Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nc6sg7$1rf9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #160936 |
On 13/03/2016 8:25 PM, Questor wrote: > I sometimes tell people that when I started in the industry, a high-end computer > terminal was one that could display both upper AND lower case characters. > > More fun with whippersnappers: show them a write ring, tell them it used to be > an essential piece of computing gear, and ask them what they think it is. > The followup question is how much storage and the cost or cost/byte of the tape reel. A bottle of fluid to read the data off tape would be the final show stopper. Remember the good old days... w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6lajrc-2s6.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160946 |
In article <nc6sg7$1rf9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >On 13/03/2016 8:25 PM, Questor wrote: >> I sometimes tell people that when I started in the industry, a high-end computer >> terminal was one that could display both upper AND lower case characters. >> >> More fun with whippersnappers: show them a write ring, tell them it used to be >> an essential piece of computing gear, and ask them what they think it is. >> >The followup question is how much storage and the cost or cost/byte of >the tape reel. Be careful what you ask for. This can vary quite substantially. From a few megabytes on a 800 tpi 1200' tape to a quarter gigabyte on a 6520 3600' tape weitten with huge blocks. The cost also went down a lot; giving a three orders of magnitude interval for the cost per byte. >A bottle of fluid to read the data off tape would be the final show >stopper. Remember the good old days... They were not the good old days. We were hungering for reliable machines and storage, and for computing power. I remember several dozen items that were useful, but were left off from the projects because the hardware was too slow and expensive. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dkocn1Fpl8hU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #160947 |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:57:26 +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <nc6sg7$1rf9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>On 13/03/2016 8:25 PM, Questor wrote: >>> I sometimes tell people that when I started in the industry, a >>> high-end computer terminal was one that could display both upper AND >>> lower case characters. >>> >>> More fun with whippersnappers: show them a write ring, tell them it >>> used to be an essential piece of computing gear, and ask them what >>> they think it is. >>> >>The followup question is how much storage and the cost or cost/byte of >>the tape reel. > > Be careful what you ask for. This can vary quite substantially. > > From a few megabytes on a 800 tpi 1200' tape to a quarter gigabyte on a > 6520 3600' tape weitten with huge blocks. The cost also went down a lot; > giving a three orders of magnitude interval for the cost per byte. That would be 6250. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc71d70f3l@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #160948 |
On 2016-03-14, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:57:26 +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> From a few megabytes on a 800 tpi 1200' tape to a quarter gigabyte on a >> 6520 3600' tape weitten with huge blocks. The cost also went down a lot; >> giving a three orders of magnitude interval for the cost per byte. > > That would be 6250. I often suspected that whoever chose that density was thinking a lot farther into the future than tape lasted. Try doubling it a few times... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a6f4a2f-d0be-4667-822f-2dd1ed4be0d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160952 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:54:59 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2016-03-14, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > > That would be 6250. > > I often suspected that whoever chose that density was thinking a lot > farther into the future than tape lasted. Try doubling it a few times... Well, it's true that 2400' tape reels reached the end of the line with 6250 bpi. But I think the story is rather simpler. The other densities of magnetic tape were 200, 556, 800, and 1600 bpi. One outside company made a 3200 bpi 9-track tape drive, but without IBM's blessing, that didn't become a standard. So clearly, IBM _wanted_ to come out with a new generation of 6400 bpi tape drives. But they couldn't quite manage it, so they had to settle for less. 6250 just happened to be... the next lower "round" number they could go for. They didn't have to go all the way down to 6000. And, indeed, the fact that 6250 doubled to 12500, 25000, and so on probably _was_ recognized, which is why 6250 was regarded as a better choice than either 6300 or 6200. But instead of being chosen in a vacuum - for its numerical value - it was pretty obviously chosen as a fallback from 6400. 1600 bpi tapes were recorded with Phase Encoding, which required 3200 fci. 6250 bpi tapes were recorded using GCR, Group-Coded Recording, which took five bits down to four, but there was also error-checking in the format, and so the tapes had to support something over 7,000 fci; I don't have the number handy. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IKSdnVNNpPnxu3rLnZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #160965 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:54:59 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2016-03-14, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: > >> > That would be 6250. >> >> I often suspected that whoever chose that density was thinking a lot >> farther into the future than tape lasted. Try doubling it a few times... > > Well, it's true that 2400' tape reels reached the end of the line with > 6250 bpi. > > But I think the story is rather simpler. The other densities of magnetic > tape were 200, 556, 800, and 1600 bpi. One outside company made a 3200 bpi > 9-track tape drive, but without IBM's blessing, that didn't become a > standard. > > So clearly, IBM _wanted_ to come out with a new generation of 6400 bpi > tape drives. But they couldn't quite manage it, so they had to settle for > less. > No, actually, "6250 BPI GCR" tapes were WRITTEN at a real character density of 6400, but nobody but a real mag tape aficionado knows that. The number 6250 cones from the effective density of actual user data on the tape. The difference is the error checking codes. Also, the data in GCR was not written as 8 data bits plus parity, it was blocked up and streamed 9 bits at a time to the 9 recording gaps. So, a particular bit of each byte skewed across all 9 recording tracks. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <47jjrc-m87.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160948 |
In article <dkocn1Fpl8hU5@mid.individual.net>, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:57:26 +0100, Morten Reistad wrote: > >> In article <nc6sg7$1rf9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, >> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>>On 13/03/2016 8:25 PM, Questor wrote: >>>> I sometimes tell people that when I started in the industry, a >>>> high-end computer terminal was one that could display both upper AND >>>> lower case characters. >>>> >>>> More fun with whippersnappers: show them a write ring, tell them it >>>> used to be an essential piece of computing gear, and ask them what >>>> they think it is. >>>> >>>The followup question is how much storage and the cost or cost/byte of >>>the tape reel. >> >> Be careful what you ask for. This can vary quite substantially. >> >> From a few megabytes on a 800 tpi 1200' tape to a quarter gigabyte on a >> 6520 3600' tape weitten with huge blocks. The cost also went down a lot; >> giving a three orders of magnitude interval for the cost per byte. > >That would be 6250. Indeed. Rusty memory. Thanks. The backup programs wrote around 40 MB to each tape, usually a little less. That was from the 1600 tpi x 2400 feet days. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: You count as an old-timer if |
| Message-ID | <8760wo5z5h.fsf@senguio.mx> |
| In reply to | #160982 |
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: > Indeed. Rusty memory. Thanks. > > The backup programs wrote around 40 MB to each tape, usually a little less. > That was from the 1600 tpi x 2400 feet days. > > -- mrr From my many (many, many) nights spinning tapes, the number that stood out in my mind was "about 30M per 2400' 1600bpi tape" ... today, running the numbers backwards, we must have been using 2K blocks. The switch wrote tiny, tiny blocks (320 bytes) at only 800 bpi, so reading those in always made a funny "chuggity chuggity" sound. I don't miss the reliability (or lack thereof), but I do miss the sights and sounds of handling half-inch tape. --NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: You count as an old-timer if |
| Message-ID | <evvkrc-6f8.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #160990 |
In article <8760wo5z5h.fsf@senguio.mx>, Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes: >> Indeed. Rusty memory. Thanks. >> >> The backup programs wrote around 40 MB to each tape, usually a little less. >> That was from the 1600 tpi x 2400 feet days. >> >> -- mrr > >From my many (many, many) nights spinning tapes, the number that stood >out in my mind was "about 30M per 2400' 1600bpi tape" ... today, running >the numbers backwards, we must have been using 2K blocks. > >The switch wrote tiny, tiny blocks (320 bytes) at only 800 bpi, so >reading those in always made a funny "chuggity chuggity" sound. > >I don't miss the reliability (or lack thereof), but I do miss the sights >and sounds of handling half-inch tape. With decent drives the reliability was among the best there was for hardware media in that age. I especially liked the Kennedy drives, OEMed to Tandem, Prime and 3rd-party installed on VAXen. They Just Worked. Which is more than what you can say of lots of other drives from that era. They had a capacitor bank of 6F. That is right. Farad, not milli- or micro-. The ~15kg rolling mass went from standstill to full speed in just a few milliseconds. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3f5dbc0-e5ed-4190-b853-951c224f1ee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #160947 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:56:56 PM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: > We were hungering for reliable machines and storage, and for computing > power. I remember several dozen items that were useful, but were left > off from the projects because the hardware was too slow and expensive. Our 6250 bpi tape drives could really fly through a large file. But the problem was an operator had to mount the tape when called for, and that could take time. Also, the tape had to be requested well in advance so the tape librarian could pull it and put it in the standby rack in the computer room. When we went to cartridges, they were compact enough that the whole library could be stored in the computer room. Then later, we got silos, which automatically mounted a tape. That was pretty neat except when they broke down. I was amazed at cartridges since they held 50% more data than a reel of tape, yet were only about the size of the mounting hole in the reel, and they ran even faster.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nca7hr$o0r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #160947 |
On 14/03/2016 1:57 PM, Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <nc6sg7$1rf9$1@gioia.aioe.org>, > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> On 13/03/2016 8:25 PM, Questor wrote: >>> I sometimes tell people that when I started in the industry, a high-end computer >>> terminal was one that could display both upper AND lower case characters. >>> >>> More fun with whippersnappers: show them a write ring, tell them it used to be >>> an essential piece of computing gear, and ask them what they think it is. >>> >> The followup question is how much storage and the cost or cost/byte of >> the tape reel. > > Be careful what you ask for. This can vary quite substantially. > > From a few megabytes on a 800 tpi 1200' tape to a quarter gigabyte on a > 6520 3600' tape weitten with huge blocks. The cost also went down a lot; > giving a three orders of magnitude interval for the cost per byte. > I can get thumb drives and micro SD cards at the checkout of grocery stores for $0.50 -$1 / G w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncalau02hie@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #161034 |
On 2016-03-15, Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > I can get thumb drives and micro SD cards at the checkout of grocery > stores for $0.50 -$1 / G Yup. We've come a long way from when I read in a trade rag in the early '70s about how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-CE2ED9.20285021032016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #161053 |
In article <ncalau02hie@news4.newsguy.com>, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > Yup. We've come a long way from when I read in a trade rag in the > early '70s about how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price > of a megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. And I remember paying over $300 for a Megabytes giving me a total of 12 Megs so I could run a graphic browser with my lightning fast 300 baud modem. 1993-4 68040LC without math coprocessor. The floating point software in the 68040LC was faster than the 68030 with math coprocessor. -- 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 | Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlbm5cFhpqeU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161307 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:28:53 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <ncalau02hie@news4.newsguy.com>, > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > >> Yup. We've come a long way from when I read in a trade rag in the >> early '70s about how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a >> megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. > > And I remember paying over $300 for a Megabytes giving me a total of 12 > Megs so I could run a graphic browser with my lightning fast 300 baud > modem. 1993-4 68040LC without math coprocessor. The floating point > software in the 68040LC was faster than the 68030 with math coprocessor. I remember paying £100 (about $170 at the time) in 1985, for 256kB! That was for a PC. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlcadgFq1ghU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161309 |
in 662555 20160322 014100 Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:28:53 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote: > >> In article <ncalau02hie@news4.newsguy.com>, >> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >> >> >>> Yup. We've come a long way from when I read in a trade rag in the >>> early '70s about how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a >>> megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. >> >> And I remember paying over $300 for a Megabytes giving me a total of 12 >> Megs so I could run a graphic browser with my lightning fast 300 baud >> modem. 1993-4 68040LC without math coprocessor. The floating point >> software in the 68040LC was faster than the 68030 with math coprocessor. > >I remember paying £100 (about $170 at the time) in 1985, for 256kB! I remember paying nearly £200 for eight 4Kx1 chips to give me 4KB on my home made box in the late 70s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <dlcrfrFud84U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161319 |
"Bob Martin" wrote: > in 662555 20160322 014100 Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote: >>On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:28:53 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote: >> >>> In article <ncalau02hie@news4.newsguy.com>, >>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Yup. We've come a long way from when I read in a trade rag in the >>>> early '70s about how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a >>>> megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. >>> >>> And I remember paying over $300 for a Megabytes giving me a total of 12 >>> Megs so I could run a graphic browser with my lightning fast 300 baud >>> modem. 1993-4 68040LC without math coprocessor. The floating point >>> software in the 68040LC was faster than the 68030 with math coprocessor. >> >>I remember paying £100 (about $170 at the time) in 1985, for 256kB! > > I remember paying nearly £200 for eight 4Kx1 chips to give me 4KB on > my home made box in the late 70s. And you were able to get such a great bargain mainly due to the launching of Sputnik! What a complicated world we live in. You pull a string here and that thing over there moves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tracymnelson@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c0d6342-db19-444d-8fd4-8eb57c42135d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #161309 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:41:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Eager wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:28:53 -0400, Walter Bushell wrote: > > > In article <ncalau02hie@news4.newsguy.com>, > > Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> Yup. We've come a long way from when I read in a trade rag in the > >> early '70s about how IBM rocked the industry by slashing the price of a > >> megabyte of memory from $75,000 to a mere $15,000. > > > > And I remember paying over $300 for a Megabytes giving me a total of 12 > > Megs so I could run a graphic browser with my lightning fast 300 baud > > modem. 1993-4 68040LC without math coprocessor. The floating point > > software in the 68040LC was faster than the 68030 with math coprocessor. > > I remember paying £100 (about $170 at the time) in 1985, for 256kB! > > That was for a PC. Heh. I just replaced the motherboard on my wife's PC and figured I'd "future-proof" it by maxing out the memory. I paid US$175 for 32G of DDR4-2400. ObFolklore: The first memory upgrade I did involved piggybacking dynamic RAM chips (4116s?) and cutting some traces on my Dad's TRS-80. It worked, but I was never able to do the speed-doubling hack because I had cheaped out and gotten 200ns chips. Probably just as well, as the thing put out noticeably more heat as it was, I'm not sure the passively-cooled case would have been able to handle it. Now that I think of it, I'm sure the power supply would have been pretty marginal too...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <UuKdnZOiirRVim_LnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #161349 |
tracymnelson@gmail.com wrote: > Heh. I just replaced the motherboard on my wife's PC and figured I'd > "future-proof" it by maxing out the memory. I paid US$175 for 32G of > DDR4-2400. Crazy! Does your wife run CFD simulations on jet airplanes? I run serious engineering design, running Windows XP in a virtualbox VM under Linux, and although I have 4 GB of RAM, it rarely uses it all. We have some rack mounted servers at work with 8 Xeon processors, and I think they only have 16 GB of RAM, although it might have more. Jon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dlfcdoFjetjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #161394 |
On 2016-03-23, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> wrote:
> tracymnelson@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Heh. I just replaced the motherboard on my wife's PC and figured I'd
>> "future-proof" it by maxing out the memory. I paid US$175 for 32G of
>> DDR4-2400.
> Crazy! Does your wife run CFD simulations on jet airplanes? I run serious
> engineering design, running Windows XP in a virtualbox VM under Linux, and
> although I have 4 GB of RAM, it rarely uses it all. We have some rack
> mounted servers at work with 8 Xeon processors, and I think they only have
> 16 GB of RAM, although it might have more.
"We" (My last employers - I'm retired) have servers with at least a Tb of
memory in them.
--
Today is Boomtime, the 9th day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba7512d4-ad43-40fe-ba20-110c7927e071@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #161394 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 10:12:57 PM UTC-6, Jon Elson wrote: > tracymnelson@gmail.com wrote: > > Heh. I just replaced the motherboard on my wife's PC and figured I'd > > "future-proof" it by maxing out the memory. I paid US$175 for 32G of > > DDR4-2400. > Crazy! Does your wife run CFD simulations on jet airplanes? I run serious > engineering design, running Windows XP in a virtualbox VM under Linux, and > although I have 4 GB of RAM, it rarely uses it all. We have some rack > mounted servers at work with 8 Xeon processors, and I think they only have > 16 GB of RAM, although it might have more. I bought an old gaming laptop which had 8 GB of RAM in it - but space for more, and had another laptop which was dead. So I used the memory from it, and have 16 GB of memory in the machine on which I am now typing, whether I need it or not. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web