Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163292 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 268 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-05-06 11:00 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-06 16:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-06 18:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-07 07:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 19:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:16 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-08 04:22 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 21:46 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-08 06:58 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 07:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 02:30 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-05-06 17:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-06 19:41 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 02:43 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-09 06:58 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-09 17:05 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:13 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-12 12:50 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-13 12:10 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-12 13:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-15 21:53 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-16 12:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:22 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:23 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-18 20:15 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-19 08:06 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-19 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-21 04:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:14 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 04:45 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-24 14:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 09:22 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-25 17:31 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 21:41 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:17 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-16 20:08 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-09 16:29 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 02:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 06:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 07:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 09:06 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:47 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 09:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 10:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 11:11 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 20:02 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 12:05 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 14:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-12 03:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 06:13 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-12 14:46 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 14:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 14:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 17:50 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 16:01 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 02:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-12 10:07 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 11:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 21:55 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-12 13:12 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-05-12 00:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 21:40 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-14 23:47 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:40 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 15:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 21:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 15:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 23:36 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-12 10:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 15:11 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-15 17:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 20:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-15 22:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 06:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-16 13:12 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-16 23:25 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:23 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 09:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:40 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 16:59 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 13:42 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 11:56 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 12:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-17 19:58 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-18 02:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 23:51 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-18 14:28 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2016-05-19 11:07 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-19 10:00 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-19 12:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 10:56 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 12:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-24 00:01 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-23 18:48 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:18 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-19 07:03 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-19 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-21 21:26 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-18 10:39 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:21 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:35 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 15:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 14:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:53 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 19:44 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 22:40 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 14:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 17:01 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-17 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-17 14:31 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 12:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-16 20:37 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-17 11:12 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 05:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:21 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 12:23 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-16 22:03 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 05:09 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 09:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-23 09:48 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 13:51 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:49 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-11 14:06 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-11 16:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-12 03:11 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-05-14 16:59 +0800
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-14 10:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-14 15:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-14 09:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-14 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 12:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:17 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-22 05:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:26 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:13 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-22 06:43 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:14 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 13:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-22 07:29 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 06:41 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:11 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-23 16:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-23 16:50 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 01:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 13:40 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-24 19:33 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 21:33 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:54 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 16:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-24 20:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 22:24 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-25 12:45 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 17:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 18:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-24 13:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 17:03 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:53 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:47 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:44 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-06 13:55 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-06 19:29 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 05:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 11:35 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 17:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 22:30 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 13:25 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 17:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 20:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-07 21:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 22:49 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-08 07:08 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-08 20:58 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:09 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-07 10:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-08 16:20 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-09 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-05-09 15:34 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-10 13:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 16:57 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 16:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:38 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-10 15:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 11:07 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:16 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-11 16:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:47 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-11 10:52 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 13:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:46 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Thomas Lake <tomlake07@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 10:47 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-10 18:36 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-17 06:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-06 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #163292 |
Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes: > This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors > The ULTIMATE? For me? A PDP10 in modern technology, with ten thousand mobies as a minimum configuration, multiple CPUs, with some continued evolution in peripheral processing. > What Would The OS Be Like It'd be TOPS-20, of course -- but a version that kept growing for the last 30 years, keeping the best features from its past, but adding useful elements invented in other opearting systems since it's murder. Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still snigger behind her back ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-06 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-C21D4A.19292906052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163318 |
In article <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx>, Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still > snigger behind her back ;) Running in a virtual machine, of course. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005324010F3596E@aca40426.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163325 |
Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx>, > Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > >> Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still >> snigger behind her back ;) > > Running in a virtual machine, of course. > Nope. That wouldn't use all of the CPUs. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 05:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.319781d3d6cad71798a170@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163318 |
In article <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx>, lawrence@senguio.mx says... > > Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes: > > > This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors > > > > The ULTIMATE? For me? > > A PDP10 in modern technology, with ten thousand mobies as a minimum > configuration, multiple CPUs, with some continued evolution in > peripheral processing. > > > What Would The OS Be Like > > It'd be TOPS-20, of course -- but a version that kept growing for the > last 30 years, keeping the best features from its past, but adding > useful elements invented in other opearting systems since it's murder. > > Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still > snigger behind her back ;) I'd kind of like to have seen what MVS would have turned into if IBM had consumerized the 370 instead of going with Intel. Of course they'd never have opened it so it would have stayed pretty much like it did, but still one can dream.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dp628eF6mrbU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163334 |
On Sat, 07 May 2016 05:39:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx>, lawrence@senguio.mx says... >> >> Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors >> > >> > >> The ULTIMATE? For me? >> >> A PDP10 in modern technology, with ten thousand mobies as a minimum >> configuration, multiple CPUs, with some continued evolution in >> peripheral processing. >> >> > What Would The OS Be Like >> >> It'd be TOPS-20, of course -- but a version that kept growing for the >> last 30 years, keeping the best features from its past, but adding >> useful elements invented in other opearting systems since it's murder. >> >> Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still >> snigger behind her back ;) > > I'd kind of like to have seen what MVS would have turned into if IBM had > consumerized the 370 instead of going with Intel. Of course they'd > never have opened it so it would have stayed pretty much like it did, > but still one can dream. My favourite (off beat) mainframe system was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Multiple_Access_System -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 17:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31982a4e92b1cd3398a17c@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163336 |
In article <dp628eF6mrbU4@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says... > > On Sat, 07 May 2016 05:39:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > > > In article <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx>, lawrence@senguio.mx says... > >> > >> Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors > >> > > >> > > >> The ULTIMATE? For me? > >> > >> A PDP10 in modern technology, with ten thousand mobies as a minimum > >> configuration, multiple CPUs, with some continued evolution in > >> peripheral processing. > >> > >> > What Would The OS Be Like > >> > >> It'd be TOPS-20, of course -- but a version that kept growing for the > >> last 30 years, keeping the best features from its past, but adding > >> useful elements invented in other opearting systems since it's murder. > >> > >> Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still > >> snigger behind her back ;) > > > > I'd kind of like to have seen what MVS would have turned into if IBM had > > consumerized the 370 instead of going with Intel. Of course they'd > > never have opened it so it would have stayed pretty much like it did, > > but still one can dream. > > My favourite (off beat) mainframe system was this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Multiple_Access_System Hmm--should be possible to port it to Hercules if the full source is really there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dp78l1F6mrbU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163371 |
On Sat, 07 May 2016 17:38:14 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <dp628eF6mrbU4@mid.individual.net>, news0006@eager.cx says... >> >> On Sat, 07 May 2016 05:39:21 -0400, J. Clarke wrote: >> >> > In article <87wpn7t3so.fsf@senguio.mx>, lawrence@senguio.mx says... >> >> >> >> Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The ULTIMATE? For me? >> >> >> >> A PDP10 in modern technology, with ten thousand mobies as a minimum >> >> configuration, multiple CPUs, with some continued evolution in >> >> peripheral processing. >> >> >> >> > What Would The OS Be Like >> >> >> >> It'd be TOPS-20, of course -- but a version that kept growing for >> >> the last 30 years, keeping the best features from its past, but >> >> adding useful elements invented in other opearting systems since >> >> it's murder. >> >> >> >> Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still >> >> snigger behind her back ;) >> > >> > I'd kind of like to have seen what MVS would have turned into if IBM >> > had consumerized the 370 instead of going with Intel. Of course >> > they'd never have opened it so it would have stayed pretty much like >> > it did, but still one can dream. >> >> My favourite (off beat) mainframe system was this: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Multiple_Access_System > > Hmm--should be possible to port it to Hercules if the full source is > really there. I agree. I do have the source, since I did the port from the Amdahl to XA. I am more interested in the 2900 version...and am working on an emulator. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zis1sjj3.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #163334 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > I'd kind of like to have seen what MVS would have turned into if IBM had > consumerized the 370 instead of going with Intel. Of course they'd > never have opened it so it would have stayed pretty much like it did, > but still one can dream. I've written a lots before about how MVS carried with it enormous baggage from 360s and OS/360 ... including enormous reliance on CKD (CKD hardware emulation is still required by current versions even though CKD disks haven't been made for decades) and pointer passing APIs (even though there was separate address space for every application, an image of the MVS kernel would occupy half of every application virtual address space; further complicated were operating subsystems that had been outside the OS/360 kernel now resided in their own separate address space; pointer passing API calls between applications and subsystems required invention of the CSA ... an area in every virtual address space used for API parameters; CSA size had to be proportional to number of subsystems and their use, at one point CSA size was threatening to increase to the other half of every virtual address space ... leaving nothing for applications). TYMSHARE did GNOSIS for 370 ... capability based operating system that had lot of overhead for 3rd party accounting. Different entities could provide applications, dbms, etc on TYMSHARE GNOSIS platform and they could account for and remit to 3rd parties revenue earned for customers using applications, dbms, etc. When M/D bought TYMSHARE, GNOSIS was spun off to Key Logic ... where they stripped out the 3rd party accounting stuff. They then demonstrated transaction applications that would outperform IBM's TPF ... running on same hardware. Somewhat issue was that interfaces were at a modern design level ... so things worked out much more efficiently (even with the "overhead" of capability based security and integrity). disclaimer: I was brought in to do the GNOSIS evaluation/audit as part of the spin-off ... and still have hardcopy of old GNOSIS spec. GNOSIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOSIS documents http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/ related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROS_(microkernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CapROS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyotos posts mentioning CKD, FBA, multi-track search, etc http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#dasd some past GNOSIS posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#80 Still not convinced about the superiority of mainframe security vs distributed? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#55 Arthur C. Clarke Predicts the Internet, 1974 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#33 Delay between idea and implementation http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#6 The Subroutine Call http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#57 Doug Englebart http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#58 Doug Englebart http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#58 'Free Unix!': The world-changing proclamation made 30yearsagotoday http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#59 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#6 ACA (Obamacare) website problems--article http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#13 Bounded pointers http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#84 CPU time http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#39 [CM] Ten recollections about the early WWW and Internet http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#44 [CM] Ten recollections about the early WWW and Internet http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#53 The mainframe turns 50, or, why the IBM System/360 launch was the dawn of enterprise IT http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014h.html#40 Named Memory http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014i.html#53 transactions, was There Is Still Hope http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015f.html#82 Miniskirts and mainframes http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#43 [Poll] Computing favorities http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016.html#29 1976 vs. 2016? some past CSA posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#33 My Vintage Dream PC http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#80 Word Length http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#75 PDP-10 system calls, was 1132 printer history http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#21 8-bit bytes and byte-addressed machines http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#30 Regarding Time Sharing http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013.html#22 Is Microsoft becoming folklore? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#51 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013g.html#15 What Makes code storage management so cool? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#71 'Free Unix!': The world-changing proclamation made 30 years agotoday http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#62 Difference between MVS and z / OS systems http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#83 Costs of core http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014i.html#86 z/OS physical memory usage with multiple copies of same load module at different virtual addresses http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014k.html#36 1950: Northrop's Digital Differential Analyzer http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014k.html#39 1950: Northrop's Digital Differential Analyzer http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014k.html#82 Do we really need 64-bit DP or is 48-bit enough? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015b.html#40 OS/360 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015b.html#46 Connecting memory to 370/145 with only 36 bits http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015b.html#60 ou sont les VAXen d'antan, was Variable-Length Instructions that aren't http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#90 IBM Embraces Virtual Memory -- Finally http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015h.html#116 Is there a source for detailed, instruction-level performance info? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016.html#78 Mainframe Virtual Memory -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 17:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87shxts8tc.fsf@garlic.com> |
| In reply to | #163357 |
re: http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#12 What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? another MVS issue was that support staff were measured in dozens per system ... including large number of IBM personnel. the shows up in early Amdahl sales going after univ. running VM370 and (univ of michigan) MTS ... since they didn't require the huge amount of IBM personnel helping support the systems (which users weren't going to get for non-IBM clone mainframes). It also played a major factor in the enormous number of distributed 4300s that started in the late 70s ... large customers ordering hundreds at a time for deployment out in departmental areas (non-traditional datacenter locations, stock rooms, former conference rooms, etc). Issue was getting system support down to dozens of systems per support person rather than dozens of support people per system. For awhile they tried to attribute the lack of MVS being deployed on the thousands of distributed 4300ss on the fact that the only CKD disks were the high-end 3380s (not suitable for non-datacenter areas), the mid-range (3370) and low-end (3310s) were all FBA. Eventually a CKD 3375 was announced (3370 with CKD hardware emulation) eliminating that as an excuse for MVS not being deployed into the thousands of distributed 4300s (back to the issue of requiring dozens of support personnel per system). CKD, FBA, multi-track search, etc posts http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#dasd posts mentioning Univ. Of Mich. MTS http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#63 The Atlas 2 and its Slave Store http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#76 DataPower XML Appliance and RACF http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#20 Teletypewriter Model 33 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#22 Teletypewriter Model 33 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2013l.html#34 World's worst programming environment? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#6 The PDP-8/e and thread drifT? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014c.html#71 assembler http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014d.html#23 [OT ] Mainframe memories http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#24 Fifty Years of BASIC, the Programming Language That Made Computers Personal http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#106 Fifty Years of nitpicking definitions, was BASIC,theProgrammingLanguageT http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014i.html#67 z/OS physical memory usage with multiple copies of same load module at different virtual addresses http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014j.html#33 Univac 90 series info posted on bitsavers http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014j.html#50 curly brace languages source code style quides http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2014l.html#20 Do we really need 64-bit addresses or is 48-bit enough? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015b.html#29 The joy of simplicity? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#46 John Titor was right? IBM 5100 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#52 The Stack Depth http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#57 The Stack Depth http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015c.html#92 DEBE? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#35 Remember 3277? http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2015f.html#62 3705 http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016.html#78 Mainframe Virtual Memory http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016c.html#6 You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 20:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.319854e0d7ea295f98a17f@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163377 |
In article <87shxts8tc.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... > > re: > http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#12 What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? > > another MVS issue was that support staff were measured in dozens per > system ... including large number of IBM personnel. Which is something that would have had to be addressed to consumerize the OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 21:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605072156430.24953@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163380 |
On Sat, 7 May 2016, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <87shxts8tc.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... >> >> re: >> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#12 What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? >> >> another MVS issue was that support staff were measured in dozens per >> system ... including large number of IBM personnel. > > Which is something that would have had to be addressed to consumerize > the OS. > > Nowadays, it would be crowdsourced. Consider it part of the sharing economy. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 22:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31987330af536e4b98a182@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163383 |
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605072156430.24953@darkstar.example.org>, et472@ncf.ca says... > > On Sat, 7 May 2016, J. Clarke wrote: > > > In article <87shxts8tc.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... > >> > >> re: > >> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#12 What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? > >> > >> another MVS issue was that support staff were measured in dozens per > >> system ... including large number of IBM personnel. > > > > Which is something that would have had to be addressed to consumerize > > the OS. > > > > > Nowadays, it would be crowdsourced. Consider it part of the sharing > economy. Why would IBM crowdsource MVS?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54a005d0-a2f7-443d-8790-f3becfb47318@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163386 |
On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 8:49:16 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote: > Why would IBM crowdsource MVS? Well, an older version, 3.8J, is now in the public domain, and it's been modified to have access to more memory in the "380" project. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 20:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605082057050.26067@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #163386 |
On Sat, 7 May 2016, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1605072156430.24953@darkstar.example.org>, > et472@ncf.ca says... >> >> On Sat, 7 May 2016, J. Clarke wrote: >> >>> In article <87shxts8tc.fsf@garlic.com>, lynn@garlic.com says... >>>> >>>> re: >>>> http://manana.garlic.com/~lynn/2016d.html#12 What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? >>>> >>>> another MVS issue was that support staff were measured in dozens per >>>> system ... including large number of IBM personnel. >>> >>> Which is something that would have had to be addressed to consumerize >>> the OS. >>> >>> >> Nowadays, it would be crowdsourced. Consider it part of the sharing >> economy. > > Why would IBM crowdsource MVS? > > I thought we were talking about system administration. So nowadays, all you'd have to do is call for "volunteers" to take care of the administration of your operating system. Since the bit I was replying to says "large number", you'd need the crowd to supply all that effort. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053240136EE66C@aca40426.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163318 |
Lawrence Statton NK1G wrote: > Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> writes: > >> This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors >> > > The ULTIMATE? For me? > > A PDP10 in modern technology, with ten thousand mobies as a minimum > configuration, multiple CPUs, with some continued evolution in > peripheral processing. > >> What Would The OS Be Like > > It'd be TOPS-20, of course -- but a version that kept growing for the > last 30 years, keeping the best features from its past, but adding > useful elements invented in other opearting systems since it's murder. > > Obviosuly, TOPS10 would still be available for BAH, but we'd still > snigger behind her back ;) But I'd be using all the cores and get more work done than you would. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-06 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6647d84-c589-4c51-9c82-3c2a164a41f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163292 |
On Friday, May 6, 2016 at 3:04:10 AM UTC-6, Neo Fortune wrote: > This Could Include Memory, Graphics Cards, Processors > What Would The OS Be Like The keyboard would be arranged like the one on the Tandy Model 100. Not only the additional ASCII characters, but some other special characters, would be easily available, both through an alternate shift and through shifting the letters when in caps lock mode. Also, there would be the option of switching to an APL keyboard, and the font used with it would have italic caps and narrow numerals, just like the one produced on a 2741. The processor would be "big-endian", so that numbers would be stored in memory the way you would write them down on paper, letting assembly language programming be less confusing. Oh, of course it would be really powerful and have lots of memory and so on, but _those_ things, in general, the industry _has_ been delivering, and at a good pace too. It would start up in command-line mode, and you would type in a command to bring up the GUI. Because there has been a lot of good software written for _other_ computers, it would have facilities for emulating - without appreciable loss of speed - several other popular machine architectures, including, but not limited, to the x86, the 680x0, the PowerPC, and the IBM 360 and its descendants to the System z. Better throw in the Itanium for good measure. So it would have native instructions for operating on numbers in old-fashioned 360 "hexadecimal floating-point", not just IEEE 784 floats, in order for that particular emulation to go fast enough. And it would have real vector instructions - not ones like MMX/SSE/AVX or AltiVec, but ones like the Cray I had. Oh, and out of the box, included with the price, would be a FORTRAN compiler that makes full use of the GPU for doing math. I think that's enough for now; I think I've gone pretty wild. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ngkcvm$iud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163292 |
"Neo Fortune" <serenity3043@gmail.com> wrote in message news:081dd2b1-0e23-42ff-b984-bad93c46b01a@googlegroups.com... > > What Would The OS Be Like There would be no OS, unless limited to the 10 or so calls that CP/M had, so allowing me to proceed with complete freedom in whatever direction I chose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4rbtib1h5pummuf2sl8c67gaq9is03q91a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163335 |
On Sat, 7 May 2016 10:39:56 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339"
<no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>There would be no OS, unless limited to the 10 or so calls that CP/M had,
>so allowing me to proceed with complete freedom in whatever direction
>I chose.
Even CP/M 2.2 had a few dozen calls. Later versions had even
more.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053253F3BBD6C0@aca41104.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163388 |
Gene Wirchenko wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 10:39:56 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" > <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > > [snip] > >>There would be no OS, unless limited to the 10 or so calls that CP/M had, >>so allowing me to proceed with complete freedom in whatever direction >>I chose. > > Even CP/M 2.2 had a few dozen calls. Later versions had even > more. If you need a network, there would be triple the calls. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2iu30d-ot9.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163408 |
In article <PM00053253F3BBD6C0@aca41104.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> On Sat, 7 May 2016 10:39:56 +0100, "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" >> <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>There would be no OS, unless limited to the 10 or so calls that CP/M had, >>>so allowing me to proceed with complete freedom in whatever direction >>>I chose. >> >> Even CP/M 2.2 had a few dozen calls. Later versions had even >> more. > >If you need a network, there would be triple the calls. No, assign/bind, connect, listen, accept, plus send and receive; and some extra code in open,read,write and close would do the trick. You would want a select/poll call, but that should already be there. That makes half a dozen new calls, and extra code in half a dozen more. Networking is not that hard. We learned how to do this right by ca 1980. The rest is implementation detail; roughly done in the *n*xes by 1985. Legacy, not-done-quite-right protocols would need more calls. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web