Re: High res e-readers

[shadoooo via cctalk]

Kobo have a quite plain Linux, run on iMX processors, and are very easy to
modify/script, and last but not least, to unbrick in case of severe
problems.
In many models, the internal memory is an SD card, so it can be expanded
easily.
Then you have also external SD.

On the software side, try koreader.
It's an open source reader, developed for eink devices.
It works very well with PDFs, and can do intelligent text reflow, even on
raw scans of books, via a sort of OCR.
The nice thing is that it doesn't convert bitmap to text, but seems to
split long lines of text in shorter sections, then rearranges the pieces on
the screen, following font size options.
It can be instructed to work as expected on multi column pages.

Very nice!

Andrea

Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist?

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 8:06 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

> Hmmm, you COULD actually use a schematic tool to do this!  Maybe create
> the components to look like DIPs.  I know I could do this in Protel 99
> without a great deal of trouble.  Then, just draw in all the wires.
> I suspect a few other good schematic entry tools could also do this.

I know that I've asked about this on one of the EDA boards and got
nowhere.  It seems that it would be possible to construct a schematic
from a netlist, but I've never seen such a tool.

I wonder if such a beast exists.

--Chuck

Re: VAX Lisp, Macsyma, Maxima

[r.stricklin via cctalk]

On Oct 24, 2018, at 4:07 PM, David Coolbear via cctech wrote:

> Does anyone know if any of these are still available for OpenVMS VAX?

I don't know what "available" means in this context. But:

VAX Lisp wasn't among the set of hobbyist licenses I got from HP last August. 
They did send me one when I asked, though.


ok
bear.

-- 
until further notice

Re: VAX Lisp, Macsyma, Maxima

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:07 PM David Coolbear via cctech
 wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if any of these are still available for OpenVMS VAX?

917AA VAX LISP/VMS [LISP030] or [LISP031] was on VMS Consolidated
Software Distribution CD sets from at least Jan-1990 to May-1993

I have [LISP031] that I must have gotten from a CD set that was
released in that time frame.

Re: VAX Lisp, Macsyma, Maxima

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 4:07 PM, David Coolbear via cctech 
>  wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know if any of these are still available for OpenVMS VAX?

Part of the problem will be licensing, I think that I have copies of VAX Lisp, 
but I don’t think that it’s included with the hobbyist PAKs.

Zane


Sent from my iPod

VAX Lisp, Macsyma, Maxima

[David Coolbear via cctalk]

Does anyone know if any of these are still available for OpenVMS VAX?

Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist?

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 04:25 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

To draw out the schematics for the Displaywriter I have a bunch of boards to 
trace out,
and I don't want to do the usual "scribble on yellow pad"
to do it. Has someone written a graphical tool for doing this?

What I would like to find is a tool that puts up a bunch of footprints with 
internal IC functions
shown, then a way to rapidly enter the buzzed out interconnections, generating 
a netlist.

This is exactly backwards workflow from normal schematic entry and pcb layout.

I suspect I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and write it..
Hmmm, you COULD actually use a schematic tool to do this!  
Maybe create the components to look like DIPs.  I know I 
could do this in Protel 99 without a great deal of trouble.  
Then, just draw in all the wires.
I suspect a few other good schematic entry tools could also 
do this.


Jon

Re: 70's computers

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 01:11 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:

On 10/24/2018 10:31 AM, Marc Howard via cctalk wrote:
You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 
22V10's why not just
build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts.  They 
actually predate
22V10's by quite a bit and you can pretty much implement 
what every you

want to without rewiring.

Marc


* LOW POWER and REPROGRAMABLE * reglar 22V10's are 100 ma 
per chip, and I can buy them online. I have 5 2901's but I 
can only find them on ebay now. If I design a register 
based machine I have them, other wise

TTL is better for odd sized word lengths.
Ben.



Well, I built a 2903 + 2910 32-bit microcoded machine in 
1982 or so.  See

http://pico-systems.com/stories/1982.html
for gory details.  But, today, it would make WAY more sense 
to do it with FPGAs.  Want to try an experiment?  Don't get 
out the wire-wrap gun or soldering iron, make a copy of the 
FPGA files and edit away. If it doesn't work, you don't have 
to undo the wiring changes! Also, the FPGA version might be 
as much as 10 times faster.


Jon

Re: 70's computers

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 12:01 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:


On 10/24/18 8:57 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:


Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word.


Four accumulators, and no memory pages
Yes, and the accumulators could hold addresses, which was a 
big plus.
But, still, storing the subroutine return address in the 
first location of the subroutine.

Ugh, how 1960's that was!

Jon

Re: Advice needed: Entry point into things PDP-8

[Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk]

Ethan Dicks wrote:

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:39 PM Carlos E Murillo-Sanchez via cctalk
 wrote:

you.  The thing
is, I would like to have something pdp8-ish that would allow me to play
a little bit
with the programming languages that were available for these machines,
FORTRAN 4K and
FORTRAN IV in particular.  Now,  I would love to be able to time some
FORTRAN jobs just
to get an idea about what it was like back then.  I am aware of PiDP-8,
simh, as well as
SBC6120, SBC6120RBC.

I would probably do all the things but in a particular order.

If my goal was to learn PDP-8 software, I would just start with simh
running on anything.  I have a PiDP-8.  It's nice.  You definitely get
the feel of running an older PDP-8 (except no noise for floppy drives
or DECtape, and no seek time) but under the blinky covers, it's
running simh.  You can learn everything about the configuration of
PDP-8 models, about memory, and all the programming languages with
simh.  From there, consider a PiDP-8 if you want a quick junior-sized
emulated machine for the look and feel of things.

The SBC6120 with FB6120 is also nice.  I have one.

-snip-

Based on the answers from everyone (Thanks!), I think that I will grab 
one of the RaspberryPi's laying around and start using the PiDP-8 
software or plain simH while I can procure the hardware side of PiDP-8; 
I think that I'll perform the serial console hack on the Pi.  I will 
continue to research options for programming the GALs in the SBC6120 or 
SBC6120RBC, since I have one HD6120 chip and it would be a waste not to 
use it.  The OSI Processor Lab route seems interesting, especially since 
I have three HM6100 chips, but I think that it isn't in a stage that 
allows reproducing the PDP-8 usage experience.


If you guys can recommend a cheap programmer that handles the 
ATF22V10CQZ-20PU and ATF16V8BQL-15PU (SBC6120) without problems, I am 
all ears.



>From there, one of the challenges of repairing your VT78 and VT278
boards is there's no blinkenlights console to assess repair status
during the repair or to try to toggle in test programs.   Replacing a
ROM is easy enough, even if you have to make a pin-swapping socket
adapter to use a modern EPROM (I don't know what type of ROM is in the
VT78, but it's possible that it's something standard like a 2708 or
2716).

-ethan

The control panel ROM in the vt78 is proprietary (12bit data width), so 
it would have to be replaced by a more complex circuit.  But one of the 
three vt78s that I have does have that chip, so this is an issue only if 
I try to restore the other two boards.


Carlos.

Action Computer Enterprise and ADES

[Kyle Owen via cctalk]

Anyone have any manuals or software for an ACE 1600? Or manuals for an ADES
hard drive? I've had this one in storage for a while, but it seems fairly
interesting and possibly complete.

http://imgur.com/a/KR83Okw

Thanks,

Kyle

Re: Teletype cheap

[Derek Newland via cctalk]

I hate being on the [south]east coast.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:56 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
> https://www.ebay.com/itm/Teletype-Machine-Model-3320-3WA-Teletypewriter-AS-IS-FOR-PARTS-local-pick-up/142981290439?hash=item214a5959c7:g:UXoAAOSwmXJbylEN:rk:6:pf:1=true
>
> b
>


-- 
*Derek Newland* | (828) 234-4731 | derek.newl...@gmail.com

Teletype cheap

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Teletype-Machine-Model-3320-3WA-Teletypewriter-AS-IS-FOR-PARTS-local-pick-up/142981290439?hash=item214a5959c7:g:UXoAAOSwmXJbylEN:rk:6:pf:1=true

b

Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist?

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 5:41 PM, Guy Dunphy wrote:

> A: Yes. But god knows what it costs.
> 
> http://scancad.net/products/pcb-design-fabrication/pcb-reverse-engineering
> ScanFAB is a fully integrated, stand-alone, scanner- based re-engineering 
> system that permits the creation of CAD data (DXF/Gerber/Drill/CNC) from 
> existing multilayer PCBs, parts, phototools, stencils, drawings, microfiche, 
> PDF files, X-Ray images, etc.
> It also contains a full Gerber editor that can be used to import, modify and 
> export Gerber & Drill data.
> ScanFAB uses Windows-based software linked to a high-resolution, calibrated 
> flatbed scanner. This combination allows for accurate reverse engineering and 
> precise reproduction of data to exact FORM, FIT and FUNCTION for today's high 
> density PCB board designs, complex parts and tooling.

Something like this won't really help for IBM boards. The machines in the 
Displaywriter era are fabricated
with circuit board material with holes every .1" across the entire board. They 
are multi-layer, and the solder
mask is dark so optical scanning isn't practical.

I've been tracing out pcbs since the late 70's, so I'm familiar with all the 
tricks, tracing starting at outputs,
identifying busses and decoders, etc. but it's getting tedious especially on 
random logic, and I was hoping to
automate some of it.

While it won't be practical to do it on the IBM boards because of the component 
density I have been working on
automating the tracing process by building some modules that will do some 
tracing in parallel.

Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist?

[Guy Dunphy via cctalk]

At 02:25 PM 24/10/2018 -0700, you wrote:
>To draw out the schematics for the Displaywriter I have a bunch of boards to 
>trace out,
>and I don't want to do the usual "scribble on yellow pad"
>to do it. Has someone written a graphical tool for doing this?
>
>What I would like to find is a tool that puts up a bunch of footprints with 
>internal IC functions
>shown, then a way to rapidly enter the buzzed out interconnections, generating 
>a netlist.
>
>This is exactly backwards workflow from normal schematic entry and pcb layout.
>
>I suspect I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and write it..


A: Yes. But god knows what it costs.

http://scancad.net/products/pcb-design-fabrication/pcb-reverse-engineering
ScanFAB is a fully integrated, stand-alone, scanner- based re-engineering 
system that permits the creation of CAD data (DXF/Gerber/Drill/CNC) from 
existing multilayer PCBs, parts, phototools, stencils, drawings, microfiche, 
PDF files, X-Ray images, etc.
It also contains a full Gerber editor that can be used to import, modify and 
export Gerber & Drill data.
ScanFAB uses Windows-based software linked to a high-resolution, calibrated 
flatbed scanner. This combination allows for accurate reverse engineering and 
precise reproduction of data to exact FORM, FIT and FUNCTION for today's high 
density PCB board designs, complex parts and tooling.


Apart from that, here are some related discussions:
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/how-to-reverse-engineer-a-simple-through-hole-board/
How to reverse engineer a simple through-hole board

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/making-reverse-engineered-altium-designs-public/
Making reverse engineered Altium designs public

And a few examples of my own reverse engineering for repairs:
http://everist.org/NobLog/20151112_planning_vacuum.htm#54120B_ps
http://everist.org/NobLog/20161129_3d_learning_curve.htm#ps
http://everist.org/NobLog/20160331_lightning_luck.htm#tla614

In general since I'm not trying to end up with schematics and PCB layouts for 
remanufacture,
but just anything good enough for fault finding, I just use photoshop to aid in 
the track
tracing stage. Then pencil and paper (in multiple stages) to end up with a 
sensibly organized
schematic.
If I want a neat looking 'schematic' (just for viewing, ie only an image) I use 
photoshop
for that too.  eg  
http://everist.org/NobLog/pics/20161129/20161219_PSU_schem.png

Though to manufacture an identical or modified version of the thing, full 
schematic editor
and layout CAD is necessary.


Btw Al, did you ever find that TM200 IBM card reader manual you recalled seeing 
somewhere?
I still can't find a manual with schematics for my TM200. Plenty of M200 
manuals, nothing for
the very different TM200.  See 
http://everist.org/NobLog/20180922_data_in_holes.htm#tm200

Guy

Re: modern stuff

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 17:58 Paul Koning via cctalk 
wrote:

> > What about Intel's forgotten object oriented kitchen sink processor.
> > IAPX-432 better or worse?
> > Ben.
>
> Was that the one designed around Ada?
>

No, but it's the one that Intel's marketing department said was designed
for Ada.

Re: modern stuff

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018, 17:45 ben via cctalk  wrote:

> On 10/24/2018 3:58 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:18 PM ben via cctalk  > > wrote:
> >
> > Well I can still run DOS BOX and get my nice 8086 instruction set.
> >
> >
> > I've heard many different adjectives used with regard to the 8086
> > instruction set, but this is the first time I've heard it described as
> > "nice".
> >
> > Admittedly there are worse ones.
> >
>
> What about Intel's forgotten object oriented kitchen sink processor.
> IAPX-432 better or worse?
>

I wouldn't call it a "kitchen sink processor"; some of it's problems are
actually with things that are missing. However, it's a VCISC, and the
instruction set isn't really comparable to anything else.

If I had to design a computer for either general-purpose or embedded use,
I'd definitely choose 8086 over iAPX 432, but that isn't because I consider
the 8086 instruction set to be particularly good.

Re: modern stuff

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 7:45 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> On 10/24/2018 3:58 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:18 PM ben via cctalk > > wrote:
>>Well I can still run DOS BOX and get my nice 8086 instruction set.
>> I've heard many different adjectives used with regard to the 8086 
>> instruction set, but this is the first time I've heard it described as 
>> "nice".
>> Admittedly there are worse ones.
> 
> What about Intel's forgotten object oriented kitchen sink processor.
> IAPX-432 better or worse?
> Ben.

Was that the one designed around Ada?

I remember looking at that way back when the paper "Tablet, the computer of the 
year 2000" was published -- thinking it might be a suitable engine for that.  I 
also throught APL might be good because it's terse.  Oops.  Totally missed the 
fact that most computer users are application users, not programmers.

paul

Re: Not really vintage computing, but just in case it's of interest to anyone..

[Evan Linwood via cctalk]

Message: 103
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:46:35 -0700
From: Al Kossow 
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Not really vintage computing, but just in case it's of
interest to anyone..
Message-ID: <8e90dfc4-8cc2-9d33-9031-52ad4690e...@bitsavers.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 10/24/18 1:08 AM, Evan Linwood via cctalk wrote:
> taken from the listing :
>
> "It was used ( I Believe ) to process Geophysical Seismic Data during the 
> exploration of Oil in Bass Straight. The circuitry is all NASA standard."
>
> https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/gosford/other-electronics-computers/vintage-computer-tape-drive/1194865314
>

http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?66273-I-am-putting-the-CART-before-the-HORSE!-ie-300kg-of-1960-s-Computer-Hardware

Thanks Al - I hadn't seen that. Hopefully something is still happening with it.

Re: modern stuff

[ben via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 3:58 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:18 PM ben via cctalk > wrote:


Well I can still run DOS BOX and get my nice 8086 instruction set.


I've heard many different adjectives used with regard to the 8086 
instruction set, but this is the first time I've heard it described as 
"nice".


Admittedly there are worse ones.



What about Intel's forgotten object oriented kitchen sink processor.
IAPX-432 better or worse?
Ben.

Re: modern stuff

[Sean Conner via cctalk]

It was thus said that the Great ben via cctalk once stated:
> On 10/24/2018 12:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> 
> >It's true that the original 8086 instruction set lives on with all its 
> >warts, and many more added over the years.  And yes, I guess that you 
> >*can* run them in 32 bit segmented mode if you're crazy.  But that's not 
> >how they are actually used.  The same applies to other successful 
> >architectures: MIPS, IBM 360.  Or programming languages -- consider C for 
> >a particularly horrid example, or worse yet C++.
> 
> All the computer science books push RISC now. EVEN KUTH has gone to the 
> DARK SIDE.

  The first RISC chips appears in the 80s, making them over 30 years old
now.  Even the MIPS and SPARC architecture (RISC based) are nearly (if not
already) 30 years old (I used systems with both in the early 90s).

  If anything, the DARK SIDE won in that we seem to be perpetually stuck
with a glorified 8080 (that is so complex that it contains an additional,
embedded no-quite-so-glorified 8080 to help it boot up! [1]).

  -spc (It kind of reminds of the MCP from TRON ... )

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Disabling_the_ME

Re: does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist?

[Eric Schlaepfer via cctalk]

I've gone through this a few times myself. There are a few approaches.

One is to use a schematic tool like Kicad to place all the ICs first, then
add the wires and rearrange things as you buzz out the connections.

Another approach uses an intermediate step where you enter all the buzzed
out connections into a spreadsheet, then go from the spreadsheet to the
schematic. You can mark completed rows in the sheet so it's easier to keep
track of your progress.

What I've done in the past is to image both sides of a 2-layer board, pull
it into GIMP, then trace out the traces and enter them into schematic. It
won't work on >2 layer boards, although if a 4-layer board only uses the
inner layers for power and ground planes, you can cheat a bit. For pads
tied to power or ground, you can often shine a light from the back and look
for the thermal "spokes" tying it to the plane.

There is also a program called Sprint-Layout which I have not used but lets
you place a reference photo underneath a board layout. One of the Amiga
people have used it to reverse engineer the A3640 CPU board:
http://wordpress.hertell.nu/?page_id=514 (I'd check out his page anyway
because he also describes his spreadsheet method.) I have also heard (but
not personally confirmed) that Diptrace lets you do that too.



On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:51 PM Al Kossow via cctalk 
wrote:

> To draw out the schematics for the Displaywriter I have a bunch of boards
> to trace out,
> and I don't want to do the usual "scribble on yellow pad"
> to do it. Has someone written a graphical tool for doing this?
>
> What I would like to find is a tool that puts up a bunch of footprints
> with internal IC functions
> shown, then a way to rapidly enter the buzzed out interconnections,
> generating a netlist.
>
> This is exactly backwards workflow from normal schematic entry and pcb
> layout.
>
> I suspect I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and write it..
>
>
>
>

UNIX - An Open Solution

[Jason T via cctalk]

I recently came across an eight-volume set of comb-bound, A4-sized
booklets titled "UNIX - An Open Solution", by Mick Farmer and Richard
Murphy.  In trying to uncover more info about them, I found Mick
Farmer's old home page:  http://www.plan7.co.uk/mick.html.

The books are mentioned there with the text "videos and workbook".
Has anyone seen the videos from these lessons, or know where they
could be found?

Mr. Farmer's email is listed on the page - I can check with him if
nothing turns up here.

- j

Re: modern stuff

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:18 PM ben via cctalk 
wrote:

> Well I can still run DOS BOX and get my nice 8086 instruction set.
>

I've heard many different adjectives used with regard to the 8086
instruction set, but this is the first time I've heard it described as
"nice".

Admittedly there are worse ones.

RE: Astounding Asking Price

[Maciej W. Rozycki via cctalk]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Rob Jarratt via cctalk wrote:

> > Instant alarm bells to me are a seller posting a London address but the 
> > item is
> > 'for pickup only in Budapest, Hungary'
> 
> Yes I noticed that too. Very odd, and £750 to ship to the UK!!

 They just chose to pay taxes in the UK and/or to fall under the UK 
jurisdiction, which is one of the benefits of the single EU market for 
businesses.  It's not uncommon and there are various reasons to do that, 
generally to lower the cost and/or the risk of running a business.  It's 
just like many US companies are registered in the state of Delaware even 
though they really run their business elsewhere.

 If you look through their store, you'll find other items whose price and 
postage are both reasonable, so it just could be an oddball case of 
getting the asking price wrong.  I guess you can always ask them if they 
really mean it.  Also it starts getting tricky to ship individual items 
abroad from/to many places once you get above 20kg (~44lbs), and they say 
it (indirectly) in the description, stating that they'll use your carrier 
of choice.

 FWIW,

  Maciej

Re: modern stuff

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 4:17 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
> 
>> ...
> 
> 70's computers are more interesting. That is why do we have PI computers 
> running PDP 8 emulators?

It's all in what you want to do.  If your interest is mostly the software, as 
it is for many of us, then running emulators makes a lot of sense.  If your 
interest is the machine architecture, you might want to reverse engineer the 
design and implement it in an FPGA. Depending on how deep you want to go, that 
might be a functional model or a gate level model.  A functional model may not 
tell you a whole lot more than a software emulator does; a gate level model is 
often hard to pull off but if you can do it, it will tell you everything you 
want to know about the original design including all its undocumented strange 
properties.

And if you enjoy working on old electronics, there's no substitute for the 
original iron.  That's not an option if none exists any longer, or so few that 
people don't dare powering them on.  For example, it would be neat to run an 
EL-X8, but that's not going to happen, there's only one left.  At least it is 
preserved in a real museum.

As for myself, I've done all of the above: work on SIMH and DtCyber, work on a 
gate level model of the CDC 6600, and (occasionally) run my old Pro-380.

paul

does a reverse-engineering EDA tool exist?

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

To draw out the schematics for the Displaywriter I have a bunch of boards to 
trace out,
and I don't want to do the usual "scribble on yellow pad"
to do it. Has someone written a graphical tool for doing this?

What I would like to find is a tool that puts up a bunch of footprints with 
internal IC functions
shown, then a way to rapidly enter the buzzed out interconnections, generating 
a netlist.

This is exactly backwards workflow from normal schematic entry and pcb layout.

I suspect I'm just going to have to bite the bullet and write it..

RE: Astounding Asking Price

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

Sadly this is on the wrong side of the pond. I would like to repair the one I 
have in any case.

 

In fact, while I think I know the pinout of the F11 chips from a KDF11-A 
printset, can anyone confirm that pin 23 of the DIL package is the RESET 
signal? If that is correct then it is oscillating and resetting the machine 
constantly. I am trying to trace the source, but it seems to go through quite a 
few chips and I haven’t yet traced its source.

 

Regards

 

Rob

 

From: Warner Losh [mailto:i...@bsdimp.com] 
Sent: 24 October 2018 21:23
To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Rob Jarratt ; General 
Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Subject: Re: Astounding Asking Price

 

 

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Warner Losh mailto:i...@bsdimp.com> > wrote:

 

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:53 AM Rob Jarratt via cctalk mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org> > wrote:

My jaw dropped when I saw this:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true



It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
"untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..



As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.

 

Untested Pro 350's are like US$150-US$250 range on ebay typically.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-DIGITAL-EQUIPMENT-CORP-DEC-RAINBOW-PC350-I-COMPUTER-FLOPPY-DISK/332562279306?epid=583415379
 

 
=item4d6e41ab8a:g:qR0AAOSw9NBafMjq:sc:FedExHomeDelivery!80602!US!-1:rk:1:pf:1=true

 

OK, not really a Rainbow, but that's the term to search for if you want to buy 
one cheap. This one is $99.

 

Warner

Re: Burroughs TD keyboard - was Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Mike Stein via cctalk]

- Original Message - 
From: "Toby Thain via cctalk" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Burroughs TD keyboard - was Selling keyboards without the terminal


> On 2018-10-24 5:28 p.m., Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:
>> It's pretty unlikely that I'll ever get my TD700 working so, with all this 
>> talk about terminals missing keyboards, does anyone need/want a keyboard for 
>> a Burroughs TD700/TD800 type terminal?
>> 
>> http://terminals.classiccmp.org/wiki/images/0/0f/Burroughs_TD_700-3.jpg
>> 
>> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/burroughs/terminal/TD830.jpg
>> 
>> Might have tech docs somewhere; Microswitch guts, parallel interface IIRC.
>> 
>> m
>> 
> 
> Sorry, gotta ask: Why not sell the whole setup? There are people on this
> list who could probably fix it.
> 
> --T

I have a spare keyboard; thought I'd mention it in case someone actually has a 
relevant terminal needing a keyboard, as per the original discussion thread.

As to getting the TD700 working:

It's built around a card cage with (I think) 8 plug-in boards, several of which 
are missing (and it weighs a ton!)

A while back I chatted with a couple of folks who also had one (not working) 
and although not totally impossible it really didn't look feasible without 
those boards; also of course there's no guarantee that the Panaplex panel is 
still working.

I *may* actually have someone who'll take the whole thing but I thought I'd ask 
here to see if there's any interest.

m

Re: NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

[William Donzelli via cctalk]

It just ended. I made a crap video (no people in it) that Bruce needs
to screen before I post to Youtube, however, there was a video team
that shot an enormous amount of 4K footage. Bruce does not quite know
what to do with it, but figured it needed recording.

--
Will
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:00 PM Al Kossow via cctalk
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > So you won't be at NOVApalooza then?  It's not too late to sign up:
> > http://www.novapalooza.org/
>
>
> When: October 22-24, 2018
>
> How was it?
>
>

Re: Burroughs TD keyboard - was Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2018-10-24 5:28 p.m., Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:
> It's pretty unlikely that I'll ever get my TD700 working so, with all this 
> talk about terminals missing keyboards, does anyone need/want a keyboard for 
> a Burroughs TD700/TD800 type terminal?
> 
> http://terminals.classiccmp.org/wiki/images/0/0f/Burroughs_TD_700-3.jpg
> 
> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/burroughs/terminal/TD830.jpg
> 
> Might have tech docs somewhere; Microswitch guts, parallel interface IIRC.
> 
> m
> 

Sorry, gotta ask: Why not sell the whole setup? There are people on this
list who could probably fix it.

--T

Re: Desktop Metaphor

[John Ames via cctalk]

> Liam Proven wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 18:59, Paul Berger via cctalk
>  wrote:
>>
>> This is my issue with a lot of Linux distros they seem to try to hard to
>> look and work like mac or like windows while I would rather have them
>> look and work like the xwindows I knew and loved.  One of my biggest
>> aggravations is cut and paste I would very much rather it worked more
>> like it used to on X.
>
> If you want it old-style, build it old-style.
>
> Install the minimal or server version of Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora,
> whatever you want, then install X.org and your window manager of
> choice.
>
> This is how I have been experimentally assembling GNUstep desktops for
> years now.

Have to concur with this. Even the "minimalist" (i.e. non-GNOME/KDE)
*nix "desktop environment" projects these days are getting so bloated
that I've given up bothering with them and set up an X environment one
component at a time. Currently running Window Maker with SpaceFM and
ROXTerm; getting it all properly set up and tweaked to my liking took
some doing, but the payoff was well worth it.

Now if I could only excise the GTK3 blight entirely, I'd really be set.

Burroughs TD keyboard - was Selling keyboards without the terminal

[Mike Stein via cctalk]

It's pretty unlikely that I'll ever get my TD700 working so, with all this talk 
about terminals missing keyboards, does anyone need/want a keyboard for a 
Burroughs TD700/TD800 type terminal?

http://terminals.classiccmp.org/wiki/images/0/0f/Burroughs_TD_700-3.jpg

http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/burroughs/terminal/TD830.jpg

Might have tech docs somewhere; Microswitch guts, parallel interface IIRC.

m

Re: Astounding Asking Price

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:20 PM Warner Losh  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:53 AM Rob Jarratt via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> My jaw dropped when I saw this:
>> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true
>>
>>
>>
>> It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
>> seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
>> "untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..
>>
>>
>>
>> As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.
>>
>
> Untested Pro 350's are like US$150-US$250 range on ebay typically.
>

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-DIGITAL-EQUIPMENT-CORP-DEC-RAINBOW-PC350-I-COMPUTER-FLOPPY-DISK/332562279306?epid=583415379=item4d6e41ab8a:g:qR0AAOSw9NBafMjq:sc:FedExHomeDelivery!80602!US!-1:rk:1:pf:1=true

OK, not really a Rainbow, but that's the term to search for if you want to
buy one cheap. This one is $99.

Warner

Re: Astounding Asking Price

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:53 AM Rob Jarratt via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> My jaw dropped when I saw this:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true
>
>
>
> It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
> seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
> "untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..
>
>
>
> As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.
>

Untested Pro 350's are like US$150-US$250 range on ebay typically.

Warner

Re: modern stuff

[ben via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 12:31 PM, Paul Koning wrote:




On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:22 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:

On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:

I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.

Wow...
You are out of touch, aren't you.


Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic
PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on.


Single CPU, segmented memory?  No.  Multiple CPUs (8 or so in my laptop, many 
more in servers).  Flat 64 bit address space.



Well I can still run DOS BOX and get my nice 8086 instruction set.


It's true that the original 8086 instruction set lives on with all its warts, 
and many more added over the years.  And yes, I guess that you *can* run them 
in 32 bit segmented mode if you're crazy.  But that's not how they are actually 
used.  The same applies to other successful architectures: MIPS, IBM 360.  Or 
programming languages -- consider C for a particularly horrid example, or worse 
yet C++.


All the computer science books push RISC now. EVEN KUTH has gone to the 
DARK SIDE.


The point I was making and it got lost, for efficient programing the 
programmer has to know some times the fine detail of cpu and memory.
With the way hardware keeps being revised often for more profit, nobody 
knows the hardware any more.



Al is right.  You might benefit from some more studying of these subjects.


That may be true, but I can't change the market place for crappy 
designs, since for
now I am locked into a windows OS. I use a free FPGA and PAL programing 
software.




paul


70's computers are more interesting. That is why do we have PI computers 
running PDP 8 emulators?


Ben,

Re: 70's computers

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:




On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:


I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.


Wow...

You are out of touch, aren't you.


It's either that or BOFH-level trolling. :)

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby.  Geeks collect hobbies.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

Re: 70's computers

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 11:22 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:

> Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic
> PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on.
> I am dealing with archiecture model here, the real hardware don't matter
> anyway. If it takes X cycles to read memory, it still X cycles where
> memory can be 10uS or 10pS. Ben.

Well yes and no--memory speeds haven't scaled to the same extent that
CPU speeds have.   Consider that in 1982, you could get 80 nsec 4116s,
where your CPU was typically run between 4 and 8MHz.

CPU speeds have improved about a thousandfold, so that a 4GHz CPU isn't
particularly exotic, but I don't know of many 80 psec. consumer-grade
DRAMs.(it takes light about 80 psec to travel one inch).

--Chuck

Re: 70's computers

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:22 AM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>>> I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
>>> it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
>>> with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.
>> Wow...
>> You are out of touch, aren't you.
> 
> Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic
> PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on.
> I am dealing with archiecture model here, the real hardware don't matter
> anyway. If it takes X cycles to read memory, it still X cycles where
> memory can be 10uS or 10pS. Ben.
> 
> 
Not so much anymore.  ;-)

None of the current OS’s have anything to do with the segmentation of x86
as it’s all gone as part of the 64-bit ISA.  It’s still there if you use the 
older
legacy modes but those are not used other than booting (and that will go
away soon too).

The lower level architecture is also significantly changed with out-of-order
execution, deep pipelines and large L1/L2/L3 caches.  Even though from
an ISA perspective, the x86 has only a few visible integer registers, with
OOO and register renaming (I think the current CPUs have 192 registers
that they can use for “renaming”) it isn’t much of an issue.

Oh, and I almost forgot.  You always have multiple CPUs (typically 2-8 on most
mobile and desktops…and that’s without hyper-threading enabled).
Servers are typically 16+ per socket and there can be upto 8 sockets
per server without getting esoteric (so for a typical 4 socket server you
can get 64-128 CPUs).

TTFN - Guy

Re: 70's computers

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:22 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>>> I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
>>> it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
>>> with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.
>> Wow...
>> You are out of touch, aren't you.
> 
> Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic
> PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on.

Single CPU, segmented memory?  No.  Multiple CPUs (8 or so in my laptop, many 
more in servers).  Flat 64 bit address space.

It's true that the original 8086 instruction set lives on with all its warts, 
and many more added over the years.  And yes, I guess that you *can* run them 
in 32 bit segmented mode if you're crazy.  But that's not how they are actually 
used.  The same applies to other successful architectures: MIPS, IBM 360.  Or 
programming languages -- consider C for a particularly horrid example, or worse 
yet C++.

Al is right.  You might benefit from some more studying of these subjects.

paul

Re: 70's computers

[ben via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:



On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:


I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.


Wow...

You are out of touch, aren't you.


Am I really, every thing is so backwards compatable with the classic
PC's I don't see much new other than what was hacked on.
I am dealing with archiecture model here, the real hardware don't matter
anyway. If it takes X cycles to read memory, it still X cycles where
memory can be 10uS or 10pS. Ben.

Re: 70's computers

[ben via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 10:31 AM, Marc Howard via cctalk wrote:

You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just
build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts.  They actually predate
22V10's by quite a bit and you can pretty much implement what every you
want to without rewiring.

Marc


* LOW POWER and REPROGRAMABLE * reglar 22V10's are 100 ma per chip, and 
I can buy them online. I have 5 2901's but I can only find them on ebay 
now. If I design a register based machine I have them, other wise

TTL is better for odd sized word lengths.
Ben.

Re: NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2018-10-24 2:00 p.m., Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> So you won't be at NOVApalooza then?  It's not too late to sign up:
>> http://www.novapalooza.org/
> 
> 
> When: October 22-24, 2018
> 
> How was it?
> 
> 
> 


Oops! I read the subject line and not the dates...

Re: 70's computers

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 10:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:

> I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
> it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
> with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.

Wow...

You are out of touch, aren't you.

Re: 70's computers

[ben via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 9:47 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:

On 10/24/2018 07:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC 
transition was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed 
versus memory speed: with slow memory and fast CPUs, it makes sense to 
get as much execution bang out of every fetch buck (so complex 
instructions); but when memory bandwidth goes up, one needs a fast CPU 
to use it all (so simple instructions).


Maybe I need to finish my coffee before posting, but here goes anyway

I thought memory and CPU speed used to be somewhat comparable 
historically.  And that such is NOT the case now.


Statements made here may or may not reflect having morning coffee.
Back then it was throwing floating point numbers around, now it is 
pixels at high speed. Regardless of the data, most of the time

(assuming simple hardware) you spend more time calculating the
effective address of data getting the data itself.
A RISC machine may have better space to cache stuff,but inside
knowledge how memory gets to the alu units from main memory was
visible until just a few years ago.
we have the NEW intel 800086 20% faster on benchmarks,using
C+++ MOO-GNU compiler. (Fine print older may have  a 200% loss
of speed in some applications, re-compile with the latest (never
released to the public software) written in Chinese.*
I have no idea what is in a modern home computer, but I suspect
it still follows the same design of the IBM PC. Single CPU
with segmented memory and bit of DMA here and there.
Computer Science models are from the transistor era of computing
but don't reflect the internal speeds in the cpu chips.
To me they reflect the vacuum tube model of computing. Time to re-think 
again.


Ben.
* if it was real fine print, I need a lawyer to read it.

Re: 70's computers

[Marc Howard via cctalk]

You know that since you mentioned possibly using CMOS 22V10's why not just
build a board around AMD 29XX bit slice parts.  They actually predate
22V10's by quite a bit and you can pretty much implement what every you
want to without rewiring.

Marc

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:57 AM Jon Elson via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 10/24/2018 08:13 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:
> > On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:
> >>
> >>> The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs
> >>> where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user
> >>> software.
> >> Try the Modular One with an OS written in BCPL.
> >>
> >> https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3230/PRG08.pdf
> >>
> >> Although that paper suggest 32K of core.
> >>
> >> -Gordon
> > Why not the Data General Nova,  16bits and fairly simple.
> >
> >
> Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word.  No surprise,
> Edson De Castro designed the PDP-8 first, at DEC, before
> creating Data General.  And, it retained all the horrible
> things about the PDP-8 that I hated.
>
> Jon
>

Re: 70's computers

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 8:57 AM, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:

> Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word.


Four accumulators, and no memory pages

Re: 70's computers

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 12:38 PM, Chuck Guzis  wrote:
> 
> On 10/24/18 5:36 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> 
>> Very different.  PPUs are real computers, vaguely like a PDP-8 in
>> fact but quite fast. The PPUs have major roles in the OS throughout
>> the 6000 series, not just in early versions.  
> 
> You obviously haven't spent much time in SSD (Special Systems).  I
> recall working on a transaction-oriented multiple-CPU system (tied
> together with ECS) where the PPs were little more than I/O processors.
> *None* of the main operating system code was in the PPUs, save, perhaps
> for DSD.
> 
> The reason for this was quite simple--PPs are terrible when it comes to
> block ECS transfers and having the PPs switch their attention between
> tasks whose CM lifetime was measured in milliseconds was impossible.  

Actually, no, my 6000 time was at the University of Illinois PLATO project.  It 
runs on NOS, which has both CPU OS code and substantial quantities of PP 
resident OS stuff.

PLATO is intensely dependent on ECS, far more than typical CDC software.  And 
in fact, several of its PPs talk via ECS, not CM.  Disk I/O, terminal I/O, 
these go via ECS.

paul

Re: NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

> So you won't be at NOVApalooza then?  It's not too late to sign up:
> http://www.novapalooza.org/


When: October 22-24, 2018

How was it?

NOVApalooza in 2 weeks - DG Nova - was Re: 70's computers

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2018-10-24 12:57 p.m., Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
> On 10/24/2018 08:13 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:
>> On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:
>>>
 The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs
 where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user
 software.
>>> Try the Modular One with an OS written in BCPL.
>>>
>>> https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3230/PRG08.pdf
>>>
>>> Although that paper suggest 32K of core.
>>>
>>> -Gordon
>> Why not the Data General Nova,  16bits and fairly simple.
>>
>>
> Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word.  No surprise, Edson De Castro
> designed the PDP-8 first, at DEC, before creating Data General.  And, it

Yep. (Letter posted by Bruce Ray) https://imgur.com/a/ZeED5bL

> retained all the horrible things about the PDP-8 that I hated.
> 
> Jon
> 

So you won't be at NOVApalooza then?  It's not too late to sign up:
http://www.novapalooza.org/



--Toby

Re: Not really vintage computing, but just in case it's of interest to anyone..

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 1:08 AM, Evan Linwood via cctalk wrote:
> taken from the listing :
> 
> "It was used ( I Believe ) to process Geophysical Seismic Data during the 
> exploration of Oil in Bass Straight. The circuitry is all NASA standard."
> 
> https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/gosford/other-electronics-computers/vintage-computer-tape-drive/1194865314
> 

http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?66273-I-am-putting-the-CART-before-the-HORSE!-ie-300kg-of-1960-s-Computer-Hardware

Re: 70's computers

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 5:36 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
> 
> Very different.  PPUs are real computers, vaguely like a PDP-8 in
> fact but quite fast. The PPUs have major roles in the OS throughout
> the 6000 series, not just in early versions.  

You obviously haven't spent much time in SSD (Special Systems).  I
recall working on a transaction-oriented multiple-CPU system (tied
together with ECS) where the PPs were little more than I/O processors.
*None* of the main operating system code was in the PPUs, save, perhaps
for DSD.

The reason for this was quite simple--PPs are terrible when it comes to
block ECS transfers and having the PPs switch their attention between
tasks whose CM lifetime was measured in milliseconds was impossible.  We
had several PPUs dedicated to servicing disk requests for oceans of 844
drives, but they communicated directly with the CM resident OS, not
individual user tasks--no "stack processor"; requests were sorted and
prioritized by the CM OS.We could run traditional batch jobs, but
that was essentially a hack of some SCOPE 3.1.6 code and it did not play
well with the major business of the system.  PP0, MTR's resident code
occupied about one printed page--it kept the time of day.

Communications were again handled with a PPU, but even that was
connected to several 1700s.

All of this was an outgrowth of TCM (Time Critical Monitor), done by a
fellow associated with the ROVER project.  You needed the CEJ feature
for this all to work.  None of this "stick a request in RA+1 and wait
around" stuff--far too slow.

Some of this was evolutionary--Greg and Dave's MACE was considerably
more CPU-oriented than was SCOPE.

You can see the same influence in 7600 SCOPE--there the PPUs are very
different, communicating via fixed memory areas in SCM.  There, they
really are nothing more than I/O processors.

Interestingly, when STAR came along, the Twin Cities crowd tried to play
the same game as the old SCOPE people did--put most of the OS into the
stations.  LRL didn't agree on that and moved most of the OS to a
message-passing resident CPU based scheme, and it was that system that
became the standard OS--and it was implemented in a variety of LRLTran,
not assembly code.

--Chuck

Re: Astounding Asking Price

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Rob Jarratt via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> My jaw dropped when I saw this:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true
> 
> It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
> seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
> "untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..

That's about the list price of that machine when it was new.  For today, it 
makes no sense at all.

paul

RE: Astounding Asking Price

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Graham [mailto:binarydinosa...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 24 October 2018 17:00
> To: r...@jarratt.me.uk; Jarratt RMA ; General
> Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
> Subject: Re: Astounding Asking Price
> 
> >It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
> >seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
> >"untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..
> 
> Instant alarm bells to me are a seller posting a London address but the item 
> is
> 'for pickup only in Budapest, Hungary'
> 

Yes I noticed that too. Very odd, and £750 to ship to the UK!!


> --
> adrian/witchy
> Owner of Binary Dinosaurs, the UK's biggest home computer collection?
> t: @binarydinosaursf: facebook.com/binarydinosaurs
> w: www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk
> 
> 
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:53, Rob Jarratt via cctalk 
> wrote:
> My jaw dropped when I saw this:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true
> 
> 
> 
> It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
> seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
> "untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..
> 
> 
> 
> As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> Rob

Re: Desktop Metaphor

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 17:35, Rick Bensene  wrote:
>
> Earlier, I wrote:
> >> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix 
> >> implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research >>Center) with the 
> >> pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973,  which implemented  Alan Kay's 
> >> concepts for the desktop metaphor that >>were postulated in 1970 using 
> >> Smalltalk as the core operating system.
>
> To which Liam P. responded:
> >That, again, *was the point I was trying to make*.
>
> >We used to have a ton of prior art and alternative designs, and today,
> >they have all gone, with basically no impact.
>
> I get the point, now.
>
> I was looking at it more from a historical standpoint than from the view of 
> /today/.   I totally agree with Liam as far as every other desktop paradigm 
> prior to Win95 is dead from a practical standpoint, except possibly the (and 
> it can be debated) the Apple desktop environment.
>
> I believe that the history of the desktop metaphor prior to Win95 certainly 
> had an impact on the development of the Win95 desktop environment, and those 
> concepts carry through to today, but in terms of desktop UIs created after 
> Win95, I can't argue that any aren't derivatives of the Win95 environment.

Oh good. I am relieved. :-)

For clarity, for example -- GNOME 3 isn't Win95-like. But it was
designed by removing the bits MS said were its patented IP -- taskbar
with buttons for each app window, start menu, etc. -- and replacing
them with a dock-like app launcher/switcher and a full-screen iconic
app launcher.

It's also very instructive to look at the mockups of GNOME 3 before release:

http://www.vuntz.net/journal/post/2008/10/22/494-desktop-shell-from-the-user-experience-hackfest-general-overview

https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointZero/DesignHistory

https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Design/Iterations/AppBrowsingAlternative

https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/Design/Iterations/AppBrowsingAlternative02

Very text-heavy and cluttered.

Then the test versions of Unity started to appear in late 2010:

http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/ubuntu-1104-alpha-3-is-out-screenshots.html

Then look how GNOME 3.0 looked!

https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1123050/

https://www.gnome-look.org/s/Gnome/p/022/

Unity, of course, is very visibly Mac OS X-like. Single panel at the
top, containing an app name at the left, then a global menu bar, then
status icons. Down the left, a Dock-like launcher containing both app
launchers and running apps (with an indicator to show they're open),
folder shortcuts and minimised windows. OS X defaults to putting this
at the bottom but I personally move it to the left -- more efficient
use of space on widescreens, and doesn't clash with menu bars on the
right. Window controls are on the left, so that if a window is
maximised, they don't get lose in among the indicators on the right...
but again, like on a Mac.

(NeXT's dock was on the right, but then its scrollbars were on the
left. There was also a wharf for minimised windows at the bottom,
which is a bit confusing.)

To keep things a _little_ different from OS X, Ubuntu's app name is
truncated, the global menus are hidden until mouseover, and the dock
doesn't grow or shrink, but these are fairly superficial differences.

The GNOME foundation refused Ubuntu's attempted code contributions,
but I think that it's visible that they took design cues from Unity.

But GNOME is trying to do something a little different. There's an
almost frantic effort to remove anything which isn't essential.
Generic app-global functions are moved into a single menu in the top
panel; there's no global menu bar. The launcher/dock thing is only
visible in overview mode, in other words, more aggressively hidden
than mere autohide. Maximise/minimise buttons are hidden by default,
and menu bars are discouraged, as are separate toolbars and separate
title bars -- all are merged into a single strip.

This is a desktop for people who don't do much window management. The
tooling is for people who run apps full-screen all the time, and
switch between them.

I don't work like that, so it annoys me.

But I digress.

I think the points here are two-fold:

[1] There is one extant FOSS Linux desktop that's totally
un-Windows-like... but the influence, albeit 2nd-hand, of the Mac is
plainly visible. Additionally, it was created by removing elements of
a Win95-style desktop and changing the functions of what was left, and
it shows.

[2] The eventual relative popularity of GNOME 3 at least demonstrates
people's willingness to _try_ something different if there are
benefits.

Budgie, TBH, I don't understand. I don't know why it exists.

It's basically a very jiggered-about Win9x desktop, with a sort of
top-panel-cum-taskbar and a dock bolted on. It does nothing you
couldn't achieve far easier by reconfiguring Xfce or LXDE, so I don't
know why they bothered. It seems to me to offer no benefits or
improvements. 

Re: Astounding Asking Price

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:53 AM Rob Jarratt via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> My jaw dropped when I saw this:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true
>
>
>
> It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
> seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
> "untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..
>
>
>
> As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.
>
>
>
Would it make you feel bad if I told you I threw away a perfectly good 350
with the pedestal as pictured in the early 90s? ;)

Re: Astounding Asking Price

[Adrian Graham via cctalk]

 >It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
>seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
>"untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..

Instant alarm bells to me are a seller posting a London address but the
item is 'for pickup only in Budapest, Hungary'

-- 
adrian/witchy
Owner of Binary Dinosaurs, the UK's biggest home computer collection?
t: @binarydinosaursf: facebook.com/binarydinosaurs
w: www.binarydinosaurs.co.uk


On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 16:53, Rob Jarratt via cctalk 
wrote:

> My jaw dropped when I saw this:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true
>
>
>
> It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
> seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
> "untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..
>
>
>
> As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>

Re: 70's computers

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 08:13 AM, allison via cctalk wrote:

On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:


The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs
where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user
software.

Try the Modular One with an OS written in BCPL.

https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3230/PRG08.pdf

Although that paper suggest 32K of core.

-Gordon

Why not the Data General Nova,  16bits and fairly simple.


Yeah, basically a PDP-8 with a wider word.  No surprise, 
Edson De Castro designed the PDP-8 first, at DEC, before 
creating Data General.  And, it retained all the horrible 
things about the PDP-8 that I hated.


Jon

Re: 70's computers

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 07:36 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:


IBM channels are (from the programmer point of view at 
least) merely hardwired controllers
Well, no.  They actually can do a lot more.  They can do 
branching and simple arithmetic.  We had a program to deal 
with damaged/deteriorating tapes.  You could operate sense 
switches on the tape control unit to tell it when to give up 
on retries on a bad block and go to the next one.  This 
allowed the operator to copy all the recoverable blocks from 
a bad tape.  Once started by the CPU, this program ran 
entirely in the channel.


The original scheme for disks was that the control unit + 
channel would be able to scan a range of disk tracks to find 
a record in which a string of bytes matched a pattern.  This 
turned out to not work so well on larger systems as it could 
tie up not only the control unit but the whole channel for 
the duration of the search. In 1962-3 or so, when the 360 
was designed, IBM had no idea how heavily the systems were 
going to depend on the disk drives.


Jon

Astounding Asking Price

[Rob Jarratt via cctalk]

My jaw dropped when I saw this:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223201002247?ul_noapp=true

 

It looks nice externally, and it has the pedestal, which is nice, but the
seller has not even give the spec or posted pics of the innards and it is
"untested". At that price I would expect a bit more information..

 

As it happens, I am trying to fix my 350 at the moment.

 

Regards

 

Rob

Re: 70's computers

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 07:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC 
transition was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed 
versus memory speed: with slow memory and fast CPUs, it makes sense to get 
as much execution bang out of every fetch buck (so complex instructions); 
but when memory bandwidth goes up, one needs a fast CPU to use it all 
(so simple instructions).


Maybe I need to finish my coffee before posting, but here goes anyway

I thought memory and CPU speed used to be somewhat comparable 
historically.  And that such is NOT the case now.


As such, I feel like the industry has probably ended up going the wrong 
way based on Noel's statement.


Am I failing to take into account the memory fetch buck being transacted 
out of L1 / L2 cache (hopefully not main memory)?


Will someone show me a clue-by-four (but not hit me in the face with 
it)?  Please and thank you.




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

RE: Desktop Metaphor

[Rick Bensene via cctalk]

Earlier, I wrote:
>> The whole desktop metaphor UI existed long before Windows 95 in non-Unix 
>> implementations by Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research >>Center) with the 
>> pioneering Xerox Alto, introduced in 1973,  which implemented  Alan Kay's 
>> concepts for the desktop metaphor that >>were postulated in 1970 using 
>> Smalltalk as the core operating system.

To which Liam P. responded:
>That, again, *was the point I was trying to make*.

>We used to have a ton of prior art and alternative designs, and today,
>they have all gone, with basically no impact.

I get the point, now.  

I was looking at it more from a historical standpoint than from the view of 
/today/.   I totally agree with Liam as far as every other desktop paradigm 
prior to Win95 is dead from a practical standpoint, except possibly the (and it 
can be debated) the Apple desktop environment. 

I believe that the history of the desktop metaphor prior to Win95 certainly had 
an impact on the development of the Win95 desktop environment, and those 
concepts carry through to today, but in terms of desktop UIs created after 
Win95, I can't argue that any aren't derivatives of the Win95 environment.

-Rick

Re: 70's computers

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/24/2018 09:19 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>
>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> There was a recent discussion about code density (I forget whether here, or
>> on TUHS), and someone mentioned this paper:
>>
>>  http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf
>>
>> which shows that for a combo of benchmarks, the PDP-11 had the densest code
>> out of all the ones they looked at. (They didn't look at the PDP-8, but I
>> suspect that since it's a single-address design, it's almost ceertainly not
>> as dense.)
>>
>> The PDP-11 dates back to the days of core (it went through several 
>> generations
>> before DRAM arrived - e.g. the -11/70 originally shipped with core), and 
>> given
>> core prices, minimizing code size was pretty important - hence the results
>> above.
> What's interesting is that the paper uses compiled code.  The gcc back end 
> for pdp11 is still a work in progress and clearly doesn't deliver best 
> possible code, certainly not back then.
>
>   paul
>
I found that paper to be a not so interesting and more or less
pointless.  For many applications its what's on the
chip and rarely does it focus on architecture.  Engineers need to do
things or produce things that work
and  most of the time it comes down to whats available and price.  With
embedded machines the IO
capability and resident memory are likely deciding factors more so than
if its Harvard or Von, RISC
or CISC.   The other is the tool chain costs in, acquisition cost,  time
to learn, and apply.

Allison

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 9:45 AM, Nemo via cctalk wrote:
> On 24/10/2018, Liam Proven via cctalk  wrote (in part):
> [...]
>> Come to think of it, most Linux users I know are Windows converts.
>> Very few are Mac converts -- once you go Mac, you can't go back,
>> apparently.
> Why would you?  (Mac is certified POSIX and works very nicely with Sun
> mice and UNIX keyboards. #6-)
>
I have used Apple computers since the earliest days.  Apple ][,

Lisa, Mac and to this day I have a Mac laptop.  I have  used

Windows since the days of 3.1, including WfW 3.11 and all the

followons  up thru Windows 10.  And during all this time I have

also used Unix/Linux.  Care to guess which one is my most used

class of OSes?  :-) (I have used other OSes during this time, but

none of them fit into this discussion.  Always, the right tool for

the job in my choices.  Guess which one meets that requirement

the most times!)


bill

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Nemo via cctalk]

On 24/10/2018, Liam Proven via cctalk  wrote (in part):
[...]
> Come to think of it, most Linux users I know are Windows converts.
> Very few are Mac converts -- once you go Mac, you can't go back,
> apparently.

Why would you?  (Mac is certified POSIX and works very nicely with Sun
mice and UNIX keyboards. #6-)

N.

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

On 10/24/18 5:47 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 20:01, Alan Perry via cctalk
>  wrote:
>
>> Excuse me, but I work for Oracle on Solaris (primarily on USB code) and
>> it is not EOL. Oracle just released Solaris 11.4 and the next release is
>> being worked on.
> Oh! Well, I'm very glad to hear it.
>
> But the news has not spread -- cf.
>
> http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2017/09/04/the-sudden-death-and-eternal-life-of-solaris/
>
> https://www.networkworld.com/article/3160176/hardware/game-over-for-solaris-and-sparc.html
>
> https://www.networkworld.com/article/3222707/data-center/the-sun-sets-on-solaris-and-sparc.html
>
> https://siliconangle.com/2017/09/05/oracle-layoffs-signal-end-life-sparc-solaris-products/
>
> https://www.itprotoday.com/software-development/new-oracle-layoffs-probably-signal-end-line-solaris
>

You act surprised.  I find that, like the regular news, the trade news 
is more interested in

creating news than reporting real news.


bill

Re: 70's computers

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> There was a recent discussion about code density (I forget whether here, or
> on TUHS), and someone mentioned this paper:
> 
>  http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/iccd09_density.pdf
> 
> which shows that for a combo of benchmarks, the PDP-11 had the densest code
> out of all the ones they looked at. (They didn't look at the PDP-8, but I
> suspect that since it's a single-address design, it's almost ceertainly not
> as dense.)
> 
> The PDP-11 dates back to the days of core (it went through several generations
> before DRAM arrived - e.g. the -11/70 originally shipped with core), and given
> core prices, minimizing code size was pretty important - hence the results
> above.

What's interesting is that the paper uses compiled code.  The gcc back end for 
pdp11 is still a work in progress and clearly doesn't deliver best possible 
code, certainly not back then.

paul

Re: 70's computers

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> From: Paul Koning
> 
>> A lot more comes from the CPU architecture. The instruction set, of
>> course (arguably the first RISC).
> 
> An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC transition
> was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed versus memory
> speed: with slow memory and fast CPUs, it makes sense to get as much
> execution bang out of every fetch buck (so complex instructions); but when
> memory bandwidth goes up, one needs a fast CPU to use it all (so simple
> instructions).
> 
> It occurs to be that the same balance probably applies to memory _size_. When
> memories are small, one wants dense code (which probably means CISC); only
> with larger memories does RISC, with its less-dense code, make sense.

That sounds reasonable.  But what does that say about the CDC 6000 series?  
It's RISC, essentially, running on expensive and fairly slow memory.  (Fast 
bandwidth due to 32 way interleave, but roughly 8 cycles access latency.)  I 
think the magic is that the instruction encoding is very efficient, so you get 
the execution benefits of RISC without  the space penalties.

paul

Re: 70's computers

[allison via cctalk]

On 10/23/2018 05:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:
>
>> The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs
>> where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user
>> software.
>
> Try the Modular One with an OS written in BCPL.
>
> https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3230/PRG08.pdf
>
> Although that paper suggest 32K of core.
>
> -Gordon

Why not the Data General Nova,  16bits and fairly simple.

Allison

Re: 70's computers

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Paul Koning

> A lot more comes from the CPU architecture. The instruction set, of
> course (arguably the first RISC).

An observation about RISC: I've opined before that the CISC->RISC transition
was driven, in part, by the changing balance of CPU speed versus memory
speed: with slow memory and fast CPUs, it makes sense to get as much
execution bang out of every fetch buck (so complex instructions); but when
memory bandwidth goes up, one needs a fast CPU to use it all (so simple
instructions).

It occurs to be that the same balance probably applies to memory _size_. When
memories are small, one wants dense code (which probably means CISC); only
with larger memories does RISC, with its less-dense code, make sense.

Noel

Re: 70's computers

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 6:50 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> From: Paul Koning
> 
> 
>> Some years ago I learned the architecture of the Dutch Electrologica X1
>> and X8 machines. ... they gain a lot of efficiency by allowing almost
>> all instructions to optionally set a condition flag, and almost all
>> instructions to be executed conditionally on that flag. So a lot of
>> code full of branches becomes much shorter. ... For example:
>> 
>>  if (x >= 0) { foo (); x += 2; }
>>  else x -= 3;
>> 
>> translates to just 5 instructions:
> 
> Very clever!
> 
> What's the word length on that machine, BTW? I ask because it would be hard
> to pull that trick on most short-word-length machines, there just isn't a
> spare bit or two in the instruction to add that.

27 bits, one's complement.  The opcode layout is 6 bits for operation, 2 for 
addressing mode, 2 for controlling conditional execution, 2 for specifying 
whether/how to set the condition flag, and 15 bits for address or immediate 
operand.  There's a short description in Wikipedia (both the EL-X1 and the 
EL-X8).  The two share the same basic instruction set, the X8 adds float and 
has a different I/O system with a coprocessor (CHARON).  The X1 has what may be 
history's strangest addressing mode ("C" mode).

One handy thing you could do with this is have instructions that are both 
conditionally executed and condition-setting, which lets you do Boolean 
operations without explicit AND or OR instruction use.  For example, if you 
wanted to know if X is zero and Y is >= 0, you could write:
   A=x, Z
Y, A=y, P
and end up with the condition flag set to "yes" if that composite condition is 
true.  (If you needed OR rather than AND, the Y would simply become N in the 
second line.)

For a pretty detailed description of the X1, see Dijkstra's Ph.D. thesis, which 
is online in the U. Texas EWD archive.  The X1, incidentally, was as far as I 
can determine the first commercial computer with interrupts standard.  (TX-0 
did interrupts slightly earlier and IBM offered interrupts as an option at 
about the same time as the X1, I believe.)  Also, X1 had what you might call a 
BIOS, in ROM.  Core ROM, that is -- different from "core rope" and somewhat 
more efficient.

paul

Re: 70's computers

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 9:47 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 10/23/18 6:10 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> The 10 or so PPU units.
>> Ben.
> 
> Early SCOPE and COS also put the operating system in those, leaving the
> CPU for real work.  But for I/O, not that much different from IBM
> "channels", no?

Very different.  PPUs are real computers, vaguely like a PDP-8 in fact but 
quite fast. The PPUs have major roles in the OS throughout the 6000 series, not 
just in early versions.  And not always just the OS.  Consider PLATO, which in 
a sense is an application... with a set of PPU programs to help it.  It would 
drive 1000 terminals (600 logged in concurrently) running highly interactive 
text and graphics applications including early multi-user games, on a pair of 
6500 machines.  Those are, on good days, roughly 1 MIPS per CPU.  Feeding data 
to and from the 1000 terminal lines was the job of just a single PPU.

IBM channels are (from the programmer point of view at least) merely hardwired 
controllers no different from a DEC UDA50 or for that matter a CDC 7054 disk 
controller.

The fact that PPUs are general purpose computers means a smart programmer can 
make the I/O system do things the manufacturer did not believe possible.  CDC 
used 2 to 1 sector interleave on its disk drives (844, which is like the DEC 
RP04) because the PPU could not keep up with sector data arriving at full 
speed.  But Don Lee at University of Illinois made that work in the PLATO 
system by deploying a pair of PPUs controlling the disks together ("ping" and 
"pong").

That said, I think Ben is overestimating the impact of the PPUs on the overall 
system performance.  A lot more comes from the CPU architecture.  The 
instruction set, of course (arguably the first RISC).  And especially the 
multiple functional unit highly overlapped design, with some very clever tricks 
in it.  Consider that a 6000 would do a process context switch with a single 
instruction, in about 4 microseconds -- in 1964.  Part of the reason that works 
is that it takes advantage of the properties of core memory in a way that few 
other machines do.

paul

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 00:31, Jim Manley via cctalk
 wrote:

> It's the sort of stuff marked
> with "COMPANY PROPRIETARY" watermarks that, if you try to scan or run it
> through a photocopier, produces black output due to opto-molecular chemical
> overlays.

Oh dear. Let me guess -- do you also worry about chemtrails and
fluoride in the water?

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: 70's computers

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Paul Koning


> Some years ago I learned the architecture of the Dutch Electrologica X1
> and X8 machines. ... they gain a lot of efficiency by allowing almost
> all instructions to optionally set a condition flag, and almost all
> instructions to be executed conditionally on that flag. So a lot of
> code full of branches becomes much shorter. ... For example:
> 
>   if (x >= 0) { foo (); x += 2; }
>   else x -= 3;
>
> translates to just 5 instructions:

Very clever!

What's the word length on that machine, BTW? I ask because it would be hard
to pull that trick on most short-word-length machines, there just isn't a
spare bit or two in the instruction to add that.

Noel

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 20:12, Jim Manley via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Wrong.  Apple has been using self-customized, optimized-for their-hardware
> supersets of the VNC protocol (which is X based)

Not true.

VNC isn't X-based.
And Apple supports it, sure, but as an accessory thing. VNC also works
fine on Windows, and there's no X.11 in Windows.

Jim, you seem awfully convinced of this stuff, but as others are
telling you, you have it almost all wrong. :-(

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 20:09, John Ames  wrote:

> There's also the Afterstep/Window Maker crowd, open-source
> reimplementations of the NEXTSTEP desktop environment, which predates
> even Windows 3.x.

That sort of echoes my point, really, I think.

As I said, it's ludicrous to counter my claim that Win95 influenced
basically _every_ desktop after it by pointing out that it didn't
influence ones written before it.

And to be more specific:
* AfterStep -- last new release 2008; last minor update 2013. Effectively dead.
* LiteStep -- not updated since some time around 2011-2014, if then.
Effectively dead.
* Window Maker -- alive, but just a WM, not a desktop.

GNUstep is very much alive, with a tiny user community, but as I said,
I am not aware of any distro bundling a complete current version even
for you to custom-install yourself. Nothing offers it as an option in
place of GNOME, KDE etc., or ever has, TTBOMK.

I personally think that's criminal and tragic, but hey.

>  Win95 was certainly very influential in the design
> and refinement of many other desktop environments going forward, but
> it's not the be-all and end-all of anything.

Definitely not claiming it is. In fact my thesis is the reverse: that
we _need_ more variety but we aren't getting it, because to anyone
under about 35, there are only 2 desktops: the "traditional" one,
which means Win95-esque, and the "weird" Mac one.

> But this is kind of a questionable standard to begin with, because the
> whole point in the Freenix world is choice. No distributions offer
> those as default options during the install process, but all of them
> (aside from CDE, which only just went open-source a couple years ago
> and is still in the process of being cleaned up and forward-ported to
> modern *nixen) are available in the repositories for most major
> distributions, and all of them are still actively updated.

Please correct me if I am wrong. As I said, I am not aware of *any*
current distro of any OS that offers even current packages of GNUstep
*or* the complete ROX environment as a DIY option.

Or CDE come to that, but I hope it comes back!

> Kinda-sorta-not-really. BeOS (like just about everything post-1995)
> takes cues from Win95, but its roots are in classic Mac OS and it
> definitely hews closer to that in most respects, despite the absence
> of a global menu bar.

Reviewed it as of v4 and v5. Was a big fan. I have a full boxed copy
of v5, a naughty copy of Zeta, and a machine running a recent Haiku
nightly on bare metal (which I must update to Beta 1.)

I am _very_ aware of BeOS. BeOS was my favourite x86 OS of all time.

Drag the panel to the bottom of the screen, and then you can see how
Tracker is a Win95 clone. The default part-length top-right position
conceals this, but it is all the same.

> Haiku says hi. Or would, if they could spare the time from trying to
> awkwardly kludge Linux development models into a BeOS world.

I must admit I am surprised at how "Linuxy" Haiku feels now, but that
does mean it has a healthier software base through the Depot than BeOS
itself ever had.

> This "aside from the things that don't match up with my argument, my
> argument is flawless!" line of reasoning is novel.

:-D

I laid out my case 5-6y ago in the article I linked:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/

(single-page print view)

In a way I think it's a microcosm of the general OS world.

In the late '70s and early '80s there were lots of incompatible micros.

By the mid '80s, and for about a decade, this started to settle down
into 3 broad camps -- well, 2 and an outlier.
[1] Conservative x86-based machines, conforming to the IBM
compatibility standard (but several OSes & UIs)
[2] more experimental Motorola 680x0 machines (Mac, ST, Amiga)
[3] and Acorn, doing its own thing.

By the mid-'90s, finally, the Wintel camp caught up with the Mac camp,
and the non-Mac 68k machines died off.

Acorn gave up soon after and then it was a 2-horse race:
IBM-compatibles versus Macs.

Apple had undergone a schism, Jobs went off, founded NeXT, made a
futuristic Unix that discarded a lot of traditional stuff like X.11,
C/C++, config in text files, etc. Then it merged back in, all the
MacOS/Copland/Pink/Taligent stuff was tossed out, and a few years
later, Apple is an x86-based UNIX vendor.

Apple has resisted the PC trends for a long long time. It ploughs its
own furrow, always has.

Linux has thrived because it _embraced_ them. Unlike the BSDs, it uses
Windows-style disk partitioning, it embraces Windows file formats,
talks happily over the network to Windows boxes (using client software
configured with Windows-INI-format config files), runs Windows apps
with some reasonable competence. It's always been the minority player
in the Windows world and it embraces that.

BSD comes from a pre-PC, pre-DOS/Windows world and only reluctantly
works with Windows-style hardware and software.

So Linux has also absorbed 

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Alan Perry via cctalk]

> On Oct 24, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Liam Proven  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 20:01, Alan Perry via cctalk
>  wrote:
> 
>> Excuse me, but I work for Oracle on Solaris (primarily on USB code) and
>> it is not EOL. Oracle just released Solaris 11.4 and the next release is
>> being worked on.
> 
> Oh! Well, I'm very glad to hear it.
> 
> But the news has not spread -- cf.
> 
> http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2017/09/04/the-sudden-death-and-eternal-life-of-solaris/
> 
> https://www.networkworld.com/article/3160176/hardware/game-over-for-solaris-and-sparc.html
> 
> https://www.networkworld.com/article/3222707/data-center/the-sun-sets-on-solaris-and-sparc.html
> 
> https://siliconangle.com/2017/09/05/oracle-layoffs-signal-end-life-sparc-solaris-products/
> 
> https://www.itprotoday.com/software-development/new-oracle-layoffs-probably-signal-end-line-solaris

Well, those were pretty much all written immediately after Oracle let go of 
most of the Solaris and SPARC orgs. It was brutal and I can imagine how it 
looked from the outside. But most isn’t all and it is more that a year later 
and we are still putting out Solaris releases.

alan 



> 
> 
> -- 
> Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
> Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
> Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
> UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 20:01, Alan Perry via cctalk
 wrote:

> Excuse me, but I work for Oracle on Solaris (primarily on USB code) and
> it is not EOL. Oracle just released Solaris 11.4 and the next release is
> being worked on.

Oh! Well, I'm very glad to hear it.

But the news has not spread -- cf.

http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2017/09/04/the-sudden-death-and-eternal-life-of-solaris/

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3160176/hardware/game-over-for-solaris-and-sparc.html

https://www.networkworld.com/article/3222707/data-center/the-sun-sets-on-solaris-and-sparc.html

https://siliconangle.com/2017/09/05/oracle-layoffs-signal-end-life-sparc-solaris-products/

https://www.itprotoday.com/software-development/new-oracle-layoffs-probably-signal-end-line-solaris


-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: Microsoft-Paul Allen

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:48, Fred Cisin via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> "The simplistic style is partly explained by the fact that its editors,
> having to meet a publishing deadline, copied the information off the back
> of a packet of breakfast cereal, hastily embroidering it with a few foot
> notes in order to avoid prosecution under the incomprehensibly torturous
> Galactic Copyright Laws. Its interesting to note that a later and wilier
> editor sent the book backwards in time, through a temporal warp, and then
> successfully sued the breakfast cereal company for infringement of the
> same laws."-HHGTTG

Speaking as a former president of the official Douglas Adams fanclub,
I am deeply honoured by the comparison. :-D

-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: 70's computers

[Gordon Henderson via cctalk]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:


On 10/23/2018 3:32 PM, Gordon Henderson via cctalk wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, ben via cctalk wrote:


The PDP 11 is nice machine, but I am looking  for simpler designs
where 16K words is a valid memory size for a OS and small single user 
software.


Try the Modular One with an OS written in BCPL.

https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/files/3230/PRG08.pdf

Although that paper suggest 32K of core.

A quick search shows NO DOCUMENTS online. Another LOST sytem from the 
70's.Ben.


There's a few bits & piece online, maybe not in the "usual" places though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Technology_Limited

http://www.redhawksys.com/index_files/Page627.htm

Also worthwhile noting that Iann Baron 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iann_Barron ) went on to found inmos and 
create the transputer. I worked in Bristol for some time, starting with a 
company founded by some ex-inmos employees in the mid 80's building 
transputer base supercomputers - a CPU with a curious instruction set that 
(coincidentally?) might be a good fit for the BCPL CINTCODE system. I'm 
also sure that the transputer is very much influenced by the Modular One 
too.


BCPL continues on to this day, now a 32 or 64 bit language running on all 
mainstream OSs and processors.


-Gordon

Not really vintage computing, but just in case it's of interest to anyone..

[Evan Linwood via cctalk]

taken from the listing :

"It was used ( I Believe ) to process Geophysical Seismic Data during the 
exploration of Oil in Bass Straight. The circuitry is all NASA standard."

https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/gosford/other-electronics-computers/vintage-computer-tape-drive/1194865314