Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #211682 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-01 19:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-07-05 16:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-01 19:25 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-06-02 07:49 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 00:26 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 00:35 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-02 08:18 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 02:45 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 02:57 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-06-02 10:06 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-02 11:52 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2020-06-02 12:18 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-06-02 11:31 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 05:05 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been daphne@panix.com (Daphne Eftychia Arthur) - 2020-06-03 18:09 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 14:01 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 17:54 -0700
Re: What ASCII actually is John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-04 02:11 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been daphne@panix.com (Daphne Eftychia Arthur) - 2020-06-04 03:05 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 20:26 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been daphne@panix.com (Daphne Eftychia Arthur) - 2020-06-04 03:27 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 20:31 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 20:41 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2020-06-06 02:22 +0800
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 11:33 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2020-06-06 13:58 +0800
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-06 11:10 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-02 19:46 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 23:24 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 23:36 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-03 17:22 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 10:33 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-03 20:30 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 13:40 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-04 16:59 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-03 19:50 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 17:47 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-06-03 20:53 -0300
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-04 00:08 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-06-03 17:10 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 17:48 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-06-04 03:11 -0300
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-04 01:18 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-06-05 03:50 -0300
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-05 00:44 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 07:53 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-05 08:04 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 10:03 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2020-06-05 11:05 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-05 09:27 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-05 11:45 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-05 09:55 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 10:16 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-06-05 18:23 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 10:03 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-06-07 15:05 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-07 09:28 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-06-07 19:56 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-07 16:15 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-05 17:31 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 11:24 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-05 15:02 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-05 17:40 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-06 00:10 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-05 19:44 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-06 01:54 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-05 10:03 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-05 11:57 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2020-06-06 11:15 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-06 11:10 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2020-06-06 16:14 -0500
Brest U-boat pens (was: Re: What ASCII Should Have Been "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@invalid.org> - 2020-06-07 10:01 +0000
Re: Brest U-boat pens (was: Re: What ASCII Should Have Been "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@invalid.org> - 2020-06-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Brest U-boat pens Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-07 15:54 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2020-06-06 19:12 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-06 19:40 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-07 01:22 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-06 22:22 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-07 10:46 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-07 07:58 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-07 15:37 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Gareth Evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-07 21:52 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-06 19:44 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Alfred Falk <aefalk@telus.net> - 2020-06-07 03:11 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 23:25 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-02 23:27 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-03 10:40 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-03 12:05 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-03 13:08 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-03 15:47 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-03 17:20 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-03 17:26 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 10:35 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-03 18:03 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-03 19:27 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-03 18:38 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-03 13:41 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-03 21:15 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-04 00:25 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-05 18:27 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-05 12:00 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-07 16:52 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-07 10:21 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-07 11:03 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-07 19:08 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-07 13:00 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-07 16:09 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-06-09 09:18 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-09 07:22 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-09 11:51 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-09 15:40 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-09 16:25 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-10 06:52 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-10 10:22 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-10 14:26 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-06-10 20:54 +0000
Re: What the DEC-20 was, not ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-10 18:30 +0000
Re: What the DEC-20 was, not ASCII Should Have Been Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2020-06-11 19:01 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-06-10 19:35 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-11 12:59 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-11 07:59 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-11 17:31 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-11 21:29 -0700
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-06-12 07:04 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-12 09:06 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-12 05:32 -0700
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS Gareth Evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 14:11 +0100
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2020-06-12 13:41 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-12 14:33 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan Gareth Evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 16:14 +0100
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan Gareth Evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 16:07 +0100
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2020-06-12 16:59 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 10:31 -0700
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS => Alfred Morgan Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-06-12 20:33 +0100
Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-06-12 17:09 -0300
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-12 14:12 -0700
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 19:54 -0400
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 19:54 -0400
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-06-13 02:57 -0300
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 02:15 -0400
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) Gareth Evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-14 13:54 +0100
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-14 15:30 -0700
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-06-14 22:57 -0300
Re: Fun with X-raays (thread drift from BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING...) JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2020-06-14 21:00 -0500
Re: Fun with X-rays robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-14 21:12 -0700
Re: Fun with X-rays JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2020-06-15 10:05 -0500
Re: Fun with X-rays Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-15 10:05 -0700
Re: Fun with X-rays Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-15 13:26 -0500
Re: Fun with X-rays John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-15 18:46 +0000
Re: Fun with X-rays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-15 19:30 -0400
Re: Fun with X-rays Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-15 20:36 -0500
Re: Fun with X-rays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-15 22:27 -0400
Re: Fun with X-rays Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-16 06:40 +0000
Re: Radium girls, not Fun with X-rays John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-15 17:29 +0000
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-12 07:49 -0700
Re: BATTERY RADIOS & STIRLING MOTORS robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-12 08:50 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2020-06-12 06:07 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-06-14 14:50 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@invalid.org> - 2020-06-14 15:01 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-06-14 11:36 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-06-14 18:03 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-06-18 18:48 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-09 07:26 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-06-09 12:02 -0400
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-09 11:08 -0500
Subject line evolution Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-06-09 17:33 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-09 11:51 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-06-18 18:48 +0000
Re: fast emulators, not What ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-09 17:43 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-06-18 18:48 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-09 07:32 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-09 07:47 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-09 11:51 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-06-18 18:49 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-06-18 18:50 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-06-09 15:24 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-09 11:51 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been pechter@lakewoodmicro.com () - 2020-06-16 20:55 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-05 21:27 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-06-05 16:54 -0500
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-06-05 22:44 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-05 23:18 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-03 16:37 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-06-04 05:23 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been robin.vowels@gmail.com - 2020-06-03 16:35 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-06-04 11:31 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-04 07:05 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-04 07:06 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-06-04 15:23 +0000
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-06-04 09:38 -0700
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-06-04 17:31 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-06-09 10:25 +0100
Re: What ASCII Should Have Been Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-07-05 16:35 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-12 06:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hkgkdmFfl7rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #211875 |
On 11 Jun 2020 at 17:31:46, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb: >> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > >>> The Stirling motor is especially interesting; the first big >>> application failed because of the introduction of the transistor. > >> Sounds interesting, makes me want to know more. > > The first big application for Stirling motors was radios > in places where there was no electricity. > > Because of the high power requirements of vaccum tubes, you needed > a fairly big power source to power them - batteries did not have > enough capacity. We had a valve radio in the 40s. HT (I think it was 120V) was supplied by a battery as big as a biscuit tin and the valves' heater current came from an accumulator, a glass jar filled with liquid and two electrodes. The accumulator was exchanged weekly at the local cycle shop. > > Along came the transistor and the transistor radio, which > you could power with batteries without a problem. > > And the market was gone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hkmrpvFp6q4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #211869 |
On 2020-06-11, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > > The Stirling motor is especially interesting; the first big > application failed because of the introduction of the transistor. It has, of course, made a comeback. Niklas -- Dark chocolate and stem ginger--though tasty--are probably sub-optimal materials for constructing FTL-capable spaceships. --Tanuki
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsABDCA2F60A52Fadmin127001@144.76.35.198> |
| In reply to | #211946 |
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:50:39 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: > On 2020-06-11, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: >> >> The Stirling motor is especially interesting; the first big >> application failed because of the introduction of the transistor. > > It has, of course, made a comeback. > > Niklas I tried making one out of cola cans, but obviously my engineering skills are not up to it. I wanted [still do] a fan to go on the woodstove. None of this peltier effect conversion inefficiency! -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 11:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <atgcefhr8b907ssub8h7t6vpn52qu8l9bv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #211946 |
On 14 Jun 2020 14:50:39 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >On 2020-06-11, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: >> >> The Stirling motor is especially interesting; the first big >> application failed because of the introduction of the transistor. > >It has, of course, made a comeback. It has? Where are they in widespread use? By the way, Philips is the outfit that was making them to power radios. They made 250 of them, couldn't sell them all, decided that they weren't cost-effective, and that was pretty much the end of that. The transistor had only a small part in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-14 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hkn73qFquk2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #211948 |
On 2020-06-14, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2020 14:50:39 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
>>On 2020-06-11, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Stirling motor is especially interesting; the first big
>>> application failed because of the introduction of the transistor.
>>
>>It has, of course, made a comeback.
>
> It has? Where are they in widespread use?
Well, "widespread" is in the eye of the beholder, but they are used as
air-independent propulsion on non-nuclear submarines in at least two
countries (Sweden and Japan).
I've also seen it used as an alternative to photovoltaic panels in solar
power.
Regards,
Niklas
--
The true sysadmin does not adjust his behaviour to fit the machine. He adjusts
the machine until it behaves properly. With a hammer, if necessary.
-- Brian Kantor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-18 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5eebb6f5.5809483@news.dslextreme.com> |
| In reply to | #211848 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:22:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: >> Uh, no. They did not "discontinue the DECsystem-20 in favor of the VAX." The >> way you phrased it, it sounds like there was a deliberate, intentional strategy >> to move PDP-10 customers (who used TOPS-10 or TOPS-20) to the VAX. There simply >> wasn't. DEC screwed up so badly in producing a follow-on processor to the KL10 >> model that they eventually threw in the towel and discontinued the product line >> with a sudden end-of-life announcement. > >Oh. I did not know that, instead I uncritically accepted the posts here by a >former DEC employee about the demise of the PDP-10 architecture which was, in >her eyes, very unfortunate. It was very unfortunate. I think you're mischaracterizing what happened, which of course was complicated. "DEC discontinued the DECsystem-20 in favor of the VAX" is true in the sense of the relative allocation of corporate resources to the respective product lines, but not in the sense that there was a direct connection between the two product lines and their user communities, or that there was some kind of competition as to what direction DEC should take in their product offerings. The VAX was explicitly an extension of the PDP-11, and its users largely came from the various PDP-11 communities. Many PDP-10 sites had already been around for years before the VAX debuted. However despite their success with the PDP-10, the bulk of DEC's bread and butter came from the PDP-11 and then the VAX. DEC's identity, inside and out, was that of a minicomputer company. That identity started shifting -- implicitly at first, and later explicitly -- to that of 'the VAX/VMS company.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 07:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36e00da0-1c2d-40a4-aa38-6ba897f6b477o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211846 |
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: > Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing > is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically > possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would > have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on > the bare metal. Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. Given the nature of the VAX instruction set, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that VAX implementations were _microprogrammed_ instead of hardwired. While some additional circuitry would still be needed to assist in emulation of what was very different hardware, a microprogrammed processor, in general, has the potential to have a relatively small performance loss when doing emulation. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 12:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rbobr4$h5l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211849 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: > >> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >> is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >> possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >> have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on >> the bare metal. > > Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 > computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. For the 1401 S/360 emulation was faster the 1401 it replaced. Don't know about 7090s. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 11:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rboc5t$k1e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #211853 |
On 6/9/2020 11:02 AM, Dan Espen wrote: > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > >> On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: >> >>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >>> is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >>> possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >>> have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on >>> the bare metal. >> >> Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 >> computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. > > For the 1401 S/360 emulation was faster the 1401 it replaced. Don't > know about 7090s. > What is the current expectation for evolving the Subject: text for these threads here in alt.folklore.computers ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 17:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Subject line evolution |
| Message-ID | <20200609173352.a8be1298afefa2a44edd17b1@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #211854 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:08:29 -0500 Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote: > What is the current expectation for evolving the Subject: text for these > threads here in alt.folklore.computers ? Subject lines might change if/when someone remembers to do so, threads will drift. It's been that way for a very long time now. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864719163.613421429.833878.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #211854 |
Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote: > On 6/9/2020 11:02 AM, Dan Espen wrote: >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: >>> >>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >>>> is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >>>> possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >>>> have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on >>>> the bare metal. >>> >>> Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 >>> computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. >> >> For the 1401 S/360 emulation was faster the 1401 it replaced. Don't >> know about 7090s. >> > > What is the current expectation for evolving the Subject: text for these threads here in > alt.folklore.computers ? > > Expect nothing, and you’ll never be disappointed. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-18 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5eebb712.5837724@news.dslextreme.com> |
| In reply to | #211854 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:08:29 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote: >On 6/9/2020 11:02 AM, Dan Espen wrote: >> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: >>> On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: >>> >>>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >>>> is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >>>> possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >>>> have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on >>>> the bare metal. >>> >>> Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 >>> computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. >> >> For the 1401 S/360 emulation was faster the 1401 it replaced. Don't >> know about 7090s. > >What is the current expectation for evolving the Subject: text for these threads here in >alt.folklore.computers ? None, per the moderator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 17:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: fast emulators, not What ASCII Should Have Been |
| Message-ID | <rbohod$1pd0$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #211853 |
In article <rbobr4$h5l$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 >> computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. > >For the 1401 S/360 emulation was faster the 1401 it replaced. Don't >know about 7090s. All of the emulations were at least as fast as the original. That's why the 709x emulator needed a 360/65. -- 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]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-18 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5eebb705.5824815@news.dslextreme.com> |
| In reply to | #211849 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: > >> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >> is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >> possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >> have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on >> the bare metal. > >Well, this *is* what IBM did to help the legions of its customers with 7090 >computers and 1401 computers migrate gradually to the 360. > >Given the nature of the VAX instruction set, I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, >that VAX implementations were _microprogrammed_ instead of hardwired. While some >additional circuitry would still be needed to assist in emulation of what was >very different hardware, a microprogrammed processor, in general, has the >potential to have a relatively small performance loss when doing emulation. The bleedin' microprogramming don't enter into it... the VAX wasn't as fast as a KL10 to begin with. And with your magic wand, you're also conjuring up some "additional circuitry," which would be substantial. It's not just that the CPU is a different architecture, it's also all the peripherals. For example, a typical KL10 had one or two PDP-11 front-ends that communicated via direct memory access and facilitated much of the I/O. The VAX of that time simply couldn't handle the same load.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4dba915-686b-481c-86c3-835074526d4fo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211846 |
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: > DEC screwed up so badly in producing a follow-on processor to the KL10 > model that they eventually threw in the towel and discontinued the product line > with a sudden end-of-life announcement. > Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing > is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically > possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would > have been terrible. Of course, if DEC wasn't competent to *build* a new PDP-10 computer, then presumably they would also not be competent to build an add-in card containing a 36-bit ALU, an extra bit or to by which to widen microprogram ROM, and a new microprogram to allow a VAX to also be a *reasonably fast* PDP-10, since, while theoretically possible (remember, IBM pulled it off) it _is_ harder than simply implementing the PDP-10 architecture in new and upgraded technology. So if they can't do the easier thing, indeed I am mistaken in being sanguine about them doing the harder thing. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 07:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20ff8386-77f3-490e-97ea-8895806fd312o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211850 |
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 8:32:37 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > Of course, if DEC wasn't competent to *build* a new PDP-10 computer, then > presumably they would also not be competent to build an add-in card containing a > 36-bit ALU, an extra bit or to by which to widen microprogram ROM, and a new > microprogram to allow a VAX to also be a *reasonably fast* PDP-10, since, while > theoretically possible (remember, IBM pulled it off) it _is_ harder than simply > implementing the PDP-10 architecture in new and upgraded technology. Also, widening the microprogram ROM with an add-in card... would obviously involve some *backplane wiring*. Except that a VAX 11/780 was implemented using LSI and was thus at a higher level of integration than an early IBM System/360 which was implemented by something that just barely qualified as SSI. (Fake 7400-style logic made from mounting naked discrete transistors on tiny circuit boards... I know this isn't an entirely fair description of SLT, but it'll have to do for kids nowadays.) So it's not clear that the functions one would have to alter are in fact brought out to the backplane where they're accessible. Instead, they would have to redesign the whole CPU to include a reasonably fast emulation (not simulation in software) feature. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44772059.613421305.141323.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #211851 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 8:32:37 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > >> Of course, if DEC wasn't competent to *build* a new PDP-10 computer, then >> presumably they would also not be competent to build an add-in card containing a >> 36-bit ALU, an extra bit or to by which to widen microprogram ROM, and a new >> microprogram to allow a VAX to also be a *reasonably fast* PDP-10, since, while >> theoretically possible (remember, IBM pulled it off) it _is_ harder than simply >> implementing the PDP-10 architecture in new and upgraded technology. > > Also, widening the microprogram ROM with an add-in card... > > would obviously involve some *backplane wiring*. > > Except that a VAX 11/780 was implemented using LSI and was thus at a higher > level of integration than an early IBM System/360 which was implemented by > something that just barely qualified as SSI. (Fake 7400-style logic made from > mounting naked discrete transistors on tiny circuit boards... I know this isn't > an entirely fair description of SLT, but it'll have to do for kids nowadays.) > > So it's not clear that the functions one would have to alter are in fact brought > out to the backplane where they're accessible. Instead, they would have to > redesign the whole CPU to include a reasonably fast emulation (not simulation in > software) feature. > > John Savard > That was supposed to be their VAX follow-on (forgot the name). All microprogrammed to support multiple personalities. Of course by that time most of the PDP-10 users had moved on. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-18 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5eebb71d.5848850@news.dslextreme.com> |
| In reply to | #211851 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 8:32:37 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: >> Of course, if DEC wasn't competent to *build* a new PDP-10 computer, then >> presumably they would also not be competent to build an add-in card containing a >> 36-bit ALU, an extra bit or to by which to widen microprogram ROM, and a new >> microprogram to allow a VAX to also be a *reasonably fast* PDP-10, since, while >> theoretically possible (remember, IBM pulled it off) it _is_ harder than simply >> implementing the PDP-10 architecture in new and upgraded technology. > >Also, widening the microprogram ROM with an add-in card... > >would obviously involve some *backplane wiring*. > >Except that a VAX 11/780 was implemented using LSI and was thus at a higher >level of integration than an early IBM System/360 which was implemented by >something that just barely qualified as SSI. (Fake 7400-style logic made from >mounting naked discrete transistors on tiny circuit boards... I know this isn't >an entirely fair description of SLT, but it'll have to do for kids nowadays.) > >So it's not clear that the functions one would have to alter are in fact brought >out to the backplane where they're accessible. Instead, they would have to >redesign the whole CPU to include a reasonably fast emulation (not simulation in >software) feature. And while they're doing that, why don't they just redesign a whole new PDP-10 processor, hey? It took somewhere between two and three VAX 780s to equal a KL10 to begin with. And the whole goal was to produce a substantially faster PDP10. Regardless of microprogramming, backplane re-wiring, etc. a VAX of that era wasn't going to deliver the required performance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | usenet@only.tnx (Questor) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-18 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5eebb737.5874977@news.dslextreme.com> |
| In reply to | #211850 |
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:32:35 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:17:30 AM UTC-6, Questor wrote: >> DEC screwed up so badly in producing a follow-on processor to the KL10 >> model that they eventually threw in the towel and discontinued the product line >> with a sudden end-of-life announcement. > >> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >> is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >> possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >> have been terrible. > >Of course, if DEC wasn't competent to *build* a new PDP-10 computer, then DEC certainly was competent. It's more complicated than that. It's largely an issue of resources and timing. Lots of ideas for new PDP-10s got kicked around -- bigger versions, a smaller one that could fit under a desk, etc. In the end, only one project was approved and funded. It's code name was Jupiter, and it was going to be a much faster machine. It would have to be, because in a sense it was already "late." This is what I mean when I say the timing was bad. I don't know why a follow-on processor to the KL10 took so long to get started, but it did. That might have been the first sign of neglect of the PDP-10 product line. I don't have any of the technological details, so I can only make some broad statements. The Jupiter project was aiming for somewhere between seven and ten times the performance of a KL10. It would have extended the life of the PDP-10 product line well through the '80s. But apparently the design was a little risky. There was trouble getting it to work. Eventually it was concluded that at best they could only get two to three times the speed of a KL10. By the time they might have been able to release it to the market, it would have long been too little, too late. Retrenching and starting over with a different design would have taken even longer. There was nothing else on the drawing board, no plan B. It had already been over eight years since the KL10 debuted. Even in those days, that was way, way too long between new and improved models. At the same time the Jupiter project -- the only new PDP-10 processor in active development -- was failing, there were at least four, and possibly more, new VAX CPUs in the works. Projects that were approved, funded, and in progress. Even if one or two of them bombed, there would still be other new models. This is what I mean when I say allocation of corporate resources. Implicitly or explicitly, the decision had been made years before: DEC was the VAX company. The announcement of the Jupiter project's cancellation and the end-of-life for the PDP-10 product line was simply more confirmation of that corporate identity. >presumably they would also not be competent to build an add-in card containing a >36-bit ALU, an extra bit or to by which to widen microprogram ROM, and a new >microprogram to allow a VAX to also be a *reasonably fast* PDP-10, since, while >theoretically possible (remember, IBM pulled it off) it _is_ harder than simply >implementing the PDP-10 architecture in new and upgraded technology. You speak about what is theoretically possible, while I am talking about practical reality. The suggestions you made would be more complicated, take too long to implement, and still would not deliver the performance required. None of those would have been started while the Jupiter project was still viable. And by the time it became clear that the Jupiter project wasn't going to meet its goals, it was way too late.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-09 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rbo9jq$oh9$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #211846 |
In article <5edf53ba.4570291@news.dslextreme.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote: >>Since the PDP-10 was a 36-bit big-endian system, and the VAX a 32-bit little- >>endian system, however, one will have to forgive some limitations. Instead, they >>should simply have done what IBM did with the 360: allow the VAX to run the >>PDP-10 compilers and the code they generate in emulation mode. > >Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Uh, no and no. It sounds like what you are proposing >is running a PDP-10/TOPS-20 emulation on the VAX. Yes, that was theoretically >possible -- just "a small matter of programming" -- but the performance would >have been terrible. One might as well write TOPS-20 for the VAX and run it on >the bare metal. IBM did exactly that to migrate people from older systems to the 360. As a matter of policy, they only offered emulations that were at least as fast as the original, so you could emulate a 1401 on a 360/30, but to emulate a 7094, you needed a high end 360/65 mainframe. DEC was a much smaller company than IBM and given that they didn't have the engineering depth to build a new PDP-10 it's implausible they would have been able to do the extra microcode and probably hardware to do emulated PDP-10 on a VAX. -- 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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web