Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #219533 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-01 13:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2021-11-05 15:55 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 156 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-01 13:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-01 21:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-01 19:27 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-02 05:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-01 17:38 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2021-11-02 00:21 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 19:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-02 00:11 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-02 06:17 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> - 2021-11-02 10:16 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-03 07:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-03 19:58 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 21:34 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-04 09:51 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-11-04 15:37 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 15:13 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-04 15:22 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 15:22 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 12:05 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-05 08:20 -1000
Re: Who Knew ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-04 10:02 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 17:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-04 15:25 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-04 19:10 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 23:27 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-04 21:43 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-05 08:53 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 11:38 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 13:30 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-05 18:23 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 19:37 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Churchillian version John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-05 20:02 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 17:14 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 07:26 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 14:47 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 17:17 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 21:50 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:55 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-06 19:07 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-06 11:31 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-06 15:14 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-06 16:45 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 12:28 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2021-11-05 22:43 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:05 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 17:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 20:13 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 16:11 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 23:27 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 11:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-05 14:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:53 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 17:40 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 19:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 20:04 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-05 23:52 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-06 05:13 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 15:16 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-n7j-this> - 2021-11-04 07:17 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-04 15:47 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 20:34 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 23:27 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-m46-this> - 2021-11-05 07:08 -0800
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-07 15:43 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 16:17 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-04 17:19 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 22:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-11-04 19:21 -0300
Re: Who Knew ? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2021-11-05 05:46 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-11-05 04:01 -0300
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 15:27 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 16:11 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 07:29 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-04 15:12 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-04 16:11 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-03 21:02 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-11-04 00:01 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:09 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 13:49 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-04 10:11 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-11-04 10:16 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-04 17:31 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-04 13:04 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 14:58 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-04 17:47 -1000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 15:07 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 12:28 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 14:42 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-04 17:53 -1000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 13:33 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 12:28 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-05 10:06 -1000
Re: Who Knew ? Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2021-11-06 15:38 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 17:39 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:55 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-05 19:33 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 12:17 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 14:45 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 15:28 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-06 18:52 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-07 08:54 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-07 10:07 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-06 08:26 -1000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 22:05 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:55 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 12:04 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 18:32 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-06 19:25 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-07 11:20 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-07 08:55 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-07 10:15 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-07 23:44 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-08 15:39 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-11-08 17:06 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? lawrenabae@abaluon.abaom (Lawrence Statton (NK1G)) - 2021-11-09 19:06 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-08 09:51 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-08 10:52 -0700
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-08 19:14 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-08 12:09 -1000
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-08 22:38 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-09 15:30 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-09 14:57 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-11 15:03 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-11-11 17:02 -1000
Re: Alternate Who Knew ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-08 22:22 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-08 18:07 -0500
Re: military options, was Who Knew ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-11-09 01:58 +0000
Re: military options, was Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-08 23:17 -0500
Re: military options, was Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-09 10:02 -0500
Re: military options, was Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-08 22:51 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-08 22:35 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-09 09:09 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2021-11-14 18:45 +0100
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-14 12:39 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-11-15 00:43 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-16 08:58 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-16 16:57 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? D.J. <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 10:54 -0600
Re: Who Knew ? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-11-17 14:16 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-11-14 14:32 -0500
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-04 05:01 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-04 13:48 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-04 15:46 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-11-04 15:26 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? 1p166 <z24ba6.net> - 2021-11-04 23:51 -0400
Re: Who Knew ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-11-05 07:37 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-11-05 08:54 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-05 13:49 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-11-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2021-11-05 22:17 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> - 2021-11-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Who Knew ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-11-05 15:55 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 13:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Who Knew ? |
| Message-ID | <87mtmn7ohj.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>> easily. >>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which >> has a Z80 CPU. > > Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. > > Sinclair came very late to the party. > > First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious > . 1974 or thereabouts "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, that one had a 8080. > The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 a year later they produced large quantities. > Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. 1977. > Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. > At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on > Z80s/8080s. UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. > 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly used in the education sector. If you check some links of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be noticed that most of the used a Z80. > As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in numbers. [...] >> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >> Oric, >> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >> code >> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >> > > Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. F'up2 alt.folklore.computers -- Andreas
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211101214005.485809d7d0399fee200c0546@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #219533 |
On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:52:08 -0400 Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. I was working in the Cambridge Tandy store when the TRS-80 came out in the UK. We sold quite a number of them to small businesses, one customer reported that it had reduced an essential monthly task from three days of painstaking calculations to do a scratch job to three hours to do it properly. Later on we carried Apple ][s, PETs, North Star Horizons and all sorts of other machines but when the TRS-80 first appeared it put computers in places that would never have dreamed of them (that customer above was a cattle farmer - he was the first business customer which tends to stick in the mind). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 19:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <87lf275udc.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> |
| In reply to | #219535 |
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 21:40:05 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:52:08 -0400 > Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > >> I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. > > I was working in the Cambridge Tandy store when the TRS-80 came out > in the UK. We sold quite a number of them to small businesses, one customer > reported that it had reduced an essential monthly task from three days of > painstaking calculations to do a scratch job to three hours to do it > properly. > > Later on we carried Apple ][s, PETs, North Star Horizons and all > sorts of other machines but when the TRS-80 first appeared it put computers > in places that would never have dreamed of them (that customer above was a > cattle farmer - he was the first business customer which tends to stick > in the mind). Thanks for the info, my assumption was probably wrong. Cannot remember I have seen one in the stores back in the day. OK, was a small German town with only three stores carrying computers. They had Commodore 64 as of 1983, Atari 8-bit and later ZX Spectrums ad Amstrads. The TRS-80 was probably so outdated I never saw it. But neither the CoCo not other models in later years. Doesn't mean it wasn't available in my country in the late 70s. -- Andreas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 05:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211102051944.dd10e3204c6a1848218e6062@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #219536 |
On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 19:27:59 -0400 Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > Thanks for the info, my assumption was probably wrong. Possibly a simple matter of time - things changed very fast through the late 70s and mid 80s. > Cannot remember I have seen one in the stores back in the day. OK, was a > small German town with only three stores carrying computers. They had > Commodore 64 as of 1983, Atari 8-bit and later ZX Spectrums ad It was 1978 when we were selling TRS-80s into businesses, by 83 there were a lot of better choices for business use and the TRS-80 line mostly went to home use - there were some business models but they didn't do well against CP/M, MP/M and soon after the IBM PC clones destroyed all the diversity. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-01 17:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82aeada4-8ef9-43a2-b726-152784a34856n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #219533 |
On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 11:52:18 AM UTC-6, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. > > I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. Indeed. The Model II and the Model 16 were designed for businesses, and they were actually fairly decent computers for that purpose. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 00:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <85f1og5r7j195fj6rrcf244f51e1i0rj72@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #219533 |
On Mon, 01 Nov 2021 13:52:08 -0400, Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote: > I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. I bought mine to replace a worn-out typewriter. I took to Scripsit like a duck to water. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at centurylink dot net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211104190933.5f165b0a954a2f0278e83d04@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #219538 |
On Tue, 02 Nov 2021 00:21:46 -0400 Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote: > I took to Scripsit like a duck to water. You avoided Electric Pencil - IIRC that was a good move. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 00:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VO6dnTqUCIkYJx38nZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #219533 |
On 11/1/21 1:52 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 04:44:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >> On 31/10/2021 19:47, Andreas Kohlbach wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 13:35:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>> More than that, operating in small model mode, you could pretty much >>>> run 8080 code through a translator and port CP/M programs to it >>>> easily. >>>> The business market had been taken by the 8080/z80 and CP/M while the >>>> hobbysist were all using 6502s. >>> Hmm. If you consider the "bedroom coders" in the UK hobbyists - they >>> mainly coded on the ZX Spectrum (may some on the ZX81/80 before), which >>> has a Z80 CPU. >> >> Most UK 'home' computers were *not* based on a z80. >> >> Sinclair came very late to the party. >> >> First micro I saw was altair 8800 - s100 bus. 8080. That was serious >> . 1974 or thereabouts > > "Home computers" are described from any micro as the Altair 8800 > (designed 1974 but showed up in January 1975 to start the craze). True, > that one had a 8080. > >> The Apple 1 was around 1973, 6502 again > > It was released 1976. The 6502 itself is from 1975. About 200 Apple 1 > were produced, making it a collector's item today. Only with the Apple 2 > a year later they produced large quantities. > >> Then the Apple II, PET and trash 80 came a couple of years later. > > 1977. > >> Only the trash 80 was z80. But it could be used in business. > > I think the TRS-80 can also be considered a non-business computer. > >> At that time the split was clear. CP/M was for business and ran on >> Z80s/8080s. > > UK "Home micros" with a Z80 (ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPCs, ...) where not > shipped with CP/M, although you could probably run it. Did this (in an > emulator) with the CPC <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qStVxf0XlE0>. > >> 6502s were for hobbyists writing in basic and assembler. > > The UK market (and that's what we're talking here about) saw more Z80 > based ZX (Spectrum, 81/80) machines that Commodore 64s. > > But the UK saw also a big number of Acorn computers, which ran a > 6502. Those, like Apple 2s, were rather expensive that they were mainly > used in the education sector. > > If you check some links of > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_computers> it can be > noticed that most of the used a Z80. > >> As for 6809s - great chip. No one really used it. > > The TRS color computer and "clone" Dragon 32/64 did. Latter also sold in > numbers. > > [...] > >>> OK, there were many using a C64 (6510, similar to a 6502) and the >>> Oric, >>> which sold reasonably well in the UK and France back in the day. >>> But considering me as hobbyist back in the 1980s I indeed started to >>> code >>> in assembler on a 6502 (C64). >>> >> >> Exactly. Wasn't Apple II a 6502 as well? > > Yes, but at least in Europe to expensive for the common user. Outside the > UK most got a C64, while in the UK Spectrums ruled the market. > > F'up2 alt.folklore.computers I remember the ads in magazines and such ... the first "Small-Office PCs". The bits were fitted into something the size of a large desk. S-100 mostly, 8" floppy (or TWO if you were a successful small biz), tape if you were a cheap-ass, 8008 chip. The Altair was a "desktop" by comparison, and had the new and improved 8080 chip. However they were aimed straight at the student/hobby market and I don't think anybody ever tried to integrate them in to a slick "Small Business System". They WERE a sort of "milestone" though because regular Joes could actually kind of AFFORD one - the first real "democratization" of PCs. Apple and Commodore came along shortly after and blew the Altairs out of the water. The 6502 was designed by a bunch of defectors from the Motorola 6800 series. That caused some legal issues, they were originally "too like" the 6800s. More efficient however - and cheaper to make. Soon edged Motorola pretty much out of the 8-bit PC market (except for the CoCo). (Not sure if OS-9 was ever ported to the 6502, but you COULD run it on a CoCo). OS-9 was quite UNIX-ish but a lot more space/cycle efficient. It's still sold - and ain't exactly cheap - mostly for use in embedded systems, esp those that need to be close to Real Time) The TRS-80s were not bad computers at all. They were one of the next steps for Small Business computers. The CP/M was a big advantage and the units were nicely packaged. They were fairly snappy for 8-bitters too, not "trash" at all. And yes they were fine as home/hobby/development PCs. Always wanted one, but could never quite afford one. The final version had a 68000 co-processor board in there. The PETs were of the same paradigm as the TRS-80s, a monitor+keyboard+mainboard in one nicely-styled box. The first had a CRAP "chicklet" keyboard but the follow-ons were much nicer. Could never figure out why they built a nice box with a 99-cent keyboard. PETs, like the TRS, were aimed at the "Small Business" market. They offered similar performance, but except for some one-off efforts I don't think there was a CP/M-6502. Some dual-board models though from short- lived companies. I knew a guy, one of those IQ-200 on-the-edge people, who had a computer shop, but mostly made money writing clones of popular computer games - in MACHINE CODE, BINARY - on a PET. Said it "gave him a buzz" to do it that way :-) He wasn't lying, I watched him doing it. He'd then burn it into ROM cartridges for VIC-20s and C-64s. TI-99/4A ... well ... TI ruined it for themselves by trying Apples thing of making it super-hard for 3rd party developers. Alas the actual 9900 16-bit chip was BARELY used, 95% of the work was done by the GPU. The 9900s were kinda strange too - a funky hardware-based multi-user/multi-tasking setup which stored register sets and stuff in system memory because, at the time, it was actually faster/cheaper than on-chip. "BLWP" - Branch And Load WorkSpace Pointer" ... I remember that instruction. It was never meant as a "small business" PC, and neither were the VICs/C64s/Ataris ... more "Game Systems Plus". A few C64s were put to "business" USE however - for a very long time there was a "local govt channel" and once in a while it'd crash and you'd see the C64 ROM BASIC error message :-) The Brits were also players. The "BBC" computers were pretty good - and sometimes ahead of US pop-culture units. But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the others went under eventually ... though Commodore made a fair try with the Amigas. Those STILL have fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga support programs too. I bought the original, but there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 PC (semi)-Clone. The native 550 graphics were superior, but I badly needed full IBM-CGA compatibility and you had to buy a separate board and do some tricky jumper-wire work to get that. Still a great unit, and about a third the price of IBM. I might still have it somewhere, under the pile-o-junk. Anyway, the IBM clones now dominate. A few years back DeGaulle airport, Paris, was paralyzed because it's system for dealing with taxi-way routing went down. Turned out it was running on a PC clone and WINDOWS 3.11 for DECADES. Hey, if it ain't broke ... Always wanted a SAGE computer. Looked like a PC box but it had 68000 series chips and some kind of XENIX-related and similar operating systems. Alas, a small maker, expensive, low-volume, pretty quickly went under. Too bad. Those WERE meant as "small business" boxes. Think you can still buy them on E-Bay, but early BAD experiences with E-Bay and Musks PayPal put me off of them. However I have seen working MicroVAX systems for sale there, they were VERY good systems and the OS was well ahead of its time, meant for medium-scale orgs and businesses. Still have the VMS manual, four inches thick, thin paper, smallish type. ONE day ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 06:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HJ4gJ.14924$lz3.8919@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #219539 |
On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great > of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. :-( > Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the > others went under eventually ... though Commodore > made a fair try with the Amigas. Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management ran the company into the ground. At one point the president and CEO (Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali) were pulling down bigger salaries than the heads of IBM - while the techies and marketing staff starved. Shareholder meetings were held in the Bahamas to discourage those pesky shareholders from attending. > Those STILL have > fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the > Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga > support programs too. I bought the original, but > there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages > that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550 > PC (semi)-Clone. The Amiga's biggest shortcoming was its lack of memory protection. If you stayed away from buggy software that stomped on random memory locations, you could avoid almost all Guru Meditations. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-02 10:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iuchg8Fsg0pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #219541 |
On 2021-11-02, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote:
>> Those STILL have
>> fans and some Linux utilities STILL support the
>> Amiga disk formats plus there are other Amiga
>> support programs too. I bought the original, but
>> there were SO many "Guru Meditation" messages
>> that I dumped the thing and bought a Sanyo-550
>> PC (semi)-Clone.
>
> The Amiga's biggest shortcoming was its lack of memory
> protection. If you stayed away from buggy software
> that stomped on random memory locations, you could
> avoid almost all Guru Meditations.
Yeah, I didn't have very many. They happened, but not that often.
Niklas
--
"But when your parts are 4 and 6" big, and massively oversized for the job, and
designed for servicing by chimpanzees (which is not to say the people that do,
are), it's a lot easier to get things in a vague approximation of right."
-- Jasper Janssen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 1p166 <z24ba6.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eOednZLpMLVSkh_8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #219541 |
up On 11/2/21 2:17 AM, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-11-02, 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> But the IBM-PC murdered them all. Wasn't THAT great >> of a PC, but it had the weight of IBM behind it. > > :-( > >> Apple managed to carve out its own niche, but the >> others went under eventually ... though Commodore >> made a fair try with the Amigas. > > Commodore techs made a fair try. Commodore management > ran the company into the ground. Rats. Sinking ship. What did you expect ? Pretend make an visible effort, to keep the stock prices up while cashing-in to the max. Commodore was OVER. It had its day in the sun but IBM (& clones) and Apple were IT - the future. Whatever Amiga could do, Mac could do, or soon do, better - and had a bigger customer base. The Market at the time was consolidating. Only two main players. All the fringe players were OUT. Take the money and RUN. Sorry, but Amiga was NOT a competitor. It had its good features, but others, better capitalized, soon copied and exceeded them. That's the way it goes. Whatever the Next Big Thing is, there will initially be a bunch of players. Again, probably TWO will become IT and all the others will wither away. And even that duality will be something of a lie ... the BIG people will have stock/influence in BOTH "sides". Humans LOVE "duality", choices or false choices. PLAY that psychology for profit. Cynical ? Check it out. REAL. MS is heavily invested in Apple and vice-versa. Check it out, you can confirm that. The "sides" are all for show, a way of goading consumers and pushing out competitors. Swear your loyalty to Winders or Mac ! So EXCITING to choose a side. The Big Money people had this figured out LONG ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli understood the utility of cultivating those fake "sides".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 07:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211103072641.1f36fd9ef1e2138951d0396c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #219548 |
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > The Big Money people had this figured out LONG > ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli > understood the utility of cultivating those > fake "sides". Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery. The indoctrination for it starts in the earliest school with "What's your favourite colour" and gets strengthened outside the classroom with "Who do you support". I remain thankful that Hermann Göring's astute observation on the ease of raising war fever is not widely utilised today - I remain slightly suspicious about the Falkland's War being a field test of the principle, it was certainly a good demonstration if not. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RvzgJ.30520$Kw9.8925@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #219549 |
On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 > 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > >> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG >> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli >> understood the utility of cultivating those >> fake "sides". > > Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of > Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and have > been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I fairly > recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly simplistic and naive, > that was a sobering discovery. It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways. The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the wall instead of following you around the house. My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been replaced by social media. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | "Alexa, define 'bugging'." X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | / \ if you read it the right way. |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20211103195806.3f51c2f392a43944cfa3df04@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #219551 |
On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 > > 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: > > > >> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG > >> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli > >> understood the utility of cultivating those > >> fake "sides". > > > > Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of > > Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and > > have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I > > fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly > > simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery. > > It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways. > The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond > what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the > wall instead of following you around the house. What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest. Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good - right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive. > My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and > _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're > seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been > replaced by social media. For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent slavery. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-03 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <NfDgJ.25017$ya3.6058@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #219552 |
On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Nov 2021 17:18:41 GMT > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 00:27:54 -0400 >>> 1p166 <z24ba6.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The Big Money people had this figured out LONG >>>> ago - centuries ago actually. Even Machivelli >>>> understood the utility of cultivating those >>>> fake "sides". >>> >>> Sadly this and all above it is all too true - the lessons of >>> Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are well understood by the major players and >>> have been polished for centuries into a smooth art. In a similar vein I >>> fairly recently re-read Orwell's 1984 and found it shockingly >>> simplistic and naive, that was a sobering discovery. >> >> It was a bit heavy-handed, perhaps, but still relevant in many ways. >> The telescreens have not only been deployed, but improved beyond >> what was in the book. At least Orwell's telescreens stayed on the >> wall instead of following you around the house. > > What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed > to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but > rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest. Yes, it didn't occur to Orwell that Big Brother would actually turn out to be Big Business. But let's face it, that one went past most people (but not Pohl & Kornbluth, as you point out). > Orwell made it look like it should be easy to avoid developing a > society like that, just keep hold of the essential freedoms and your good - > right ? Wrong, as it turns out it's far easier to keep people in line with > carrots than sticks, and carrots leave far more room for subtlety just as > there are far more subtle ways of keeping people scared than an endless > rotating war. Like I say simplistic and naive. > >> My wife and I just finished re-reading both _Animal Farm_ and >> _Brave New World_. Both are frighteningly close to what we're >> seeing today, although _Brave New World's_ "soma" has been >> replaced by social media. > > For sure, both of those speak to deep rooted truths about human > nature - sad really. Just wait till we get sentient robots and reinvent > slavery. Societies seem to need a slave class. _Brave New World_ described this in some detail. We thought that machines would take the place of this class - but instead have turned out to be agents of the ruling class. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Life is perverse. \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | It can be beautiful - X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | but it won't. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Lily Tomlin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <09682853-a234-4fbc-91ce-2b88894497abn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #219553 |
On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote: > > What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed > > to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but > > rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest. > Yes, it didn't occur to Orwell that Big Brother would actually turn out > to be Big Business. But let's face it, that one went past most people > (but not Pohl & Kornbluth, as you point out). Orwell was reacting, perhaps, to McCarthyism, by warning of the danger that a long-continued Cold War could cause the West to become like the Soviet Union. Since Brave New World was already out there, the alternative of an iron fist hidden in a velvet glove had been addressed in literature already; his goal was not to imitate it. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 15:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mdd8ry3n259.fsf@panix5.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #219566 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > > What Orwell missed completely was that all of this has not needed
> > > to be imposed by an authoritative Big Brother with lethal enforcement but
> > > rather has been dangled and freely chosen like Coffiest.
>
> > Yes, it didn't occur to Orwell that Big Brother would actually turn out
> > to be Big Business. But let's face it, that one went past most people
> > (but not Pohl & Kornbluth, as you point out).
>
> Orwell was reacting, perhaps, to McCarthyism, by warning of the danger
> that a long-continued Cold War could cause the West to become like the
> Soviet Union.
>
> Since Brave New World was already out there, the alternative of an iron fist
> hidden in a velvet glove had been addressed in literature already; his goal
> was not to imitate it.
_Animal Farm_ was published in 1945, _1984_ in 1948.
Senator Joseph McCarthy made his first speech about his "list of Communists in
the State Department" in 1950.
I do not believe that Eric Blair was reacting to anything in the US, but rather
to the Stalinist takeover of the international Communist Party starting in the
Spanish Civil War.
Reference: _Cold Warriors: Writers who Waged the Literary Cold War_ by Duncan
White, 2019. Covers both Western and Soviet writers, and I recommend it highly.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 15:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsoaih7.7q3.Greymaus@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #219578 |
On 2021-11-04, Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote: > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > >> On Wednesday, November 3, 2021 at 3:34:39 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> > On 2021-11-03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote: >> > I do not believe that Eric Blair was reacting to anything in the US, but rather > to the Stalinist takeover of the international Communist Party starting in the > Spanish Civil War. > > Reference: _Cold Warriors: Writers who Waged the Literary Cold War_ by Duncan > White, 2019. Covers both Western and Soviet writers, and I recommend it highly. > Just got it down as an EBook, looks interesting. -- greymausg@mail.com That's not a mousehole!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-04 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sm1faf$vnp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #219566 |
On 11/4/21 11:51 AM, Quadibloc wrote: [...] > Orwell was reacting, perhaps, to McCarthyism, by warning of the danger > that a long-continued Cold War could cause the West to become like the > Soviet Union. YGBSM. McCarthy was right. You are witnessing and living through a communist color revolution in the United States and the west in general. Your denial of the obvious with this anti-McCarthy tripe is just gross. The communists has already infiltrated academia and the media industrial complex. They were infiltrating the Federal Government and were building a revolutionary color revolution force within the ranks of our own government. McCarthy was on to them. Communism always equals death and mass murder. Vide Cuba if you have any doubts. They are using Stalin's salami-slicer strategy right now with the nonsensical COVID pandemic and the constant left vs. right agitation. The Bolsheviks did the same tactics before they mass murdered tens of millions of people. If you think you are safe by working with them, know this. After they take power, the first round of people they line up against the wall and shoot is the intelligentsia who helped them take over. It's called tying up loose ends. -- ──┏━━━━┓──┏━━┓───┏━━┓── ┌────────────────────────┐ ┌────────┐ ──┗━━┓─┃──┗┓─┃───┗┓─┃── │ Spooky Mart [chan] 711 │ │ always │ ─────┃─┃──┏┛─┗┓──┏┛─┗┓─ │ https://bitmessage.org │ │ open │ ─────┗━┛──┗━━━┛──┗━━━┛─ └────────────────────────┘ └────────┘
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-05 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnsoaj0r.7q3.Greymaus@dmaus.org> |
| In reply to | #219581 |
On 2021-11-04, 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> wrote: > On 11/4/21 11:51 AM, Quadibloc wrote: > > [...] > >> Orwell was reacting, perhaps, to McCarthyism, by warning of the danger >> that a long-continued Cold War could cause the West to become like the >> Soviet Union. > > YGBSM. > > McCarthy was right. You are witnessing and living through a communist > color revolution in the United States and the west in general. Your > denial of the obvious with this anti-McCarthy tripe is just gross. > > The communists has already infiltrated academia and the media industrial > complex. They were infiltrating the Federal Government and were building > a revolutionary color revolution force within the ranks of our own > government. McCarthy was on to them. Communism always equals death and > mass murder. Vide Cuba if you have any doubts. > > They are using Stalin's salami-slicer strategy right now with the > nonsensical COVID pandemic and the constant left vs. right agitation. > The Bolsheviks did the same tactics before they mass murdered tens of > millions of people. > > If you think you are safe by working with them, know this. After they > take power, the first round of people they line up against the wall and > shoot is the intelligentsia who helped them take over. It's called tying > up loose ends. > One should remember that in the recent electins in Russia, the communists came a close second to Putin's party. A lot of ex-communists have told me, Under Communism, we had cheap housing, not great housing, but cheap. Under Communism, we had jobs, not great jobs, but jobs etc, etc. -- greymausg@mail.com That's not a mousehole!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web