RE: Pair of Twiggys
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 > 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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&story=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]
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Oh, dear--time for a history lesson. Not quite on a par with: 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, . . . Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:59:17 -0400 From: Dan G Reply-To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" To: cctalk@classiccmp.org Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN Actually, Fortran came from Valtrep I used to code on some old Sentry-70 systems in Valtrep back in the 80s . . .
Re: Fwd: Re: Architectural diversity - was Re: Pair of Twiggys
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
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 >> 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&CS (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
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
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
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 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
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 > 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
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
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
> > 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
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
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
Re: Pair of Twiggys
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. 1993. No sorry, all the world's a SPARC. 2013. Oops, no, all the world's an x86. --T One thing you can depend upon in this field is the inconstancy of definitions. Agreed. Regards, Peter Coghlan
Re: Pair of Twiggys
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
> 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
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&IO.SYS/MSDOS.SYS/COMMAND.COM ROM&IBMBIO.COM/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
> > 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
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
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
Re: Pair of Twiggys
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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&T, 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
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
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&pg=PT20&; > lpg=PT20&dq=%22open+mac%22+license+plate&source=bl&ots=GNixQxKrJP&sig=a- > 22GlibEC6GLAUaEZF0PAgP_qU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI5YWGidnSAhWHwVQKHauYC > e8Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=%22open%20mac%22%20license%20plate&f=false > > >
Re: Pair of Twiggys
> 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
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&pg=PT20&lpg=PT20&dq=%22open+mac%22+license+plate&source=bl&ots=GNixQxKrJP&sig=a-22GlibEC6GLAUaEZF0PAgP_qU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI5YWGidnSAhWHwVQKHauYCe8Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=%22open%20mac%22%20license%20plate&f=false
Re: Pair of Twiggys
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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 Date: 3/14/17 5:49 PM (GMT-06:00) To: geneb , "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
> 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
Re: Pair of Twiggys
I’m reminded of the current, and ludicrous, Mac Pro. :-( Zane > On Mar 14, 2017, at 3:49 PM, 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. > > -Original Message- From: geneb via cctalk > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:46 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys > > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: > > > Bah, he was an ego-driven trinket salesman. His trinkets quit being any > good after the IIgs. :) > > 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_! > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >
Re: Photography, was Re: Pair of Twiggys
Looking at doing some wet plate work next, but I haven't found a cheap source of ether yet. Maybe a surgical supply place in a bad neighborhood?
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. -Original Message- From: geneb via cctalk Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 4:46 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: Pair of Twiggys On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote: Bah, he was an ego-driven trinket salesman. His trinkets quit being any good after the IIgs. :) 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_! --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Pair of Twiggys
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. Sent from my Samsung device
Photography, was Re: Pair of Twiggys
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
> > > > 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
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.