don't know what if anything I could apply it to
offhand.
Computers". I'm not proposing that large-scale integration was wrong--it
alone would reduce the size of your "washing machine" to a deskop box.
Heck, my mouse has a PIC in it--but I'm not about to try to put a word
processor or a DBMS on it. We're still living with the legacy of the
8080 and CP/M in Windows.
Yes. Amusing that we don't have "USER0" and "USER7" areas on
C:, D:, .... :-( Not your post,
but Dave's. While it's true that there were a significant
number of major differences between the 8008 and the 8080, the
architecture from a software point of view was set in the 8008.
Accumulator, B,C,D,E registers; H,L handled as a pair to address memory;
basic instruction layout, etc. The addion of SP and 16-bit addressing
was a welcome addition, as were 16 bit adds and loads and 256 I/O ports,
but to my eye, the 8080 looked like a tarted-up 8008. One valuable
aspect of the 8008 lost was the treatment of 00 and FF as HALT
instructions.
Well, put a 0x76 at 0x0038 and 0xFF is effectively handled.
I particularly *like* the fact that 0x00 is NOP -- it lets
you scribble over portions of PROMs that you no longer want
without having to scrap the device entirely. This is largely a consequence of the fact that the
MPU-based
world essentially "started over".
Indeed.
E.g., why do we have limits on the sizes of disk
volumes (even in the *Sun*
world?). Why do we have Y2K problems? I mean, can't people *see* that disks
WILL get bigger, that the calendar *will* continue beyond Dec 31, 1999,
etc.?
Good question, and one that I've never seen anything resembling a good answer
to. Or, "What were the assumptions implicit in this?"
<...>
Some of the earlier architectures were much more
innovative
and expressive... but they just went away. As did many of
the OS's and applications. The same is true of even newer
"inventions". They get driven to "marketable" products
at the expense of good features, reliability, etc.
Got any specific exsmples you'd care to kick around some?
(e.g., Inferno is a neat idea that is quickly being
subverted by market
pressures).
Not sure what you're referring to here.
<shrug> Maybe we should al have become
PLUMBERS! After
all, WC's haven't changed *that* much in the past 100 years... :>
Heh.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin