[cctalk] Re: What's the going rate for 80286?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2024, John via cctalk wrote:


Dunno, what does a box of Cracker Jack cost these days...?


I checked; Amazon has Cracker Jack THREE boxes for $4.53
That's sold by a third party, but fulfilled by Amazon.

I've been told that the current prizes are stickers to unlock games on 
their website.


They haven't had microprocessors as prizes in a long time.
The switch to games saved money, and protected them from liability 
lawsuits for choking on a prize (an 80286 might do some damage if swallowed)


So far, Arduinos are still more expensive than stickers.  But, keep 
waiting.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] What's the going rate for 80286?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Electronics Goldmine has them for $19.95

https://theelectronicgoldmine.com/products/g28288


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

And perhaps craziest of all, $189k for a 360/91 console display.  Just 
the lights panel, nothing more.
Well, that might be all thatthe interior decorators wanted, for hanging on 
the wall


On Fri, 13 Sep 2024, David C. Jenner wrote:
This was from the 360/91 at UCLA when I was there in the 1970s.  I recall 
seeing them working on refurbishing it when I was last at the LCM a few years 
ago.


If the machine was being refurbished, why was the console display 
separated from the machine?

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

The closest that you can get is records of the serial number.
And statements of experts.
A signed statement by Abby Sciuto


On Fri, 13 Sep 2024, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

I get a real laugh every time I see statements like this.
Back when I was still in the military (around 2005) I had
to attend a Navy Security briefing.  Everybody got a real
kick out of the opening (break the ice) statement that NCIS
didn't have a lab at all.  All their lab work was done by
Army CID at FT. Gillem, GA.


Perhaps it needs to be emoticon captioned for the humor impaired.

Abby Sciuto is a fictional forensics epecialist in a fictional show.
She does wondrous stuff, such as getting hits of computer facial 
recognition from reflections from a shiny car fender.

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I wonder if anyone has done a study of high-profile auction sale prices vs
apples to apples contemporary sales prices (ebay, etc) of the same item.
Paul Allen's [item name] will always sell for more that Joe Schmo's [item
name].  Buyer can forever say this was Paul Allen's [item name].  The
providence



On Thu, 12 Sep 2024, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

How do you prove it?  Kinda like Babe Ruth baseballs.


The closest that you can get is records of the serial number.
And statements of experts.
A signed statement by Abby Sciuto of his fingerprints on it, and that that 
was his DNA in the drop of dried blood where previous owner cut themselves 
on the sharp edge.

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"bought by Christies" might mean that individual employees, or corporate, might offer a 
paid "proxy bidding" service?


On Tue, 10 Sep 2024, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

The terms of sale indicate that Christie's employees are allowed to participate 
for themselves and if so are identified as such, but they get no special 
consideration if they do.


Unless there was specific mandate not to do so, I can imagine either a 
potential buyer or an employee initiating a "I'll give you 15% over what 
you pay, up to $100K, if you get it for me."

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"bought by Christies" might mean that individual employees, or corporate, 
might offer a paid "proxy bidding" service?

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024, Paul Koning wrote:
And perhaps craziest of all, $189k for a 360/91 console display.  Just 
the lights panel, nothing more.


Well, that might be all thatthe interior decorators wanted, for hanging on 
the wall

[cctalk] Re: auction starting in 50 minutes

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2024, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

Wow, someone paid $56k for a MITS ALTAIR.  And $945k for an Apple 1.  Not to mention 
$718k for an Enigma machine.  A bunch of things went for way above the estimate, while 
for others it's much closer.  One wonders why; I suppose a possible explanation is 
"because the auction house doesn't particularly understand the market for these 
things".


Any special provenance?  (Hitler's personal Enigma?, BillG's' Altair?, 
Steve's Apple?)


Or just multiple bidders on each item, unaware of more reasonable sources?
(I think that those prices are high, or the bidders were)

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Punch card info

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024, Bill Degnan wrote:

IBM 1951-54 IIRC.  I have a few early punch and reader docs.  They span
from just after WWII and into the early 701, 704, 650 days


Thanks
I got into unit record stuff in the mid to late 1960s.
But, my interests were a little esoteric, and I never really learned the 
mainstream DP stuff.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Punch card info

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 9 Sep 2024, Bill Degnan via cctalk wrote:


There is a 47 tape to card punch


I don't think that I ever saw one of those.
Was it IBM?
When was it available?


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Punch card info

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

The 447? stand-alone interpreter did reasonably high speed interpret/print


On Mon, 9 Sep 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Perhaps you mean the 557?


I do, indeed.
Thank you
That was a unit-record machine that I didn't use much.


For my father's work, I mostly did keypunch, verify, counting sorter, and 
lots of simple FORTRAN..


At Goddard, I did my own punching, and put in time on the Gerber Data 
Digitizer (a graphic arts style table with etch-a-sketch controlled 
crosshairs and a foot pedal, connected to an 026 punch).  A little APL, 
and a lot of FORTRAN, particularly writing stuff to output to calcomp and 
Stromberg-Datagrphix plotters.  ("plodders")



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Punch card info

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Another minor detail about column alignment:

There was a variant of the 029 punch (I don't remember the specific model) 
that could interpret/print on already punched cards.  It printed 80 column 
aligned characters.  With a drum card, it could be set to skip some and 
only do the desired ones.


("Regular" models of 029 printed along the top only while punching)

(There was also a model of 029 for "verifying", where it read an already 
punched card while the operator was "punching" from the same data. If the 
key presses and data on thecards matched, then it would put a small notch 
on theend of the card.  Some "service bureaus" cheated, and used it to 
"duplicate" blank cards, to have cards that were already "verifiaction 
notched" before they were even punched.)



The 447? stand-alone interpreter did reasonably high speed interpret/print 
of decks of already punched cards.  BUT, it could only do 60? columns on a 
pass, and they were not column aligned.  It had a wire plug board to set 
which columns, printing positions, etc.



Thus, 447 was fine for cards handed to customers/managers, etc., but for 
programmers who wanted aligned interpreting of specific cloumns, as being 
more convenient than manually deciphering the pattern of holes, the 29 
variant was better, albeit slower.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Antonio's call for donations (was LCM auction)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I forgot to mention that as soon as it had been scsnned, the document was 
shredded.


Occasionally they screwed up and shredded documents before scanning.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Antonio's call for donations (was LCM auction)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

cctalk is allowing attachments now?  I was under the impression that these
were deliberately disallowed and filtered for bloat reduction or safeguard
against possible malware distribution?
I'd personally prefer no attachments on cctalk rather just post a link to
somewhere they can be retrieved from if desired.


On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I noticed that as well, and was wondering the same.


You are going to think that I am making this up. (I am not that 
imaginative):


The VP of the college used Wordperfect to create a document that consisted of:
"The curriculum committee will meet Tuesday at 2:00 in room D252, instead of 
D233."
He put a blue horizontal rule (line) across the page below the message.
He printed it out on a color printer.
He signed it.
He scanned the paper.
He put that as an attachment to an email.
He used a Subject: line of  "FYI"
The body of the text of the email with the attachment was:
"See the attachment"
He sent the email to the faculty

(The paper was not quite aligned in the scanner, so the horizontal rule 
had a slight "stair-step")


The first item on the agenda was a state mandate that we should teach 
"Information Competency", in addition to a previous mandate of teaching 
"Computer Literacy".
He opposed it, saying that "ALL of our students and faculty are 
Information Competent and computer Literate"



He is not on this list.

In May 2013, I said, "Take this job and shovel it."

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Antonio's call for donations (was LCM auction)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

If you disagree, please turn your computers over to another list member,
put on a tin hat, and go somewhere else.


and, we come full circle back to the original question of how to turn your 
computers over to another list member.


On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

You could've simply asked for this thread to stop, rather than using it as
an opportunity to broadcast your political opinions and issuing an
ultimatum to probably over half this mailing list to fuck off.
By the way, the earth is round...
Any idiot knows it's a torroid.


I looked at a map.  It is obviously a rectangle, not round.
But, Mercator and others came up with ways to project that rectangle onto 
the surface of a sphere.  Minor problem that Greenland comes out 
undersized on the sphere.
But, the sphere projection does have the toroidal aspect with a hole 
through the middle for an axis on which it could rotate.


From an engineering perspective, always wear the foil hat with the shiny 
side out.  If the dull side is out, it will act as an antenna, instead of 
a shield.

[cctalk] Re: LCM auction

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

We have our own non-theological religious wars, such as vi vs emacs.


On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Apple II vs. IBM PC vs. Commodore 64 vs. Atari 800 vs Radio Shack TRS-80
vs...


DOSPLUS vs NEWDOS-80
Electric Pencil vs. Scripsit

Pre-CP/M Electric Pencil vs TRS80 release vs Pennington versions (including PC)

. . .

[cctalk] Re: LCM auction

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Carnegie (and Gates) were only figuratively "buying their way into 
heaven".  I don't think that either did it for religious reasons.


Although most would assume that it is a religious issue, that was not my 
intent.  The specific example that I gave is non-religious.


"I have learned that no good can ever come from starting a discussion of 
politics, religion, or the Great Pumpkin."  - Linus


We have our own non-theological religious wars, such as vi vs emacs.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Mike Katz wrote:

And then there's the story in the bible about Jesus throwing the people 
selling indulgences (and other things) out of the temple?😮


That kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years.  It predates 
Catholicism but became a part of the Catholic Church in the 11th and 12 
centuries.


This is not intended to start a theological discussion in any way shape or 
form.  I was just mentioning that buying your salvation has been a part of 
mankind for a long time.


On 8/29/2024 7:01 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

Hasn't he promised to give his money away...


Yes
He is a follower of Carnegie.  Ruthlessly make an enormous amount of 
money, and then "buy your way into heaven" by doing good deeds with a 
large part of the money.  Look at the Carnegie libraries.



On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Paul Koning wrote:
In an earlier century, those schemes were called "indulgences" and were 
one of the main causes of the Reformation.


Martin Luther's post on the church door was, of course, completely 
inadequate to put an end to indulgences.


And there are other sorts of them still being created.  "Solar Renewable 
Energy Certificates" seem like an indulgence market.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: LCM auction

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Hasn't he promised to give his money away...


Yes
He is a follower of Carnegie.  Ruthlessly make an enormous amount of money, and then 
"buy your way into heaven" by doing good deeds with a large part of the money.  
Look at the Carnegie libraries.



On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Paul Koning wrote:

In an earlier century, those schemes were called "indulgences" and were one of 
the main causes of the Reformation.


Martin Luther's post on the church door was, of course, completely 
inadequate to put an end to indulgences.


And there are other sorts of them still being created.  "Solar Renewable 
Energy Certificates" seem like an indulgence market.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: LCM auction

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk wrote:

Hasn't he promised to give his money away...


Yes
He is a follower of Carnegie.  Ruthlessly make an enormous amount of 
money, and then "buy your way into heaven" by doing good deeds with a 
large part of the money.  Look at the Carnegie libraries.
'course, once you are a MULTI-billionairs, you can give a billion to 
worthy charities, and still be obscenely rich.
"Brewster's Millions" (both the original and the Richard Pryor/John Candy 
remake) are about the difficulty of spending more than a certain amount.




It's probably kinda expensive to put a tracking chip into every vaccine, . 
. . :-)
'course, once every Windows, Apple, and Android machines stay connected to 
the interwebs, all of the tracking data is already there.

It's not worth the storage to keep tracking data of CP/M and TRSDOS.

[cctalk] Re: LCM auction

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Any ideas on how to become a billionaire?


For a few decades, we have been saying that
"We must do whatever it takes to make Bill Gates into a millionaire."

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote:

It's also worth noting that the PC memory space is very much *not* divided
into fixed 64KiB segments (and ISTR it was originally a 512/512 split).
Segment registers have 16-byte granularity and a segment can straddle a
64kiB boundary just fine. This is used to some effect on the 286 to gain an
extra 65520 bytes beyond the 1MiB boundary in real mode.


A segment can, indeed, straddle a physical 64KiB boundary.

5150 disk IO had problems if the DMA buffer straddled a 
physical 64KiB boundary (Int13h return code 9)

Not hard to work around; just move the buffer
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58564895/problem-with-bios-int-13h-read-sectors-from-drive

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: A little off-topic but at least somewhat related: endianness

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Mike Katz wrote:
I am amazed at how many fresh outs I have met who really can't program their 
way out of a paper bag.


Advanced programming techniques don't help until they can actually 
successfully think about the problem.



I had a guy working for me VERY briefly, with a UC Berkeley degree, but he 
couldn't figure out how to do 3-up mailing labels on a daisy wheel 
printer!
(sequence not mattering becuse they were manually peele off and use for a 
mailing.)
He couldn't figure out any way to do it other than needing a way to roll 
the paper back to get back to the top for the next column!  not on THAT 
printer!
(simple way - read three records into memory, print them side by side, and 
then advance the paper)

He had a few other similar shortcomings.
I let him stay around until he peeled and stuck all of the labels, and to 
give him time to find another job.



I gave a final exam question on how to sort/sequence the records of a 
large file that was too big to fit into memory.
Several students who had gotten their start at the university insisted 
that the only way it could be done was to add more memory.
(simple way - read a memory sized block from the file and sort it; do that 
again, until you have a whole bunch of sorted shorter files, do a merge 
sort of those)


Another: "A client has a large file that is in order.  But each 
day/week/month, additional records are appended to it.  What's the best 
sort algorithm to get the file back into order?"
(simple 1: put the new records into a separate file, sort that; then do a 
merge sort between that and the main file.
simple 2: (if it isn't too large to manage) a bubble sort, with each pass 
starting at the ENF of the file where the new records are, and working 
towards th beginning, or a "shaker sort" that alternates direction.  The 
maximum nuber of passes is the number of records that were out of order.
(a "shaker sort" is the best sort algorithm for taking advantage of any 
existing order, such as a few random records being in the wrong place)


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: A little off-topic but at least somewhat related: endianness

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

When I was teaching C, it was sometimes quite difficult to help students 
who had firm assumptions about things that you can'r assume.  Such as the 
sequence of operations in the multiple iterations examples that we both 
used.  I tried desperately to get them to do extensive commnets, and use 
typecasts even when they could have been left out.

[cctalk] Re: A little off-topic but at least somewhat related: endianness

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Ijust sent a post that agrees so thoroughly with what you just wrote that 
we even both used the same reference to Holub!


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Mike Katz wrote:


Fred,

That is true, Order of expression is undefined between execution points that 
is why the following statement can produce different results on different 
compilers:


A = 1;
F = A++ * A++;

Without the use of parenthesis the is no way for the user to know beforehand 
what the value of F will be.  The only guarantee is that when the before the 
next instruction is executed the all postfix operators will be evaluated 
prior to the start of the next C statement.


As a general rule rvalue expressions are calculated by the pre-compiler and 
not the compiler.  So the line:


ulDays  = ulSeconds / ( 60 * 60 * 24 );

Would be converted by the precompiler to:

ulDay = ulSeconds / 86400;

The calculation of the lvalue ulSeconds / 86400 will be handled at run time.

However, if ulSeconds is defined as a const it is possible that a smart 
precompiler will do the entire calculation and only the assignment will be 
done at runtime.


It is possible that the volatile keyword might cause the order of expression 
to be altered.


uint32_t * volatile ulpDMAAddress = 0x;  // Note this is a volatile 
pointer and NOT a pointer to volatile data.

uint32_t *ulpMyPointer;

ulpMyPointer = *ulpDMAAddress++ + *ulpDMAAddress++;

My mind is getting numb just looking at that code.  Suffice it to say that 
using multiple prefix/postfix operations in a single execution point is 
heavily deprecated because the actual results are implementation defined and 
my even be different depending upon what other math surrounds it.


Another implementation specific feature of C is the order of bits in bit 
fields.  They can be assigned from most significant to least significant or 
vice-versa.  It is totally up to the compiler.


As Allan Holub says C and  C++, in his book of the same name, gives the 
programmer "Enough Rope To Shoot Yourself in the Foot"





On 8/15/2024 6:45 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

It is not the hardware that is at fault.
If anybody else is to blame, it is the compiler.


On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Paul Koning wrote:
More likely the language designers, assuming the compiler doesn't have a 
standards violation in its code.  In the case of C, the type promotion 
rules that were just explained are rather bizarre and surprising.  Other 
languages do it differently, with perhaps fewer surprises.  Some define 
it very carefully (ALGOL 68 comes to mind), some not so much.


C very explicitly leaves some thing undefined, supposedly to work with more 
machines, and Kernighan & Ritchie say that it is the responsibility of the 
programmer to create unambiguous code.
for example, evaluation of expressions in the lvalue might be done before 
OR after evaluation of expressions in th rvalue


Some other languages are much stricter on types, etc. and have fewer 
ambiguities.

[cctalk] Re: A little off-topic but at least somewhat related: endianness

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Mike Katz wrote:
C has specific specifications for what is promoted when and how. They are not 
ambiguous just not known by many.
I worked for a C compiler company so I'm may be a bit more familiar with the 
actual C specs and how the compiler works.
However, I totally agree with you.  I heavily typecast and parenthesize my 
code to avoid any possible ambiguity.  Sometimes for the compiler and 
sometimes for someone else reading my code.


I will readily concede that ANSI C has fewer problems with ambiguous code 
than the K&R C that I learned.


But, for example, in:
X = foo() + bar();

has it been defined which order the functions of foo() and bar() 
are evaluated?  Consider the possibility that either or both alter 
variable that the other function also uses.
(Stupidly simpe example, one function increments a variable, and the other 
one doubles it)


As another example of code that I would avoid,
int x=1,y=1;
x = x++ + x++;
y = ++y + ++Y;
give 2, 3, 4, or 5?
is heavily dependent on exactly when the increments get done.

But, thorough careful typecasting, use of intermediate variables, etc. can 
eliminate all such problems.

'course "optimizing compilers" can (but shouldn't) alter your code.

If you don't explicitly specify exactly what you want, "C gives you enough 
rope to shoot yourself in the foot" (as Holub titled one of his books)



But, I've always loved how easily C will get out of the way when you want 
to get closer to the hardware.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: A little off-topic but at least somewhat related: endianness

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

It is not the hardware that is at fault.
If anybody else is to blame, it is the compiler.


On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Paul Koning wrote:

More likely the language designers, assuming the compiler doesn't have a 
standards violation in its code.  In the case of C, the type promotion rules 
that were just explained are rather bizarre and surprising.  Other languages do 
it differently, with perhaps fewer surprises.  Some define it very carefully 
(ALGOL 68 comes to mind), some not so much.


C very explicitly leaves some thing undefined, supposedly to work with 
more machines, and Kernighan & Ritchie say that it is the responsibility 
of the programmer to create unambiguous code.
for example, evaluation of expressions in the lvalue might be done before 
OR after evaluation of expressions in th rvalue


Some other languages are much stricter on types, etc. and have fewer 
ambiguities.

[cctalk] Re: A little off-topic but at least somewhat related: endianness

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

I don't know about the VAX,but my gripe is the x86 and the 68000 don't
automaticaly promote smaller data types to larger ones. What little
programming I have done was in C never cared about that detail.
Now I can see way it is hard to generate good code in C when all the
CPU's are brain dead in that aspect.


It is not the hardware that is at fault.
If anybody else is to blame, it is the compiler.

int8 A = -1;
uint8 B = 255;
/* Those have the same bit pattern! */
int16 X;
int16 Y;
X = A;
Y = B;
will X and Y have a bit patterns of    , or    

If you expect them to be "promoted", you are giving ambiguous instructions 
to the compiler.

The CPU isn't ever going to know.

THAT is why explicit typecasting is the way to go.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Specifically, place names of California.


On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

Yes, that's what I remembered, but I wasn't sure. Never been there,
not remotely familiar with the geography.

TBH I thought El Cap was in Yosemite and Yosemite was in Wyoming, but
on Googling, I think I was mixing up Yosemite and Yellowstone. TBH I
never consciously realised before that they were 2 different places.

Not my country, not my continent. I've lived in Africa, 3 different
countries in Europe, spent a lot of time and speak the languages of 4
more, but America is far off and largely unknown to me -- a
frightening semi-theocracy with guns and no healthcare.


Well, you should come visit, some time.

There's a lot to see.

[cctalk] Re: VCF West Aug 2 & 3 - Mountain View, CA

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Today was great!

Yes, they do sell tickets at the door.

but, . . .
They don't take CASH!
"Legal tender for all debts public or private", but they don't take it!


Lots of great exhibits


There was a substantial pile of Dell 5150 and 5160 laptops on the "FREE" 
table.  Dell 5150 is unrelated to IBM 5150, nor to a 3-day hold.




--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: VCF-West

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

https://vcfed.org/events/vintage-computer-festival-west/

says:
"The full schedule of speakers and show attractions will be posted at a 
later date.


"Special attractions:
** Details will be added as they are finalized.  Please check back for 
updates! **"



Q: Will a schedule of speakers be posted?

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Rod Bartlett wrote:

I found Tim Peterson's old blog a while back which contained some interesting 
tidbits about the history of DOS from the original author.
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/


I did find one unimportant error,
He said that DOS 1.10 supported both double sided, and 9 sectors per 
track.


That may have been what he wished for, but I'm pretty sure that what 
Microsoft actually released was DOS 1.10/1.25 supported double sided 8 
sectors per track (up from single sided in DOS 1.00),

(SOME OEM versions of 1.25 support 8" disks!)

and DOS 2.00 supported 9 sectors per track (Plus enormous other major 
changes, such as the "file handle" API, added to the existing "FCB" API.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Warner Losh wrote:


The DEC Rainbow had initially a 2.01 and later 2.05 version.


Yes, some OEM licensers made significant changes, particularly when 
PC-DOS and "vanilla" MS-DOS didn't handle their disk formats.
And many companies started to use 3.5" drives or 80 track DD 5.25" 
drives before DOS 3.30, which was the first official support.  So, you 
may see various version 2.11 with "720K" drive support.

Including the IBM PC-JX


Later, there was 3.10 (from Ford, semi-bootleg) and then 3.10a and 3.10b
(from suitable


Letters appended were often modifications made by the OEM.

For example, Gavilan used MS-DOS version 2.11, but had their own format. 
It wasn't until revision J, K, or L that they supported the "ordinary" 
"720K" format.


Note that although the Gavilan came with either a 3.0" drive, or a 3.5" 
single sided drive, it supported 3.5" double sided. so, you could replace 
the drive with a double sided 3.5". Their drive bezel was proprietary, but 
some brands would fit without bezel, and the bezel form Gavilan's Shugart 
SA300 drive would fit Shugart SA350.

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Ironically, one of the colleges that I taught at was "Vista College". while
Windows Vista was still "in bloom", they went about changing the name of the
college to "Berkeley City College", in spite of my pleas to keep the name
"Vista" for a while longer, at least in parallel, to cash in on "Learn Wndows
Vista at Vista college".


On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote:

Perhaps they could have simply called it "Windows Vista College." They could
hand out diplomas that if you remodel your house too noticeably, they become
invalid and you're forced to be an undergraduate until you call in to get a new
one. Great at parties.


One of my proposals was to call the building that we were in, "Berkeley 
city College, Vista Campus",  which would let people include or not 
include "Vista" as needed.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Rod Bartlett wrote:

I found Tim Peterson's old blog a while back which contained some interesting 
tidbits about the history of DOS from the original author.
http://dosmandrivel.blogspot.com/


thank you,
that is a very useful reference, although it is only part of the 
"elephant"

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS (fwd)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Did not show up on the list, so I am forwarding another copy;
sorry if there are duplicates

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:

I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM's version
thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
8-bit machines could do!


There are conflicting reports  that list that price as $25,000, $50,000, or 
$75,000, although there is suppoirt for each

for example:
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=99
"for $50,000 or $75,000, depending on how the cost is calculated."

The price that IBM paid Microsoft is stated variously as $25,000, $50,000, to 
$430,000


Great detail, but a few items are arguable:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-rise-of-dos-how-microsoft-got-the-ibm-pc-os-contract

"By most accounts, Nishi was the one most strongly in favor of Microsoft 
getting into the operating system world. Allen said in his autobiography Idea 
Man that Gates was less enthusiastic. Allen called Seattle Computer Products 
owner Rod Brock and licensed QDOS for $10,000 plus a royalty of $15,000 for 
every company that licensed the software."


"In Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM, Sams is quoted as saying Gates told him 
about QDOS and offered it to IBM. "The question was: Do you want to buy it or 
do you want me to buy it?" Sams said. Since IBM had already had decided to go 
with an open architecture, the company wanted Microsoft to purchase QDOS. 
Besides, Sams said, "If we'd bought the software, we'd have just screwed it 
up."


"According to Allen, under the contract signed that November, IBM agreed to pay 
Microsoft a total of $430,000, including $45,000 for what would end up being 
called DOS, $310,000 for the various 16-bit languages, and $75,000 for 
"adaptions, testing and consultation."




In contrast, the TV "Pirates of the Valley" made the false and absurd claim 
that bill Gates cold-called IBM to convince them to get an operating system!



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

After having extensively used every version of Pc-DOS and MS-DOS, 
including some obscure variants, and Windows 3.00, 3.10, 3.11, I used 
Windows 95, and then windows 98 and Wndows NT 4.51, and then SKIPPED to XP 
and then Windows 7.


I have yet to see any benefit to me of windows 8, 9, 10, or 11,
other than "Warnings" that I get on Windows 7 about it being discontinued.


I never used Windows 2000, Windows ME, nor Windows Vista.
Ironically, one of the colleges that I taught at was "Vista College". 
while Windows Vista was still "in bloom", they went about changing the 
name of the college to "Berkeley City College", in spite of my pleas to 
keep the name "Vista" for a while longer, at least in parallel, to cash in 
on "Learn Wndows Vista at Vista college".


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com


On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, David Wise wrote:


I will never forget Windows ME.  Bleargh!

Dave

I wrote PC BIOS code for Phoenix Technologies from 1996 to 2023, we had to 
suffer through every Windows release as old stuff broke and had to be fixed.

From: Fred Cisin 
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 6:05 PM
To: David Wise 
Cc: Murray McCullough via cctalk 
Subject: Re: [cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

Sorry,
I can never remember which is which between Windows 2000
and Windows ME ("Millenium Edition")

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, David Wise wrote:


I think Windows 2000 is NT-based.

Dave Wise

[cctalk] Re: MS-DOS

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:

I had not realized that 43 yrs. ago Microsoft purchased 86-DOS for $50,000
– US not Cdn. money. With this purchase the PC industry, IBM’s version
thereof, began. I remember using it to do amazing things, moreso than what
8-bit machines could do!


Ah, but there is so much more to the story, which deserves an entire 
chapter in the history.


More than you wanted to know? :  (but even more details available if you really 
want them)

Tim Paterson, of Seattle Computer Products was developing 8086 hardware, 
but CP/M-86 was delayed.  So, he wrote a temporary place-holder to use 
instead of CP/M-86 until CP/M-86 became available.  That was called 
"QDOS", "Quick and Dirty Operating System".  Later it became known as 
"SCP-DOS" and/or "86-DOS"


Then came the "culture clash" between IBM and Digital Research 
(previously known as "Intergalctic digital Research").  That has been 
documented elsewhere; some claim that there was not a culture clash, nor 
an error.


So, Microsoft (possibly Bill Gates personally) went down the street to 
Seattle Computer Products, and bought an unlimited license for 86-DOS 
"that we can sell to our [un-named] client"


Tim Paterson, who later opened "Falcon Technologies" and Seattle Computer 
Products both also retained licenes to be able to sell "the 
operating system".  Note that the version was not specified, as to whether 
such license would include rights to sell updated versions; that error 
(failure to specify whether future/derivative products were included) has 
been repeated elsewhere (cf. Apple/Microsoft)


Microsoft also hired Tim Paterson to maintain and update "MS-DOS".

Microsoft sold a license to IBM, where it became PC-DOS.
And, it was available through Lifeboat as "86-DOS"

In August 1981, when the PC (5150) was released, IBM started selling 
PC-DOS.  But digital Research was not happy with IBM selling a copy of 
their operating system. 
In those days, selling a copy was legal, if the internal code was not 
copied.  (hence the development of "clean-room reverse engineering")
It wasn't until the Lotus/Paperback Software (Adam Osborne) 
lawsuit that "look and feel" became copyrightable.


So, IBM agreed to also sell CP/M-86 IN ADDITION to selling PC-DOS.
. . . and sold UCSD P-System.

But CP/M-86 was STILL not ready, so everybody bought PC-DOS, many of whom 
planned to switch to CP/M-86 when it became available.

But, when CP/M-86 was finally ready, the price was $240 vs $40 for PC-DOS.
There are arguments about whether IBM or Digital Research set that price.
Although, if that price was IBM's idea, then why did Digital Research 
charge $240 for copies sold through other sources (such as Lifeboat)?



Initially MS-DOS and PC-DOS differed only in name and trivial items, such 
as "IO.SYS" and "MSDOS.SYS" being renamed "IBMBIO.COM" and "IBMDOS.COM"
When changes were made, Microsoft's and IBM's version numbers were 
separated.

Thus 1.00 was the same for both
IBM released PC-DOS 1.10, and Microsoft released MS-DOS 1.25
2.00 was the same for both
2.10 VS 2.11 (IBM needed trivial changes to 2.00 to deal with the 
excessively slow Qumetrak 142 disk drives in the PC-Junior and "portable"

3.00 was the same
3.10,   adding network support and the "network redirector for CD-ROMs
3.20 VS 3.21, adding "720K" 3.5" drive support
3.30 VS 3.31,  BUT 3.31 was the first to support larger than 32Mebibyte drives!
4.00 and 4.01  IBM/Microsoft did not provide third party vendors enough 
advanced warning, so Norton Utilities, etc. did not work on 4.00 (NOT 
4.00 did not work with Norton Utilities!)

5.00
In 6.00 each company bundled a whole bunch of third party stuff (such as 
disk compression) and each got them from different sources. 
When Microsoft's disk compression was blamed for serious problems caused 
by SMARTDRV, Microsoft released 6.20 (repaired and reliability improved 
from 6.00).
Then 6.21 and 6.22 as a result of Microsoft's legal case with Stac 
Electronics.



Please note that MS-DOS/PC-DOS ALWAYS had a version number, a period, and 
then a TWO DIGIT DECIMAL sub-version number.  THAT is what is stored 
internally.  Thus, 1.10 is stored as ONE.TEN (01h.0Ah), 3.31 is actually 
THREE.Thirty-ONE (03h.1Fh), etc.
If there had ever actually been a "1.1" or "3.2", those would have been 
01h.01h (1.01) and 03h.02h (3.02), etc.
"1.1" was NOT the same as "1.10", nor "3.2" the same as "3.20", otherwise 
VERY minor changes would be confused with serious changes, as happened 
when some people called 4.01 "four point one".



Later still, Seattle Computer Products was on the rocks.  There was some 
speculation that AT&T might buy it, to get the DOS license (and not have 
to pay royalties per copy!).  After some legal animosity, Microsoft did 
the right and smart thing, and bought Seattle Computer Products, thus 
closing that vulnerability.


Windows originally started as an add-on command processor and user 
interface on top of DOS. 

[cctalk] Re: Macintosh Plus clone

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sat, 27 Jul 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:

I came across this today: “Electronics engineer builds 1986 Macintosh Plus
clone”.  Is there some reason one would want to do this? Not sure what the
point is but it proves it can be done!


You could write a small section of your book on David Small
Rather than recreate the whole computer, he created a cartridge to convert 
an Atari ST into a Macintoch emulator.

("Magic Sac", and "Spectre 128")

https://www.atarimagazines.com/startv3n6/mac_pc_on_st.php
https://lowendmac.com/2016/atari-st-magic-sac-spectre-128-and-spectre-gcr/

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred

[cctalk] Re: Pick system in Manitoba looking for a new home

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

It is apparently an LSI/PDP-11/2 with Pick operating system

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Adrian Stoness via cctalk wrote:

what is this thing im up in lynn lake be down in wpg in a week witch is 2hr
drive from wpg

[cctalk] Re: Pick system in Manitoba looking for a new home

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

https://www.amazon.com/Pick-pocket-guide-library/dp/083063245X

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
Would anyone like to rescue a vintage Pick minicomputer in Manitoba, 
Canada?

https://discuss.systems/@ahelwer/112836345012817998
A wide ask here so please boost: my grandfather is trying to get rid of an 
old business computer, and I was wondering whether any vintage computer 
people might want it. It was purchased for $50k from The Ultimate 
Corporation in the early 80s. This ran the Pick operating system, and my 
best guess is the hardware was originally manufactured by GE or Honeywell. 
It's about the size of a half-rack and currently lives in Brandon, 
Manitoba, Canada. It has sat covered in plastic in a chemical warehouse for 
the past 35 years. Where do people usually post stuff like this other than 
here? Thanks!


Sorry, no help with re-homing it.

Did you know that a publisher made a series of books called
" Pocket Guide"

They even had one for Pick, with the obvious title!

[cctalk] Re: Pick system in Manitoba looking for a new home

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:

Would anyone like to rescue a vintage Pick minicomputer in Manitoba, Canada?
https://discuss.systems/@ahelwer/112836345012817998
A wide ask here so please boost: my grandfather is trying to get rid of an 
old business computer, and I was wondering whether any vintage computer 
people might want it. It was purchased for $50k from The Ultimate Corporation 
in the early 80s. This ran the Pick operating system, and my best guess is 
the hardware was originally manufactured by GE or Honeywell. It's about the 
size of a half-rack and currently lives in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada. It has 
sat covered in plastic in a chemical warehouse for the past 35 years. Where 
do people usually post stuff like this other than here? Thanks!


Sorry, no help with re-homing it.

Did you know that a publisher made a series of books called
" Pocket Guide"

They even had one for Pick, with the obvious title!

[cctalk] Re: the 1968 how to build a working digital computer

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Besides slide rules, etc.

If you have an analog computer consisting of a 5 gallon bucket, and a 3 
gallon bucket, and plenty of water available, 
What are the steps for a PROGRAM to get a result of 4 gallons of water in 
the 5 gallon bucket?

[cctalk] Re: the 1968 how to build a working digital computer

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2024, John Herron via cctalk wrote:

Not retro but when the Goodwill Computer Museum (in Austin) had a
knowledgeable team running it they spun off into the Museum of Computer
Culture and had created a relay computer the RC3. (They did this while at
goodwill but right before the museum got shutdown as it wasn't making the
goodwill owners enough money).  Unfortunately now the MCC site is also down
but a nice reference with a running video (it was loud) but impressive can
be found here https://austin.makerfaire.com/maker/entry/709/

There's another relay computer here (I'm not as familiar with) but read
that it was a good amount of information around it, maybe it references an
early book somewhere. http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~harry/Relay/index.html

Confusing myself as I thought about it, what category is a relay computer?
It's electric and I would say mechanical but then not sure if mechanical
can be electric.  Is it still analog?


Relays are mechanical.
Relays are electric, but, are they "electronic"?

They are intrinically digital, not analog, but perhaps a hybrid could be 
built, with analog registers, but digital addreessing?


In the late 1960s, I tried to build a photo enlarging/printing exposure 
and color balance meter, with wheatstone bridges and relays for a crude 
homemade analog to digital conversion.
I got it to work at a proof of concept level, but not well enough to 
actually be of use.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: the 1968 how to build a working digital computer

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Instead of paper clips and cardboard, consider a pachinko like marble 
based computer.   (claimed to be Turing complete, if you expand it enough)

https://upperstory.com/en/turingtumble
It's bulkier than a mobile phone.


or relays? :

https://www.amazon.com/Giant-brains-Machines-that-think/dp/B0006AS6Q4
Giant Brains : or Machines That Think
by Edmund C. Berkeley

His Simon computer was a relay based (a bit limited for modern uses), but 
was an early (1950) electro-mechanical personal computer.

[cctalk] Re: the 1968 how to build a working digital computer

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2024, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:

What I meant was that in the title of the book they use "digital computer"
and I wonder if there was ever a book describing a mechanical "analog
computer" - and what they might even look like.


half a century ago, my cousin showed me some plexiglas blocks with odd 
shaped holes through them, and said that they were from an experimental 
analog computer.  I guess that you could figure out fluid behavior by 
making analogies to electronics - amount of flow is kinda like current, 
amount of head or pressure is kinda like voltage, restrictions are kinda 
like resistance, one way valves are diodes, . . .

[cctalk] Re: Fwd: Civility; Was Re: Re: LCM auction pre-notice

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024, Alan Perry wrote:
My wife worked at the part of Sun that made many of the machines in my 
collection when they were being made, so she is fine with my computer 
collection.


Does she have a sister?

[cctalk] Re: Fwd: Civility; Was Re: Re: LCM auction pre-notice

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, brianb1224 via cctalk wrote:
Or do what the Ham Radio guys do and have a commercial auction house 
that specializes in collectable computers.


Which commercial auction houses specialize in collectible computers?




(The format of your post comes through much like that of the late Ed 
Sharpe)



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Fwd: Civility; Was Re: Re: LCM auction pre-notice

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote:
I think the key to preservation is assuring next of kin that the items in our 
possession have value, and are worth seeking out future custodians.


Collectors always assert that their collection has value, and the next of 
kin never believe a word of that.

My own sister actually claims that her very old French Horns are valuable!
Another relative tries to claim that "Blue willow" dishes have some value.

Although, perhaps you could search out the highest prices ever bid on 
eBay, and tape clippings of those to each item.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2024, Adrian Godwin via cctalk wrote:

Chinese to UK shipments are still relatively cheap but have also risen
somewhat with more sellers charging for postage.


eBay Chinese shipping seems impossibly low.

Does the Chinese guvmint sunsidize shipping exports?
Does that influence the balance of trade?  (and demise of USA industry?)


Decades ago, USA was concerned about "dumping" (charging excessively low 
prices for exports to USA).  They decided that RAM was being "dumped", "in 
order to drive out USA competition", so USA set up punitive tariffs on 
handheld power tools, and LCD panels (which contributed to the elimination 
of laptop manufacturing in USA).
I don't understand why the punitive tariffs were not on the items being 
"abused".

Jerry Pournelle said, "How get we get them to dump Mercedes?"

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Airline baggage used to be a good deal.
Size limit on carry-on, weight limit on checked.
Sending a tech with parts on a plane was often much cheaper than rush
shipping.


On Mon, 1 Jul 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

I often took the "noon balloon" out of San Jose with a Samsonite case
loaded with 6 10.5" reels of tape--and the reverse course as well.
Something about bandwidth?


Well, Tannenbaum's adage was about a STATION WAGON "hurtling" down the 
highway, so comparing airflight introduces other variables.  :-)

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Airline baggage used to be a good deal.
Size limit on carry-on, weight limit on checked.

Sending a tech with parts on a plane was often much cheaper than rush 
shipping.



I remember flying cross country with a pair of VW cylinder heads, two 
clutch disks, some hand tools, and a loaf of french bread, in order to do 
a clutch on my parent's bug, and a valve job on their Ghia.


Even counting air fare, and 3 hours rental of a floor jack (optional), 
with a few hours work, I saved them a substantial amount of money.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Could you just carry it, and tell them that it is the disk for your 
"Personal Computer"?  :-)

'course you might need to carry the computer with you to convince them :-)


On Mon, 1 Jul 2024, cz via cctalk wrote:

Actually I am travelling to France in a few weeks and there is an RM80 
platter HDA I could pick up. What is the complexity of just checking it as 
baggage? Do I have to declare it at Customs if the value is like zilch?


CZ

On 7/1/2024 8:41 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:

On 2024-07-01 6:31 p.m., Mike Stein via cctalk wrote:

I've had the same experience with folks in Australia & NZ,
accumulating stuff in the US until there's enough to ship it down
under.
I suspect today still shipping is better than it was in the 70's.

It is just nobody wants to box and crate the stuff,and wait a few
weeks on a ship any more.
Ben.
PS I suspect some people have so much stuff here, they could ship,
to Australia, it could flip to up over.

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, js--- via cctalk wrote:

I'm interested in this, but..

- How would they be compensated?


presumably by some sort of percentage commission, such as done by art 
brokers, real estate agents, etc.


- How would it be ensured that they didn't have a conflict of 
interest, or bias, (or an actual interest in the collection)?


There may be occasional ethics issues.  If it is composed of multiple 
"agents", then an agent who has personal lust for part of the collection 
should have to recuse themselves?  If it is a single entity, then they 
should openly negotiate with the owners.  How is that currently handled in 
art and real estate?


I trust Sellam, at least with that stuff;  those who do not will have to 
find other venues.




- How much would such a service cost, or be priced?


THAT's a tough one, and it is likely to go up or down, as things develop. 
And in fact, it might be necessary to have that be a function of how 
difficult it will be to move the stuff.
Most inheritors, and even owners, of collections would probably be willing 
to accept fairly substantial commission percentages.  There will probably 
even be more than a few who will effectively say, "I don't care!  If you 
remove ALL of it, we'lll be happy!"



I'm for it.
Wanna do a test run with a truckload of my crap^h^h^h^h treasures?

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I generally don't like "make an offer", unless the seller has already
stated an offer.  If so,then I can decide whether what I want to pay is in
a range that they would discuss it.
Otherwise,it is usually futile to start a discussion.


On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I make offers on eBay all the time and more often than not they are
accepted (or a reasonable counter-offer comes as a reply).  Maybe it's
because I'm not chasing what everyone else is after.


absolutely
eBay "make an offer" is actually a "counter-offer", since the seller has 
already posted some sort of price.  Those can be quite productive.


The ones that I don't like are ones (particularly flea-market) where the 
seller refuses to give any indication of what they want, and demands that 
the potential buyer make the first offer.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Ali via cctalk wrote:
And how does that help? Let's say seller has 98% rating what does that 
tell you? Or said in another way how does it affect your decision making 
process? I.E. would you pay 30% or even 10% more for the same item with 
a seller who has 100% rating (for whatever that is worth as ratings are 
very much manipulated by sellers and eBay).


It can be important at the other end of the scale.
If a seller has too many negative reviews, I read every one of those, and 
decide whether the risk is worthwhile.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page.  Is there somewhere on
the net that already does this?


It is important to realize that there are two kinds of shopping browsing:

have decided to buy one, and looking for best deal
or
looking for bargains, and will buy if there are any exceptional deals

"make an offer" is only suitable for the first of those.

[cctalk] Re: what to do with our "treasures"

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Sounds like we more need a "make offer" page.  Is there somewhere on
the net that already does this?


On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, Ali via cctalk wrote:

The problem with this is it gets tedious from a buyer's perspective. The way I 
see it either of three scenarios are occurring when I see make an offer:


I generally don't like "make an offer", unless the seller has already 
stated an offer.  If so,then I can decide whether what I want to pay is in 
a range that they would discuss it.

Otherwise,it is usually futile to start a discussion.

All too often, the seller wants far more than I would consider.
In flea markets (Foothill, etc.) I will sometimes say, "Would you be 
offended if I offered xx?"

Sometimes, they are.
But, sometimes they respond with "I wouldn't be offended, but I wouldn't 
accept that."  That at least gives a starting point for potential 
negotiation.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Revocable Living Trust for Computer Collectors

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

In the meantime, set up price lists, and means for contacting survivors. 
And compete over who will charge the least to haul it all away.



When I die, my sister has a list of email addresses, including this list 
and a few individuals.  Show up with a truck, and make sure that she sees 
that you also have a broom, a mop, and a shop-vac.  Then quote the best 
price for the "clean-out".  If the auction starts to get into positive 
numbers, offer brass musical instruments.  Chuck will have a MAJOR edge at 
that point (Who could possibly compete with tubas?).  (she plays French 
Horn, Alp-horn, and any other "brass"  instrument, and I have even seen 
her with a left-handed floogle horn.)


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com


On Thu, 27 Jun 2024, W2HX via cctalk wrote:


None of our survivors will give a rats-arse about getting even a nickel for 
this stuff.  All they will want is for it to be gone.  They would probably even 
pay to have it carted away.  So I don't think any economic analysis of how to 
dispose of a collection to maximize return is relevant.

Sent from Nine

[cctalk] Re: SMECC museum status

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024, Glen Slick via cctalk wrote:

Were there any posts about that on this list? I didn't see that either.
https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-11846518



Here is what was on the list:
  Subject: Re: [cctalk] Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK

On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Eric Moore via cctalk wrote:


FYI, RIP Ed

-- Forwarded message -
From: W2HX 
Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:22~@PM
Subject: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK
To: Greenkeys 

FYI

73 Eugene W2HX

*From:* c...@groups.io  *On Behalf Of *Scott Johnson via
groups.io
*Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 6:52 PM
*To:* c...@groups.io
*Subject:* [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK

All-

With sadness, I must report that Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, passed away 1 June
2024.  He was 72.

Ed was a consummate archivist, and had a large Collins collection, which
he
housed in a Historic house in Glendale , AZ, known as the Coury House.

This was the home of SMECC, the Southwest Museum of Engineering,
Communications, and Computing.

Ed was a USAF veteran, a ground radio repairman stationed at Luke AFB in
the early seventies.

Ed haunted many of the vintage and military radio sites and garnered 

much

of his collection through these channels.

His rampant enthusiasm for technology of any kind will be missed!

www.smecc.org


https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-11846

518

Scott Johnson W7SVJ

[cctalk] Re: Fwd: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

That  is too   bad,
He will   bemissed;
R  I P,Ed

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Eric Moore via cctalk wrote:


FYI, RIP Ed

-- Forwarded message -
From: W2HX 
Date: Sat, Jun 15, 2024, 1:22 PM
Subject: [GreenKeys] FW: [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK
To: Greenkeys 


FYI





73 Eugene W2HX



*From:* c...@groups.io  *On Behalf Of *Scott Johnson via
groups.io
*Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 6:52 PM
*To:* c...@groups.io
*Subject:* [cca] Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, SK



All-

With sadness, I must report that Ed Sharpe, KF7RWW, passed away 1 June
2024.  He was 72.

Ed was a consummate archivist, and had a large Collins collection, which he
housed in a Historic house in Glendale , AZ, known as the Coury House.

This was the home of SMECC, the Southwest Museum of Engineering,
Communications, and Computing.

Ed was a USAF veteran, a ground radio repairman stationed at Luke AFB in
the early seventies.

Ed haunted many of the vintage and military radio sites and garnered much
of his collection through these channels.

His rampant enthusiasm for technology of any kind will be missed!

www.smecc.org

https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/glendale-az/edward-sharpe-11846518



Scott Johnson W7SVJ

_._,_._,_
--

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#11560)  | Reply
To Sender

| Reply To Group

| Mute
This Topic  | New Topic

Your Subscription  | Contact Group
Owner  | Unsubscribe  [
w...@w2hx.com]

_._,_._,_
__
GreenKeys mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:greenk...@mailman.qth.net


Jordan Spencer Cunningham's GreenKeys Search Tool:

https://teletype.net/gksearch

2002-to-present greenkeys archive:

http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/

1998-to-2001 greenkeys archive:

http://mailman.qth.net/archive/greenkeys/greenkeys.html

Randy Guttery's 2001-to-2009 GreenKeys Search Tool:

http://comcents.com/tty/greenkeyssearch.html

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to mooreeric...@gmail.com

[cctalk] "Pentium" (by any other name?)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"What to use in place of 586?"

Unreliable sources told me that the name "Pentium" was chosen in a 
contest; what was second place??


It was said that Intel chose to not use "586", because
competitors were competing and/or cheating on the numbers
a 386 level chip being called "486xx", 486 level chips being called "586", 
and 586 level chips being called "686"

. . . and "you can not "trademark" a number."
(sorry for an automotive analogy, but what about the Oldsmobile "442"?)

"Pentium" seemed to be safe from "look-alike"names/numbers.

BUT, they may not have noticed a serious risk on that.
Honeywell had purchased "Pentax" from Asahi.
If Honeywell wanted to jump into the fray, they could probably legally put 
out a chip named "Pentaxium".  Fortunately for Intel, Honeywell did not.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 11 Jun 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:

Gates's law "The speed of software halves every 18 months"


Isn't it more similar to Boyle's law?
Software expands to require slightly more than the available memory.

[cctalk] Re: Intel 8086 - 46 yrs. ago

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:

I agree that parallelism, or more accurately multiprocessing, has
contributed a great deal to the advancement of 8086 technology. So to has
speed: The first 8086 was clocked at 5Mhz.; now the speed is 6Ghz. The
shrinkage of computer components in ULSIC technology has made this
possible. But today I believe we're nearing an end to 8086 CISC technology
because its science and technology will only take it so far.


There are theoretical limits.  But, like the limits imposed by frequency 
modulation on modem speeds, each time there's a limit, clever ideas 
attempt to circumvent that limit.


Parallelism/multiprocessing can go a ways past the "theoretical limit" of 
processor speed, simply because total throughput is the actual goal, not 
processor speed.


Under Moore's Law, it kept doubling.  But, it was obvious that it could 
not keep doing so infinitely.  Moore is gone, so there is no enforcement, 
and the doubling is approaching its end. :-)


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Before we do any more automotive analogies of the "personal 
computer" definitions, . . .

Could somebody explain to me
What is a "muscle car"?
What is a "sports car"

I have heard the Ford Mustang, which seems like a Foulcon with 
cosmetically redesigned body panels, referred to as each of those.


I think that the Mustang came stock with one of the wimpiest six cylinder 
engines that Ford had.  If you special ordered the optional four cylinder 
engine, would it still be a "muscle car"?


Handling seemed to be pretty much unchanged from the Foulcon.  Did you 
need the dealer-option racing stripe to be a "sports car"?


We can at least all agree that the Ford Mustang was not a "personal 
computer", nor "Personal Computer", although almost any Personal Computer 
could fit in the back seat or the trunk, but probably not in the glove 
compartment.  A mini-computer, disunirregardless of whether it was 
"Personal", would require the convertible model, with the top down.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"Workstation"??!?

Several decades ago, out department chairPERSON, who was a recent UC 
Berkeley PhD graduate, came running into the lab, shouting, "I think 
that we're getting SUN computers!"  (we had a few dozen cheap PCs).
She had heard from the loading dock that they had a couple of boxes 
labeled "Computer Workstation" arriving for us.
She was so disappointed, when the "Computer Workstations" turned out to be 
work tables on casters for holding a computer, to provide a fancier stand 
for holding the computer that the instructor uses in the classroom.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:


On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 13:30, Bill Degnan via cctalk
 wrote:


that's an important distinction, affordability.  You define personal
computers to contain microprocessors, which made them affordable.  The
demand was always there, it's the point in the demand curve that allowed x%
of the population of an affluent country to afford them.Above the
point, not personal past it, personal.

Is that what you're saying?


Yep, pretty much.

This is one way of _describing_ it. There are others.

Another way of looking at it is this: a personal computer is a type of
microcomputer. This is using the old classification of microcomputer,
minicomputer and mainframe.

If a device is not a microcomputer, it then must be either a
minicomputer or a mainframe. Early on many mainframes didn't even
support interactive sessions so they more or less disqualified
themselves from being "personal" in any commonly-understood sense.
Which leaves minicomputers.

A single-user desktop (or deskside) minicomputer isn't a personal
computer, because it's not a microcomputer. (And it costs as much as a
car.) Then what is it? What do you call a single-user minicomputer?

The other, often overlooked category: it's a workstation.

Workstations, for as long as they existed, were personal computer
_like_ devices but typically an order of magnitude more powerful and
an order of magnitude more expensive. They also generally ran what ben
mononym calls a proper OS.

Workstations existed before microcomputers and before personal
computers, and continued happily existing for about 30 more years, but
by the time of 32-bit high-performance PCs with grown-up OSs, they
were teetering, and by the time of commodity _64-bit_ PCs, or
multiprocessor/multicore PCs with OSes that could use that, or of
course both (64-bit multi-core), they were dead.

A workstation wasn't really a type of PC. They exceeded PCs in
specification, in performance, in price, and in sophistication of the
OS... and when PCs caught up, they obliterated workstations because
workstations also exceeded PCs in price by, as I said, at least an
additional zero.

--
Liam Proven ~ Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk ~ gMail/gTalk/FB: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/LinkedIn: lproven ~ Skype: liamproven
IoM: (+44) 7624 277612: UK: (+44) 7939-087884
Czech [+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal]: (+420) 702-829-053

[cctalk] Re: PRIVATE: Re: STUPID THREAD NEEDS TO DIE Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

SORRY!

That was not intended to go to the list.


On Wed, 29 May 2024, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


I apologize for my active participation in the offensive thread.

[cctalk] PRIVATE: Re: STUPID THREAD NEEDS TO DIE Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

I apologize for my active participation in the offensive thread.
Yeah, I just couldn't get past his insistence that method of purchase was 
more important than use.



Yes, CHATGPT could probably give a definitive answer to "When did Steve 
Jobs invent the personal computer?"



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

On Wed, 29 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:


On Wed, May 29, 2024, 6:49 AM CAREY SCHUG via cctalk 
wrote:


something can be BOTH a "personal computer" *AND* "industrial computer"
(or whatever term you want to use)



So now you've incorporated "industrial" into the mix in order to extend
this stupid debate out even beyond the ridiculous place it is now.

You are conflating and making dichotomous terms that aren't: "personal" vs.
"business" is not a valid comparison here.

"Personal Computer" is in fact a careless marketing term with no fixed
and/or coherent meaning.

I recommend you move this debate to ChatGPT.  It has endless patience for
this nonsense.  I don't.

Sellam

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

What/when was the first personal TV?  :-)


On Tue, 28 May 2024, Christian Kennedy via cctalk wrote:
When someone slapped a handle on the top of a console and called it 
"portable"?


My Philco from about 1960 had a handle, and was portable,
But, I gave my parents their first COLOR TV (a used one) in the late 
1970s.  It was a large heavy box, but it had a handle on each end.
So, "portable" might mean a loop on the top to attach the crane, or riser 
blocks to give the forklift clearance?


"personal" may be orthogonal to "portable".
My "personal residence" is certainly not portable, . . .

Despite the fact that Fred was being cheeky, a serious contender is probably 
this tricorder-llike thing from the end of the '50s: 
https://www.earlytelevision.org/philco_safari.html


My grandfather had one of those!
My cousin (David Unger) ended up with it.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: TVs [was: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

What/when was the first personal TV?  :-)

[cctalk] Re: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:

If the file system and basic I/O functions drivers are in ROM what is the 
difference between a BIOS and an Operating System.
Technically speaking, for some, the BIOS offers a hardware abstraction level to some more 
generic software that runs on top.  BIOS means Basic Input Output System.  Is that 
restricted to the console only?  Some systems run their entire "Operating 
System" out of ROM?

Well, sure.  The memory used is irrelevant to what the software does (other 
than details like mutability, so if you have ROM you have to separate the R/W 
data from the rest, while if it's all in RAM that isn't necessary).  Operating 
systems have been found in ROM, RAM, drums, tapes, and any number of other 
memory devices.

Let's take a very simple computer, the HP-41C Calculator.  The internal 12K or ROM 
handled all of the keypad I/O, display I/O, math functions and programming functions.  
Each device added contained all of it's drivers in ROM.  There was never an 
"Operating System" to load but with additonal hardware/software modules even 
reading and writing to floppy disks and mini data cassettes was supported.  The 12K main 
ROM and how the expansion hardware/ROM integrated into it was definitely an operating 
system.
. . . 

By your definition many BIOS's are really operating systems.  And if I really 
want to pick nits, what you defined as an Operating System is really an 
application that uses the BIOS Operating System.  Yes, I know, not all BIOS's 
have enough functionality to qualify as an operating system.

A BIOS is more likely a helper, providing bootstrap services and some I/O 
support.  That goes back to the first BIOS, around 1958 in the Electrologica 
X-1.  In fact, that's an interesting one: it was written by Dijkstra as his 
Ph.D. project to abstract the then very new and daunting problem of dealing 
with interrupts.  The BIOS would do this, and other code could then use those 
APIs to do I/O more easily without worrying about asynchronous pain.


"DOS est omnis divisa in partes tres: BIOS, BDOS, Command processor"
In CP/M, MS-DOS, there are three layers of the OS,

BIOS is the hardware management layer.
It consists of ROM(s), supplemented by files loaded at boot time (IO.SYS 
or IBMBIO.COM)  ROM VS disk file(s) is irrelevant; Poqet (MS-DOS 5.00) and 
Atari Portfolio (Atari imitation MS-DOS) put the entire OS in ROM. 
Different hardware requires a different BIOS, but not necessarily changes 
in the upper layers.
BIOS also includes the initial layer of the bootstrap code, that loads 
the boot sector of the disk into RAM and sends control to it.


BDOS is the file management layer, and the central/core layer of the OS
(MSDOS.SYS or IBMDOS.COM)
Many BDOS functions (Int 21h) call BIOS functions.

Command processor (COMMAND.COM) communicates with the user, parsing 
commands, rendering messages, launching programs, and calling functions in 
BDOS.
In theory, all communication between user and OS or hardware is through 
COMMAND.COM, or running application programs.
In actuality, "going through channels" as a "well behaved program" isn't 
adequate performance, so many/most prograams bypass one or more layers of 
the OS.
MS-DOS/PC-DOS documentation included explanation of what was required to 
write your own replacement for COMMAND.COM!



Windows 1x, 2x, 3x took over the functions of COMMAND.COM.
Windows NT, 9x, etc. blurred the boundaries of the layers.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

So what, then, consitutes a Real Operating System, and why?


On Tue, 28 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:

I am grumpy about OS's like MSDOS, in that programs kept by passing
DOS to handle screen, and serial IO.
I also favor OS's that don't require one to build a file control block.


Is it not "Real", if it is just crappy?

It was possible to handle screen through MS-DOS, or using ANS.SYS, but, 
you had to go below DOS to the BIOS, or even direct to hardware to get 
acceptable performance.


MS-DOS 1.xx used CP/M-like File Control Blocks, and the Program Segment 
Prefix contained the content of the command line (at 80h), and unopened 
FCBs parsed from the first two command line arguments, at 5Ch and 6Ch


BUT,
MS-DOS 2.xx still had all of that, but implemented unix-like file handles, 
so programming could be done without requiring one to build a File Control 
Block.



Is it not "Real", if it is just crappy?

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"If your working television sits on top of your non-working television,
you might be a redneck." - Jeff Foxworthy


On Wed, 29 May 2024, Adrian Godwin wrote:

As a child. my parents weren't sufficiently enamoured of televisions to buy
one, but I was given some old ones.
The one on the bottom had working sound and the one on the top had working
video.


When the TV wasn't working, and seemingly unrepariable (drugstore tube 
testers), my father would buy another cheap old working TV from Goodwill, 
etc.


A significant part of the time, that meant not having a working one.

So, my brother and I pooled our money to buy a 19" "portable" Philco.  My 
father chipped in the balance for the UHF option ("educational" TV was UHF 
in those days).


I remember watching the "Cuban Missile Crisis" on it.
I also remember going down Massachusetts avenue in the middle of the 
night, and all embassies had all of their lights on all night.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:

I'll make it simple.
if a computer is being purchased by a non-human, i.e. corporation, to be 
used to benefit the corporation, it is NOT a personal computer. 
Corporations tend to buy things on purchase orders, including open 
ended, for hundreds or thousands at a time.


I don't agree with you about that being relevant to the issue, but, you 
have made a good case for your point of view.


One way to determine if it is being used for business or not is if it is 
depreciated.  In MOST cases, if it is being depreciated (or perhaps even 
expensed), then it is a BUSINESS computer.  Simple Tax law.  Aside from 
tax cheats, it is ILLEGAL to depreciate a computer UNLESS IT IS BEING 
USED FOR BUSINESS, and therefore NOT personally.


I don't see depreciation as being as significant as you do. In fact, the 
IRS auditor (audit was triggered by space rentals, not equipment, and the 
end result of the audit was they owed me almost $100!) agreed that 90% of 
necessity of use being in first year, with the remaining 10% spread out 
over 10 years (asymptotically) SHOULD in theory be "accelerated 
depreciation" but that it was acceptable to just expense it in that case.


I presume when Apple gave computers to schools, they were considered a 
donation, not depreciated or expensed.
IRS blocked the large Apple donation plan, due to disagreement over amount 
of deduction.


If a computer is being purchased by a human, for the use of a few humans 
and not for their primary livelihood, it is a personal computer.

yes

I won't quibble the exact transition point for someone who does the 
books for his home business as well as play games on the device.


we will probably never come up with a well-defined transition point.
But, we can agree that there are some situations of overlap.


BECAUSE as long as 10% of purchases are for use as a PERSONAL COMPUTER, 
then I will call it a personal computer, even if 90% of the purchases, 
(and 99.9% of the computers, because each business purchase is for 500 
computers).


alas, we are stuck who pays for it, rather than what it is used for.
The machines that the college gave to the professors were used well over 
90% for personal use, although the college had paid for them (and 
mis-negotiated the purchase).  The purchase and distribution were in 
exchange for other concessions by the union, and the college acknowledged 
that they were for personal use by the professors.

That's certainly a case that falls between your and my criteria.

If you want to quibble the 10%, fine, I don't have the energy or desire 
to fight it out, but it is NOT reasonable to say that if JUST A SINGLE 
ONE of the computer type was being ised not-for-business, for two 
months, 6 years ago, then it is a personal computer.


the specific number is of relatively less importance.

--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

How about can we be done with this now? :D


Sorry, but "FIRST" and "PERSONAL" are permanent topics,
along with emacs V VI, big-endian/little-endian, Mac/PC,
6502/Z80, etc.

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

Why should that matter?  Shouldn't it be how they were used rather than how
they were acquired?


About a quarter century ago, the college gave a computer to each tenured 
professor.  Although possibly nominally owned by the college, they did not 
ask for them back, and refused when anybody tried to return one.


After the contract for them was negotiated for name-brand machines, the 
purchasing office (malfeasance with kickbacks) let the vendor substitute 
generics.  ("Chembook" with NTFS 4)
Our union (powerless wimps) had been unsuccessful at getting it to permit 
individuals to make their own purchase and be reimbursed.  Would 
reimbursement of a apersonal purchase change whether it was a "personal" 
computer?



"If your working television sits on top of your non-working television, 
you might be a redneck." - Jeff Foxworthy 
What if your current laptop (not being carried around) sits on top of your 
previous laptop?



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, John via cctalk wrote:

Even putting aside what
"handles IRQs" means here (yes, strictly speaking the IRQs on the IBM
PC are handled by the BIOS and/or add-on drivers/utilties, but DOS most
certainly makes use of the facilities provided,)


Installed add-on drivers/utilities become part of the OS.

BIOS??!?
"DOS est omnis divisa in partes tres: BIOS, BDOS, Command processor"



So what, then, consitutes a Real Operating System, and WHY?


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:

Since I belive ALL IBM computers in that era were ONLY leased, it is 
technically still the property of IBM and they could claim it back.
--Carey


So, . . .
RENTING (including "rent to own" scams) a "personal computer" makes it not 
"personal"?

[cctalk] Re: Pragmatically [was: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:

1. I don't believe ANYBODY could purchase a 360. You had to lease them.
2. do you know of such a company? (with a significant number of employees, not 
a lone entrepreneur).  I figure asking means that maybe you do.  and since I 
believe no 360 but maybe the model 20 (not a real 360) or the model 22 would 
plug into household power it seems unlikely unless a tax dodge.
3. if it was one purchase order, it sounds like ONE for the personal computer 
tally, vs thousands for the not-personal tally.  Remember we still need to have 
enough computers to be 10% (or negotiated percentage) of the total produced.  
One exception does not change everything.
---
I should have repeated my other suggestion.  Only computers NOT 
depreciated/expensed count as personal.  If depreciated, it is a business 
computer for business purposes.
to summarize any or all of the following:
-- if depreciated or expensed  (reducing income) it is business, otherwise 
personal.  **
--10% of purchases (a lot counts as ONE purchase, including "100-200 per month for 3 
years") must be out of household funds (per income tax filings) for and used for 
household education, not for earning claimed income.
--by some criteria, be able to plug into private home power for a reasonable 
subset of the population.

** There could be tax reasons/dodges (not saying they are legal): (1) a 
small business could expense them immediately (vs depreciate over years) 
by titling them in employees' or families' names, (2) a private 
individual could depreciate even though not actually doing any 
significant amount of income earning work on them (3) would have been 
expensed/depreciated but not enough income to be of any advantage, (4) 
probably many others, ask a shady tax lawyer.


1) property of a sole proprietorship IS legally in the owner's name

I depreciated my first two TRS80 Model 1's, which got "personal" use, as 
well as business use.
Later machines I expensed out, which surprisingly held up through an 
audit!, on the argument that because of the nature of the business that I 
was doing, I needed to purchase current machines, rather than the usual 
use over many years.  For example, when IBM switched from 8088 to 80286, I 
needed an AT immediately briefly, and not for very long, to test and fix 
my code (prefetch buffer size was an issue, solved by a JMP $)
"Self-modifying code may seem like fun, but it WILL ALWAYS come back 
eventually and byte your ass."


Continuing to have them, and even some lesser use of them after thay had 
served their initial purpose and amortized did not obviate that. 
4) I could have used a shadier tax lawyer.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 28 May 2024, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
In 1971 or 1972 I was in the Washington DC airport executive lounge.  Dolly 
Parton was in there, she had two gofers getting her coffee and stuff, and she 
had a large "bag phone" that she was on a lot of the time, presumably making 
arrangements for shows.  This was a square-cornered hard bag with a shoulder 
strap, and there was an old-style handset with a coil cord connected to it.  
The bag was something like 10 by 8 x 4" and appeared to be quite heavy.  I 
am pretty sure the thing was "personal" to her.


On Tue, 28 May 2024, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:

[reasoning: if purpose is to make money, it is an investment for business gain]


Therefore, since Dolly Parton was "presumably making arrangements for 
shows", then by CAREY SCHUG's criteris, it was NOT "personal" to her.


. . . and that of the dozens of "personal computers" that I had prior to Y2K,
none of them were "personal"


We can never agree on the definition.  The blind men are fixxated on 
individual features of the elephant.


I contend that making money, and purchasing by a business and handing out 
to employees, are orthogonal to whether it is a "personal" computer, and 
on a par with whether it was in the bedroom, living room, or home office.
(bedroom (unless a sex-worker) is "personal", kitchen table or home office 
is not.)



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: First Personal Computer

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sun, 26 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:


On 5/26/24 17:30, dwight via cctalk wrote:

I'm not claiming it was the first personal computer but is was my first 
personal computer. It was within a year or two of just about any other first 
personal computer.
It was a Poly88 with ROM based tiny basic. I had a keyboard, I think I got from 
Mike Quin's as well as a Singer typing terminal that I converted into a serial 
printer.
I used a transformer powered TV as a monitor and used a cassette recorder as 
mass storage.
It was more personal than other machine as it was my personal creation after 
several modifications to enhance it. I learned a lot about computers and how 
they worked from that machine.


I built a TVT and drove a hot-chassis all-tube Zenith portable TV.  A
little tricky when it came to getting the AC plugs the right way.  Back
then, US AC plugs were not polarized.


. . . and, even when they were, at least half of the polarized outlets 
were wired backwards

[cctalk] Re: Black Apple (Was: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Mon, 27 May 2024, Rick Bensene via cctalk wrote:
This was because if someone submitted a capital equipment request for a 
"computer", bean counters would immediately reject it, while calculators 
would sail right through.

Why?
Because computers were big complicated machines that required expensive, 
brainy people to support, and they needed all kinds of "extras" like 
special power, air conditioning, storage systems, printers, terminals, 
maintenance contracts, installation fees, and other stuff that cost even 
more money.  At least, that was the mentality, be it right or wrong. 
It has been historically documented as such in numerous books written 
about that period in time.


Does anybody here have personal experience with the "Black Apple"?
I don't but read about it with interest at the time.

Apple cut a deal to market some machines through Bell and Howell ("Hell 
and bowel"?)


The machine was an ordinary Apple, with a black case, non-removable power 
cord, and latches, instead of velcro, for the lid, all to reduce pilferage 
of parts.


Educators were having serious difficulty getting purchase requests for 
computers through school district purchasing departments.  However, when 
the purchase request said "Bell And Howell equipment", it would sail right 
through!



Around the same time, Apple wanted to "give" a machine to each and every 
school and take a tax deduction.  But, the IRS reasoned that if they let 
Apple do it, then every other computer company would also.
It fell apart in the negotiations about the size of the tax deduction; 
Apple wanted to deduct retail, or at least dealer price; the IRS said that 
they could only deduct the price of the components. (not teven the labor 
that Apple paid for assembly)


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

You rap the drive to get it unstuck, but if you rap it too hard
the machine would reset.


On Sun, 26 May 2024, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk wrote:

I think I had a co-worker like that once.


The problem with trying to implement percussive maintenance with cow-
orkers, is that the force needed to unstick them is likely to be more 
than that which would reboot.

[cctalk] Re: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

"Real OS"?  While I don't agree with your specific examples of 
inadequacies, I will readily concede that nothing so far is ready for the 
title.


On Sun, 26 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:

CP/M was the cats meyow in the 1970's,but there was other systems out like
flex for the 6800, or later OS/9 for the 6809. Don't they get a chance too 
for real OS.


OS/9 was kinda cool, but my Cocos were kinda inadequate hardware to make 
full use of it.



Randy Cook tried to make a "real OS" for the TRS80.  But, he never 
FINISHED [nor documented] TRSDOS, nor VTOS.  When LSI commissioned LDOS, 
as the finishing of TRSDOS/VTOS, they stripped out a lot of the "real OS" 
features that Randy Cook had intended, but never finished implementing.
But, when Radio-shack licensed LDOS, to be TRSDOS 6.0, Randy Cook finally 
started to receive royalties.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: terminology [was: First Personal Computer]

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sun, 26 May 2024, ben via cctalk wrote:

I think the most important thing for a Personal Computer,
is the average Joe, can afford and use it. The second thing is
to have ample memory and IO to run useful programs. The  basic Apple I,II 
does not count as many others as it had BASIC in ROM and tape IO.

The third thing is a real OS. Nobody has one, as a personal computer.
CP/M and MSDOS does not handle IRQ's. Unix for the PDP-11 is real operating 
system but not personal as it requires a admin,and a swapping

media.


So, basically, the first "Personal Computer" does not yet exist, and all 
of those being discussed are merely predecessors for it.


I can definitely agree with that,
although not necessarily with your specific list of requirements.

Although there need to be some that Joe Average can afford, they don't all 
need to be, as a requirement; Tony Cole can build a gold plated one, and 
billg can spec optional features that the rest of us can't afford - if I 
were designing billg's house, I'd build some "personal" computing 
capability in the  walls, or filling the main rooms, and bedroom could be 
a cot in the walls.


"Ample memory"??!?  perhaps that should be TerrorBytes.
I/O??!?  Does that need to be built in, in the minimum purchase 
configuration, or merely provision for it externally?


"Real OS"?  While I don't agree with your specific examples of 
inadequacies, I will readily concede that nothing so far is ready for the 
title.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: First Personal Computer

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sat, 25 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 5/25/24 08:14, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
Offhand, if I were King of the World, I'd immediately eliminate from
competition those computers that cannot be run from a US 120 volt 15 amp
wall receptacle.   The rationale being that anything that requires
special power wiring cannot be "personal"


. . . or 100V or 220V in locations where those are the standard for 
household residential wiring.
Woulld not want to automatically exclude UK machines, such as the Sinclair 
doorstop wedge.

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Besides nobody fully comprehending what "FIRST" really means, . . .
"The Altair was just an obscure predecessor; the personal computer was invented by 
Steve Jobs!"  :-)
"How can you call it a 'Personal Computer' with no mouse or Windoze?"  :-)


On Fri, 24 May 2024, Don R wrote:

Well the Xerox Alto had a three button mouse, making it “extra” personal.  ;)


You can put significant effort into creating an unambiguous definition.
But, SOMEBODY can find an example that doesn't apply that still meets the 
definition.



Using the argument that Roberts was the first to CALL it a "personal 
computer", means that the "MINI-Computer" was invented by a DEC marketing 
person.



Relatively early (NOT "FIRST") PC mice, such as Logitech's had three 
buttons.


I have heard conflicting stories about why Apple put only one button on 
their mouse:
1) It would be too confusing for the user, including the need to look away 
from the screen to see which mouse button is being pushed


2) Difficulty of explaining which button is which, and getting user 
comprehension of such, in writing documentation


3) Jef Raskin's concept that the system should KNOW what is wanted, so 
there is no need for more than one.


. . .


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 24 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

This is on the Canonical List of ClassicCmp Debate Topics and is a dead
horse so beaten that there's nothing left but teeth and fur at this point.


Besides nobody fully comprehending what "FIRST" really means, . . .
"The Altair was just an obscure predecessor; the personal computer was 
invented by Steve Jobs!"  :-)


"How can you call it a 'Personal Computer' with no mouse or Windoze?"  :-)

[cctalk] Re: Experience using an Altair 8800 ("Personal computer" from 70s)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 23 May 2024, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

I couldn't wait to show it to a female working in my section.  She
dropped by my apartment, took one look at the thing sitting on my
kitchen table and burst out laughing.  "That's not a computer; it's a
toy!" was her withering reaction.
I don't know if my male ego ever recovered from that.  And I *hated* the
DRAM boards.


Be very thankful that it was before you had more invested in the 
relationship.


I almost failed to heed the warning (although FAR less personally 
humiliating), when a new interest thought that "Hitchhiker's guide To The 
Galaxy" was "stupid".



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: NTSC TV demodulator

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
I have a couple of 70s/80s "home" computers (e.g. Radio Shack Color 
Computer) that are intended to connect to a TV set. They don't have 
easily available composite video, even internally, only modulated RF 
output. Currently I have an old CRT TV that I use with them, but for 
various reasons that isn't practical long-term.
Does anyone know of a small TV tuner that tunes old analog TV channels 
(US NTSC) and outputs composite or VGA or HDMI signals? I've looked 
around a bit but haven't found anything. It's relatively easy to build 
one, but I would prefer a pre-built solution.  And I'm sure others have 
run into this same problem.


VCR,
Digital converter box,
Closed caption decoder
even some TVs have a composite out, all of which had RF input


All of those are now old.
Not all of those have composite output out, but such do exist for each of 
those.


You should know that your specific example, Radio Shack Color Computer, 
can produce composite internally with trivial modifications.


A large number of such machines internally share a common RF module; if 
you identify the input to their RF modulator, often clipping onto that may 
be all you need.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Better demagnetize all of your cables!

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/aurora-30-minute-forecast

stormy sunny weather

[cctalk] Re: Random items on Pascal #3

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Charles via cctalk wrote:
Regarding protections, it didn't have many. I remember spending a day 
tracking down a fatal bug with a logic analyzer (emulators were still a dream 
in this small company)... another programmer had used an array subscript out 
of range and the compiler didn't catch it for some reason. So in this array 
defined [0..20], when the typo caused a write to FOO[60] instead of FOO[20], 
bad things happened.

Ah, the good old days ;)


At Goddard Space Flight Center, my position was negligible (gopher and APL 
and FORTRAN programming for a British pysicist studying the Van Allen 
belts).


I was told that some of the many locally applied patches were done by 
writes to array elements with negative subscripts.


We may have been the first one to get some IBM 360 operating systems.  I 
remember one time, shortly after "upgrading", we rolled back to the 
previous one, until the next one arrived.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: CORRECTIONS Re: DOS p-System Pascal:

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Microsoft had to pay $120 million, and Stac had to pay $13.6 million.
But Microsoft also settled some claims out of court with a $39.9 million
dollar investment in Stac, and paid $43 million in royalties.
Yes, billg had a bad day.  comparable to my losing $100


On Fri, 10 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I was going to say, if it was only $100K then old Billy Boy would've
laughed all the way out of court and on the way home.


Yes, as soon as I sent that, I knew that I had screwed up.


I remember the Stac lawsuit. It was just another company actually doing
innovation whose technology Microschlock tried to appropriate in its
typically and despicably underhanded ways. Stac was one of the few (only?)
companies to come out pretty well after "partnering" with MS.


Too much proprietary information shared too early in the negotiations.

The award was based on "$5.50 per copy", . . .


When Seattle Computer Products, who had a royalty-free license to sell 
MS-DOS, was on the rocks, and MICROS~1 was terrified of somebody like AT&T 
getting that, they did the right thing, and simply BOUGHT the company.


As always seems to happen in these kinda cases (just like Word and 
Mac), it was never adequately spelled out whether "The operating system" 
meant version 0.9, or all versions including current, and what products, 
such as Windoze could be construed to be derivative products.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: CORRECTIONS Re: DOS p-System Pascal:

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Please note, that I am NOT saying that there was nothing wrong in the 
compression.  Merely that the disasters that prompted the public outcry 
were due to SMARTDRV's problems, not the problems with the compression.



My numbers were all wrong on the Microsoft V Stac lawsuit.
Micorsoft and Stac had looked at each others code as part of alicensing 
negotiation, that fell through.


Microsoft had to pay $120 million, and Stac had to pay $13.6 million.
But Microsoft also settled some claims out of court with a $39.9 million 
dollar investment in Stac, and paid $43 million in royalties. 
Yes, billg had a bad day.  comparable to my losing $100



IBM's PC-DOS 6.10 had a similar bundle list to MS-DOS 6.00, but each 
product from a different vendor than Microsoft's



On Fri, 10 May 2024, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
. . .

[cctalk] Re: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

very slow and buggy.  I heard a story that to speed up disc access, MS put
FAT-manipulation code in the actual compiler and that occasionally
destroyed the FAT.


Sorry Stuff, ain't so.
If you had FAT corruption issues, perhaps you had SMARTDRV enabled with
write cacheing (which did occasionally mess up the FAT).


On Fri, 10 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I developed quite a bit and for many years with Microsoft C v6.0 under DOS
and it was not bad.  The compiler was decently fast and once 486s and then
Pentiums became available compile time wasn't really an issue.  It was
actually the least shitty Microsoft product I've ever used, next to MS-DOS
6.22.  It was actually pretty good.
A good example of why I generally hate MS software.  But the solution was
easy: just turn off write-caching.


I also liked their C V6.
and MASM 5.00 and beyond were the first MASM to have documentation that 
was not CRIMINALLY bad.


SMARTDRV caused a lot of disk corruption.  Which was erroneously blamed on 
the compression.  When Infoworld did a test routine that did a bunch of 
miscellaneous stuff and rebooted in a loop (thereby corrupting disk 
because SMARTDRV write cache had not been written out!) and blamed the 
compression, billg tried to explain that their test routine was faulty, 
not the compression, but wasn't about to admit that SMARTDRV was at fault. 
Infoworld reported that conversation as an attempt to intimidate!



MS-DOS 6.2x "fixed the problems with compression"!
The way that it did so was to change SMARTDRV to NOT default to 
write-cacheing on,
IFF the user turned SMARTDRV write-cacheing back on, then SMARTDRV was changed 
to NOT re-arrange the sequence of writes (had been for efficiency, but 
risky), and
NOT display the DOS prompt until the write cache(s) were written. (thus 
not implicitly telling the user that it was now OK to turn off the 
computer (which had a shutdown sequence of turn off the power))


Those changes to SMARTDRV "fixed compression".
MS-DOS 6.2x also did a LOT of other fixes; it may have been the only 
Microsoft product where the primary goal of the updaate was to improve 
reliability!


MS-DOS 6.20 SMARTDRV and other fixes

MS-DOS 6.21 6.20 without compression; Microsoft had lost lawsuit with STAC 
($100K judgment from Microsoft to STAC, and $30K judgement from STAC to 
Microsoft.  billg said, "I'm having a bad day.")


MS-DOS 6.22 6.20 with a new non-infringing compression


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: DOS p-System Pascal: (Was: Saga of CP/M)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Stuff Received via cctalk wrote:
I recall that MS sold a Pascal compiler, possibly from someone else.  It was 
very slow and buggy.  I heard a story that to speed up disc access, MS put 
FAT-manipulation code in the actual compiler and that occasionally destroyed 
the FAT.


Sorry Stuff, ain't so.

Bob Wallace wrote the Microsoft Pascal compiler, while he was at 
Microsoft.  He was their tenth employee.  He told me that their runtime 
library (which he didn't write) is buggy and slow.
So slow that it made benchmarks with their Fortran compiler (which also 
used the buggy and slow runtime library), perform SLOWER than interpreted 
BASIC.



But, it certainly did NOT do anything to the disk; certainly no messing 
with the FAT.


If you had FAT corruption issues, perhaps you had SMARTDRV enabled with 
write cacheing (which did occasionally mess up the FAT).


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Random items on Pascal #3

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

...
I've written code in Pascal, as well as Modula-2.  Never liked
it--seemed to be a bit awkward for the low-level stuff that I was doing.


On Thu, 9 May 2024, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Not surprising, since that's not what it is all about.  Both, like their 
predecessor ALGOL-60 as well as successors like Ada, are strongly typed 
languages where doing unsafe stuff is made very hard.  Contrast that 
with C, which sets out to make it easy to do unsafe things and partly 
for that reason has a feeble type system.  So doing low level stuff like 
device drivers is difficult, unless you create extensions to break out 
of the type system.  An example of how to do that is the Burroughs 
extension of ALGOL called ESPOL, which is what they used to write the 
OS.  Actually, Burroughs did a number of extended versions for different 
purposes; there's also DCALGOL (Data comm ALGOL) intended for writing 
communications software.  Why that's separate from ESPOL I don't really 
know; I only ever got to do regular ALGOL programming on Burroughs 
mainframes.  One reason for that: those systems depend on the compilers 
for their security; if ordinary users got access to ESPOL they could 
write dangerous code, but in ALGOL they cannot.


One of the things that _I_ love about C is that it is easy to get it out 
of the way when you want to do something lower level.


Rather than feeble type system, it could have had a requirement to 
explicitly "cast" anything being used as a "wrong" type.


One of Alan Holub's books about C is titled
"Enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot"

Each language has its own specialty.  And you need to find the one that 
fits you best.


It used to be (and likely still is), that every computer science grad 
student created a new language.  A requirement (usually UNSPOKEN) was that 
the compiler be able to compile itself.  That the language compiler is 
written (actually normally RE-written) in that language and compiled by 
that compiler.  That certainly seems to bias things towards languages that 
are well suited for writing compilers!  If you were to create a language 
that was specializzed for something completely different, and poorly 
suited for writing compilers, then it would not be respected.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Random items on Pascal #3

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Turbo-Pascal was quite popular.  At the annnouncement of it (West Coast 
Computer Faire), Phillipe Kahn (Borland) was so inundated with "yeah, 
but what about C?" questions, that by the end of the first day, "Turbo 
C is coming soon"


On Thu, 9 May 2024, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:

I learned on Turbo C.  It was a fantastic little IDE.


I have heard that Pascal was originally developed for TEACHING programming.
Turbo Pascal makes that easier.


In my C programming classes, for every homework assignment, I required 
that the students submit the output (screen print), a source file, and a 
screen print of the portion of the directory, to show that they had 
created a source file and an executable file.  And that the executable 
file was created AFTER the source file was created; a surprising number 
were NOT.


We had available Turbo C and Quick C, as well as Microsoft C compiler, 
DeSmet ("Personal C"), and GCC compilers.  and occasionally a few others.


I required that each student had to do one program in an IDE, and one with 
a command line compiler.  After they had shown that they COULD do both, 
then they could use whatever they wanted for subsequent assignments.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Random items on Pascal #6

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

OK
This seems to be the one that the list choked on
(possibly due to special quote characters?

On Thu, May 9, 2024, 2:07 AM david barto via cctalk  
wrote:

At Ken Bowles retirement from UCSD (Ken was the lead of the UCSD Pascal
Project) he related a story that IBM came to UCSD after being "rejected"
by DR to see if the Regents of the University would license UCSD Pascal (the
OS and the language) to IBM for release on the new hardware IBM was
developing. The UC Regents said "no"
He was quite sad that history took the very different course.


well, it wasn't quite a "rejected by DR".  But, the culture clash certainly did 
strengthen IBM's desire for CP/M alternatives.  And, they DID cut a deal with 
Softech/UCSD-Regents to have UCSD P-system as one of the original operating 
systems for the 5150.
The "very different course" of the market going with CP/M and MS-DOS, rather 
than P-System, was due to many factors.


--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

[cctalk] Re: Random items on Pascal #5

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

UCSD P-system could only allocate contiguous disk space.  So a disk that had 
become "checkerboarded" by writing and deletng files had to be defragmented, 
using a spplied utility called "Crunch".

Was that adequately protected against catastrophes caused by interruption?


Softech and UCSD Regents filed trademark registration for "XenoFile", and 
listed it as a product, but as near as I can tell, NEVER sent out any copies.
(February 1987, I went to the Patent and Trademark Office outside of 
Washington, Dc, and researched some trademarks, in preparation for my trademark 
registration)
They also announced a "universal disk format" for ALL machines, but never had a 
clue about how to do anything compatible with FM, MFM, and GCR.