Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #166092 > unrolled thread

The decline of the dinosaurs?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  The decline of the dinosaurs? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-06-29 09:23 +0100
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 04:58 -0400
      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:46 +0000
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-06-29 12:12 +0100
      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-29 12:18 +0100
      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-29 15:39 +0200
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-29 10:09 -0500
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 15:54 +0000
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-06-29 11:11 -0500
              Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:22 +0000
                Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:51 +0000
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 19:28 +0100
                    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-29 19:37 +0000
                      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-06-29 23:15 -0300
                        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-30 06:46 -0400
                          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-30 11:38 +0000
                            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-30 18:54 +0000
                        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-01 14:43 +0100
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-29 12:07 -0700
                Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2016-06-30 12:52 +0100
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-30 14:15 +0200
                    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-30 18:54 +0000
                      Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-06-30 23:04 +0200
                        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-01 12:49 +0000
                          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Moten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-01 14:54 +0200
                  Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-06-30 13:06 -0400
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-06-29 11:24 -0500
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-06-29 11:08 -0500
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-06-29 18:51 +0100
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-06-29 19:28 +0100
            Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-29 12:07 -0700
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-29 17:52 -0400
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:33 +0000
        Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Mike Causer <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> - 2016-06-30 20:50 +0100
          Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-07-01 08:26 -0500
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-06-29 07:50 -0400
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-06-29 11:59 -0700
    Re: The decline of the dinosaurs? Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2016-06-29 17:25 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#166190

In article <sr1anb52gajn518d2gkiplt6l75d88rsqa@4ax.com>,
Stephen Wolstenholme  <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>>what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>
>I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
>messages. 

I have backups of mu important documents with three different
cloud providers. Since it is free, and the chance exists that I may some
day need it; why not?

And I don't store anything I couldn't live with having on the
front of tomarrows newspaper.

Still, most of it is pretty heavily encrypted.

-- mrr

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

#166206

On 2016-06-30, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> In article <sr1anb52gajn518d2gkiplt6l75d88rsqa@4ax.com>,
> Stephen Wolstenholme  <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>>> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>>
>> I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
>> messages. 
>
> I have backups of mu important documents with three different
> cloud providers. Since it is free, and the chance exists that I may some
> day need it; why not?

I notice the word "backups" there; presumably your masters are on your
own drives (and backed up offline somewhere).

-- 
/~\  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]

#166223

In article <nl3pts2u8c@news4.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2016-06-30, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <sr1anb52gajn518d2gkiplt6l75d88rsqa@4ax.com>,
>> Stephen Wolstenholme  <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>>>> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>>>
>>> I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
>>> messages. 
>>
>> I have backups of mu important documents with three different
>> cloud providers. Since it is free, and the chance exists that I may some
>> day need it; why not?
>
>I notice the word "backups" there; presumably your masters are on your
>own drives (and backed up offline somewhere).

My primary is a 3/4 way mirror of some 1T drives, 2 SATA and the rest
USB. One of the drives it to a NFS mount of another raid on another
machine in another building. I add another 1T drive there once a week,
lets it synchronise overnight; break the raid in a controlled fashion
(with a coherent file system) and bring it into the office, taking the
old one with me back home. 

Then, once a quarter or so I update the cloud stuff. 

So, in total I have 4+1 disks on two machines plus one standalone, 
and archives at three cloud providers. This is for the important
stuff, like family documents, photographs, old film and video.

The -relaxed option for raids were a godsend, so I can use the
two SATA drives as primaries, and the USB and NFS mounted one can
catch up when needed, this way it doesn't bog down. 

I do keep all my e-mail since 1979, with two month-long holes.

I did actually get my systems design tested when they mothballed
our Prime machines, but kept them running. They ran, completely
unattended, for 7 years before they dropped out. Several disks
had failed before then, but that was when the second one of a
mirrored pair failed. 

I expect this setup to be at least as resilient. And then I
montitor it extensively weekly, and use it daily.

-- mrr

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

#166234

Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <nl3pts2u8c@news4.newsguy.com>,
> Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2016-06-30, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <sr1anb52gajn518d2gkiplt6l75d88rsqa@4ax.com>,
>>> Stephen Wolstenholme  <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>>>>> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>>>>
>>>> I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
>>>> messages.
>>>
>>> I have backups of mu important documents with three different
>>> cloud providers. Since it is free, and the chance exists that I may some
>>> day need it; why not?
>>
>>I notice the word "backups" there; presumably your masters are on your
>>own drives (and backed up offline somewhere).
>
> My primary is a 3/4 way mirror of some 1T drives, 2 SATA and the rest
> USB. One of the drives it to a NFS mount of another raid on another
> machine in another building. I add another 1T drive there once a week,
> lets it synchronise overnight; break the raid in a controlled fashion
> (with a coherent file system) and bring it into the office, taking the
> old one with me back home.
>
> Then, once a quarter or so I update the cloud stuff.
>
> So, in total I have 4+1 disks on two machines plus one standalone,
> and archives at three cloud providers. This is for the important
> stuff, like family documents, photographs, old film and video.
>
> The -relaxed option for raids were a godsend, so I can use the
> two SATA drives as primaries, and the USB and NFS mounted one can
> catch up when needed, this way it doesn't bog down.
>
> I do keep all my e-mail since 1979, with two month-long holes.
>
> I did actually get my systems design tested when they mothballed
> our Prime machines, but kept them running. They ran, completely
> unattended, for 7 years before they dropped out. Several disks
> had failed before then, but that was when the second one of a
> mirrored pair failed.
>
> I expect this setup to be at least as resilient. And then I
> montitor it extensively weekly, and use it daily.

Using it daily is key; there would have to be a very different
method if you didn't.  Have you trained anyone to replace you?

/BAH

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

#166239

In article <PM000536927CA3C8D3@aca42375.ipt.aol.com>,
jmfbahciv  <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <nl3pts2u8c@news4.newsguy.com>,
>> Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 2016-06-30, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <sr1anb52gajn518d2gkiplt6l75d88rsqa@4ax.com>,
>>>> Stephen Wolstenholme  <steve@easynn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>>>>>> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
>>>>> messages.
>>>>
>>>> I have backups of mu important documents with three different
>>>> cloud providers. Since it is free, and the chance exists that I may some
>>>> day need it; why not?
>>>
>>>I notice the word "backups" there; presumably your masters are on your
>>>own drives (and backed up offline somewhere).
>>
>> My primary is a 3/4 way mirror of some 1T drives, 2 SATA and the rest
>> USB. One of the drives it to a NFS mount of another raid on another
>> machine in another building. I add another 1T drive there once a week,
>> lets it synchronise overnight; break the raid in a controlled fashion
>> (with a coherent file system) and bring it into the office, taking the
>> old one with me back home.
>>
>> Then, once a quarter or so I update the cloud stuff.
>>
>> So, in total I have 4+1 disks on two machines plus one standalone,
>> and archives at three cloud providers. This is for the important
>> stuff, like family documents, photographs, old film and video.
>>
>> The -relaxed option for raids were a godsend, so I can use the
>> two SATA drives as primaries, and the USB and NFS mounted one can
>> catch up when needed, this way it doesn't bog down.
>>
>> I do keep all my e-mail since 1979, with two month-long holes.
>>
>> I did actually get my systems design tested when they mothballed
>> our Prime machines, but kept them running. They ran, completely
>> unattended, for 7 years before they dropped out. Several disks
>> had failed before then, but that was when the second one of a
>> mirrored pair failed.
>>
>> I expect this setup to be at least as resilient. And then I
>> montitor it extensively weekly, and use it daily.
>
>Using it daily is key; there would have to be a very different
>method if you didn't.  Have you trained anyone to replace you?

Also having icinga test it every 2 minutes. And sending alarms
if it does not work properly.

I have trained replacements twice. There were more than one
in both instances.

-- mrr

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

#166197

On 2016-06-30 7:52 AM, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2016 16:22:08 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Like I've been saying for a number of years; "Only store in the cloud
>> what you can afford to lose or have stolen."
>
> I've never used the cloud. I don't see the point in storing ancient
> messages.

or current product development.

w..

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

#166140

"Huge" wrote:

> On 2016-06-29, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [39 lines snipped]
>
>> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should 
>> have
>> a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the news.  My
>> guess is less than five years.
>
> Huh? It's already happened.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/18/code_spaces_destroyed/

If that was covered in the USA it was under my radar; I appreciate the 
update. It seems to be impossible to estimate the possible depth of human 
incompetence. 

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

#166136

Osmium wrote:


> 
> Does anyone else remember a big repository for US Army records in St Louis
> burning down?  There is some chance that my records were consumed in that
> fire. I was in the Fifth Army when I was discharged, that's probably
> germane.
It did not burn down, but 2 floors of WW-II records were badly damaged.  it 
took them something like 20 years to completely go through the remaining 
records, microfilm and index them.  They have recently torn the whole 
building down, and moved to a smaller facility called the "National 
Personnel Records Center", you can google this and get pictures, etc.
Presumably, what they now have is in electronic form and backed up 
somewhere.

Jon

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

#166152

On 29/06/2016 16:09, Osmium wrote:
> "Morten Reistad" wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.31dd5797e467f0698a2e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
>>>> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
>>>> programmable computers around.
>>>>
>>>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
>>>> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
>>>> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>>>
>>> The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just
>>> convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it
>>> doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real
>>> estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are numbered.
>>
>> It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.
>>
>> The computer-on-a-chip like the odroid, raspberrypi etc tell us
>> what the future PC will look like.
>>
>> A terminal. But a useful and friendly one.
>>
>> The Real Computers end up in protected, cooled buildings that try
>> hard to be invisible to the casual onlooker.
>
> Yesterday, by chance I noticed a building in an industrial park that I
> had never noticed before.  The sign said "Industrial Records", or
> something like that.  It was about 200' on a side, two stories high and
> looked like a warehouse, except it had very few doors.  Except for legal
> reasons, that entire building could be replaced with a few external hard
> drives from Best Buy setting on someone's desk.   The access to existing
> records is almost zero and new data could be provided by a boy riding a
> bicycle around town.
>
> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should
> have a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the
> news.  My guess is less than five years.
>
> Does anyone else remember a big repository for US Army records in St
> Louis burning down?  There is some chance that my records were consumed
> in that fire. I was in the Fifth Army when I was discharged, that's
> probably germane.

There is a break in Britain's census records the 1920s (or 1930s) forms 
were bombed during World War 2.

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

#166155

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:51:39 +0100, Andrew Swallow  
<am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 29/06/2016 16:09, Osmium wrote:
>> "Morten Reistad" wrote:
>>
>>> In article <MPG.31dd5797e467f0698a2e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
>>>>> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
>>>>> programmable computers around.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
>>>>> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
>>>>> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>>>>
>>>> The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just
>>>> convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it
>>>> doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real
>>>> estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are  
>>>> numbered.
>>>
>>> It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.
>>>
>>> The computer-on-a-chip like the odroid, raspberrypi etc tell us
>>> what the future PC will look like.
>>>
>>> A terminal. But a useful and friendly one.
>>>
>>> The Real Computers end up in protected, cooled buildings that try
>>> hard to be invisible to the casual onlooker.
>>
>> Yesterday, by chance I noticed a building in an industrial park that I
>> had never noticed before.  The sign said "Industrial Records", or
>> something like that.  It was about 200' on a side, two stories high and
>> looked like a warehouse, except it had very few doors.  Except for legal
>> reasons, that entire building could be replaced with a few external hard
>> drives from Best Buy setting on someone's desk.   The access to existing
>> records is almost zero and new data could be provided by a boy riding a
>> bicycle around town.
>>
>> That's pretty similar to a description of the cloud. Perhaps we should
>> have a pool to predict when the first cloud horror story makes the
>> news.  My guess is less than five years.
>>
>> Does anyone else remember a big repository for US Army records in St
>> Louis burning down?  There is some chance that my records were consumed
>> in that fire. I was in the Fifth Army when I was discharged, that's
>> probably germane.
>
> There is a break in Britain's census records the 1920s (or 1930s) forms  
> were bombed during World War 2.

Quite a lot of stuff got destroyed in the war. Oh, and people.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

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

#166162

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 1:51:21 PM UTC-4, Andrew Swallow wrote:

> There is a break in Britain's census records the 1920s (or 1930s) forms 
> were bombed during World War 2.

U.S. Census records are available on Ancestrycom.  I am amazed how
searchable they are, given that the records were handwritten.

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

#166168

Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:

> Does anyone else remember a big repository for US Army records in St Louis 
> burning down?  There is some chance that my records were consumed in that 
> fire. I was in the Fifth Army when I was discharged, that's probably 
> germane. 
> 

I thought that was the older stuff, WW I, etc.

-- 
Pete

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

#166141

On 2016-06-29, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> In article <MPG.31dd5797e467f0698a2e6@news.eternal-september.org>,
> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <nl00hu$l0$1@dont-email.me>, no.spam@thank.you.invalid 
>> says...
>> 
>>> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
>>> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
>>> programmable computers around.
>>> 
>>> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
>>> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
>>> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>>
>> The smart phone isn't a more capable computing environment, it is just 
>> convenient.  For many people it handles all their needs, for others it 
>> doesn't.  And there are many tasks for which the lack of screen real 
>> estate and a proper keyboard make it grossly inadequate.
>>
>> On the other hand, the days of the PC as an expensive box are numbered.
>
> It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.
>
> The computer-on-a-chip like the odroid, raspberrypi etc tell us
> what the future PC will look like. 
>
> A terminal. But a useful and friendly one. 
>
> The Real Computers end up in protected, cooled buildings that try
> hard to be invisible to the casual onlooker.

Ironically, this brings us full circle, back to the 1960s when
computers were huge machines in protected, cooled buildings,
accessed by terminals.  The terminals are more numerous and
accessible today, though.

History really does repeat.  I like to think of it not so much
as a circle but as a helix, though - it not only goes round and
round but also off through another dimension.

-- 
/~\  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]

#166210

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:39:13 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:

> It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.

But then Sun extended it to the dickless computer.  Fail!  Although we
had quite a few of them they were a complete PITA.  Fail-over NFS
servers didn't exist and swervers frequently collapsed under the load.

In an experiment to see if early Sparcs could work diskless we took two
new ones and put the disk of one into the other.  Network names were
Castor and Pollux respectively-- almost all machines had star names.


Mike

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

#166241

"Mike Causer" <m.r.causer@goglemail.com> wrote in message 
news:20160630205023.79dcb370@amaterasu...
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:39:13 +0200
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It has gone into "the network is the computer" almost seamlessly.
>
> But then Sun extended it to the dickless computer.  Fail!  Although we
> had quite a few of them they were a complete PITA.  Fail-over NFS
> servers didn't exist and swervers frequently collapsed under the load.
>
> In an experiment to see if early Sparcs could work diskless we took two
> new ones and put the disk of one into the other.  Network names were
> Castor and Pollux respectively-- almost all machines had star names.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_and_Pollux

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

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

#166112

On 2016-06-29 4:23 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35 years
> ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero programmable
> computers around.
>
> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise of the PC,
> just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus have gone the way of the
> dinosaurs?
>
>
Who would have thought that executables written for a computer in the
mid 80's could now be executed unchanged on your smart phone 30 years later.

The smart phone does significantly changes things. Despite the comment
about screen real-estate and keyboards I routinely travel with a small
(7inch) inexpensive tablet and a bluetooth keyboard. It will run
everything I need including the development tools that I use to develop
development tools.

I was at a conference in the mid 80's (at a time a respectable desktop
was $5K) at a session on what would we do when we had zero cost
computing. The answer then was pretty much what we have with smart
phones and small tablets. Computing cycles would move towards recreation
and entertainment.

w..

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

#166160

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 4:23:27 AM UTC-4, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> 1981, the origin of the PC and its derivative family is now 35
> years ago. 35 years before that was 1946 with almost zero
> programmable computers around.
> 
> Does the rise of the smart phone, et al, herald the demise
> of the PC, just as the Z1, Z2, Z3, ENIAC and Colossus
> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?

Your entire premise is invalid.

There is no "demise" of the PC.

Nor did the ENIAC die.  It was merely replaced by more powerful
and efficient units.

System/360 was long said to be dead.  Yet IBM continues to sell 
lots of concentrated horsepower in its Z series.

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

#166173

On 6/29/2016 3:23 AM, gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
> ...
> have gone the way of the dinosaurs?
>
>

When I first saw that Subject: text I took it way too personally...

  - Dallas

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web