12 Sep
2007
12 Sep
'07
11:18 p.m.
--------------Original Message:
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:31:18 -0500
From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 8-bitters and multi-whatever
On 9/12/07, M H Stein <dm561 at torfree.net> wrote:
From: "Ethan Dicks" <ethan.dicks at gmail.com>
Until you mentioned it now, I never would have thought of it. Back in
the day, I never saw any articles in the journals about that, and
nobody at any of the user-group meetings ever mentioned it or showed
it off, but thinking about it now... I can see how it could work.
Just a passive cable? Do you have any special notes, or was it just
SAVE "FOO", 1 and LOAD "FOO", 1?
-ethan
===================================================
-----------Reply:
Simple as that. Out to In, In to Out, and ground; preferably shielded,
compatible with pretty well all models.
Type LOAD "FOO" on receiving unit, run up/downstairs and type SAVE
"FOO" on the other, using the alternate port on the unit that had a
"real"
cassette drive (2001 & VIC20 in my case, with an 8032/8050 and a
massive Centronics 101 printing boat anchor at the other end), then back
down/upstairs to play/work. Remember that an 8050 2FDD was around
$2000+ back then IIRC, so one was enough for me.
In the classrooms they'd have a "hub" (but I don't recall now whether
they
were passive or needed amplification). The teacher would tell everyone to
type LOAD "FOO" and when they were ready everyone pressed return and
the teacher would enter the SAVE. If anyone wanted to save their master-
pieces, then one at a time they could send them back to the "server" and
copy to disk.
Since Jack T had his beginnings here in Toronto, Commodore had a pretty
strong presence and when the province decided to put computers into the
classrooms most of them were PETs; 2001s, then 4032s and finally C64s,
although by that time Apples (and clones) were also becoming pretty
commonplace. That's also one of the reasons TPUG (the Toronto PET
Users Group) was so successful and in fact is still active today, not
to mention Jim Butterfield's (another Torontonian) considerable support
and contributions.
mike
Since I couldn't afford an IEEE-488 disk
drive, rather than just move
files back and forth on tape, basing it upon the cable and software
from a contemporary "Byte" magazine, I fabricated my own
nybble-with-handshake cable between the user ports of the PET and the
C-64, and moved stuff from one to the other over that.
You mean you didn't just make a simple cassette "null modem" cable?
I still have the 30 footer that connected my upstairs "play" PET to the
downstairs "work" one. Lots of people (especially schools)
"networked"
them that way in those distant days. 
13 Sep
13 Sep
3:41 a.m.
IIRC the trs-80 model III and IV could network (saw it in use in a
classroom) via cassette port (hazy memory here) the network III device IIRc,
where it hooked to a main computer that had a HD, and let you load and save
programs on diskless III'S and IV's
3:57 a.m.
On 13 Sep 2007 at 0:41, Geoff Reed wrote:
IIRC the trs-80 model III and IV could network (saw it
in use in a
classroom) via cassette port (hazy memory here) the network III device IIRc,
where it hooked to a main computer that had a HD, and let you load and save
programs on diskless III'S and IV's
I'm getting a little confused about the definition of "networking".
What I've been interpreting as is making another computer's files and
or drives or other resources appear (seamlessly) as part of the
current host's resources.
Just using a link to me doesn't imply "networking"--it's file
transfer, perhaps, but not networking.
And I'd also disqualify device-sharing, such as a MAC (multiple
access controller) between an I/O device and two computers. Those go
WAY back...
Cheers,
Chuck
4:20 a.m.
I'm getting a little confused about the definition
of "networking".
What I've been interpreting as is making another computer's files and
or drives or other resources appear (seamlessly) as part of the
current host's resources.
That may be an interesting thing to talk about, but by that definition
most current stuff called "networking" isn't. For example, my house
LAN at home then isn't "networking", because the sharing is not set up
to appear seamless; accessing remote resources requires distinctive
action of some sort, as compared to similar access to local resources.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
8:43 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 13 Sep 2007 at 0:41, Geoff Reed wrote:
I suppose I've always seen it as "electronically connected computers" or
somesuch - i.e. it doesn't imply anything about what data is shared (or how),
just that something *can* be transferred without sneakernetting information
around.
IIRC the trs-80 model III and IV could network
(saw it in use in a
classroom) via cassette port (hazy memory here) the network III device IIRc,
where it hooked to a main computer that had a HD, and let you load and save
programs on diskless III'S and IV's
I'm getting a little confused about the definition of "networking".
What I've been interpreting as is making another computer's files and
or drives or other resources appear (seamlessly) as part of the
current host's resources.
Just using a link to me doesn't imply "networking"--it's file
transfer, perhaps, but not networking. And I'd also disqualify device-sharing, such as a
MAC (multiple
access controller) between an I/O device and two computers.
So would I, just because I think that networking is about connecting computers
together, not computers to peripherals (but I realise it gets a bit fuzzy when
you have things like printers with Ethernet interfaces)
1:15 p.m.
On 13 Sep 2007 at 13:43, Jules Richardson wrote:
I suppose I've always seen it as
"electronically connected computers" or
somesuch - i.e. it doesn't imply anything about what data is shared (or how),
just that something *can* be transferred without sneakernetting information
around.
So my use of the acoustic-coupled modem out of a TI Silent 700 on my
MITS Altair 8800 to a CDC 6600 over phone lines was networking in
1976? I did my source prep and assembly on the mainframe and just
downloaded my programs to run them. Of course, I had to key in the
basic terminal/download code via the front panel switches, but that
wasn't a big deal.
As far as coupling two computers together--well, that's VERY old.
Goes back to the 1950's at least and probably is older than that.
Cheers,
Chuck
2:03 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 13 Sep 2007 at 13:43, Jules Richardson wrote:
I don't see why not; serial comms (over whatever medium) connecting two
machines is still 'networking' in my book. I the case you mention it may well
be only point-to-point rather than "lots of machines on the same line", but I
still think it qualifies.
I suppose I've always seen it as
"electronically connected computers" or
somesuch - i.e. it doesn't imply anything about what data is shared (or how),
just that something *can* be transferred without sneakernetting information
around.
So my use of the acoustic-coupled modem out of a TI Silent 700 on my
MITS Altair 8800 to a CDC 6600 over phone lines was networking in
1976? As far as coupling two computers together--well,
that's VERY old.
Goes back to the 1950's at least and probably is older than that.
No argument here.
cheers
Jules
2:10 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
As far as coupling two computers together--well,
that's VERY old.
Goes back to the 1950's at least and probably is older than that.
SAGE and SABRE (which was influenced significantly by SAGE), to my knowledge.
I don't when the network concepts for SAGE were thought up: in the early 50s
when the first air defense system tests were being done on Whirlwind, or later
in the 50s.
(On the looser end of the network definition, Stibitz's Bell relay calculators
had remote terminals.)
2:40 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
As far as coupling two computers together--well,
that's VERY old.
Goes back to the 1950's at least and probably is older than that.
..just remembered.. BINAC (late 40's, Eckert/Mauchly, before UNIVAC) was a
dual-redundant processor design for reliability. Stretches the definition of
network too far perhaps, in that the processors ran the same instruction
stream but interesting to note in the context of the discussion.
1:39 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
I spotted this in my morning news perusal:
"Digitization? The entire network runs on software known as Jovial,
so old there are only six programmers in the country who know how to
write it. And incredible as it seems, family minivans with NavStar
have more sophisticated location guidance than some aircraft."
from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20724859/
Well, make that seven. I remember JOVIAL (it's all caps BTW).
Worked on an NWL (or maybe it was NSRDC) project in it. Anyone else?
Cheers,
Chuck
1:56 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
Chuck Guzis wrote:
Well, make that seven. I remember JOVIAL (it's
all caps BTW).
Now that IS a blast from the past. "Jules Own Version of the
International Algebraic Language", sort of like Algol on crack.
My interactions with it were mercifully brief. I recall that
diagnostics from the compiler were pretty much limited to printing out
the offending line followed by a new line and the message "Error above".
A subsequent version of the compiler had enhanced diagnostics,
replacing "Error above" with "Error above, eh?"
*shudders*
Chris
--
Chris Kennedy
chris at mainecoon.com AF6AP
http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration..."
2:13 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
Chris Kennedy wrote:
My interactions with it were mercifully brief. I
recall that
diagnostics from the compiler were pretty much limited to printing out
the offending line followed by a new line and the message "Error above".
A subsequent version of the compiler had enhanced diagnostics,
replacing "Error above" with "Error above, eh?"
Must be the Canadian Version of the the compiler. :)
But then I don't expect you have a large amount of memory,
8K words sounds about right for typical larger machines as a guess.
*shudders*
Chris
2:13 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
Chris Kennedy wrote:
With a description like that, I have just got to try this language.
Peace... Sridhar
Well, make
that seven. I remember JOVIAL (it's all caps BTW).
Now that IS a blast from the past. "Jules Own Version of the
International Algebraic Language", sort of like Algol on crack. 
2:46 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
With a description like that, I have just got to try this language.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. :)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
Well, make that seven. I remember JOVIAL (it's
all caps BTW).
Now that IS a blast from the past. "Jules Own Version of the
International Algebraic Language", sort of like Algol on crack.
2:31 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
On 13 Sep 2007 at 10:56, Chris Kennedy wrote:
My interactions with it were mercifully brief. I
recall that
diagnostics from the compiler were pretty much limited to printing out
the offending line followed by a new line and the message "Error above".
A subsequent version of the compiler had enhanced diagnostics,
replacing "Error above" with "Error above, eh?"
I suspect that the real thrust of the article is that all the old
flight-control software has gotten very creaky and patched so that
very few people understand the operation in detail. The programming
language is most likely a non-issue. This was (and perhaps still is)
a common pattern in the military and the government.
Perhaps the granddaddy of such boondoggle was the Air Force Logistics
Command's effort back in the 70's to modernize their tracking and
inventory system which was then implemented on some rather creaky
7080's. After hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain,
Senator Proxmire finally threatened contempt of Congress charges at
the general heading up the program and it stopped. The outcome was
that AFLC went back to running their old 7080 code in emulation mode
on, IIRC, S/370 hardware.
Cheers,
Chuck
5:47 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
On Thursday 13 September 2007 14:31, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 13 Sep 2007 at 10:56, Chris Kennedy wrote:
Speaking of such stuff, does anybody know what the deal is with the air
traffic control stuff used at most airports? I keep reading things about how
ancient and creaky the hardware is, how they're afraid to work on it for
fear of breaking it further, how it's supposed to be upgraded Real Soon Now,
and so forth...
Anybody know what they're using?
--
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
My interactions with it were mercifully brief. I
recall that
diagnostics from the compiler were pretty much limited to printing out
the offending line followed by a new line and the message "Error above".
A subsequent version of the compiler had enhanced diagnostics,
replacing "Error above" with "Error above, eh?"
I suspect that the real thrust of the article is that all the old
flight-control software has gotten very creaky and patched so that
very few people understand the operation in detail. The programming
language is most likely a non-issue. This was (and perhaps still is)
a common pattern in the military and the government.
Perhaps the granddaddy of such boondoggle was the Air Force Logistics
Command's effort back in the 70's to modernize their tracking and
inventory system which was then implemented on some rather creaky
7080's. After hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain,
Senator Proxmire finally threatened contempt of Congress charges at
the general heading up the program and it stopped. The outcome was
that AFLC went back to running their old 7080 code in emulation mode
on, IIRC, S/370 hardware. 
2:44 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
"Digitization? The entire network runs on
software known as Jovial,
It seems the military still maintains JOVIAL development tools. I'm
tempted to inquire how one obtains them, as I've always intended to
learn the language.
Anyone have these things, or know what it takes to obtain them?
http://www.jovial.hill.af.mil/
De
5:44 p.m.
New subject: Another (Language) blast from the past
On Thursday 13 September 2007 13:39, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I spotted this in my morning news perusal:
"Digitization? The entire network runs on software known as Jovial,
so old there are only six programmers in the country who know how to
write it. And incredible as it seems, family minivans with NavStar
have more sophisticated location guidance than some aircraft."
from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20724859/
Well, make that seven. I remember JOVIAL (it's all caps BTW).
"Jules Own Version of the International Algorithmic Language"...?
--
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
5:36 p.m.
On Thursday 13 September 2007 03:57, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 13 Sep 2007 at 0:41, Geoff Reed wrote:
I'm not familiar with such stuff.
Me, I'd accept a somewhat broader definition, I guess. "Sharing resource"
covers a bunch of it, and even file transfer is pretty handy stuff when you
want to move information around...
--
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
IIRC the trs-80 model III and IV could network
(saw it in use in a
classroom) via cassette port (hazy memory here) the network III device
IIRc, where it hooked to a main computer that had a HD, and let you load
and save programs on diskless III'S and IV's
I'm getting a little confused about the definition of "networking".
What I've been interpreting as is making another computer's files and
or drives or other resources appear (seamlessly) as part of the
current host's resources.
Just using a link to me doesn't imply "networking"--it's file
transfer, perhaps, but not networking.
And I'd also disqualify device-sharing, such as a MAC (multiple
access controller) between an I/O device and two computers. Those go
WAY back...
6:59 p.m.
On 13 Sep 2007 at 17:36, Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Ah, showing my age. "Back in the day" you might have two otherwise
independent mainframes and, say, two printers. To have a system do
nothing but wait for a print job to finish while only one of the
printers was busy is a huge waste of resources. A card punch might
be an infrequenly used piece of equipment, so why have two? Or a
printer could be offline for maintenance, but why take the machine it
was attached to down also? Or, instead of having two banks of 8 tape
drives for two machines, why not whittle that down to, say 12, and
allow the drives to be shared? IIRC, most vendors offered some sort
of a MAC facility, even if it was a QSE. CDC certainly did.
Of course, direct coupling of computers was also done, either via a
special I/O device or even shared bulk core. But we never called
that "networking".
Cheers,
Chuck
And I'd
also disqualify device-sharing, such as a MAC (multiple
access controller) between an I/O device and two computers. Those go
WAY back...
I'm not familiar with such stuff. 
8:35 a.m.
IIRC the trs-80 model III and IV could network (saw it
in use in a
classroom) via cassette port (hazy memory here) the network III device IIRc,
where it hooked to a main computer that had a HD, and let you load and save
programs on diskless III'S and IV's
Not just them -- CoCos did this too. I assisted a 5th grade teacher who had
a room full of CoCo 2's, using a rotary hub selector through the cassette
ports, to download files from a CoCo 3 with a disk drive. We ran through the
whole room typing CLOAD on every unit.
After kids had written their own work, they could also upload it, and the
teacher made a floppy disk copy for backup and archiving.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- #include <std_disclaimer.h> ------------------------------------------------
6138
days inactive
6138
days old
20 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chris＠mainecoon.com -
dm561＠torfree.net -
drb＠msu.edu -
geoffr＠zipcon.net -
hilpert＠cs.ubc.ca -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
rtellason＠verizon.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com