Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 05:05 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-20 13:57 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:26 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 10:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:13 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-25 21:35 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:28 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 17:49 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:29 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-21 12:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:36 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 09:38 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 11:07 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 11:35 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 12:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:52 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-23 23:16 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 00:21 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-24 13:23 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 15:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-24 22:37 +0200
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 15:53 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 16:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-26 16:24 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 16:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:33 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 06:49 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:02 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:18 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:39 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-26 16:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:36 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:26 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-27 12:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-27 09:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 08:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:43 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 19:05 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 16:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 05:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:37 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-27 18:48 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 08:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:37 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 12:19 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 11:08 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 18:46 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:58 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-28 22:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:39 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 22:52 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-29 15:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 16:47 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:04 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 05:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:21 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:48 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 14:47 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:09 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:18 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-29 18:02 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:28 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:42 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:49 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:57 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-30 08:39 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-31 09:36 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:38 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:23 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:44 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 12:25 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:32 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-01 12:48 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:07 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:52 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:48 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:31 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-01 23:55 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-02 14:59 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:29 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:53 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:24 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:20 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 18:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:50 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:33 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:55 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:18 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 20:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:37 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-11-03 06:56 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:14 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-30 20:50 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:05 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:29 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:51 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-26 09:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:28 -0700
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-26 17:19 +0000
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-26 17:02 -0400
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:40 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:34 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-27 07:00 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2015-10-27 10:15 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-27 20:09 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:42 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:22 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:23 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 16:09 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 19:31 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-26 13:10 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:45 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn34odc.32f.mausg@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #153532 |
On 2015-10-29, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-10-29, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >>> >>> And that requires a file. >> >> No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean >> that one would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings >> could cause short circuits. > > You bastard. :-) > I should add that a bastard is a type of file. Bit rough in a computer. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20151029180243.1ceb69205fac2064a582307b@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #153532 |
On 29 Oct 2015 17:19:48 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-10-29, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > > > >> Rod Speed wrote: > >> > >>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > >> > >> And that requires a file. > > > > No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean > > that one would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal > > filings could cause short circuits. > > You bastard. :-) He rasped. -- 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 | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tshp0v6p@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153546 |
On 2015-10-29, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 29 Oct 2015 17:19:48 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2015-10-29, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >>>> >>>> And that requires a file. >>> >>> No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean >>> that one would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal >>> filings could cause short circuits. >> >> You bastard. :-) > > He rasped. <groan> Is it still a Tom Swiftie if it's not done with an adverb? "I'm going to end it all," Sue sighed. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 11:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87k2q537p5.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153515 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Rod Speed wrote: > >> > By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > >> And that requires a file. > > No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean that one > would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings could cause > short circuits. > > John Savard Best Response EVAR. Actually, one of the things that really impressed me with DEC gear was the detail they paid to mechanical issues ... The heavy cast card lifters on the hex-size cards made me smile ... mostly because I worked on a telco switch where the lifters were these horrible stamped tin lifters that afforded no purchase on getting cards in or out. (Looking at *YOU* Siemens!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523526E4B0748@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153515 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 7:55:59 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Rod Speed wrote: > >> > By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > >> And that requires a file. > > No, sometimes it just requires a screwdriver. Using a file would mean that one > would have to replace *another* part too. Plus the metal filings could cause > short circuits. <GRIN> /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 08:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <871tcd4tyx.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153512 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > > And that requires a file. To be pedantic, it doesn't ... I have personally, over the years, produced a handful of ROMs that had no source file whatsoever. Or, more accurately, the source material was a sheet of paper sitting in my notebook, and I sat and programmed the PROM with a programmer. Then, we just copied that for each of the systems I needed to ship. Now, that's an extreme case to prove that "there has to be a file somewhere" is fallacious on its surface. For the majority of things I've worked with over the years, there were source files and object files and binary files and we could re-produce from source material any of the versions of the ROMs that were in the field. > > /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0tbhi$e59$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153522 |
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:871tcd4tyx.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > To be pedantic, it doesn't ... I have personally, over the years, > produced a handful of ROMs that had no source file whatsoever. Or, more > accurately, the source material was a sheet of paper sitting in my > notebook, and I sat and programmed the PROM with a programmer. The Omitec company in Devizes did just that with their early engine analysers, typing hex codes into the Softy (tm) PROM programmer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 08:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87oafh3epa.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153525 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > The Omitec company in Devizes did just that with their early engine > analysers, > typing hex codes into the Softy (tm) PROM programmer. I had a rather nice DATAIO programmer ... I chucked it fifteen yeas ago when I moved abroad and I had to ask myself "Is this ___________ worth US$10 a kilo to brng with me?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523527BE25F1B@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153522 |
Lawrence Statton wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >> >> And that requires a file. > > To be pedantic, it doesn't ... I have personally, over the years, > produced a handful of ROMs that had no source file whatsoever. Or, more > accurately, the source material was a sheet of paper sitting in my > notebook, and I sat and programmed the PROM with a programmer. > > Then, we just copied that for each of the systems I needed to ship. You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? > > Now, that's an extreme case to prove that "there has to be a file > somewhere" is fallacious on its surface. Then we have very different definitions of "file". > > For the majority of things I've worked with over the years, there were > source files and object files and binary files and we could re-produce > from source material any of the versions of the ROMs that were in the > field. In those cases, there were files. DEC would package such a product. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 08:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87lhakmnee.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153603 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you > reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype > the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? The source was never typed not once ever. I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, and wrote down the resulting opcodes. If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned the page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and wrote down the new series of opcodes. It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) > >> >> Now, that's an extreme case to prove that "there has to be a file >> somewhere" is fallacious on its surface. > > Then we have very different definitions of "file". Both the 'golden ROM' and the sheet of notes on my desk could be considered files in a semantic sense, but they you're now changing the meaning of "file" mid-stream. This entire branch started because you refused to believe that there could be microcode that was not part of your tape-prep process. >> >> For the majority of things I've worked with over the years, there were >> source files and object files and binary files and we could re-produce >> from source material any of the versions of the ROMs that were in the >> field. > > In those cases, there were files. DEC would package such a product. > I guess you're using some private-to-yourself definition of "package such a product" that you have to explain to those of us who actually work in the computer industry. > /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005236693A0CC3E@aca4804e.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153607 |
Lawrence Statton wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you >> reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype >> the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? > > The source was never typed not once ever. > > I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, and > wrote down the resulting opcodes. > > If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned the > page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and > wrote down the new series of opcodes. > > It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where > I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM > programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and > verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could > compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income solely from the manufacturing. > >> >>> >>> Now, that's an extreme case to prove that "there has to be a file >>> somewhere" is fallacious on its surface. >> >> Then we have very different definitions of "file". > > Both the 'golden ROM' and the sheet of notes on my desk could be > considered files in a semantic sense, but they you're now changing the > meaning of "file" mid-stream. This entire branch started because you > refused to believe that there could be microcode that was not part of > your tape-prep process. I'm not changing the definition of file; you all are. > >>> >>> For the majority of things I've worked with over the years, there were >>> source files and object files and binary files and we could re-produce >>> from source material any of the versions of the ROMs that were in the >>> field. >> >> In those cases, there were files. DEC would package such a product. >> > > I guess you're using some private-to-yourself definition of "package > such a product" that you have to explain to those of us who actually > work in the computer industry. Clearly, "those of us" aren't manufacturing. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 09:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87a8qzm4mj.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153684 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > Lawrence Statton wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you >>> reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype >>> the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? >> >> The source was never typed not once ever. >> >> I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, and >> wrote down the resulting opcodes. >> >> If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned the >> page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and >> wrote down the new series of opcodes. >> >> It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where >> I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM >> programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and >> verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could >> compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) > > That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing > environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income > solely from the manufacturing. Considering that I am still in business and DEC isn't, it would seem your point of view is dead wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eabaf2b6-8481-4419-b546-e711b385b65f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153693 |
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 9:36:54 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Statton wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > > Lawrence Statton wrote: > >> It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where > >> I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM > >> programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and > >> verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could > >> compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) > > That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing > > environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income > > solely from the manufacturing. > Considering that I am still in business and DEC isn't, it would seem > your point of view is dead wrong. While patches - as opposed to recompiles - certainly have their place in the computing business, your statement is a _non sequitur_. The Digital Equipment Corporation went out of business for reasons that are well known: the marketplace for computers changed as the technology advanced, the old guard made a few wrong guesses as to which way to go to keep up, and the new blood made the same mistake that took place at another computer company (RCA or maybe Data General) - they tried to act too much like IBM than made sense for a much smaller competitor of theirs. Barb is quite familiar with that story. They definitely did not go out of business because of sloppy engineering. (And considering that they were, for a time, the lowest price mini vendor, that is an accomplishment.) John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 15:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9lht0F42btU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153693 |
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:87a8qzm4mj.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > >> Lawrence Statton wrote: >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>> You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you >>>> reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype >>>> the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? >>> >>> The source was never typed not once ever. >>> >>> I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, and >>> wrote down the resulting opcodes. >>> >>> If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned the >>> page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and >>> wrote down the new series of opcodes. >>> >>> It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where >>> I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM >>> programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and >>> verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could >>> compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) >> >> That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing >> environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income >> solely from the manufacturing. > > Considering that I am still in business and DEC isn't, > it would seem your point of view is dead wrong. The reason DEC went bust had nothing to do with how that stuff was done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n15f5a$t7b$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #153717 |
On 01/11/2015 04:14, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message > news:87a8qzm4mj.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> >>> Lawrence Statton wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>>> You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you >>>>> reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype >>>>> the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? >>>> >>>> The source was never typed not once ever. >>>> >>>> I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, >>>> and >>>> wrote down the resulting opcodes. >>>> >>>> If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned >>>> the >>>> page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and >>>> wrote down the new series of opcodes. >>>> >>>> It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where >>>> I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM >>>> programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and >>>> verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could >>>> compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) >>> >>> That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing >>> environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income >>> solely from the manufacturing. >> >> Considering that I am still in business and DEC isn't, >> it would seem your point of view is dead wrong. > > The reason DEC went bust had nothing to do with how that stuff was done. Did DEC actually go bust at some point? From what I remember Compaq paid good money for them... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9nu9uFmrriU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153739 |
"David Wade" <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n15f5a$t7b$1@news.albasani.net... > On 01/11/2015 04:14, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >> news:87a8qzm4mj.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> Lawrence Statton wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>>>> You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you >>>>>> reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype >>>>>> the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? >>>>> >>>>> The source was never typed not once ever. >>>>> >>>>> I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, >>>>> and >>>>> wrote down the resulting opcodes. >>>>> >>>>> If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned >>>>> the >>>>> page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and >>>>> wrote down the new series of opcodes. >>>>> >>>>> It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, >>>>> where >>>>> I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM >>>>> programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and >>>>> verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could >>>>> compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) >>>> >>>> That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing >>>> environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income >>>> solely from the manufacturing. >>> >>> Considering that I am still in business and DEC isn't, >>> it would seem your point of view is dead wrong. >> >> The reason DEC went bust had nothing to do with how that stuff was done. > > Did DEC actually go bust at some point? No. > From what I remember Compaq paid good money for them... Bugger all money in fact. That's how everything like that goes bust now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005238EAE5041A7@aca41e6b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153739 |
David Wade wrote: > On 01/11/2015 04:14, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message >> news:87a8qzm4mj.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... >> >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>> >>>> Lawrence Statton wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>>>> You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? How did you >>>>>> reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Did you really retype >>>>>> the entire source again? How did you ensure no typos for each time? >>>>> >>>>> The source was never typed not once ever. >>>>> >>>>> I hand-wrote it on a sheet of graph paper, assembled it in my brain, >>>>> and >>>>> wrote down the resulting opcodes. >>>>> >>>>> If I had to make a change (which did happen, twice), I simply turned >>>>> the >>>>> page ... wrote out the improved code, assembled it in my brain, and >>>>> wrote down the new series of opcodes. >>>>> >>>>> It is possible, but I certainly remember no case of it happening, where >>>>> I made a transcription error entering the hex data into the PROM >>>>> programmer. Once I had a 'golden master', I just copied that and >>>>> verified the checksum (a feature built into the programmer -- it could >>>>> compute an 8, or 16 bit checksum using one of a couple of algorithms) >>>> >>>> That's OK for one-fers; your method would never work in a manufacturing >>>> environmnet where the company's well-being depends on income >>>> solely from the manufacturing. >>> >>> Considering that I am still in business and DEC isn't, >>> it would seem your point of view is dead wrong. >> >> The reason DEC went bust had nothing to do with how that stuff was done. > > Did DEC actually go bust at some point? From what I remember Compaq paid > good money for them... Compaq only wanted DEC's call center so everything else was stripped out, including the infrastructure which kept the call center expert. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 10:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d9pfuuF48qqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153771 |
"jmfbahciv" wrote: > David Wade wrote: >> Did DEC actually go bust at some point? From what I remember Compaq paid >> good money for them... > > Compaq only wanted DEC's call center so everything else was stripped out, > including the infrastructure which kept the call center expert. I think buyouts are interesting, what is it that the buyer actually wants? There is a news item today about Vise Europe being sold. ISTM the buyer want to be able to use the trademark "Visa" (in Europe), and a USB containing a list of client accounts. They wanted it to the tune of about €21e9 - about $5e9 per letter!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 15:23 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9iu2nFek35U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153603 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM000523527BE25F1B@aca424b4.ipt.aol.com... > Lawrence Statton wrote: >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >>>> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. >>> >>> And that requires a file. >> >> To be pedantic, it doesn't ... I have personally, over the years, >> produced a handful of ROMs that had no source file whatsoever. Or, more >> accurately, the source material was a sheet of paper sitting in my >> notebook, and I sat and programmed the PROM with a programmer. >> >> Then, we just copied that for each of the systems I needed to ship. > You didn't consider the bits on the master PROM a file? Nope, its just the master prom. > How did you reproduce a fix for that collection of bits? Depends on the fix. That can be done by patching the bits when it was done wrong initially. > Did you really retype the entire source again? Nope, just copy the prom, change some of the bits, write the new one. Copy that new one as often as you like. > How did you ensure no typos for each time? >> Now, that's an extreme case to prove that "there has >> to be a file somewhere" is fallacious on its surface. > Then we have very different definitions of "file". A rom isn't a file. We have different words for a reason. >> For the majority of things I've worked with over the years, there were >> source files and object files and binary files and we could re-produce >> from source material any of the versions of the ROMs that were in the >> field. > In those cases, there were files. DEC would package such a product. But you previously claimed that the 11s were not microcode because you never saw those files. In fact they were all microcode except for the 11/20, you just never saw those files because you were not involved in the manufacture of 11s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 08:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87wpu53fak.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #153512 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >> By replacing whatever hardware the microcode is in, rom etc. > > And that requires a file. No, it doesn't. It requires someone to remove the old board, and plug the new board in its place. It is *possible* (but unlikely) that FS could have merely replaced all of the ROMs on the board, but that is a very unlikely scenario based on the relative costs of doing that kind of work in the field versus at the repair depot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web