Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #57405 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-21 18:19 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-01-21 18:13 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 18:19 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> - 2017-01-21 19:30 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-21 09:04 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-21 19:36 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-21 20:56 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-21 20:34 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-21 11:05 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. D Walford <dwalford@internode.on.net> - 2017-01-22 09:54 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-22 02:31 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-22 14:01 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-22 14:19 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-22 03:38 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-22 17:41 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-22 18:07 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-22 19:01 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-22 19:17 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-22 19:18 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-22 20:23 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-22 22:42 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-22 08:16 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-22 23:25 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2017-01-22 04:51 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 15:24 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2017-01-24 02:38 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-22 15:29 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-23 00:49 +0800
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-22 20:13 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-23 16:22 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-22 15:26 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-22 06:13 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-22 20:02 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-22 10:19 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. news16 <news16@woa.com.au> - 2017-01-24 02:26 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-22 18:08 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 04:45 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-23 07:24 +0800
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-23 00:29 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-23 17:24 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-23 12:31 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-23 20:18 +0800
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-23 17:51 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 00:15 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 00:28 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-23 19:56 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 08:01 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 10:19 +1100
Might as well kick xeno's arse a bit more. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-24 22:25 +1000
Re: Might as well kick xeno's arse a bit more. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 13:34 +1100
Re: Might as well kick xeno's arse a bit more. Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 13:00 +1000
Re: Might as well kick xeno's arse a bit more. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 15:22 +1100
Re: Might as well kick xeno's arse a bit more. felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 19:37 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 09:14 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 10:30 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 23:20 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 08:44 +1100
Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 10:28 +0000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c*nt ever to infest a newsgroup felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-24 22:09 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c*nt ever to infest a newsgroup "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 11:24 +0000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c*nt ever to infest a newsgroup felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-24 23:45 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c*nt ever to infest a newsgroup "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 19:57 +0000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c*nt ever to infest a newsgroup felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 10:33 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 00:48 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 19:48 +0000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 07:52 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Noddy <me@home.com> - 2017-01-25 09:20 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 08:54 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Noddy <me@home.com> - 2017-01-25 11:47 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 13:05 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 12:58 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 15:20 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 13:00 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 12:57 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 15:15 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 19:39 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 19:55 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c*nt ever to infest a newsgroup felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 20:50 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 19:29 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 01:45 -0800
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 20:48 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 20:57 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 20:46 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 21:01 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 02:36 -0800
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 22:34 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-25 10:02 +0000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 21:45 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 20:56 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 22:12 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 03:23 -0800
Re: Grumpy conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 22:31 +1100
Re: Grumpy conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ jonz <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2017-01-25 03:42 -0800
Re: Grumpy conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 23:30 +1100
Re: Grumpy conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting c**t ever to infest a newsgroup[ felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2017-01-25 23:46 +1100
what a bunch of gossiping harpies keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 11:48 +1000
Re: what a bunch of gossiping harpies Noddy <me@home.com> - 2017-01-27 13:10 +1100
Re: what a bunch of gossiping harpies keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 13:40 +1000
Re: what a bunch of gossiping harpies Noddy <me@home.com> - 2017-01-27 15:49 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 11:43 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-27 14:09 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-27 13:41 +1000
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-27 14:48 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:09 +1100
Re: Xeno conclusively proved to be the lowest disgusting cunt ever to infest a newsgroup[ Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-27 17:17 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-24 07:42 +0800
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 12:36 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 10:34 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 23:23 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 00:21 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 12:49 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 17:49 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 18:40 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 23:12 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 23:53 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-26 14:27 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Noddy <me@home.com> - 2017-01-26 17:47 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-26 15:34 +0800
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-26 08:56 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-26 21:20 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-25 10:07 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-25 22:05 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-25 11:15 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-25 23:16 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Noddy <me@home.com> - 2017-01-26 00:57 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. XR8_Sprintless <xr8_sprint@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 14:48 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-01-24 15:34 +1000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-24 17:11 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-24 10:32 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> - 2017-01-23 19:49 +0000
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-01-24 09:06 +1100
Re: This reminds me of someone.. Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2017-01-21 18:13 +0800
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 23:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o6288e$2eb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57448 |
On 22/01/2017 7:16 PM, Blue Peeler wrote: > felix wrote: > >> >> yes, I remember those error messages. thank goodness we've moved well >> away from DOS to the GUI . my first recollection of anything better >> than DOS was something called DOSSHELL. or as it was known at the >> time.. DOSHELL, lol > > > Ah fetid, your master lying tom is up to his old tricks again..... >> >>> >>> >>> Here are some Concurrent CP/M 86 error messages >>> >>> 01H - Disk I/O Error — Permanent Error >>> 02H - R/0 — Read/Only Disk >>> 04H - Select — Drive Select Error >>> 09H - Illegal ? in FCB >>> >>> How odd, looks a lot like 2 Hex Byte error codes to me. >>> > > You know what Fetid / lying tom - they look just like Hex codes to me > too. > > > Pity they are for CP/M and not Concurrent Dos though isn't it.... > Spent a lot more time with CP/M than with CP/M 86 but the concepts are very much the same. > > Nice try lying Tom but you be putting those goal posts right back > where you found them. > They are where you moved them with your bullshit story. I have yet to touch them. No need, as you will soon see. > > > And just to rub the point in - here are the log codes for PC/MD-DOS. > > Got fuck nithing to do wiiththe console error reporting which was of > course in English words. > > > Sit and spin lying tom. > Maybe you should. That's because you are the liar here. Speaking of *console error reporting* which, as you say, is in English words, I have a little more to say on that score. The problem for you however is that the English words, the error message(s), are not the words that you have intimated they are. As a reminder, they are these; *general failure reading hard drive* > Concurrent CP/M-86™ Operating System User's Guide > > Appendixes > > A Concurrent CP/M-86 Error Messages . . . . . . . . 153 > > Concurrent CP/M-86 Error Messages > Error messages come from several different sources. Concurrent > CP/M-86 displays error messages generated by mistakes in command > lines. Some errors emerge from individual utilities, such as the > errors associated with SYSDISK. Diskette and file errors come from > the BOOS module. Other errors come from the XIOS module. You can > also intercept errors from applications programs you are running. > Table A-l displays the BDOS error messages. > Table A-2 lists XIOS error messages. > Table A-3 shows command line errors. > > BDOS error messages are displayed in the following format: > > Bdos Err on d: Message Function NNN File: FILENAME.TYP > "d" indicates the drive involved; > "message" indicates the appropriate error message; > NNN indicates the number of the BDOS function involved, > FILENAME.TYP indicates the file involved. A typical BDOS error message with drive reads; > Bad Sector > This error occurs when there is an actual hardware error on the > diskette. It can occur as a result of trying to read a diskette > of one density in a drive set to a different density. This error > also occurs with an improperly inserted floppy diskette. > > Disk Errors > There are seven kinds of disk errors reported from the XIOS. > All use the same format. > Disk error Accept,Retry,Ignore,Details? > If you type D this detail list appears: > d: Track nn Sector nn Side n <error report> A/R/I/D? > where d: is the drive number, > Track nn is the track number, > Sector nn is the sector number, > <error report> is one of these six words or phrases: > write, read, CRC, DMA not found, write protect, no address mark. > There's a whole lot more but I think you will get the drift. I could post the entire manual here but that would be pointless. A search through the manual reveals your string, *general failure reading hard drive*, or the relevant bits of it at least, are not present in the document. You will note that the term *hard drive* is not used. In fact, the drive is referenced by a drive designator, in this case a number, and would give no indication to the user whether the drive in question was a floppy or a hard disk. There is also no such an animal as a *general failure* since all errors give the same info - Disk Error. The users would not know whether the error was a read or a write error unless they had the nous to press the *d* for details and get the expanded info that gives rather more explicit information - which would still leave the average end user in the dark. Oh, and in case you are thinking of saying that Concurrent CP/M 86 does not relate to Concurrent PC-DOS, then think again. The only difference between the two is that Concurrent PC-DOS has an MS DOS compatibility module added - for obvious reasons - the disk formats are different for one. The error codes in both are identical and the manual I have serves for both. All I can say to you is; Stupid, useless, self-aggrandising, loathsome toad that you are! Your own words (spelling corrected) back at you! Now, go over there ------> with Noddy and try to do a little more *research* before you put your bullshit stories *out there*. Yours aren't quite as bad as his - yet - but I expect they soon will, if this recent example is any guide. Make them a little more credible, if nothing else. I mean, Noddy's radar cop and the 180 on the *divided freeway* was absolute classic, bullshit at its very best, and you'll have to work a lot harder to best that one. Nice to see you are trying. BTW, want to borrow my Concurrent CP/M 86 manuals? It's a three volume set. You'll need them if you want to spin more bullshit about Concurrent CP/M 86 or Concurrent PC-DOS. -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | news16 <news16@woa.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 04:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o61dpe$k2j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57427 |
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: > Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that > Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital > research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as > possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as > was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was 8086/8088 based.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 15:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <o61fn5$127u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57434 |
On 22/01/2017 2:51 PM, news16 wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: > > >> Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that >> Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital >> research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as >> possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as >> was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. > > Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was 8086/8088 > based. > Uh No.... http://landley.net/history/mirror/cpm/history.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | news16 <news16@woa.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o66en8$d73$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57435 |
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:24:58 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote: > On 22/01/2017 2:51 PM, news16 wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: >> >> >>> Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing >>> that Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once >>> digital research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as >>> compatible as possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication >>> MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking >>> intention behind it. >> >> Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was >> 8086/8088 based. >> > Uh No.... > > http://landley.net/history/mirror/cpm/history.html Oh, okay, I've only ever used CP/M on Z80 machince. Anything else was mini-iron; Dec, HP, Sun, etc. Sadly, all three of the Z80s were ditched one we purchased a 286. The two Portapak luggables were fantastic machines(mother board decay), but the POS M/CP/M hert strain was perenially breaking down and I was tired giving it free trips across sydny to the onl guy who could repair it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 15:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eeiu9jF5nqlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57434 |
On 1/22/2017 2:51 PM, news16 wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: > > >> Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that >> Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital >> research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as >> possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as >> was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. > > Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was 8086/8088 > based. > There was CP/M86 that ran om PCs, but it was too little too late for DR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 00:49 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <5884e286$0$1523$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57437 |
On 22/01/2017 1:29 PM, keithr0 wrote: > On 1/22/2017 2:51 PM, news16 wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: >> >> >>> Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that >>> Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital >>> research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as >>> possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as >>> was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. >> >> Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was 8086/8088 >> based. >> > There was CP/M86 that ran om PCs, but it was too little too late for DR. CP/M86 was pretty much DOA. CP/M was very much a Z80/8080 OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eeki3cFhst8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57458 |
Clocky wrote: > On 22/01/2017 1:29 PM, keithr0 wrote: > > On 1/22/2017 2:51 PM, news16 wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a > > > > thing that Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) > > > > and once digital research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written > > > > to be as compatible as possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary > > > > implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as was possible given the multi > > > > user/multi-tasking intention behind it. > > > > > > Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was > > > 8086/8088 based. > > > > > There was CP/M86 that ran om PCs, but it was too little too late > > for DR. > > CP/M86 was pretty much DOA. CP/M was very much a Z80/8080 OS. You are correct but much of the code base went on to re-appear in DR-DOS and of course concurrent DOS. Albeit in much, much modified form. The attraction was that unlike MS/PC-DOS CP/M always included the concept of multi user and MP/M and concurrent DOS expanded that, MP/M firmed up the multi user and had vestigal Multi tasking, Concurrent DOS had a far, far better system of locks and flags to allow reasonably reliable multitasking providing the application software played ball (which was the major problem with what DEIR ended up with - some software worked very well, but if one person accessed the "wrong" piece of of software then the whle lot crashed. The "network" consisted of nothing more complicated than serial consoles. The resident village idiot, lying tom, was trying to "prove" me lying yesterday by quoting from the CP/M manual it found online and claiming it was no different to concurrent DOS (and for that matter Concurrent DOS reworked by Wang). About as relevant as pulling out a workshop manual for an EH and arguing that the specifications are the same for the current commodore. But no matter, we all know what lying tom is like, the graceless creature is incapable of ever admitting it is wrong and when it runs out of any form of semi-rational argument it will simply uproot the goal posts and publish reams and reams of irrelevant dreck and claim that it "proves" something (which i am prepared to bet it has done by now and if it hasnt it will to so today).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 16:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o643sc$cqk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57460 |
On 23/01/2017 7:13 AM, Blue Peeler wrote: > Clocky wrote: > >> On 22/01/2017 1:29 PM, keithr0 wrote: >>> On 1/22/2017 2:51 PM, news16 wrote: >>>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 02:31:17 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a >>>>> thing that Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) >>>>> and once digital research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written >>>>> to be as compatible as possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary >>>>> implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as was possible given the multi >>>>> user/multi-tasking intention behind it. >>>> >>>> Different machines shirley since CPM was Z80 based and DOS was >>>> 8086/8088 based. >>>> >>> There was CP/M86 that ran om PCs, but it was too little too late >>> for DR. >> >> CP/M86 was pretty much DOA. CP/M was very much a Z80/8080 OS. > > > You are correct but much of the code base went on to re-appear in > DR-DOS and of course concurrent DOS. > > > Albeit in much, much modified form. Of course it was you clown. Different processor, different architecture. It couldn't be anything else but much modified but as a concept it was *operationally* very similar. > > The attraction was that unlike MS/PC-DOS CP/M always included the > concept of multi user and MP/M and concurrent DOS expanded that, MP/M > firmed up the multi user and had vestigal Multi tasking, Concurrent DOS > had a far, far better system of locks and flags to allow reasonably > reliable multitasking providing the application software played ball > (which was the major problem with what DEIR ended up with - some > software worked very well, but if one person accessed the "wrong" piece > of of software then the whle lot crashed. The "network" consisted of > nothing more complicated than serial consoles. > And a computer with a multi-user operating system to which all those serial consoles were attached. All of this is sideshifting bullshit, something you as a lawyer are rather expert at. > > The resident village idiot, lying tom, was trying to "prove" me lying > yesterday by quoting from the CP/M manual it found online and claiming > it was no different to concurrent DOS (and for that matter Concurrent > DOS reworked by Wang). > That was a CONCURRENT CP/M manual. The reworking by Wang would have been simply the linking to the *hardware*. GenCPM and all that. That and maybe a few additional utilities > > About as relevant as pulling out a workshop manual for an EH and > arguing that the specifications are the same for the current commodore. > Au contraire my fine lying friend. The manual was for the *generic* Concurrent CP/M and Concurrent DOS. It is the absolutely correct manual for the task. Any Wang Concurrent XXX manual will be identical but will include and additional utilities provided for the system by Wang. Cromemco did exactly the same with the systems they provided. The Cromemco Concurrent XXX manual is an expanded version of the generic. Any attempt by you to prove otherwise is absolute bullshit. > > But no matter, we all know what lying tom is like, the graceless > creature is incapable of ever admitting it is wrong and when it runs > out of any form of semi-rational argument it will simply uproot the > goal posts and publish reams and reams of irrelevant dreck and claim > that it "proves" something (which i am prepared to bet it has done by > now and if it hasnt it will to so today). > -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 15:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eeiu4vF5nqlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57427 |
On 1/22/2017 12:31 PM, Blue Peeler wrote: > D Walford wrote: > >> >>> >>> "Who is is this bastard General Failure, and why is he reading my >>> hard drive?" she said. >>> >>> Knowing how much "stuff" that was important to her was on her >>> computer I delegated someone else to explain to her and retreated >>> to my office. >>> >> LOL, sharp as a tow ball:-) > > Oh yes, and I see, courtesy of an email sent to me by someone else that > the well known, pig eyed, lying sack of shit, lying tom clasenr has had > a dig at me over it too, he also is as sharp as a towball fitted with a > tennis ball. > > > Well that stupid fucktard has been let down by google yet again..... > > CDOS can mean:- > > Cromenco Dos > Concurrent Dos > or even > Convergent Dos (before Digital Research threatened to sue and they > changed it to CTOS.) > > > > Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that > Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital > research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as > possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as > was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. > > As such, M/PM, DR-DOS and C-DOS never, ever had hexadecimal console > error codes with the exception of some fairly arcane stuff that most > users never saw. I unfortunately had experience of concurrent DOS in a POS system (That can be reasonably interpreted both ways). It was accurately described as only allowable between consenting adults in private.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 06:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eej0rvF69e4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57436 |
keithr0 wrote: > > I unfortunately had experience of concurrent DOS in a POS system > (That can be reasonably interpreted both ways). It was accurately > described as only allowable between consenting adults in private. On that we are in 100% agreement. The Wang version of CDOS was sold to the Dept I worked for on the basis that it was 95% compatible with MS/PC-Dos. That was true as far as it went, sadly DEIR interpreted it to mean that 95% of all PC/MS-DOS software would run on the shiny Wang PCs. What it really meant was that 95% of any given piece of PC/MS-DOS software would run - until it crashed horridly. so bad was the promblem that when DEIR/DEET re-equipped with Windows PCs (sourced from Osborne and with Australian made laser printers - both companies went tits up just to show how clever DEIR/DEET was in backing IT equipment supplier survivors) that scores of Wang PCs were found in many offices never having been unboxed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 20:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eeje9vF993oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57439 |
On 1/22/2017 4:13 PM, Blue Peeler wrote: > keithr0 wrote: > >> >> I unfortunately had experience of concurrent DOS in a POS system >> (That can be reasonably interpreted both ways). It was accurately >> described as only allowable between consenting adults in private. > > On that we are in 100% agreement. > > The Wang version of CDOS was sold to the Dept I worked for on the basis > that it was 95% compatible with MS/PC-Dos. > > That was true as far as it went, sadly DEIR interpreted it to mean that > 95% of all PC/MS-DOS software would run on the shiny Wang PCs. What it > really meant was that 95% of any given piece of PC/MS-DOS software > would run - until it crashed horridly. > > so bad was the promblem that when DEIR/DEET re-equipped with Windows > PCs (sourced from Osborne and with Australian made laser printers - > both companies went tits up just to show how clever DEIR/DEET was in > backing IT equipment supplier survivors) that scores of Wang PCs were > found in many offices never having been unboxed. > I bought the first micro-computer that Fujitsu Australia ever owned, an Osbourne 1. For those who never saw one, it was probably the first portable computer, about the size and weight of a sewing machine. It had the keyboard in the lid, a very small CRT and two 5 1/4" disks and ran CP/M. We bought it for a project in the Canberra office but the engineering director visited and saw Visicalc on it and we never saw it again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 10:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eejf9rF9grvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57454 |
keithr0 wrote: > > > I bought the first micro-computer that Fujitsu Australia ever owned, > an Osbourne 1. For those who never saw one, it was probably the first > portable computer, about the size and weight of a sewing machine. It > had the keyboard in the lid, a very small CRT and two 5 1/4" disks > and ran CP/M. We bought it for a project in the Canberra office but > the engineering director visited and saw Visicalc on it and we never > saw it again. Had one of those too - over time it grew a DSDD floppy and a 5meg (Oh the power) Trantor hard drive in the other floppy slot. A 300baud modem and it was everything I could want - until I saw a President that was. Had to have one and foolishly sold the O1 - The President was a piece of absolute crap that spent most of its time at the Agent awaiting repairs. The only thing the President had going for it was the included "P-system" which became (aside form basic) the basis for my first forays away from machine code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | news16 <news16@woa.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-24 02:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o66e0n$d73$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57439 |
On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 06:13:19 +0000, Blue Peeler wrote: > so bad was the promblem that when DEIR/DEET re-equipped with Windows PCs > (sourced from Osborne and with Australian made laser printers - both > companies went tits up just to show how clever DEIR/DEET was in backing > IT equipment supplier survivors) What was the brand of laser printer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-22 18:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o61lmh$d1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57427 |
On 22/01/2017 1:31 PM, Blue Peeler wrote: <snip> > > > Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing Speaking of liars, here's one of your mates up to lawyer tricks. The worst part of the story was that *his mates* deemed him to have "given significant service to the community and that he should receive credit for this". Somehow the fact that he was a filthy liar and a slimy cheat should have been noted and, had it been anyone but a lawyer guilty of such deception, they would have received prison time and had their career destroyed. Barrister caught out writing himself into client’s Will Peter Mickelburough, Herald Sun January 21, 2017 8:00pm A ONCE respected barrister feted by Governor-Generals and a champion of war hero Sir Edward “Weary” Dunlop’s legacy has been caught out writing himself into a client’s Will and attempting to cover his tracks. Dino De Marchi, a former member of the elite Special Air Services and Vietnam War veteran, stood to get a fifth of his client’s estate after agreeing to take her and her deceased daughter’s ashes to Trieste in Italy to be scattered. De Marchi pleaded guilty to including his name as a “significant beneficiary” in a Will he was preparing and failing to tell his client of a provision allowing he, or his firm, to be paid to administer her estate. But he remains free to practise after the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided a reprimand and $5000 fine was appropriate given De Marchi’s celebrated past. A lawyer since 1979, De Marchi chaired a working party that established the Sir Edward Dunlop Medical Research Foundation and was chairman of the foundation from 1994 to 2010. In 2010 De Marchi was feted by former Governor-general Dame Quentin Bryce at Government House to mark the foundation’s Silver Jubilee. De Marchi with former Governor-general Dame Quentin Bryce. He also co-authored a book for schoolchildren on Sir Edward’s life, with a forward written by the current Governor-general Sir Peter Cosgrove. De Marchi also served on the Returned Service Leagues state executive for 16 years, was a vice-president of the Ivanhoe RSL, and a member of the order of St John of Jerusalem Knights Hospitaller. According to an agreed statement of facts put to VCAT, Lidia Toffolon visited De Marchi & Associates in Brunswick in November 2013 and asked De Marchi to prepare her a new Will and a medical power of attorney. Ms Toffolon told De Marchi she wanted to leave her estate to two friends, two charities and her doctor. She appointed her lawyer and her doctor as executors and trustees of her Will. After later discussions she instructed De Marchi to also include himself as a beneficiary. Vinokurov Vladmir, a solicitor employed by De Marchi, told him it would breach the rules for him to be a beneficiary, but rather than immediately ceasing to act for Ms Toffolon, De Marchi told Mr Vinokurov to remove his firm’s name and address from the cover page before printing the Will. De Marchi then took Ms Toffolon to fellow Brunswick lawyer, Carl Soccio of Soccio & Associates, who read the Will to Ms Toffolon and asked if she understood it. Ms Toffolon said that she did. De Marchi’s book, ‘Weary: An Australian Hero.’ The book features a foreword by Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove. Picture: Chris McCormack. Mr Soccio later told the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner that before witnessing Ms Toffolon sign her Will he informed her of rules prohibiting a lawyer receiving a “substantial benefit” from a client’s Will. De Marchi walked Ms Toffolon back to his office and told her Mr Soccio might bill her for witnessing her Will. He had already told her there would be no charge for his services. When Mr Soccio sent an invoice De Marchi paid it and did not seek reimbursement from his client until August, 2014, three months after Ms Toffolon sought fresh legal advice from Louise Clayton of Ryan Carlisle Thomas. After Ms Clayton informed De Marchi of her appointment and requested he provide her office with the Will, he tried to contact Ms Toffolon and wrote to the attorneys nominated in her Power of Attorney expressing concern about her welfare and whereabouts. In 2014, the Legal Services Commissioner investigated a complaint from Ms Clayton on behalf of herself and Ms Toffolon and found De Marchi guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The matter was then referred to VCAT in June last year, with a hearing held last month. Senior Member Gerard decided a reprimand for each offence, a $5000 fine and $15,000 in costs satisfied the need for general deterrence and protection of the legal profession’s reputation. Mr Gerard accepted De Marchi’s behaviour was “an isolated incident in what is otherwise a blameless record” and said the result would have been more severe but for the lawyer’s service to the community. “I am satisfied that Mr De Marchi has given significant service to the community and that he should receive credit for this,” Mr Butcher said. that > Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital > research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as > possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as > was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. > > As such, M/PM, DR-DOS and C-DOS never, ever had hexadecimal console > error codes with the exception of some fairly arcane stuff that most > users never saw. > > > If the stupid lying cunt does not believe me, then it can go to this > site : > > https://winworldpc.com/product/digital-research-con > > and download itself a copy of concurrent dos and see for itself (486 or > earlier processor required due to requirement for 8086 emulation and > protected mode switch validation). For shit and giggles there are > several versions - he should take the time to check each one of them. > > > Or the stupid cunt can alternatively simply go to: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJmB0WJpMs > > and get an education - not admittedly the education it so badly needs > and richly deserves (that wwould involve a baseball bat applied > repeatedly across its kidneys, kneecaps, elbows and ankles) but an > education nonetheless. > > > Moral of the story lying tom - google will never stand you in good > stead against people with actual knowledge. You should write that on a > piece of paper and stick it to the bottom of your monitor and read it > anytime you are tempted to either tell your own usual lies, or use your > defective googling to wrongly accuse someone else of lying. > > > Studpid, useless, self-aggrandising, loathsome toad that you are! > -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 04:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <o62ujj$1942$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57427 |
On 22/01/2017 12:31 PM, Blue Peeler wrote: > D Walford wrote: > >> >>> >>> "Who is is this bastard General Failure, and why is he reading my >>> hard drive?" she said. >>> >>> Knowing how much "stuff" that was important to her was on her >>> computer I delegated someone else to explain to her and retreated >>> to my office. >>> >> LOL, sharp as a tow ball:-) > > Oh yes, and I see, courtesy of an email sent to me by someone else that > the well known, pig eyed, lying sack of shit, lying tom clasenr has had > a dig at me over it too, he also is as sharp as a towball fitted with a > tennis ball. > > > Well that stupid fucktard has been let down by google yet again..... > > CDOS can mean:- > > Cromenco Dos > Concurrent Dos > or even > Convergent Dos (before Digital Research threatened to sue and they > changed it to CTOS.) > > > > Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that > Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital > research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as > possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as > was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. > > As such, M/PM, DR-DOS and C-DOS never, ever had hexadecimal console > error codes with the exception of some fairly arcane stuff that most > users never saw. > > > If the stupid lying cunt does not believe me, then it can go to this > site : > > https://winworldpc.com/product/digital-research-con > > and download itself a copy of concurrent dos and see for itself (486 or > earlier processor required due to requirement for 8086 emulation and > protected mode switch validation). For shit and giggles there are > several versions - he should take the time to check each one of them. > > > Or the stupid cunt can alternatively simply go to: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJmB0WJpMs > > and get an education - not admittedly the education it so badly needs > and richly deserves (that wwould involve a baseball bat applied > repeatedly across its kidneys, kneecaps, elbows and ankles) but an > education nonetheless. > > > Moral of the story lying tom - google will never stand you in good > stead against people with actual knowledge. You should write that on a > piece of paper and stick it to the bottom of your monitor and read it > anytime you are tempted to either tell your own usual lies, or use your > defective googling to wrongly accuse someone else of lying. > > > Studpid, useless, self-aggrandising, loathsome toad that you are! > Stepping in here for a few seconds, and whilst you can get general failure errors in most operating systems of the time (Code 1f), a general failure at boot time was generally generated by the bios of the system or i/o card and not the operating system. It could relate to improper jumper settings, improper low level formatting, irq errors, i/o card errors, bios errors, address setting errors (having two cards set at c800 or dc00 for example) and of course hard drive failures, the latter accompanied by screeching almost as loud as the person who discovered it... I know I had seagate MFM drive and tried to interleave it at 1 to get better speed. Didn't work terribly well. It needed to be at 3 to work. You also had to set the heads, sectors, and tracks correctly in bios or on the controller card or you would get the same errors. I think I have pretty much covered it, but to put not too fine a point on it, it was more likely a bios or controller card error message and absolutely nothing to do with the operating system, so in essence Bluey's story has an element of truth to it, and xeno quite frankly you are wrong as usual. My brain almost hurts remembering the fun of changing interrupts on i/o cards so they would all work in the system. I also had a list of almost every drive made on my bbs which gave you the heads, sectors, and tracks information. As hdd's became more prevalent, they used to print the info on the label so that you could enter it in the bios when onboard controllers became standard, and before they autodetected the hard drive parameters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 07:24 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <58853f36$0$11096$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57459 |
On 23/01/2017 2:45 AM, Grumpy Tech wrote: > On 22/01/2017 12:31 PM, Blue Peeler wrote: >> D Walford wrote: >> >>> >>>> >>>> "Who is is this bastard General Failure, and why is he reading my >>>> hard drive?" she said. >>>> >>>> Knowing how much "stuff" that was important to her was on her >>>> computer I delegated someone else to explain to her and retreated >>>> to my office. >>>> >>> LOL, sharp as a tow ball:-) >> >> Oh yes, and I see, courtesy of an email sent to me by someone else that >> the well known, pig eyed, lying sack of shit, lying tom clasenr has had >> a dig at me over it too, he also is as sharp as a towball fitted with a >> tennis ball. >> >> >> Well that stupid fucktard has been let down by google yet again..... >> >> CDOS can mean:- >> >> Cromenco Dos >> Concurrent Dos >> or even >> Convergent Dos (before Digital Research threatened to sue and they >> changed it to CTOS.) >> >> >> >> Anyway, I can assure the loathsome,lying, useless, cunt of a thing that >> Concurrent Dos began life as Multi-user CP/M (M/PM) and once digital >> research released DR-DOS, C-DOS was re-written to be as compatible as >> possible with DR-DOS (and by necessary implication MS-DOS, PC-DOS) as >> was possible given the multi user/multi-tasking intention behind it. >> >> As such, M/PM, DR-DOS and C-DOS never, ever had hexadecimal console >> error codes with the exception of some fairly arcane stuff that most >> users never saw. >> >> >> If the stupid lying cunt does not believe me, then it can go to this >> site : >> >> https://winworldpc.com/product/digital-research-con >> >> and download itself a copy of concurrent dos and see for itself (486 or >> earlier processor required due to requirement for 8086 emulation and >> protected mode switch validation). For shit and giggles there are >> several versions - he should take the time to check each one of them. >> >> >> Or the stupid cunt can alternatively simply go to: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvJmB0WJpMs >> >> and get an education - not admittedly the education it so badly needs >> and richly deserves (that wwould involve a baseball bat applied >> repeatedly across its kidneys, kneecaps, elbows and ankles) but an >> education nonetheless. >> >> >> Moral of the story lying tom - google will never stand you in good >> stead against people with actual knowledge. This is not in defense of Tom, but memory is much like dynamic RAM, not refreshed often enough it starts to lose bits. Case in point was when you explained that 486DX4 processor had a 4x multiplier (4x25Mhz) when in fact the DX4 processors never had a 4x multiplier, it was either 3x or 2x. My memory is clear on this, oft refreshed ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blue Peeler" <woof@barque.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 00:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eel12tFlas0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57462 |
Clocky wrote: > > This is not in defense of Tom, but memory is much like dynamic RAM, > not refreshed often enough it starts to lose bits. Case in point was > when you explained that 486DX4 processor had a 4x multiplier > (4x25Mhz) when in fact the DX4 processors never had a 4x multiplier, > it was either 3x or 2x. > > My memory is clear on this, oft refreshed ;-) True enough and if I didn't then, I certainly acknowledge now that your memory was better and that a DX-4 multiplier was 3. A memory failure on my part. Now it is no secret that I have my problems with you. BUT, you have never, as far as I recall, ever attempted to defend lying tom's idiot arguments. Lying tom, of necessity, goes about his "business" differently to a normal person - he starts off knowing nothing, googles furiously and then attempts to present himself as a world class expert. Of course he always owns the books he quotes from - present estimation is that his library slightly exceeds in size the State Library of NSW. His other trick is when he cannot locate anything on point he will simply take a punt, quote reams and reams of the irrelevant information he does find and then at the bottom of it throw in a few lines pretending that he has conclusively "proved' whatever bullshit he was on about. Or invent an "instant friend" who he can quote saying whatever it was that lying tom needed. His current hobby-horse of the console error messages in Concurrent DOS is a good case in point. In an effort to shut him down I posted the console error messages (and their matching logfile hex codes) from DR-DOS, I also made the point that there were any number of links that showed the development history of C-DOS, culminating in its role as the server companion to DR-DOS and sharing as much commonality as possible. I had a quick look, but cannot find any copies of Concurrent DOS manuals, not too surprising really because as an operating system its time in the sun was very brief. Personal computers moved on to Windows (and just as an aside do you remember the tricks Microsoft pulled to try and stop people running early windows on top of DR-DOS?) and the business world moved to Novell Netware (where it bloody well stayed in a lot of cases, Centrelink was still using Netware up to 2000, and Customs were still using Netware when I last worked on their equipment in 2005 (and for all I know - still are). But of course that doesn't fit with lying tom's desires, so he found a copy of CP/M error codes and published those whilst claiming that CP/M, CP/M86, M/PM, DR-DOS and Concurrent DOS all had a common ancestry and therefore used the same error messages always. Yeah right...... All whilst completely ignoring the fact that Wang extensively modiifed Concurrent Dos, partially because some of the more powerful/late Wang PCs used a 16bit instruction pipe and Wang PC (early) had very different hardware to the "reference' IBM-PC which meant that the O/S needed to be modified to try and set up compatibility. one of the things that Wang did to their version of Concurrent DOS (and to their own moderately compatible DOS) was to try and trap direct hardware calls from software that had ben optimized for the IBM-PC and redirect it in a way that the Wang hardware understood. Eventually Wang got very good at this, but their early efforts were woeful (hence my comment of them being able to run 95% of any given peice of IBM-PC drafted software) and by the time they got good at it, the world had moved on, Wang was broke and to reinvent itself they shifted to making IBM-PC compatibles - a decision that must have really stuck in the throat of the founder of Wang who had an abiding hatred of all things IBM. But I digress, lying tom's argument distills to this - an EH holden is a car made by GMH, a commodore is also a car made by GMH - therefore the repair manual for an EH is perfectly valid for repairing Comodores. An argument so stupid that only a dedicated troll such as old lying tom would dare even raise it. I well remember many aspects of the Wang PC as they *never* delivered on what they were purchased to do (and the guy who signed off on the recomendation to buy them left the public service as was often seen in Canberra driving his shiny red Porsche). The Dept spent a lot of time concealing the extent of the disaster from the Senate and local managers made discretionary purchases of software to try and get some use out of the damm things. As I mentioned in an earlier post DEIR/DEET made soemthign of a speciality of jumping in with disasterous hardware purchases:- Convergent PCs lovely machine - utterly incompatible with IBM-PC, although you could buy a "compatibility card" which was essentially a v20 PC-compatible on a card. The Convergent PC used a 80186 processor and had wwhat was at the time about the best WYSIWYG wordprocessor - but there it stopped, promised software nver delivered, temrinal emulation cards incompatible with the (even then) ancient mainframe and worst of all the "power bricks' shit themselves with monotonous regularity - I had one Convergent PC in my office, it used 2 standard "power bricks", I kept 4 bricks notially in store which meant that at any given time I had a working machine, one brick in store and 3 with honeywell (or whoever the service contractor was) being repaired. Impact laser printers An Australian manufactured laser printer using the EX/RX Engine (same as Laserjet III). As patriotic as all fuck - a row of kangaroos used to jump their way across the single line LCD when booting up. What could go wrong? Well, the engines were pretty reliable and Impact knew that, so they set the controllers to generate an error at high copy counts to force a service - their argument being was that as the things were on contract this was not a sneaky way to increase charge-out, merely a means of ensuring that the printers received optimum maintainence. Problem was that Impact went broke no one had a full list of the codes to unlock the bloody things when they went into "I need a service mode". The codes varied accordign to the actual page count when triggered, a few ex-impact techs made a bit of a living for a while, and guarded th eknowledge closely, but they were all gone very quickly, usually when things like paper trays, feed rollers or paper pick ups needed to be replaced and there was no source of spares. Osborne Computers someone purchased the Osborne name and used it to punt a lne of PC-compats to governemnt agencies. Many people remain convicned to this day that Osborne was given the PC supply gig by DEIR because they agreed to uplift all the WANG PCs and arrange their secure destruction (government confidential don't you know) In reality many of the things appeared in 2nd had stores and auction houses - some caused some short lived scandal when jobseeker and student data was found to be on them, others of course were never taken out of their box until put on display for sale/auction. Anyway, Osborne went broke, and the PCs delivered were orphaned. The worst thing was that the majority of them were a low profile device where th emotherboard had a single extended ISA slot into which a riser card was plugged and which in turn provided a small number of slots into which modems, network cards etc could be plugged. Unfortunately the motherboard had a design fault (poorly specified capacitors if memory serves) and they all died fairly young deaths. all at great expense to the tax payer of course. anyway, enough from memory lane i have a motorcycle to service priro to the Asutralia Day ride later this week.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 17:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <o647g7$o53$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57463 |
On 23/01/2017 11:29 AM, Blue Peeler wrote: > Clocky wrote: > >> >> This is not in defense of Tom, but memory is much like dynamic RAM, >> not refreshed often enough it starts to lose bits. Case in point was >> when you explained that 486DX4 processor had a 4x multiplier >> (4x25Mhz) when in fact the DX4 processors never had a 4x multiplier, >> it was either 3x or 2x. >> >> My memory is clear on this, oft refreshed ;-) > > True enough and if I didn't then, I certainly acknowledge now that your > memory was better and that a DX-4 multiplier was 3. A memory failure on > my part. We all have them. Hey, even me! ;-) I even had a DX2/66 and a DX4/100. > > Now it is no secret that I have my problems with you. BUT, you have > never, as far as I recall, ever attempted to defend lying tom's idiot > arguments. Clocky doesn't need to. I can defend my own. You, on the other hand, post arguments (and other bullshit) that are indefensible. > > Lying tom, of necessity, goes about his "business" differently to a > normal person - he starts off knowing nothing, googles furiously and > then attempts to present himself as a world class expert. > > > Of course he always owns the books he quotes from - present estimation > is that his library slightly exceeds in size the State Library of NSW. > Not at all. I culled a hell of a lot 4 years back when I moved. I kept some stuff because of various reasons but mostly because it was already packed in plastic boxes (and still is) which made it easy to move and store. It is continually shrinking however. In my recent searching for items to cull, I recently came across some of my old auto trans textbooks. I will keep them! ;-) > > His other trick is when he cannot locate anything on point he will > simply take a punt, quote reams and reams of the irrelevant information You mean like the irrelevant Wang and Osborne bullshit you raved on about in the latter half of this post of yours? > he does find and then at the bottom of it throw in a few lines > pretending that he has conclusively "proved' whatever bullshit he was > on about. Or invent an "instant friend" who he can quote saying > whatever it was that lying tom needed. > > > His current hobby-horse of the console error messages in Concurrent DOS > is a good case in point. > > In an effort to shut him down I posted the console error messages (and > their matching logfile hex codes) from DR-DOS, I also made the point > that there were any number of links that showed the development history > of C-DOS, culminating in its role as the server companion to DR-DOS and > sharing as much commonality as possible. > > > I had a quick look, but cannot find any copies of Concurrent DOS That's because you aren't looking hard enough. There are plenty around though not all are particularly complete. Most do not include the bits I wanted - appendices - so I had to manually type out, in minimalistic form, the relevant bits from the appendices in my dead tree version. > manuals, not too surprising really because as an operating system its > time in the sun was very brief. Personal computers moved on to Windows > (and just as an aside do you remember the tricks Microsoft pulled to > try and stop people running early windows on top of DR-DOS?) and the > business world moved to Novell Netware (where it bloody well stayed in > a lot of cases, Centrelink was still using Netware up to 2000, and > Customs were still using Netware when I last worked on their equipment > in 2005 (and for all I know - still are). > > > But of course that doesn't fit with lying tom's desires, so he found a > copy of CP/M error codes and published those whilst claiming that CP/M, > CP/M86, M/PM, DR-DOS and Concurrent DOS all had a common ancestry and > therefore used the same error messages always. Yeah right...... CP/M error codes are always Hex numbers. The difference is what the operating system does with those numbers, ie. displays them on the console translated to error *messages*. Try DDT and see what form the errors take. > > All whilst completely ignoring the fact that Wang extensively modiifed > Concurrent Dos, partially because some of the more powerful/late Wang > PCs used a 16bit instruction pipe and Wang PC (early) had very > different hardware to the "reference' IBM-PC which meant that the O/S > needed to be modified to try and set up compatibility. one of the All of the early computers that ran Concurrent CP/M / DOS had different hardware architecture to the IBM-PC. Most of the early stuff was S100 based for a start. Big difference right there. > things that Wang did to their version of Concurrent DOS (and to their > own moderately compatible DOS) was to try and trap direct hardware > calls from software that had ben optimized for the IBM-PC and redirect > it in a way that the Wang hardware understood. Eventually Wang got very > good at this, but their early efforts were woeful (hence my comment of > them being able to run 95% of any given peice of IBM-PC drafted > software) and by the time they got good at it, the world had moved on, > Wang was broke and to reinvent itself they shifted to making IBM-PC > compatibles - a decision that must have really stuck in the throat of > the founder of Wang who had an abiding hatred of all things IBM. > Irrelevant crap > > But I digress, lying tom's argument distills to this - an EH holden is > a car made by GMH, a commodore is also a car made by GMH - therefore > the repair manual for an EH is perfectly valid for repairing Comodores. > An argument so stupid that only a dedicated troll such as old lying tom > would dare even raise it. > I would put it like this. An EH Holden repair manual suits an EH Holden, regardless of whether the car is an auto or a manual, 179 or 149 engine, wagon, ute, van, sedan, standard or special. You might get away with it on,say, an FE - EJ since there were few major changes in that period. Gearbox was one. Ditto EJ - EH, engine being the major change. The Commodore is a totally different car. The only similarity, at least in the early models, was that they still used a much worked over derivative of the red motor. That's about as close as it got. Brakes, steering, suspension, gearbox, etc. all different in a big way. The manuals are also different. Naturally. You cannot treat operating systems that way. The operating system is a standardised user interface, the customisations pertaining to the hardware links or hooks. For the user, there should be little difference. I can use OSX as a perfect example of this. OSX began life on the PowerPC CPU and related architecture. Some years later, Apple saw the limits of that CPU and transitioned to the Intel CPU with an architecture that was an advance on the PCs of the time. As far as OSX was concerned, it ran on both. The user saw no change. In fact, up to 10.5.8. the same install DVD would install the OS onto either architecture. From the next version of the OS, Apple dropped support for the PowerPC so that only the Intel architecture was supported. From OS/X 10.1 through to 10.12, the user interface has generally remained consistent, the only changes being the addition of new features. > I well remember many aspects of the Wang PC as they *never* delivered > on what they were purchased to do (and the guy who signed off on the > recomendation to buy them left the public service as was often seen in > Canberra driving his shiny red Porsche). The Dept spent a lot of time > concealing the extent of the disaster from the Senate and local > managers made discretionary purchases of software to try and get some > use out of the damm things. > > > As I mentioned in an earlier post DEIR/DEET made soemthign of a > speciality of jumping in with disasterous hardware purchases:- > > Convergent PCs > lovely machine - utterly incompatible with IBM-PC, although you could > buy a "compatibility card" which was essentially a v20 PC-compatible on > a card. The Convergent PC used a 80186 processor and had wwhat was at > the time about the best WYSIWYG wordprocessor - but there it stopped, > promised software nver delivered, temrinal emulation cards incompatible > with the (even then) ancient mainframe and worst of all the "power > bricks' shit themselves with monotonous regularity - I had one > Convergent PC in my office, it used 2 standard "power bricks", I kept 4 > bricks notially in store which meant that at any given time I had a > working machine, one brick in store and 3 with honeywell (or whoever > the service contractor was) being repaired. > > Impact laser printers > An Australian manufactured laser printer using the EX/RX Engine (same > as Laserjet III). As patriotic as all fuck - a row of kangaroos used to > jump their way across the single line LCD when booting up. What could > go wrong? Well, the engines were pretty reliable and Impact knew that, > so they set the controllers to generate an error at high copy counts to > force a service - their argument being was that as the things were on > contract this was not a sneaky way to increase charge-out, merely a > means of ensuring that the printers received optimum maintainence. > Problem was that Impact went broke no one had a full list of the codes > to unlock the bloody things when they went into "I need a service > mode". The codes varied accordign to the actual page count when > triggered, a few ex-impact techs made a bit of a living for a while, > and guarded th eknowledge closely, but they were all gone very quickly, > usually when things like paper trays, feed rollers or paper pick ups > needed to be replaced and there was no source of spares. > > Osborne Computers > someone purchased the Osborne name and used it to punt a lne of > PC-compats to governemnt agencies. Many people remain convicned to this > day that Osborne was given the PC supply gig by DEIR because they > agreed to uplift all the WANG PCs and arrange their secure destruction > (government confidential don't you know) In reality many of the things > appeared in 2nd had stores and auction houses - some caused some short > lived scandal when jobseeker and student data was found to be on them, > others of course were never taken out of their box until put on display > for sale/auction. > > Anyway, Osborne went broke, and the PCs delivered were orphaned. The > worst thing was that the majority of them were a low profile device > where th emotherboard had a single extended ISA slot into which a riser > card was plugged and which in turn provided a small number of slots > into which modems, network cards etc could be plugged. Unfortunately > the motherboard had a design fault (poorly specified capacitors if > memory serves) and they all died fairly young deaths. > > > all at great expense to the tax payer of course. > > > anyway, enough from memory lane i have a motorcycle to service priro to > the Asutralia Day ride later this week. > And the above is a great example of lawyer obfuscation, your specialty. -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Grumpy Tech <grumpytech07@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 12:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <o63pth$hhk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57462 |
On 23/01/2017 9:24 AM, Clocky wrote: > On 23/01/2017 2:45 AM, Grumpy Tech wrote: > This is not in defense of Tom, but memory is much like dynamic RAM, not > refreshed often enough it starts to lose bits. Case in point was when > you explained that 486DX4 processor had a 4x multiplier (4x25Mhz) when > in fact the DX4 processors never had a 4x multiplier, it was either 3x > or 2x. > > My memory is clear on this, oft refreshed ;-) > You replied to a post of mine. However I think you were talking to blue. Somewhat confusing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-23 20:18 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <5885f480$0$11095$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57465 |
On 23/01/2017 10:31 AM, Grumpy Tech wrote: > On 23/01/2017 9:24 AM, Clocky wrote: >> On 23/01/2017 2:45 AM, Grumpy Tech wrote: > >> This is not in defense of Tom, but memory is much like dynamic RAM, not >> refreshed often enough it starts to lose bits. Case in point was when >> you explained that 486DX4 processor had a 4x multiplier (4x25Mhz) when >> in fact the DX4 processors never had a 4x multiplier, it was either 3x >> or 2x. >> >> My memory is clear on this, oft refreshed ;-) >> > You replied to a post of mine. However I think you were talking to blue. > Somewhat confusing. > > Sorry about that, my bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web