1 Jun
2007
1 Jun
'07
12:02 p.m.
This is a fascinating, if somewhat qualitative, comparison of user
interface and functionality of a Mac Plus and an AMD dual core.
Presented without further commentary.
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Wh…
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- In memory of Bruce Geller --------------------------------------------------
1 Jun
1 Jun
4:46 p.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
This is a fascinating, if somewhat qualitative,
comparison of user
interface and functionality of a Mac Plus and an AMD dual core.
Presented without further commentary.
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Wh…
A bit skewed, to say the least. The AMD would have won if it were
running a Mac Plus emulator, for example :-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
5:52 p.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
I have a 2GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 with 1GB RAM that gets booted into MS-DOS
7.1 at least twice a week. Anyone care to guess the boot time on that?
I tried to time it, but I couldn't. There was not enough time between
the end of POST and when the C:\> prompt came up that I couldn't
physically click the stopwatch fast enough. And that's *with* a whole
load of crap running on startup, including QEMM. I'd guess maybe 1/5
second.
And I am fairly certain that DOS is using only one of the CPU cores.
Peace... Sridhar
This is a fascinating, if somewhat qualitative,
comparison of user
interface and functionality of a Mac Plus and an AMD dual core.
Presented without further commentary.
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Wh…
A bit skewed, to say the least. The AMD would have won if it were
running a Mac Plus emulator, for example :-) 
8:07 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 1 Jun 2007 at 20:52, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
PS/1. I have one. My Athlon boots faster.
Peace... Sridhar
> I have a 2GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 with 1GB RAM
that gets booted into
MS-DOS
7.1 at least twice a week. Anyone care to guess
the boot time on that?
There was a PS/2 with DOS-in-ROM. I wonder how fast that boots.
10:18 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 1 Jun 2007 at 20:52, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Sure you aren't thinking of the Tandy TL series? Those has DOS in ROM.
I don't know of any PS/2 with DOS in ROM.
And yes, they boot hella fast -- about 1.5 seconds after you hit the
reset button.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
> I have a 2GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 with 1GB RAM
that gets booted into
MS-DOS
7.1 at least twice a week. Anyone care to guess
the boot time on that?
There was a PS/2 with DOS-in-ROM. I wonder how fast that boots.
10:47 p.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Like he and I both wrote earlier, it was actually a PS/1. If you want
more information, I can head into the attic and dig up the machine to
get you an IBM type-model number.
The only problem with that machine is that the DOS (for obvious reasons)
can't be upgraded.
Peace... Sridhar
On 1 Jun 2007 at 20:52, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Sure you aren't thinking of the Tandy TL series? Those has DOS in ROM.
I don't know of any PS/2 with DOS in ROM. > I have a 2GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 with 1GB RAM
that gets booted into
MS-DOS
7.1 at least twice a week. Anyone care to guess
the boot time on that?
There was a PS/2 with DOS-in-ROM. I wonder how fast that boots.
10:17 p.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I tried to time it, but I couldn't. There was not
enough time between
the end of POST and when the C:\> prompt came up that I couldn't
physically click the stopwatch fast enough. And that's *with* a whole
load of crap running on startup, including QEMM. I'd guess maybe 1/5
second.
Aha! I call BS! I load QEMM on startup too, and it pauses for a good
2-3 seconds while it counts up 256MB of RAM.
:-)
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
10:45 p.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Hehehehe. Nope. Goes *zoink* all the way up in a split second. I
couldn't have been more surprised. Was a big difference from the
previous box I used to play DOS games on, a 150MHz Pentium with 32MB
RAM. (Which is pretty fast with DOS too, incidentally. Its
SoundBlaster AWE64 absolutely rocked the MIDI support in DOS games too.)
Peace... Sridhar
I tried to time it, but I couldn't. There
was not enough time between
the end of POST and when the C:\> prompt came up that I couldn't
physically click the stopwatch fast enough. And that's *with* a whole
load of crap running on startup, including QEMM. I'd guess maybe 1/5
second.
Aha! I call BS! I load QEMM on startup too, and it pauses for a good
2-3 seconds while it counts up 256MB of RAM.
:-) 
10:56 p.m.
At 03:46 PM 6/1/2007, you wrote:
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
It students today learned how to program by toggling switches, maybe we'd
have more people writing tight and efficient code. : )
This is a fascinating, if somewhat qualitative,
comparison of user
interface and functionality of a Mac Plus and an AMD dual core.
Presented without further commentary.
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Wh…
A bit skewed, to say the least. The AMD would have won if it were running
a Mac Plus emulator, for example :-) 
2 Jun
2 Jun
10:31 a.m.
Grant Stockly wrote:
It students today learned how to program by toggling
switches, maybe
we'd have more people writing tight and efficient code. : )
Would the not be *light* and efficient code instead. In some ways
the OPERATE operation was what made the older computers have
good code density.
With the demise of FORTRAN and the rise of C and PASCAL/ALGOL
style languages you need more addressing modes like R+ and
B+R+# adressing where you have only two addressing modes mostly
Direct short and indirect.
10:53 a.m.
At 18:31 02/06/2007, you wrote:
Grant Stockly wrote:
Forgive if this has been said before, but it's surely the
availability of oodles of cheap memory that encourages sloppy coding?
When I was ripping off Donkey Kong (the original one.......) we had
about 32Kb of ROM to store the code, and a couple of k's RAM to
handle things like sprites (remember them?).
I used to program the Z80 in machine code, on paper, taking care of
the number of clock cycles a particular instruction took and looking
to see if the same could be achieved using another instruction with a
couple less clock cycles.
That encourages tight code.
It students today learned how to program by
toggling switches,
maybe we'd have more people writing tight and efficient code. : )
Would the not be *light* and efficient code instead. In some ways
the OPERATE operation was what made the older computers have
good code density.
With the demise of FORTRAN and the rise of C and PASCAL/ALGOL
style languages you need more addressing modes like R+ and
B+R+# adressing where you have only two addressing modes mostly
Direct short and indirect. C9
Richard
2:43 p.m.
--- Richard Smith <richard.smith at mewgull.com> wrote:
about 32Kb of ROM to store the code, and a couple of
k's RAM to
handle things like sprites (remember them?).
Most people should. The Commie 64 had hardware
sprites. The Apple 2s...I don't really know. Maybe
with the addition of some krazee logic they did. Not
as stock I don't think.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
3:13 p.m.
about 32Kb of
ROM to store the code, and a couple of
k's RAM to
handle things like sprites (remember them?).
Most people should. The Commie 64 had hardware
sprites. The Apple 2s...I don't really know. Maybe
with the addition of some krazee logic they did. Not
as stock I don't think.
6413
days inactive
6414
days old
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
grant＠stockly.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
richard.smith＠mewgull.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org