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? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 -0500
                              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? Alan Bowler <atbowler@thinkage.ca> - 2016-05-18 13:11 -0400
            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? timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2016-02-26 16:10 -0800
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-27 03:10 -0600
            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
    Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Thomas Lake <tomlake07@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:49 -0700
      Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-27 10:59 +0100
        Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-27 11:47 -0700
          Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-27 23:27 +0100
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-27 22:34 +0000
              Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-27 19:07 -0400
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-28 00:05 +0000
                Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-06-04 22:12 -0500
            Re: 64 bit CPU, QBasic and DOS? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 15:18 -0400

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#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]

#159503

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:04:17 -0000
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "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...

	What no virtual memory support, are we talking about a single
tasking OS or just one that requires relocatable code for everything (or a
relocating loader) ? For the latter (either way) you'll still want memory
protection which has some overhead.

-- 
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]

#159238

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:22:58 AM UTC-8, gareth wrote:
> What fun we could have should a nice, simple, easy 64-bit version
> of MS-DOS be around...

CP/M-68K is written in C. With a bit of work, it can be massaged enough
to go through a modern compiler; I've made it run on ARM and VAX. 

Get hacking!
-- 
roger ivie
roger.ivie@gmail.com

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

#164032

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:22:58 AM UTC-5, gareth 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!
> 
> 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!
> 
> (YMMV !!!! )

Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not compatible with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can port software to it.

Tom L

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

#164052

"Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 7:22:58 AM UTC-5, gareth 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!
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> (YMMV !!!! )
>
> Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not compatible 
> with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can port software to 
> it.

Thanks!

I'll have a browse.

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

#164071

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...

> > Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not compatible 
> > with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can port software to 
> > it.

> Thanks!

> I'll have a browse.

Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the least of 
its problems.

It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing the 
Internet.

There are more serious issues that dispose me to be very reluctant to allow it 
anywhere near my computer... these are mentioned in a more kind and forgiving 
way here

http://www.codersnotes.com/notes/a-constructive-look-at-templeos/

than I would be inclined to use in discussing them.

John Savard

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

#164076

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:728d26b9-dd58-42f2-914b-33b390a15eb3@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 
> wrote:
>> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
>> > Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not 
>> > compatible
>> > with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can port software to
>> > it.
>> Thanks!
>> I'll have a browse.
>
> Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the least 
> of
> its problems.
>
> It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing the
> Internet.

Sounds _ G R E A T _  !!!!  (For those who remember the adverts for
Kellogs Sugar Frosties, but I don't remember the name of the cartoon tiger)

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

#164077

On Fri, 27 May 2016 23:27:57 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:

> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:728d26b9-dd58-42f2-914b-33b390a15eb3@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
>> wrote:
>>> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
>>> > Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not
>>> > compatible with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can
>>> > port software to it.
>>> Thanks!
>>> I'll have a browse.
>>
>> Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the
>> least of its problems.
>>
>> It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing
>> the Internet.
> 
> Sounds _ G R E A T _  !!!!  (For those who remember the adverts for
> Kellogs Sugar Frosties, but I don't remember the name of the cartoon
> tiger)

Tony.




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#164079

On Fri, 27 May 2016, Bob Eager wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2016 23:27:57 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>
>> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> news:728d26b9-dd58-42f2-914b-33b390a15eb3@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not
>>>>> compatible with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can
>>>>> port software to it.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> I'll have a browse.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the
>>> least of its problems.
>>>
>>> It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing
>>> the Internet.
>>
>> Sounds _ G R E A T _  !!!!  (For those who remember the adverts for
>> Kellogs Sugar Frosties, but I don't remember the name of the cartoon
>> tiger)
>
> Tony.
>
Not to be confused with the tiger from Esso, "put a tiger in your tank", 
though back in the sixties I rather thought the two were related.

   Michael

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

#164082

On 2016-05-27, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 23:27:57 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>
>>> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:728d26b9-dd58-42f2-914b-33b390a15eb3@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not
>>>>>> compatible with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can
>>>>>> port software to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> I'll have a browse.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the
>>>> least of its problems.
>>>>
>>>> It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing
>>>> the Internet.
>>>
>>> Sounds _ G R E A T _  !!!!  (For those who remember the adverts for
>>> Kellogs Sugar Frosties, but I don't remember the name of the cartoon
>>> tiger)
>>
>> Tony.
>
> Not to be confused with the tiger from Esso, "put a tiger in your tank", 
> though back in the sixties I rather thought the two were related.

Remember those little tiger tails that Esso handed out?  You'd loop the
elastic strap on the end around your gas cap, then let it poke out from
under the door as if there really was a tiger in your tank.

In one of Red Skelton's skits, his character, Sheriff Deadeye, was going
to partake in a native ritual which involved drinking a potion made from,
among other things, panther drool.  Deadeye quipped, while patting his belly:
"I may not have a tiger in my tank, but I'll have a panther in my pot."

-- 
/~\  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]

#164526

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message 
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1605271906390.27014@darkstar.example.org...
> On Fri, 27 May 2016, Bob Eager wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 May 2016 23:27:57 +0100, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
>>
>>> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:728d26b9-dd58-42f2-914b-33b390a15eb3@googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not
>>>>>> compatible with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can
>>>>>> port software to it.
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> I'll have a browse.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the
>>>> least of its problems.
>>>>
>>>> It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing
>>>> the Internet.
>>>
>>> Sounds _ G R E A T _  !!!!  (For those who remember the adverts for
>>> Kellogs Sugar Frosties, but I don't remember the name of the cartoon
>>> tiger)
>>
>> Tony.
>>
> Not to be confused with the tiger from Esso, "put a tiger in your tank", 
> though back in the sixties I rather thought the two were related.
>

Also *not* to be confused with the Black Panthers!!! ;-)

<joke>

Q:  What kind of bee buzzes around service stations???

A:  An Esso bee.

</joke>

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#164090

gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
> news:728d26b9-dd58-42f2-914b-33b390a15eb3@googlegroups.com...
>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:59:15 AM UTC-6, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 
>> wrote:
>>> "Thomas Lake" <tomlake07@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b95f5244-a26d-45f6-839b-9711feb48175@googlegroups.com...
>>>> Check out TempleOS. It's a 64-bit linear address OS. It's not 
>>>> compatible
>>>> with anything but it does have a C compiler so you can port software to
>>>> it.
>>> Thanks!
>>> I'll have a browse.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, not being Linux or Windows compatible is perhaps the least 
>> of
>> its problems.
>> 
>> It also doesn't have network support, so you can't use it for browsing the
>> Internet.
> 
> Sounds _ G R E A T _  !!!!  (For those who remember the adverts for
> Kellogs Sugar Frosties, but I don't remember the name of the cartoon tiger)
> 

Tony

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

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

csiph-web