Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.linux > #80982 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-17 00:39 +1100 |
| Last post | 2025-03-02 02:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 94 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux
So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-17 00:39 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-16 15:06 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-02-16 15:45 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 19:37 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 19:43 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-02-18 12:01 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 09:41 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 20:32 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 14:51 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 21:59 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 09:59 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> - 2025-02-16 16:43 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-16 16:21 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Rick <rick@nospam.com> - 2025-02-16 11:33 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 20:00 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 19:56 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-18 11:17 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:02 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 12:02 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 22:55 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 14:16 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 00:23 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-25 14:38 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-25 14:30 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-02-21 11:07 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 15:19 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 16:04 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-26 18:15 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-26 07:08 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-26 15:29 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-27 19:00 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 03:52 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-27 11:24 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 13:57 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 09:53 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 15:31 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 13:27 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 19:00 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-27 20:37 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-28 19:38 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-28 11:13 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:36 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-02 00:51 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-02 18:59 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-04 23:32 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 22:13 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-01 22:27 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 00:41 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-03-02 01:06 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2025-03-03 10:22 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-03-04 19:26 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 14:05 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-28 20:06 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-28 11:24 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-28 14:50 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-16 10:53 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 14:04 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-16 21:52 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-17 19:40 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-02-16 20:15 -0600
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-17 21:05 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-02-18 02:31 -0600
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 13:29 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-18 20:29 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-20 21:09 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-20 13:27 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:08 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 12:11 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:40 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-02-21 19:30 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-02-22 04:02 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-22 19:54 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-02-25 12:28 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 03:46 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-21 22:37 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-22 21:58 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-25 14:19 +0100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:36 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-21 08:34 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:31 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-02-22 03:53 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Rick <rick@nospam.com> - 2025-02-16 10:54 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-02-16 17:01 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-18 09:57 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-16 10:34 -0800
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-02-17 08:52 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-17 14:49 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 20:17 +1100
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> - 2025-02-21 10:35 +0000
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 12:41 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2025-02-26 18:53 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-26 20:14 -0500
Re: So far OT ..... DVD+R v DVD-R ... What's the difference?? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:39 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-17 21:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2dhc8lxgq6.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #80995 |
On 2025-02-17 03:15, Char Jackson wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: > >> The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information >> on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside >> the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back >> what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a >> sample so they could tell you what those are. >> >> And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would >> say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally >> one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in >> parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what >> a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing). >> So what if the movie was blurry. >> >> And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is >> too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it. >> It's more a state of mind, than a business. > > That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one > burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name > on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though. I don't know about burning, but there is a big department store here (El Corte Inglés) that does sell CDs and DVDs and BlueRays (and vinyls). They don't stock much, though, so whatever you want you have to ask for it and wait some days. I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". Of course, there are torrents. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 02:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jaf8rjp1vq1jn2a91ppd6dd8m9g0dmtk2c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #81000 |
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >On 2025-02-17 03:15, Char Jackson wrote: >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >> >>> The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information >>> on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside >>> the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back >>> what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a >>> sample so they could tell you what those are. >>> >>> And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would >>> say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally >>> one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in >>> parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what >>> a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing). >>> So what if the movie was blurry. >>> >>> And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is >>> too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it. >>> It's more a state of mind, than a business. >> >> That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one >> burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name >> on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though. > >I don't know about burning, To be clear, I was only referring to the well-known piracy release groups, and I suppose all or most of the lesser known groups, as well. >but there is a big department store here (El >Corte Inglés) that does sell CDs and DVDs and BlueRays (and vinyls). >They don't stock much, though, so whatever you want you have to ask for >it and wait some days. Where do the products come from? Are they legit? I suppose they must be, since they're up for sale in a department store. I was only talking about piracy, specifically video and audio. >I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star >Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime >Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". >Of course, there are torrents. One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country, they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 13:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d1be8lxr7l.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #81002 |
On 2025-02-18 09:31, Char Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2025-02-17 03:15, Char Jackson wrote: >>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:04:00 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> The "cdfreaks" website is where you used to get information >>>> on what was worth buying. They could tell you what was inside >>>> the box, because a "Philips" cake box, did not say on the back >>>> what brand of discs they were packaging. Someone had to buy a >>>> sample so they could tell you what those are. >>>> >>>> And "cdfreaks" had some pirates, and occasionally someone would >>>> say "I burned 500 of those last week, very good". And occasionally >>>> one of those people would tell you "I have seven drives set up in >>>> parallel, burning away". That would give you some idea what >>>> a pirate would do (make single layer media from a DL Hollywood pressing). >>>> So what if the movie was blurry. >>>> >>>> And if you think pirating is easy, that's a lot of work. There is >>>> too much manual handling of materials to be a "success" at it. >>>> It's more a state of mind, than a business. >>> >>> That approach to piracy pretty much ended more than 25 years ago. No one >>> burns media anymore, and no self-respecting group would put their name >>> on a release that was "blurry". That was a good flashback, though. >> >> I don't know about burning, > > To be clear, I was only referring to the well-known piracy release > groups, and I suppose all or most of the lesser known groups, as well. > >> but there is a big department store here (El >> Corte Inglés) that does sell CDs and DVDs and BlueRays (and vinyls). >> They don't stock much, though, so whatever you want you have to ask for >> it and wait some days. > > Where do the products come from? Are they legit? I suppose they must be, > since they're up for sale in a department store. I was only talking > about piracy, specifically video and audio. Yes, certainly they are legit. But I mean, if there are legit sales, means there is a market, and there will also be ilegit sales somewhere else, in some manner. > >> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star >> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime >> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". >> Of course, there are torrents. > > One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the > movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service > is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that > country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy > camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country, > they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries. Wow. :-o :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-18 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9m3f8lx25f.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #81012 |
On 2025-02-18 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-02-18 09:31, Char Jackson wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R." >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star >>> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime >>> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". >>> Of course, there are torrents. >> >> One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the >> movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service >> is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that >> country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy >> camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country, >> they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries. > > Wow. :-o :-) What happens with languages? The target country might have the program dubbed to some local language. Assuming the original language of the program was English, do they always keep it? -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 21:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <vp6v1g$2pn2c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81002 |
On 18/02/2025 7:31 pm, Char Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R." > <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: <Snip> >> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star >> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime >> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". >> Of course, there are torrents. > > One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the > movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service > is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that > country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy > camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country, > they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries. > Which came FIRST, The Chicken or The Egg?? Do Intel/etc throw greater capabilities into a uProcessor and the programmers then have to make use of that greater capability ..... or do the programmers tell Intel/etc that they want greater capabilities?? If our ancestors had been satisfied with drawing 'pictures' on Cave wall would we still be here?? ;-P -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tljj8lxke4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #81019 |
On 2025-02-20 11:09, Daniel70 wrote: > On 18/02/2025 7:31 pm, Char Jackson wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:05:22 +0100, "Carlos E.R." >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > > <Snip> > >>> I had a conversation with someone, and I said that I was watching Star >>> Trek Lower Decks S1, when it suddenly disappeared from Amazon Prime >>> Video. He replied "that the reason I prefer solid media to streaming". >>> Of course, there are torrents. >> >> One of my mates uses a service that tells him which country has the >> movie or TV program that he wants to watch, and which streaming service >> is offering it. A couple of clicks later, his VPN has placed him in that >> country and his normal login creds work as usual, and he's a happy >> camper. If something disappears from streaming services in one country, >> they often pop up, or remain available, in one or more other countries. >> > Which came FIRST, The Chicken or The Egg?? > > Do Intel/etc throw greater capabilities into a uProcessor and the > programmers then have to make use of that greater capability ..... or do > the programmers tell Intel/etc that they want greater capabilities?? I think both. I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 8086. > > If our ancestors had been satisfied with drawing 'pictures' on Cave wall > would we still be here?? ;-P -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-20 17:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.42217abac1ea2d029903b7@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #81020 |
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were > not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 8086. > I think that was the first one that didn't need a separate floating-point processor, right? -- Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/ Shikata ga nai...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 18:08 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <vp98p7$39qfl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81023 |
On 21/02/2025 12:46 pm, Stan Brown wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were >> not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and 8086. >> > > I think that was the first one that didn't need a > separate floating-point processor, right? > That rings a bell ...... but what had we done with out the 'floating-point processor' previously?? Used a seperate, discreet, 'floating-point processor', maybe .... which, I suppose, would make the process a bit slower. -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 12:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pk3m8lxq3t.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #81025 |
On 2025-02-21 08:08, Daniel70 wrote: > On 21/02/2025 12:46 pm, Stan Brown wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:27:09 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that were >>> not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the 286 and >>> 8086. >>> >> >> I think that was the first one that didn't need a >> separate floating-point processor, right? No, the wikipedia cites the 80387 as a separate chip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87#80387 >> > That rings a bell ...... but what had we done with out the 'floating- > point processor' previously?? Used a seperate, discreet, 'floating-point > processor', maybe .... which, I suppose, would make the process a bit > slower. Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated in software by the program, which was significantly slower. I think it was the Pentium which was complete. The wikipedia says for the 487: 80487 The i487SX (P23N) was marketed as a floating-point unit coprocessor for Intel i486SX machines. It actually contained a full-blown i486DX implementation. When installed into an i486SX system, the i487 disabled the main CPU and took over all CPU operations. The i487 took measures to detect the presence of an i486SX and would not function without the original CPU in place.[26][27][failed verification] -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 18:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67b8c8ac$0$22$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #81030 |
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: [snip] > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not > inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would > raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated > in software by the program, which was significantly slower. IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate it. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Error! No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 19:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HaecnaNTENH3SSX6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #81037 |
In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not
> > inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would
> > raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated
> > in software by the program, which was significantly slower.
> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were
> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C
> compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a
> routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call
> with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that
> instruction, otherwise it would emulate it.
> [snip]
What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't remember!
--
"Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!" --Isaiah 30:18. Slammy Friday after slower recent couple days?
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-22 04:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpbi7s$kuiu$2@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org> |
| In reply to | #81038 |
On 2025-02-21, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not >> > inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would >> > raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated >> > in software by the program, which was significantly slower. > >> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were >> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C >> compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a >> routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call >> with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that >> instruction, otherwise it would emulate it. > >> [snip] > > What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't remember! 386SX had an external 16 bit data bus, 386DX had 32 bit. inbuilt co-processors started with the 486DX -- Jasen. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-22 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67ba2b89$2$1786$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #81038 |
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:30:50 +0000, Ant wrote: > In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was >> > not inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction >> > would raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction >> > emulated in software by the program, which was significantly slower. > >> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were >> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo >> C compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call >> to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace >> that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to >> run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate it. > >> [snip] > > What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't > remember! No 386 had a coprocessor. You could add a 387 to the system (I don't remember if there was a 387SX). IIRC, it was also possible to use a 287. The difference between 386SX and 386DX was a limited (24-bit instead of 32-bit) address bus, and a multiplexed (32-bit) data bus. It was with the 486 that the DX meant it had a coprocessor. There was also a 486DX2 that ran at a doubled clock speed. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity." [Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "What the Germans Lack," aph. 2 (1889)]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 12:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <puiv8l-7h2.ln1@otis.foo> |
| In reply to | #81042 |
Groovy hepcat Mark Lloyd was jivin' in alt.os.linux on Sun, 23 Feb 2025
06:54 am. It's a cool scene! Dig it.
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:30:50 +0000, Ant wrote:
>
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-11 Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>> > Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was
>>> > not inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction
>>> > would raise an exception, which would be attended and the
>>> > instruction emulated in software by the program, which was
>>> > significantly slower.
>>
>>> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there
>>> were programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right,
>>> the turbo C compiler would replace every floating point instruction
>>> with a call to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it
>>> would replace that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few
>>> bytes earlier to run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate
>>> it.
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> What about 386SX? IIRC, it didn't have a coprocessor like DX. I can't
>> remember!
>
> No 386 had a coprocessor. You could add a 387 to the system (I don't
> remember if there was a 387SX). IIRC, it was also possible to use a
> 287.
Yes, there was a 387SX. And co-processors (or FPUs, as they're more
correctly called) for PC family CPUs go right back to the 8087 to go
with the 8086/8088. So a PC/XT could have an FPU too.
> The difference between 386SX and 386DX was a limited (24-bit instead
> of 32-bit) address bus, and a multiplexed (32-bit) data bus.
For anyone who doesn't know what that means; the 386SX had a 16 bit
data bus, the same as the 286. All 32 bit memory access instructions
had to "thunk" between the internal 32 bit registers and the external
data bus, meaning that a 32 bit memory access had to be done in two 16
bit accesses.
> It was with the 486 that the DX meant it had a coprocessor. There was
> also a 486DX2 that ran at a doubled clock speed.
Right. There is also a 486DX4, which runs at 4 times the clock speed.
And the 486SX had no built-in FPU, so there is a 487SX to go with it.
--
----- Dig the NEW and IMPROVED news sig!! -----
-------------- Shaggy was here! ---------------
Ain't I'm a dawg!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-01 03:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vptvvb$2nrd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81044 |
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:28:24 +1100, Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote: > There is also a 486DX4, which runs at 4 times the clock speed. The CPU clock was only 3× the memory clock, not 4×. There was quite a lot of grumbling over Intel’s (mis)use of the “DX” suffix number here. Intel, of course, insisted that the number was just a number, it didn’t bear any relation to the CPU clock multiplier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 22:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ea8n8lxtp3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #81037 |
On 2025-02-21 19:40, Mark Lloyd wrote: > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > [snip] > >> Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not >> inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would >> raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction emulated >> in software by the program, which was significantly slower. > > IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were > programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo C > compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call to a > routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace that call > with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to run that > instruction, otherwise it would emulate it. > > [snip] > No, the 8087 also had that exception, it was used by Borland's Turbo Pascal series. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-22 21:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67ba4883$10$15$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #81039 |
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:37:50 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-02-21 19:40, Mark Lloyd wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not >>> inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would >>> raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction >>> emulated in software by the program, which was significantly slower. >> >> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were >> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo >> C compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call >> to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace >> that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to >> run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate it. >> >> [snip] >> >> > No, the 8087 also had that exception, it was used by Borland's Turbo > Pascal series. Did you mean 8086 or 8088? 8087 doesn't make sense here, since an exception would be for when that chip is NOT present. I found my Intel data book for processors through the 286, and the exceptions are: 0 - Divide error exception (divide by 0) 1 - Single step interrupt 2 - NMI interrupt 3 - Breakpoint interrupt 4 - INTO detected overflow exception 5 - BOUND range exceeded exception (80186+) 6 - Invalid opcode exception (80286+) 7 - Processor extension not available exception (80286+) BTW, with the 8086/8088 Intel listed interrupt numbers 5-31 as reserved. Microsoft ignored that and used interrupt 5 for print screen. I don't remember how they dealt with that on the AT (maybe they just didn't use the new BOUND instruction). -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity." [Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "What the Germans Lack," aph. 2 (1889)]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-25 14:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjs09lxcrv.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #81043 |
On 2025-02-22 22:58, Mark Lloyd wrote: > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:37:50 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2025-02-21 19:40, Mark Lloyd wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:11:53 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Yes, an optional separate coprocesor was used initially. If it was not >>>> inserted, an operation trying to use a coprocesor instruction would >>>> raise an exception, which would be attended and the instruction >>>> emulated in software by the program, which was significantly slower. >>> >>> IIRC, the 286 was the first to have that exception, although there were >>> programs to emulate it on older systems. If I remember right, the turbo >>> C compiler would replace every floating point instruction with a call >>> to a routine that checked for a FPU. If it found one it would replace >>> that call with the FPU instruction and return to a few bytes earlier to >>> run that instruction, otherwise it would emulate it. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> >> No, the 8087 also had that exception, it was used by Borland's Turbo >> Pascal series. > > Did you mean 8086 or 8088? 8087 doesn't make sense here, since an > exception would be for when that chip is NOT present. Right, the 8086/8 generated the exception on finding an instruction for the coprocesor and there was no coprocesor. > > I found my Intel data book for processors through the 286, and the > exceptions are: > > 0 - Divide error exception (divide by 0) > 1 - Single step interrupt > 2 - NMI interrupt > 3 - Breakpoint interrupt > 4 - INTO detected overflow exception > 5 - BOUND range exceeded exception (80186+) > 6 - Invalid opcode exception (80286+) > 7 - Processor extension not available exception (80286+) > > BTW, with the 8086/8088 Intel listed interrupt numbers 5-31 as reserved. > Microsoft ignored that and used interrupt 5 for print screen. I don't > remember how they dealt with that on the AT (maybe they just didn't use > the new BOUND instruction). > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67b8c79e$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #81025 |
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:08:21 +1100, Daniel70 wrote: [snip] > That rings a bell ...... but what had we done with out the > 'floating-point processor' previously?? Used a seperate, discreet, > 'floating-point processor', maybe .... which, I suppose, would make the > process a bit slower. Older PCs (8086-80387) usually had a socket for a floating-point coproccessor. This chips were often expensive. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "Error! No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-21 08:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvo6yvlmrl.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #81023 |
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> writes: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I remember the advent of the 386 which had many capabilities that >> were not used at the time. That CPU was amazing, compared with the >> 286 and 8086. > > I think that was the first one that didn't need a separate > floating-point processor, right? The 80386 still needed a separate FPU. The 80486 was the first to integrate it. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux
csiph-web