Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #69605 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-07-19 11:41 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-16 01:24 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-16 15:53 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2025-07-16 12:41 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-16 17:32 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-16 17:54 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-17 03:44 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-07-19 09:48 +0300
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-07-19 17:49 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-21 09:32 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-21 17:08 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-07-21 16:04 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-21 23:06 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 14:46 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-07-21 16:07 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-21 21:16 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:27 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-21 22:42 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-07-21 16:06 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-22 10:08 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-22 22:16 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-07-22 19:19 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 14:44 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-22 20:55 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-22 21:08 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-07-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-07-23 18:48 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 14:04 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 13:13 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-26 15:23 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:43 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:31 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-26 17:52 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 19:44 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-26 17:26 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 17:47 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-26 18:19 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:25 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-26 21:44 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-26 21:12 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-27 22:09 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 23:00 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-28 09:10 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-28 13:02 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-28 12:17 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 11:10 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-03 11:55 +0100
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 14:13 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-04 10:10 +0200
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 17:38 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 15:16 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 22:39 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:46 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-09-06 23:00 +0000
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 15:57 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 18:48 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-07 04:11 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:43 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-08 08:10 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alan Bowler <alantbowler@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 14:07 -0400
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-29 12:57 -0700
Re: slow computers, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:12 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-03 23:09 +0000
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-04 07:48 -0700
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-04 20:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-26 20:21 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-27 16:40 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 08:30 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-28 10:09 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-08-27 19:04 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 04:06 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-09-03 14:53 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-03 20:43 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-27 22:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-28 03:26 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-28 15:56 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 00:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 06:50 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 10:50 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:15 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 12:46 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:28 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2025-08-29 14:40 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:28 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 03:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 00:25 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-30 12:19 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:37 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:23 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-31 17:37 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-31 22:24 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:35 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 07:55 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-01 11:52 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 14:11 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-04 10:41 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 18:38 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-04 18:42 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-04 20:58 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:08 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 08:03 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-05 12:15 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-06 11:17 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-06 07:31 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-09-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-09 22:56 +0000
Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 11:10 +0200
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-10 14:23 +0000
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 14:11 -0400
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-10 21:07 +0200
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-10 19:29 +0000
Re: Halt [Was: Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-10 20:13 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-09-04 22:22 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-04 22:35 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-05 05:06 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-05 12:02 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-08-30 18:30 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-08-31 18:25 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 21:46 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-02 22:44 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 23:55 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Alexander Schreiber <als@usenet.thangorodrim.de> - 2025-09-03 14:31 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-09-03 01:22 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-09-03 01:13 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-31 20:20 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-09-01 14:46 +0300
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-01 14:33 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:03 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-29 14:53 +0200
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2025-08-29 17:09 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-29 19:18 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:51 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 05:54 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 03:06 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:28 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 05:30 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 11:59 +0100
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-08-30 08:26 -0400
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:36 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-30 20:31 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 03:10 +0000
Re: PC/IX, Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-30 08:13 +0100
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-29 22:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-29 21:12 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-29 20:52 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-29 23:34 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:51 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-08-30 15:54 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 12:13 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 19:27 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-30 14:45 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-02 21:22 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-02 14:45 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-09-03 10:40 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-03 07:59 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-03 17:38 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-03 17:51 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-09-02 22:03 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-08-30 19:34 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-31 13:44 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-01 02:36 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-01 01:52 -0400
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:26 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-09-01 08:01 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-01 18:12 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 20:15 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-01 11:20 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-30 11:49 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2025-08-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 12:40 +0200
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2025-08-31 08:19 -0700
Re: Unix on x86, Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> - 2025-08-31 20:10 +0200
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2025-07-21 16:05 -0400
Re: Hmmm ... Downloaded Xenix - But It's *41* Floppies Worth Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2025-07-19 11:41 +0100
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 10:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <105nkev$36maj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69835 |
On 22/07/2025 00:06, Peter Flass wrote: > Desktop Linux now up to 6% and growing rapidly. Must thank Microsoft for > the boost. If you count the various versions of windows separately, I > think they're around 20-some % each. Perhaps now they will start porting some [commercial] programs to it. -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 22:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <105p2jl$l2mh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69840 |
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:08:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 22/07/2025 00:06, Peter Flass wrote: >> >> Desktop Linux now up to 6% and growing rapidly. Must thank Microsoft >> for the boost. If you count the various versions of windows separately, >> I think they're around 20-some % each. > > Perhaps now they will start porting some [commercial] programs to it. Open Source has always been commercial.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn107vp1i.71r2.lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> |
| In reply to | #69835 |
On 2025-07-21, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote: > Desktop Linux now up to 6% and growing rapidly. Must thank Microsoft for > the boost. If you count the various versions of windows separately, I > think they're around 20-some % each. And if you count the various distributions of Linux separately, they are likely no more than 2% each ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 14:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <atNfQ.1034906$sKi9.737448@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #69825 |
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>> > original PC or PC/XT. >>> >>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >> >> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was an >> 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, > >Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. We ran the sixth edition on an 11/34. Also had the unix v32 version on the 11/780 by 1980.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 20:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <meac6kFrqveU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69845 |
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:44:22 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >>On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>>> > original PC or PC/XT. >>>> >>>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >>> >>> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was >>> an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, >> >>Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. > > We ran the sixth edition on an 11/34. Also had the unix v32 version > on the 11/780 by 1980. I think our 780 got V32 in summer 1979. But it wasn't long before we moved to 4.0BSD. -- UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <J5TfQ.2$TQj.0@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #69849 |
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:44:22 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>>>> > original PC or PC/XT. >>>>> >>>>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >>>>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >>>> >>>> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was >>>> an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, >>> >>>Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. >> >> We ran the sixth edition on an 11/34. Also had the unix v32 version >> on the 11/780 by 1980. > >I think our 780 got V32 in summer 1979. But it wasn't long before we moved >to 4.0BSD. In our case, we had to take one of the 11/780s (we had four, plus the MA780 shared memory box with 4MB DRAM) out of production in the late-night/early-morning hours to play with V32. V32 was a bit of a dog since V32 didn't have paging support.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-22 22:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <meahluFrqveU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69850 |
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:08:57 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >>On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:44:22 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is >>>>>> > the original PC or PC/XT. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage >>>>>> PDP-11, >>>>>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 >>>>> was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, >>>> >>>>Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. >>> >>> We ran the sixth edition on an 11/34. Also had the unix v32 version >>> on the 11/780 by 1980. >> >>I think our 780 got V32 in summer 1979. But it wasn't long before we >>moved to 4.0BSD. > > In our case, we had to take one of the 11/780s (we had four, plus the > MA780 shared memory box with 4MB DRAM) out of production in the > late-night/early-morning hours to play with V32. V32 was a bit of a > dog since V32 didn't have paging support. It was indeed. We'd had UNIX since July 1975 (50 years ago this month!) The 780 was delivered to run UNIX, and only had VMS installed to check the hardware. It was later supplemented by a 750. We had countless UNIX systems over the years, from different manufacturers (Sun, for quite a while). I run eight FreeBSD systems here at home. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-23 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b8agQ.30679$Tc12.24824@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #69852 |
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 21:08:57 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >>>On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 14:44:22 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>>> Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> writes: >>>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:32:37 -0700, John Ames wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) >>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> > For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is >>>>>>> > the original PC or PC/XT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage >>>>>>> PDP-11, >>>>>>> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 >>>>>> was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, >>>>> >>>>>Our was acceptable on an 11/40. That was vanilla Sixth Edition. >>>> >>>> We ran the sixth edition on an 11/34. Also had the unix v32 version >>>> on the 11/780 by 1980. >>> >>>I think our 780 got V32 in summer 1979. But it wasn't long before we >>>moved to 4.0BSD. >> >> In our case, we had to take one of the 11/780s (we had four, plus the >> MA780 shared memory box with 4MB DRAM) out of production in the >> late-night/early-morning hours to play with V32. V32 was a bit of a >> dog since V32 didn't have paging support. > >It was indeed. We'd had UNIX since July 1975 (50 years ago this month!) > >The 780 was delivered to run UNIX, and only had VMS installed to check the >hardware. It was later supplemented by a 750. We weren't a unix shop, at the time. The vaxen were running VMS (originally 1.6? (RSX utilities) in testing, 2.0 and later 3.0 in production). The MA780 had installed (INSTALL) compilers and a few other frequently used applications so they could be shared amongst all the 11/780s. When I later started at Burroughs, we ordered a 11/750 to run Simula. More of an experiment, most of the processor modeling was done on a B7900 in ALGOL. > >We had countless UNIX systems over the years, from different manufacturers >(Sun, for quite a while). I run eight FreeBSD systems here at home. Transferred to the Convergent Technologies sub in '89, were we had a number of unix systems (some from the CT side, some from the Unisys side) culminating in OPUS (64 node SVR4/ESMP single-system image loosely coupled MPP machine). We built a 88100-based Unix box (S/8400), which sold well in Japan. SVR4/mk used the Chorus Systemes microkernel and leveraged some of the SVR4/ESMP I/O drivers, but most of the unix actors (Process Management, Object Management (e.g. filesystems), Streams Management (SVR4 Streams) were written in C++. This morphed into the EEC sponsored project Amadeus (Unisys, USL, Fujitsu, ICL et alia) to build a distributed version of SVR4.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 14:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <108k7rn$e12$4@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #69812 |
On 2025-07-21 18:32, John Ames wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 07:14:12 -0000 (UTC) > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >>> For sure it's a really limited Unix port since the target HW is the >>> original PC or PC/XT. >> >> Which is still way more powerful than an early-1970s-vintage PDP-11, >> which is what Bell Labs Unix was originally developed on, and for. > > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 was > an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while the IBM > PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit architecture on > an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance characteristics of the > first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to do a head-to-head shootout. > I don't know if it's recorded whether the Bell Labs -11 was core or > semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz > would have a cycle time of around 209 ns, but with the aforementioned > 8-bit bus. As a naive approximation, that might put them anywhere from > comparable to around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then > the 8088's instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. > Definitely makes one curious... The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or PC/XT.) Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 13:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108k8e7$1a29$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72292 |
On 26/08/2025 13:04, Johnny Billquist wrote: > The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more > powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the > PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. You could equip an *86 with a decent MMU and people did. a 386 running Unix was WAY faster than a PDP/11. > (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a proper > MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or PC/XT.) Well yes, the 386 was what the 8086 should have been all along -- The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about. Anon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 15:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <108kcgb$e12$5@news.misty.com> |
| In reply to | #72295 |
On 2025-08-26 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 26/08/2025 13:04, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. > You could equip an *86 with a decent MMU and people did. The 8086? What decent MMU existed for that? > a 386 running Unix was WAY faster than a PDP/11. It was also about 15 years later than the first PDP-11, and a few years later than the last new implementation of any PDP-11 at all by DEC. >> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a >> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or >> PC/XT.) > > Well yes, the 386 was what the 8086 should have been all along Yes, eventually it got a bit more sorted out. Johnny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 19:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108kv7u$73g4$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72299 |
On 26/08/2025 14:23, Johnny Billquist wrote: > On 2025-08-26 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 26/08/2025 13:04, Johnny Billquist wrote: >>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. >> You could equip an *86 with a decent MMU and people did. > > The 8086? What decent MMU existed for that? > >> a 386 running Unix was WAY faster than a PDP/11. > > It was also about 15 years later than the first PDP-11, and a few years > later than the last new implementation of any PDP-11 at all by DEC. > Indeed it was. And it was way cheaper than a VAX too >>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a >>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or >>> PC/XT.) >> >> Well yes, the 386 was what the 8086 should have been all along > > Yes, eventually it got a bit more sorted out. > > Johnny > -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250826083118.00001403@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #72292 |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200 Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 > > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while > > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit > > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance > > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to > > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether > > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns > > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around > > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive > > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to > > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's > > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely > > makes one curious... > > The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more > powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the > PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. > (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a > proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or > PC/XT.) The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one. I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit I've never looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math was way off; the 8086/88 can only perform a memory access every fourth cycle, so the PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison would be more like ~836 ns, barely faster than core even *before* you factor in the 8-bit bottle- neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what a *dog.*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 17:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20250826175241.3e53fac53d3f520742b5226b@127.0.0.1> |
| In reply to | #72308 |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:31:18 -0700 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200 > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > > > > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 > > > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while > > > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit > > > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance > > > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to > > > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether > > > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns > > > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around > > > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive > > > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to > > > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's > > > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely > > > makes one curious... > > > > The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more > > powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the > > PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. > > (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a > > proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or > > PC/XT.) > > The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one. > I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit I've never > looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math was way off; the > 8086/88 can only perform a memory access every fourth cycle, so the > PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison would be more like ~836 ns, > barely faster than core even *before* you factor in the 8-bit bottle- > neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what a *dog.* > Sure, but the idea was you had it *all to yourself* /Mwhah-hah-hah-hah!/ Sorry, I don't know what came over me there. -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 10:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20250826100126.00000d21@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #72313 |
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 17:52:41 +0100 "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote: > > The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant > > one. I've never heard of an add-on MMU for the 8086, but I admit > > I've never looked. In any case, I realize now that my napkin math > > was way off; the 8086/88 can only perform a memory access every > > fourth cycle, so the PC's approximate "cycle time" by comparison > > would be more like ~836 ns, barely faster than core even *before* > > you factor in the 8-bit bottle- neck or DRAM refresh. Ye gods, what > > a *dog.* > > Sure, but the idea was you had it *all to yourself* > /Mwhah-hah-hah-hah!/ Sorry, I don't know what came over me there. Admittedly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 19:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <108kv9g$73g4$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72313 |
On 26/08/2025 17:52, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: > Sure, but the idea was you had it*all to yourself* /Mwhah-hah-hah-hah!/ > Sorry, I don't know what came over me there. A masturbating elephant? -- "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108kqnu$615d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #72308 |
In comp.os.linux.misc John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200 > Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: > >> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 >> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while >> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit >> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance >> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to >> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether >> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns >> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around >> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive >> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to >> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's >> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely >> > makes one curious... >> >> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. >> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a >> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or >> PC/XT.) > > The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one. That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU". The 286 had a segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU. Paging was not added until the 386. And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mh6aa9Ft773U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #72315 |
In article <108kqnu$615d$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >In comp.os.linux.misc John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200 >> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >> >>> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 >>> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while >>> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit >>> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance >>> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to >>> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether >>> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns >>> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around >>> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive >>> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to >>> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's >>> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely >>> > makes one curious... >>> >>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. >>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a >>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or >>> PC/XT.) >> >> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one. > >That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU". The 286 had a >segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU. Paging was not added until the >386. And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU". I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect running programs from each other. PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other *if* nothing went wrong. If something went wrong, (which presumably you could easily provoke in assembler code) one program could trash another's RAM. What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could. -- columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OUmrQ.407682$l%O3.141944@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #72316 |
ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes: >In article <108kqnu$615d$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >>In comp.os.linux.misc John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 14:04:07 +0200 >>> Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote: >>> >>>> > Hmm, that's an interesting question, actually - the Bell Labs -11 >>>> > was an 11/45, which was much faster than the original -11s, while >>>> > the IBM PC was really a bit of a dog thanks to having a 16-bit >>>> > architecture on an 8-bit bus and the generally poor performance >>>> > characteristics of the first-generation x86 CPUs. It'd be neat to >>>> > do a head-to-head shootout. I don't know if it's recorded whether >>>> > the Bell Labs -11 was core or semiconductor memory (980 vs. 450 ns >>>> > cycle time;) the PC at 4.77 MHz would have a cycle time of around >>>> > 209 ns, but with the aforementioned 8-bit bus. As a naive >>>> > approximation, that might put them anywhere from comparable to >>>> > around twice the memory bandwidth for the PC...but then the 8088's >>>> > instruction times are kinda abysmal even on top of that. Definitely >>>> > makes one curious... >>>> >>>> The claim has another problem. While an x86 might be considered more >>>> powerful in some ways, it does not have nearly as capably MMU as the >>>> PDP-11, and that really trips the whole thing over when comparing. >>>> (I'm not sure I would even say the x86 have anything resembling a >>>> proper MMU... Not before the 80386 anyway, which was not in a PC or >>>> PC/XT.) >>> >>> The 286 had a proper MMU, but not (AFAIUI) a terribly performant one. >> >>That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU". The 286 had a >>segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU. Paging was not added until the >>386. And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU". > >I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed >at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect >running programs from each other. PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked >on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed >in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other >*if* nothing went wrong. If something went wrong, (which presumably >you could easily provoke in assembler code) one program could trash >another's RAM. Protected mode provided four privilege rings, task management and memory protection at the segment level. > >What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could. To the extent that a segment could be marked not-present in the GDT or LDT, the 286 supported virtual memory. The segment desrcriptor supported an accessed bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-26 20:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <108l56v$77t$2@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #72316 |
According to Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan>: >>That also depends on one's definition of "proper MMU". The 286 had a >>segmented MMU, but lacked a paged MMU. Paging was not added until the >>386. And there are some that define "proper MMU" as "paged MMU". > >I don't know the MMU details for the 286, but my undestanding (formed >at the time) is that it was "proper" in that it could actually protect >running programs from each other. It could, but if your programs used more than one segment for code or data, the switching was extremely slow and painful. Since the segments were of variable size, that meant operating systems had to do free space compaction that paging systems don't need. > PC-IX and I presume Xenix worked >on the 8088/8086 by having the C compiler emit code which stayed >in a segment -- so programs wouldn't interfere with each other There was 286 Xenix that used multiple segments in protected mode. I never used it. >What the 286 couldn't do was virtual memory, which the 386 could. Sure it could. The system could mark segments as nonresident and take a fault and swap them in as needed. I wouldn't call that very good virtual memory, but it's definitely virtual memory. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web