Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159225 > unrolled thread

64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 12:22 +0000
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-13 07:29 -0600
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 07:43 -0700
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:13 +0100
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-13 17:18 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-13 18:29 +0100
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-13 23:51 +0100
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 15:52 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-13 20:51 -0600
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-13 22:19 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 11:51 -0500
                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:00 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:09 -0600
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 17:58 -0600
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:00 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:42 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? mrr@sambook.reistad.name (Morten Reistad) - 2016-02-14 21:36 +0100
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-13 20:54 -0600
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:47 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 17:31 -0700
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 01:01 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:04 -0600
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 18:20 -0800
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:48 -0800
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-16 09:32 -0500
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 15:58 +0000
                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 18:04 +0100
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 10:03 -0800
                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:09 +1100
                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:34 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:14 -0600
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:49 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 07:49 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:20 +1100
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-14 14:47 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-15 14:10 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 08:48 -0700
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:40 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:56 -0800
                    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:48 +0000
                      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:55 -0600
                    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 11:51 -0600
                      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-19 09:47 +0000
                        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 06:54 -0700
                          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-19 06:36 -0800
                            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 15:13 +0000
                              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 19:48 +0000
                                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:39 -0600
                              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:38 -0600
                            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:47 +0000
                          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:35 -0600
                            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:12 +0000
                              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
                                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 09:37 -0600
                                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:46 -0600
                                    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:22 +1100
                                    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
                                      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-20 23:02 +0000
                                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:02 +1100
                                  Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-20 12:34 -0800
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:35 -0800
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 09:01 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 10:49 +0100
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-14 16:24 +0000
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-14 15:19 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 10:45 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-15 23:50 -0500
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:40 +0100
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:58 -0800
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-16 13:54 -0500
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 06:56 -0700
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:05 +1100
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-16 16:11 +0000
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:04 +0000
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-16 17:44 +0000
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? roger.ivie@gmail.com - 2016-02-13 08:47 -0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#159309

On 13-Feb-16 16:51, Morten Reistad wrote:
> That X use 30 meg is also not unreasonable. 12 of these are buffers
> for the screen.
> 
> But that a browser uses 1600 (!) and a word processor use 600 are
> seriously bloated. Emacs use around 8, which is way big enough for
> me.
> ...
> What complexity is there in html, http(s) and javascript that rivals
> USB by two orders of magnitude?

HTTP is trivial.  SSL/TLS has more complexity, as evidenced by the
constant flood of OpenSSL security bugs, but overall, it's a rounding
error compared to the rest of the browser.

HTML wasn't that complicated at first, but rendering it still required a
bunch of GUI code--and GUIs aren't known for being lightweight.  CSS
increased the difficulty of rendering HTML by an order of magnitude.
Javascript needs a JIT for adequate performance, which is complex, and
it has the ability to both read and write both HTML and CSS on the fly,
which increases complexity by another order of magnitude.  OTOH, they're
also mind-bogglingly powerful when used together.

In contrast, USB is a limited, static hardware protocol designed to be
cheaply implemented, with a thin driver layer on top.  It's not even
remotely comparable to what a modern web browser needs to handle.

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]

#159332

"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
news:8lo4pc-s45.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...

You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.

Starting off small will also improve the quality of so-called computer
scientists who otherwise have limited exposure to the real computers
with their experience only of Linux and C.


>>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>
>
> And we know what cannot be done in small address spaces.
>
> Just take wifi. There are complex radio protocols, and even more complex
> encryption ones. And there are at least 4 of each. The code for these
> are easily a few megabytes. Ditto for USB, firewire, scsi, sata; and
> a lot of the daemons. But these first ones live inside the kernel, all
> of them. Plus 10 different file systems.
>
> I don't think 40 megabytes for all of this is much bloat. They all bring
> useful stuff to the table, too.
>
> That X use 30 meg is also not unreasonable. 12 of these are buffers for
> the screen.
>
> But that a browser uses 1600 (!) and a word processor use 600 are 
> seriously
> bloated. Emacs use around 8, which is way big enough for me.
>
> In the *n*x world we have the old and the new world. The old world may use
> a few tens of megabytes, and use them reasonably well. The new one use 
> gigabytes,
> and have insane bloat.
>
> What complexity is there in html, http(s) and javascript that rivals USB
> by two orders of magnitude?
>
> -- mrr
>
>>> In article <n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>>What fun we could have should a nice, simple, easy 64-bit version
>>>>of MS-DOS be around; the only thing to my mind that would
>>>>be lacking would be a graphical Web interface.
>>>>
>>>>Imagine; a single linear address space, no software bloat
>>>>(Even Linux is popping its trouser buttons), and only a few kBytes
>>>>consumed by the OS!
>>>
>>> Keep dreaming.
>>>
>>> A full-function, very basic modern OS will take around 4 megabytes
>>> with only a handful of drivers if it handles a 64-bit address range,
>>> around 2.5 - 3 if it is a 32 bit range. Even Tops20, VMS, Primos are
>>> there if you let them develop far enough; tops20 at version 6,
>>> Primos at version 23, vms at ???
>>>
>>> Add the ~20k drivers that Linux, FreeBSD have, and add two dozen
>>> subsystems like USB, Firewire, IPv4, Ipv6, SMB, etc; and they are
>>> not too bad off either of them in terms of kernel and driver
>>> space used.
>>>
>>> The bloat is on top of the kernel, and it is reasonably easy to
>>> get rid of the bulk of it.
>>>
>>> Let me get to the numbers: This samsung chromebook I use as a
>>> laptop has a bloat level I like. It has a two-processor arm7 with
>>> 2G ram. 32-bit. Thumb2.
>>>
>>> There are 524288 4k pages. After memory map, cpu-reserved pages for
>>> task switching, lookaside buffers, etc are allocated there are
>>> 519936. This is mostly memory map organisation use. The initial
>>> load of linux+initramfs (a boot-time minimal ram file system that
>>> Linux use to simplify the boot process; so it can proceed further
>>> before actually adding any disks) takes 29334 pages.
>>>
>>> Linux then allocate pages here and there and has a max allocation
>>> of 36440 pages before it frees the initramfs. This means that this
>>> particular Linux installation; not even attempted to prune the size;
>>> has a minimum boot requirement of (524288 - 519936) + 36440 of the
>>> initial 524288 pages; or 40792, equal to 163168 kilobytes of RAM.
>>>
>>> The initramfs is then freed, and Linux use 10305 pages, plus it
>>> allocates 6350 as a page cache. This is the overflow paging area
>>> that can contain real user code, so it does not really count in
>>> kernel use. After boot we therefore have a use of (524288 - 519936)
>>> + 10305; or 14657 pages, equal to 58628 kilobytes.
>>>
>>> Linux code is around half of this, and half again of that are
>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> Then systemd takes over, and all memory use goes haywire. The
>>> old systems like X are still well within reason, X itself are
>>> the biggest one of these at ~30M plus ~8M shared libraries.
>>> There are around 120 active processes, where the browser and
>>> libreoffice are the hogs. The rest take around 250 megabytes
>>> total.
>>>
>>> This is borne out from some freebsd web servers I run in
>>> some very remote telemetry locations (but with excellent
>>> connectivity). They run very well in 512M of ram.
>>>
>>>>The downside would be that assuming that one could write one
>>>>assembler instruction per minute in a 40-hour working week
>>>>and a 46-week working year, allowing approximately 4 bytes
>>>>for each instruction, then it would take you about 9,000 man-years
>>>>to write enough code for a progran to completely fill 4GB of RAM!
>>>
>>> That makes 9600 bytes per week,
>>>
>>> When I write some high level language code I do make around 200
>>> loc per day on average, and that generates 8-10 k of binary
>>> code ex variables and buffers. This bears out the around 4-5
>>> times productivity using higher level languages. So it would
>>> only take around 2000 man years. :-/
>>>
>>> Or 50 men, 40.
>>>
>>> Of course, if I am REALLY productive then I am reducing the net
>>> loc in the project.
>>>
>>> -- mrr
>>
>>
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159285

gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
> 
> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.

Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would think
that was extragavant.

> 
> Starting off small will also improve the quality of so-called computer
> scientists who otherwise have limited exposure to the real computers
> with their experience only of Linux and C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In article <n9n71i$j1f$1@dont-email.me>,
>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> What fun we could have should a nice, simple, easy 64-bit version
>>> of MS-DOS be around; the only thing to my mind that would
>>> be lacking would be a graphical Web interface.
>>> 
>>> Imagine; a single linear address space, no software bloat
>>> (Even Linux is popping its trouser buttons), and only a few kBytes
>>> consumed by the OS!
>> 
>> Keep dreaming.
>> 
>> A full-function, very basic modern OS will take around 4 megabytes
>> with only a handful of drivers if it handles a 64-bit address range,
>> around 2.5 - 3 if it is a 32 bit range. Even Tops20, VMS, Primos are
>> there if you let them develop far enough; tops20 at version 6,
>> Primos at version 23, vms at ???
>> 
>> Add the ~20k drivers that Linux, FreeBSD have, and add two dozen
>> subsystems like USB, Firewire, IPv4, Ipv6, SMB, etc; and they are
>> not too bad off either of them in terms of kernel and driver
>> space used.
>> 
>> The bloat is on top of the kernel, and it is reasonably easy to
>> get rid of the bulk of it.
>> 
>> Let me get to the numbers: This samsung chromebook I use as a
>> laptop has a bloat level I like. It has a two-processor arm7 with
>> 2G ram. 32-bit. Thumb2.
>> 
>> There are 524288 4k pages. After memory map, cpu-reserved pages for
>> task switching, lookaside buffers, etc are allocated there are
>> 519936. This is mostly memory map organisation use. The initial
>> load of linux+initramfs (a boot-time minimal ram file system that
>> Linux use to simplify the boot process; so it can proceed further
>> before actually adding any disks) takes 29334 pages.
>> 
>> Linux then allocate pages here and there and has a max allocation
>> of 36440 pages before it frees the initramfs. This means that this
>> particular Linux installation; not even attempted to prune the size;
>> has a minimum boot requirement of (524288 - 519936) + 36440 of the
>> initial 524288 pages; or 40792, equal to 163168 kilobytes of RAM.
>> 
>> The initramfs is then freed, and Linux use 10305 pages, plus it
>> allocates 6350 as a page cache. This is the overflow paging area
>> that can contain real user code, so it does not really count in
>> kernel use. After boot we therefore have a use of (524288 - 519936)
>> + 10305; or 14657 pages, equal to 58628 kilobytes.
>> 
>> Linux code is around half of this, and half again of that are
>> drivers.
>> 
>> Then systemd takes over, and all memory use goes haywire. The
>> old systems like X are still well within reason, X itself are
>> the biggest one of these at ~30M plus ~8M shared libraries.
>> There are around 120 active processes, where the browser and
>> libreoffice are the hogs. The rest take around 250 megabytes
>> total.
>> 
>> This is borne out from some freebsd web servers I run in
>> some very remote telemetry locations (but with excellent
>> connectivity). They run very well in 512M of ram.
>> 
>>> The downside would be that assuming that one could write one
>>> assembler instruction per minute in a 40-hour working week
>>> and a 46-week working year, allowing approximately 4 bytes
>>> for each instruction, then it would take you about 9,000 man-years
>>> to write enough code for a progran to completely fill 4GB of RAM!
>> 
>> That makes 9600 bytes per week,
>> 
>> When I write some high level language code I do make around 200
>> loc per day on average, and that generates 8-10 k of binary
>> code ex variables and buffers. This bears out the around 4-5
>> times productivity using higher level languages. So it would
>> only take around 2000 man years. :-/
>> 
>> Or 50 men, 40.
>> 
>> Of course, if I am REALLY productive then I am reducing the net
>> loc in the project.
>> 
>> -- mrr 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159294

On 2016-02-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>> 
>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>
> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would think
> that was extragavant.

Yep.  When we upgraded our Univac 9300 from 16K to 32K, we didn't know
what we were going to do with all that space.  (We figured it out eventually.)

>> Starting off small will also improve the quality of so-called computer
>> scientists who otherwise have limited exposure to the real computers
>> with their experience only of Linux and C.

Hear, hear!  Since "abundance justifies waste" seems to be a fundamental
human condition, having to work without abundance for a while is beneficial
when the time comes (and it always does) when you encounter an application
that chews up all resources.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159457

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:n9ojkn02dm9@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-02-14, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>>
>>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
>>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>>
>> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would 
>> think
>> that was extragavant.
>
> Yep.  When we upgraded our Univac 9300 from 16K to 32K, we didn't know
> what we were going to do with all that space.  (We figured it out 
> eventually.)
>

When I started out, our version of modern automatic machines was the 
"counting board".  Then some numbskull came up with some idiotic idea called 
the "place system"!!! Can you imagine the kerfuffle that resulted!!!  Some 
people are *never* satisfied!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_board

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159301

It's true you could do a lot with 8k words (12k bytes) on a PDP-8, but I'm willing to concede that having a 386 with 2 megabytes and Windows 3.1 makes life much more convenient.

In fact, I have nothing against the power of today's systems; my frustration is directed at the lack of opportunity to put that power to good use.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159306

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

> In fact, I have nothing against the power of today's systems; my frustration is directed at the lack of opportunity to put that power to good use.

+1.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159489

In article <6d181bad-cbdc-401e-b523-37491a1d7e33@googlegroups.com>,
 hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> 
> > In fact, I have nothing against the power of today's systems; my 
> > frustration is directed at the lack of opportunity to put that power to 
> > good use.
> 
> +1.

Putting the power to good use is a responsibility of the user. With 
enough cleverness even the most powerful machines can be pushed
beyond there capacity. There are many big data sets that could be 
cross correlated as No Such Agency, and the major companies do.

And then there is protein folding and the rest of quantum chemistry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159494

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:32:22 -0500
Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <6d181bad-cbdc-401e-b523-37491a1d7e33@googlegroups.com>,
>  hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> > 
> > > In fact, I have nothing against the power of today's systems; my 
> > > frustration is directed at the lack of opportunity to put that power
> > > to good use.
> > 
> > +1.
> 
> Putting the power to good use is a responsibility of the user. With 
> enough cleverness even the most powerful machines can be pushed
> beyond there capacity. There are many big data sets that could be 
> cross correlated as No Such Agency, and the major companies do.
> 
> And then there is protein folding and the rest of quantum chemistry.

	Then there is realtime photorealistic 3D rendering on 4K pixel
monitors at 100 frames per second ... for games of course. No doubt some
consider this a good use of computing power.

-- 
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]

#159500

In article <20160216155823.a028d0dce962eb768c619dbd@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot  <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:32:22 -0500
>Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <6d181bad-cbdc-401e-b523-37491a1d7e33@googlegroups.com>,
>>  hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> 
>> > On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > 
>> > > In fact, I have nothing against the power of today's systems; my 
>> > > frustration is directed at the lack of opportunity to put that power
>> > > to good use.
>> > 
>> > +1.
>> 
>> Putting the power to good use is a responsibility of the user. With 
>> enough cleverness even the most powerful machines can be pushed
>> beyond there capacity. There are many big data sets that could be 
>> cross correlated as No Such Agency, and the major companies do.
>> 
>> And then there is protein folding and the rest of quantum chemistry.
>
>	Then there is realtime photorealistic 3D rendering on 4K pixel
>monitors at 100 frames per second ... for games of course. No doubt some
>consider this a good use of computing power.

These generally parallellise pretty well, but have mediocre to bad
memory locality.

So lots of processor and a fast memory bus will be needed.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159506

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:32:24 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
> Putting the power to good use is a responsibility of the user. With 
> enough cleverness even the most powerful machines can be pushed
> beyond there capacity. There are many big data sets that could be 
> cross correlated as No Such Agency, and the major companies do.
> And then there is protein folding and the rest of quantum chemistry.

One historical problem of society has been that a new power source
arrived on the scene and was exploited, but it took years to apply
safety provisions so people wouldn't get killed as much.  The steam
engine brought benefits but lots of problems.  So did the automobile.
As the separate post about malware suggests, modern networking has
many problems that are now unsolved and hurting people.

By the way, major companies, particularly the insurance industry,
definitely do cross correlate that big data bases; but do not worry
about accuracy, only a way to raise a customer's rates.  For example,
your auto insurance is checking to see if there are any drivers in
your home not registered on your policy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159553

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:dfffd6fe-4f51-4575-a901-7132343ce031@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:32:24 AM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> Putting the power to good use is a responsibility of the user. With
>> enough cleverness even the most powerful machines can be pushed
>> beyond there capacity. There are many big data sets that could be
>> cross correlated as No Such Agency, and the major companies do.
>> And then there is protein folding and the rest of quantum chemistry.
>
> One historical problem of society has been that a new power source
> arrived on the scene and was exploited, but it took years to apply
> safety provisions so people wouldn't get killed as much.  The steam
> engine brought benefits but lots of problems.  So did the automobile.

But fixed a lot of problem that we saw with horse drawn vehicles too.

> As the separate post about malware suggests, modern
> networking has many problems that are now unsolved

They have been solved, most obviously
with the sandboxing that iOS systems do.

You just don't get ransomware affecting those even tho there
are vastly more of those in use than with hospital systems etc.

> and hurting people.

Only when they aren't properly implemented.

> By the way, major companies, particularly the insurance industry,
> definitely do cross correlate that big data bases; but do not worry
> about accuracy, only a way to raise a customer's rates.  For example,
> your auto insurance is checking to see if there are any drivers in
> your home not registered on your policy.

Useless when they have their own policies. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159797

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:03:55 AM UTC-7, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> One historical problem of society has been that a new power source
> arrived on the scene and was exploited, but it took years to apply
> safety provisions so people wouldn't get killed as much.  The steam
> engine brought benefits but lots of problems.  So did the automobile.
> As the separate post about malware suggests, modern networking has
> many problems that are now unsolved and hurting people.

And the historical *cause* of that problem is obvious - during most of history, 
the _last_ new power source became available quite some time ago, and so 
population has expanded to fill the space created.

So people are desperate to exploit any new source of wealth that comes along.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159518

"Walter Bushell" <proto@panix.com> wrote in message 
news:proto-89CD01.09321916022016@news.panix.com...
> In article <6d181bad-cbdc-401e-b523-37491a1d7e33@googlegroups.com>,
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:20:34 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>> > In fact, I have nothing against the power of today's systems; my
>> > frustration is directed at the lack of opportunity to put that power to
>> > good use.
>>
>> +1.
>
> Putting the power to good use is a responsibility of the user. With
> enough cleverness even the most powerful machines can be pushed
> beyond there capacity. There are many big data sets that could be
> cross correlated as No Such Agency, and the major companies do.
>
> And then there is protein folding and the rest of quantum chemistry.

I've been doing protein folding for years... simply years!!!  Every cell of 
my body, you know...  ;-)

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159307

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:31:47 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would think
> that was extragavant.

I suspect most people in industry who worked on an actual System/360 
have retired or are close to retirement.  (Obviously there are some who
worked at a place that kept their S/360 a long time, or, have chosen not
to retire and keep working.)

(Of course, I do know a former 1401 programmer, who worked on it under
emulation, who is only fifty.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159333

"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1217079919.477102404.056131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>
>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>
> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would 
> think
> that was extragavant.

32K words, or bytes?

Actually the first PDP11/20 I used had 16K bytes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159335

"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
news:n9pbcn$ktq$1@dont-email.me...
> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:1217079919.477102404.056131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>>
>>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
>>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>>
>> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would 
>> think
>> that was extragavant.
>
> 32K words, or bytes?
>
> Actually the first PDP11/20 I used had 16K bytes

The first PDP8S I used had 4K. That's the serial one. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159342

"hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:diarn9F8ddbU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:n9pbcn$ktq$1@dont-email.me...
>> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:1217079919.477102404.056131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of 
>>>> bloat,
>>>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>>>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>>>
>>> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would 
>>> think
>>> that was extragavant.
>>
>> 32K words, or bytes?
>>
>> Actually the first PDP11/20 I used had 16K bytes
>
> The first PDP8S I used had 4K. That's the serial one.

A "rye" comment?   :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159429

gareth wrote:
> "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:diarn9F8ddbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:n9pbcn$ktq$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1217079919.477102404.056131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-septem
ber.org...
>>>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of
>>>>> bloat,
>>>>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>>>>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>>>>
>>>> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would
>>>> think
>>>> that was extragavant.
>>>
>>> 32K words, or bytes?
>>>
>>> Actually the first PDP11/20 I used had 16K bytes
>>
>> The first PDP8S I used had 4K. That's the serial one.
>
> A "rye" comment?   :-)
>
>
With some chaff.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159359

gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:1217079919.477102404.056131.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:o914pc-pd3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name...
>>> 
>>> You seem to have been brain-washed or conditioned by the world of bloat,
>>> whereas I was brought up on 16-bit minicomputers (PDP11) with memory
>>> of 56K, so I know how much can be achieved in a small space.
>> 
>> Hah!  I was brought up on a 32K 360/30, and I imagine many here would 
>> think
>> that was extragavant.
> 
> 32K words, or bytes?
> 
> Actually the first PDP11/20 I used had 16K bytes
> 

Bytes.  The /30 could be bought with 16K, but most software needed more so
few people bought it that way.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web