16 Nov
2003
16 Nov
'03
1:18 p.m.
A lot of the talk here is about really BIG machines (fill a rack, or
two or three)
but how many of us like pocket sized machines? HP 41C?
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
http://library.hp41.org/LibView.cfm?Command=Download&ItemID=23212
Is anyone here a sometime member of PPC?
ron. (who's got one of his favorite toys back again)
16 Nov
16 Nov
1:21 p.m.
but how many of us like pocket sized machines? HP
41C?
I absolutely adore my 41C. That compu... er... calculator is a blast!!
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
http://library.hp41.org/LibView.cfm?Command=Download&ItemID=23212
I didn't
know there was an emulator out! Awesome!!
Jay
1:27 p.m.
by the way... the link you gave is for the Palm OS version of the 41C
emulator. There is a windows one (as well as others) up higher in the site
tree.
Jay
1:33 p.m.
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 09:21 PM, Jay West wrote:
oops... I forgot to say that this emulator runs on a Palm Pilot..
There are several, one runs under windows with a picture of a
41C, you click buttons with the mouse or hit keys on the keyboard
(hit N for enter because N is the alpha on the enter key)
There is one for DOS as well. Both of those should also be available
at hp41.org
but how many
of us like pocket sized machines? HP 41C?
I absolutely adore my 41C. That compu...
er... calculator is a blast!!
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
http://library.hp41.org/LibView.cfm?Command=Download&ItemID=23212
I didn't
know there was an emulator out! Awesome!!
Jay
2:28 p.m.
There's also as emulator that runs under windows (3.1 no less!). It's
been out for a long time. I don't know if it's been updated but it used to
have problems with anything other than a screen resolution of 640 x 480.
Any other resolution would trash all the digits on the keys and display.
Joe
At 09:21 PM 11/16/03 -0600, you wrote:
but how many
of us like pocket sized machines? HP 41C?
I absolutely adore my 41C. That compu...
er... calculator is a blast!!
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
http://library.hp41.org/LibView.cfm?Command=Download&ItemID=23212
I didn't
know there was an emulator out! Awesome!!
Jay
6:16 p.m.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 09:21:27PM -0600, Jay West wrote:
There is more than one, for instance there are[1] also two emulators that run
on Palm handhelds as well. Both sites www.hp41.org as well as www.hpmuseum.org
are rich resources for HP-41 machines, IMHO no need to open large threads on
it here.
Holger
[1] Well after Bernd Abel has withdrawn his one, there is only one left, search at
Palmgear.
but how many
of us like pocket sized machines? HP 41C?
I absolutely adore my 41C. That compu...
er... calculator is a blast!!
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
http://library.hp41.org/LibView.cfm?Command=Download&ItemID=23212
I didn't
know there was an emulator out! Awesome!! 
17 Nov
17 Nov
8:45 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 524 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/7994e2a4/at…
11:58 a.m.
At 10:45 PM 11/17/03 +0000, you wrote:
I am not sure if it's a calculator or computer :-). Considering it
handles text (the Extended Functions ROM or the 41CX have most of the
string functions you'd expect), proper I/O, and it's possible to program
it in machine language (admittedly you need a special RAM box (commonly
called an MLDL -- Machine Language Development Lab) to do so), I guess
it's a computer :-)
-tony
I agree. It has all the requirements. User input output, device I/O,
mass storage, programability, etc. And it's not limited to one function per
key as most calculators.
Joe
but how many of us like pocket sized machines?
HP 41C?
I absolutely adore my 41C. That compu... er... calculator is a blast!!
9:36 p.m.
New subject: Message for people new to the list
Is there some sort of welcome to the list message that people get when they
join the list?
I'm thinking this should include a bit on what the llist is, how to ask for
stuff, and what to include in any personal requests, like accurate contact
info etc.
18 Nov
18 Nov
7:57 a.m.
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 17:58, Joe wrote:
>I am not sure if it's a calculator or computer :-).
I agree. It has all the requirements. User input
output, device I/O,
mass storage, programability, etc. And it's not limited to one function per
key as most calculators.
But is it STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying code. vonNeumann
(one store for program and data; programs ARE data) or Harvard
(instructions are in a separate store from data memory) architecture?
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I don't
make that distinction when working with them.
"Programmability" isn't a measure of a 'stored program electronic
automatic computer'. My washing machine is programmable... :-)
8:06 a.m.
Tom Jennings wrote:
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT
COMPUTERS. Of course I don't
make that distinction when working with them.
I strongly disagree with any definition of "computer" that *requires*
the machine to have a von Neumann architecture. In fact, most people
do not even define computer to necessarily be of the stored program
variety, although I'm willing to accept such a definition.
The earliest PICs (eg. the NMOS PIC1654 from General Instruments in
the 1970s, and the CMOS PIC16C54 from Microchip in the 1980s) do have
a strict Harvard architecture. Program memory is in an entirely
separate address space from data memory, and they have no way for the
program to be able to read or write an arbitrary location in program
memory. Table lookup works because there is a way to do a branch to
a computed address (though it is limited to only a portion of the program
address space), and there is a single instruction that loads the
accumulator with a constant and returns (RETLW).
More recent PICs (late 1990s to present) have used a modified Harvard
architecture. They have added means for the program to read arbitrary
locations in program memory, and in flash memory based parts, to write
to program memory.
Eric
9:06 a.m.
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 14:06, Eric Smith wrote:
Tom Jennings wrote:
Oh I don't mean to be that insistent about it, especially in practical
terms, but it is the pivotal definition of computing machinery, the
machine that modifies itself, which is what makes it breathtakingly
unique. It's an important distinction to be ABLE to make, not
necessarily on objects we work with though, I agree.
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT
COMPUTERS. Of course I don't
make that distinction when working with them.
I strongly disagree with any definition of "computer" that *requires*
the machine to have a von Neumann architecture. In fact, most people
do not even define computer to necessarily be of the stored program
variety, although I'm willing to accept such a definition.
The earliest PICs (eg. the NMOS PIC1654 from General
Instruments in
the 1970s, and the CMOS PIC16C54 from Microchip in the 1980s) do have
a strict Harvard architecture. Program memory is in an entirely
separate address space from data memory, and they have no way for the
program to be able to read or write an arbitrary location in program
memory. Table lookup works because there is a way to do a branch to
a computed address (though it is limited to only a portion of the program
address space), and there is a single instruction that loads the
accumulator with a constant and returns (RETLW).
Yup. There's a little blurriness in the Microchip PICs, in that they
have a stack that contains return addresses, but some machines, like the
ancient Signetics 8x300, didnt. It had what appeared to be "subroutine
calls" but they were basically numbered jumps managed by the assembler,
and there were a limited number available.
I cannot recall the mechanism used, and would really like to know if
anyone recalls, how the assembler managed the "return" jump tables!
4:31 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Eric Smith wrote:
I don't even think it would be impossible to build a wide-purpose computer
around an AD SHARC DSP, even.
Peace... Sridhar
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I
don't make that distinction when working with them.
I strongly disagree with any definition of "computer" that *requires*
the machine to have a von Neumann architecture. In fact, most people do
not even define computer to necessarily be of the stored program
variety, although I'm willing to accept such a definition.
The earliest PICs (eg. the NMOS PIC1654 from General Instruments in the
1970s, and the CMOS PIC16C54 from Microchip in the 1980s) do have a
strict Harvard architecture. Program memory is in an entirely separate
address space from data memory, and they have no way for the program to
be able to read or write an arbitrary location in program memory.
Table lookup works because there is a way to do a branch to a computed
address (though it is limited to only a portion of the program address
space), and there is a single instruction that loads the accumulator
with a constant and returns (RETLW).
More recent PICs (late 1990s to present) have used a modified Harvard
architecture. They have added means for the program to read arbitrary
locations in program memory, and in flash memory based parts, to write
to program memory.
8:19 a.m.
Tom Jennings asks of the HP-41C calculator:
But is it STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying
code. vonNeumann
(one store for program and data; programs ARE data)
The "Nut" microprocessor used in the HP-41C family (and the HP-10C,
-11C, -12C, -15C, and -16C) uses a modified Harvard architecture. It's
an unusual case, in that the processor has an instruction to read program
memory, but it doesn't explicitly have an instruction to write program
memory. However, many opcodes are interpreted by the memory and I/O
devices rather than the processor, and one of those was designated to
write to program memory. None of the memory found in the base HP-41C
machines will respond to that opcode, but some third party products such
as the MLDL and HEPAX do.
The machine code of the HP-41C was not normally exposed to the HP customer.
Rather, the code in the ROM implements an interpreter for the user-level
instruction set, which PPC members nicknamed "Fourty-One CAlculator
Language", or FOCAL for short (not to be confused with the computer
programming language FOCAL commonly found on DEC machines).
The base HP-41C was not intended to allow user programs to read or modify
user programs. However, there are several ways in which this can be
accomplished in practice. Two of them are:
1) "Synthetic Programming" - taking advantage of bugs in the HP-41C
firmware to access memory locations containing program steps (or
internal working registers) as data, allowing program modification
as well as creating synthetic program lines which cannot normally
be entered from the keyboard in the usual manner.
Using the LB program in the PPC ROM, it becomes very easy for
one program to create another.
2) Using peripherals, such as the HP 82162A tape drive or HP 9114A/B
disk drive (either of which must be interfaced by the HP 82160A
HP-IL interface), and the HP 82183A Extended I/O ROM or the HP-IL
Development ROM, programs can directly read and write program files
stored on disc or tape.
I'm sure there are other ways to do this as well.
Eric
10:14 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1519 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031119/5cd6e4fe/at…
10:05 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1405 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031119/02afd18c/at…
4:41 p.m.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
Couldn't you make a harvard architecture machine that can modify its own
code? Like a doohickey that punches a card and inserts it into the deck
on the reader?
Peace... Sridhar
(one store for
program and data; programs ARE data) or Harvard
(instructions are in a separate store from data memory) architecture?
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I
don't
Since when? AFAIK, Harvard architecture machines are computers.
Self-modification of programs is not a requirement.
7:04 p.m.
Sridhar wrote:
Couldn't you make a harvard architecture machine
that can modify its own
code? Like a doohickey that punches a card and inserts it into the deck
on the reader?
If the program space can be read and/or written under program control,
but is not mapped into the normal data address space, it is often
referred to as "modified harvard architecture". It falls somewhere
between the strict Harvard and strict von Neumann architectures.
6:50 p.m.
But is it
STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying code. vonNeumann
It's a bit odd. It's got separate machine code program and data memories,
but user keystroke programs are stored in _data_ memory, and interpretted
by the machine-code operating system. So at the machine level it's a
Harvard architecture, but at the user level (taken the CPU + OS as a
pseudoprocessor that runs use keystroke programs) it's a von Neumann
machine. Hmmm...
It's certainly possible to write self-modifying user programs (you're not
supposed to be able to do this, but you can). If you have an MLDL box
(essential for writting machine code programs, since you can't run
machine code from data memory), then you can write self-modifying machine
code programs too.
(one store for program and data; programs ARE
data) or Harvard
(instructions are in a separate store from data memory) architecture?
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I don't
Since when? AFAIK, Harvard architecture machines are computers.
Self-modification of programs is not a requirement.
-tony 
7:32 p.m.
There are several architectures for computers, with
all being the
equal of the Turing machine.
That's interesting, because not one of the devices I have called
computers, used as computers, or heard/seen called computers, is even
theoretically equivalent to a Turing machine. In particular, they all
have finite storage.
Frankly, the Turing machine is the definition of a
computer,
I don't know where you got _that_, but it certainly doesn't match my
understanding, usage, or experience of others' ditto. As I remarked
above, there aren't any computers by that definition.
Nevertheless, for all systems of computation, there is
the
possibility of self-modification of code which is accessible through
other means, typically in the form of a file.
So I suppose a dedicated microcontroller (eg, code in mask-programmed
ROM) is not a "system of computation"?
Even if the application that's in ROM is, say, a pocket calculator?
A programmable pocket calculator?
The microcode-and-microcpu view of a CISC CPU chip?
Where do you draw the line?
Also, remember the features of some languages, like
APL, which will
operate on von Neumann and Harvard architectures, and which APL code
might include the execute operator, which facilitates run-time code
generation and execution.
In the sense of "code" for which the underlying CPU is a von Neumann or
Harvard machine, the execute operator does not necessarily imply
run-time code generation. (For example the APL engine may be a p-code
engine and the execute operator may generate p-code, which as far as
the underlying CPU is concerned is just more data. This returns to the
point above about where you pick the level at which you call some bits
data and other bits code.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
19 Nov
19 Nov
7:05 a.m.
There are
several architectures for computers, with all being the
equal of the Turing machine.
That's interesting, because not one of the devices I have called
computers, used as computers, or heard/seen called computers, is even
theoretically equivalent to a Turing machine. In particular, they all
have finite storage.
> Frankly, the Turing machine is the definition of a computer, I don't know where you got _that_, but it
certainly doesn't match my
understanding, usage, or experience of others' ditto. As I remarked
above, there aren't any computers by that definition.
This is a supposition on your part, not a position on my part. The fact is
that dedicated microcontrollers define a computing environment, and the
location of the code is immaterial.
Nevertheless, for all systems of computation,
there is the
possibility of self-modification of code which is accessible through
other means, typically in the form of a file.
So I suppose a dedicated microcontroller (eg, code in mask-programmed
ROM) is not a "system of computation"? Even if the application that's in ROM is, say, a
pocket calculator?
A programmable pocket calculator?
The microcode-and-microcpu view of a CISC CPU chip?
Where do you draw the line?
This is the value of the Turing machine. I encourage you, and like minded
list members, to consult your local computer science faculty of any
legitimate
university you like, and ask them if the computers they use are equivalents
of
the Turing machine. I seriously doubt that you will find a single professor
who
will deny the equivalence.
Also, remember
the features of some languages, like APL, which will
operate on von Neumann and Harvard architectures, and which APL code
might include the execute operator, which facilitates run-time code
generation and execution.
In the sense of "code" for which the underlying CPU is a von Neumann or
Harvard machine, the execute operator does not necessarily imply
run-time code generation. (For example the APL engine may be a p-code
engine and the execute operator may generate p-code, which as far as
the underlying CPU is concerned is just more data. This returns to the
point above about where you pick the level at which you call some bits
data and other bits code.)
In truth, there is no logical difference between a hardware based mechanism
of computational processing, and a software based mechanism of computational
processing. Each yields expectable results, and the underlying mechanism is
unimportant.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
William R. Buckley
7:50 a.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
From Daniel I. A. Cohen's book, Introduction To
Compuer Theory,
pp 788
>Definition. If a Turning Machine (TM) has the
property that for every
word
>it accepts, at the time it halts, it leaves one
solid string of a's and
b's on
>its Tape starting in cell i, we call it a computer.
The input string we
call
>the input (or, string of input numbers), and we
identify it as a sequence
>of nonnegative integers. The string left on the Tape we call the output
>and identify it also as a sequence of nonnegative integers.
The discussion continues,
"Now we finally know what a computer is. Those expensive boxes of
electronics sold as computers are only approximations to the real McCoy.
For one thing, they almost never come with an infinite memory like a true
TM."
William R. Buckley
2:23 p.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
William, you are completely contradicting yourself at this point. You
started out asserting that all computers are Turning machines, then you
quoted the source above which is saying that they really aren't, and
implying exactly what Tony Duell said a few messages ago, which is that
they aren't because they don't have infinite memory.
Thanks, but I'll pass on the salad bar of verbage that you are offering up
here.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
From Daniel I.
A. Cohen's book, Introduction To Compuer Theory,
pp 788
>Definition. If a Turning Machine (TM) has the
property that for every
word
>it accepts, at the time it halts, it leaves
one solid string of a's and
b's on
>its Tape starting in cell i, we call it a
computer. The input string we
call
>the input (or, string of input numbers), and
we identify it as a sequence
>of nonnegative integers. The string left on the Tape we call the output
>and identify it also as a sequence of nonnegative integers.
The discussion continues,
"Now we finally know what a computer is. Those expensive boxes of
electronics sold as computers are only approximations to the real McCoy.
For one thing, they almost never come with an infinite memory like a true
TM."
2:50 p.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
of a's
and
like a true
I did not contradict myself. I admit fully that the ideal TM has infinite
memory.
I also note that typical, contemporary computers are not exactly a TM. Yet,
they are computationally equivalent, and if you do not understand that
point,
then you do not understand the foundations of computer science.
Also, you must like the verbage, as you seem compelled to comment.
William R. Buckley
From
Daniel I. A. Cohen's book, Introduction To Compuer Theory,
pp 788
>Definition. If a Turning Machine (TM) has the
property that for every
word
>>it accepts, at the time it halts, it leaves one solid string b's on
>>its Tape starting in cell i, we call it a computer. The
input string we
call
>>the input (or, string of input numbers), and we identify it
as a sequence
>>of nonnegative integers. The string left
on the Tape we call
the output
>and
identify it also as a sequence of nonnegative integers.
The discussion continues,
"Now we finally know what a computer is. Those expensive boxes of
electronics sold as computers are only approximations to the real McCoy.
For one thing, they almost never come with an infinite memory TM."
William, you are completely contradicting yourself at this point. You
started out asserting that all computers are Turning machines, then you
quoted the source above which is saying that they really aren't, and
implying exactly what Tony Duell said a few messages ago, which is that
they aren't because they don't have infinite memory.
20 Nov
20 Nov
7:49 a.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1721 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031120/97436f74/at…
22 Nov
22 Nov
4:07 a.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
I did not contradict myself. I admit fully that the ideal TM has
infinite memory. I also note that typical, contemporary computers are
not exactly a TM. Yet, they are computationally equivalent, and if you
do not understand that point, then you do not understand the foundations
of computer science.
Yes, you are, since you first asserted that all computers are Turning
Machines.
First of all, a Turing "Machine" is conceptually just a program itself,
and if one looks at it that way then it is really just an algorithm.
Computers are capable of implementing a "Turning Machine", and Turing
Machines are capable of approximating what today we call a computer, but
to say all computers are just Turing Machines is disingenuous and
intellectually dishonest.
"Now we finally know what a computer is. Those
expensive boxes of
electronics sold as computers are only approximations to the real McCoy.
For one thing, they almost never come with an infinite memory
like a true
TM."
William, you are completely contradicting yourself at this point. You
started out asserting that all computers are Turning machines, then you
quoted the source above which is saying that they really aren't, and
implying exactly what Tony Duell said a few messages ago, which is that
they aren't because they don't have infinite memory.
Also, you must like the verbage, as you seem compelled
to comment.
I am compelled to comment because the verbage is lame.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
21 Nov
21 Nov
8:26 a.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
So what is a computer versus a caluclator, or a programmable controller?
Actually this is very simple, until you disagree with the definition and
insert religion...
A computer is a programmable computing system that can run pre-prepared
'software'.
A masked programmed microprocessor ~probably~ is not a computer (the
STAMP is clearly
an exception here).
A programmable calculator generally is ~not~ a computer, although
advanced ones with
mass storage and off-the shelf applications programs clearly IS a computer.
So is the fuel injection processor chip in your car a computer? Clearly
not.
How about a HP-41? Clearly this meets the above definition, as it has
applications programs
available.
Ok, what about a HP-33? Hmm, probably a programmable calculator, by the
above definition.
What about a PLC (programmable logic controller)? Clearly not a
computer, no software as
such, and its not primarily a computational device, its really just a
fancy state machine.
While any definition will leave some grey areas, this definition seems a
bit clearer than most.
12:04 p.m.
New subject: The computer: a definition.
On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 04:26 PM, Bob Shannon wrote:
So what is a computer versus a caluclator, or a
programmable
controller?
Actually this is very simple, until you disagree with the definition
and insert religion...
A computer is a programmable computing system that can run
pre-prepared 'software'.
A masked programmed microprocessor ~probably~ is not a computer (the
STAMP is clearly
an exception here).
A programmable calculator generally is ~not~ a computer, although
advanced ones with
mass storage and off-the shelf applications programs clearly IS a
computer.
So is the fuel injection processor chip in your car a computer?
Clearly not.
How about a HP-41? Clearly this meets the above definition, as it has
applications programs
available.
Ok, what about a HP-33? Hmm, probably a programmable calculator, by
the above definition.
If you did not think the HP35 had "off the shelf" programs written for
it (only amateur program)
then it is a programmable calculator, but If you suddenly located a
package for sale that provided
some sort of solution, then it suddenly becomes a computer?
What If I wire wrap a 6502 with some memory and a serial port, put a
monitor in ROM and proceed to
single handedly and as an amateur write an OS, a C compiler, A
database. now say I will never
sell the "device" or the "software". Is it a computer, or is it
something else?
What about a PLC (programmable logic controller)? Clearly not a
computer, no software as
such, and its not primarily a computational device, its really just a
fancy state machine.
While any definition will leave some grey areas, this definition seems
a bit clearer than most.
19 Nov
19 Nov
6:41 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1779 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031119/917814b4/at…
7:21 a.m.
There are
several architectures for computers, with all being the equal
of the Turing machine. Frankly, the Turing machine is the definition of
Odd... None of my computers have enough memory to be equivalent to a
Turing Machine, and I am pretty sure none of yours do either...
The writing of self-modifying code (a specialty
for me) does
require that
the data path have access to the code store, and
not all processors
The Turing machine only allows modification of the 'data memory' (tape),
not the 'program memory' (state transition table). Of course you can make the latter act as an interpetter for instructions
stored on the former,
but if you allow that, then just about any processor that has any write
access to memory allows self-modifying programs (it would, for example,
Exactly, and thus the distinction between environments is distracting.
be possible to write an interpretter in Forty-One
CAlculator Language
that interpretted numbers stored in the user data registers as a program
in some new language. Since FOCAL programs can edit the contents of data
registers, it would then be possible to write self-modifying programs in
this new language. Of course it would be really slow, but it's still
possible.) I've written PIC programs that interpret the contents of the
EEPROM memory (on a 16C84, shows how long ago it was) as a set of
instructions to do things like toggle I/O lines, jump to a new location
in the EEPROM, modify 'registers' stored in the PICs data memory, etc.
The result wasn't a turing-complete language by any means, but it was a
sort-of programming language, and it did allow (at least in principle)
self-modifying code. The PIC itself is Harvard architacture, and the
machine code program (the interpreter) could not be modified while
running, but the 'user program' could.
-tony
William R. Buckley
5:32 a.m.
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 16:05, Tony Duell wrote:
yes this occurred to me also, the Parallax BASIC STAMPs do the same
thing. It doesn't matter of course in most practical realms, this
stored-program distinction.
Well, for rigor, I reserve "computer" for the stored-program machines,
but this is approaching religious behavior, I admit, and clearly a PIC
with an interpreter suuuure acts like one... :-)
But is it
STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying code. vonNeumann
It's a bit odd. It's got separate machine code program and data memories,
but user keystroke programs are stored in _data_ memory, and interpretted
by the machine-code operating system.
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I don't
Since when? AFAIK, Harvard architecture machines are computers.
Self-modification of programs is not a requirement.
7:13 a.m.
> But is it
STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying code.
vonNeumann
It's a bit odd. It's got separate machine code program and data
memories,
but user keystroke programs are stored in _data_
memory, and
interpretted
by the machine-code operating system.
yes this occurred to me also, the Parallax BASIC STAMPs do the same
thing. It doesn't matter of course in most practical realms, this
stored-program distinction.
> Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are
NOT COMPUTERS. Of
course I don't
Since when? AFAIK, Harvard architecture machines are computers.
Self-modification of programs is not a requirement.
Well, for rigor, I reserve "computer" for the stored-program machines,
but this is approaching religious behavior, I admit, and clearly a PIC
with an interpreter suuuure acts like one... :-)
2:17 p.m.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
Moreover, there is the _analog computer_ with
programming very
similar to the unit record equipment, and such machines have always
been known as computers.
Hardly. That's like saying French and Spanish are the same language
because they share a common character set. They are computers in a wholly
different sense of the word and have nothing at all to do with a Turing
Machine, and thereby this discussion has suddenly drifted off into bizarre
and meaningless abstracts.
The important point for computation is closure, and
Turing is the
ideal model. It is not efficient, it is not pretty but, all systems that
exhibit computational closure are Turing machine equivalents, and
this is the foundation of computer science.
Including analog computers and unit record equipment?
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
2:35 p.m.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Vintage Computer
Festival wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
What does "closure" mean?
Moreover, there is the _analog computer_ with
programming very
similar to the unit record equipment, and such machines have always
been known as computers.
Hardly. That's like saying French and Spanish are the same language
because they share a common character set. They are computers in a
wholly
different sense of the word and have nothing at all to do with a Turing
Machine, and thereby this discussion has suddenly drifted off into
bizarre
and meaningless abstracts.
> The important point for computation is closure, and Turing is the ideal model.
It is not efficient, it is not pretty but, all systems
that
exhibit computational closure are Turing machine equivalents, and
this is the foundation of computer science.
Including analog computers and unit record equipment?
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer
Festival
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage
Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at
http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
3:14 p.m.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Vintage
Computer
Festival wrote:
A good example of closure comes from elementary arithmetic. It is known
that
the sum of two integers is also an integer. This feature of mathematics is
known
an closure, and the specific example is, Addition is Closed for the
Integers. It is
also true that Addition is Closed for the Real Numbers.
In the case of Turing closure, the notion is much broader. Turing closure
refers
to the ability of a system to perform any and all computations that can be
expressed. Now, there are problems with this notion, since Godel has shown
that some expressible computations in fact can not be computed. Still, the
general notion is: all that can be computed is computable upon a TM, and a
TM
is capable of computing all computations.
The real key to understanding the theory of computation is to understand the
works of the mathematician David Hilbert, the logicians Kurt Godel, Alonzo
Church, Stephen Cole Kleene, and Emil Post, the linguist Noam Chomsky,
and the mathematician Alan Mathison Turing.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
What does "closure" mean? Moreover, there is the _analog computer_ with
programming very
similar to the unit record equipment, and such machines have always
been known as computers.
Hardly. That's like saying French and Spanish are the same language
because they share a common character set. They are computers in a
wholly
different sense of the word and have nothing at all to do with a Turing
Machine, and thereby this discussion has suddenly drifted off into
bizarre
and meaningless abstracts.
> The important point for computation is closure, and Turing is the >> ideal model. It is not efficient, it is not
pretty but, all systems
>> that
>> exhibit computational closure are Turing machine equivalents, and
>> this is the foundation of computer science.
>
> Including analog computers and unit record equipment?
William R. Buckley
20 Nov
20 Nov
5:53 a.m.
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 21:14, William R. Buckley wrote:
In the case of Turing closure, the notion is much
broader. Turing closure
refers
to the ability of a system to perform any and all computations that can be
expressed. Now, there are problems with this notion, since Godel has shown
that some expressible computations in fact can not be computed. Still, the
general notion is: all that can be computed is computable upon a TM, and a
TM
is capable of computing all computations.
Yes, this is correct, and close to what turing wrote in the '36 paper.
The real key to understanding the theory of
computation is to understand the
works of the mathematician David Hilbert, the logicians Kurt Godel, Alonzo
Church, Stephen Cole Kleene, and Emil Post, the linguist Noam Chomsky,
and the mathematician Alan Mathison Turing.
Eh, it's not that hard. Machine modifies it's own program. What's the
big deal? :-)
7:52 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 726 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031120/fc5ab3be/at…
19 Nov
19 Nov
2:50 p.m.
Sellam:
Both systems, analog computers and unit record equipment use plug boards
for programming. It may even be that the plug board as a physical item does
not exist, in which case the analog computer is programmed by a means of
wires hanging all about. For both cases, the mechanism of programming is
identical. The point is the means of programming.
Yes, from a mathematical point of view, computational closure is there,
in stored program computers, analog computers, and the processes of
using unit record equipment.
William R. Buckley
Moreover,
there is the _analog computer_ with programming very
similar to the unit record equipment, and such machines have always
been known as computers.
Hardly. That's like saying French and Spanish are the same language
because they share a common character set. They are computers in a wholly
different sense of the word and have nothing at all to do with a Turing
Machine, and thereby this discussion has suddenly drifted off into bizarre
and meaningless abstracts. The important
point for computation is closure, and Turing is the
ideal model. It is not efficient, it is not pretty but, all
systems that
exhibit computational closure are Turing machine
equivalents, and
this is the foundation of computer science.
Including analog computers and unit record equipment?
20 Nov
20 Nov
1:31 a.m.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, William R. Buckley wrote:
Both systems, analog computers and unit record equipment use plug boards
for programming. It may even be that the plug board as a physical item does
not exist, in which case the analog computer is programmed by a means of
wires hanging all about. For both cases, the mechanism of programming is
identical. The point is the means of programming.
You're missing the point, which is that your analogy is invalid. They may
use the same manner of "programming", but the way they "compute" are
two
entirely different things, and that is what is relevant here.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Moreover, there is the _analog computer_ with
programming very
similar to the unit record equipment, and such machines have always
been known as computers.
Hardly. That's like saying French and Spanish are the same language
because they share a common character set. They are computers in a wholly
different sense of the word and have nothing at all to do with a Turing
Machine, and thereby this discussion has suddenly drifted off into bizarre
and meaningless abstracts.
18 Nov
18 Nov
11:21 a.m.
At 01:49 PM 11/18/03 -0800, you wrote:
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 17:58, Joe wrote:
Yes.
vonNeumann
>I am not sure if it's a calculator or computer :-).
I agree. It has all the requirements. User
input output, device I/O,
mass storage, programability, etc. And it's not limited to one function per
key as most calculators.
But is it STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying code. (one store for program and data; programs ARE data) or
Harvard
(instructions are in a separate store from data memory) architecture?
It uses one memory area but there is a curtain that partitions it into
separate data and program areas. But you can access either area and/or move
the curtain on the fly by using synthetic programming techniques.
Joe
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I don't
make that distinction when working with them.
"Programmability" isn't a measure of a 'stored program electronic
automatic computer'. My washing machine is programmable... :-)
1:16 p.m.
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 03:49 PM, Tom Jennings wrote:
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 17:58, Joe wrote:
The HP41 is a harvard architechture normally, but with Synthetic
programming
the "curtain" can be moved and data becomes program.
> I am not sure if it's a calculator or computer :-).
I agree. It has all the requirements. User
input output, device
I/O,
mass storage, programability, etc. And it's not limited to one
function per
key as most calculators.
But is it STORED PROGRAM, eg. can it do self-modifying code. vonNeumann
(one store for program and data; programs ARE data) or Harvard
(instructions are in a separate store from data memory) architecture?
Strictly-speaking, Microchip's PICs are NOT COMPUTERS. Of course I
don't
make that distinction when working with them.
"Programmability" isn't a measure of a 'stored program electronic
automatic computer'. My washing machine is programmable... :-)
16 Nov
16 Nov
1:30 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 838 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/fcb7e023/at…
6:18 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:30:12AM +0000, Tony Duell wrote:
<aol>
me too
</aol>
As you surely know from the HP museum forum, there is support for HPIL through
the PC HP-IL card (which is ISA unfortunately), but I do agree for HP-IL,
the original system is still the first choice.
Holger
but how many
of us like pocket sized machines? HP 41C?
\begin{rpf}
ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\end{rpf}
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
The emulators are useless to me, because they don't include HPIL (I don't
mean they don't emulate an HPIL module, say with a printer, mass storage
device and RS232 interface, but they don't emulate HPIL so you can't link
the emulator to a 3421 logger, or a 82165 GPIO, or...)
11:47 p.m.
At 09:18 AM 11/17/03 +0100, you wrote:
As you surely know from the HP museum forum, there is support for HPIL
through
the PC HP-IL card (which is ISA unfortunately),
Except that it doesn't have the low level commands that are available
with the calculator versions. One of the problems with it was that you need
a slow computer to run it. I've had a lot of people contact me looking for
source code or intenal documentaion for it so that they could rewrite the
drivers to get around the speed problem and/or to run it under Linux. Does
anyone know if they've ever had any success?
but I do agree for HP-IL,
the original system is still the first choice.
The HP-71 is probably the best IL controller ever made but I just didn't
warm up to it they way that I did the HP-41.
Joe
Holger
17 Nov
17 Nov
2:58 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:47:10AM -0500, Joe wrote:
At 09:18 AM 11/17/03 +0100, you wrote:
Huh? This card does have the orignal and plain HP-IL chip that has also been
built into the 82160 HP41 HP-IL module and the 82166 IL converter, so it *can*
do pretty much exactly the same as the HP-41 (with EXTIO or HPILDEV module,
of course). Noone really needs to rely on a lousy DOS driver that provides
almost no funcitonality.
As you surely know from the HP museum forum, there is support for HPIL
through
the PC HP-IL card (which is ISA unfortunately),
Except that it doesn't have the low level commands that are available
with the calculator versions. One of the problems
with it was that you need
a slow computer to run it. I've had a lot of people contact me looking for
This infact is a real problem with this stone-old card (which is why I said
"ISA unfortunately").
source code or intenal documentaion for it so that
they could rewrite the
drivers to get around the speed problem and/or to run it under Linux. Does
anyone know if they've ever had any success?
The docs on this chip and programming specs and IL docs were at www.hp41.org
the last time I looked there. So it is basically a matter of finding out the
IO addresses that the board uses. IDA is your friend on such a small driver.
but I do agree for HP-IL,
As I said, they all used the same hardware when it comes to the IL chip; it
was just that a barebone HP-41 with IL module didn't provide complete
access to the hardware (not even to reprogram the IL converter registers).
Eventually I opened the 82160 case and soldered the PCB of an EXTIO module
into it, and got everything I needed.
Holger
the original system is still the first choice.
The HP-71 is probably the best IL controller ever made but I just didn't
warm up to it they way that I did the HP-41.
9:29 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2538 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/c2552f01/at…
9:17 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2146 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/2558f65a/at…
9:06 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 961 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/b3a6dd74/at…
16 Nov
16 Nov
2:25 p.m.
At 09:18 PM 11/16/03 -0600, you wrote:
A lot of the talk here is about really BIG machines
(fill a rack, or
two or three)
but how many of us like pocket sized machines? HP 41C?
I prefer the 41CX but I'll take any of the 41s! ILOVE that calculator.
I've had EVERY peripheral that HP offered for them and a LOT of the
aftermarket ones. I also collected the all the ROMs for them including the
custom made ones. I had the only (Nuclear) Weapon Effects ROM outside of
the military (see <http://www.classiccmp.org/hp/we/> and a pair of the
Military Engineering ROMs. Other than those, the coolest ROM that I had
was the Astro ROM. It's a special surveying ROM that lets you take
extremely accurate readings and/or over extremely long distances. I sold it
to a group that is re-surveying the Valley of the Kings in Egypt. Believe
it or not there are no accurate surveys of the place and they've even
managed to lose a few tombs due to the poor maps of the area.
I just found a wonderful emulator for the 41C!
http://library.hp41.org/LibView.cfm?Command=Download&ItemID=23212
Is anyone here a sometime member of PPC?
Yeap (#12114 IIRC) and it's short lived successor HPPC (IIRC). I was
still active in the HP user's group up till a couple of years ago. They
still had a big international meetings once a year. In fact, I was given my
HP-49 at the meeting in Portland a few years ago. I got the 2nd one outside
of HP (Richard Nelson got the first one). HP sponsored the meeting and used
it to announce the HP-49. They gave everyone there a free HP-49. These were
THE first HP-49s in the US. They (HP) had flown them in just the night
before for this occasion. The last meeting that I heard of was in Chicago
just a couple of days after 9/11. I haven't heard if that had any meetings
after that.
Joe
ron. (who's got one of his favorite toys back again)
3:25 p.m.
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Joe wrote:
I was a member too - but I have long forgotten my number.
I had the only (Nuclear) Weapon Effects ROM outside
of
the military
Pretty cool, it's not classified??
(see <http://www.classiccmp.org/hp/we/> and a
pair of the
Military Engineering ROMs. Other than those, the coolest ROM that I
had
was the Astro ROM. It's a special surveying ROM that lets you take
extremely accurate readings and/or over extremely long distances. I
sold it
to a group that is re-surveying the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.
Believe
it or not there are no accurate surveys of the place and they've even
managed to lose a few tombs due to the poor maps of the area.
Has anyone a copy of my :Labrinth: program? I think it needed the PPC
rom
and the first prompt asked for the name of the "Dungeon?" (it used the
name to create some constants.. these were combined with the xyz
location
of the player to actually display doors/walls/arches All the stairs are
at 0,0 IIRC.
Is anyone here
a sometime member of PPC?
Yeap (#12114 IIRC) and it's short lived successor HPPC (IIRC). I was
Wasn't that CHUU? HPPC I think, is alive and well and meeting in the UK.
still active in the HP user's group up till a
couple of years ago.
They gave everyone there a free HP-49.
Nice..
11:40 p.m.
At 11:25 PM 11/16/03 -0600, you wrote:
Was it in the PPC ROM manual? If so I have it. I wasn't into games so
I'm not sure.
I was a member too - but I have long forgotten my number.
I think you're right. As you said, it's been a lot of years!
It was. It's an incredible machine but the documentation for it
really bites! The 49 would have been a best seller if they'd had even fair
documentation. They should have hired someone like Richard Nelson or some
of the old PPC bunch and wrote something like the PPC ROM manual go with
the ROM.
BTW does anyone here know much about the PPC ROM 2? I had one (in
EPROM) but don't know much about it. Also had some others that I couldn't
find much about such as an Assembler ROM. It might have been named "David's
Assembler". Or maybe that was two different ROMs, I just don't remember
any more.
Joe
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Joe wrote:
Not that I know of. It's just very tightly controlled. It's frightening
to punch in some numbers and look at the effects (blast effects, crater
sizes, dosage, fallout rates, mortality rates, etc) of different type/size
weapons.
I had the only (Nuclear) Weapon Effects ROM
outside of
the military
Pretty cool, it's not classified?? (see <http://www.classiccmp.org/hp/we/>
and a pair of the
Military Engineering ROMs. Other than those, the coolest ROM that I
had
was the Astro ROM. It's a special surveying ROM that lets you take
extremely accurate readings and/or over extremely long distances. I
sold it
to a group that is re-surveying the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.
Believe
it or not there are no accurate surveys of the place and they've even
managed to lose a few tombs due to the poor maps of the area.
Has anyone a copy of my :Labrinth: program? I think it needed the PPC
rom
and the first prompt asked for the name of the "Dungeon?" (it used the
name to create some constants.. these were combined with the xyz
location
of the player to actually display doors/walls/arches All the stairs are
at 0,0 IIRC. Is anyone
here a sometime member of PPC?
Yeap (#12114 IIRC) and it's short lived successor HPPC (IIRC). I
was
Wasn't that CHUU? HPPC I think, is alive and well and meeting in the UK. still active in the HP user's group up till a
couple of years ago.
They gave everyone there a free HP-49.
Nice..
17 Nov
17 Nov
12:33 p.m.
At 08:40 AM 11/17/03 -0500, Joe wrote:
At 11:25 PM 11/16/03 -0600, you wrote:
Back in the late 70's I was writing some games on the first Atari 400 for
Programma International, and the guy that was the big hot shot on the PET
wrote the first generation of bomb blast software for the HP45 (I think 45,
maybe it was 65 or something). Strange guy, he worked on I think an Apple
II for a year in south america without a monitor, just using beeps etc to
test his code.
I don't think people outside of the top military realize just how close
nuclear war was during this period.
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Joe wrote:
Not that I know of. It's just very tightly controlled. It's frightening
to punch in some numbers and look at the effects (blast effects, crater
sizes, dosage, fallout rates, mortality rates, etc) of different type/size
weapons. I had the only (Nuclear) Weapon Effects ROM
outside of
the military
Pretty cool, it's not classified??
9:02 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 799 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/e980fe7a/at…
19 Nov
19 Nov
9:16 a.m.
At 11:25 PM 11/16/03 -0600, you wrote:
Was it in the PPC ROM manual? If so I have it. I wasn't into games so
I'm not sure.
I was a member too - but I have long forgotten my number.
I think you're right. As you said, it's been a lot of years!
It was. It's an incredible machine but the documentation for it
really bites! The 49 would have been a best seller if they'd had even fair
documentation. They should have hired someone like Richard Nelson or some
of the old PPC bunch and wrote something like the PPC ROM manual go with
the ROM.
BTW does anyone here know much about the PPC ROM 2? I had one (in
EPROM) but don't know much about it. Also had some others that I couldn't
find much about such as an Assembler ROM. It might have been named "David's
Assembler". Or maybe that was two different ROMs, I just don't remember
any more.
Joe
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Joe wrote:
Not that I know of. It's just very tightly controlled. It's frightening
to punch in some numbers and look at the effects (blast effects, crater
sizes, dosage, fallout rates, mortality rates, etc) of different type/size
weapons.
I had the only (Nuclear) Weapon Effects ROM
outside of
the military
Pretty cool, it's not classified?? (see <http://www.classiccmp.org/hp/we/>
and a pair of the
Military Engineering ROMs. Other than those, the coolest ROM that I
had
was the Astro ROM. It's a special surveying ROM that lets you take
extremely accurate readings and/or over extremely long distances. I
sold it
to a group that is re-surveying the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.
Believe
it or not there are no accurate surveys of the place and they've even
managed to lose a few tombs due to the poor maps of the area.
Has anyone a copy of my :Labrinth: program? I think it needed the PPC
rom
and the first prompt asked for the name of the "Dungeon?" (it used the
name to create some constants.. these were combined with the xyz
location
of the player to actually display doors/walls/arches All the stairs are
at 0,0 IIRC. Is anyone
here a sometime member of PPC?
Yeap (#12114 IIRC) and it's short lived successor HPPC (IIRC). I
was
Wasn't that CHUU? HPPC I think, is alive and well and meeting in the UK. still active in the HP user's group up till a
couple of years ago.
They gave everyone there a free HP-49.
Nice..
9:58 a.m.
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 15:16, Joe wrote:
Umm, it's just dynamical calcs, same as dynamite; a nice circular slide
rule came with the EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS book. All that's unique to
explosive driven metal systems (my favorite WWII euphemism; google it;
first hit :-) is fallout issues (sic), any calcs in that direction are
pure fantasy anyhoo.
Bomb porn, is what this is. My friend Edgar & I found those crater calc
porn magcards for HP calculators in Los Alamos, once. I'm sure he still
has them.
tomj
Was it in the PPC ROM manual? If so I have it. I wasn't into games so
I'm not sure.
I was a member too - but I have long forgotten my number.
I think you're right. As you said, it's been a lot of years!
It was. It's an incredible machine but the documentation for it
really bites! The 49 would have been a best seller if they'd had even fair
documentation. They should have hired someone like Richard Nelson or some
of the old PPC bunch and wrote something like the PPC ROM manual go with
the ROM.
BTW does anyone here know much about the PPC ROM 2? I had one (in
EPROM) but don't know much about it. Also had some others that I couldn't
find much about such as an Assembler ROM. It might have been named "David's
Assembler". Or maybe that was two different ROMs, I just don't remember
any more.
Joe
On Sunday,
November 16, 2003, at 10:25 PM, Joe wrote:
Not that I know of. It's just very tightly controlled. It's frightening
to punch in some numbers and look at the effects (blast effects, crater
sizes, dosage, fallout rates, mortality rates, etc) of different type/size
weapons.
I had the only (Nuclear) Weapon Effects ROM
outside of
the military
Pretty cool, it's not classified?? (see <http://www.classiccmp.org/hp/we/>
and a pair of the
Military Engineering ROMs. Other than those, the coolest ROM that I
had
was the Astro ROM. It's a special surveying ROM that lets you take
extremely accurate readings and/or over extremely long distances. I
sold it
to a group that is re-surveying the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.
Believe
it or not there are no accurate surveys of the place and they've even
managed to lose a few tombs due to the poor maps of the area.
Has anyone a copy of my :Labrinth: program? I think it needed the PPC
rom
and the first prompt asked for the name of the "Dungeon?" (it used the
name to create some constants.. these were combined with the xyz
location
of the player to actually display doors/walls/arches All the stairs are
at 0,0 IIRC. Is anyone
here a sometime member of PPC?
Yeap (#12114 IIRC) and it's short lived successor HPPC (IIRC). I
was
Wasn't that CHUU? HPPC I think, is alive and well and meeting in the UK. still active in the HP user's group up till a
couple of years ago.
They gave everyone there a free HP-49.
Nice..
12:16 p.m.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Tom Jennings wrote:
>
> BTW does anyone here know much about the PPC ROM 2?
There was a PPC Rom 2? I know that because of economies of scale
everyone who ordered a PPC rom acatually got 2 (two manuals too,
tow quick references too) That's not what your thinking of is it?
12:41 p.m.
At 08:16 PM 11/19/03 -0600, you wrote:
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Tom Jennings wrote:
No, it's a different ROM entirely.
Joe
>
> BTW does anyone here know much about the PPC ROM 2?
There was a PPC Rom 2? I know that because of economies of scale
everyone who ordered a PPC rom acatually got 2 (two manuals too,
tow quick references too) That's not what your thinking of is it?
11:10 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1359 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031120/5bbad1f9/at…
12:13 p.m.
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 05:16 PM, Joe wrote:
> Has anyone a copy of my :Labrinth: program? I
think it needed the PPC
> rom
Was it in the PPC ROM manual? If so I have it. I
wasn't into games
so
I'm not sure.
no, it was separate. I shared it with several people but unless they
also shared it it's probably lost.
12:41 p.m.
At 08:13 PM 11/19/03 -0600, you wrote:
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 05:16 PM, Joe wrote:
You should post this question on the HP Calculator Museum website.
Somebody there is bound to have it.
Joe
> Has anyone a copy of my :Labrinth: program? I
think it needed the PPC
> rom
Was it in the PPC ROM manual? If so I have it.
I wasn't into games
so
I'm not sure.
no, it was separate. I shared it with several people but unless they
also shared it it's probably lost.
17 Nov
17 Nov
8:58 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2282 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/6d171c8c/at…
12:40 p.m.
At 08:11 PM 11/17/03 -0600, you wrote:
On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 04:58 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
Yeap, they have the typical HP tape/mag card drive wheel problem.
Joe
The 2 41s I use most of the time are a 41CV with
extended functions,
extended I/O, HPIL and card reader,
How's the drive wheel in that card reader, I hear they are turning to
goo... :^(
2:51 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 729 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031118/ba032847/at…
7:01 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:51:01AM +0000, Tony Duell wrote:
[...]
There's a myth that 41 card readers are hard to
reassemble. I am not sure
where this comes from, I've never had any problems getting the little
plastic catches in place...
Nor did I. It is difficult when the reader was not correctly unassembled.
I have seen one which was opened without having removed all the screws
under the posts before - somehow this damn thing must be openable - I suppose that
person applied a tin can opener :-(
Holger
16 Nov
16 Nov
7:34 p.m.
On 2003.11.17 04:18 Ron Hudson wrote:
but how many of us like pocket sized machines? HP
41C?
I spend a lot of money to by the then current HP48SX when I was in
school. An expense that I never will regret. Some time ago I got a
HP41CV with card reader, printer and TV modulator. What a wonderful
machine. I love it. 20 years old, heavily used by the previous owner and
still well working.
When I saw the HP49 for the first time I was shocked. A cheap plastic
thing with rubber keyboard that looks like a TV remote control.
Disgusting.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
9:25 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:34:39AM +0100, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On 2003.11.17 04:18 Ron Hudson wrote:
Yes, the problem the new HP-Compaq people have with these machines is
that they were so high quality that they never needed to be replaced
by more recent models - they just didn't become defective.
Meanwhile, though, HPQ has this obvious quality problem under control.
but how many of us like pocket sized machines?
HP 41C?
I spend a lot of money to by the then current HP48SX when I was in
school. An expense that I never will regret. Some time ago I got a
HP41CV with card reader, printer and TV modulator. What a wonderful
machine. I love it. 20 years old, heavily used by the previous owner and
still well working. When I saw the HP49 for the first time I was shocked.
A cheap plastic
thing with rubber keyboard that looks like a TV remote control.
Disgusting.
This becomes off topic, but you should have a look at the upcoming new
HP33 (not!).
Holger
11:57 p.m.
At 10:34 AM 11/17/03 +0100, Jochen wrote:
On 2003.11.17 04:18 Ron Hudson wrote:
You're right! It's too bad they didn't take the time to read the HP
Journal articles about the developement of the HP-35 (and others) that
explained how and why they spent a lot of time designing the calculator and
it's keyboard for the best feel and usability. Apparently they still
haven't read them!
Joe
but how many of us like pocket sized machines?
HP 41C?
I spend a lot of money to by the then current HP48SX when I was in
school. An expense that I never will regret. Some time ago I got a
HP41CV with card reader, printer and TV modulator. What a wonderful
machine. I love it. 20 years old, heavily used by the previous owner and
still well working.
When I saw the HP49 for the first time I was shocked. A cheap plastic
thing with rubber keyboard that looks like a TV remote control.
17 Nov
17 Nov
1:32 a.m.
On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 07:57 AM, Joe wrote:
At 10:34 AM 11/17/03 +0100, Jochen wrote:
Well that's another point at which they emulators fail, they don't have
the
nice HP keyboard.
hmm, I wonder if I could create a plastic face for my pilot
that held spring loaded keys that just poked the screen when I pressed
them.
They still wouldn't be the same.
I just searched for "HP41 Wiki" on google, I found a later HP
calculator wiki
but for 41/71/75 class machines they refer to the hp museum.
On 2003.11.17 04:18 Ron Hudson wrote:
You're right! It's too bad they didn't take the time to read the HP
Journal articles about the developement of the HP-35 (and others) that
explained how and why they spent a lot of time designing the
calculator and
it's keyboard for the best feel and usability. Apparently they still but how many of us like pocket sized machines?
HP 41C?
I spend a lot of money to by the then current HP48SX when I was in
school. An expense that I never will regret. Some time ago I got a
HP41CV with card reader, printer and TV modulator. What a wonderful
machine. I love it. 20 years old, heavily used by the previous owner
and
still well working.
When I saw the HP49 for the first time I was shocked. A cheap plastic
thing with rubber keyboard that looks like a TV remote control. haven't read them!
Joe
3:03 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:32:32AM -0600, Ron Hudson wrote:
I once had the wild idea to obtain a defective calculator and replace
the PCBs with a new one, for instance with an ATMEGA on it that provides
a complete emulation of the original machine. This would probably not
just mean a double speed HP-41, but a much faster beast, with the original
look&feel.
Besides that even defective HPs meanwhile sell like hell, I am just
lacking enough time for such a project :-(
Holger
calculator
and
it's keyboard for the best feel and usability. Apparently they still
Well that's another point at which they emulators fail, they don't have
the
nice HP keyboard.
hmm, I wonder if I could create a plastic face for my pilot
that held spring loaded keys that just poked the screen when I pressed
them.
They still wouldn't be the same.
4:26 a.m.
On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Holger Veit wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:32:32AM -0600, Ron Hudson
wrote:
I once had the wild idea to obtain a defective calculator and replace
the PCBs with a new one, for instance with an ATMEGA on it that
provides
a complete emulation of the original machine. This would probably not
just mean a double speed HP-41, but a much faster beast, with the
original
look&feel.
Besides that even defective HPs meanwhile sell like hell, I am just
lacking enough time for such a project :-(
Holger
Replacing the insides of a 41 would be some feat for the home hobbyist..
I see a ribbon cable leading to a heavy black box on the floor... :^)
calculator and
it's keyboard for the best feel and usability. Apparently they still
Well that's another point at which they emulators fail, they don't
have
the
nice HP keyboard.
hmm, I wonder if I could create a plastic face for my pilot
that held spring loaded keys that just poked the screen when I pressed
them.
They still wouldn't be the same.
9:34 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 698 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031117/1b05e392/at…
6:56 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 12:26:48PM -0600, Ron Hudson wrote:
This is a mailinglist where people still know about SSI TTL and maybe
even vacuum tubes to be used in computers, but this doesn't mean that
such a hardware emulation would have to be built up with tons of SN7400s :-)
The HP41 is rather moderate in speed, with a clock of 300kHz and an
instruction cycle length of 56 bits, so it is no problem at all to
write a precise emulator with one or two modern microcontrollers
(you wouldn't just take the lowest level choice like a PIC which is
too inferior for this, but maybe a 16 bit controller like an MSP 430).
Interfacing to the existing hardware might be tricky, but, heck, HP's
engineers managed to do this more than 20 years ago as well, without
GHz processor technology.
Holger
On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Holger
Veit wrote:
[...]
I once had the
wild idea to obtain a defective calculator and replace
the PCBs with a new one, for instance with an ATMEGA on it that
provides
a complete emulation of the original machine. This would probably not
just mean a double speed HP-41, but a much faster beast, with the
original
look&feel.
Besides that even defective HPs meanwhile sell like hell, I am just
lacking enough time for such a project :-(
Holger
Replacing the insides of a 41 would be some feat for the home hobbyist..
I see a ribbon cable leading to a heavy black box on the floor... :^) 
8:35 p.m.
New subject: Recent addition : Lobo MAX-80
Just added two Lobo MAX-80 systems to the collection!
http://oldcomputers.net/lobomax80.html
Don't have any real Lobo drives, will try a TRS-80
drive to see if I can get them working.
I think it will load my Osborne CP/M disk? Will see...
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
18 Nov
18 Nov
2:09 a.m.
New subject: Recent addition : Lobo MAX-80
Just a heads up; the built-in NiCad batteries need to be checked out
(and most likely replaced.) At least one of mine has evidence of leakage
that results in traces being eaten away. A very nice machine! IIRC, the
TRS drives will work just fine.
Lobo was built here in Santa Barbara. The story I got when I talked to
Roger Billings, the person who started Lobo, was that he was the
production manager for Polymorphic Computers. At some point, they
started running into financial problems that prevented them from buying
the parts they needed, and Roger started Lobo Drives buying the parts
and selling them to Polymorphic. The name Lobo came about because of his
pet wolf, Lobo. They started out with IIRC Apple drives and developed
the Lobo Computer afterwards.
steven wrote:
Just added two Lobo MAX-80 systems to the collection!
http://oldcomputers.net/lobomax80.html
Don't have any real Lobo drives, will try a TRS-80
drive to see if I can get them working.
I think it will load my Osborne CP/M disk? Will see...
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4:48 a.m.
New subject: Recent addition : Lobo MAX-80
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, steven wrote:
Just added two Lobo MAX-80 systems to the collection!
http://oldcomputers.net/lobomax80.html
Don't have any real Lobo drives, will try a TRS-80
drive to see if I can get them working.
It is a TRS80 clone.
The Lobo company started off peddling cheap refurb SA400s
for use on TRS80. First bare drives, then with case and power supply.
Then they decided to make their own TRS80 expansion interface,
and eventually entire computer.
When they built their expansion interface, they provided for
use of 8" drives, and also for "double density". But they
failed to realize that the WD 179x FDC that they used in order
to have double density was incapable of writing certain address
marks that RS had used with the 1771 FDC in the TRS80. Thus,
their machine was incapable of writing disks readable by a stock
TRS80 running TRS-DOS. That is why the Percom Doubler had a spare
socket to plug in the 1771 to have BOTH FDCs present.
So, they had to come up with their own system software.
They bought out VTOS, which was Randy Cook's TRSDOS 3.0 and 4.0.
Randy Cook had written TRS-DOS, but never finished getting it
working; Radio Shack kicked him out and finished it as TRS-DOS 2.3.
Then Randy wrote TRS-DOS 3.0 (never finished) and tried to market
it as VTOS 3.0; he never finished it, and his publisher refused to pay
him. Then Randy wrote VTOS 4.0 , published by Adventure International
Scott Adams; he never finished it, and Adams refused to pay him.
Lobo hired almost every TRS80 assembly language programmer, such as
Roy Soltoff, and put them to work to finish the OS and write a manual.
They got rid of Randy, because he could never finish ANY project.
When done, they had Lobo-DOS 5.0. They started up a separate
company ("Logical Systems, Inc.") to market it, and it became "LDOS
5.0".
Later, after RS made the same mistake (model III), RS bought rights to
sell LDOS, and it became TRS-DOS 6.0. And Randy Cook finally began to
get royalties!
I think it will load my Osborne CP/M disk? Will see...
NO F WAY. IT is a TRS80 clone
But, ...
if you write a file system handler (most of the disk portion of an OS),
the single density Osborne has the same number of bytes per sector as
Model 1 TRS-DOS, so sectors are easy to read. (We used to repair damaged
Osborne diskettes using Superzap). And the Lobo HARDWARE, if you write
the code, is certainly capable of reading the DD Osborne.
Run LDOS on it.
--
Fred Cisin cisin(a)xenosoft.com
XenoSoft http://www.xenosoft.com
1:23 a.m.
Holger wrote:
The HP41 is rather moderate in speed, with a clock of
300kHz and an
instruction cycle length of 56 bits, so it is no problem at all to
write a precise emulator with one or two modern microcontrollers
(you wouldn't just take the lowest level choice like a PIC which is
too inferior for this, but maybe a 16 bit controller like an MSP 430).
Actually the PIC is ideally suited to this, because what you need is
high speed, not 16-bit wide or fancy instructions.
I got the HP-45 microcode running on a PIC-based emulator about eight
years ago. The first-generation HP calculator chipset had a similar
architecture in most regards to the later chipset used in the HP-41C,
but ran at 196 KHz (still with 56 bit times per instruction cycle).
I wasn't trying for cycle accuracy or electrical compatability,
though that wouldn't have been too difficult if it had been my objective.
Eric
9:41 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1008 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20031118/ebcb552e/at…
7701
days inactive
7707
days old
78 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bshannon＠tiac.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
holger.veit＠ais.fhg.de -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
marvin＠rain.org -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
rhudson＠cnonline.net -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com -
tomj＠wps.com -
tosteve＠yahoo.com -
vance＠neurotica.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
wrb＠wrbuckley.com