Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314e4bbb3e8f2b7b989ff2@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160899 |
In article <87k2l7aa0m.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... > > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > Yep, you're starting to "get it". How much overhead is there in > > Windows? How much in MVS? > > don't run windows, I'm sorry, but the only way I can do that is to quit my job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f5de20f-5ed5-4ebc-ba13-bf034ccd8abb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160882 |
On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:12:17 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > We test PC code against mainframe code--different programs by different > programmers on different architectures that are supposed to give the > same results. It's fascinating to watch the PC grind away for 20 > minutes and the mainframe, with an only slightly faster processor and > several thousand users, spit the same calculation out in 20 seconds. And I can remember when - although the word "bloatware" hadn't been invented yet - OS/360 was considered to be unnecessarily large and slow, obviously made that way by IBM to sell bigger computers to people. That Windows makes it look positively svelte (by comparison), therefore, is doubly saddening. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <09def5d8-8beb-4afe-baaa-3321c5a3e1a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160914 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 7:27:55 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote: > And I can remember when - although the word "bloatware" hadn't been invented > yet - OS/360 was considered to be unnecessarily large and slow, obviously made > that way by IBM to sell bigger computers to people. > That Windows makes it look positively svelte (by comparison), therefore, is > doubly saddening. Originally, they intended OS/360 to be a one size fits all, but it was not well done and far too big to fit on smaller machines. IBM had to rush out DOS. (The S/360 history covers this in depth and is fairly candid.) However, they kind of blamed the newness of OS/360 for its troubles; that nothing that big had ever been developed. That wasn't quite true, the programming for SAGE was massive. I have no idea how well SAGE programming worked out (was it efficient, maintainable, delivered on-time?), but I think IBM could've learned some lessons from that effort (note--SAGE programming was contracted out). but
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314ea8ee58f1c2a989ffd@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160914 |
In article <1f5de20f-5ed5-4ebc-ba13-bf034ccd8abb@googlegroups.com>, jsavard@ecn.ab.ca says... > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:12:17 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > We test PC code against mainframe code--different programs by different > > programmers on different architectures that are supposed to give the > > same results. It's fascinating to watch the PC grind away for 20 > > minutes and the mainframe, with an only slightly faster processor and > > several thousand users, spit the same calculation out in 20 seconds. > > And I can remember when - although the word "bloatware" hadn't been invented > yet - OS/360 was considered to be unnecessarily large and slow, obviously made > that way by IBM to sell bigger computers to people. > > That Windows makes it look positively svelte (by comparison), therefore, is > doubly saddening. > > John Savard Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c13056c8-6ae2-4bbf-b519-d27a458c286e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160922 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine > on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch > today. I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ computers in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency divider chip to drive the little motor. Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160931 |
"Quadibloc" wrote: > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch >> today. > > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ > computers > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency divider > chip > to drive the little motor. > > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, > most of > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the > /195. Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five years for an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at 14:40 CDT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314fa87d9a65ac3f98a015@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160932 |
In article <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net says... > > "Quadibloc" wrote: > > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > > > >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine > >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch > >> today. > > > > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ > > computers > > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency divider > > chip > > to drive the little motor. > > > > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, > > most of > > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the > > /195. > > Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five years > for > an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) > > My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at 14:40 CDT. My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated your OS since they changed the changeover dates?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dkme26F7dvbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160933 |
"J. Clarke" wrote: > In article <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net > says... >> >> "Quadibloc" wrote: >> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >> > >> >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran >> >> fine >> >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good >> >> watch >> >> today. >> > >> > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ >> > computers >> > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency >> > divider >> > chip >> > to drive the little motor. >> > >> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, >> > most of >> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the >> > /195. >> >> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five years >> for >> an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) >> >> My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at 14:40 >> CDT. > > My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated > your OS since they changed the changeover dates? I do not permit most updates to my OS. The cell phone and computer now have DST. I can't explain that. I don't even *have* a functioning watch, the one I mentioned is part of a shirt pocket calculator. I have been trying to get a handle on how likely the watch accuracy I mentioned was and failed so far. If I could find the standard deviation on mass produced watch crystals I could get some insight, but I tried and failed to find it. I can't think of any really good reason for anyone to release this information, if they even know it themselves. Their internal process control has a need to know but most anyone else does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dkmf05F7l0gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160935 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message news:dkme26F7dvbU1@mid.individual.net... > "J. Clarke" wrote: > >> In article <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net >> says... >>> >>> "Quadibloc" wrote: >>> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >>> > >>> >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran >>> >> fine >>> >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good >>> >> watch >>> >> today. >>> > >>> > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ >>> > computers >>> > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency >>> > divider >>> > chip >>> > to drive the little motor. >>> > >>> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, >>> > most of >>> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the >>> > /195. >>> >>> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five >>> years >>> for >>> an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) >>> >>> My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at 14:40 >>> CDT. >> >> My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated >> your OS since they changed the changeover dates? > > I do not permit most updates to my OS. The cell phone and computer now > have DST. I can't explain that. I can with the cellphone, they get their time off the network. > I don't even *have* a functioning watch, the one I mentioned is part of a > shirt pocket calculator. > > I have been trying to get a handle on how likely the watch accuracy I > mentioned was and failed so far. If I could find the standard deviation > on mass produced watch crystals I could get some insight, but I tried and > failed to find it. I can't think of any really good reason for anyone to > release this information, if they even know it themselves. Their internal > process control has a need to know but most anyone else does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc5u34$16c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #160937 |
On 14/03/2016 00:29, Sam Crean wrote: > > > "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:dkme26F7dvbU1@mid.individual.net... >> "J. Clarke" wrote: >> >> I have been trying to get a handle on how likely the watch accuracy I >> mentioned was and failed so far. If I could find the standard >> deviation on mass produced watch crystals I could get some insight, >> but I tried and failed to find it. I can't think of any really good >> reason for anyone to release this information, if they even know it >> themselves. Their internal process control has a need to know but most >> anyone else does not. > > Watches are interesting. They live on your wrist for much of the time and so are pretty temperature stable, but at night you take them off and pop them down in a cold (well in Manchester England its cold) room. This was a challenge for early electronic watch makers, and they tended to lose (I think) time over night... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.314fe533c60e79e898a01c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160935 |
In article <dkme26F7dvbU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net says... > > "J. Clarke" wrote: > > > In article <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net > > says... > >> > >> "Quadibloc" wrote: > >> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > >> > > >> >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran > >> >> fine > >> >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good > >> >> watch > >> >> today. > >> > > >> > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ > >> > computers > >> > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency > >> > divider > >> > chip > >> > to drive the little motor. > >> > > >> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, > >> > most of > >> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the > >> > /195. > >> > >> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five years > >> for > >> an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) > >> > >> My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at 14:40 > >> CDT. > > > > My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated > > your OS since they changed the changeover dates? > > I do not permit most updates to my OS. You prefer to keep it broken? > The cell phone and computer now > have DST. I can't explain that. > > I don't even *have* a functioning watch, the one I mentioned is part of a > shirt pocket calculator. > > I have been trying to get a handle on how likely the watch accuracy I > mentioned was and failed so far. If I could find the standard deviation on > mass produced watch crystals I could get some insight, but I tried and > failed to find it. I can't think of any really good reason for anyone to > release this information, if they even know it themselves. Their internal > process control has a need to know but most anyone else does not. If it's a certified quartz chronometer it's guaranteed to gain or lose less than 7 seconds a year. On the other hand, some rather inexpensive and ordinary looking watches adjust themselve periodically according to the standards organization time signals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dkn01hFbaspU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160940 |
"J. Clarke" wrote: > In article <dkme26F7dvbU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net > says... >> >> "J. Clarke" wrote: >> >> > In article <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net >> > says... >> >> >> >> "Quadibloc" wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran >> >> >> fine >> >> >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good >> >> >> watch >> >> >> today. >> >> > >> >> > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ >> >> > computers >> >> > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency >> >> > divider >> >> > chip >> >> > to drive the little motor. >> >> > >> >> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, >> >> > yes, >> >> > most of >> >> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, >> >> > the >> >> > /195. >> >> >> >> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five >> >> years >> >> for >> >> an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) >> >> >> >> My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at >> >> 14:40 >> >> CDT. >> > >> > My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated >> > your OS since they changed the changeover dates? >> >> I do not permit most updates to my OS. > > You prefer to keep it broken? I prefer continuity and repeatability. If things respond different than I expect It is reasonable to suspect I have some new malware and react accordingly. If a side effect is a broken OS, that's part of the price I pay - willingly. I let Firebox update - they seem like good people who know what they are doing. I do not get that impression about Microsoft. I got rid of iTunes in favor of MediaMonkey because of Apple's obsession of wanting to 'enhance my experience'. One side effect of that is that its a real PITA to update my iPod. >> I have been trying to get a handle on how likely the watch accuracy I >> mentioned was and failed so far. If I could find the standard deviation >> on >> mass produced watch crystals I could get some insight, but I tried and >> failed to find it. I can't think of any really good reason for anyone to >> release this information, if they even know it themselves. Their internal >> process control has a need to know but most anyone else does not. > > If it's a certified quartz chronometer it's guaranteed to gain or lose > less than 7 seconds a year. On the other hand, some rather inexpensive > and ordinary looking watches adjust themselve periodically according to > the standards organization time signals. Thanks, that's helpful, the word 'certified' is worth its weight in gold. The watch I have predates any hi-tech adjusting that you discuss. The earliest quartz watch at a popular price was the Bulova Accutron - a big, thick, ugly thing - that they promoted as less than a minute a month of error. I had a mechanical watch I fussed with until I broke the minute a month barrier. I doubt if the worst one in a dollar store is any place close to that bad today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc5u7g$16c$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #160941 |
> > The earliest quartz watch at a popular price was the Bulova Accutron - a > big, thick, ugly thing - that they promoted as less than a minute a > month of error. I had a mechanical watch I fussed with until I broke > the minute a month barrier. I doubt if the worst one in a dollar store > is any place close to that bad today. > > I have three. They are not Quartz they have a tunning fork inside and hum rather than tick. Battery life means that its hard to verify the "minute a month" claim... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3150668d9f79c47298a021@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #160941 |
In article <dkn01hFbaspU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net says... > > "J. Clarke" wrote: > > > In article <dkme26F7dvbU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net > > says... > >> > >> "J. Clarke" wrote: > >> > >> > In article <dklucdF3fvmU1@mid.individual.net>, r124c4u102@comcast.net > >> > says... > >> >> > >> >> "Quadibloc" wrote: > >> >> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran > >> >> >> fine > >> >> >> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good > >> >> >> watch > >> >> >> today. > >> >> > > >> >> > I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ > >> >> > computers > >> >> > in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency > >> >> > divider > >> >> > chip > >> >> > to drive the little motor. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, > >> >> > yes, > >> >> > most of > >> >> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, > >> >> > the > >> >> > /195. > >> >> > >> >> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five > >> >> years > >> >> for > >> >> an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) > >> >> > >> >> My cell phone and my computer are still stumbling along on CST at > >> >> 14:40 > >> >> CDT. > >> > > >> > My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated > >> > your OS since they changed the changeover dates? > >> > >> I do not permit most updates to my OS. > > > > You prefer to keep it broken? > > I prefer continuity and repeatability. If things respond different than I > expect It is reasonable to suspect I have some new malware and react > accordingly. If a side effect is a broken OS, that's part of the price I > pay - willingly. I let Firebox update - they seem like good people who know > what they are doing. I do not get that impression about Microsoft. I got > rid of iTunes in favor of MediaMonkey because of Apple's obsession of > wanting to 'enhance my experience'. One side effect of that is that its a > real PITA to update my iPod. > > >> I have been trying to get a handle on how likely the watch accuracy I > >> mentioned was and failed so far. If I could find the standard deviation > >> on > >> mass produced watch crystals I could get some insight, but I tried and > >> failed to find it. I can't think of any really good reason for anyone to > >> release this information, if they even know it themselves. Their internal > >> process control has a need to know but most anyone else does not. > > > > If it's a certified quartz chronometer it's guaranteed to gain or lose > > less than 7 seconds a year. On the other hand, some rather inexpensive > > and ordinary looking watches adjust themselve periodically according to > > the standards organization time signals. > > Thanks, that's helpful, the word 'certified' is worth its weight in gold. > The watch I have predates any hi-tech adjusting that you discuss. > > The earliest quartz watch at a popular price was the Bulova Accutron - a > big, thick, ugly thing - that they promoted as less than a minute a month of > error. Minor nit--Bulova's first quartz watch was the "accuquartz". The Accutron used a tuning fork as a frequency reference. > I had a mechanical watch I fussed with until I broke the minute a > month barrier. Your watch-fu is strong--certified mechanical chronometers are only guaranteed to hit 3 minutes a month. > I doubt if the worst one in a dollar store is any place > close to that bad today. That would be worse than average.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96906731-f4d0-477f-896a-f3f857f1f447@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160933 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated > your OS since they changed the changeover dates? Some of my electronic timepieces, like my VCR, are so old that the dates of change to DST changed since the device was built. If I allow it to change automatically, it would change on the wrong day. My cellphone is automatic, I can not control the time display. (Although I wish it displayed seconds.) It is from Verizon, and I'm not sure if it's accurate, as time shown on television is about 30 seconds faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8rrjrc-dn7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160959 |
In article <96906731-f4d0-477f-896a-f3f857f1f447@googlegroups.com>, <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: >On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > >> My watch, phone, and computer reset themselves. Have you not updated >> your OS since they changed the changeover dates? > >Some of my electronic timepieces, like my VCR, are so old that >the dates of change to DST changed since the device was built. >If I allow it to change automatically, it would change on the >wrong day. > >My cellphone is automatic, I can not control the time display. >(Although I wish it displayed seconds.) It is from Verizon, >and I'm not sure if it's accurate, as time shown on television >is about 30 seconds faster. Any GSM phone will need to be within around 50 microseconds of synchronisation with the network to establish a call, and within ~200 to send/receive sms'es. However, there is no external reference for the timebase of a GSM network, and the base rolls around every few weeks. So even if a phone has very good sync with the timebase it is difficult to translate this to the real world time. There are ways for a phone to pick up the timebase from the network quite easily though. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de855961-73b6-4d43-baaa-83e0cb58098f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160932 |
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:46:23 PM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: > Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five years > for > an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) My old Casio '50M' watch gains about a minute per month. But the thing is ancient. At any rate, I'd rather it be fast than slow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5CB91370B6AAfalkarcabca@213.239.209.88> |
| In reply to | #160958 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in news:de855961-73b6-4d43-baaa-83e0cb58098f@googlegroups.com: > On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:46:23 PM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: > >> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five >> years for an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) > > My old Casio '50M' watch gains about a minute per month. But > the thing is ancient. At any rate, I'd rather it be fast > than slow. My first watch, a Hamilton, purchased around 1967 was good to a few minutes a month at first, but after a few repairs and cleanings it was never that good again. My first digital watch, around 1980, was good to 1 second a month. Unfortunately it had mechanical problems: the control buttons were completely unreliable. I've never had one as accurate since. My current 8- year-old Timex is good to about 1.5 minutes a month.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc9grv12csu@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160967 |
On 2016-03-14, Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in > news:de855961-73b6-4d43-baaa-83e0cb58098f@googlegroups.com: > >> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:46:23 PM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: >> >>> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five >>> years for an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) >> >> My old Casio '50M' watch gains about a minute per month. But >> the thing is ancient. At any rate, I'd rather it be fast >> than slow. > > My first watch, a Hamilton, purchased around 1967 was good to a few minutes > a month at first, but after a few repairs and cleanings it was never that > good again. > My first digital watch, around 1980, was good to 1 second a month. > Unfortunately it had mechanical problems: the control buttons were > completely unreliable. I've never had one as accurate since. My current > 8-year-old Timex is good to about 1.5 minutes a month. My good old Timex is pushing 35 years of age; it gains about a second a day. -- /~\ 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]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kCYFy.45382$Db4.8952@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #161015 |
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes: >On 2016-03-14, Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> wrote: > >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote in >> news:de855961-73b6-4d43-baaa-83e0cb58098f@googlegroups.com: >> >>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 3:46:23 PM UTC-4, Osmium wrote: >>> >>>> Today, my favorite watch has 5 seconds of accumulated error in five >>>> years for an error rate of 1 part in 31 536 000. (Ignoring leap years) >>> >>> My old Casio '50M' watch gains about a minute per month. But >>> the thing is ancient. At any rate, I'd rather it be fast >>> than slow. >> >> My first watch, a Hamilton, purchased around 1967 was good to a few minutes >> a month at first, but after a few repairs and cleanings it was never that >> good again. >> My first digital watch, around 1980, was good to 1 second a month. >> Unfortunately it had mechanical problems: the control buttons were >> completely unreliable. I've never had one as accurate since. My current >> 8-year-old Timex is good to about 1.5 minutes a month. > >My good old Timex is pushing 35 years of age; it gains about a second a day. My wall clock[*] is pushing 110. I've got it adjusted such that it loses about a minute a month right now, so long as I wind it weekly. [*] Antique regulator wall school clock with 8-day movement
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web