Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #158899 > unrolled thread
| Started by | philo <philo@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-05 11:25 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-13 11:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 190 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-05 11:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-05 14:56 -0800
Re: Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-05 18:13 -0600
Re: Qbasic Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-05 22:40 -0500
Re: Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-05 22:32 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Gene Buckle" <gene.buckle@bbs.retroarchive.org.remove-3hg-this> - 2016-02-11 10:22 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-11 17:16 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-11 18:49 -0800
Re: Qbasic philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-12 05:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-12 11:50 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-12 14:02 +0000
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-12 23:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:50 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 06:53 -0500
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-12 13:40 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:53 -0800
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-13 14:37 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-12 14:04 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:55 -0800
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-12 23:21 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 15:55 -0800
Re: Qbasic Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-13 00:26 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:55 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-12 21:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-12 17:11 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:27 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 06:26 -0500
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:54 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:34 -0800
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 19:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 12:48 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-17 18:52 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 19:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:00 -0600
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 15:02 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:36 -0500
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 04:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:34 -0500
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 08:03 -0600
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:09 -0500
Re: Qbasic JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:39 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 12:05 -0600
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 13:47 -0600
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 14:21 -0600
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:06 -0600
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 18:57 +0000
Re: Qbasic Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 14:02 -0600
Re: Qbasic Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-20 16:51 -0400
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-18 06:25 +0000
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 14:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-18 11:33 -0600
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 17:41 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 14:54 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:14 -0500
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-18 20:54 -0600
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-19 11:44 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-13 12:24 -0600
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:26 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 07:43 -0700
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 10:29 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 08:20 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 09:21 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 12:44 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 11:31 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 15:52 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 13:02 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 16:58 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 20:24 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:39 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:17 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 20:00 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 17:52 -0800
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-13 19:28 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:32 -0800
Re: Qbasic David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 14:59 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-14 10:15 -0800
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-14 09:48 -0800
Re: Qbasic Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-14 12:01 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 19:36 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 20:35 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:15 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 08:20 -0800
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 14:31 -0600
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:04 -0800
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:18 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-13 17:25 -0600
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 19:42 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 20:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:49 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 08:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 08:27 -0800
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 14:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:38 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:23 -0800
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-15 20:49 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-16 07:07 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 10:33 +0100
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-16 13:43 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 15:21 +0100
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:30 -0800
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 19:49 +0000
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:53 +0100
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:09 +1100
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:30 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:06 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 05:55 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 21:42 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:05 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:24 -0600
Re: Qbasic Anonymous <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-21 00:26 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:43 +1100
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 18:36 +0000
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:31 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:13 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 06:00 +1100
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 10:10 -0800
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 18:32 +0000
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-16 21:08 +0000
Re: Qbasic Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-16 08:20 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Qbasic Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 20:30 -0600
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:25 -0800
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:25 +0100
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 11:34 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 16:47 -0500
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-14 04:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:12 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 19:39 -0500
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:55 -0500
Re: Qbasic Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 20:08 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 20:41 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 12:06 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 09:21 -0800
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 09:29 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-15 21:22 +0000
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-15 21:20 +0000
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 09:18 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:07 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 10:48 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 15:49 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:09 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 19:56 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 17:43 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-14 04:16 +0000
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:35 +0100
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 20:08 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 17:55 -0800
Re: Qbasic Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-14 04:14 +0000
Re: Qbasic Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 16:13 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 04:44 +1100
Re: Qbasic Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:30 +0100
Re: Qbasic "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:27 +1100
Re: Qbasic Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-14 13:43 -0600
Re: Qbasic "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:31 +1100
Re: Qbasic pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-02-12 17:38 +0000
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:33 -0500
Re: Qbasic Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-12 09:51 -0800
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:24 -0500
Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-13 14:37 +0000
Re: Qbasic "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 10:24 -0500
Re: Qbasic hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-12 23:20 -0800
Re: Qbasic "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 11:09 +0000
Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
Re: Qbasic Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2016-02-15 23:30 -0500
Re: Qbasic scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 15:56 +0000
Re: Qbasic Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-13 11:33 +0000
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 13:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31293b02d2f63704989f6e@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159239 |
In article <f06ca151-d32c-49e3-a4ff-e3441550b3e8@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 10:28:11 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > We're currently porting some code written in Fortran in the early '70s > > to C, mostly because IBM hasn't issued a version upgrade of Fortran on > > the mainframe since some time in the '80s. It's not EOL--they'll fix > > bugs if they find them and when they add new features to the hardware > > they _may_ update the compiler to provide support for them. > > There is still some old Fortran that still runs on the Z mainframe. But > I think most Fortran work is now done by other means, such as CAD/CAM or spreadsheets; or mini-computers where Fortran is still supported > and expanded. > > But if a conversion is necessary, today's mainframe COBOL supports > some sci/eng functions. Might be easier to go to COBOL than C. For certain values of "Today's". We're looking at a Cobol upgrade. The big question is how much it's going to break and how much it will cost to fix whatever it breaks (cost not just in programmer time but in pissed-off agents and customers and in lost business) and so far it's not looking good for the upgrade. But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which programmers are difficult to find.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 10:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36ca60ce-d5a7-4595-acbc-865537350c60@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159249 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which > programmers are difficult to find. I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.312960e2c33fed40989f72@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159252 |
In article <36ca60ce-d5a7-4595-acbc-865537350c60@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which > > programmers are difficult to find. > > I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. > A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. But how many of those have math degrees? We don't just need people who can write code, we need people who can both write code and speak actuary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 14:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5e425e0-1fbd-4c60-b4b2-176a69525b01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159262 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:48:13 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which > > > programmers are difficult to find. > > > > I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. > > A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. > > But how many of those have math degrees? We don't just need people who > can write code, we need people who can both write code and speak > actuary. Ah, you need specialists, not just a programmer. (Actually, I know of an ideal candidate for you. WW II vet, went to college on the GI Bill, then worked as an actuary, with Fortran programming. I'll ask him the next time I see him. <g>)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 19:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31299a9bec8abdab989f77@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159271 |
In article <d5e425e0-1fbd-4c60-b4b2-176a69525b01@googlegroups.com>, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 3:48:13 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > > > > But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which > > > > programmers are difficult to find. > > > > > > I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. > > > A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. > > > > But how many of those have math degrees? We don't just need people who > > can write code, we need people who can both write code and speak > > actuary. > > Ah, you need specialists, not just a programmer. > > (Actually, I know of an ideal candidate for you. WW II vet, went to > college on the GI Bill, then worked as an actuary, with Fortran > programming. I'll ask him the next time I see him. <g>) He does sound ideal. We just filled the last opening in our area but I'll see if there's anything else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 17:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7e8bea77-1b61-4da6-8f13-7a19a23a7bb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159292 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:54:51 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > (Actually, I know of an ideal candidate for you. WW II vet, went to > > college on the GI Bill, then worked as an actuary, with Fortran > > programming. I'll ask him the next time I see him. <g>) > > He does sound ideal. We just filled the last opening in our area but > I'll see if there's anything else. Well, he does like his current job. <g>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x_udnUbwRL3mYiLLnZ2dnUU78KMAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159262 |
On 13/02/2016 20:49, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <36ca60ce-d5a7-4595-acbc-865537350c60@googlegroups.com>, > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which >>> programmers are difficult to find. >> >> I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. >> A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. > > But how many of those have math degrees? We don't just need people who > can write code, we need people who can both write code and speak > actuary. > Where are the youngsters now that you employed 25 years ago?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 23:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3mn4pc-015.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #159252 |
In article <36ca60ce-d5a7-4595-acbc-865537350c60@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >> But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which >> programmers are difficult to find. > >I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. >A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. A programmer worth the title should be able to pick up something as reasonably straightforward as cobol, fortran, c or pascal in a few months. At least to a working relationship with old code. I can understand struggling with lisp or java. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 20:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31299d8b8fd6170f989f79@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159279 |
In article <3mn4pc-015.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>, first@last.name.invalid says... > > In article <36ca60ce-d5a7-4595-acbc-865537350c60@googlegroups.com>, > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > > > >> But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which > >> programmers are difficult to find. > > > >I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. > >A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. > > A programmer worth the title should be able to pick up something as > reasonably straightforward as cobol, fortran, c or pascal in a few months. > At least to a working relationship with old code. It's not that they can't, it's that they for the most part won't. It seems to be a kid thing--fear of being ostracized by their friends for using such a clunky obsolete language or some such. > I can understand struggling with lisp or java. Well, that's the other shoe--when we aren't porting Fortran to C we're setting up actuarial models in APL that are used for QC purposes (we run the production code against the APL models to confirm that it's working properly).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 17:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d16d4f01-3977-425a-b36a-96cd7b2b1fac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159296 |
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 8:07:04 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > It's not that they can't, it's that they for the most part won't. It > seems to be a kid thing--fear of being ostracized by their friends for > using such a clunky obsolete language or some such. Perhaps prospective candidates are worried about their future down the road--that having experience on an obsolete language won't look good to a subsequent employer. FWIW, _historically_, that was a prudent attitude to have. > Well, that's the other shoe--when we aren't porting Fortran to C we're > setting up actuarial models in APL that are used for QC purposes (we run > the production code against the APL models to confirm that it's working > properly). APL--well that disqualifies me! <g>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 04:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <x_udnUfwRL1kYyLLnZ2dnUU78KOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #159252 |
On 13/02/2016 18:48, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: > >> But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which >> programmers are difficult to find. > > I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. > A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. > People may have taken COBOL and Fortran off their CV but still be able to do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2045205609.477156538.707018.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159317 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 13/02/2016 18:48, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> But we are trying to avoid writing more code in languages for which >>> programmers are difficult to find. >> >> I don't know about Fortran, but it should be easy to find COBOL programmers. >> A ton of people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s were trained in COBOL. >> > > People may have taken COBOL and Fortran off their CV but still be able > to do it. > At some point I stopped listing them. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fqt3pc-l33.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #159230 |
In article <630582847.477066945.696306.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: ><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:09:48 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >> >>> It wasn't a mistake, it was a smart decision. You want to run 30 year >>> old software, buy a 30-year old CPU. >> >> Just as an aside, in the mainframe world, we routinely ran 30 or even >> 40 year old software. The 30 y/o stuff runs native mode. If the 40 y/o >> stuff was written for S/360, it will run native mode. If it was written >> for a prior generation of hardware, it would run under emulation. >> >> > >Most companies try to develop products that give the customer what he >wants. Microsoft develops products that give the customer what microsoft >wants. Microsoft is now another Nokia or Ericsson. Fitting with the merger. Nokia and Ericsson were depending heavier and heavier on their reseller networks, and when these turned into large mobile operators and became rather few in number the power game turned. Nokia discovered that they couldn't do a thing with their mainstream products that weren't firmly anchored with the operators. Never mind the end users. Their customers were around 30 in number for a 95% percentile and made increasing demands back to fit a revenue model that fitted the operators, not the end users. Enter the smartphones, to challenge the operators. The operators demanded the same from Apple and Google, only to be laughed out the door. It took Apple and Google a few months to set up an alternate sales network. This isn't hard when you have the hottest products. Microsoft is getting a doze of this now. Their customers are the large hardware vendors. They make huge demands back. The driver division in Microsoft is a political hellhole that burns through people, but they are rewarded with other positions after 18 months tenure there. This is because they simply have to accommodate all the vendors weird quirks in their hardware and keep windows stable. It is a tall order, and they are doing a remarkable job, all considering, But this has wider implications. Windows cannot be too big a success on xpods or xphones without alienating this channel, which is the lifeblood of the Microsoft revenue stream. Just as Nokia couldn't make a phone that was smart independently of the operator networks. So both Microsoft, Nokia and Ericsson listened to their customers, and ignored their customers customer. Like IBM said; if you own your customers customers you can ignore your customers. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 04:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <di98cdFqrmmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159235 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:fqt3pc-l33.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article > <630582847.477066945.696306.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:09:48 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>> >>>> It wasn't a mistake, it was a smart decision. You want to run 30 year >>>> old software, buy a 30-year old CPU. >>> >>> Just as an aside, in the mainframe world, we routinely ran 30 or even >>> 40 year old software. The 30 y/o stuff runs native mode. If the 40 y/o >>> stuff was written for S/360, it will run native mode. If it was written >>> for a prior generation of hardware, it would run under emulation. >>> >>> >> >>Most companies try to develop products that give the customer what he >>wants. Microsoft develops products that give the customer what microsoft >>wants. > > Microsoft is now another Nokia or Ericsson. Fitting with the merger. > > Nokia and Ericsson were depending heavier and heavier on their reseller > networks, and when these turned into large mobile operators and became > rather few in number the power game turned. Nokia discovered that they > couldn't do a thing with their mainstream products that weren't firmly > anchored with the operators. Never mind the end users. > > Their customers were around 30 in number for a 95% percentile and > made increasing demands back to fit a revenue model that fitted the > operators, > not the end users. > > Enter the smartphones, to challenge the operators. The operators demanded > the same from Apple and Google, only to be laughed out the door. It took > Apple and Google a few months to set up an alternate sales network. This > isn't hard when you have the hottest products. > > Microsoft is getting a doze of this now. Their customers are the large > hardware vendors. They make huge demands back. The driver division in > Microsoft is a political hellhole that burns through people, but they > are rewarded with other positions after 18 months tenure there. This is > because they simply have to accommodate all the vendors weird quirks > in their hardware and keep windows stable. It is a tall order, and they > are doing a remarkable job, all considering, > > But this has wider implications. Windows cannot be too big a success > on xpods or xphones without alienating this channel, which is the > lifeblood > of the Microsoft revenue stream. Just as Nokia couldn't make a phone > that was smart independently of the operator networks. That line doesn’t explain why Nokia was so successful before Apple got involved in the mobile/cell phone market. > So both Microsoft, Nokia and Ericsson listened to their customers, and > ignored their customers customer. Like IBM said; if you own your customers > customers you can ignore your customers. That was never Nokia's problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-13 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mcn4pc-015.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #159245 |
In article <di98cdFqrmmU1@mid.individual.net>, Blanco <rko4410@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >news:fqt3pc-l33.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >> In article >> <630582847.477066945.696306.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:09:48 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It wasn't a mistake, it was a smart decision. You want to run 30 year >>>>> old software, buy a 30-year old CPU. >>>> >>>> Just as an aside, in the mainframe world, we routinely ran 30 or even >>>> 40 year old software. The 30 y/o stuff runs native mode. If the 40 y/o >>>> stuff was written for S/360, it will run native mode. If it was written >>>> for a prior generation of hardware, it would run under emulation. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Most companies try to develop products that give the customer what he >>>wants. Microsoft develops products that give the customer what microsoft >>>wants. >> >> Microsoft is now another Nokia or Ericsson. Fitting with the merger. >> >> Nokia and Ericsson were depending heavier and heavier on their reseller >> networks, and when these turned into large mobile operators and became >> rather few in number the power game turned. Nokia discovered that they >> couldn't do a thing with their mainstream products that weren't firmly >> anchored with the operators. Never mind the end users. >> >> Their customers were around 30 in number for a 95% percentile and >> made increasing demands back to fit a revenue model that fitted the >> operators, >> not the end users. >> >> Enter the smartphones, to challenge the operators. The operators demanded >> the same from Apple and Google, only to be laughed out the door. It took >> Apple and Google a few months to set up an alternate sales network. This >> isn't hard when you have the hottest products. >> >> Microsoft is getting a doze of this now. Their customers are the large >> hardware vendors. They make huge demands back. The driver division in >> Microsoft is a political hellhole that burns through people, but they >> are rewarded with other positions after 18 months tenure there. This is >> because they simply have to accommodate all the vendors weird quirks >> in their hardware and keep windows stable. It is a tall order, and they >> are doing a remarkable job, all considering, >> >> But this has wider implications. Windows cannot be too big a success >> on xpods or xphones without alienating this channel, which is the >> lifeblood >> of the Microsoft revenue stream. Just as Nokia couldn't make a phone >> that was smart independently of the operator networks. > >That line doesn’t explain why Nokia was so successful before >Apple got involved in the mobile/cell phone market. They forced every application through a rigid infrastructure. Even having the phone automatically register in a number of wifi zones was beyond them. This meant that the door was wide open for the competition to bash them, once they got momentum. And bash them they did. They also discovered how hamstrung they were once the iPhone had started to hurt. By then it was too late. >> So both Microsoft, Nokia and Ericsson listened to their customers, and >> ignored their customers customer. Like IBM said; if you own your customers >> customers you can ignore your customers. > >That was never Nokia's problem. And what was? Old technology phones. But this explains WHY they were old tech. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Blanco" <rko4410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 13:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dia71hF3sfkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159278 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:mcn4pc-015.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <di98cdFqrmmU1@mid.individual.net>, > Blanco <rko4410@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >>news:fqt3pc-l33.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >>> In article >>> <630582847.477066945.696306.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 4:09:48 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It wasn't a mistake, it was a smart decision. You want to run 30 >>>>>> year >>>>>> old software, buy a 30-year old CPU. >>>>> >>>>> Just as an aside, in the mainframe world, we routinely ran 30 or even >>>>> 40 year old software. The 30 y/o stuff runs native mode. If the 40 >>>>> y/o >>>>> stuff was written for S/360, it will run native mode. If it was >>>>> written >>>>> for a prior generation of hardware, it would run under emulation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Most companies try to develop products that give the customer what he >>>>wants. Microsoft develops products that give the customer what microsoft >>>>wants. >>> >>> Microsoft is now another Nokia or Ericsson. Fitting with the merger. >>> >>> Nokia and Ericsson were depending heavier and heavier on their reseller >>> networks, and when these turned into large mobile operators and became >>> rather few in number the power game turned. Nokia discovered that they >>> couldn't do a thing with their mainstream products that weren't firmly >>> anchored with the operators. Never mind the end users. >>> >>> Their customers were around 30 in number for a 95% percentile and >>> made increasing demands back to fit a revenue model that fitted the >>> operators, >>> not the end users. >>> >>> Enter the smartphones, to challenge the operators. The operators >>> demanded >>> the same from Apple and Google, only to be laughed out the door. It took >>> Apple and Google a few months to set up an alternate sales network. This >>> isn't hard when you have the hottest products. >>> >>> Microsoft is getting a doze of this now. Their customers are the large >>> hardware vendors. They make huge demands back. The driver division in >>> Microsoft is a political hellhole that burns through people, but they >>> are rewarded with other positions after 18 months tenure there. This is >>> because they simply have to accommodate all the vendors weird quirks >>> in their hardware and keep windows stable. It is a tall order, and they >>> are doing a remarkable job, all considering, >>> >>> But this has wider implications. Windows cannot be too big a success >>> on xpods or xphones without alienating this channel, which is the >>> lifeblood >>> of the Microsoft revenue stream. Just as Nokia couldn't make a phone >>> that was smart independently of the operator networks. >> >>That line doesn’t explain why Nokia was so successful before >>Apple got involved in the mobile/cell phone market. > > They forced every application through a rigid infrastructure. Even > having the phone automatically register in a number of wifi zones > was beyond them. That wasn’t the reason the iphone took of so spectacularly. The UI on the iphone left nokias for dead. The touch screen UI in spades. It was so easy to do 3rd party apps once Apple got its act into gear in that regard that those combined were the reason Nokia was left in the dust and took a long time to recover on that. And then they fucked up completely when they chose to use windows phone instead of android as the OS for their high end phones. > This meant that the door was wide open for the competition to bash > them, once they got momentum. And bash them they did. They also > discovered how hamstrung they were once the iPhone had started to > hurt. By then it was too late. Apple showed it was never too late if you had a clue about where the industry was headed. Same with Google. >>> So both Microsoft, Nokia and Ericsson listened to their customers, and >>> ignored their customers customer. Like IBM said; if you own your >>> customers >>> customers you can ignore your customers. >> >>That was never Nokia's problem. > > And what was? > > Old technology phones. There was a lot more involved than just that. Same with the Blackberry. > But this explains WHY they were old tech. No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-14 13:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n9ql6s$bmb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159235 |
On 13-Feb-16 09:13, Morten Reistad wrote: > But this has wider implications. Windows cannot be too big a success > on xpods or xphones without alienating this channel, which is the > lifeblood of the Microsoft revenue stream. Just as Nokia couldn't > make a phone that was smart independently of the operator networks. One must remember that Microsoft has only two profitable products: Windows and Office. Everything else loses money; the only reason they exist at all is to guarantee continued sales of Windows and/or drive competitors (whose products may also run on non-Windows platforms) out of business. Smartphones, tablets and the Web in general represent an existential threat to Microsoft because they provide customers (and competitors) a way around Windows. Microsoft is trying to use its dominance on the desktop to establish dominance in these spaces too, but so far, it hasn't worked--and we may now be seeing the beginning of their end. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-15 07:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dic6ghFjnbrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159375 |
"Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote in message news:n9ql6s$bmb$1@dont-email.me... > On 13-Feb-16 09:13, Morten Reistad wrote: >> But this has wider implications. Windows cannot be too big a success >> on xpods or xphones without alienating this channel, which is the >> lifeblood of the Microsoft revenue stream. Just as Nokia couldn't >> make a phone that was smart independently of the operator networks. > > One must remember that Microsoft has only two profitable products: > Windows and Office. Everything else loses money; That is just plain wrong with the Xbox. And their mice and keyboards too. the only reason they > exist at all is to guarantee continued sales of Windows and/or drive > competitors (whose products may also run on non-Windows platforms) out > of business. > > Smartphones, tablets and the Web in general represent an existential > threat to Microsoft because they provide customers (and competitors) a > way around Windows. Microsoft is trying to use its dominance on the > desktop to establish dominance in these spaces too, but so far, it > hasn't worked--and we may now be seeing the beginning of their end.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 17:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n9l5ak$2ud$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159181 |
In article <MPG.312791db39f5852f989f64@news.eternal-september.org>, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >In article <cb6cf76e-290e-4b4d-83c9-d9b5d5eed431@googlegroups.com>, >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... >> >> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:16:05 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: >> >> > They also have a version that runs on 32-bit Windows ... but *not* >one for 64-bit >> > Windows! >> >> Wasn't there some sort of add-on for modern Windows to allow old DOS >> applications, such as QBASIC, to run on it? > >Windows comes with a virtual machine, however Microsoft in recent >releases has crippled it in enough ways to make it less useful than it >once was. It was used to support a "Virtual XP" in some versions of >Windows 7 that allowed 32-bit-only code to run, but that broke with some >16-bit code. Can't you run WindowsXP, 2000, 98 in hyperv on Windows past version 7. I know 8.1 had the desktop client hyper-v which seemed equivalent in function to VMware Workstation built in. -- -- 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]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-12 19:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.312843cf83363e7e989f66@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159191 |
In article <n9l5ak$2ud$1@pechter.eternal-september.org>, pechter@pechter.dyndns.org says... > > In article <MPG.312791db39f5852f989f64@news.eternal-september.org>, > J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >In article <cb6cf76e-290e-4b4d-83c9-d9b5d5eed431@googlegroups.com>, > >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com says... > >> > >> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 8:16:05 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > >> > >> > They also have a version that runs on 32-bit Windows ... but *not* > >one for 64-bit > >> > Windows! > >> > >> Wasn't there some sort of add-on for modern Windows to allow old DOS > >> applications, such as QBASIC, to run on it? > > > >Windows comes with a virtual machine, however Microsoft in recent > >releases has crippled it in enough ways to make it less useful than it > >once was. It was used to support a "Virtual XP" in some versions of > >Windows 7 that allowed 32-bit-only code to run, but that broke with some > >16-bit code. > > Can't you run WindowsXP, 2000, 98 in hyperv on Windows past version 7. One problem is that Microsoft has limited emulation of legacy I/O devices and you may not be able to find drivers for older operating systems that support the I/O devices that Microsoft emulates. This means that you may find yourself lacking a keyboard, or a mouse, or video, or something else important, depending on what you're trying to run. > > I know 8.1 had the desktop client hyper-v which seemed equivalent in function > to VMware Workstation built in. It's the same VM technology that goes into the server products-- Microsoft's aiming that at running multiple Windows 7+ or Linux sessions on a single server, not at supporting legacy systems, which limits its utility on the desktop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web