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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #215423 > unrolled thread

An Xmyth stack overflow ?

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

Contents

  An Xmyth stack overflow ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-07 11:38 +0000
    Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-07 11:41 +0000
      Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-12-08 15:08 +0000
        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-12-10 17:52 +0000
          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-12-10 22:46 -0600
            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-12-11 01:47 -0400
              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-11 06:54 +0000
                Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-12-11 09:46 +0000
              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-12-11 18:13 +0000
                Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-12-11 11:29 -0800
                  Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-12-12 01:37 +0000
                    Re: IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-12-12 02:22 +0000
                      Re: IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-12 06:58 -0700
                        Re: 360/44, was IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-12-12 19:16 +0000
                          Re: 360/44, was IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-12 19:57 -0700
                    Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-11 21:44 -0500
                    Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-12-11 23:11 -0600
                      Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-12 06:58 -0700
                        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 09:43 -0500
                          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 10:31 -0500
                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-12 17:40 +0000
                              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-12-12 19:28 +0000
                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 13:12 -0500
                              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 13:28 -0500
                                Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 17:35 -0500
                                  Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 17:49 -0500
                                    Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 19:31 -0500
                                      Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 19:54 -0500
                                        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 20:08 -0500
                                          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-12 19:58 -0700
                                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 22:13 -0500
                                          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 23:07 -0500
                                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 23:28 -0500
                                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-12-14 19:13 +0000
                                        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 23:04 -0500
                                      Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-12 19:57 -0700
                                        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-12-13 16:23 +0000
                                          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-12-13 11:47 -0500
                                          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-13 19:18 +0000
                                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-13 15:11 -0700
                                              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2020-12-13 23:28 +0000
                                              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-13 23:23 +0000
                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-12-13 09:05 +0000
                          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-12 19:57 -0700
                            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-12-13 11:22 -0600
                    Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-12-12 01:55 -0400
            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-11 11:46 +0000
              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-11 17:22 -0700
                Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-12-12 02:24 +0000
                Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-12-12 10:16 +0000
        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-12-10 16:28 -0400
    Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-12-08 18:08 +0000
      Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-08 18:53 +0000
        Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-08 21:01 +0000
          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-08 22:28 +0000
            Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-12-09 01:12 +0000
              Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-09 11:43 +0000
          Re: An Xmyth stack overflow ? drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-12-08 20:57 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#215423 — An Xmyth stack overflow ?

1972 was my graduation year doing electronics and computing, and,
for our 3rd year projects, one of the guys had special dispensation
from the Uni to spend £3 on an LED. £3 ? ? ?  Well, that was my
weekly withdrawal from the bank to cover all my living expenses.

My first computing job that year came with a salary of £1320 pa,
meaning that before tax, I could have blown the lot on 45 LEDs !  :-)

For Xmyth this year, I have 4 strings of multi-coloured LEDs
spread out over the front garden, with a total of about 1000 LEDs
for a total outlay of about £100.

Stack overflow possibly?  After one of the strings of LEDs has cycled
through its repertoire a number of times, they all extinguish and
stay dark, but if I cycle the power, they all return, so it isn't
an overheating problem.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#215424

On 07/12/2020 11:38, gareth evans wrote:
> 1972 was my graduation year doing electronics and computing, and,
> for our 3rd year projects, one of the guys had special dispensation
> from the Uni to spend £3 on an LED. £3 ? ? ?  Well, that was my
> weekly withdrawal from the bank to cover all my living expenses.
>
> My first computing job that year came with a salary of £1320 pa,
> meaning that before tax, I could have blown the lot on 45 LEDs !  :-)
>
> For Xmyth this year, I have 4 strings of multi-coloured LEDs
> spread out over the front garden, with a total of about 1000 LEDs
> for a total outlay of about £100.
>
> Stack overflow possibly?  After one of the strings of LEDs has cycled
> through its repertoire a number of times, they all extinguish and
> stay dark, but if I cycle the power, they all return, so it isn't
> an overheating problem.
>

Oops 450 LEDs. Time, methinks, to bin this laptop because of
a number of sticking keys, including the   , and the  ,
and the   . :-(   :-)

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

#215425

On 2020-12-07, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2020 11:38, gareth evans wrote:
>> 1972 was my graduation year doing electronics and computing, and,
>> for our 3rd year projects, one of the guys had special dispensation
>> from the Uni to spend £3 on an LED. £3 ? ? ?  Well, that was my
>> weekly withdrawal from the bank to cover all my living expenses.
>>
>> My first computing job that year came with a salary of £1320 pa,
>> meaning that before tax, I could have blown the lot on 45 LEDs !  :-)

In my unhumble opinion, tales of money from the past  are meaaningless,
like most official data. That time, one had  very basic expenses of
almost zero. (Food, and someway of sleeping dry at night, sometimes
ignoring the patter of tiny feet over your face). My first action after
school was about 1957, rent about a couple of quid a week, and weekend
expenses of about ten shillings, 

Getting married changed everything.  The  expenses of a house, etc, means
that a better job is needed, and such jobs are usually very boring.



>>
>> For Xmyth this year, I have 4 strings of multi-coloured LEDs
>> spread out over the front garden, with a total of about 1000 LEDs
>> for a total outlay of about £100.
>>
>> Stack overflow possibly?  After one of the strings of LEDs has cycled
>> through its repertoire a number of times, they all extinguish and
>> stay dark, but if I cycle the power, they all return, so it isn't
>> an overheating problem.
>>
>
> Oops 450 LEDs. Time, methinks, to bin this laptop because of
> a number of sticking keys, including the   , and the  ,
> and the   . :-(   :-)
>

The Chaos group in Germany had members interested in such things, from
illuminating the windows of large buildings to form text messages, down
to what you mention. Their  meetings are in Leipzig this year.
a

-- 
greymausg@mail.com

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

#215436

On 2020-12-08, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
> On 2020-12-07, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 07/12/2020 11:38, gareth evans wrote:
>>> 1972 was my graduation year doing electronics and computing, and,
>>> for our 3rd year projects, one of the guys had special dispensation
>>> from the Uni to spend £3 on an LED. £3 ? ? ?  Well, that was my
>>> weekly withdrawal from the bank to cover all my living expenses.
>>>
>>> My first computing job that year came with a salary of £1320 pa,
>>> meaning that before tax, I could have blown the lot on 45 LEDs !  :-)
>
> In my unhumble opinion, tales of money from the past  are meaaningless,
> like most official data. That time, one had  very basic expenses of
> almost zero. (Food, and someway of sleeping dry at night, sometimes
> ignoring the patter of tiny feet over your face). My first action after
> school was about 1957, rent about a couple of quid a week, and weekend
> expenses of about ten shillings, 
>

Further thought. After my recent stay in hospital (think `One flew over
the cuckoo's nest' except it was a general hospital.), I returned home
to find that the family had `cleaned up'. I had to get a computer, and
go a one about 10 years old (no EFI). Now I have come to the confusion
that computers (general) have not improved in almost 10 years, which
would almost bring this subject into topic for this group.

I would think that docbooks are a sorta subcomputers. 


-- 
greymausg@mail.com

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

#215438

On 12/10/2020 11:52 AM, maus wrote:
> On 2020-12-08, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

> After my recent stay in hospital (think `One flew over
> the cuckoo's nest' except it was a general hospital.), I returned home
> to find that the family had `cleaned up'. I had to get a computer, and
> go a one about 10 years old (no EFI). Now I have come to the confusion
> that computers (general) have not improved in almost 10 years, which
> would almost bring this subject into topic for this group.

Of course it depends on what you're using them for. They've got more 
CPU cores, more RAM, bigger HDs. But for the average user who doesn't 
play modern games, not much. I was doing video editing on a 10 year 
old computer just fine. (I now have a 6 year old one, purchased at a 
thrift store, since I no longer have a stable of clients to scrounge 
throwaways from.) More RAM than 4GB helps (I no longer get disk 
thrashing if I open too many browser tabs).

Then again, I remember my first MSDOS computer (a Sperry nee Corona), 
and telling people that a 10M HDD was all anybody needed if they had 
any discipline at all. The 1TB HDD on my last computer was getting 
full, mostly because it was a PITA to back up all the video production 
stuff (that I'll probably never want again).
> 
> I would think that docbooks are a sorta subcomputers.

Oh hell, my 4 year old Android phone is a more powerful computer than 
the mainframe (an IBM1620) that my college had. Though the 
blinkenlights are much inferior.

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

#215439

Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:

> Oh hell, my 4 year old Android phone is a more powerful computer than 
> the mainframe (an IBM1620) that my college had. Though the 
> blinkenlights are much inferior.

Yeah, my uni had a 1620 to which we lowly Fortran 101 undergrads could
submit card decks.  48K of core memory with the optional expansion
IIRC.  And the blinkenlight were over there --> behind the railing.

I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620.  (Serious
tecnology wonks may correct me.)  I'd love to take an Osborne I back
to the 1964 class, plunk it downin front of the guy who wanted to
teach us numerical methods instead of Fortran and show him, say,
Conway's LIFE in C.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#215440

On 11 Dec 2020 01:47:02 -0400
Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> I'd love to take an Osborne I back
> to the 1964 class, plunk it downin front of the guy who wanted to
> teach us numerical methods instead of Fortran

	Some 15 years later, when I took Computer Science, FORTRAN was a
three day course, after which we wrote a comparison of FORTRAN II and
FORTRAN IV never to use it again, while numerical methods was a full term of
lectures.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

#215441

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 06:54:15 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 11 Dec 2020 01:47:02 -0400 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>
> wrote:
> 
>> I'd love to take an Osborne I back to the 1964 class, plunk it downin
>> front of the guy who wanted to teach us numerical methods instead of
>> Fortran
> 
> 	Some 15 years later, when I took Computer Science, FORTRAN was a
> three day course, after which we wrote a comparison of FORTRAN II and
> FORTRAN IV never to use it again, while numerical methods was a full
> term of lectures.

I learned BASIC 50 years ago (give or take a month).

I obviously got interested, and looked around for something else. The 
local preference was ALGOL, so being me I self taught FORTRAN IV. This 
was useful a few times much later, but it was fairly boring. So I learned 
assembler on the ICL 4130 - 24 bit machine with 32kW of memory. Probably 
about 200 kips.

Interestingly, FORTRAN was an afterthought on that system, and didn't 
integrate very well. It obviously only ran in batch (cards to printer). 
If the batch system detected a FORTRAN job, it unloaded most of itself 
(device interfaces excluded) and loaded a different batch executive. This 
was reversed if a non FORTRAN job was encountered.

The switch (using a program called SWAP!) too about 3 seconds, I think (I 
was in the machine room a few years later and actually heard the disks 
clicking with the changeover). Because of this, we had to put the FORTRAN-
or-not status on the job cards so that the operators could optimise by 
grouping FORTRAN jobs together.

That machine didn't have much more in the way of languages until I wrote 
a BCPL compiler for it.



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

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

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

#215445

In article <87360cevxl.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
Mike Spencer  <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620.  (Serious
>tecnology wonks may correct me.)

No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even
Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table
lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was
reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710
which was the first real time process control system.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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

#215446

On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
> Mike Spencer  wrote: 
> >I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious 
> >tecnology wonks may correct me.)
> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even 
> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table 
> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was 
> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710 
> which was the first real time process control system. 
> 
> -- 
> Regards, 
> John Levine

The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).  
The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was just
a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication. 
Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
360,  even other IBM computers. 
____________________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger

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

#215448

On 2020-12-11, Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:

> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Mike Spencer  wrote: 
>>
>>> I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious 
>>> tecnology wonks may correct me.)
>>
>> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even 
>> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table 
>> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was 
>> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710 
>> which was the first real time process control system. 
>
> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).  
> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication. 
> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
> 360,  even other IBM computers. 

Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.

I do love the cleverness of that CADET back-formation, though...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  but it's a sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

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

#215449 — Re: IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ?

In article <rr16t31si7@news4.newsguy.com>,
Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).  
>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication. 
>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>> 360,  even other IBM computers. 
>
>Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
>was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.

In this case it wasn't a matter of crippling the performance, it was a
desire to kill of all of the old incompatible product lines. There was
an option for the 360/30 to emulate a 1620 but I don't think it was
very popular.

Shortly after the 360 series came out, IBM added the 1130, a 16 bit
binary machine that wasn't compatible with anything. It was pretty
slow, but it was a lot faster than a 1620 and came with a standard
disk drive.   Its software used the 360's 8-bit EBCDIC code.

For the real-time customers, there was the 1800, a souped
up 1130, and the 360/44, an odd stripped down 360 that ran floating
point fairly fast and had some realtime interface features.



-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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

#215455 — Re: IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <rr16t31si7@news4.newsguy.com>,
> Charlie Gibbs  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).  
>>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication. 
>>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>>> 360,  even other IBM computers. 
>> 
>> Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
>> was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.
> 
> In this case it wasn't a matter of crippling the performance, it was a
> desire to kill of all of the old incompatible product lines. There was
> an option for the 360/30 to emulate a 1620 but I don't think it was
> very popular.

Not sure I ever heard of this. In any case I don’t have any 1620 code I
would want to run  any more.

> 
> Shortly after the 360 series came out, IBM added the 1130, a 16 bit
> binary machine that wasn't compatible with anything. It was pretty
> slow, but it was a lot faster than a 1620 and came with a standard
> disk drive.   Its software used the 360's 8-bit EBCDIC code.

I loved the 1130. Looking at it now it’s obvious that it’s architecture
wouldn’t allow it to be extended much.

> 
> For the real-time customers, there was the 1800, a souped
> up 1130, and the 360/44, an odd stripped down 360 that ran floating
> point fairly fast and had some realtime interface features.
> 

I’m sorry I never saw a /44 in the wild. It must have been a fun machine.
It would be fun to modify Hercules to support it, mostly a matter of
stripping out instructions - I think there only about five unique
instructions.

-- 
Pete

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

#215462 — Re: 360/44, was IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ?

In article <186419117.629473736.363372.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> up 1130, and the 360/44, an odd stripped down 360 that ran floating
>> point fairly fast and had some realtime interface features.
>
>I’m sorry I never saw a /44 in the wild. It must have been a fun machine.
>It would be fun to modify Hercules to support it, mostly a matter of
>stripping out instructions - I think there only about five unique
>instructions.

It had a knob on the front panel to control floating point precsion
and some unique peripherals, notably a one-platter disk drive that
looks to be the same as the 1130's. I never used one but somehow ended
up with a set of manuals.


-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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

#215471 — Re: 360/44, was IBM 1620 and its successors, not An Xmyth stack overflow ?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> In article <186419117.629473736.363372.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> up 1130, and the 360/44, an odd stripped down 360 that ran floating
>>> point fairly fast and had some realtime interface features.
>> 
>> I’m sorry I never saw a /44 in the wild. It must have been a fun machine.
>> It would be fun to modify Hercules to support it, mostly a matter of
>> stripping out instructions - I think there only about five unique
>> instructions.
> 
> It had a knob on the front panel to control floating point precsion
> and some unique peripherals, notably a one-platter disk drive that
> looks to be the same as the 1130's. I never used one but somehow ended
> up with a set of manuals.
> 
> 

Does Bitsavers have them? I know they have some /44 stuff. I fo believe the
disk was the same as the 1130. A second drive was an option, but the job of
the first was system residence.

-- 
Pete

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

#215451

On 12 Dec 2020 01:37:39 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2020-12-11, Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Spencer  wrote: 
>>>
>>>> I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious 
>>>> tecnology wonks may correct me.)
>>>
>>> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even 
>>> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table 
>>> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was 
>>> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710 
>>> which was the first real time process control system. 
>>
>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).  
>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication. 
>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>> 360,  even other IBM computers. 
>
>Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
>was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.

I am curious as to the nature of this crippling.

>I do love the cleverness of that CADET back-formation, though...

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

#215452

On 12/11/2020 7:37 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2020-12-11, Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Spencer  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious
>>>> tecnology wonks may correct me.)
>>>
>>> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even
>>> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table
>>> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was
>>> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710
>>> which was the first real time process control system.
>>
>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).
>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication.
>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>> 360,  even other IBM computers.
> 
> Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
> was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.
> 
It's a different market. While you could get CP/M-86 and UCSD p-System 
for the D'wr (pre-IBM PC), I think it had a 1MHz CPU and CP/M-86 at 
least was very sluggish compared to a 4MHz Osborne O-1. But our D'wrs 
had more RAM and could run a bigger SuperCalc spreadsheet 
(sluggishly).  When we did that, the challenge was making the printer 
work. IBM did its classic routine, being unfailingly polite and 
switching me from one person who couldn't tell me what the control 
codes were to another until I gave up and did it by trial and error.

IBM later sold "Displaywrite" softwere for the PC that emulated a lot 
of the software features.

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

#215456

Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/2020 7:37 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2020-12-11, Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mike Spencer  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious
>>>>> tecnology wonks may correct me.)
>>>> 
>>>> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even
>>>> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table
>>>> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was
>>>> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710
>>>> which was the first real time process control system.
>>> 
>>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).
>>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication.
>>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>>> 360,  even other IBM computers.
>> 
>> Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
>> was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.
>> 
> It's a different market. While you could get CP/M-86 and UCSD p-System 
> for the D'wr (pre-IBM PC), I think it had a 1MHz CPU and CP/M-86 at 
> least was very sluggish compared to a 4MHz Osborne O-1. But our D'wrs 
> had more RAM and could run a bigger SuperCalc spreadsheet 
> (sluggishly).  When we did that, the challenge was making the printer 
> work. IBM did its classic routine, being unfailingly polite and 
> switching me from one person who couldn't tell me what the control 
> codes were to another until I gave up and did it by trial and error.
> 
> IBM later sold "Displaywrite" softwere for the PC that emulated a lot 
> of the software features.
> 

The display on the Displaywriter was high-quality. Going from a real
Displaywriter to Displaywrite on a PC was a big step backwards for anyone
who did a lot of word processing.

-- 
Pete

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

#215457

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:58:19 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2020 7:37 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2020-12-11, Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Mike Spencer  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious
>>>>>> tecnology wonks may correct me.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even
>>>>> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table
>>>>> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was
>>>>> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710
>>>>> which was the first real time process control system.
>>>> 
>>>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).
>>>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>>>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>>>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>>>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication.
>>>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>>>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>>>> 360,  even other IBM computers.
>>> 
>>> Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
>>> was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.
>>> 
>> It's a different market. While you could get CP/M-86 and UCSD p-System 
>> for the D'wr (pre-IBM PC), I think it had a 1MHz CPU and CP/M-86 at 
>> least was very sluggish compared to a 4MHz Osborne O-1. But our D'wrs 
>> had more RAM and could run a bigger SuperCalc spreadsheet 
>> (sluggishly).  When we did that, the challenge was making the printer 
>> work. IBM did its classic routine, being unfailingly polite and 
>> switching me from one person who couldn't tell me what the control 
>> codes were to another until I gave up and did it by trial and error.
>> 
>> IBM later sold "Displaywrite" softwere for the PC that emulated a lot 
>> of the software features.
>> 
>
>The display on the Displaywriter was high-quality. Going from a real
>Displaywriter to Displaywrite on a PC was a big step backwards for anyone
>who did a lot of word processing.

What was "high quality" about the monitor?  I did hear a lot of
kvetching about the PC display back then but generally the people
kvetching got the color display instead of the green screen.

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

#215458

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 06:58:19 -0700, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2020 7:37 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2020-12-11, Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday, December 11, 2020 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike Spencer  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think my Osborne I was more powerful than the IBM 1620. (Serious
>>>>>>> tecnology wonks may correct me.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No doubt. The IBM 1620 was known as CADET for Can't Add, Doesn't Even
>>>>>> Try. It was a decimal serial machine and did all arithmetic by table
>>>>>> lookup. Each instruction took 100us or more. Nonetheless, it was
>>>>>> reliable and fast enough that it was used as part of the IBM 1710
>>>>>> which was the first real time process control system.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The above reply applies to the  IBM 1620 Model I  (one).
>>>>> The word  "CADET"  was the code name before the first delivery,  it was
>>>>> just a code word;  almost all IBM hardware had a code name assigned to it
>>>>> during design/production before the first delivery.   They were just names.
>>>>> The  model II  (two)  didn't use lookup tables except for multiplication.
>>>>> Model III was about to go into production,  but was cancelled because of
>>>>> the upcoming IBM 360,  and IBM didn't want anything to compete with the
>>>>> 360,  even other IBM computers.
>>>> 
>>>> Sounds familiar, like the way the original IBM Personal Computer
>>>> was crippled so as not to compete with the Displaywriter.
>>>> 
>>> It's a different market. While you could get CP/M-86 and UCSD p-System 
>>> for the D'wr (pre-IBM PC), I think it had a 1MHz CPU and CP/M-86 at 
>>> least was very sluggish compared to a 4MHz Osborne O-1. But our D'wrs 
>>> had more RAM and could run a bigger SuperCalc spreadsheet 
>>> (sluggishly).  When we did that, the challenge was making the printer 
>>> work. IBM did its classic routine, being unfailingly polite and 
>>> switching me from one person who couldn't tell me what the control 
>>> codes were to another until I gave up and did it by trial and error.
>>> 
>>> IBM later sold "Displaywrite" softwere for the PC that emulated a lot 
>>> of the software features.
>>> 
>>
>>The display on the Displaywriter was high-quality. Going from a real
>>Displaywriter to Displaywrite on a PC was a big step backwards for anyone
>>who did a lot of word processing.
>
> What was "high quality" about the monitor?  I did hear a lot of
> kvetching about the PC display back then but generally the people
> kvetching got the color display instead of the green screen.

Bitsavers says there were 2 displays available, 80x25 and 64x100,
both monochrome.

I don't see the resolution, but the screen shots on the 80x25 look
pretty clear, at least as good as the PC/3270.  I think 64x100 would
out-do most PCs for a while.  By the time I saw my first PC/3270 it was
full color, better than the DisplayWriter.

I remember the first PC displays were pretty poor resolution wise.
If you wanted to really see things you went with the monochrome
Hercules.  (Never saw one of those.)

-- 
Dan Espen

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web