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

#159979

On 2016-02-20, JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 09:37:55 -0600, "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>>
>>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:na8j7u$hi$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>>> "Millennia" has two n's. The word "millenniums" is also acceptable now.
>>>>
>>>> But not to anyone who paid attention in the school classroom.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, "antenna" and, "antennae" in radio.
>>>
>>> Things are going to hell in  a handbasket.  Beside trying to anglicize
>>> plurals of good latin words, people seem to want to stick apostrophes
>>> before all random s's.

Dave Barry once pointed out that the purpose of the apostrophe is to
warn the reader that an S is following.

>> The parens and 's' thing rings a bell with me.  My theory as to why spelling 
>> got worse: we used to have secretaries that knew these rules and they did 
>> all our typing for us. When I started doing my own typing I realized that 
>> she had been doing more than typing for me.
>>
>> If many of us went into a modern engineering office it would be a new world. 
>> No one answers the phone, a machine does this. Secretaries have disappeared 
>> or become administrative assistants, who *can* type, but there is a fair 
>> chance that her boss can type faster than she can.

Perhaps.  But perhaps not.  I suspect a lot of bosses never knew how to type -
and furthermore are proud of it because it shows they're highly enough placed
to have someone to do it for them.

>> There is also an unrelated problem, the mis-spelling of homophones. I 
>> attribute this to people doing too little reading.  But OTOH I can't 
>> remember when I was ever so young that my spelling was as bad as what I see 
>> now; when I was young, it would have been impossible for me to have read 
>> much. So I'm not happy with my own theory, it's just the best I can come up 
>> with.  I have to wonder if I just have more interest in spelling than the 
>> average person? 

I put the blame for homophones squarely on spelling checkers.  Not that
they're being misused more often, but they're the one sort of error that
spelling checkers can't detect, which makes them a greater portion of
the errors that are left.

    I have a spelling checker,
    It came with my PC.
    It plainly marks four my revue
    Mistakes I cannot sea.
    I've run this poem threw it,
    I'm sure your pleased too no.
    Its letter perfect in it's weigh:
    My checker tolled me sew.

> I do agree that spelling has gotten worse. When I receive emails, back
> when I was working, from people with university degrees full of
> grammar and spelling errors, thats not good.
                                   ^
Ah, the hazards of spelling flames (he says, nervously proof-reading
this message again)...

-- 
/~\  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]

#159989

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:naagcv377r@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> Dave Barry once pointed out that the purpose of the apostrophe is to
> warn the reader that an S is following.

No, it ain't  :-)

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

#159959

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:dirfijFhh60U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Peter Flass" wrote:
>
>
>> gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in message
>>> news:na8j7u$hi$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> "Millennia" has two n's. The word "millenniums" is also acceptable now.
>>>
>>> But not to anyone who paid attention in the school classroom.
>>>
>>> Likewise, "antenna" and, "antennae" in radio.
>>>
>>
>> Things are going to hell in  a handbasket.  Beside trying to anglicize
>> plurals of good latin words, people seem to want to stick apostrophes
>> before all random s's.
>
> The parens and 's' thing rings a bell with me.  My theory as to why 
> spelling got worse: we used to have secretaries that knew these rules and 
> they did all our typing for us. When I started doing my own typing I 
> realized that she had been doing more than typing for me.
>
> If many of us went into a modern engineering office it would be a new 
> world. No one answers the phone, a machine does this. Secretaries have 
> disappeared or become administrative assistants, who *can* type, but there 
> is a fair chance that her boss can type faster than she can.
>
> There is also an unrelated problem, the mis-spelling of homophones. I 
> attribute this to people doing too little reading.  But OTOH I can't 
> remember when I was ever so young that my spelling was as bad as what I 
> see now; when I was young, it would have been impossible for me to have 
> read much.

And I had the opposite effect, read a hell of a lot more than almost
anyone I know when young, and am by far the worst speller of most
of the people of my generation. I didn’t even notice the radically
different approach to the spelling of words like generalise and
generalize until I started to use spelling checkers, even tho the
absolute vast bulk of reading I did used the form I wasn’t taught.

> So I'm not happy with my own theory,

Yeah, it’s a dud.

> it's just the best I can come up with.  I have to wonder if I just have 
> more interest in spelling than the average person?

Or care more about it than the average person. 

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

#159982

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:37:58 AM UTC-5, Osmium wrote:

> If many of us went into a modern engineering office it would be a new world. 
> No one answers the phone, a machine does this. Secretaries have disappeared 
> or become administrative assistants, who *can* type, but there is a fair 
> chance that her boss can type faster than she can.

A comment about secretaries.  Until _roughly_ 1980, many young women were
discouraged from going to college, rather, they were encouraged to get
married.  Many of those young women were pretty smart, but became 
secretaries instead of college.  Back then, a reasonably good high school
had good "commercial-course" training programs and a graduate was very
well prepared to be an excellent full service secretary.  Anyway, those
intelligent young women worked hard and serve industry very well.

After roughly 1980, more young women went to college and had higher
level jobs, and the talent pool for secretaries declined.  Also,
companies 'mechanized' to an extent with word processing, advanced
phones, and advance copying machines which all required less skill.

H/R people have told me that the quality of young women out of school
is rather poor.  In the old days, companies liked attractive friendly
young women to serve as secretaries and especially as receptionists.
They tell me today those types are no longer qualified (too immature)
and they'd be happy to get an older person.

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

#159405

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 2:49:27 AM UTC-5, gareth wrote:
> > 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

On a System/360 et al, it's in bytes, which were 8 bits.

On older IBM machines, the size varied.  On the 1401 series, it was
in characters, which were 6 + 1 bits long (the one bit being a word mark).

IIRC, the low end 1401 had only 1,400 characters, although that machine
was intended basically as a 'souped-up' tabulator.

On the 709x series, a word machine, I think a word was 36 bits long.
I don't know how many alpha characters could be stored in a word, or
what kind of programming was required to handle alpha strings, like
a 20 character address line.  Of course, in those days, alpha fields were
often tightly abbreviated, like first initial only, and a street name like
KNICKERBOCKER might be stored as KNCKRBKR.  Back then, the post office was
pretty good at dealing with tight abbreviations of long names.

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

#159336

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.

[100 lines snipped]

Oh, the irony.        :o)

-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

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

#159338

In article <diau2sF8tu9U1@mid.individual.net>,
Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>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.
>
>[100 lines snipped]
>
>Oh, the irony.        :o)

I am not at all convinced by you calling everything bigger than 64k
for "bloat". We have seen a functionality explosion in the 4 decades 
since pdp11s were the hottest stuff around (and they were).

I grew up on small systems too. The Commodore PET with 32k RAM
was one I got to know intimately. I was too late for the pdp11, but
got to see the micro revolution up close.

I also saw the beauty of the DEC20 at my college, where I started
using emacs Jan 17th 1979.

The PET had an 8k OS in ROM, and 8k Basic interpreter. The DEC20
had a ~2megabyte OS. The difference in functions was very clear.
We drooled about the dec20, but we worked with the PET. I even built
memory extensions for it.

Current machines have gigabytes of memory, and terabytes of disk.
The classic systems have grown, but not to those sizes. The bloat
is extreme in the browsers, however. And the spreadsheets, wordprocessors, 
and packages. The "old code", later versions of X, window managers, 
shells, editors, etc. has grown, but not by that much.

I will not call the Linux kernel bloat. 40 megabytes on a 2G machine, 
where around 1/3rd are buffers sized according to the memory size, 
and around half of the remaining are drivers; nearly 7k for around 20k
different devices. There are around 35 subsystems like usb, sata etc; 
and 15 file systems. Call this diversity explosion bloat if you like, 
but don't complain when you lose USB. (which are 4 different ones, 
1.0, 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0; actually). or SATA. Or SCSI. I know people
who has pruned the Linux kernel down below 10m, but then you have
to shed lots of functions.

If I total up the kernel, shell, small servers plus X plus xfce4
I get to around 12-14% of the memory of this, today quite small, laptop.

This is a functionality explosion, which I am all for. I plug in 
USB devices and have programs started automatically; I enter wifi
zones and log on automatically. And lots of such stuff.

Emacs still use around 8 megabytes. Libreoffice easily use 100 times
that. I don't get 100 times the functionality, rather the contrary.

THAT is bloat.

Yes, you can dream of the PDP11, I can dream of the PET. I still have
the C64 I got as a present for some PET designs. It has heavy hardware
mods. In those days we had to work with the hardware to get some
things done. This is a lot rarer now. I still fire it up for a play
of forest. Noone ever matched that one.

I still work with small stuff. I just got going with the arduino, which
is a very nice piece of hardware. But not as a laptop/desktop. I plan
to deploy a few hundred of them holding sensors to get full 3rdparty
monitoring of a new datacentre. I will have to hack some hardware.
(adding ethernet to all of them, and hooking up sensors)

This is a different ballgame from the desktop. 

I have a few scores of raspberrypis and similar machines. They can
barely make do as a desktop. Until you fire up some of the bloatware.

I got the post that a browser is more complicated than USB. But the
code size is 224 times bigger. WTF? (usb part of linux kernel vs
chromium, measured by wc -l on the source tree).

It isn't bloat because it is bigger than 64k. 

-- mrr

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

#159362

On 2016-02-14, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <diau2sF8tu9U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge  <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
>>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.
>>
>>[100 lines snipped]
>>
>>Oh, the irony.        :o)
>
> I am not at all convinced by you calling everything bigger than 64k
> for "bloat".

I fear I failed to make my point clearly enough.

It was the 100 quoted lines I was commenting on.


-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

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

#159347

Huge wrote:
> 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.
>
> [100 lines snipped]
>
> Oh, the irony.        :o)
>
<grin>  gareth had pots and pots of memory.

/BAH

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

#159351

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> 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.

Of course.
Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.

But software should be written to current hardware levels.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#159448

On 2016-02-14, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> Of course.
> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
>
> But software should be written to current hardware levels.

I agree, to an extent.  Certainly more powerful hardware makes different
algorithms feasible and can result in more functionality.  On the other
tentacle, my old makefiles and compilers run like lightning on my new box.
That's another form of "more functionality" - one that I won't give up
for any fancy IDE.

-- 
/~\  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]

#159470

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2016-02-14, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Of course.
>> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
>>
>> But software should be written to current hardware levels.
>
> I agree, to an extent.  Certainly more powerful hardware makes different
> algorithms feasible and can result in more functionality.  On the other
> tentacle, my old makefiles and compilers run like lightning on my new box.
> That's another form of "more functionality" - one that I won't give up
> for any fancy IDE.

I haven't used an IDE yet that actually did anything for me.
Emacs and Makefiles automate everything I need to automate.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#159472

In article <n9tfra21t66@news3.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2016-02-14, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Of course.
>> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
>>
>> But software should be written to current hardware levels.
>
>I agree, to an extent.  Certainly more powerful hardware makes different
>algorithms feasible and can result in more functionality.  On the other
>tentacle, my old makefiles and compilers run like lightning on my new box.
>That's another form of "more functionality" - one that I won't give up
>for any fancy IDE.

emacs, bash, make, svn/git, gdb/xgdb, *n*x, X, and friends make up a stellar
IDE. I have not seen any boxed one that reach this combo to it's knees yet.

-- mrr

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

#159502

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:45:56 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote:

> Of course.
> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
> But software should be written to current hardware levels.

I've heard lots of old-timers say all the computing power they ever
needed was provided by a full scale 1401 system (16k, disk).  In
hindsight, maybe they were right.  They did manage to run a whole
hospital out of that.

The 1401 disk system did support on-line processing, in  a way.
Programs could include provision to accept an interrupt from the
console typewriter, and bring in another program to service the
inquiry.

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

#159510

hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:45:56 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote:
>
>> Of course.
>> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
>> But software should be written to current hardware levels.
>
> I've heard lots of old-timers say all the computing power they ever
> needed was provided by a full scale 1401 system (16k, disk).  In
> hindsight, maybe they were right.  They did manage to run a whole
> hospital out of that.
>
> The 1401 disk system did support on-line processing, in  a way.
> Programs could include provision to accept an interrupt from the
> console typewriter, and bring in another program to service the
> inquiry.

Yep, I remember reading about that.

Never saw any company attempt it though.

My first online system was on a S/360 30, BTAM, 2260s.

-- 
Dan Espen

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

#159581

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> 
>> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:45:56 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote:
>> 
>>> Of course.
>>> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
>>> But software should be written to current hardware levels.
>> 
>> I've heard lots of old-timers say all the computing power they ever
>> needed was provided by a full scale 1401 system (16k, disk).  In
>> hindsight, maybe they were right.  They did manage to run a whole
>> hospital out of that.
>> 
>> The 1401 disk system did support on-line processing, in  a way.
>> Programs could include provision to accept an interrupt from the
>> console typewriter, and bring in another program to service the
>> inquiry.
> 
> Yep, I remember reading about that.
> 
> Never saw any company attempt it though.

The 360/20 also had this feature.  I think it was implemented in the
supervisor rather than requiring special programming.

> 
> My first online system was on a S/360 30, BTAM, 2260s.
> 



-- 
Pete

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

#159551

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:7258c4ec-8a8a-47b8-866f-36859b3c9fd1@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:45:56 AM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote:
>
>> Of course.
>> Lots of fun on a 1.4K 1401.
>> But software should be written to current hardware levels.
>
> I've heard lots of old-timers say all the computing power they ever
> needed was provided by a full scale 1401 system (16k, disk).  In
> hindsight, maybe they were right.

No.

> They did manage to run a whole hospital out of that.

They couldn't do anything like what a decent modern hospital
system can do with all the records online and easily available
and all the stuff like xrays and cat scans etc easily available either.

> The 1401 disk system did support on-line processing, in  a way.
> Programs could include provision to accept an interrupt from the
> console typewriter, and bring in another program to service the
> inquiry.

And that can't provide anything like what a decent modern hospital system 
can do. 

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

#159291

On 2016-02-13, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

Assuming the task can be subdivided and scales linearly -
which it usually doesn't.

"The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how
many women are assigned to the task."  -- Fred Brooks

> Of course, if I am REALLY productive then I am reducing the net
> loc in the project.

I love that too.  Drives the bean-counters nuts when their
LOC algorithms run off the rails.

-- 
/~\  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]

#159495

Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>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

To map 1TByte of virtual memory using 4096 byte pages, requires a bit over
2GByte just for the per-task page table.   Then you have physical page tracking structures
in the kernel, which take several more gigabytes.   There is also the
kernel page table, but that's generally mapped using 1G pages, so it doesn't
take much memory at all (circa 8kb to map a 40-bit address space).

Intel CPU's support a 44-bit physical address space, AMD and ARM64 support a 48-bit
physical address space all of which needs to be part of the kernel 
identity mapping.

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

#159498

"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message 
news:uSHwy.62375$87.51340@fx11.iad...
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>>In article <n9n71i$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
>
> To map 1TByte of virtual memory using 4096 byte pages, requires a bit over
> 2GByte just for the per-task page table.   Then you have physical page 
> tracking structures
> in the kernel, which take several more gigabytes.   There is also the
> kernel page table, but that's generally mapped using 1G pages, so it 
> doesn't
> take much memory at all (circa 8kb to map a 40-bit address space).
>
> Intel CPU's support a 44-bit physical address space, AMD and ARM64 support 
> a 48-bit
> physical address space all of which needs to be part of the kernel
> identity mapping.

As I said, ...a single linear address space...

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

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

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

csiph-web