RE: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Paul Koning via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 10:09 AM
To: Liam Proven; General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
> wrote:
> ...
> I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux
> has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping
> the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK.

I think taking BSD code and releasing a copy under GPL is technically 
permitted, though silly because the original BSD release would still apply so 
the GPL virus doesn't stick.  Of course, if you modify the original and license 
those mods under GPL, that makes a difference, that limits access to the mods 
(but only the mods).

__

As long as they retain the original Copyright notice as required by that 
Copyright
which seems to me to be a direct conflict if you then tried to put the GPL in 
there
too.

bill

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk  
> wrote:
> ...
> I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux
> has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping
> the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK.

I think taking BSD code and releasing a copy under GPL is technically 
permitted, though silly because the original BSD release would still apply so 
the GPL virus doesn't stick.  Of course, if you modify the original and license 
those mods under GPL, that makes a difference, that limits access to the mods 
(but only the mods).

paul

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 21 March 2017 at 18:32, Ray Arachelian via cctalk
 wrote:
> (And meanwhile AAPL is busy, or was, getting rid of all GPL stuff in its
> OS.)

Darwin is mostly BSD-licensed and includes significant quantities of
code from FreeBSD, which is why Apple hired Jordan Hubbard.

I'm not aware of any significant amount of GPL code in either. Linux
has a regrettable history of nicking BSD-licensed code and slapping
the GPL on it, but not the other way round, AFAIK.

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Ray Arachelian via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 11:28 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
>
>> I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it
>>
>> 202x All the world's an ARM running Android
>>
> on Linux. :) 
Actually goog's trying to get rid of the linux and replacing it with
another OS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia
Whether they use it to replace Android remains to be seen.

(And meanwhile AAPL is busy, or was, getting rid of all GPL stuff in its
OS.)

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 20:15, Warner Losh via cctalk  wrote:
> Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel.

More than a bit of an oversimplification.

Android has its own libc. It contains some portions from the BSD one,
but is not a modified version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_(software)

That's my reading, anyway.

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 20:05, geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> Why?  The old nonsense still works!  I gotta bring it out now and again to
> keep the rust off and the joints moving freely. :)

:-D


> ITYM, "more buttons confuse those with cognitive delay". :)

This isn't a great citation, but here's an example of the kind of
quantitative measurement I mean:

http://www.yorku.ca/mack/CHI01.htm

There are others:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140137808931762

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=142794

What I can't find right now is the research into the time taken to
click a button when the user either has only one button, or a choice.
The time goes up with the number of buttons, AIR, *even with
experienced users*. It takes a decision to pick which button, and even
though it's a very fast one, it's still an extra load. With no choice,
that's gone.

I strongly prefer multibutton mice. Even on my Macs, as soon as they
got USB so they didn't cost extra. On OS X there's rich right-button
support. But it is demonstrable that both 1 button is quicker, and is
all you need.

Now, of course, multitouch is rendering all this moot...

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 18:50, Al Kossow via cctalk  wrote:
> Steve Capps was the only person on the original Mac team who worked at PARC.


Larry Tesler
Tom Molloy
Bruce Horn

Op cit -- 
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc/3

I may be muddling the Mac and Lisa teams here, mind.

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 18:40, Josh Dersch  wrote:
> The Star introduced the concept of icons representing files (and other
> things) in 1981.  Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than
> Apple's though) in the mid 70s.
>
> Also, don't forget that the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC
> researchers.  It may have been invented at Apple, but it was strongly
> influenced by what went on at PARC.

OK, fair points. I went off and did a little cursory (pun intended)
research, since you've shown me up for relying on sketchy recall. I
never saw these machines new at the time; I was a primary school pupil
when the PC shipped and only in secondary school when the Mac did.
This is just based on what I've read over the years.

So, some cited Apple innovations. The first few come from the Lisa,
AIUI, the later ones more from the Mac:

* global menu bar
* the desktop metaphor
* the trash can
* desktop icons for drives
* drag-and-drop file manipulation
* self-repairing windows
* the Human Interface Guidelines and standardised UI across apps --
keystrokes, menu entries, etc.

Citations:
http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2012-03-22/apple-and-xerox-parc/3
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt

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

CDC 1700 Fortran [Was: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys]

[Pontus Pihlgren via cctalk]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:16:20AM -0400, John Forecast via cctalk wrote:
> 
> I just released a new version of the CDC 1700 simulator for SIMH. This 
> is a one’s complement, 16-bit machine and the Fortran compiler is now 
> functional in 16KW of available space (a smaller version (12KW) was 
> available but I don’t know if any copies survived). The source code 
> for the compiler is available on Bitsavers - it’s written mostly in 
> Fortran.
> 

How did you bootstrap the compiler? Or did you have a binary to start 
with?

/P

Re: Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/19/2017 02:14 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:

>   "The Fortran codes implementing the most effective methods are
> provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually
> any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use."

Take a look at early ACM CALGO (collected algorithms).  Algorithm 1
dates from 1960 and is in Algol; indeed all of Volume I and a good part
of Volume II are exclusively Algol.  You don't hit FORTRAN until about
1968 (somewhere around Algorithm 330).  After that, you'll see pages and
pages of FORTRAN.

I do think that Algol is far more elegant for describing algorithms than
FORTRAN; but the sad fact is that many (US-based) programmers didn't
speak Algol.

--Chuck

Portability of Fortran - was Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-17 2:56 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:


Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of
architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).


Well, okay--the European-American divide must be taken into account--and
the Burroughs B5000 architecture was sui generis.

But by and large, FORTRAN, at least in North America, was the first
language of choice in implementation--after assembly, if one can call
assembly a language--many would call it "symbolic coding"; using symbols
instead of numeric addresses.

--Chuck






I came across a typical example of how Fortran was used as lingua 
franca, just yesterday, in a book titled "Knapsack Problems - Algorithms 
and Computer Implementations" (Silvano Martello, Paolo Toth), published 
1990.


The Preface includes the words:

  "The Fortran codes implementing the most effective methods are 
provided in the included diskette. The codes are portable on virtually 
any computer, extensively commented and---hopefully---easy to use."


--Toby

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-17 3:19 PM, Rich Alderson via cctalk wrote:

From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM


On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:



and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had
been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
inspire Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
being the predecessor to FORTRAN?



Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
years old.



So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.



It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.



"I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know
it will be called Fortran."

--Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award,
  in 1982.



Depressingly prescient...

--T

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs.  I think I remarked on
> a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an
> ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the meaning.

I'm reminded of a T-shirt sold while I was in college (mid 1970s) with this 
text:

(.)(.)
   IKF4084I

I looked that up in Messages and Codes, found a pointer to the IBM COBOL 
messages manual, where I found this message text: "Questionable use of 
parentheses accepted with doubts as to meaning".  So I think CDC was not alone 
in that bad practice.

paul

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/19/2017 08:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

> FORTRAN.  FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN
> IV compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66").  VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except
> most VAXen of the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and
> Fortran was handled by f2c.
> 
> I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before
> moving on to PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.

There was another FORTRAN 66 available fro the S/360, but you usually
saw  it on the lower models (25, 30, 40).   It was called "Basic FORTRAN
IV" or sometimes "USA Basic FORTRAN".  There doesn't seem to be a manual
in S/360 section  for this on bitsavers.  I recall that it was a slim
little packet.

It was brutal--basic INTEGER, REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION data
declarations; blank COMMON only; arithmetic IF only, computed and
unconditional GO TO--and the bugbear of many programmers:  strict
enforcement  of "mixed mode" prohibitions.  File I/O was reasonable, I
suppose.  A maximum of 6 characters in a variable name, stuff like that.

Better than some of the stripped-down FORTRAN II versions, which often
didn't even include type declarations.

FORTRAN IV was a step forward--vendor "extensions" of FORTRAN II were
getting out of hand--contrast some of the conventions of, say, 7090 FMS
II/IBSYS fORTRAN with other vendors.  For example, punching a 'B" in
column 1 indicated a "logical/Boolean" expression and so on...

Still, vendors kept extending their FORTRAN IVs.  I think I remarked on
a CDC syntactic extension that resulted in the ability to write an
ambiguous statement, with no clear way to resolve the meaning.

I believe that Univac, at one point, boasted an 1100 "FORTRAN V". That's
chutzpah for you. "FORTRAN VI", of course, was PL/I.

F77 tightened that up and brought out the notion of having to flag any
non-ANSI syntax.  F90 was clear in that vendor extensions were to be
disabled by default; i.e., the user must explicitly enable them.

F90 was, to me, the point of departure.  Many statement types were
deprecated; since the world was no longer coding on cards, free-format
input was standardized.  Extensions for high-end supercomputers were
codified, etc.   Reserved words made their appearance--in previous
versions, the notion of "whitespace" was introduced.   It was perfectly
legitimate to name a variable "FORMAT" or "REAL" and write it as "F OR M
AT", though I suspect that few ever did.

The Fortran of today resembles FORTRAN II in the same way that COBOL
2014 resembles IBM COMTRAN.

But, mutatis mutandis, Fortran/FORTRAN still lives.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Raymond Wiker via cctalk]

> On 19 Mar 2017, at 16:14 , Paul Koning via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
>>  wrote:
>> ...
>> That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
>> the OO KoolAid.
> 
> Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 
> 1 TO COBOL".
> 
>   paul
> 

Given that C++ is the object-oriented descendant of C, one might expect 
object-oriented COBOL to be named "ADD 1 TO COBOL". In my opinion, the 
object-oriented successor to COBOL is called Java - it's similarly verbose, and 
like COBOL, originally intended for average, fungible programmers.

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

> FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look 
> anything like itself these days.


On Sun, 19 Mar 2017, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank 
from the OO KoolAid.


Yes, there does exist an Object Oriented COBOL!

Oh, and my 1401 only did Autocoder.  I didn't start using Fortran until 
my Univac-1100 days.


There wasn't a Fortran compiler for the 1401, but 
how much did they charge for the FORTRAN compiler?

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> ...
> That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
> the OO KoolAid.

Speaking of OO and COBOL, a colleage of mine has a button with the text "ADD 1 
TO COBOL".

paul

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Rich Alderson via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:07 PM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

From: ben
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM

> On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

>> From: Chuck Guzis
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM

>>> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the closest
>>> thing to a "portable" language...

>> Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

Preach it, brother!

> But was FORTRAN that portable?

Yes.

> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer that had ample I/O
> and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more
> paper tape I/O.

The PDP-8 family has compilers for both FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV.  16 bits?
What could we possibly do with all that address space? ;-)

> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems. A few
> ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.

FORTRAN.  FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN IV
compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66").  VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except most VAXen of
the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and Fortran was handled by
f2c.

I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before moving on to
PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.

FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look anything like
itself these days.


That's because, unlike the COBOL Professionals, the Fortran people drank from
the OO KoolAid.

Oh, and my 1401 only did Autocoder.  I didn't start using Fortran until my 
Univac-1100
days.

bill

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Rich Alderson via cctalk]

From: ben
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:28 PM

> On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:

>> From: Chuck Guzis
>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM

>>> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the closest
>>> thing to a "portable" language...

>> Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

Preach it, brother!

> But was FORTRAN that portable?

Yes.

> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer that had ample I/O
> and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more
> paper tape I/O.

The PDP-8 family has compilers for both FORTRAN II and FORTRAN IV.  16 bits?
What could we possibly do with all that address space? ;-)

> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems. A few
> ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.

FORTRAN.  FORTRAN D (DOS/360), F and G (OS/360), which were FORTRAN IV
compilers (retronamed "Fortran 66").  VAX/VMS Fortran 77, except most VAXen of
the day you seem to be talking about ran BSD Unix and Fortran was handled by
f2c.

I learned FORTRAN IV on an IBM 1401, a decimal computer, before moving on to
PL/1 and COBOL (and FORTRAN) on the System/360.

FORTRAN was, and still is, widespread, even if it doesn't look anything like
itself these days.

Rich

Rich Alderson
Vintage Computing Sr. Systems Engineer
Living Computers: Museum + Labs
2245 1st Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98134

mailto:ri...@livingcomputers.org

http://www.LivingComputers.org/

RE: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Rich Alderson via cctalk]

From: Chuck Guzis
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:27 AM

> On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

>> and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had
>> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
>> inspire Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
>> being the predecessor to FORTRAN?

> Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
> years old.

> So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.

> It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
> wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.


"I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know
it will be called Fortran."

--Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award,
  in 1982.

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

> Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of
> architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
> And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
> VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
> level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
> envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).

I'll also consider that there are probably other exceptions.  Did
FORTRAN or RPG have the honor of "first implemented"  on the S/360 Model
20?  My gut says RPG.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 11:41 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

> Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of
> architectures: Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.
> And I supposed you could claim that status for Bliss in the case of
> VAXen, though in a different sense there was a whole set of high
> level languages that were there day 1 because the architecture
> envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).

Well, okay--the European-American divide must be taken into account--and
the Burroughs B5000 architecture was sui generis.

But by and large, FORTRAN, at least in North America, was the first
language of choice in implementation--after assembly, if one can call
assembly a language--many would call it "symbolic coding"; using symbols
instead of numeric addresses.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> ...
> It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
> wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.

Not quite true.  ALGOL was the first choice for a couple of architectures: 
Electrologica X8, and the Burroughs 48-bit mainframes.  And I supposed you 
could claim that status for Bliss in the case of VAXen, though in a different 
sense there was a whole set of high level languages that were there day 1 
because the architecture envisioned all of them (and any combination of them).

paul

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 11:09 AM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had
> been around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to
> inspire Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it
> being the predecessor to FORTRAN?

Valdres March has been around for more than a century--it's at least 113
years old.

So FORTRAN has some catching up to do.

It wasn't until the microcomputer era with BASIC, I think that FORTRAN
wasn't the first HLL to be contemplated for a new architecture.

--Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who
insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also
had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment
disks, . . .

Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?

It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres and Valdres
march.

Oh, I know--I was making a joke.  It's a fine march and I've performed
it in conCert bands many times.


and, although we don't know when YOU were playing it, the march had been 
around half a century, so was probably playing on the radio to inspire 
Backus.  Does that mean that Dan. might be right about it being the 
predecessor to FORTRAN?



OB_Trivia: Originally "FORTRAN" was a portmanteau of "FORmula TRANslation".
cf. Lewis Carroll, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portmanteau
(Q: Why would anybody make a computer language out of a big suitcase?
 A: for portability!)
In 1992?, the revised standard changed the official spelling from FORTRAN 
to Fortran, (Fortran 8X, Fortran 90)
Valtrep came long after FORTRAN, and had no discernable influence on 
Fortran.



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

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 10:06 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

> Oh, I know--I was making a joke.  It's a fine march and I've
> performed it in convert bands many times.


Er, make that "concert bands"

--Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/17/2017 06:46 AM, Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
>  wrote:
>> On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?
> 
> It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres and Valdres
> march.

Oh, I know--I was making a joke.  It's a fine march and I've performed
it in convert bands many times.

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[John Forecast via cctalk]

> On Mar 17, 2017, at 9:05 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
>> 
>> But was FORTRAN that portable?
>> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
>> that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
>> other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
>> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
>> systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
>> ran.
>> Ben.
> 
> I know of FORTRAN implementations for one's complement machines with word 
> length of 24, 27, and 60 bits, decimal machines (IBM 1620), two's complement 
> machines of 12, 16, 48 bit words, just to pick a few.  FORTRAN 
> implementations tended not to be all that demanding of resources: 4k words is 
> a typical minimum.  
> 
> I think a lot of high level languages are quite portable.  ALGOL is not as 
> widely ported but not because it's inherently harder.  PASCAL was ported to 
> many different machines too.  C is a bit of an anomaly because it's more like 
> a high level assembly language, so it has portability limitations that many 
> other high level languages don't run into.
> 
>   paul
> 

I just released a new version of the CDC 1700 simulator for SIMH. This is a 
one’s complement, 16-bit machine and the Fortran compiler is now functional in 
16KW of available space (a smaller version (12KW) was available but I don’t 
know if any copies survived). The source code for the compiler is available on 
Bitsavers - it’s written mostly in Fortran.

  John.

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Torfinn Ingolfsen via cctalk]

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
 wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>
>
> Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?

It's Valdres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdres
and Valdres march.
-- 
Regards,
Torfinn Ingolfsen

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Mar 16, 2017, at 9:28 PM, ben via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> But was FORTRAN that portable?
> Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
> that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
> other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
> I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
> systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
> ran.
> Ben.

I know of FORTRAN implementations for one's complement machines with word 
length of 24, 27, and 60 bits, decimal machines (IBM 1620), two's complement 
machines of 12, 16, 48 bit words, just to pick a few.  FORTRAN implementations 
tended not to be all that demanding of resources: 4k words is a typical 
minimum.  

I think a lot of high level languages are quite portable.  ALGOL is not as 
widely ported but not because it's inherently harder.  PASCAL was ported to 
many different machines too.  C is a bit of an anomaly because it's more like a 
high level assembly language, so it has portability limitations that many other 
high level languages don't run into.

paul

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 08:19 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> In response to a question of who provided the Lisa FORTRAN, guy who
> insisted that Valtrep was the predecessor of FORTRAN 'course he also
> had OS/2 for the PDP-11, and a PROGRAM that could duplicate alignment
> disks, . . .

Oh jeez, not that again!  I'd hoped that I'd forgotten about him...

Isn't "Valdtrep" a Norwegian march by Johannes Hanssen?

--Chuck

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 06:28 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:

> But was FORTRAN that portable? Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think
> of a small computer that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile
> FORTRAN. All the other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O. I
> suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360 systems.
> A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they ran.


Oh, dear--time for a history lesson.

1. Even the IBM 650 had a FORTRAN of sorts
2. One thing that was a sales point for the PDP-8 back in the day was
that for about $5K, you could get a computer that would run 4K FORTRAN:

http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/dec/pdp8/software/DEC-08-AFCO-D_4K_FORTRAN.pdf

3. FORTRAN was originally released, IIRC for the IBM 709, and was a
card-only system; versions for the 704, and, as previously mentioned,
the 650.   I've used card-only FORTRANs on the 1620 and 1401.

4. The 8080/Z80 had FORTRAN, and I suspect there was also a FORTRAN for
the 8008 (if APL on the 8008 was possible, surely FORTRAN was).

5. I've never heard of a COBOL for the IBM 650.

--Chuck

RE: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of ben via cctalk 
[cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:28 PM
To: computer talk
Subject: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
>
> 
> From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
> cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
>
> On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
>> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
>>>> latent bugs.
>>>
>>> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
>>> systems*, let alone architectures.
>>
>> I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
>> testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
>> another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
>> going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
>> going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.
>
> Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
> diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...
>
> And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
> closest thing to a "portable" language...
>
> __
>
> Not even close to COBOL.  :-)
>
> bill
>

But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.
_

U...  I ran Fortran on a TRS-80 with no problems.  I also ran it
on an LSI-11/02 under UCSD-Pascal.  Of course, I ran COBOL on the
same systems.  :-)

As for Universities.  I worked on the academic systems at the Military
Academy at West Point.  While the G (Geography and Computer
Science) Department did have a VAX 11/750 running VMS (and Eunice)
the main academic machine when I got there was a Univac-1100 later
replaced by a bunch of Prime 850's.

bill

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis"


I found it!
I thought Djikstra, but it turned out to be Stan Kelly-Bootle:

"The definition of FORTRAN from the "Devil's DP Dictionary", by
Stan Kelly-Bootle:
"FORTRAN n. [Acronym for FORmula TRANslating system.]
 One of the earliest languages of any real height, level-wise, developed 
out

 of Speedcoding by Backus and Ziller for the IBM/704 in the mid 1950s in
 order to boost the sale of 80-column cards to engineers.
 In spite of regular improvements(including a recent option called
 'STRUCTURE'), it remains popular among engineers but despised elsewhere.
 Many rivals, with the benefit of hindsight, have crossed swords with
 the old workhorse ! Yet FORTRAN gallops on, warts and all, more
 transportable than syphilis, fired by a bottomless pit of working
 subprograms. Lacking the compact power of APL, the intellectually 
satisfying

 elegance of ALGOL 68, the didactic incision of Pascal, and the spurned
 universality of PL/I, FORTRAN survives, nay, FLOURISHES, thanks to a
 superior investmental inertia."

Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, ben via cctalk wrote:

But was FORTRAN that portable?


Who was it who said, "FORTRAN is more portable than syphilis"


Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.


1401
1620 (if you count PDQ)

In 1983, I was called in as a long-term substitute to take over teaching a 
Fortran class using IBM PCs with Microsoft/IBM Fortran.

Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[ben via cctalk]

On 3/16/2017 5:16 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:



From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
latent bugs.


Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
systems*, let alone architectures.


I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.


Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...

And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...

__

Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

bill



But was FORTRAN that portable?
Other than the IBM 1130 I cannot think of a small computer
that had ample I/O and memory to run and compile FORTRAN. All the
other 16 bitters seem to more paper tape I/O.
I suspect 90% of all university computers ended up as IBM 360
systems. A few ended up with the VAX, but who knows what they
ran.
Ben.

RE: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Bill Gunshannon via cctalk]

From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Chuck Guzis via 
cctalk [cctalk@classiccmp.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:08 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
>>> latent bugs.
>>
>> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
>> systems*, let alone architectures.
>
> I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
> testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
> another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
> going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
> going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.

Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...

And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...

__

Not even close to COBOL.  :-)

bill

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/16/2017 02:54 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk 
>  wrote:
>>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find
>>> latent bugs.
>> 
>> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating
>> systems*, let alone architectures.
> 
> I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release 
> testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet
> another Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's
> going to work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's
> going to be the one thing that gets fixed first.

Sadly (or happily--take your choice), architectures aren't nearly as
diverse as they used to be.  Ones complement, decimal, six-bit characters...

And people who weren't there can't understand why FORTRAN was the
closest thing to a "portable" language...

--Chuck

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Cameron Kaiser via cctalk
 wrote:
>> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.
>
> Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*,
> let alone architectures.

I'm one of the folks that works on LCDproc.  Part of the release
testing I do is to compile it on things that aren't just "yet another
Linux box".  Of all the use-cases, I'm pretty sure that it's going to
work on Debian-flavored things and if that ever breaks, it's going to
be the one thing that gets fixed first.

-ethan

Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Cameron Kaiser via cctalk]

> > I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what
> > "undefined" means and then go fix their code...
> 
> Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.

Too bad people can't be arsed to port merely to diverse *operating systems*,
let alone architectures.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- "97% of readers say surveys are rubbish" -- The Register ---

Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-16 5:09 PM, Ethan Dicks wrote:

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
 wrote:

On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:

Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?


1983. All the world's a VAX.


And about 2 years later, I learned C on a VAX...


1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.

2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.



From 1997-1999, I worked at Lucent where we ran SPARC, NCR x86 boxes,

DEC Alpha, and a couple of lonely VAXen... One of the interesting
episodes in that transitional time was when some app/utility program
written by the group "worked on the NCR" but "failed on the SPARC",
which was proof to some of them that something was wrong with the
SPARC or at least "better" about the x86... what was really going on
was someone did a strlen() of a pointer which was NULL, and really
didn't understand that when the man page says that behavior is
"undefined", that *both* machines were doing the right thing (they
figured it should act only like strlen() of a pointer to a NULL and
return 0, rather than segfault for attempting to dereference a pointer
to 0x...)

I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what
"undefined" means and then go fix their code...


Porting to diverse architectures is still a great way to find latent bugs.

--Toby



-ethan

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
 wrote:
> On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
>> Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
>> morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
>
> 1983. All the world's a VAX.

And about 2 years later, I learned C on a VAX...

> 1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.
>
> 2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.

>From 1997-1999, I worked at Lucent where we ran SPARC, NCR x86 boxes,
DEC Alpha, and a couple of lonely VAXen... One of the interesting
episodes in that transitional time was when some app/utility program
written by the group "worked on the NCR" but "failed on the SPARC",
which was proof to some of them that something was wrong with the
SPARC or at least "better" about the x86... what was really going on
was someone did a strlen() of a pointer which was NULL, and really
didn't understand that when the man page says that behavior is
"undefined", that *both* machines were doing the right thing (they
figured it should act only like strlen() of a pointer to a NULL and
return 0, rather than segfault for attempting to dereference a pointer
to 0x...)

I politely suggested they should go back and read up on what
"undefined" means and then go fix their code...

-ethan

Android rumors [Was: Pair of Twiggys]

[Pontus Pihlgren via cctalk]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:49:56AM -0600, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:28 AM, geneb via cctalk  
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
> >
> >> I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it
> >>
> >> 202x All the world's an ARM running Android
> >>
> > on Linux. :)
> 
> Kinda... It's a forked Linux kernel today, but BSD / Java userland.
> And there's been persistent rumors of a next gen OS that will replace
> Linux that Google has been working on that's BSD licensed.
> 
> Warner

Plan9 rewritten in Go? that would make my day :)

/P

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 9:28 AM, geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:
>
>> I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it
>>
>> 202x All the world's an ARM running Android
>>
> on Linux. :)

Kinda... It's a forked Linux kernel today, but BSD / Java userland.
And there's been persistent rumors of a next gen OS that will replace
Linux that Google has been working on that's BSD licensed.

Warner

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:


I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it

202x All the world's an ARM running Android


on Linux. :)

g.

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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Mar 15, 2017 3:28 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" 
wrote:
> I was surprised that Jobs didn't make the Lisa floppy 5.0 or 5.5 inches,

I assume that Apple wanted to get at least a small benefit of economy of
scale from media manufacturers not having to retool for a different size,
even though they had to use a higher coercivity coating and a different
punch for the jacket.

> and used a relatively standard drive for the Mac.

The Mac used a Twiggy drive (AKA FileWare, AKA Apple 871 drive) until very
late in development. Twiggy drives were intended for use on the Apple II
and III as well, though they didn't go into production. The decision to use
Sony 3.5" drives was a response to the huge problems Apple had with the
Twiggy.

>  I would have thought that he would want people to buy even their media
from Apple.

Other vendors sold Twiggy media under the FileWare trademark, presumably
under license. I have no idea whether a per-disk royalty was involved. I
have unopened boxes of Verbatim FileWare diskettes.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-15 7:02 PM, Warner Losh wrote:

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
 wrote:

On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:



The whole idea of an "operating system"  seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.

To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.



Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?



1983. All the world's a VAX.


Running BSD


1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.


Running Solaris


Yeah, or SunOS 4 was the reference platform for a while.




2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.


Running Linux


Yep.

--T



I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it

202x All the world's an ARM running Android

Warner


--T






One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.



Agreed.

Regards,
Peter Coghlan

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[ben via cctalk]

On 3/15/2017 5:02 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
 wrote:

On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:



The whole idea of an "operating system"  seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.

To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.



Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?



1983. All the world's a VAX.


Running BSD


1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.


Running Solaris


2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.


Running Linux

I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it

202x All the world's an ARM running Android

Warner


 Raspberry Pi seems to be the TREND with embedded things.

 I bring you THE PDP 8/I KIT. 1 PI with Front Panel.
 http://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence

And for you OLD PEOPLE you GET MEL's Computer.

http://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence
No Vacuum tubes have been harmed in this FPGA replica of the
LPG-30 - Desk Optional.


well 6502 people, this is your DAY.
MOnSter Cpu ... discreet transistors.
http://monster6502.com/

Ben.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Toby Thain via cctalk
 wrote:
> On 2017-03-15 5:17 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The whole idea of an "operating system"  seems to have morphed into the
>>> notion of a user interface.
>>>
>>> To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
>>> interface build on a single operating system.
>>>
>>
>> Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
>> morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?
>
>
> 1983. All the world's a VAX.

Running BSD

> 1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC.

Running Solaris

> 2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86.

Running Linux

I'm waiting for the rise of cell phones to make it

202x All the world's an ARM running Android

Warner

> --T
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
>>> definitions.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Coghlan
>>
>

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[TeoZ via cctalk]

Superdrives (floppy drives) are starting to be a problem on 68k Mac systems 
because they fail (motors die, heads get ripped off, etc).  The later ones 
with the black flap (cost reduced) found on PPC systems seem to last. Same 
problems with the IBM PS/2 floppy drives.


Twiggy drives seemed to be junk even new, which is why they changed the 
model to use the Sony 3.5" drives.


-Original Message- 
From: Chuck Guzis via cctalk

Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:40 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys


I always wondered about the wisdom of single-sourcing storage devices
such as the Next optical drive, the Twiggy or the SuperDrive of the
early Macs.

--Chuck 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk]

   >  Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than
   > Apple's though) in the mid 70s.

   Right. The typical desktop scroll bar as thought of today, however,
   like typical desktop windows and menus, are largely an Apple
   refinement if not invention.

Those where already available on the Xerox Star.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:

The whole idea of an "operating system"  seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.
To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.
I recall that back in the days of Windows 95, MS defended it as an
"operating system" (re: the default inclusion of MSIE in the same),
rather than a user interface built on top of MSDOS.
I once had a fellow proclaim that his group had constructed an entire
operating system in COBOL.  When I asked him about his file management,
he said that it was handled by the kernel and not the operating system.


I used to teach a beginning microcomputer operating system class.
The administration wanted it to be remedial job training for the digital 
sweatshop, and never go past what commands do you do to format a disk, 
etc., and called for discontinuing the class once Windoze95 came out.
I tried, instead, to create an understanding of what an OS was, as well as 
how to use it, and how to deal with problems.  I dealt with 
sector editing repair of directories, etc.
(In creatively handling user interface problems, I had a test question of: 
"You have a PC-DOS 3.30 PS/2 with a damaged keyboard (Pepsi Syndrome). 
There are other computers handy, but no other keyboards with the right 
connector.  The 'A', 'C', and 'D' keys won't work!  List some ways that 
you can copy files from the hard disk onto floppies")
Among the answers that I would accept were: using  and the numeric 
pad, creating a batch file on another computer, even "REN X?OPY.EXE 
XBOPY.EXE".  One fellow included enough detail about cleaning key contacts 
and/or splicing the keyboard cable onto another one that I accepted that.
I even accepted a moderately detailed description of how to remove the 
hard disk and connect it as temporary second HDD on another computer.

(definitely a question of come up with a way, not "single right answer")


I started the internals discussions with "DOS est omnis divisa in 
partes tres", and wrote on the board:
BIOS(usually ROM)/BDOS/CCP (Console Command Processor) 
ROM/MSDOS.SYS/COMMAND.COM

ROM/IBMDOS.COM/COMMAND.COM
hardware interface/file management/user interface

We then spent some time on what each of those parts was.

It doesn't HAVE TO be three parts, but those are a reasonable division.


I loved how PC-DOS 1.00 documentation included partial description of what 
was needed to write a replacement command processor!




One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.


Sometimes I think that it is NIH ("Not Invented Here"), but it seems as 
though a lot of people invent new names for the same things.

block/cluster/granule, etc.



I always wondered about the wisdom of single-sourcing storage devices
such as the Next optical drive, the Twiggy or the SuperDrive of the
early Macs.


I was surprised that Jobs didn't make the Lisa floppy 5.0 or 5.5 inches,
and used a relatively standard drive for the Mac.  I would have thought 
that he would want people to buy even their media from Apple.
For people who think that that is absurd, remember that there have been 
more than one machine that was capable of formatting it's own diskettes, 
but was not supplied with a FORMAT program.



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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Peter Coghlan via cctalk]

>
> The whole idea of an "operating system"  seems to have morphed into the
> notion of a user interface.
>
> To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
> interface build on a single operating system.
>

Has anybody else noticed that the meaning of "portable code" seems to have
morphed into "can be built on two or three different flavours of Linux"?

>
> One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
> definitions.
>

Agreed.

Regards,
Peter Coghlan

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Alfred M. Szmidt via cctalk]

   Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds
   of utterly basic stuff were invented at Apple.

Well, other than that it wasn't.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chris Hanson via cctalk]

On Mar 15, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Josh Dersch via cctalk  
wrote:

> The Star introduced the concept of icons representing files (and other
> things) in 1981.

According to “Inventing the Lisa User Interface,” Apple put emphasis on icons 
in the Lisa interface in its Marketing Requirements Document in 1979. They were 
also considering desktop icons for Lisa in 1980, and initially rejected them. 
They were led back to the model by the results of user testing as well as what 
they read about IBM’s PICTUREWORLD system (paper published in 1980).

Which isn’t to say they didn’t see predecessors of the stuff that shipped with 
Xerox Star. But there was a lot of contemporaneous work after Apple’s 1979 PARC 
visits.

>  Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than
> Apple's though) in the mid 70s.

Right. The typical desktop scroll bar as thought of today, however, like 
typical desktop windows and menus, are largely an Apple refinement if not 
invention.

> Also, don't forget that the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC
> researchers.  It may have been invented at Apple, but it was strongly
> influenced by what went on at PARC.

There were only a relative handful of ex-PARC folks involved in Macintosh 
itself, more were involved in Lisa from what I gather.

  -- Chris

Mac HFS file recovery; was: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

Folks,

I was asked to recover files from an old Apple Hard Disk 20 drive
(Miniscribe 20MB SCSI).   I've been able to read all but two
widely-spaced sectors, but no Mac HFS file recovery tool that I've been
able to find works.

Anyone want to take a crack at it before I resort to extracting strings
from the raw drive?  The funny thing is that I can see the data, but
nothing seems to be able to recover it.

The zipped-up dd image is here:


https://expirebox.com/download/d40c6...cba107b8b.html

Thanks,
Chuck

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh wrote:


On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk  wrote:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?


I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.


Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel.


Thus "on top of Linux".

g.

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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/15/2017 12:10 PM, Todd Goodman via cctalk wrote:
> * Fred Cisin via cctalk  [170315 14:48]: 
> [..SNIP..]
>> 
>> Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?
> 
> [..SNIP..]
> 
> I'd argue that the OS used by Android *is* Linux (with some small 
> modifications.)
> 
> Of course the user interface and lots of other functions is a huge 
> amount of code running in user space.

The whole idea of an "operating system"  seems to have morphed into the
notion of a user interface.

To my way of thinking,t he various flavors of Linux are really a user
interface build on a single operating system.

I recall that back in the days of Windows 95, MS defended it as an
"operating system" (re: the default inclusion of MSIE in the same),
rather than a user interface built on top of MSDOS.

I once had a fellow proclaim that his group had constructed an entire
operating system in COBOL.  When I asked him about his file management,
he said that it was handled by the kernel and not the operating system.

One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of
definitions.

I always wondered about the wisdom of single-sourcing storage devices
such as the Next optical drive, the Twiggy or the SuperDrive of the
early Macs.

--Chuck

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

This one is quantifiable and measurable. More buttons means more
cognitive delay.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, js--- via cctalk wrote:

Maybe cognitive delay is a good thing.   Separates the wheat from the chaff.


hmmm.


Eg. "God forbid" there be automobiles with only one button (start).

They are headed in that direction.
Driverless cars are fine.  So long as there is a licensed driver with 
hands on the wheel and feet on the pedals.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?



On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk  wrote:

I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Warner Losh via cctalk wrote:

Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel.


Thank you very much for confirming that


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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:13 PM, geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>
>> Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?
>>
> I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.

Android runs a hacked BSD libc on top of a linux kernel.

Warner

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?


I'm pretty sure Android runs on top of Linux.

g.

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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Todd Goodman via cctalk]

* Fred Cisin via cctalk  [170315 14:48]:
[..SNIP..]
> 
> Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?

[..SNIP..]

I'd argue that the OS used by Android *is* Linux (with some small
modifications.)

Of course the user interface and lots of other functions is a huge
amount of code running in user space.

Todd

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Liam Proven wrote:


Yeah, god forbid you confuse the poor user with more than one button.


Jeez, Gene, can't you find some _new_ nonsense?

Why?  The old nonsense still works!  I gotta bring it out now and again to 
keep the rust off and the joints moving freely. :)



This one is quantifiable and measurable. More buttons means more
cognitive delay. For years and decades. It has been _proved_ slower.
Yes we're all used to it now, but you just have not read the HCI
research if you are still reciting this tired stale old B S.


ITYM, "more buttons confuse those with cognitive delay". :)

g.

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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:

It's also, I think, a big part of the causality for another Apple
characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted
to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple
stuff) - and when the 'system' includes pieces being independently sourced
from multiple entities, it's hard to make that happen - there will be
glitches, etc. So that's why he usually wanted to bring the entire thing
inside the Apple envelope.


A closed system (aka "monopoly") has significant characteristics.
1) lack of difficulty integrating "other" peripheral stuff, through 
greater quality control, and INABILITY to add "other" peripheral stuff.
Examples: a) MFM V RLL V ESDI V SCSI hard disks - much more struggle for 
users than "here is THE drive.  Buy it. It JUST works."

(Q: which meaning of "just" is that?  simply? or barely?)
b) specific example: Sunshine EPROM programmer (ISA almost free)
specific example: ECC memory board  (I don't think that Apple was even 
using parity)


2) MAJOR hurdles to development of an after-market industry.
I've heard that Jobs was displeased when he was shown the numbers of what 
percentage of Apple2 disk drives were being purchased from vendors other 
than Apple.

Woz ENCOURAGED an after-market   ("open" system)
Jobs sought to eliminate or at least rein it in.

A closed system tends to be more profitable to the controller of it, but 
can be presented to the public as a means of quality control.

Check out the "right to repair" link that Chuck gave us!
"Replacing a bad screen on an iPhone must be prevented, because it is TOO 
DANGEROUS, and a consumer could cut a finger on the broken glass!"




I think that's not accurate; Linux may not have a large user base among
non-technical people in the laptop area, but it does show that there are other
alternatives. And when it gets to smart-phones, of course, things which are
neither Apple nor uSloth are the majority there, no?


On computers, the OS is predominantly Windoze and Apple, with Linux and 
Chrome as less common, but present alternatives.

on Phones, the OS is predominantly Android and Apple.
How successful will Microsoft's tablet OS be?

Below the user interface, is Android very similar to Linux?



   > What the Apple folks saw and what was implemented for Lisa and then
   > Macintosh were vastly different.
I don't agree with the "vastly". (Having said that, I salute the Lisa/Mac
people for doing a very good job of producing a excellent user interface.)


"copied from" V "based on" V "inspired by"?
Apple didn't "steal" it; the PARC researchers encouraged them to go with 
it.

Apple was not that open when it was their turn to be copied from, when
DRI produced GEM, or MICROS~1 produced Windoze 2.

(There was a conflict, that keeps recurring in this industry!  Apple had 
agreed to let MICROS~1 use certain stuff in Windoze; but then felt that 
Windoze 2 was a different product (citing "ALL NEW!" marketing) that 
wasn't included in the agreement.
But, that is not the only time.  Seattle Computer Products was 
"grandfathered" royalty free unlimited license to MS-DOS.  When SCP was 
on the rocks and considering selling out to AT, etc. ("assets include 
unlimited license to MS-DOS"), MICROS~1 took the stance that that would 
not apply to anything but Verion 1.  In an uncharacteristically 
reasonable move, MICROS~1 bought SCP, keeping it off the market without a 
battle.)




   > - The one-button mouse.
Err, some of us don't see that as an 'improvement'... :-)


some point to "cognitive delay"
some point to simpler instructions in documentation

I loved the Logitech 3 button mouse.
For a while, I even velcro'ed the PCJr keyboard on top of its mouse!

> If you sit someone who knows how to use a Mac in front of a circa-1979 
> Xerox Alto, they'll be pretty mystified.

"Hello, computer"
"Use the mouse."
"Hello, computer" (into mouse)



Yeah, but that's in good part because the Alto user interface is such a dog's
breakfast - Draw is nothing like Bravo is nothing like etc, etc. But, like I
said, that was inevitable, given the process that produced the Alto.


early attempt/prototype/proof of concept  V  later evolved/refined product


I only played with a Lisa once.  My cousin, David Ungar, was working on 
Smalltalk, and had a pre-release one in his office in Evans Hall. I bet 
him that they could not find ANY of their floppies that did not yet have a 
thumbprint on the media.  When he put on gloves to open a fresh box, did 
that count?
I tried to make an extra floppy for it, but 300 Oersted ("360K") did not 
work.
"'Maserati of the mind'?  Yeah.  Fantastic toy!  I want one!  But 
way too expensive for me, and unusable for my rush-hour commute with no 
place to put a sack of groceries or a bunch of computers."



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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/15/17 11:08 AM, Josh Dersch wrote:

> Wasn't Bruce Horn at PARC (at least as a student?).

yes, he worked in the Smalltalk group.
I also forgot about Bob Beleville.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/15/17 10:40 AM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote:
> > the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC
> > researchers.
>
> Steve Capps was the only person on the original Mac team who worked at
> PARC.
> They were influenced strongly by the UI and graphics work of Lisa.
>

Wasn't Bruce Horn at PARC (at least as a student?).  But you're right, I
should have specified Mac and/or Lisa...

- Josh



>
> There were several ex-Xerox (PARC and SDD) people on Lisa, Frank Ludolph,
> for
> example, who was an author of the Lisa UI paper I pointed to yesterday.
>
> Jean-Louis Gassée was the person who was the manager of engineering when
> Nubus
> was added to the Mac. He had "Open Mac" as his license plate at the time.
>
> http://kootenaymac.blogspot.com/2016/08/vintage-macintosh-
> 87-open-mac-license.html
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=ED8EMBAJ=PT20;
> lpg=PT20=%22open+mac%22+license+plate=bl=GNixQxKrJP=a-
> 22GlibEC6GLAUaEZF0PAgP_qU=en=X=0ahUKEwjI5YWGidnSAhWHwVQKHauYC
> e8Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage=%22open%20mac%22%20license%20plate=false
>
>
>

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Raymond Wiker via cctalk]

> On 15 Mar 2017, at 16:37 , Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> From: Raymond Wiker
> 
>> Steve Jobs ... was also a stickler for perfection and largely unwilling
>> to make compromises.
> 
> Absolutely; and that's a large part of the reason for the success of Apple.
> His products were just really well done.
> 
> It's also, I think, a big part of the causality for another Apple
> characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted
> to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple
> stuff) - and when the 'system' includes pieces being independently sourced
> from multiple entities, it's hard to make that happen - there will be
> glitches, etc. So that's why he usually wanted to bring the entire thing
> inside the Apple envelope.
> 
>> So, Steve Jobs ... should get some of the credit for the fact that
>> we're not all running Windows on variations of crappy PC hardware.
> 
> I think that's not accurate; Linux may not have a large user base among
> non-technical people in the laptop area, but it does show that there are other
> alternatives. And when it gets to smart-phones, of course, things which are
> neither Apple nor uSloth are the majority there, no?
> 

I was hoping, for the longest time, that Linux or the various BSDs would break 
the Windows dominance. That never happened, except for in certain areas, like 
server and HPC applications.

As for smart-phones, it was Apple that introduced the idea of having 
smart-phones that were almost all battery and display, and using a purely 
graphical/touch interface. That class of device might have emerged eventually 
without Apple, but it's a fact that most of the mobile phone vendors had to do 
a lot of redesign in a short time after the iPhone was introduced (or a few 
months before, in the case of Google).

If you haven't guessed, I like Apple – for several reasons, but mainly because 
they make good, solid products that work well, and they actually work well for 
both ordinary users and enthusiasts. I have absolutely no problem with paying a 
little extra for a computer that lasts a little longer, keeps its value longer 
and works better in many ways, both subtle and obvious. 

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/15/17 10:40 AM, Josh Dersch via cctalk wrote:
> the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC
> researchers.

Steve Capps was the only person on the original Mac team who worked at PARC.
They were influenced strongly by the UI and graphics work of Lisa.

There were several ex-Xerox (PARC and SDD) people on Lisa, Frank Ludolph, for
example, who was an author of the Lisa UI paper I pointed to yesterday.

Jean-Louis Gassée was the person who was the manager of engineering when Nubus
was added to the Mac. He had "Open Mac" as his license plate at the time.

http://kootenaymac.blogspot.com/2016/08/vintage-macintosh-87-open-mac-license.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=ED8EMBAJ=PT20=PT20=%22open+mac%22+license+plate=bl=GNixQxKrJP=a-22GlibEC6GLAUaEZF0PAgP_qU=en=X=0ahUKEwjI5YWGidnSAhWHwVQKHauYCe8Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage=%22open%20mac%22%20license%20plate=false

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 15 March 2017 at 14:17, geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> > Well hooray for Xerox.  Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox,
> > regardless of the mechanism.
>
> Only some and only very basic ones.
>
> Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds
> of utterly basic stuff were invented at Apple.
>

The Star introduced the concept of icons representing files (and other
things) in 1981.  Smalltalk invented scrollbars (they were clumsier than
Apple's though) in the mid 70s.

Also, don't forget that the Mac was designed by a number of ex-PARC
researchers.  It may have been invented at Apple, but it was strongly
influenced by what went on at PARC.

- Josh

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 18:19, js--- via cctalk  wrote:
> Maybe cognitive delay is a good thing.   Separates the wheat from the chaff.
>
> Eg. "God forbid" there be automobiles with only one button (start).


Heh! Good point.

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[js--- via cctalk]

On 3/15/2017 11:35 AM, Liam Proven via 
cctalk wrote:

On 15 March 2017 at 14:17, geneb via cctalk  wrote:

Well hooray for Xerox.  Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox,
regardless of the mechanism.

Only some and only very basic ones.

Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds
of utterly basic stuff were invented at Apple.


Yeah, god forbid you confuse the poor user with more than one button.

Jeez, Gene, can't you find some _new_ nonsense?

This one is quantifiable and measurable. More buttons means more
cognitive delay.


Maybe cognitive delay is a good thing.   
Separates the wheat from the chaff.


Eg. "God forbid" there be automobiles 
with only one button (start).


- JS.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 14:17, geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> Well hooray for Xerox.  Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox,
> regardless of the mechanism.

Only some and only very basic ones.

Icons for files, the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, scroll bars, all kinds
of utterly basic stuff were invented at Apple.

> Yeah, god forbid you confuse the poor user with more than one button.

Jeez, Gene, can't you find some _new_ nonsense?

This one is quantifiable and measurable. More buttons means more
cognitive delay. For years and decades. It has been _proved_ slower.
Yes we're all used to it now, but you just have not read the HCI
research if you are still reciting this tired stale old B S.

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 15 March 2017 at 02:23, Chris Hanson via cctalk
 wrote:
> A lot of research and development went into the Lisa and Macintosh 
> interfaces. They weren’t just “copied from Xerox.” If you sit someone who 
> knows how to use a Mac in front of a circa-1979 Xerox Alto, they’ll be pretty 
> mystified.


Absolutely -- but people who only know modern GUIs do not know this.

I have had just 1 chance to use a live working original Lisa. I was
fairly mystified myself. It's radically different from the Mac, and
the Lisa was radically different from the Xerox machines, from all the
demos I've seen.

I wrote here ( 
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/03/thank_microsoft_for_linux_desktop_fail/
) about how much almost all modern desktop GUIs inherit from Windows
95, and how much Windows got from the Mac.

Only if you use pre-Windows 3/OS2 PM GUIs do you realise how
different, and diverse, they once were.
-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Raymond Wiker

> Steve Jobs ... was also a stickler for perfection and largely unwilling
> to make compromises.

Absolutely; and that's a large part of the reason for the success of Apple.
His products were just really well done.

It's also, I think, a big part of the causality for another Apple
characteristic: their push for closed systems. The thing is that Steve wanted
to make the user experience as good as possible (another hallmark of Apple
stuff) - and when the 'system' includes pieces being independently sourced
from multiple entities, it's hard to make that happen - there will be
glitches, etc. So that's why he usually wanted to bring the entire thing
inside the Apple envelope.

> So, Steve Jobs ... should get some of the credit for the fact that
> we're not all running Windows on variations of crappy PC hardware.

I think that's not accurate; Linux may not have a large user base among
non-technical people in the laptop area, but it does show that there are other
alternatives. And when it gets to smart-phones, of course, things which are
neither Apple nor uSloth are the majority there, no?


> From: Chris Hanson

> What the Apple folks saw and what was implemented for Lisa and then
> Macintosh were vastly different.

I don't agree with the "vastly". (Having said that, I salute the Lisa/Mac
people for doing a very good job of producing a excellent user interface.)

The changes in the interface (menu bar, etc) are not that large; they are
mostly minor refinements to the basic image/pointing-based interface
pioneered by Xerox.

The biggest improvement, IMO, was not in the details of the window system, but
that everything used a common user interface - and the lack of that on the
Alto was not planned, but more a result of the fact that the Alto was so far
into new territory, and not done as an integrated system, but as a platform
for research.

> - The one-button mouse.

Err, some of us don't see that as an 'improvement'... :-)

> If you sit someone who knows how to use a Mac in front of a circa-1979
> Xerox Alto, they'll be pretty mystified.

Yeah, but that's in good part because the Alto user interface is such a dog's
breakfast - Draw is nothing like Bravo is nothing like etc, etc. But, like I
said, that was inevitable, given the process that produced the Alto.

Noel

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017, Raymond Wiker wrote:


On 14 Mar 2017, at 23:49 , TeoZ via cctalk  wrote:

Jobs had to get fired for Apple to recall the expansion capabilities of the 
Apple II days and start making the Mac II series.


Jobs left Apple in 1985 and returned in 1997. The Macintosh II was 
introduced in 1987; two years after Jobs left and 10 years before he 
returned.


It took the engineers 2 years to recover from the electroshock treatments 
and start designing expansion busses again. :)


g.

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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Chris Hanson wrote:


On Mar 14, 2017, at 1:46 PM, geneb via cctalk  wrote:



Although I suppose you might have been talking about the software. I mean,
without that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox, to 
allow ordinary people to use a computer, where would we be?


Fixed that for ya. :)


Two problems with this repetition of a bogus meme:

1. Xerox got pre-IPO Apple stock in exchange for the PARC visits and the 
chance to use and build on what they saw.


2. What the Apple folks saw and what was implemented for Lisa and then 
Macintosh were vastly different.


Well hooray for Xerox.  Apple still obtained the concepts from Xerox, 
regardless of the mechanism.



- The one-button mouse.

Yeah, god forbid you confuse the poor user with more than one button.

interfaces. They weren’t just “copied from Xerox.” If you sit someone 
who knows how to use a Mac in front of a circa-1979 Xerox Alto, they’ll 
be pretty mystified.


That's providing you can find one that won't panic and find a safe space 
after being exposed to a multi-button mouse. :)


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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy wrote:


I’m reminded of the current, and ludicrous, Mac Pro. :-(


I wish the reply-to pointed at cctalk@classiccmp.org! 

I just took a peek at the Mac Pro.  People actually buy that thing?  I 
just got a Dell Dimension 7910 workstation at work.  It cost around $3200 
and came with a 10 core, hyperthreaded Xeon CPU (with an open socket for a 
2nd), 32GB of RAM (can take 512GB), and something like 6TB of drive space.


Apple must seriously depend on people not knowing what the hell they're 
buying.


g.


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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[geneb via cctalk]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


When people decided Steve Jobs had become a god?

Right about the time that whole "computer for the rest of us" started...



an unreliable source, who was working in Apple at the time, said that it was 
being touted "for the unwashed masses, or at least ignorant rich folk".
Somebody was smart enough to latch onto that and change it from third person 
to first person plural.

Using computer phobia to market computers was a smart move.


...and we've been paying for it ever since. :(

g.

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

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

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 03/14/2017 10:02 PM, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote:
> This statement is hurting my brain. I was never an Apple (company)
> user or fan but personally felt the Apple product line was hacker
> friendly before the Apple II c threatened to void your warranty if
> opened, then the Mac seemed to follow similar unfriendly EULAS. But
> then again I wouldn't have guess GUI would win the UI war either when
> it was so great to type exactly what you needed with minimal system
> resources. Admittedly my opinions seem to only satisfy myself ;-) You
> prefer Apple and expansions or Mac II?  Original message


Apple still up to the same business fighting the same battle.  No "right
to repair" old iJunk:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/source-apple-will-fight-right-to-repair-legislation

--Chuck

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Raymond Wiker via cctalk]

> On 14 Mar 2017, at 23:49 , TeoZ via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> Jobs had to get fired for Apple to recall the expansion capabilities of the 
> Apple II days and start making the Mac II series.

Jobs left Apple in 1985 and returned in 1997. The Macintosh II was introduced 
in 1987; two years after Jobs left and 10 years before he returned.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

This statement is hurting my brain. I was never an Apple (company) user or fan 
but personally felt the Apple product line was hacker friendly before the Apple 
II c threatened to void your warranty if opened, then the Mac seemed to follow 
similar unfriendly EULAS.
But then again I wouldn't have guess GUI would win the UI war either when it 
was so great to type exactly what you needed with minimal system resources. 
Admittedly my opinions seem to only satisfy myself ;-)
You prefer Apple and expansions or Mac II?
 Original message From: TeoZ via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> 
Date: 3/14/17  5:49 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: geneb <ge...@deltasoft.com>, "General 
Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: 
Pair of Twiggys 
Jobs had to get fired for Apple to recall the expansion capabilities of the 
Apple II days and start making the Mac II series.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[jim stephens via cctalk]

On 3/14/2017 9:52 PM, Sam O'nella via cctalk wrote:

And the answer is $32,100.52 (plus $20.95 >shipping)

Ugh.. they always get ya on the shipping.
Mr. 595 must be pissed off.  guess he thought 32000 was a ridiculous 
enough high number he'd win.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

 Original message From: Glen Slick via 
cctalk wrote:
>>
>> www.ebay.com/itm/122383386508
>>
>> still a few hours to go, hovering at $20K
>
>
>And the answer is $32,100.52 (plus $20.95 >shipping)

Ugh.. they always get ya on the shipping.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> www.ebay.com/itm/122383386508
>
> still a few hours to go, hovering at $20K
>

And the answer is $32,100.52 (plus $20.95 shipping)

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/14/17 6:23 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
> a large portion is documented in “Inventing the Lisa Human Interface,” a 
> retrospective paper written by a couple of the Lisa folks for ACM’s 
> Interactions journal about 20 years ago.
> 

http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Chris Hanson via cctalk]

On Mar 14, 2017, at 1:46 PM, geneb via cctalk  wrote:
> 
>> Although I suppose you might have been talking about the software. I mean,
>> without that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox, to 
>> allow ordinary people to use a computer, where would we be?
> 
> Fixed that for ya. :)

Two problems with this repetition of a bogus meme:

1. Xerox got pre-IPO Apple stock in exchange for the PARC visits and the chance 
to use and build on what they saw.

2. What the Apple folks saw and what was implemented for Lisa and then 
Macintosh were vastly different.

Just a few examples:

- Overlapping windows that update even when partially obscured.
- The top-of-screen menu bar.
- The one-button mouse.
- Open & save dialog boxes.

A lot of research and development went into the Lisa and Macintosh interfaces. 
They weren’t just “copied from Xerox.” If you sit someone who knows how to use 
a Mac in front of a circa-1979 Xerox Alto, they’ll be pretty mystified.

Some of it is documented on the Folklore site, a large portion is documented in 
“Inventing the Lisa Human Interface,” a retrospective paper written by a couple 
of the Lisa folks for ACM’s Interactions journal about 20 years ago.

  -- Chris

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-03-14 9:13 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:



On 3/14/17 5:45 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:


Judging by the eBay response, it looks like a replica (or counterfeit?) would 
be far more valuable than a usable
substitute.


I keep waiting to see how much a Macintosh version of the Twiggy would sell for.
The interface is completely different that the one used on Lisa and I have 
never seen one for sale.

1.2meg media works fine in a Twiggy jacket.

The mechanics of the drive positioner stinks. I spent months recovering Twiggy 
media in 2015
and keeping the heads clean and the pads on was a PITA. You have to completely 
disassemble the
drive to work on the back head.





Only you, Al, only you, would have the patience.

--T

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 3/14/17 5:45 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:

> Judging by the eBay response, it looks like a replica (or counterfeit?) would 
> be far more valuable than a usable
> substitute.

I keep waiting to see how much a Macintosh version of the Twiggy would sell for.
The interface is completely different that the one used on Lisa and I have 
never seen one for sale.

1.2meg media works fine in a Twiggy jacket.

The mechanics of the drive positioner stinks. I spent months recovering Twiggy 
media in 2015
and keeping the heads clean and the pads on was a PITA. You have to completely 
disassemble the
drive to work on the back head.

RE: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Brad H wrote:
I'm assuming anything can be interfaced to old tech.  But if I had 
Twiggys I do have a Lisa they could go into.  Or I'd just sell them and 
buy something a lot more useful. :)
What'd be cool if replicas could be made somehow.  I don't know what all 
goes into a disk drive but I imagine it's in the realm of possibility at 
least.


It would be possible, but a bit of work to make them.
A lot depends on whether you want to make replicas, or compatible.

Jobs wanted a closed system with significantly increased difficulty for 
after-market supply of common items.  The bizarre Twiggy drive system did 
not provide improvement over 96tpi double density ("quad") standard 
systems.



A long time ago, Eric Smith explained to  me the details about them (he 
could probably build one):
1) track to track spacing is 62.5? tracks per inch, as opposed to the 
"standard" 48tpi or 96tpi (or less common 100tpi (Micropois))  That should 
not be very hard to do, but not trivial.


2) They used variable rotation speed, from 200RPM? to 350RPM?, to make 
less variation in the FCPI (flus changes per inch)  Relatively trivial, for a 
drive to be used on something other than the original Lisa, as the 
rotational speed could be left constant, and vary the data transfer rate.


3) Instead of a "normal" pair of facing heads, they wanted to keep single 
sided heads, with their felt pressure pads, so they went with that strange 
double slot, providing unmatched opportunities for always leaving a 
thumbprint on the media.  That could be easily worked around, by simply 
using conventional double sided head, and maybe, in some cases, losing 
half a revolution waiting for the desired sector to come around.  Very few 
pieces of software (copy protection) rely on the relative timing of the 
two sides.   Since the Twiggy heads are connected to the same mechanism, 
but on opposite sides of the spindle, when one head is hubward, the other 
one is rimward, so for most purposes, switching to a conventional head 
system would provide improvements in speed.
The optimum speed method for reading a Lisa Twiggy would be to stick with 
one side, reading all tracks, and then when at the last track, the other 
head would be in position to read the first track of that side.  That is 
not the same as what we have become accustomed to, where after reading one 
track, switch to the other head, and read that track of the other side, 
and then step to get to the next two tracks.


4) GCR.I don't know the specific GCR pattern used, but that 
information is out there, or can be empirically determined.


5a) There is an extra hole, for latching the disk in place? or for later 
plans for a disk changer?


5b) Notch out of one corner to avoid ibverted insertion.

5c) Write protect/enable notch is in a different position.  Trivial.
(I was amazed that on the "Computer Bowl" quiz show, nobody on Bill Gates' 
team could remember where the write protect notch on an 8" disk was!)



Total capacity was 850K?

Media appears to be 600 Oersted  (same as 1.2M)

You will not be able to use a Western Digital/IBM style of disk 
controller, due to the GCR, non-WD/IBM sector headers, and maybe the 
variable speed.


BUT, if you manage the track spacing, then it should be possible 
to read them with a flux transition board, such as Kryoflux.

Or, design and build a suitable logic board.

There are a couple of ways to manage the track spacing, ranging from 
analog positioner (Amlyn), extremely crude milling a new "record" for an 
SA390/SA400, different diameter winding hub for split band positioner, 
gearing interposed between stepper and positioner, different stepper 
motor, etc.  I know none of the details for doing those, but it does not 
seem insurmountable.



Judging by the eBay response, it looks like a replica (or counterfeit?) 
would be far more valuable than a usable substitute.

RE: Pair of Twiggys

[Brad H via cctalk]

I'm assuming anything can be interfaced to old tech.  But if I had Twiggys I do 
have a Lisa they could go into.  Or I'd just sell them and buy something a lot 
more useful. :)

What'd be cool if replicas could be made somehow.  I don't know what all goes 
into a disk drive but I imagine it's in the realm of possibility at least.

-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Fred Cisin via 
cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 3:45 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Brad H via cctalk wrote:
> I don't know if I'd pay $25k for Twiggys but I understand the impulse. 
> The problem is, what happens when the novelty wears off?  I also  
>wonder what the long term value is as generations that experienced 
>these  things pass on to those who've never known a day withot a smartphone.
> That's a worry for another day though.  For now.. I'm thinking about  
>grabbing a shovel and going digging for Twiggy gold at a certain dump 
>in  Logan.

If you had a pair of Twiggys, but no Lisa, could you create a USB interface to 
use them on a modern machine?

Re: Photography, was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:37 PM, Kyle Owen via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Mar 14, 2017 5:24 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ah, out of touch on that, as well!
> "But, you can do ANYTHING with Photoshop!"   Yeah.  right.
> 
> Want a stabilization processor?
> Most of a ragged Beseler 45, plus a dichroic head that I never got around
> to rebuilding and mating?
> Movie film daylight developing tank?  (motorized back-and-forth reel to
> reel 16mm, 35mm, but not large diameter reels)
> Fujinon desktop holography camera?  (needs new laser tube)
> bellows for 35mm?   tilt and shift?   (I am keeping my
> Hama/Kenlock/Spiratone for now, but getting rid of the rest)
> Selling my Linhof and Tachihara soon.
> 
> 
> Just got through setting up a darkroom in my upstairs bathroom. Did some
> developing years ago, but it's nice getting back into it. Looking at doing
> some wet plate work next, but I haven't found a cheap source of ether yet.
> 
> Kyle

These days, even when printing in the darkroom, photoshop may be involved.  
Lots of folks are creating digital negatives.

I don’t know if you can even get paper for a stabilization processor, not to 
mention I doubt it would work for me.  My main enlarger (currently the only 
usable one) is a old Beseler 45.  I spent a day last summer getting it working 
better.

My latest score was two Jobo CPE2 processors in the last month.  Between the 
two, I only need one more tank (and technically I don’t need it).  I can now do 
daylight rotary processing of anything from 35mm to 11x14 (I can currently 
shoot up to 8x10).  So far I’ve only used it to process 8x10 sheet film.

One of my next projects needs to be to get a proper darkroom setup, so that I 
can heat it, or cool it.  That way I can work year around.  Ideally it would 
include room for things like drum scanners and LF printers, but that’s 
dreaming. :-)

Zane

Photography, was Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Kyle Owen via cctalk]

On Mar 14, 2017 5:24 PM, "Fred Cisin via cctalk" 
wrote:


Ah, out of touch on that, as well!
"But, you can do ANYTHING with Photoshop!"   Yeah.  right.

Want a stabilization processor?
Most of a ragged Beseler 45, plus a dichroic head that I never got around
to rebuilding and mating?
Movie film daylight developing tank?  (motorized back-and-forth reel to
reel 16mm, 35mm, but not large diameter reels)
Fujinon desktop holography camera?  (needs new laser tube)
bellows for 35mm?   tilt and shift?   (I am keeping my
Hama/Kenlock/Spiratone for now, but getting rid of the rest)
Selling my Linhof and Tachihara soon.


Just got through setting up a darkroom in my upstairs bathroom. Did some
developing years ago, but it's nice getting back into it. Looking at doing
some wet plate work next, but I haven't found a cheap source of ether yet.

Kyle

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[william degnan via cctalk]

>
>
>
> I know the Knight TV system at the AI Lab was a very early bit-mapped
> display, but I don't know where the idea first appeared. (There were of
> course influential earlier display systems, such as the one on SAGE,
> althoug
> those were of course all stroke-based systems, given the limited memory of
> the period.)
>
>
Anyone know about the Volscan "GUI" that allowed a person to point a light
gun at a display, points representing planes, in order to automate landing
them?  I made a page about the Volscan in 2006, may need updates.  "Volscan
Light Gun for assigning Antracs (Auto-matic tracking-while-scanning)."  but
here it is.

http://vintagecomputer.net/volscan.cfm

bILL

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Good grief!  When did Lisa stuff get so expensive?  I just did a 
search for Apple Lisa on eBay.  Am I this out of touch with the hobby?

Yes, we are.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy wrote:
LOL, thanks Fred!  I’ll freely admit that I’m out of touch, as these 
days my focus is my photography.  Since I need to free up space to build 
a better darkroom, the rise in value is of interest.  Maybe I can free 
up some space and fund the my darkroom project. :-)


Ah, out of touch on that, as well!
"But, you can do ANYTHING with Photoshop!"   Yeah.  right.

Want a stabilization processor?
Most of a ragged Beseler 45, plus a dichroic head that I never got around 
to rebuilding and mating?
Movie film daylight developing tank?  (motorized back-and-forth reel to 
reel 16mm, 35mm, but not large diameter reels)

Fujinon desktop holography camera?  (needs new laser tube)
bellows for 35mm?   tilt and shift?   (I am keeping my 
Hama/Kenlock/Spiratone for now, but getting rid of the rest)

Selling my Linhof and Tachihara soon.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

When people decided Steve Jobs had become a god?

Right about the time that whole "computer for the rest of us" started...



an unreliable source, who was working in Apple at the time, said that it 
was being touted "for the unwashed masses, or at least ignorant rich 
folk".
Somebody was smart enough to latch onto that and change it from third 
person to first person plural.

Using computer phobia to market computers was a smart move.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Mar 14, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
>> Good grief!  When did Lisa stuff get so expensive?  I just did a search for 
>> Apple Lisa on eBay.  Am I this out of touch with the hobby?
> 
> Yes, we are.

LOL, thanks Fred!  I’ll freely admit that I’m out of touch, as these days my 
focus is my photography.  Since I need to free up space to build a better 
darkroom, the rise in value is of interest.  Maybe I can free up some space and 
fund the my darkroom project. :-)

Zane

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
Good grief!  When did Lisa stuff get so expensive?  I just did a search 
for Apple Lisa on eBay.  Am I this out of touch with the hobby?


Yes, we are.

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: geneb

> I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. :)

With a steam-shovel... :-)

>> that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox

> Fixed that for ya. :)

Well, technically, as you probably know, the mouse came from Engelbart (well,
his group; I'm not sure who the individual was); and the display, I'm
honestly not sure of.

I know the Knight TV system at the AI Lab was a very early bit-mapped
display, but I don't know where the idea first appeared. (There were of
course influential earlier display systems, such as the one on SAGE, althoug
those were of course all stroke-based systems, given the limited memory of
the period.)

Windows and menus are AFAIK from PARC, but maybe there are antecedents I
don't know of.

> Bah, he was an ego-driven trinket salesman. His trinkets quit being any
> good after the IIgs. :)

Now I'm not sure how serious _you_ are being! :-)

As to the first, there is some truth to it, but like many (all) humans,
he was complex...

Hard to say what else he would have done, could he have gone on; perhaps not
so much (he was getting up there, and people do slow down), but I suspect his
early death was a serious loss (in terms of further advances).

Noel

Re: Pair of Twiggys

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: geneb

> I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic. :)

With a steam-shovel... :-)

>> that whole display/windows/menu/mouse thing he copied from Xerox

> Fixed that for ya. :)

Well, technically, as you probably know, the mouse came from Engelbart (well,
his group; I'm not sure who the individual was); and the display, I'm
honestly not sure of.

I know the Knight TV system at the AI Lab was a very early bit-mapped
display, but I don't know where the idea first appeared. (There were of
course influential earlier display systems, such as the one on SAGE, althoug
those were of course all stroke-based systems, given the limited memory of
the period.)

Windows and menus are AFAIK from PARC, but maybe there are antecedents I
don't know of.

> Bah, he was an ego-driven trinket salesman. His trinkets quit being any
> good after the IIgs. :)

Now I'm not sure how serious _you_ are being! :-)

As to the first, there is some truth to it, but like many (all) humans,
he was complex...

Noel