Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #157616 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-25 17:26 +0300 |
| Last post | 2016-01-30 20:36 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 381 — 58 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-25 17:26 +0300
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-25 15:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 10:53 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 04:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-01-26 14:14 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-26 17:21 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 10:58 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-25 16:17 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-25 11:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2016-01-25 16:47 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-25 17:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mm0fmf <none@mailinator.com> - 2016-01-25 19:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-01-25 16:15 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 13:17 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-26 08:20 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-26 11:32 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:23 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2016-01-27 19:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Yeechang Lee <ylee@columbia.edu> - 2016-01-27 22:40 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-25 15:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 19:34 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-25 19:38 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-25 23:55 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 19:31 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-27 21:10 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:49 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 19:00 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 00:48 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 21:02 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 07:32 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-28 15:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 19:03 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 20:58 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 10:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 19:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-29 23:21 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 03:45 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:25 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-01 17:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-01 21:29 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 00:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 03:04 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 18:40 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:39 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 22:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-03 23:59 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 06:03 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:24 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-04 10:51 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:12 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-04 19:29 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-04 11:26 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-05 02:51 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-05 10:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-05 10:47 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 10:21 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-02-06 08:06 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-06 10:02 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-06 19:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2016-02-16 04:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Pitts <dpitts@cozx.com> - 2016-02-17 07:45 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-06 19:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-05 20:35 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-05 23:12 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-06 01:34 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-06 07:39 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 14:02 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-08 10:01 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 19:36 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-08 11:45 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:14 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 18:19 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 08:08 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 19:57 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-05 19:05 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-05 21:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-06 22:49 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-01 21:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-02 02:59 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-02 15:38 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-29 18:58 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 03:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 06:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-27 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-26 17:57 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-26 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-26 14:53 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 09:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 11:05 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 11:41 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 12:38 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-26 15:26 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 19:25 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:38 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-26 07:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:39 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> - 2016-01-26 21:16 +0200
Re: DEC and The Americans "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-28 10:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 05:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-26 17:43 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-02-03 00:36 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-02 18:42 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-03 14:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-04 15:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-05 05:01 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 04:42 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-06 11:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-06 18:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-06 15:49 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-07 05:33 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-07 11:12 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-07 11:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-07 20:06 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 06:06 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-07 09:52 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:56 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 12:33 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 16:34 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:08 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 06:10 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-04 13:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-04 14:23 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-05 14:41 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-05 14:32 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 13:05 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 10:34 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-05 13:08 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-05 15:34 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-06 14:35 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-06 14:45 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:05 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-07 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-07 17:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-07 12:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-08 21:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-07 19:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:53 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:11 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:49 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 16:43 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-06 13:18 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 20:08 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 14:22 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-06 20:52 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-07 07:09 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-06 16:38 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-06 20:09 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 06:18 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 08:10 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-07 19:57 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-07 19:24 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-07 09:45 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 04:16 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-08 17:19 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 12:22 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 11:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-09 13:55 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:49 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-08 16:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 17:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 04:01 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-06 16:13 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:49 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-07 12:12 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-06 18:26 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-07 15:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-07 11:09 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 03:56 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 13:59 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-08 14:28 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-08 14:38 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-02-08 15:56 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-08 19:17 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-08 17:19 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 02:03 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-09 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-02-09 10:36 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-08 19:08 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:10 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 02:52 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-11 14:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-11 11:20 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:58 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:57 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-11 21:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-11 17:07 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-11 15:32 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-11 17:56 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-11 22:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-12 00:35 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:47 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 05:04 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:22 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans davidmylastname@acm.org (David Griffith) - 2016-02-12 23:19 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:42 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:32 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-11 22:39 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 15:35 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans terry-groups@glaver.org - 2016-02-11 17:47 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-11 22:39 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-12 12:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 07:23 -0700
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-12 14:50 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Clark G <clarkm.geimsler@ieeemmm.org> - 2016-02-16 01:39 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:17 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:50 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-13 08:48 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 16:54 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 19:06 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-14 03:50 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 14:11 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:35 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:37 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:09 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-15 17:05 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 18:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 19:35 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:33 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-15 03:08 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-15 08:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:07 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:25 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 21:43 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 22:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:36 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 21:25 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 09:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:04 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 14:57 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-02-17 01:08 +0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:55 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-14 15:24 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 04:48 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 21:40 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 11:42 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:29 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 06:02 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-14 17:22 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 18:13 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:45 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-15 21:00 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-16 15:29 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 16:47 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 22:05 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:54 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-13 16:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-13 18:05 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 11:18 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-15 22:19 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:47 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:44 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 05:18 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-09 18:42 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-08 21:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Warren Adams <adamswa@hiwaay.net> - 2016-02-08 17:00 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-09 03:18 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-08 08:14 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-08 16:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Andy Burns <usenet.jan2016@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-02-08 19:13 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 11:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-08 18:26 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-08 17:26 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-08 16:16 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-09 14:21 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Hilo Black" <hbk897@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 02:05 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 15:49 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-09 15:47 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 19:01 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-10 12:46 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-10 07:34 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-11 04:30 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-11 13:30 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 04:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:03 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 15:51 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-11 14:09 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-11 18:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 13:59 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-12 08:13 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-12 12:42 -0600
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:46 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-12 12:20 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-12 04:33 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2016-01-25 17:27 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 06:14 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-25 17:53 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "kipg" <io@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 10:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-26 05:40 +1100
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 19:12 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-26 14:22 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-26 16:20 +0100
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:37 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-27 03:58 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-27 06:16 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-27 18:14 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 18:34 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:03 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Evan Koblentz <ekoblentz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 09:07 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2016-01-28 10:17 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-28 07:26 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-28 11:36 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-28 10:31 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-28 19:23 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-29 14:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-29 20:12 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-29 21:11 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-29 19:30 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:20 -0400
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-30 12:48 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-31 11:17 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-02 15:09 -0800
Re: DEC and The Americans Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-03 12:40 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 14:42 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-01 16:03 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-01 17:11 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans bleep@compy.0-0 (Colonel Bleep) - 2016-01-30 07:07 +0000
Re: DEC and The Americans "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-30 09:43 -0500
Re: DEC and The Americans Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-01-30 20:36 +0000
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 17:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n890va$s0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157847 |
On 26-Jan-16 17:26, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> They'd procured it through legal channels, then had to wait till >> they had some scheme to get it back to Russia. In the meanwhile, >> they set it up at the embassy so they could play moonlander and the >> like. > > Computer sales to the Soviets were restricted because the U.S. did > *not* want to sell the Soviets computers that might increase their > ability to create weapons. I don't think that VT-100s would qualify > for that. There was *nothing* in the VT-100 that was all that > technically advanced. IMHO. The US _still_ has tough restrictions on exports of "dual use" technology, including any software containing encryption--which is virtually everything these days. All of our allies are whitelisted, and you can guess the countries that are blacklisted, but you still need a license to export to those in between. It's utterly ridiculous since anyone in any of the gray or blacklisted countries can download any encryption they want off the Internet. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n88083$b84$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #157677 |
On 2016-01-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote: >> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of >> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in >> the U.S. > > The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers which were > the imitation 360s. > > When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the VAX was > a popular target. > > John Savard # These links look like interesting food for thought: First, a book called Perspectives on #soviet and Russian Computing: https://books.google.co.ug/books?id=-jSqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=soviet+computers+minicomputers&source=bl&ots=a4PfPVZV1k&sig=YCs1FBm6iFZQ3CmxzuPtZ-gJZLE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20computers%20minicomputers&f=false Good luck with that stupidly long Google URL. This Wikipedia article is helpful and goes a bit into the BESM and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries This page points out the BESM were mainframes, but the DVK family (ДВК) — PDP-11 clones and the Elektronica were DEC clones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_systems That leads me to believe they were at least trying hard to duplicate American hardware. The comment above about PCs being not yet on desktops in 1982 makes me wonder what the FBI must be using there - I'll try to get a screenshot. Something like wyse terminals? Or IBM 3270s networked to a mainframe or something? The FBI would have had money in 1982 to buy whatever they wanted, I'd think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3oudnWDG_IrdFTrLnZ2dnUU78TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #157762 |
On 26/01/2016 14:35, RS Wood wrote: > On 2016-01-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote: >>> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of >>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in >>> the U.S. >> >> The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers which were >> the imitation 360s. >> >> When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the VAX was >> a popular target. >> >> John Savard > # > These links look like interesting food for thought: > > First, a book called Perspectives on #soviet and Russian Computing: > https://books.google.co.ug/books?id=-jSqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=soviet+computers+minicomputers&source=bl&ots=a4PfPVZV1k&sig=YCs1FBm6iFZQ3CmxzuPtZ-gJZLE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20computers%20minicomputers&f=false > > Good luck with that stupidly long Google URL. > > This Wikipedia article is helpful and goes a bit into the BESM and > others: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries > > This page points out the BESM were mainframes, but the DVK family (ДВК) > — PDP-11 clones and the Elektronica were DEC clones > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_systems > > That leads me to believe they were at least trying hard to duplicate > American hardware. The comment above about PCs being not yet on > desktops in 1982 makes me wonder what the FBI must be using there - I'll > try to get a screenshot. Something like wyse terminals? Or IBM 3270s > networked to a mainframe or something? The FBI would have had money in > 1982 to buy whatever they wanted, I'd think. > In 1982 the FBI could have had glass TTY as terminals. RS232 links to the computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 09:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87si1kz0hi.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #157765 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes: > In 1982 the FBI could have had glass TTY as terminals. RS232 links to > the computer. story about another agency that was heavy glass-teletype in the early 80s. IBM was coming out with 3081 that was multiprocessor only ... but there was problem with ACP/TPF operating system not having multiprocessor support. Several releases of vm370 then had some unnatural things done to it to improve ACP/TPF operation under VM370 on multiprocessor ... but it degraded throughput for nearly all other customers. At the same time, they did some optimization for 3270 terminal I/O which helped mask the ACP/TPF change degradation (for customers that were heavily 3270) .... however ASCII terminal customers were exposed to the full effect of the degradation. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#email830420 reference to agencies being heavily virtual machine based ... going back to cp67 in the 60s (gone 404, but lives on at wayback machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20090117083033/http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0409/8362.shtml this is email by Jim Gray talking about the 3830 disk controller "locking" ACP RPQ ... but also mentions the number of ACP/TPF customers & systems. http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008i.html#email800325 Part of the ACP/TPF issue was that clone makers continued to make faster single processor machines and there was concern that the whole ACP/TPF market would move to clone processors. Eventually they got around to offerring 3083 which was 3081 with one of the processors removed. However, there were other issues with 3081 technology comparing poorly with clone processor makers ... discussed here http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm and they did all sorts of tweaks for 3083 trying to improve competitivenes ... eventually including a custom channel microcode load tailored for ACP/TPF operation ... marketed as 9083 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002f.html#18 Mail system scalability (Was: Re: Itanium troubles) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#65 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#66 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009l.html#67 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009m.html#30 As Internet turns 40, barriers threaten its growth http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009m.html#39 ACP, One of the Oldest Open Source Apps http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#1 ZeuS attacks mobiles in bank SMS bypass scam http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#62 vm/370 3081 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#67 OT: NYT article--the rich get richer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016.html#74 Lineage of TPF -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b18563b5-dac5-4afe-bc68-d4255024fcff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157791 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > story about another agency that was heavy glass-teletype in the early > 80s. IBM was coming out with 3081 that was multiprocessor only ... In 1979, my employe had a 158 with a tightly attached second processor. We served a CICS network of about 500 3270 terminals. The machine was maxed out. I had no idea of how the dual processor worked, or how it added capacity. Could someone explain "tightly coupled" vs. "loosely coupled" vs. simply having two separate machines, shared disks, and a split workload? (A few years later they replaced the 158 with a 30xx box, but I don't recall what. The new machine was still maxed out as they added more applications to it.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oac8yvpo.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #157809 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > Could someone explain "tightly coupled" vs. "loosely coupled" vs. > simply having two separate machines, shared disks, and a split > workload? > > (A few years later they replaced the 158 with a 30xx box, but I don't > recall what. The new machine was still maxed out as they added > more applications to it.) tightly-coupled from 360/65 days were two processors that shared memory .... but had their own dedicated private channels. IBM simulated shared i/o configuration by having controllers with two-channel switch ... so they were connected to two channels, one for channel connected to each processor. It had the characteristic that the shared memory could be disabled and the two processors operated independently as two separate single processor systems. however, 360/67 multiprocessor (tightly-coupled) did have "channel controller" that allowed processors to share both memory as well as all sharing channels (all processors addressing all channels), but had the capability to configure complex as independent single processor machines with dedicated memory and channels). loosely-coupled were independent systems (no shared memory) that shared devices .... via having channels connected to controllers with capability for connecting to multiple channels. my wife had been in the gburg JES group ... she was one of the catchers for ASP turning it into JES3. She was also co-author for JESUS (JES unified system) which included features from JES2 (i.e. HASP) and JES3 that the respective customers couldn't live w/o (for various reasons never shipped). posts mentioning HASP, JES2, NJE/NJI, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#hasp she was then con'ed into going to POK to be in charge of loosely-coupled architecture. While there she did peer-coupled shared data architecture ... some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#shareddata she didn't remain very long because of 1) little uptake except for IMS hotstandby until SYSPLEX¶llel SYSPLEX (two decades later) and 2) constant battles with communication group trying to force her into using SNA/VTAM for loosely-coupled operation. in the mid-70s, they introduced "attached processor" tightly-coupled for 370/158 & 370/168 ... it was standard two processors shared memory where the 2nd processor didn't have any dedicated channels (purely processor capacity and not able to be partitioned into two two independently operating single processor systems). after the failure of the FS effort ... some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys there was mad rush to get products back into the 370 pipeline. This included POK kicking off the Q&D 303x and 3081/xa efforts in parallel ... some discussion here http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm 3033 started out being 168-3 logic mapped to 20% faster chips. Also the integrated channel microcode from 370/158 was moved into a separate dedicated channel box. A 3031 was two 370/158 engines, a 370/158 engine with just the 370 microcode and no integrated microcode and a 2nd 370/158 engine with the integrated channel microcode (and no 370 microcode). A 3032 was a 370/168 tweaked to use the 370/158 integrated channel box as external channels. A 3033 then was 168-3 logic remapped to 20% faster chips and one or more 370/158 integrated channel microcode boxes. 370/158 integrated channel microcode provided support for six channels. To have a system with 16 channels reguired three 370/158 integrated channel microcode boxes. 3081 (as memo125.htm describes) started out being a multiprocessor box only (until they were forced to do 3083 with only one processor removed). 3081 was referred to as dyadic (two processors) to differentiate it from the early "tightly-coupled" designation ... because it wasn't able to partition it into two independent operating (single-processor) systems. posts mentioning SMP, multiprocessor, tightly-coupled, also compare&swap instruction http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 12:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3a15fe69-75ef-4f10-b0e6-da7b35d6195b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157813 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 2:41:43 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > in the mid-70s, they introduced "attached processor" tightly-coupled for > 370/158 & 370/168 ... it was standard two processors shared memory where > the 2nd processor didn't have any dedicated channels (purely processor > capacity and not able to be partitioned into two two independently > operating single processor systems). Thanks for the explanation. Did the "attached processor" on the 158 make a significant improvement in throughput performance? I don't recall the specific details other than the 158 was maxed out, meaning program compilation and testing had to be done during offpeak hours. Response time was slow, although that may have been, in part due to relatively low speed analog comm lines supporting many terminals off of a single line. I _think_ the data rate was 4800, synchronous, on private "conditioned" lines. (Soon afterwards, they went to 9600, then went to digital. Digital lines took some effort to become reliable.) Also, back then, overall reliability wasn't so great, for a variety of reasons--CICS crash, comm line failure, remote modem/controller failure, central comm controller crash, CPU crash, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 15:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87k2mvzzv4.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #157817 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > Thanks for the explanation. > > Did the "attached processor" on the 158 make a significant improvement > in throughput performance? > > I don't recall the specific details other than the 158 was maxed out, > meaning program compilation and testing had to be done during offpeak > hours. Response time was slow, although that may have been, in part > due to relatively low speed analog comm lines supporting many terminals > off of a single line. I _think_ the data rate was 4800, synchronous, > on private "conditioned" lines. (Soon afterwards, they went to 9600, > then went to digital. Digital lines took some effort to become > reliable.) > > Also, back then, overall reliability wasn't so great, for a variety > of reasons--CICS crash, comm line failure, remote modem/controller > failure, central comm controller crash, CPU crash, etc. the issue is what software. standard IBM mainframe cache two-processor system slowed the processor cycle down by 10% to allow for cross-cache signalling (and any actual cross-cache signalling slowed things down further) ... so two processor hardware starts out only 1.8 times a single processor. Then if the operating system had lots of lock contention and other multiprocessor coordination ... it further reduced effective throughput. MVS on 370s in the 70s claimed muiltiprocessor throughput 1.3-1.5 times single processor. I had done some slight of hand for vm370 multiprocessor throughput that had extremely low lock contention and multiprocessor coordination overhead. In cache machines, typical MIPS rate is based on some expected cache miss rate, high-cache miss rate results in much lower MIPS/throughput than the nominal announced MIP rate ... and very low cache miss rate will have higher than nominal announced MIP rate. I had some attached-processor configurations that had run 100% CPU utilization and relatively high I/O rate before adding the 2nd processor. Asynchronous I/O interrupts involved displaying application cache contents with device driver cache contents (very high instantaneous cache miss rates) ... and then switching back to running appliction reversed the process, replacing device driver cache contents with application cache contents (again very high cache miss rates) ... all of which much lower measured MIPS rate and throughput. The applications code running on the 2nd processor now had much higher MIPS rate and throughput (because there was no longer the asynchronous I/O interrupts. The processor with channels & I/O interrupts frequently had higher throughput also .... since it periodically effectively batched several I/O interrupts in sequence, while device driver code still remained in cache, significantly improving its cache-hit rate, MIPS-rate and throughput. The very low operating system multiprocessor overhead plus careful management of the cache effects could get more than twice the throughput of a single processor (from hardware that nominally was only 1.8 times that of a single processor) ... compared to the 1.3-1.5 times experienced by MVS users. past posts mentioning SMP, shared-memory, multiprocessor, etc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp Note that CICS didn't get multiprocessor support until 2004. Original CICS implementation was single task/process and then did its own finegrain task multithreading within the CICS environment. To take advantage of more powerful computers and multiple processors ... customers started running multiple CICS instances (each as its own independent operating system task). Early in the century ... an outsorucer that ran the dataprocessing backend that managed cable tv settop boxes for most of the cable countries in the US ... was running over 120 CICS instances on a single (multiprocessor) machine. past posts mentioning CICS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#cics trivia ... as undergraduate in the 60s, I got hired fulltime by the univ. to support their production IBM mainframe. The univ. library got an ONR grant to do online catelogue and used part of the money to get 2321 datacell. The project was also selected to be one of the betatest sites for the original CICS program product ... and I got to do a lot of debugging of the betatest CICS code. Some of the history from CICS site ... gone 404, but lives on at the wayback machine: The Evolution of CICS: CICS and Multi-region Operation (1980) http://web.archive.org/web/20040705000349/http://www.yelavich.com/history/ev198001.htm The Evolution of CICS: CICS and Multiprocessor Exploitation (2004) http://web.archive.org/web/20041023110006/http://www.yelavich.com/history/ev200402.htm webpage http://web.archive.org/web/20050509233156/http://www.yelavich.com/ -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 19:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e709c45a-5794-4792-8c89-e794cb860d70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157848 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 6:26:42 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > Note that CICS didn't get multiprocessor support until 2004. Original > CICS implementation was single task/process and then did its own > finegrain task multithreading within the CICS environment. To take > advantage of more powerful computers and multiple processors > ... customers started running multiple CICS instances (each as its own > independent operating system task). Early in the century ... an > outsorucer that ran the dataprocessing backend that managed cable tv > settop boxes for most of the cable countries in the US ... was running > over 120 CICS instances on a single (multiprocessor) machine. At that time, they had at least four CICS regions, two for production (different applications) and two for testing. There were different ways to code an application program under CICS. A recommended 'standard' method was most efficient, but some programmers used the wrong method which was inefficient. (This may have been pseudo-conversational vs. conversational, though I don't recall exactly). Some of the CICS used back then in COBOL programs was macro level, then they switched to command level. They originally used TSO, but found it resource intensive, and switched to the ADR product, ROSCOE. (ADR, like most mainframe utility software, is owned by CA).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 18:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3111cd8d19dde6ec989eb0@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157765 |
In article <3oudnWDG_IrdFTrLnZ2dnUU78TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, am.swallow@btinternet.com says... > > On 26/01/2016 14:35, RS Wood wrote: > > On 2016-01-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote: > >>> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of > >>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in > >>> the U.S. > >> > >> The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers which were > >> the imitation 360s. > >> > >> When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the VAX was > >> a popular target. > >> > >> John Savard > > # > > These links look like interesting food for thought: > > > > First, a book called Perspectives on #soviet and Russian Computing: > > https://books.google.co.ug/books?id=-jSqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=soviet+computers+minicomputers&source=bl&ots=a4PfPVZV1k&sig=YCs1FBm6iFZQ3CmxzuPtZ-gJZLE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20computers%20minicomputers&f=false > > > > Good luck with that stupidly long Google URL. > > > > This Wikipedia article is helpful and goes a bit into the BESM and > > others: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries > > > > This page points out the BESM were mainframes, but the DVK family (???) > > ? PDP-11 clones and the Elektronica were DEC clones > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_systems > > > > That leads me to believe they were at least trying hard to duplicate > > American hardware. The comment above about PCs being not yet on > > desktops in 1982 makes me wonder what the FBI must be using there - I'll > > try to get a screenshot. Something like wyse terminals? Or IBM 3270s > > networked to a mainframe or something? The FBI would have had money in > > 1982 to buy whatever they wanted, I'd think. > > > > In 1982 the FBI could have had glass TTY as terminals. RS232 links to > the computer. While you could access a mainframe that way it was a lot happier with SNA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca4b68f8-fb85-4baa-b440-635ffc74615b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #157762 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-5, RS Wood wrote: > That leads me to believe they were at least trying hard to duplicate > American hardware. The comment above about PCs being not yet on > desktops in 1982 makes me wonder what the FBI must be using there - I'll > try to get a screenshot. Something like wyse terminals? Or IBM 3270s > networked to a mainframe or something? The FBI would have had money in > 1982 to buy whatever they wanted, I'd think. The TV show gave a glimpse of U.S. computing technology, too. The FBI certainly had big mainframe computers in 1982, with tie-ins to state police departments. The following WUTR article describes it as of 1969 (S/360 model 50 and a S/360-40). http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/23-4/p130.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 11:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1596476774.475518680.274763.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157762 |
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote: > On 2016-01-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote: >>> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of >>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in >>> the U.S. >> >> The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers which were >> the imitation 360s. >> >> When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the VAX was >> a popular target. >> >> John Savard > # > These links look like interesting food for thought: > > First, a book called Perspectives on #soviet and Russian Computing: > https://books.google.co.ug/books?id=-jSqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=soviet+computers+minicomputers&source=bl&ots=a4PfPVZV1k&sig=YCs1FBm6iFZQ3CmxzuPtZ-gJZLE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20computers%20minicomputers&f=false > > Good luck with that stupidly long Google URL. > > This Wikipedia article is helpful and goes a bit into the BESM and > others: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_hardware_in_Soviet_Bloc_countries > > This page points out the BESM were mainframes, but the DVK family (ДВК) > — PDP-11 clones and the Elektronica were DEC clones > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_computer_systems > > That leads me to believe they were at least trying hard to duplicate > American hardware. The comment above about PCs being not yet on > desktops in 1982 makes me wonder what the FBI must be using there - I'll > try to get a screenshot. Something like wyse terminals? Or IBM 3270s > networked to a mainframe or something? The FBI would have had money in > 1982 to buy whatever they wanted, I'd think. > All you need is anything before the &pg=, the rest points you to a specific page and contains the search terms you used. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 17:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n88vuf$ot8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157762 |
"RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message news:n88083$b84$2@solani.org... > On 2016-01-25, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:48:00 AM UTC-7, John Levine wrote: >>> and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of >>> S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in >>> the U.S. >> >> The BESM-6 had a 48 bit word size - it preceded the EC/Ryad computers >> which were >> the imitation 360s. >> >> When Soviet spies attempted to smuggle American computers to Russia, the >> VAX was >> a popular target. >> >> John Savard > # > These links look like interesting food for thought: > > First, a book called Perspectives on #soviet and Russian Computing: > https://books.google.co.ug/books?id=-jSqCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=soviet+computers+minicomputers&source=bl&ots=a4PfPVZV1k&sig=YCs1FBm6iFZQ3CmxzuPtZ-gJZLE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=soviet%20computers%20minicomputers&f=false > There is an old book called _Computing in the 20th Century_ edited by Nicholas Metropolis. (This would be a great name to have!) Metropolis worked on the Manhattan Project and brought data to the ENIAC to verify computations done in New Mexico... perhaps for the hydrogen bomb after WWII. Anyway, in this book, each chapter is a paper or article about specific computers. There is a chapter on the BESM. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 21:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnafhgo.hem.whynot@orphan.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #157628 |
with <n85jju$15lh$1@miucha.iecc.com> John Levine wrote: >>But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? I thought at least some >>computer stuff was restricted in where it could be sold. And even if >>not, buying outside of the USSR meant needing "hard currency", which I >>thought was often lacking. They had to spend it on the important >>things. > > At computer conferences in the 1970s I saw a clone of a DEC computer > made in Hungary, and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of > S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in > the U.S. BESM was true home-made (with hilarity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM . While clone of S360 was ESEVM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM . > So it's unlikely the Soviets would have real DEC machines, but they > could well have similar looking home made ones. Yes, watch Jackson-Vanik at work. Apparently, history isn't going to repeat itself this time. -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 10:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6v1qnc-oca.ln1@n6wuz.net> |
| In reply to | #157880 |
In alt.folklore.computers Eric Pozharski <whynot@pozharski.name> wrote: > with <n85jju$15lh$1@miucha.iecc.com> John Levine wrote: > > At computer conferences in the 1970s I saw a clone of a DEC computer > > made in Hungary, and I gather the BESM series in Russia was a clone of > > S/360 running software borrowed from a real S/360 in their embassy in > > the U.S. > BESM was true home-made (with hilarity): > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM . > While clone of S360 was ESEVM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ES_EVM . In 1978 we hired a recent refugee from Russia at a PPOE. He arrived on the job with a thick computer reference book for a research computer He carried it out in his luggage. The book covered the whole gamut from digital circuitry, architecture, hw/sw interfaces, macro programming, software system design, and on to high-level languages. If you were restricted to just one S/360 reference, that would be the one to own. -- It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward. - Lewis Carroll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 05:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dgn8vaF66vsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #157623 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1601251056460.9361@darkstar.example.org... > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote: > >> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're >> not, I can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982 >> Washington DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off. >> >> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian >> embassy to the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a >> lot of prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks. >> >> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the >> terminals look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the >> desks of the FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the >> VT100 reigned from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the >> show. >> > But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? I thought at least some computer > stuff was restricted in where it could be sold. And even if not, buying > outside of the USSR meant needing "hard currency", which I thought was > often lacking. They had to spend it on the important things. Its far from clear that they would have thought anything else was more important. Certainly Putin himself was involved in that sort of stuff a bit later than that 85-90, in embassies outside the USSR, in his case mostly in Germany. Dunno about access to DEC minis tho. The program may well have used those instead of the russian clones of them just because there aren't any clones available to use to even do a decent mockup of those, so used real VT100s instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 13:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052A3CF4346EF5@aca46c41.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #157623 |
Michael Black wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote: > >> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're not, I >> can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982 Washington >> DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off. >> >> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian embassy to >> the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of >> prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks. >> >> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the terminals >> look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the desks of the >> FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the VT100 reigned >> from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the show. >> > But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? No. The Soviets couldn't buy any US modern computers. They had to use subterfuege to get modern gear for reverse engineering. > I thought at least some computer > stuff was restricted in where it could be sold. And even if not, buying > outside of the USSR meant needing "hard currency", which I thought was > often lacking. They had to spend it on the important things. > > Michael /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 17:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8905l$pj0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #157753 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052A3CF4346EF5@aca46c41.ipt.aol.com... > Michael Black wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote: >> >>> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're >>> not, > I >>> can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982 > Washington >>> DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off. >>> >>> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian >>> embassy > to >>> the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of >>> prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks. >>> >>> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the > terminals >>> look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the desks of >>> the >>> FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the VT100 >>> reigned >>> from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the show. >>> >> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? > One way the Soviets bought modern computers is to have a third-party in some other country, like Germany or France, to buy the U.S. computer. The computer would be transferred to the USSR in secret. So the Soviets could *not* legally buy advanced US computers, but they could buy them through back-alley deals. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052A523B95B608@aca4109b.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #157857 |
Charles Richmond wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052A3CF4346EF5@aca46c41.ipt.aol.com... >> Michael Black wrote: >>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote: >>> >>>> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're >>>> not, >> I >>>> can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982 >> Washington >>>> DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off. >>>> >>>> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian >>>> embassy >> to >>>> the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of >>>> prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks. >>>> >>>> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the >> terminals >>>> look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the desks of >>>> the >>>> FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the VT100 >>>> reigned >>>> from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the show. >>>> >>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? >> > > One way the Soviets bought modern computers is to have a third-party in some > other country, like Germany or France, to buy the U.S. computer. The > computer would be transferred to the USSR in secret. So the Soviets could > *not* legally buy advanced US computers, but they could buy them through > back-alley deals. They tried that but the VAX was intercepted, IIRC, in Germany. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-03 00:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n8ri2j$8d5$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #157923 |
In article <PM00052A523B95B608@aca4109b.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Charles Richmond wrote: >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052A3CF4346EF5@aca46c41.ipt.aol.com... >>> Michael Black wrote: >>>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, RS Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anyone here familiar with that TV series, The Americans?[1] If you're >>>>> not, >>> I >>>>> can recommend it - it's pretty well done drama, set in about 1982 >>> Washington >>>>> DC, where undercover KGB agents and the FBI are facing off. >>>>> >>>>> Thought I'd mention it because every scene shot within the Russian >>>>> embassy >>> to >>>>> the USA (ie, the USSR's building in Washington DC) features a lot of >>>>> prominent shots of DEC VT100 terminals gracing everyone's desks. >>>>> >>>>> At first I thought, typical Hollywood - they chose DEC because the >>> terminals >>>>> look a bit more dated than the more modern PCs sitting on the desks of >>>>> the >>>>> FBI, but poking around a bit [2], it might be accurate: the VT100 >>>>> reigned >>>>> from about 1978 to 1982, so that would correspond with the show. >>>>> >>>> But could the Soviets buy DEC computers? >>> >> >> One way the Soviets bought modern computers is to have a third-party in some >> other country, like Germany or France, to buy the U.S. computer. The >> computer would be transferred to the USSR in secret. So the Soviets could >> *not* legally buy advanced US computers, but they could buy them through >> back-alley deals. > >They tried that but the VAX was intercepted, IIRC, in Germany. > >/BAH Yup... let's see where it was... September 10, 1984 Computerworld. Page 4 -- DEC fined 1.5 million following export investigation (this was for a VAX 11/782 shipped via a German Company (Deutsche Integrated Time). The owner of DIT (Richard Mueller) had been involved in the 1970's in two export violation cases. The VAX 11/782 was such a crock we should've let them have it. IIRC -- I had to move memory between the main cpu and attached processor so they could back up the beast at RCA's Semiconductor in Sommerville NJ... A flawed design hack which was master/slave and lousy. Software support sucked. They would've been better run as separate 11/780s... Probably put the Soviet computer program back a few years... https://goo.gl/7G86LH Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web