Re: Speed now & then

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 06:32:59PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote: > On 4/18/2018 4:47 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk >> wrote: >>> thousands of movies and TV episodes will fit on a 2TB drive. I am anxiously >>> awaiting higher capacity thin

Re: Speed now & then

On 4/18/2018 4:47 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: thousands of movies and TV episodes will fit on a 2TB drive. I am anxiously awaiting higher capacity thin 2.5" SATA. You can get an 8TB drive in 2.5" form

Re: Speed now & then

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > thousands of movies and TV episodes will fit on a 2TB drive. > I am anxiously awaiting higher capacity thin 2.5" SATA. > You can get an 8TB drive in 2.5" form factor, but it doesn't contain spinning rust, and

Re: Speed now & then

On 4/16/2018 9:48 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Back in the day, I often fantasized at what I would do if I had a processor 10 times faster than the 70s supercomputer I was using. Little did I suspect that I'd be using the processing power 40-some years later to watch TV. On Tue, 17 Apr 2018

Re: Speed now & then

On 4/16/2018 9:48 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: Back in the day, I often fantasized at what I would do if I had a processor 10 times faster than the 70s supercomputer I was using. Little did I suspect that I'd be using the processing power 40-some years later to watch TV. --Chuck And most

Re: Speed now & then

I'm reminded of how fast things have gotten when I use some of my old media conversion code developed on an 8088 PC, that's been recompiled to run under 64-bit Linux on a reasonably fast CPU (3GHz quad-core AMD). I'd sit back for a couple of minutes waiting for the code to churn through the data a

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/15/2018 04:47 PM, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote: > Yes, the Univac 1100 series were one’s complement (had brief experience as a > student with 1108 and 1110 from 1969 to 1975) I thought I'd originally said as much. 9 bit characters with a range of +/-255 as well as +/- zero. Here are some

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

> On Apr 15, 2018, at 09:44, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > wrote: > > > >> On 04/15/2018 02:28 AM, r.stricklin via cctalk wrote: >>> On Apr 14, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote: >>> >>> I'm familiar with Univac's having worked on the 1100 many moons ago, >>> But look at the

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/15/2018 02:28 AM, r.stricklin via cctalk wrote: > On Apr 14, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote: > >> I'm familiar with Univac's having worked on the 1100 many moons ago, >> But look at the line above my comment: >> "you assume that a char is 8 bits, with a signed char hav

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On Apr 14, 2018, at 4:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote: > I'm familiar with Univac's having worked on the 1100 many moons ago, > But look at the line above my comment: > "you assume that a char is 8 bits, with a signed char having a range > of +/-255". > > An 8 bit signed char has the v

Re: Speed now & then

TAhanks for that link which fits with my measurements (nowhere as detailed) of ones actual ability to do things with "modern" hardware. In the 1980's I was used to being able to measure events with 0.2 microsecond precision using a PDP-11 and my expectation was that the accuracy was only goi

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 2018-04-14 7:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > ... > I'm familiar with Univac's having worked on the 1100 many moons ago, > But look at the line above my comment: >  "you assume that a char is 8 bits, with a signed char having a range > of +/-255". > > An 8 bit signed char has the va

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/12/2018 09:55 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: > On 2018-04-12 7:48 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: >> >> On 04/12/2018 02:45 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >>> On 04/11/2018 06:38 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 04/11/2018 02:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > I hav

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Johnny Eriksson via cctalk wrote: > Ethan Dicks wrote: > >> There are times when video instruction makes sense... >> ... Teaching programming? I don't want to watch 2 >> hours of someone editing text... g > > How about language courses on audio cassettes? Foreig

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

Ethan Dicks wrote: > There are times when video instruction makes sense - describing, for > example, a chemical reaction that produces major visible change in a > few moments is better to watch than to try to describe. The vast > majority of stuff? Teaching programming? I don't want to watch 2

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 4/12/2018 6:51 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 04/12/2018 03:16 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: Well I have one better with my cpu, a char is -128 to 384. Care to elaborate on why such a lopsided range? --Chuck OK, you forced me to go back to 8 bit unsigned bytes. Not really, but having 8

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/12/2018 03:16 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > Well I have one better with my cpu, a char is -128 to 384. Care to elaborate on why such a lopsided range? --Chuck

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 4/12/2018 7:55 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote: On 2018-04-12 7:48 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 04/12/2018 02:45 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 04/11/2018 06:38 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 04/11/2018 02:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: I have a nice 18 bit cpu her

Re: Speed now & then

On 4/12/2018 5:08 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On 11 April 2018 at 17:18, Jay West wrote: Liam wrote... https://danluu.com/input-lag/ Hey thanks for that link... fun read! High praise indeed! :-) You're very welcome. But that assumes local character echoing, I am sure the google "sear

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 4/11/2018 10:06 PM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:04 PM, ben wrote: On 4/11/2018 5:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:48 PM, ben via cctalk mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote: The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. Xilin

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/12/2018 01:37 PM, Charles Anthony via cctalk wrote: > And, if memory serves, the ":" was coded as a null character, causing it to > disappear from the end of a line. It depended on which character set you were using. The CDC 63-character set didn't use 00, except as an EOL. Colon was octal

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > On 04/12/2018 06:23 AM, Diane Bruce wrote: > > \ > I could see lots of problems doing it any other way, just from the > viewpoint of 'C'. A character on the Cyber 70/170 series is either 6 > bits or 12 bits,

sizes and negative ints (Was: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

So, it should be pretty straightforward unless you assume that a char is 8 bits, with a signed char having a range of +/-255. Signed 8 bits would be  -128 to +127. Well, he had previously mentioned NINE bits per character. Besides, 9 bits and 18 bits improves the convenience of using octal

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 04/12/2018 05:58 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On 11 April 2018 at 23:48, ben wrote: The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. Some of the older Xilinx software (required to create config files for their older FPGA chips) will not run on a 64-bit platform (either Lin

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 04/12/2018 05:57 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: On 11 April 2018 at 20:21, Ethan Dicks wrote: I totally agree. I read faster than most people talk and I retain more information. I'd much rather read 1,000 words than watch a 3 minute video. Strongly agreed. Yes, me too! I HATE these

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/12/2018 06:23 AM, Diane Bruce wrote: > Amusingly years ago I worked for Computing Devices Canada that used some > CDC computers. I was told through a very reliable source that they > got Unix ported to the Cyber by SoftQuad based in Toronto. They were > well known as a 'troff house' at this

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 2018-04-12 7:48 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > > On 04/12/2018 02:45 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> On 04/11/2018 06:38 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >>> On 04/11/2018 02:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >>> I have a nice 18 bit cpu here, with only a few hardware bugs. >>

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 07:16:58AM -0500, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:45:07PM -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > > Looks pretty much like standard C until you get into the minutiae, such > > as "A character constant is 1 to 4 characters" and page 4-4 "Data Types"

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:45:07PM -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > Looks pretty much like standard C until you get into the minutiae, such > as "A character constant is 1 to 4 characters" and page 4-4 "Data Types" > (9 bit characters and 36 bit ints and 18 bit short ints). > > So, it should

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/12/2018 02:45 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 04/11/2018 06:38 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: >> On 04/11/2018 02:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >> >>> I have a nice 18 bit cpu here, with only a few hardware bugs. >>> Hmm would it work better if I change that around ideas. >>> >>> C

Re: Speed now & then

On 11 April 2018 at 17:18, Jay West wrote: > Liam wrote... > https://danluu.com/input-lag/ > > Hey thanks for that link... fun read! High praise indeed! :-) You're very welcome. -- Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@g

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 11 April 2018 at 23:48, ben wrote: > The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. WINE works well now. I write in Word 97 under WINE on 64-bit Ubuntu. Works a treat, blindingly fast, and unlike any Linux tool I can find, it has a working outliner. VMs are almost trivially easy,

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 11 April 2018 at 20:21, Ethan Dicks wrote: > > I totally agree. I read faster than most people talk and I retain > more information. I'd much rather read 1,000 words than watch a 3 > minute video. Strongly agreed. > Not surprising given how many generations have now grown up watching > TV a

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:48:20PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote: [...] > The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. Altera's Quartus II and Xilinx ISE also have Linux versions. They're as free as the Windows versions.

Re: 18 bit CPU; was: Speed now & then

On 04/11/2018 06:38 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > On 04/11/2018 02:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > >> I have a nice 18 bit cpu here, with only a few hardware bugs. >> Hmm would it work better if I change that around ideas. >> >> Care to point to a nice 18 bit version of unix or C. >> BTW The

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:04 PM, ben wrote: > On 4/11/2018 5:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:48 PM, ben via cctalk > > wrote: >> >> The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. >> >> Xilinx and Altera (now Intel) FPGA developm

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 04/11/2018 02:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > I have a nice 18 bit cpu here, with only a few hardware bugs. > Hmm would it work better if I change that around ideas. > > Care to point to a nice 18 bit version of unix or C. > BTW The cpu has a frame pointer S but no S++ --S operations > so pushi

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 4/11/2018 5:47 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I haven't tried pcc, but supposedly that has been ported to the PDP-10, so presumably it can be ported to an 18-bit machine too. Well the original C mostly just and 8 bit bytes and 16 bit ints, with floating point for good luck. Now who knows what it

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 4/11/2018 5:21 PM, Eric Smith wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:48 PM, ben via cctalk > wrote: The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. Xilinx and Altera (now Intel) FPGA development software, including the "free" editions, have run under L

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 5:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > ... >>> and real text screen UNIX is not aviable anymore. >> Sure it is. > > I have a nice 18 bit cpu here, with only a few hardware bugs. > Hmm would it work better if I change that around ideas. > > Care to point to a nice 18 bit vers

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. > Xilinx and Altera (now Intel) FPGA development software, including the "free" editions, have run under Linux for many years now. I routinely use them on Fedora and CentOS. The Xi

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

Since you brought it up On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:48 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > > > The FREE fpga development software is only under windows. > Free alternatives exist (and can only get better coverage with time) http://www.clifford.at/yosys/ https://github.com/cseed/arachne-pnr http://www.cli

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 4/11/2018 9:40 AM, Liam Proven wrote: On 1 April 2018 at 00:26, ben via cctalk wrote: But that is the old fly in the ointment, other software may not be avilable. It is, you know. Smart ass response: Who pirated it for you. I do run windows Why? The FREE f

Re: Speed now & then

On 04/11/2018 11:31 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote: > Besides getting more performance with smaller transistors, we have also > been increasing performance by taking advantage of more transistors by > doing more stuff in parallel. So we went from up to dozens of clock > cycles per instru

Re: Speed now & then

On 04/11/2018 03:28 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk < >> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: >>> I thought that Moore's "law" dealt only with the number of transistors >>> on a die.   Did Gordon also say something about performance? > On Wed,

Re: Speed now & then

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: I thought that Moore's "law" dealt only with the number of transistors on a die. Did Gordon also say something about performance? On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: You are correct that h

Re: Speed now & then

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > I thought that Moore's "law" dealt only with the number of transistors > on a die. Did Gordon also say something about performance? > You are correct that he only applied it to transistor count. The ex

Re: Speed now & then

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk > wrote: > > Chuck Guzis wrote on Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:09:23 -0700 >> I thought that Moore's "law" dealt only with the number of transistors >> on a die. Did Gordon also say something about performance? > > That is correct. The ob

Re: Speed now & then

Chuck Guzis wrote on Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:09:23 -0700 > I thought that Moore's "law" dealt only with the number of transistors > on a die. Did Gordon also say something about performance? That is correct. The observation that transistors would be faster and use less power as they became smaller i

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote: > On 29 March 2018 at 21:35, Fred Cisin via cctalk > wrote: >> >> MP4s mean that now, not only does it take MUCH longer to create the >> document, we can now waste MUCH more of the reader's time! >> I find it very annoying that when

Re: Speed now & then

On 04/11/2018 09:31 AM, Eric Korpela via cctalk wrote: > It might break the rules since it only goes back to 1999, but here's > Moore's law for integer speed, floating point speed, number of processors, > memory sizes and disk sizes for the machines connected to SETI@home. Plots > are averages and

Re: Speed now & then

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Liam Proven wrote: > > On 29 March 2018 at 19:53, Paul Koning via cctalk > wrote: >> >> It would be fun to do a "generalized Moore's Law" chart, showing not just >> transistor count growth (Moore's subject) but also the many other scaling >> changes of compu

RE: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Liam Proven via > cctalk > Sent: 11 April 2018 16:36 > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts > > Subject: Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?) > > On 29 March 2018 at 21:35, Fred Cisin vi

Re: Speed now & then

It might break the rules since it only goes back to 1999, but here's Moore's law for integer speed, floating point speed, number of processors, memory sizes and disk sizes for the machines connected to SETI@home. Plots are averages and medians, unfiltered for errors. At least one of the paramete

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 1 April 2018 at 00:26, ben via cctalk wrote: > > But that is the old fly in the ointment, other software may not be avilable. It is, you know. > I do run windows Why? > and real text screen UNIX is not aviable anymore. Sure it is. I mean, there are even text-only distros, such as INX: ht

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 29 March 2018 at 21:35, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > > MP4s mean that now, not only does it take MUCH longer to create the > document, we can now waste MUCH more of the reader's time! > I find it very annoying that when GOOGLE'ing to find a simple answer, many > of the first hits are YouTube.

RE: Speed now & then

Liam wrote... https://danluu.com/input-lag/ Hey thanks for that link... fun read! J

Re: Speed now & then

On 29 March 2018 at 19:53, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > It would be fun to do a "generalized Moore's Law" chart, showing not just > transistor count growth (Moore's subject) but also the many other scaling > changes of computing: disk capacity, recording density, disk IOPS, disk > bandwidt

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 04/02/2018 01:28 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > >> On Mar 31, 2018, at 6:26 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: >> >>> ... >> But that is the old fly in the ointment, other software may not be avilable. >> I do run windows and real text screen UNIX is not aviable anymore. > Sure it is. You can pe

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

> On Mar 31, 2018, at 6:26 PM, ben via cctalk wrote: > >> ... > > But that is the old fly in the ointment, other software may not be avilable. > I do run windows and real text screen UNIX is not aviable anymore. Sure it is. You can perfectly well install Linux without the GUI components,

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 04:26:44PM -0600, ben via cctalk wrote: [...] > But that is the old fly in the ointment, other software may not be avilable. > I do run windows and real text screen UNIX is not aviable anymore. All I > know it is same $$$ cycle as always, BUY the new machine > for faster sof

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 3/30/2018 5:32 AM, Peter Corlett via cctalk wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:07:27PM -0500, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:00:35PM -0500, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: It was an absolute DOG! It took several minutes for Emacs to load. So, uh, I hate to tell you abo

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:07:27PM -0500, Mark Linimon via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:00:35PM -0500, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: >> It was an absolute DOG! It took several minutes for Emacs to load. > So, uh, I hate to tell you about the state of the art these days ... It starts up

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Jon Elson via cctalk > wrote: > > Then, in 1986, I bought a MicroVAX-II CPU board from a broker, and a bunch of > 3rd party peripherals, and made a copy of VMS 4.7 (Might have used something > earlier for a time.) > I was in 7th heaven! A REAL computer at LAST!

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 04:05:10PM -0700, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: > And yet, productive work was performed on it. Indeed the industrial > variant, the 1710 was used for early process control. There were a lot of highway improvements made in the US in the 1950s/ 1960s using Bendix G-15s. Th

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:00:35PM -0500, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote: > It was an absolute DOG! It took several minutes for Emacs to load. So, uh, I hate to tell you about the state of the art these days ... mcl

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 03/29/2018 04:24 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: I posited that 2 decades ago in a wired article. My CP/M machine booted in seconds while waiting for the winders box to decide if it would/could. "The new machine is so much faster, that it can almost get out of its own way!" From 197

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > On 03/29/2018 02:24 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: HOWEVER, a variant of "Boyle's Law" warns that software and content will expand to fit all available space and speed. >> >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, allison via cctalk

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 03/29/2018 02:24 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: >>> HOWEVER, a variant of "Boyle's Law" warns that software and content >>> will expand to fit all available space and speed. > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, allison via cctalk wrote: >> We have proof and it is us. > > Or, as Walt Kelly ("Pogo") said,

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

HOWEVER, a variant of "Boyle's Law" warns that software and content will expand to fit all available space and speed. On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, allison via cctalk wrote: We have proof and it is us. Or, as Walt Kelly ("Pogo") said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." I posited that 2 decades a

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On 03/29/2018 03:35 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: >> I’m not trying to date myself but have things truly sped up? In 1970’s >> Toronto I had a classic computer, sorry can’t recall what it was, >> connected >> to a 300 baud modem; by earl

Re: Speed now & then (Space and time?)

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: I’m not trying to date myself but have things truly sped up? In 1970’s Toronto I had a classic computer, sorry can’t recall what it was, connected to a 300 baud modem; by early 80’s had ‘zoomed’ to 9600 baud. Oh, my! [ A typical file size t

Re: Speed now & then

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote: > I’m not trying to date myself but have things truly sped up? In 1970’s > ... 300 baud modem; by early 80’s had ‘zoomed’ to 9600 baud. What hasn't changed is people. Back when we had 300 baud, we only had so many hours a nig

Re: Speed now & then

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Murray McCullough via cctalk > wrote: > > I’m not trying to date myself but have things truly sped up? In 1970’s > Toronto I had a classic computer, sorry can’t recall what it was, connected > to a 300 baud modem; by early 80’s had ‘zoomed’ to 9600 baud. Oh, my!

Speed now & then

I’m not trying to date myself but have things truly sped up? In 1970’s Toronto I had a classic computer, sorry can’t recall what it was, connected to a 300 baud modem; by early 80’s had ‘zoomed’ to 9600 baud. Oh, my! [ A typical file size to download was probably 1 MB. ] Speed indeed! Yet now, here