Re: history is hard

sön 2020-05-31 klockan 10:04 -0500 skrev Jon Elson via cctalk: > On 05/31/2020 02:06 AM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: > > > > On 5/30/2020 11:15 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: > > > On 05/29/2020 02:38 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > > > Low-level machines did not even

Re: history is hard

On 05/31/2020 02:06 AM, jim stephens via cctalk wrote: On 5/30/2020 11:15 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On 05/29/2020 02:38 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: Low-level machines did not even have storage protection keys, and on the /40 and /50 (I think) it was an option, although

Re: history is hard

On 5/30/2020 11:15 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On 05/29/2020 02:38 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: Low-level machines did not even have storage protection keys, and on the /40 and /50 (I think) it was an option, although I'd guess almost any /50 had it installed. Our /50 had it

Re: history is hard

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:30 PM Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > On 05/29/2020 02:38 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > > From: Jon Elson > > > > > As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, which > was out > > > in the early 1970's > > > > CP/67, which was a

RE: history is hard

Budne via > cctalk > Sent: 29 May 2020 23:39 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: history is hard > > > From: Noel > > > From: Jon Elson > > > > > As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, which was > out > > &

Re: history is hard

> From: Noel > > From: Jon Elson > > > As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, which was out > > in the early 1970's > > CP/67, which was a semi-product, and ran only on 360/67's, was basically the > same functionality as VM/370. (I get the impression that the code was

Re: history is hard

On 05/29/2020 02:38 PM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > From: Jon Elson > As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, which was out > in the early 1970's CP/67, which was a semi-product, and ran only on 360/67's, was basically the same functionality as VM/370. (I

Re: history is hard

> From: Jon Elson > As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, which was out > in the early 1970's CP/67, which was a semi-product, and ran only on 360/67's, was basically the same functionality as VM/370. (I get the impression that the code was descended from CP/67,

Re: history is hard

On Wed, 27 May 2020, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: I would be most intrigued to see what a hardware lock and soft-eject for a USB key would look like. Eject would require fairly precise fit for a solenoid follower around the perimeter. Are the square holes in the USB-A top and bottom side

Re: history is hard

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:04:10PM -0700, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: [...] > also, the Amiga wrote track rather than sector at a time, so a sector write > needed to be delayed until the track was ready to be written And could therefore corrupt ten unrelated sectors from other files at the same

Re: history is hard

Fred ... discusses problems with SMARTDRV (in MS DOS 4.01 and later). On Tue, 26 May 2020, Christian Groessler via cctalk wrote: I'm not sure if it was technically a form of caching, but the AmigaDOS delayed floppy write (well before MS-DOS cache) caused enormous problems for Amiga users. (It

Re: History is hard

I accidentally attributed text from Liam as being from Fred C, ""MS-DOS 3.3 did not even come with a disk cache." Sorry Fred! Stan

Re: history is hard

On Tue, 26 May 2020, Stan Sieler via cctalk wrote: Fred writes: ..."MS-DOS 3.3 did not even come with a disk cache." I definitely never said THAT. and discusses problems with SMARTDRV (in MS DOS 4.01 and later). Yes, THAT I said, but in terms of Win3.10 installing SMARTDRV, rather than

Re: history is hard

On 2020-05-26 22:06, Stan Sieler via cctalk wrote: Fred writes: ..."MS-DOS 3.3 did not even come with a disk cache." and discusses problems with SMARTDRV (in MS DOS 4.01 and later). I'm not sure if it was technically a form of caching, but the AmigaDOS delayed floppy write (well before

Re: history is hard

Fred writes: ..."MS-DOS 3.3 did not even come with a disk cache." and discusses problems with SMARTDRV (in MS DOS 4.01 and later). I'm not sure if it was technically a form of caching, but the AmigaDOS delayed floppy write (well before MS-DOS cache) caused enormous problems for Amiga users.

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 14:13 -0700, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > I hadn't thought about IBMCACHE.SYS in *years*. I wrote it in > > its entirety (there's even a patent that covers some of its > operation). > > I was in an AdTech (Advanced Technology) group at the time and > > was looking at

Re: history is hard

Some things are easy to check, like the fact that the Z80 came out in 1976 when Woz was already finishing the Apple II so he couldn't have considered using it for the Apple I. I haven't personally looked into whether he considered using the Z80, but your statement there is oversimplified.

Re: Standard Cocktail Napkin Size [WAS: RE: history is hard

On 25/05/2020 20:56, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: The final media size was determined by Shugart Engineering led by Al Chou from the size of the 8-track tape drive that the 5�-inch FDD was to replace in Wang and other systems.  As near as I can tell it was not the same size as a �standard�

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

I hadn't thought about IBMCACHE.SYS in *years*.?? I wrote it in its entirety (there's even a patent that covers some of its operation). I was in an AdTech (Advanced Technology) group at the time and was looking at how to make disk operations faster in DOS at the time when I came up with the

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 13:21 -0700, Ali wrote: > > >I hadn't thought about IBMCACHE.SYS in *years*. I wrote it in its > >entirety (there's even a patent that covers some of its operation). > I > >was in an AdTech (Advanced Technology) group at the time and was > >looking at how to make disk

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

>I hadn't thought about IBMCACHE.SYS in *years*.  I wrote it in its>entirety >(there's even a patent that covers some of its operation). I>was in an AdTech >(Advanced Technology) group at the time and was>looking at how to make disk >operations faster in >DOS at the time when I>came up with

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 20:28 +0200, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:22, Guy Sotomayor > wrote: > > > > I hadn't thought about IBMCACHE.SYS in *years*. I wrote it in its > > entirety (there's even a patent that covers some of its operation). > > I > > was in an AdTech

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 20:22, Guy Sotomayor wrote: > > I hadn't thought about IBMCACHE.SYS in *years*. I wrote it in its > entirety (there's even a patent that covers some of its operation). I > was in an AdTech (Advanced Technology) group at the time and was > looking at how to make disk

Standard Cocktail Napkin Size [WAS: RE: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)}

On Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:23 AM Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote in part: >> On Sun, 24 May 2020, Tom Gardner via cctalk wrote: >>The final media size was determined by Shugart Engineering led by Al >> Chou from the size of the 8-track tape drive that the 5¼-inch FDD was >> to replace in Wang and

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 20:00 +0200, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 05:30, Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: > > > > > IBMs came with an installable driver called, I think, IBMCACHE.SYS. > This used extended RAM (above 1MB) as a hard disk cache, without XMS > or HIMEM.SYS or

Re: history is hard

On Mon, May 25, 2020, 8:40 AM Jon Elson wrote: > On 05/24/2020 04:18 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: > > IBM's standard VM/360. Sorry for the confusion. That will > > teach me to reply on my phone... Warner > As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, > which was out in the

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 05:30, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > I played briefly with Xenix on an XT (or MAYBE an AT) on a 15MB? drive > partition. MS-DOS was a better match for that hardware. Never tried Xenix on an XT, but it was the 2nd OS on my PC-AT in my first ever job. That machine was

Re: history is hard

On 05/24/2020 04:18 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote: IBM's standard VM/360. Sorry for the confusion. That will teach me to reply on my phone... Warner As far as I know, there was no VM/360. There WAS VM/370, which was out in the early 1970's, but on 370 mainframes, not 360s. Jon

RE: history is hard

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Peter Coghlan > via cctalk > Sent: 25 May 2020 08:10 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: history is hard > > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 19:24:31 -0400, Bill Gunshannon wrote: &

RE: history is hard

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Bill Gunshannon > via cctalk > Sent: 25 May 2020 00:25 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: history is hard > > On 5/24/20 5:30 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: > > > > > > CP/67 or

Re: history is hard

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 19:24:31 -0400, Bill Gunshannon wrote: On 5/24/20 5:30 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: CP/67 or something like that maybe? I don't think there was a VM/360 either. There was VM/370 in 1980. I worked under it from May to August. Hosted on a 4331 at Ft. Ben

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

On Sun, 24 May 2020, Jecel Assumpcao Jr via cctalk wrote: I had heard that Microsoft had licensed Xenix before the IBM thing. I hadn't known that. Bill thought he had a gentleman's agreement with Gary to not intrude in each other's turf and then DR came out with CBASIC. Furious, Bill got

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Fred, > Quite true that Gary did not have the ruthless personality to compete. > If the roles had been reversed, Gary would NOT have become a bill Gates. > Yes, the final outcome was inevitable, although the one incident set the > path. It is fairly commonly believed that MS-DOS would not

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Quite true that Gary did not have the ruthless personality to compete. If the roles had been reversed, Gary would NOT have become a bill Gates. Yes, the final outcome was inevitable, although the one incident set the path. It is fairly commonly believed that MS-DOS would not have EXISTED

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Fred, > To me, the culture clash aspect makes it one of the greatest stories of > the time. > Was Gary not taking the meeting seriously enough to be there on time, and > as a consequence, ending up being $80B behind Bill Gates, the stupidest > mistake anybody has ever made? > Or the bravest

Re: history is hard

On 5/24/20 5:30 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: CP/67 or something like that maybe? I don't think there was a VM/360 either. There was VM/370 in 1980. I worked under it from May to August. Hosted on a 4331 at Ft. Ben Harrison, IN. The launch of the Mainframe and COBOL facet of my

Re: history is hard

On 2020-05-24 4:13 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:01 PM Toby Thain > wrote: > > On 2020-05-24 3:20 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:04 AM Toby Thain via cctalk > >

Re: history is hard

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 3:47 PM Peter Coghlan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 15:18:34 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > The topic for my talk next week. Unix had virtualization in 74. The > >> second > >> > Unix port ran under OS/360's VM in 78. >

Re: history is hard

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 15:18:34 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> > >> > The topic for my talk next week. Unix had virtualization in 74. The >> second >> > Unix port ran under OS/360's VM in 78. >> > >> >> What do you mean by "Unix had virtualization"? >> > > I mean that 4th edition UNIX ran under a

Re: history is hard

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 3:14 PM Peter Coghlan via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 13:20:41 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:04 AM Toby Thain via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> > > wrote: > > > >> On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via

Re: history is hard

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 13:20:41 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:04 AM Toby Thain via cctalk > wrote: > >> On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >> > ... IBM was doing >> > Virtualization in the 70's. >> >> 1968 and probably before.[1] >> >> Most operating

Re: history is hard

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:01 PM Toby Thain wrote: > On 2020-05-24 3:20 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:04 AM Toby Thain via cctalk > > mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote: > > > > On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > > ... IBM was

Re: history is hard

On 5/24/20 10:04 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >> ... IBM was doing >> Virtualization in the 70's. > > 1968 and probably before.[1] Don't forget Peter Denning! --Chuck

Re: history is hard

On 2020-05-24 3:20 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:04 AM Toby Thain via cctalk > mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote: > > On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > ... IBM was doing > > Virtualization in the 70's. > > 1968 and probably

Re: history is hard

On Sun, May 24, 2020, 11:04 AM Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > ... IBM was doing > > Virtualization in the 70's. > > 1968 and probably before.[1] > > Most operating systems concepts[2] are much older than people think. > The topic for

RE: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Some don't matter; some can be enough to ruin a good anecdote; some create a different story. I'm saddened that Jim Adkisson and Don Massaro of Shugart have changed their story and now deny that the size of the 5.25" disk was based on Dr. Wang pointing to a bar napkin. The "Bar Napkin Disk" was

Re: history is hard

On 5/24/20 1:04 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: ... IBM was doing Virtualization in the 70's. 1968 and probably before.[1] Most operating systems concepts[2] are much older than people think. --T [1]

RE: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Fred Cisin [mailto:ci...@xenosoft.com] wrote on Saturday, May 23, 2020 11:28 PM Some don't matter; some can be enough to ruin a good anecdote; some create a different story. I'm saddened that Jim Adkisson and Don Massaro of Shugart have changed their story and now deny that the size

Re: history is hard

On 2020-05-24 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > ... IBM was doing > Virtualization in the 70's. 1968 and probably before.[1] Most operating systems concepts[2] are much older than people think. --T [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_CP/CMS [2] e.g. ref: Per Brinch Hansen,

Re: history is hard

On 5/24/20 2:28 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: Either way, changing it from IBM not wanting to deal with DR into Bill Gates cold calling IBM to tell them "what an operating system is" is totally invalidating, marginalizing, and misrepresenting a significant aspect of the microcomputer

Re: history is hard (was: Microsoft open sources GWBASIC)

Yes, there will always be discrepancies. I have to admit that many/most?/all? of my memories may be inaccurate or wrong. Some don't matter; some can be enough to ruin a good anecdote; some create a different story. I'm saddened that Jim Adkisson and Don Massaro of Shugart have changed