Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #148509 > unrolled thread

Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-19 13:25 +0000
    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-20 13:29 +0000
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-20 14:42 +0100
        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-21 12:53 +0000
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2015-07-20 07:50 -0600
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 05:46 +1000
    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-20 13:29 +0000
      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-20 16:13 +0100
        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-21 12:53 +0000
          Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-21 14:01 +0100
            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-21 14:42 +0000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-21 15:53 +0100
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-22 12:20 +0000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-22 12:20 +0000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-22 16:58 +0100
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-22 16:07 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-22 19:35 +0100
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-30 22:50 +0000
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-31 09:00 +0100
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:52 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:41 +1000
            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-22 12:20 +0000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-22 07:25 -0700
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-22 16:02 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-22 10:20 -0700
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-22 19:37 +0200
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-23 15:37 -0700
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-24 01:17 +0200
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-07-24 11:12 -0700
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-24 11:52 +0000
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2015-07-24 18:01 +0200
                        Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 20:41 +0000
                          Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-07-24 17:06 -0400
                          Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-25 12:42 +0000
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-25 14:13 +0000
                              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 lawrence@cluon.com - 2015-07-27 03:00 +0200
                                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-27 14:08 +0000
                                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-07-27 08:43 -0700
                                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-07-27 13:56 -0700
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-25 17:23 +0100
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 05:49 +1000
                              Re: process accounting, was 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-07-27 13:24 +0000
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-25 16:30 +0200
                              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2015-07-26 01:05 -0400
                            Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-07-27 13:23 +0000
                              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 16:24 +1000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:58 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:58 +1000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-07-30 22:50 +0000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-31 14:00 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-07-31 09:06 +0100
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:26 +0200
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-07-22 09:53 -0700
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-07-22 18:23 +0100
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-23 06:08 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-22 22:44 +0200
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:38 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:57 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-24 02:07 +0100
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 11:43 +1000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-07-24 00:54 +0200
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 10:21 +1000
                    Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-24 02:15 +0100
                      Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 11:46 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-24 05:59 -0700
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-24 06:00 -0700
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-07-22 11:19 -0700
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-07-23 06:26 +1000
                Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-07-23 12:22 +0000
                  Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 05:51 +1000
              Re: 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:40 +1000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#148953

On 25 Jul 2015 12:42:59 GMT
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

> We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
> became meaningless.  Do OSes collect any accounting data now?

	Yes they do at least while the process is running, not many people
want to keep it these days so that functionality is often turned off.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148954

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051BB2ACE0E440@aca41464.ipt.aol.com...
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:37:59 +0200, Morten Reistad
>>>> <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Building emacs on my display computer, a 4-core arm7 with SSD and
> 4x1.7Ghz
>>>>> cpus each measuring just short of 4 bips with the old dhrystone
> benchmark;
>>>>> the entire build takes 17:51 minutes:seconds walltime, 28:11 cputime.
>>>>> (it is dominated by lisp-execution and library compiles). A ca 1970
>>>>> machine would be on the order of 10000 times slower, and this would
>>>>> take around 200 days, much more than the MTBF of those machines.
>>>>
>>>>      Huh?  More walltime than CPU time?  How does that work?
>>>
>>> If you have 4 CPUs acutally doing stuff, the ideal runtime will be
>>> 4 times wall clock time.
>>>
>>
>> Huh??
>>
> Runtime was an accounting datum we captured for each job.  the monitor
> recorded CPU-seconds which was the CPU runtime used by the job minus
> the overhead.  On a system with 4 CPUs, an ideal total runtime (no 
> overhead)
> would be 4 times wall clock elapsed time.
>
> We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
> became meaningless.  Do OSes collect any accounting data now?

Corse they do. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148965 — Re: process accounting, was 1973--TI 8 digit electric calculator--$99.95

John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes:
>>> We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>>> became meaningless.  Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
>
>Sure.  CPU time, number of I/O ops, stuff like that.  On a system with
>virtual memory the amount of memory a process is using isn't very
>interesting, and isn't really under control of the process.
>

Leaving aside self-imposed resource limits (ulimit/setrlimit).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148957

In article <PM00051BB2ACE0E440@aca41464.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Peter Flass wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 19:37:59 +0200, Morten Reistad
>>>> <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Building emacs on my display computer, a 4-core arm7 with SSD and
>4x1.7Ghz
>>>>> cpus each measuring just short of 4 bips with the old dhrystone
>benchmark;
>>>>> the entire build takes 17:51 minutes:seconds walltime, 28:11 cputime.
>>>>> (it is dominated by lisp-execution and library compiles). A ca 1970
>>>>> machine would be on the order of 10000 times slower, and this would
>>>>> take around 200 days, much more than the MTBF of those machines.
>>>>
>>>>      Huh?  More walltime than CPU time?  How does that work?
>>>
>>> If you have 4 CPUs acutally doing stuff, the ideal runtime will be
>>> 4 times wall clock time.
>>>
>>
>> Huh??
>>
>Runtime was an accounting datum we captured for each job.  the monitor
>recorded CPU-seconds which was the CPU runtime used by the job minus
>the overhead.  On a system with 4 CPUs, an ideal total runtime (no overhead)
>would be 4 times wall clock elapsed time.

Again, you use DECspeak. Runtime is now generally understood to be
the real, walltime duration of what is measured. I used walltime and
cputime to avoid misunderstandings.

>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>became meaningless.  Do OSes collect any accounting data now?

There are lots of accounting packages, and the data for them are
available in /sys and/or /proc and/or sysctl for Linux/BSDs. 

You can account disk space accuratly for most file systems and have
a sample-based approach for the others. (like FAT). You can also have
quotas for several of them.

You can account cpu, total virtual memory, total resident and private
resident accurately; and you will have to make a decision about who
gets to pay for the share bit (usually a majority since dynamically
linked libraries segments except the dirty ones are in this group).

You can account network I/O, disk/tape I/O and other (like tty)
accurately. 

But most of us don't bother.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148958

In article <i4jc8c-5cu.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>,
Morten Reistad  <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>You can account cpu, total virtual memory, total resident and private
>resident accurately

ooo, can you really do cpu accurately ? i am thinking side effect
computation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148964

jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:

>
>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>became meaningless.  Do OSes collect any accounting data now?

Yes, of course they do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#149073

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051BEE92B37626@aca41479.ipt.aol.com...
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>>We also captured a thingie called kilo-core-seconds but that almost
>>>became meaningless.  Do OSes collect any accounting data now?
>>
>> Yes, of course they do.

> Do people use the data for accounting

Hardly ever anymore, because there isn't any point in doing that now.

> or for system performance history?

Not for that either most of the time.

> In the computing biz, auld aspects of the biz show up as new.

It hasn’t with this.

> I've been wondering if the accounting aspect is going to be a "new" thing.

Not a chance, there isn't any point in doing that now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148859

Peter Flass wrote:
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools.  Like other
>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and affordable.
>
> At least until the 60's most people buying a computer expected to do or
> contract for most of the programming (which is what paid my salary for many
> years).  There was some off-the-shelf software, but, as someone said, the
> idea that a company would change its procedures to conform to the software
> rather than change the software to fit was very foreign. Most of the
> purchasable software available was special-purpose, like Syncsort instead
> of IBM's sort, or technical applications like linear programming of circuit
> analysis stuff.
>
Thank you.  You understood.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148886

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051B89FACF538D@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com...
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs 
>>>> became
>>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>
>>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools.  Like 
>>> other
>>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and 
>>> affordable.
>>
>> At least until the 60's most people buying a computer expected to do or
>> contract for most of the programming (which is what paid my salary for 
>> many
>> years).  There was some off-the-shelf software, but, as someone said, the
>> idea that a company would change its procedures to conform to the 
>> software
>> rather than change the software to fit was very foreign. Most of the
>> purchasable software available was special-purpose, like Syncsort instead
>> of IBM's sort, or technical applications like linear programming of 
>> circuit
>> analysis stuff.
>>
> Thank you.  You understood.

There was nothing to understand, you are just plain wrong, as usual. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148855

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>
> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools.  Like other
tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and affordable.

Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148887

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051B89F8CD19C2@aca24c78.ipt.aol.com...
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools.  Like other
> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and affordable.
>
> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?

Nope, doesn’t change a thing. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#149130

On 2015-07-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:

> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>
>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools.  Like other
>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and affordable.
>
> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?

I don't think that would be appropriate.  Tools are used by skilled
craftsmen, appliances by naive users.  It's a different mindset.
Perhaps we should say that although computers began as tools,
some have evolved into mere appliances (note the word "mere").

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#149149

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mpe9nu32pp1@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 2015-07-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs 
>>>> became
>>>> cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>>>
>>> Computers were invented and used from the inception as tools.  Like 
>>> other
>>> tools, they evolved over time to become more user friendly and 
>>> affordable.
>>
>> Would substituting "appliance" for "tool" cause less distraction?
>
> I don't think that would be appropriate.  Tools are used by skilled
> craftsmen, appliances by naive users.

Not necessarily, particularly with kitchen and gardening tools.

 It's a different mindset.
> Perhaps we should say that although computers began as tools,
> some have evolved into mere appliances (note the word "mere").
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#149157

On 30 Jul 2015 22:50:38 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Tools are used by skilled
> craftsmen, appliances by naive users.

	I think that sentence needs some implication of intent, I've seen
any number of tools (sometimes good ones) being used by people who barely
reach the level of naive.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148784

In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Tim Streater wrote:
>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>
>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>
>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>
>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>
>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>> generic hardware.
>>
>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>
>You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>the case until about 1980.
>
>> People buy
>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>> the guy's next door.
>
>The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.

Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory 
floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.

For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
was the case even a decade earlier.

But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.

But not from within DEC.

This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
just as miserably.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148794

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote:

> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
> But not from within DEC.
> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
> just as miserably.

In a cold technical sense, yes, other old-time computer makers did "fail"; they're out of business altogether, or greatly reduced in size.

But it's very hard to blame for failing to envision the future in the 1980s.  The marketplace and hardware were changing so rapidly it was very hard to even keep up, let alone know what was merely a fad and what truly was a new wave of the future.  (Heck, they were so sure mainframes would be obsolete and gone by now, but System/360 successors are still going strong.)  Some cmopanies succeeded with popular products only through sheer luck.  Of course, many once very popular companies faded from the scene, even went bankrupt.

As mentioned before, the "standard" was Word Perfect, but now is MS-Word, and dBASE, replaced by Oracle.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148799

In article <48fbdca7-a705-4c12-89a9-3401e8798346@googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote:
>
>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>> But not from within DEC.
>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>> just as miserably.
>
>In a cold technical sense, yes, other old-time computer makers did "fail";
>they're out of business altogether, or greatly reduced in size.
>
>But it's very hard to blame for failing to envision the future in the 1980s. 
>The marketplace and hardware were changing so rapidly it was very hard to even
>keep up, let alone know what was merely a fad and what truly was a new wave of
>the future.  (Heck, they were so sure mainframes would be obsolete and gone by
>now, but System/360 successors are still going strong.)

That's because of the software running on them, developed over decades.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148822

"Tim Streater" <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in message 
news:220720151823327612%timstreater@greenbee.net...
> In article <48fbdca7-a705-4c12-89a9-3401e8798346@googlegroups.com>,
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>> But not from within DEC.
>>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>>> just as miserably.
>>
>>In a cold technical sense, yes, other old-time computer makers did "fail";
>>they're out of business altogether, or greatly reduced in size.
>>
>>But it's very hard to blame for failing to envision the future in the 
>>1980s. The marketplace and hardware were changing so rapidly it was very 
>>hard to even
>>keep up, let alone know what was merely a fad and what truly was a new 
>>wave of
>>the future.  (Heck, they were so sure mainframes would be obsolete and 
>>gone by
>>now, but System/360 successors are still going strong.)
>
> That's because of the software running on them, developed over decades.

Not always, it is still the best way to do some applications. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148832

In article <220720151823327612%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
Tim Streater  <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>In article <48fbdca7-a705-4c12-89a9-3401e8798346@googlegroups.com>,
><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:30:03 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>>> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.
>>> Out-Novelling Novell should have been possible, selling DEC gear as
>>> the servers, and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
>>> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.
>>> But not from within DEC.
>>> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini and BUNCH vendors failed
>>> just as miserably.
>>
>>In a cold technical sense, yes, other old-time computer makers did "fail";
>>they're out of business altogether, or greatly reduced in size.
>>
>>But it's very hard to blame for failing to envision the future in the 1980s. 
>>The marketplace and hardware were changing so rapidly it was very hard to even
>>keep up, let alone know what was merely a fad and what truly was a new wave of
>>the future.  (Heck, they were so sure mainframes would be obsolete and gone by
>>now, but System/360 successors are still going strong.)

But Moore's Law was well known in 1980, and the speed of the systems kept
up with it pretty well, with some generational gaps; i.e. VAX 8600 taking
up the slack from the last 4 years etc.

It was a very straight line for the mainframes, the minis and then the micros.
Yes, the 1978 commodore PET was a toy, but the 1981 version was a serious
lab and office machine. The difference was just software and hardware 
reliability, something the mini and mainframe folks didn't see.

Having seen what could be done in Tops20 we were eagerly awaiting similar
systems for micros. We made do with minis while we waited. Seing the
success of ND (Norsk Data) up close we also saw their demise coming. They
were as blind as DEC; by 1984 it was high time to integrate the micros.

QNX was available as early as 1982, and demonstrated very clearly what could
be done with the micros. Likewise, MP/M systems were coming out in up to 
8-user versions by 1983. Distinct tops10-feel of those.

By 1988 we were searching for an OS that could take these to be the main
servers of our PPOEs. I implemented a shadow system for the Oslo Stock
Exchange that computed all the indices and options settlements in real time
with separate implementations for every component. It ran on a MIPS 2000, 
later on a '486 with Solaris. It was several times as fast as the
main system.

>That's because of the software running on them, developed over decades.

Bingo.

And DEC thought they were in the Hardware business? The moment they
took on Tenex as Tops20 they were deep into the software business, and
they got deeper and deeper in. That may even have saved them.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148827

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:h8i48c-51j.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> In article <PM00051B75E9682BEF@aca40d0e.ipt.aol.com>,
> jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>Tim Streater wrote:
>>> In article <PM00051B623040E297@aca42ea8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv
>>> <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It could just as easily have been described as being in the operating
>>>>> system business, each of which came with some free hardware.
>>>>
>>>>No.  We didn't make money on OSes.
>>>>
>>>>No; that was not the business plan.  Our tradeoffs were always based
>>>>on hardware being the primary business, not software.
>>>
>>> Doomed in the long run, then. It was never gonna compete with low-cost
>>> generic hardware.
>>>
>>> And what's the point of selling hardware with no software?
>>
>>You are assuming that all hardware was sold as _systems_.  this was not
>>the case until about 1980.
>>
>>> People buy
>>> computers to use as tools, not to write bespoke software on, certainly
>>> not at least if the bespoke software they're writing is 99% the same as
>>> the guy's next door.
>>
>>The "computer as a tool" didn't happen until the mid-80s when PCs became
>>cheap enough for Joe Shmoe to buy and use.
>
> Not generally. But in labs and other such niches such as factory
> floors etc the computer-as-a-tool emerged as early as the early 70s.

It was always a tool right from the start.

> For${GOD}ssake, the very naming of the PDP hint very clearly that this
> was the case even a decade earlier.

In fact it was always a tool right from the start.

> But the failure to really integrate with the PC was the doom of DEC.

The doom of DEC was that they never did manage any viable PCs
and given the mentality of the time that if it wasn’t an IBM PC it
wasn’t worth considering, it is far from clear that there was anything
they could have done about that. Even a pure clone wouldn’t have
been viable because of the higher costs that DEC inevitably had
over the taiwanese operations like Acer etc. It had nothing to do
with integration.

> Out-Novelling Novell should have been
> possible, selling DEC gear as the servers,

That wasn’t where the market was anymore.

> and getting a foothold in the corporate world to expand
> out from would have been easy to see ca 1984.

Easy to see, but impossible for an operation like DEC to do.

They couldn’t even manage to do that in the academic
area where they had managed considerable penetration.

> But not from within DEC.

> This was not specific to DEC. The other mini
> and BUNCH vendors failed just as miserably.

So did IBM itself. The PC was never more than
a pimple on the arse of IBM economically. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web