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

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #219401 > unrolled thread

Re: Windows 11 is now available

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Windows 11 is now available "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-10-07 10:25 +0100
    Re: Windows 11 is now available Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-10-07 21:49 -0700
      Re: Windows 11 is now available Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-08 04:53 +0000
        Re: Windows 11 is now available "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-10-08 13:13 +0100
          Re: Windows 11 is now available Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-10-08 19:40 +0100
            Re: Windows 11 is now available "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-10-08 20:55 +0100
          Re: Windows 11 is now available Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-10-08 20:30 +0100
            Re: Windows 11 is now available Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-09 08:15 +0000
            Re: Windows 11 is now available "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-10-09 11:37 +0100
          Re: Windows 11 is now available Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-09 08:11 +0000
          Re: Windows 11 is now available Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-10-09 23:40 +0000
            Re: Windows 11 is now available Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-10-10 01:29 +0100
              Re: Windows 11 is now available Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-10-10 17:34 +0000
                Re: Windows 11 is now available "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-10-10 19:39 +0100
            Re: Windows 11 is now available J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-10-09 20:45 -0400
        Re: Windows 11 is now available Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-10-08 08:35 -1000
          Re: Windows 11 is now available Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2021-10-08 11:57 -1000
          Re: Windows 11 is now available Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2021-10-09 08:14 +0000

#219401 — Re: Windows 11 is now available

On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 22:30:50 -0500
JAB <here@is.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 22:59:09 -0400, Retrograde
> <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > I remember
> >Win98 running just fine(1) in 128MB.
> 
> IIRC, I was using 4MB on Win 3.1, and that was upgraded memory.  640kb
> in DOS days...  Memory was very expensive in those days.  First hard
> drive was 32megs at some $250.00
> 
Kids today!  WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was punch
cards.


> >Also, you probably have to buy a new machine to install it,
> 
> AV1 video requires (best way to do it) hardware video decode...newest
> computers can do this, if the right ones are bought.
> 
> AV1 decreases bandwidth requirements, so the "video industry" would
> like to move over to this format.  Also, no royalities on it.
> 
> 
> Display requirements for HDR video in Windows
> Windows 11 Windows 10
> <https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/display-requirements-for-hdr-video-in-windows-192f362e-1245-e14d-3d3f-4b3fc606b80f>
> 
> Is HDR better than 4K?
> HDR delivers a higher contrast--or larger color and brightness
> range--than Standard Dynamic Range (SDR), and is more visually
> impactful than 4K. That said, 4K delivers a sharper, more defined
> image. Both standards are increasingly common among premium digital
> televisions, and both deliver stellar image quality.
> 
> https://www.lifewire.com/difference-between-hdr-and-4k-4176961


xposted to afc

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#219428

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 3:59:35 AM UTC-6, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was punch 
> cards. 

I remember that they could connect five users - each with their own
interactive terminal (an ASR 33 Teletype) to a PDP-8 with 12K of RAM
(in today's units; 8K words, each 12 bits long) and a head-per-track
disk with a capacity of 32K words.

So time-sharing is possible with even less memory per user.

John Savard

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

#219429

On 2021-10-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 3:59:35 AM UTC-6, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>> Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was punch 
>> cards. 
>
> I remember that they could connect five users - each with their own
> interactive terminal (an ASR 33 Teletype) to a PDP-8 with 12K of RAM
> (in today's units; 8K words, each 12 bits long) and a head-per-track
> disk with a capacity of 32K words.
>
> So time-sharing is possible with even less memory per user.
>
> John Savard

Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
on machine with only 4mb of ram,
because terminals had logic for input, and all that
was exchanged was just packets sent :P

-- 

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

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

#219432

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 04:53:56 GMT
Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> wrote:

> On 2021-10-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 3:59:35 AM UTC-6, Kerr-Mudd, John
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Kids today! WIWAL we 'ad 1M RAM between 20 users! & storage was
> >> punch cards. 
> >
> > I remember that they could connect five users - each with their own
> > interactive terminal (an ASR 33 Teletype) to a PDP-8 with 12K of RAM
> > (in today's units; 8K words, each 12 bits long) and a head-per-track
> > disk with a capacity of 32K words.
> >
> > So time-sharing is possible with even less memory per user.
> >
> > John Savard
> 
> Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
> on machine with only 4mb of ram,
> because terminals had logic for input, and all that
> was exchanged was just packets sent :P
> 

I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".

VI*VII=XLII

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#219436

On 08/10/2021 13:13, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
> calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
> VI*VII=XLII

	Not quite sure what that last line was intended to convey,
but if it was that Roman numerals are not sensible in use for
arithmetic, then, within reason, I beg to differ.  Within the
domain of small[-ish] integers, they are, if anything, rather
better than Arabic numerals [else you can be sure that Romans,
always very practical, wouldn't have used them].  They have a
smaller and more regular multiplication table, simpler rules
[eg in respect of "carries" and "borrows"], and addition and
subtraction are largely mere concatenation together with some
obvious re-write rules.  It's a different matter when you're
doing physics or even engineering to many decimal places or
with numbers much over MMM, but neither the Romans nor the
man on the Clapham Omnibus were much into such things.

-- 
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Chopin

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

#219438

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:40:09 +0100
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

> On 08/10/2021 13:13, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
> > calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted
> > pebbles". VI*VII=XLII
> 
> 	Not quite sure what that last line was intended to convey,
> but if it was that Roman numerals are not sensible in use for
> arithmetic, then, within reason, I beg to differ.  Within the

OK, I shudda given an example with div. (DIV =500+5-1!)


> domain of small[-ish] integers, they are, if anything, rather
> better than Arabic numerals [else you can be sure that Romans,
> always very practical, wouldn't have used them].  They have a
> smaller and more regular multiplication table, simpler rules
> [eg in respect of "carries" and "borrows"], and addition and
> subtraction are largely mere concatenation together with some
> obvious re-write rules.  It's a different matter when you're
> doing physics or even engineering to many decimal places or
> with numbers much over MMM, but neither the Romans nor the
> man on the Clapham Omnibus were much into such things.
> 


-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#219439

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100
"Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> VI*VII=XLII

	V1*1X wasn't it (base X111 of course).

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

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

#219447

On 2021-10-08, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100
> "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> VI*VII=XLII
>
> 	V1*1X wasn't it (base X111 of course).
>

Oh, forgot that calculus :P

-- 

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

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

#219448

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:30:36 +0100
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100
> "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> 
> > VI*VII=XLII
> 
> 	V1*1X wasn't it (base X111 of course).
> 
Ah, well unforgot!

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#219445

On 2021-10-08, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
> calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
>
> VI*VII=XLII
>
I had calculator that could compute definite integrals
by programming it blindly :P

-- 

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

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

#219450

On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
> calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
> 
> VI*VII=XLII

Ah, but what's XLII - XLII?



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

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

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

#219451

On 10/10/2021 00:40, Bob Eager wrote:
> Ah, but what's XLII - XLII?

	That's a very modern [and quite sophisticated] question.

Bob [to an ancient Roman who happens to speak English]:  "What is
   xlii - ...."
Roman [interrupts]:  "Que?"
Bob:  "Ah, sorry, you don't have symbols yet.  Let's try it in
   words.  You have xlii."
Roman:  "xlii /what/?"
Bob:  "It doesn't matter, it's just a number."
Roman:  "Of course it matters!  If you have xlii slaves, you're
   wealthy, if xlii grains of corn, rather less so."
Bob:  "OK, you have xlii sheep.  A thief takes away xlii of them.
   How many sheep do you have now?"
Roman:  "Is this a trick question, like the man going to St Ives?
   You don't now have any sheep, so the question has no answer."
Bob:  "You don't know what the number of sheep is?"
Roman:  "If you don't have any, then there is no such number.  It's
   nearly as daft as asking how many I have if the thief takes away
   ccx of my xlii sheep.  If you ask me what I own, then do you
   expect me to list the things I have or the things I don't have?
   I don't have any sheep, thanks to your thief, but I also don't
   have any elephants, or any palaces or any bottles of whisky or
   any Olympic medals or any lots of other things.  Do you also want
   me to tell you how much the elephants I don't have are worth?  We
   could be here for a very long time unless you ask more sensible
   questions."

-- 
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
    Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
    Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Ravel

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

#219454

On 2021-10-10, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

> Bob:  "OK, you have xlii sheep.  A thief takes away xlii of them.
>    How many sheep do you have now?"
> Roman:  "Is this a trick question, like the man going to St Ives?
>    You don't now have any sheep, so the question has no answer."

Ah, grasshopper, the true master can distinguish between:
  zero
  blank
  null string
  unspecified
  undefined

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin

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

#219455

On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 17:34:51 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2021-10-10, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Bob:  "OK, you have xlii sheep.  A thief takes away xlii of them.
> >    How many sheep do you have now?"
> > Roman:  "Is this a trick question, like the man going to St Ives?
> >    You don't now have any sheep, so the question has no answer."
> 
> Ah, grasshopper, the true master can distinguish between:
>   zero
>   blank
0C7!

>   null string
>   unspecified
>   undefined
> 
> -- 
> /~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Life is perverse.
> \ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  It can be beautiful -
>  X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  but it won't.
> / \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lily Tomlin


-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#219452

On 9 Oct 2021 23:40:34 GMT, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Oct 2021 13:13:15 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>
>> I was starting high and was hoping to progress via mechanical
>> calculators/sliderules to end with "my grandad just counted pebbles".
>> 
>> VI*VII=XLII
>
>Ah, but what's XLII - XLII?

A rout?

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

#219435

Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> writes:
> Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
> on machine with only 4mb of ram,
> because terminals had logic for input, and all that
> was exchanged was just packets sent :P

Original CP67 was installed at univ. in Jan1968 by three people from
cambridge science center ... could play with it on weekends on 360/67 with
768kbytes memory. The TSS/360 IBM SE and I put together synthetic
fortran, compile, and execute benchmark ... and CP67/CMS with 35
emulated users had better response time and throughput than TSS/360
(on same machine) with only four users.

Later after rewritting a lot of CP67 (pathlengths, resource management,
scheduling, "global LRU" page replacement, page I/O, ordered seek
queuing, etc), graduating and joining the cambridge science center
... had 85 real users on 768kbyte (192 4k pages) 360/67 (104 4k pageable
pages after fixed kernel and control block storage) had subsecond
response and 100% CPU useage.

This was important because the Grenoble Science Center had modified CP67
to have a "working set dispatcher" ("local LRU" page replacement, from
1968 academic papers) running on 1mbyte (256 4k pages) with 35 (real)
users had worse response and lower CPU useage (aka "global LRU" page
replacement easily beat "local LRU" page replacement).

This came up more than decade later, Jim Gray and left IBM San Jose
Research for Tandem and at SIGOPS (Asilomar, 14-16Dec81), he asked me if
I could help co-worker at Tandem get his Stanford PHD (advisor was later
president of Stanford) which involved "global LRU" (page replacement),
and he knew I had down a lot of work on global LRU page replacement
algorithm and had apple-to-apple comparison between local and global LRU
(as undergraduate in the 60s). Some of the "local LRU" forces (dating
back to 60s when I was doing "global LRU") were heavily lobbying
Stanford to block awarding PHD involving global LRU.

When I went to send information ... SJR management said that I wasn't
allowed to (even tho none of the information involved anything after
joining IBM). I've commented that I hoped that it was done as punishment
for online computer conferencing ("Tandem Memos", in the late 70s I was
blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network,
folklore is when corporate executive committee was told about it, 5of6
wanted to fire me) ... rather than they taking part in the global/local
LRU academic dispute. I wasn't allowed to send reply for nearly a year
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email821019

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

#219440

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
> This was important because the Grenoble Science Center had modified CP67
> to have a "working set dispatcher" ("local LRU" page replacement, from
> 1968 academic papers) running on 1mbyte (256 4k pages) with 35 (real)
> users had worse response and lower CPU useage (aka "global LRU" page
> replacement easily beat "local LRU" page replacement).

aka the 768kbyte IBM cambridge science center CP/67 360/67 with 104
pageable pages (after fixed memory requirements) had better response and
aggregate throughput with 85 users (and "global LRU") than the 1mbyte
IBM grenoble science center CP/67 360/67 with 156 pageable pages (after
fixed memory requirements, i.e. 50% more pageable pages for users than
cambridge machine) with 35 users and "local LRU" page replacement and
"working set dispatcher" ... as described in academic literature.

so it was effectively same hardware and nearly same system ... except
for the "global LRU" page replacement vis-a-vis "local LRU" page
replacement ... which supported the work done for Stanford Phd work more
than decade later on "global LRU'.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

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

#219446

On 2021-10-08, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> wrote:
> Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> writes:
>> Well on unisys you could connect more then 100 terminals
>> on machine with only 4mb of ram,
>> because terminals had logic for input, and all that
>> was exchanged was just packets sent :P
>
> Original CP67 was installed at univ. in Jan1968 by three people from
> cambridge science center ... could play with it on weekends on 360/67 with
> 768kbytes memory. The TSS/360 IBM SE and I put together synthetic
> fortran, compile, and execute benchmark ... and CP67/CMS with 35
> emulated users had better response time and throughput than TSS/360
> (on same machine) with only four users.
>
> Later after rewritting a lot of CP67 (pathlengths, resource management,
> scheduling, "global LRU" page replacement, page I/O, ordered seek
> queuing, etc), graduating and joining the cambridge science center
> ... had 85 real users on 768kbyte (192 4k pages) 360/67 (104 4k pageable
> pages after fixed kernel and control block storage) had subsecond
> response and 100% CPU useage.
>
> This was important because the Grenoble Science Center had modified CP67
> to have a "working set dispatcher" ("local LRU" page replacement, from
> 1968 academic papers) running on 1mbyte (256 4k pages) with 35 (real)
> users had worse response and lower CPU useage (aka "global LRU" page
> replacement easily beat "local LRU" page replacement).
>
> This came up more than decade later, Jim Gray and left IBM San Jose
> Research for Tandem and at SIGOPS (Asilomar, 14-16Dec81), he asked me if
> I could help co-worker at Tandem get his Stanford PHD (advisor was later
> president of Stanford) which involved "global LRU" (page replacement),
> and he knew I had down a lot of work on global LRU page replacement
> algorithm and had apple-to-apple comparison between local and global LRU
> (as undergraduate in the 60s). Some of the "local LRU" forces (dating
> back to 60s when I was doing "global LRU") were heavily lobbying
> Stanford to block awarding PHD involving global LRU.
>
> When I went to send information ... SJR management said that I wasn't
> allowed to (even tho none of the information involved anything after
> joining IBM). I've commented that I hoped that it was done as punishment
> for online computer conferencing ("Tandem Memos", in the late 70s I was
> blamed for online computer conferencing on the internal network,
> folklore is when corporate executive committee was told about it, 5of6
> wanted to fire me) ... rather than they taking part in the global/local
> LRU academic dispute. I wasn't allowed to send reply for nearly a year
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email821019
>
I was too young, then. I reached first IBM when I got to practice
school programs and later in university :P

-- 

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
with software, you repeat same experiment, expecting different results...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web