Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155734 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 320 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 10:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-01 13:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 12:05 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-02 04:41 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 11:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 17:14 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 15:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 11:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 18:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:24 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-03 09:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:12 -0700
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 16:56 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 14:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-03 23:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-04 07:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> - 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-02 00:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 06:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:34 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 17:28 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-02 19:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 07:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-03 10:00 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-17 08:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 11:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 12:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 18:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-06 18:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 15:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 09:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 19:23 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:58 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 15:53 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 11:26 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:24 +0100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:06 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-08 10:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:42 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 07:07 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-09 11:55 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:40 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-10 06:13 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-09 13:36 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-09 15:30 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-08 10:43 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-08 10:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 22:53 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 12:53 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:29 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 10:03 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-12 21:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-13 14:22 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-13 10:14 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-13 18:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 07:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 13:06 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 09:51 +1100
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:01 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 13:21 -0600
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-08 20:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Jack Myers" <jmyers@n6wuz.net> - 2016-01-08 20:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-09 11:31 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:33 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-09 12:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 15:31 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 17:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-09 17:07 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-10 11:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 17:08 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:43 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 08:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 09:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 12:28 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 10:58 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 13:57 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-12 18:19 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 17:37 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-12 18:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-09 18:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 21:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-09 22:56 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-11 23:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 07:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-12 11:28 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 14:58 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-12 14:01 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 16:42 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-12 22:07 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-08 10:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-11 14:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-01-11 17:28 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-11 19:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-09 07:30 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-09 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-07 18:55 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 07:29 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:30 +0100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 10:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 19:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:27 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 11:08 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 13:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 14:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-12 17:47 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-13 01:27 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 11:18 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-13 19:05 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-13 20:22 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-14 14:09 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-15 14:51 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 09:48 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 17:26 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 09:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-15 17:44 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 12:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-19 12:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-19 15:27 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 19:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 13:44 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-15 15:02 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-16 08:58 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-15 23:51 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 16:01 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-15 17:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 08:03 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 08:29 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 03:38 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:59 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 16:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 02:11 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 14:02 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:22 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 05:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:00 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-18 03:59 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 16:15 +0100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-18 04:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 16:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-16 11:19 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-16 18:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-01-16 17:23 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 13:01 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-16 20:55 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-16 14:53 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 05:43 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 19:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 14:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:19 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-17 19:27 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 15:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-16 15:32 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-16 22:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-17 16:12 +1100
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-17 11:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-17 12:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-17 09:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-17 10:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-17 15:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 05:14 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-17 15:38 -0600
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-16 14:09 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-16 15:19 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-15 19:29 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-15 14:25 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-14 13:46 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-14 05:17 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-14 13:11 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-01-05 04:44 -0400
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 11:06 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-01-04 17:04 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0800
Re: I Feel Old jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-02 15:01 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-02 15:58 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 06:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 12:31 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:06 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 07:09 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:11 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-03 20:42 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "jack" <jkl8976@nospam.com> - 2016-01-04 16:43 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 22:05 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:21 +0100
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:47 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:10 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:26 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:57 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:46 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-07 17:36 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 13:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:35 +1100
Re: I Feel Old Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-08 00:15 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 19:41 +1100
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 12:44 -0800
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 21:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:51 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:59 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:35 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-05 17:31 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:38 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:50 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:26 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:49 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:32 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 07:13 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:08 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:39 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:45 -0600
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:42 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 19:52 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 12:35 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 20:54 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 23:48 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:38 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-07 07:46 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 06:44 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 21:47 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:45 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 12:18 +0000
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 08:12 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-10 13:40 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 08:15 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 05:48 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:29 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:20 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:52 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:34 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:40 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:39 -0500
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:22 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-15 17:43 -0600
Re: I Feel Old JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 20:13 -0600
Re: I Feel Old Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:26 -0500
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-08 14:37 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 23:25 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-02 21:35 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-03 05:34 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 08:33 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Freddy1 <something@something.com> - 2016-01-03 15:17 -0500
Re: I Feel Old Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:52 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-04 05:09 -0800
Re: I Feel Old "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-01-05 14:57 -0600
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-01 20:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-01-02 07:00 +0000
Re: I Feel Old Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:44 -0700
Re: I Feel Old hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-02 13:46 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-02 09:11 -0800
Re: I Feel Old Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-02 11:49 -0600
Re: I Feel Old John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> - 2016-01-03 08:14 -0600
Re: I Feel Old mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-03 17:11 +0000
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160104143213.e339530559bec98fa852cd8e@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155874 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:42:32 -0600 John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> wrote: > On 01/03/2016 08:07 AM, John Garza wrote: > Yes, Skype is now owned by Microsoft. > > But remember HP is a 'Microsoft Partner' and their machines use Windows. > The majority of our support calls are OS related, too. > > HP is very much 'in bed' with Uncle Bill. > > You start talking Linux there and you can see the fear in their eyes. How about mentioning HPUX ? -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <devmg0F3i8jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155875 |
On 2016-01-04, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:42:32 -0600
> John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On 01/03/2016 08:07 AM, John Garza wrote:
>> Yes, Skype is now owned by Microsoft.
>>
>> But remember HP is a 'Microsoft Partner' and their machines use Windows.
>> The majority of our support calls are OS related, too.
>>
>> HP is very much 'in bed' with Uncle Bill.
>>
>> You start talking Linux there and you can see the fear in their eyes.
>
> How about mentioning HPUX ?
Then you can see laughter in their eyes.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 4th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6e773$tko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155874 |
John Garza <john@127.0.0.1> writes: > On 01/03/2016 08:07 AM, John Garza wrote: >> On 01/02/2016 07:36 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> But I wonder how long the teleco will support pulse dialing. In one >>> sense it will be around since sending a 'flash' is a hookswitch >>> interruption and the telco gear must still detect such an interrupt, >>> so the same gear can detect dial pulses. However, I wonder if they'll >>> declare all analog phones obsolete and require us to use VOIP or some >>> sort of converter to feed VOIP for the few remaining POTS users. >>> >>> >> >> Yep. >> >> They got rid of our old phones at HP. >> Now we use Skype video conferencing. >> >> -J > > Yes, Skype is now owned by Microsoft. > > But remember HP is a 'Microsoft Partner' and their machines use Windows. > The majority of our support calls are OS related, too. > > HP is very much 'in bed' with Uncle Bill. > > You start talking Linux there and you can see the fear in their eyes. Actually, I worked in a shop where HP does facilities management. Linux was offered as a desktop choice. I have no idea how HP staff felt about it. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <navnlc-uo1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #155791 |
In article <9b05632b-f817-48df-a0ad-4e5aa5b925cf@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-5, Joe Morris wrote: >> I also have some fun with them, talking about the amount of storage in their >> cellphones, then casually asking if anybody in the class has had to dial a >> telephone number manually in the past couple of weeks. There's usually at >> least one student who will bite, at which point I hold out a quarter and bet >> that he's wrong...and then I haul out of my transport box an old AECo dial >> telephone, noting that (almost) *nobody* acutally *DIALS* a number today. > >I still use a real rotary dial phone at times. > >But I wonder how long the teleco will support pulse dialing. In one >sense it will be around since sending a 'flash' is a hookswitch >interruption and the telco gear must still detect such an interrupt, >so the same gear can detect dial pulses. However, I wonder if they'll >declare all analog phones obsolete and require us to use VOIP or some >sort of converter to feed VOIP for the few remaining POTS users. Our incumbent telco, Telenor, tried to grandfather POTS three years ago. Except for a handful of municipalites that have been extensively fibered, it backfired. Lots of small companies (and some large ones) stood up and volunteered to take over the COs and the old, unmaintainable (per Telenor) copper plant, and maintain it for 50 years. Telenor instantly backpeddled. Telenor fiber is really good. I was slightly coerced into booking some while taking over a new house (it was already in the ground). It has so far survived two medium to long power outages (5 and 9 hours) without losing a bit. (I have UPS and small generator in my end). They really build wdm-to-the-home, with lots of opticals in use. These are sturdy and passive; no electricity needed. My "CO" is located around 17 km away, and it is passive optics all the way there. There has only been one very short announced service outage of ~3 minutes (30 announced) while moving a trunk underground. I know of several ATAs (Analogue Telephone Adapters) for SIP, IAX and H.232 that support pulse dialling. The best ones are the switched from Xorcom, which even support Z-dialling. (but translating Z to X in a script is fairly easy). -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5aednf0Dy8LJHRTLnZ2dnUVZ5oSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155791 |
On 1/2/2016 18:36, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-5, Joe Morris wrote: >> I also have some fun with them, talking about the amount of storage in their >> cellphones, then casually asking if anybody in the class has had to dial a >> telephone number manually in the past couple of weeks. There's usually at >> least one student who will bite, at which point I hold out a quarter and bet >> that he's wrong...and then I haul out of my transport box an old AECo dial >> telephone, noting that (almost) *nobody* acutally *DIALS* a number today. > > I still use a real rotary dial phone at times. > > But I wonder how long the teleco will support pulse dialing. In one > sense it will be around since sending a 'flash' is a hookswitch > interruption and the telco gear must still detect such an interrupt, > so the same gear can detect dial pulses. However, I wonder if they'll > declare all analog phones obsolete and require us to use VOIP or some > sort of converter to feed VOIP for the few remaining POTS users. > > Good question, I haven't found any COs in the USofA that don't still support pulse dialing on POTS type service lines, but I don't travel as much in my geezer days as I used to. I have found PBX's that don't work well with pulse type dialling using the switchhook. I wonder if there is some sort of obscure gov't requirement that pulse be supported?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a1f19a52-82a6-4adc-ba2c-30fe2477609e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155838 |
On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 3:11:01 PM UTC-5, Lon wrote: > Good question, I haven't found any COs in the USofA that don't still > support pulse dialing on POTS type service lines, but I don't travel as > much in my geezer days as I used to. I have found PBX's that don't work > well with pulse type dialling using the switchhook. > I wonder if there is some sort of obscure gov't requirement that pulse > be supported? I _think_ modern business PBXs don't use switchhook signalling at all, rather, they use digital signalling and special telephone sets. An classic telephone set won't even work on such systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YKednc0NLeD6ChfLnZ2dnUU78UGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155881 |
On 04/01/2016 15:48, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 3:11:01 PM UTC-5, Lon wrote: > >> Good question, I haven't found any COs in the USofA that don't still >> support pulse dialing on POTS type service lines, but I don't travel as >> much in my geezer days as I used to. I have found PBX's that don't work >> well with pulse type dialling using the switchhook. >> I wonder if there is some sort of obscure gov't requirement that pulse >> be supported? > > I _think_ modern business PBXs don't use switchhook signalling at all, > rather, they use digital signalling and special telephone sets. An > classic telephone set won't even work on such systems. > A PBX has two sets of interfaces. The first to the hand sets within the company. The second is the external interface to the phone network. They can have different facilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160104162324.44c5b7692aea271823529b5f@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155881 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 07:48:55 -0800 (PST) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 3:11:01 PM UTC-5, Lon wrote: > > > Good question, I haven't found any COs in the USofA that don't still > > support pulse dialing on POTS type service lines, but I don't travel as > > much in my geezer days as I used to. I have found PBX's that don't > > work well with pulse type dialling using the switchhook. > > I wonder if there is some sort of obscure gov't requirement that pulse > > be supported? > > I _think_ modern business PBXs don't use switchhook signalling at all, > rather, they use digital signalling and special telephone sets. An > classic telephone set won't even work on such systems. True most modern business phone systems are VOIP using SIP - which is handy because you can often use a SIP client on a laptop to have your desk phone with you while traveling or working from home. Some of the phones have a two port bridge built in so you can use a single network port on the desk to connect phone and computer. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <878u46jqph.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #155791 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > I still use a real rotary dial phone at times. > > But I wonder how long the teleco will support pulse dialing. In one > sense it will be around since sending a 'flash' is a hookswitch > interruption and the telco gear must still detect such an interrupt, > so the same gear can detect dial pulses. However, I wonder if they'll > declare all analog phones obsolete and require us to use VOIP or some > sort of converter to feed VOIP for the few remaining POTS users. There are still quite a few rotary phones lurking in homes of the middle aged and elderly here in rural Nova Scotia. Ours, too, until fairly recently (by the chronological standards of "elderly". :-) A decade or so ago, we had a line problem while the service techs were on strike. On the third unfruitful visit from managers and sales droids in a service truck, one of them finally jumped into the truck, drove 5 miles to the nearest switchgear cabinet and swapped out a circuit board. Line cleared but pulse dial stopped working. Happily, we had an assortment of Nortel 2500 sets collected up for just such an eventuality so we were fine after some hasty fiddling and we stopped paying monthly rental on the dial phones. (Pulse dial capability returned after a while. I surmise that other subscribers complained but I dunno for sure.) -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 14:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6em39$stv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155738 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:bf5c8aeb-eca2-4905-836c-635f9a0ec1a3@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 12:33:22 PM UTC-7, Charles Richmond wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:9dcde262-7129-4a8f-b034-105b67d61cf5@googlegroups.com...
[snip...] [snip...]
[snip...]
>> > I can remember the days, not long ago, when people were excited about
>> > being able
>> > to attach a 5 megabyte
>> >
>> > *hard disk*
>> >
>> > to their computers.
>> >
>> > We have come a long way.
>
>> Quadiblock, you are *not* old... you are *ancient*!!! You were raised in
>> the "Stone Age" of computers.
>
>> Errr.... and so was I!!!
>
>Of course, when I was born, computers were even less advanced. That was the
>era
>when the IBM 704, with convenient *core* memory - and *hardware
>floating-point*
>- was hot stuff!
I thought that the IBM 704 used Williams tubes for memory...
--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9b4b4bf-39f8-4a43-87a7-f1bd14ac345b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155902 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:55:37 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: > I thought that the IBM 704 used Williams tubes for memory... IIRC, only the 701 and 702 used Williams tubes for memory, and they were later retrofit with core memory. Williams tubes were rather unreliable. As soon as core memory became practical, the industry jumped on it. Later, there were patent suits over it. I think Jay Forrester got the credit. Don't know what credit A. Wang got, though he made major contributions. As an aside, Germany in WW II used material in electronics that served as the basis for cores. (apologize for Godwin's violation). This is discussed in the first volume of the IBM history. I think subsequent IBM machines used core memory until 'monolithics'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 14:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6hamh$ou9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155910 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:a9b4b4bf-39f8-4a43-87a7-f1bd14ac345b@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:55:37 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> I thought that the IBM 704 used Williams tubes for memory... > > IIRC, only the 701 and 702 used Williams tubes for memory, and > they were later retrofit with core memory. > Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the IBM 701... confusing it with the 705. > Williams tubes were rather unreliable. As soon as core memory > became practical, the industry jumped on it. Later, there were > patent suits over it. I think Jay Forrester got the credit. Don't > know what credit A. Wang got, though he made major contributions. > Now here I always thought that Dr. An Wang invented core memory, and Jay Forrester invent the core *plane*... with many cores sewn nicely together by three wires. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 13:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dede2a5f-87f5-4e9e-b1a1-c26a1a91b7a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156006 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: > Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the IBM 701... confusing it with the 705. The local library has a computerization proposal IBM submitted utilizing a 705. A lot of the processing work would still be done by offline tabulating machines. Computer I/O would also be done by tabulating machines connected directly (not via the CPU) to tape drives. While the 705 used core memory, it utilized vacuum tubes for its logic. The 709 as well. But the 7090 used transistors. > Now here I always thought that Dr. An Wang invented core memory, and Jay > Forrester invent the core *plane*... with many cores sewn nicely together by > three wires. Good point. I'd have to check the IBM history. Unfortunately, I never read Pugh's "Memories that Shaped an Industry".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <HIOdnRIRmfR6DhHLnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156006 |
Charles Richmond wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:a9b4b4bf-39f8-4a43-87a7-f1bd14ac345b@googlegroups.com... >> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:55:37 PM UTC-5, Charles Richmond wrote: >> >>> I thought that the IBM 704 used Williams tubes for memory... >> >> IIRC, only the 701 and 702 used Williams tubes for memory, and >> they were later retrofit with core memory. >> > > Yeah, I guess I was thinking of the IBM 701... confusing it with the 705. > >> Williams tubes were rather unreliable. As soon as core memory >> became practical, the industry jumped on it. Later, there were >> patent suits over it. I think Jay Forrester got the credit. Don't >> know what credit A. Wang got, though he made major contributions. >> > > Now here I always thought that Dr. An Wang invented core memory, and Jay > Forrester invent the core *plane*... with many cores sewn nicely together > by three wires. > My take on this was that Wang developed data storage in big toroid cores, storing one bit, with a separate driver and sense amp per bit. Forrester invented the scheme of conicident current core memory, where intersecting currents selected a single bit out of a whole field of cores. While Wang may have done important work, the concept of getting N bits with kind-of sqrt(N) drivers was a HUGE development! (The kind-of qualifier is because the select drivers need to be able to send current both directions in each wire, so they get a little more complicated.) Forrester's core memory was 4-wire, they did not share the sense wire and the inhibit wire. i think core memories were made for over a decade before somebody figured out they could share these functions on a single wire, since they were never used at the same time. (My tenuous connection to all this is my student advisor at Washington University was William Papian, who was Forrester's grad student when he was developing core memory. But, I did NOT get any of this history from him. If I'd ONLY KNOWN what he had done back then, it would have spurred some INTERESTING discussions!) Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62732893-089b-4b59-8a6e-3c08883b663d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155902 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 1:55:37 PM UTC-7, Charles Richmond wrote: > I thought that the IBM 704 used Williams tubes for memory... No, that was the 701. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | philo <philo@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 19:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6kedd$bm2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155738 |
On 01/01/2016 02:05 PM, Quadibloc wrote: > On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 12:33:22 PM UTC-7, Charles Richmond wrote: >> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message >> news:9dcde262-7129-4a8f-b034-105b67d61cf5@googlegroups.com... >>> I was looking up the specs for the processor in an old cheap gaming laptop >>> that I >>> currently use... >>> >>> an i7 740QM. >>> >>> It has six megabytes of L3 cache, plus an additional megabyte of L2 cache. >>> >>> I can remember the days, not long ago, when people were excited about >>> being able >>> to attach a 5 megabyte >>> >>> *hard disk* >>> >>> to their computers. >>> >>> We have come a long way. > >> Quadiblock, you are *not* old... you are *ancient*!!! You were raised in >> the "Stone Age" of computers. > >> Errr.... and so was I!!! > > Of course, when I was born, computers were even less advanced. That was the era > when the IBM 704, with convenient *core* memory - and *hardware floating-point* > - was hot stuff! > > And it was hot stuff. People think the 5 volt 60/66 MHz Pentium used a lot of > power. Well, that wasn't a patch on what the IBM 704 used, being made from > vacuum tubes and all. > > When I went to high school, in grade 11, the school got the loan of a computer, and so I had my first chance to program one. In what I think was CINET BASIC, on a PDP 8/e. > > Two years later, in an introductory programming course, I punched my own cards to use WATFIV under MTS on an IBM 360/67. In the last week of the course, we also got a taste of APL/360. Later, I had some occasion as a grad student to do work in FORTRAN IV (G) on their shiny new Amdahl 470 V6. > > So, yes, I suppose my computer experience is "ancient". > > John Savard > LOL When I upgraded the 850 meg drive on my P-1 to a 2 Gb I pretty much broke out in a cold sweat when I got a drive that /huge/ in my hands!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160101213359.c4fa91b81ade324004208803@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155734 |
On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:49:00 -0800 (PST) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > I was looking up the specs for the processor in an old cheap gaming > laptop that I currently use... > > an i7 740QM. > > It has six megabytes of L3 cache, plus an additional megabyte of L2 cache. > > I can remember the days, not long ago, when people were excited about > being able to attach a 5 megabyte I remember being excited when we built the first hard disk equipped Torch. The 5 megabyte drive (full height 5 1/4" - the smallest hard disk I'd seen at the time) arrived packed in a wooden box with the drive suspended by springs from all eight corners. I doubt we could have been more careful installing it on the approved mountings if it had contained nitroglycerine. That was near the start of my career in my first full time job in 1982. Now there are drives with a million times the capacity, costing a fraction of the price, that can be thrown across a room and caught without damage and may even survive missing the catch - the SSDs with nearly half a million times the capacity will certainly survive missing the catch and a great deal worse abuse. Now I work on systems for petabytes of storage and terabytes of RAM - admittedly spread over several boxes. Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what another 35 years will bring. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8e0pi.2a2.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #155745 |
On 2016-01-01, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 10:49:00 -0800 (PST) > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> I was looking up the specs for the processor in an old cheap gaming >> laptop that I currently use... >> >> an i7 740QM. >> >> It has six megabytes of L3 cache, plus an additional megabyte of L2 cache. >> >> I can remember the days, not long ago, when people were excited about >> being able to attach a 5 megabyte > > I remember being excited when we built the first hard disk equipped > Torch. The 5 megabyte drive (full height 5 1/4" - the smallest hard disk > I'd seen at the time) arrived packed in a wooden box with the drive > suspended by springs from all eight corners. I doubt we could have been > more careful installing it on the approved mountings if it had contained > nitroglycerine. That was near the start of my career in my first full time > job in 1982. > > Now there are drives with a million times the capacity, costing a > fraction of the price, that can be thrown across a room and caught without > damage and may even survive missing the catch - the SSDs with nearly half a > million times the capacity will certainly survive missing the catch and a > great deal worse abuse. Now I work on systems for petabytes of storage and > terabytes of RAM - admittedly spread over several boxes. > > Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what > another 35 years will bring. > I remember a BBS scene around Dublin that consisted of computers running floppy disks (or running off floppy disks), There was one young guy with rich parents who bought him a HD, most of the scene called round to admire it. I didn't, lived to far away, but I got the impression that he realized that he had been exploited. At the time, the professional computer users. were older peeople who didn't mess with their comfortable lives to hack. Some of the younger enthusiasts thought that if they demonstrate their knowledge of computer security, they would get get good jobs, Not then, not now!. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 15:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6080e724-4d4a-4f96-a0b6-06d6c86668d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155745 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 3:00:04 PM UTC-7, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > Yes we have come a very long way indeed. It makes you wonder what > another 35 years will bring. Of course, the pace of progress is slowing a bit. Dennard scaling has already gone by the boards, and Moore's Law has only a bit more life left in it. However, other areas of technological progress are about to start their sigmoid curves. So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through rebuilding telomeres... One way or another, the future will be exciting. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 20:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05ffd0a9-945b-42f5-9351-92d377d4f503@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155752 |
On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:57:44 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > So maybe 35 years from now, computers will only be a "little" better than they > are today (that will still be a significant improvement, just not as much as > further exponential growth would indicate)... but that CISPR stuff might lead > to cures for nearly all genetic diseases, and basically eternal youth through > rebuilding telomeres... > One way or another, the future will be exciting. Sorry, but I am not optimistic about the future because the political system seems to have failed. Young people coming out of school today will have it much harder than our generation. Our generation will face unaffordable health care costs while our pensions are stolen from us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web