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

#159406

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:48:13 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:

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

You also needed space for the operating system, which I think at a minimum
took up 8k.  On our S/360-40, our DOS took up 14.5k.  That did not include
a spooler, a tremendous boost to throughput.  In 360-DOS, it was called
"POWER", but I don't recall how much memory that took up.  25K?

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

#159580

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:48:13 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> Bytes.  The /30 could be bought with 16K, but most software needed more so
>> few people bought it that way.
> 
> You also needed space for the operating system, which I think at a minimum
> took up 8k.  

6K was common for non-multiprogramming systems.  I'm not sure, but it may
be that 4K was possible as a bare minumum.

On our S/360-40, our DOS took up 14.5k.  That did not include
> a spooler, a tremendous boost to throughput.  In 360-DOS, it was called
> "POWER", but I don't recall how much memory that took up.  25K?
> 

What an amazing difference a spooler made.


-- 
Pete

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

#159641

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:


> What an amazing difference a spooler made.

At my old job, the director, an old 1401 hand, had little enthusiasm
for anything S/360.  Indeed, they got one only because their 1401 aged
out.  Anyway, a new programming manager, who was more progressive, 
pushed to install the spooler and did so, despite the concerns of the
director.  The spooler turned out to be completely transparent to 
everything we did, including 1401 emulation, and almost doubled our 
machine productivity.

Going forward a few years, the site with the 370-158 MVS had spooling
of course, but one check printing job was done 'hot'.  

Amazing how all that check printing is mostly obsolete.  First off,
most people get direct deposit now or perhaps a charge card credit.
Secondly, instead of stocking numerous check stocks for different
applications (e.g. payroll, accounts payable, etc), checks now
are dynamically generated as required.

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

#159651

On 18/02/2016 04:56, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>
>> What an amazing difference a spooler made.
>
> At my old job, the director, an old 1401 hand, had little enthusiasm
> for anything S/360.  Indeed, they got one only because their 1401 aged
> out.  Anyway, a new programming manager, who was more progressive,
> pushed to install the spooler and did so, despite the concerns of the
> director.  The spooler turned out to be completely transparent to
> everything we did, including 1401 emulation, and almost doubled our
> machine productivity.
>
> Going forward a few years, the site with the 370-158 MVS had spooling
> of course, but one check printing job was done 'hot'.
>

Check printing was usually done HOT so you could note the check numbers 
issued back into the master file. I once "cooled" a cheque printing 
program so we printed the cheques and then put the numbers in 
afterwards. Audit were not happy....

> Amazing how all that check printing is mostly obsolete.  First off,
> most people get direct deposit now or perhaps a charge card credit.
> Secondly, instead of stocking numerous check stocks for different
> applications (e.g. payroll, accounts payable, etc), checks now
> are dynamically generated as required.
>
>
>
Dave
G4UGM

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

#159696

"David Wade" <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:na4421$78s$2@news.albasani.net...
> On 18/02/2016 04:56, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What an amazing difference a spooler made.
>>
>> At my old job, the director, an old 1401 hand, had little enthusiasm
>> for anything S/360.  Indeed, they got one only because their 1401 aged
>> out.  Anyway, a new programming manager, who was more progressive,
>> pushed to install the spooler and did so, despite the concerns of the
>> director.  The spooler turned out to be completely transparent to
>> everything we did, including 1401 emulation, and almost doubled our
>> machine productivity.
>>
>> Going forward a few years, the site with the 370-158 MVS had spooling
>> of course, but one check printing job was done 'hot'.
>>
>
> Check printing was usually done HOT so you could note the check numbers 
> issued back into the master file. I once "cooled" a cheque printing 
> program so we printed the cheques and then put the numbers in afterwards. 
> Audit were not happy....
>

"Humans are allergic to change. They love to say 'We've always done it this 
way'.  I try to fight that.  That's why I have a clock on my wall that runs 
counter-clockwise (anti-clockwise)."  -- Grace Hopper

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#159694

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:87b081b6-814b-49f4-8970-28612dbe332a@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>
>> What an amazing difference a spooler made.
>
> At my old job, the director, an old 1401 hand, had little enthusiasm
> for anything S/360.  Indeed, they got one only because their 1401 aged
> out.  Anyway, a new programming manager, who was more progressive,
> pushed to install the spooler and did so, despite the concerns of the
> director.  The spooler turned out to be completely transparent to
> everything we did, including 1401 emulation, and almost doubled our
> machine productivity.
>

There is a video that discusses adoption of newer technology *.  It seems to 
work along the "bell curve".  In the beginning, you have a small percentage 
of "early adopters", maybe 15%.  At the other end of the curve, there are 
the 2% to 3% that hang on as long as they can.  For example, that last 
percentage could only be persuaded to use push-button phones... because they 
were unable to buy dial phones anymore!!!

*  I think the video was a "TED talk".

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#159769

On 2016-02-18, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
> news:87b081b6-814b-49f4-8970-28612dbe332a@googlegroups.com...
>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What an amazing difference a spooler made.
>>
>> At my old job, the director, an old 1401 hand, had little enthusiasm
>> for anything S/360.  Indeed, they got one only because their 1401 aged
>> out.  Anyway, a new programming manager, who was more progressive,
>> pushed to install the spooler and did so, despite the concerns of the
>> director.  The spooler turned out to be completely transparent to
>> everything we did, including 1401 emulation, and almost doubled our
>> machine productivity.
>>
>
> There is a video that discusses adoption of newer technology *.  It seems to 
> work along the "bell curve".  In the beginning, you have a small percentage 
> of "early adopters", maybe 15%.  At the other end of the curve, there are 
> the 2% to 3% that hang on as long as they can.  For example, that last 
> percentage could only be persuaded to use push-button phones... because they 
> were unable to buy dial phones anymore!!!

Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old and therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"

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

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

#159783

Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-02-18, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
>> news:87b081b6-814b-49f4-8970-28612dbe332a@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> What an amazing difference a spooler made.
>>> 
>>> At my old job, the director, an old 1401 hand, had little enthusiasm
>>> for anything S/360.  Indeed, they got one only because their 1401 aged
>>> out.  Anyway, a new programming manager, who was more progressive,
>>> pushed to install the spooler and did so, despite the concerns of the
>>> director.  The spooler turned out to be completely transparent to
>>> everything we did, including 1401 emulation, and almost doubled our
>>> machine productivity.
>>> 
>> 
>> There is a video that discusses adoption of newer technology *.  It seems to 
>> work along the "bell curve".  In the beginning, you have a small percentage 
>> of "early adopters", maybe 15%.  At the other end of the curve, there are 
>> the 2% to 3% that hang on as long as they can.  For example, that last 
>> percentage could only be persuaded to use push-button phones... because they 
>> were unable to buy dial phones anymore!!!
> 
> Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old and
> therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
> 

Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
millinia.  Don't be the first to try eating an unfamiliar plant - it may be
poison.  Let Ogg try it first.  Don't be the first to try growing a new
crop - there may be problems with drought, flood, insects, etc.  Stick with
what you know will grow.  Etc.

Most early adopters today jump in because it gives them a good feeling to
be first.  Let them go and feel smug, by the time you get around to it the
technology will have been tested and hopefully working, and the price will
be a lot lower.

-- 
Pete

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

#159798

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> > Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old and
> > therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"

> Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
> millinia.

Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use things 
not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits. Which does 
involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.

John Savard

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

#159802

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:36:03 -0800 (PST)
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old
> > > and therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
> 
> > Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
> > millinia.
> 
> Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use
> things not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits.
> Which does involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.

	For this purpose it helps to have some early adopters so the merits
and otherwise of untried things can be discovered, and some hangers on so
that the merits and otherwise of old things are remembered. Fools are
useful.

-- 
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]

#159845

On 2016-02-19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:36:03 -0800 (PST)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old
>>>> and therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
>>>
>>> Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
>>> millinia.
>> 
>> Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use
>> things not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits.
>> Which does involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.
>
> 	For this purpose it helps to have some early adopters so the merits
> and otherwise of untried things can be discovered, and some hangers on so
> that the merits and otherwise of old things are remembered. Fools are
> useful.

The early bird catches the worm.  The second mouse gets the cheese.

-- 
/~\  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]

#159889

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:na7rj912vsu@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-02-19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:36:03 -0800 (PST)
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old
>>>>> and therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
>>>>
>>>> Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well 
>>>> for
>>>> millinia.
>>>
>>> Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use
>>> things not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits.
>>> Which does involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.
>>
>> For this purpose it helps to have some early adopters so the merits
>> and otherwise of untried things can be discovered, and some hangers on so
>> that the merits and otherwise of old things are remembered. Fools are
>> useful.
>
> The early bird catches the worm.  The second mouse gets the cheese.
>

"I don't have to out-run the bear; I only have to out-run *you*!"

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#160136

In article <na7rj912vsu@news4.newsguy.com>,
 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-02-19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:36:03 -0800 (PST)
> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old
> >>>> and therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
> >>>
> >>> Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
> >>> millinia.
> >> 
> >> Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use
> >> things not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits.
> >> Which does involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.
> >
> > 	For this purpose it helps to have some early adopters so the merits
> > and otherwise of untried things can be discovered, and some hangers on so
> > that the merits and otherwise of old things are remembered. Fools are
> > useful.
> 
> The early bird catches the worm.  The second mouse gets the cheese.

And the early worm gets the bird.

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

#159888

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message 
news:20160219151305.908819fa6ea287a80c4f75bb@eircom.net...
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 06:36:03 -0800 (PST)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>> > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old
>> > > and therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
>>
>> > Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well 
>> > for
>> > millinia.
>>
>> Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use
>> things not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits.
>> Which does involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.
>
> For this purpose it helps to have some early adopters so the merits
> and otherwise of untried things can be discovered, and some hangers on so
> that the merits and otherwise of old things are remembered. Fools are
> useful.
>

Leiutenant to Corporal:  "Did you drive this jeep all the way from the base 
to our encampment???"

Corporal:  "Yes, sir."

Leiutentant on radio:  "Okay, the road is clear of mines. You can send the 
supply truck down."

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#159914

On 2016-02-19, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:54:32 AM UTC-7, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Dean Inge he say, "There are two kinds of fool. One says 'This is old and
>> > therefore good', the other 'This is new and therefore better.'"
>
>> Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
>> millinia.
>
> Well, it isn't foolish to do just what Dean Ing is recommending - use things 
> not because they're "new" or "old", but on their actual merits. Which does 
> involve taking enough time to _determine_ those merits.

Precisely.

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

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

#159887

"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:705295425.477582518.849003.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org...
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>              [snip...]                [snip...] 
> [snip...]
>
> Late adoption is a species survival strategy that has served us well for
> millinia.  Don't be the first to try eating an unfamiliar plant - it may 
> be
> poison.  Let Ogg try it first.  Don't be the first to try growing a new
> crop - there may be problems with drought, flood, insects, etc.  Stick 
> with
> what you know will grow.  Etc.
>

"Millennia" has two n's. The word "millenniums" is also acceptable now.

> Most early adopters today jump in because it gives them a good feeling to
> be first.  Let them go and feel smug, by the time you get around to it the
> technology will have been tested and hopefully working, and the price will
> be a lot lower.
>

Yes, early adopters are the pioneers.  "The pioneers are the ones with the 
arrows in their backs."  But that is different from hanging on to a 
technology until you can *not* buy that technology anymore. Luddites do 
that.

Here in <a.f.c.> we like old tech, but *not* for everyday use to solve 
"modern" problems.  Even if I could get a PDP-11 into my digital camera, 
the -11 would *not* have the processing power or memory to take and process 
the pixels.  We try to emulate "old tech" with "new tech" to allow folks 
today to sort of experience the old tech.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com 

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

#159918

"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.

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

#159923

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.

-- 
Pete

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

#159936

"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. 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? 

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

#159956

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.
>
>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. 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 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.


-- 
JimP.

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

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

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

csiph-web