Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 15 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 29 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o36b7b$715$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99779 |
On 18/12/16 04:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/17/2016 10:39 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 17-12-16 15:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/17/2016 8:43 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>> On 17-12-16 04:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/16/2016 4:47 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>> On 16-12-16 22:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/12/2016 12:13 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> There have been all kinds of niche systems which have failed >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> history of computing. I'm not talking about those. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven >>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche >>>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Almost 5 million units sold. What a failure indeed. But hey, you >>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>> try something when you can't bear the idea of admitting that you're >>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said - a niche system that failed. 5 million units is less than >>>>>>> the number of PC's that sell in a month. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not in the 80's. By your standards, every computer from that era is a >>>>>> failure. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Who said anything about in the 80's? 5 million is the TOTAL number of >>>>> Amigas sold - over several years. >>>> >>>> My god, at least try to remember what we're talking about, I'm not >>>> going to >>>> repeat myself endlessly just to fill the gaps in that grey mass of >>>> yours. >>>> >>> >>> Oh, I remember what we're talking about. You said there were 5 million >>> Amigas sold. That's a niche market, >> >> It's not. >> > > 5 million computers is a niche market. Nothing more. > There are perhaps 10,000 mainframe computers in use today. Clearly, it's a niche system that failed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o3939t$a1$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99808 |
On 12/18/2016 10:51 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 18/12/16 04:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/17/2016 10:39 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On 17-12-16 15:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/17/2016 8:43 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>> On 17-12-16 04:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/16/2016 4:47 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>> On 16-12-16 22:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/12/2016 12:13 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> There have been all kinds of niche systems which have failed >>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> history of computing. I'm not talking about those. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven >>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche >>>>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>>>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Almost 5 million units sold. What a failure indeed. But hey, you >>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>> try something when you can't bear the idea of admitting that >>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I said - a niche system that failed. 5 million units is less >>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>> the number of PC's that sell in a month. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not in the 80's. By your standards, every computer from that era >>>>>>> is a >>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Who said anything about in the 80's? 5 million is the TOTAL >>>>>> number of >>>>>> Amigas sold - over several years. >>>>> >>>>> My god, at least try to remember what we're talking about, I'm not >>>>> going to >>>>> repeat myself endlessly just to fill the gaps in that grey mass of >>>>> yours. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, I remember what we're talking about. You said there were 5 million >>>> Amigas sold. That's a niche market, >>> >>> It's not. >>> >> >> 5 million computers is a niche market. Nothing more. >> > > There are perhaps 10,000 mainframe computers in use today. Clearly, > it's a niche system that failed. > There are more than 10,000 in the world. And they are still in use. No failures there. But trolls don't understand that. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o39fjc$kjp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99858 |
On 19/12/16 17:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/18/2016 10:51 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 18/12/16 04:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/17/2016 10:39 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>> On 17-12-16 15:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/17/2016 8:43 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>> On 17-12-16 04:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/16/2016 4:47 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16-12-16 22:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2016 12:13 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been all kinds of niche systems which have failed >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> history of computing. I'm not talking about those. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche >>>>>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>>>>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Almost 5 million units sold. What a failure indeed. But hey, you >>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>> try something when you can't bear the idea of admitting that >>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I said - a niche system that failed. 5 million units is less >>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>> the number of PC's that sell in a month. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not in the 80's. By your standards, every computer from that era >>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who said anything about in the 80's? 5 million is the TOTAL >>>>>>> number of >>>>>>> Amigas sold - over several years. >>>>>> >>>>>> My god, at least try to remember what we're talking about, I'm not >>>>>> going to >>>>>> repeat myself endlessly just to fill the gaps in that grey mass of >>>>>> yours. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I remember what we're talking about. You said there were 5 million >>>>> Amigas sold. That's a niche market, >>>> >>>> It's not. >>>> >>> >>> 5 million computers is a niche market. Nothing more. >>> >> >> There are perhaps 10,000 mainframe computers in use today. Clearly, >> it's a niche system that failed. >> > > There are more than 10,000 in the world. And they are still in use. No > failures there. > > But trolls don't understand that. > Whoosh! That's the sound of the sarcasm flying right over your head. (Hint - if you knew anything about the history of computers, and how software and hardware have developed over the decades, you would know that the Amiga was an extremely successful computer in its time. While it may be niche /now/, it was very far from a niche product in its time, and both the Amiga hardware and software have had very significant influences on later computers.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o39ndt$is7$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99875 |
On 12/19/2016 3:24 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 19/12/16 17:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/18/2016 10:51 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 18/12/16 04:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/17/2016 10:39 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>> On 17-12-16 15:58, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/17/2016 8:43 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>> On 17-12-16 04:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/16/2016 4:47 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 16-12-16 22:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2016 12:13 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11-12-16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There have been all kinds of niche systems which have failed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> history of computing. I'm not talking about those. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, you narrow down the requirements AFTER you're proven >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, no narrowing down the requirements. Just ignoring niche >>>>>>>>>>>> systems >>>>>>>>>>>> that have failed. They aren't worth talking about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Almost 5 million units sold. What a failure indeed. But hey, you >>>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>>> try something when you can't bear the idea of admitting that >>>>>>>>>>> you're >>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I said - a niche system that failed. 5 million units is less >>>>>>>>>> than >>>>>>>>>> the number of PC's that sell in a month. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not in the 80's. By your standards, every computer from that era >>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who said anything about in the 80's? 5 million is the TOTAL >>>>>>>> number of >>>>>>>> Amigas sold - over several years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My god, at least try to remember what we're talking about, I'm not >>>>>>> going to >>>>>>> repeat myself endlessly just to fill the gaps in that grey mass of >>>>>>> yours. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, I remember what we're talking about. You said there were 5 >>>>>> million >>>>>> Amigas sold. That's a niche market, >>>>> >>>>> It's not. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 5 million computers is a niche market. Nothing more. >>>> >>> >>> There are perhaps 10,000 mainframe computers in use today. Clearly, >>> it's a niche system that failed. >>> >> >> There are more than 10,000 in the world. And they are still in use. No >> failures there. >> >> But trolls don't understand that. >> > > Whoosh! > > That's the sound of the sarcasm flying right over your head. > > (Hint - if you knew anything about the history of computers, and how > software and hardware have developed over the decades, you would know > that the Amiga was an extremely successful computer in its time. While > it may be niche /now/, it was very far from a niche product in its time, > and both the Amiga hardware and software have had very significant > influences on later computers.) > No, I understood the sarcasm. But I chose to ignore it because of whom it came from. And exactly what were the "very significant influences on later computers"? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16f7f198-2ab1-4da9-87bd-23aaf7c89d2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99877 |
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 10:38:19 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > And exactly what were the "very significant influences on later computers"? > The IFF file format, for one. Horrid thing, but it's used as the wrapper for .jpeg, .tiff, and many sound file formats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o39stl$9eq$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99880 |
On 12/19/2016 6:11 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 10:38:19 PM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> And exactly what were the "very significant influences on later computers"? >> > The IFF file format, for one. > Horrid thing, but it's used as the wrapper for .jpeg, .tiff, and many sound file formats. > Half-truth. The IFF format was actually created by Electronic Arts. Commodore was only the first company to implement the format. The .tiff and .jpeg formats are completely unrelated. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <405d49ec-f052-4a0f-a2f5-82af9769590d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99881 |
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/19/2016 6:11 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Half-truth. The IFF format was actually created by Electronic Arts. > Commodore was only the first company to implement the format. > > The .tiff and .jpeg formats are completely unrelated. > The BabyX resource compiler is where I maintain my format codecs. https://github.com/MalcolmMcLean/babyxrc If you check JPEG and TIFF you'll see that they use the IFF chunk system. That's why JPEGs are sometimes called "JIF" files, technically and for some obscure legal reason JPEG is the compression algorithm but not the file format.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o3a5ml$pgc$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99883 |
On 12/19/2016 8:23 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 12:12:09 AM UTC, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/19/2016 6:11 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> Half-truth. The IFF format was actually created by Electronic Arts. >> Commodore was only the first company to implement the format. >> >> The .tiff and .jpeg formats are completely unrelated. >> > The BabyX resource compiler is where I maintain my format codecs. > > https://github.com/MalcolmMcLean/babyxrc > > If you check JPEG and TIFF you'll see that they use the IFF chunk system. > That's why JPEGs are sometimes called "JIF" files, technically and > for some obscure legal reason JPEG is the compression algorithm but > not the file format. > Although I hate to quote Wikipedia because it's wrong almost as often as it's right, in this case it is correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_File_Format "The TIFF image file format is unrelated." And if you look at the history of JPEGs it says nothing about IFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_File_Interchange_Format Just because they use a similar chunk system does not mean they are related to IFF. They are not. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a78be0a0-1775-49cf-90e7-ca7fc370ede5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99723 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:38:51 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Who said anything about in the 80's? 5 million is the TOTAL number of > Amigas sold - over several years. In 1991, there were something under 20,000,000 personal computers sold, in total. Of those, over 1,000,000 were Amigas. For a personal computing product to sell 1,000,000 units in 2015 would not even make it a blip on the radar, but in 1991 the Amiga had more than 5% market share. Not humongous, but not trivial either. Sure, PCs totally crowded everything out, but the Amiga had a pretty healthy share of the "not-PC" market. Out of curiosity, would you consider the Apple II line a success or a failure? The total number of machines Apple sold in that line was about 6.5 million--only sightly more than the Amiga. Most people would consider the Apple II as one of the more successful architectures of all time, but perhaps you'd view it otherwise?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o350t4$qpq$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99756 |
On 12/17/2016 12:23 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:38:51 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Who said anything about in the 80's? 5 million is the TOTAL number of >> Amigas sold - over several years. > > In 1991, there were something under 20,000,000 personal computers sold, in > total. Of those, over 1,000,000 were Amigas. For a personal computing > product to sell 1,000,000 units in 2015 would not even make it a blip on the > radar, but in 1991 the Amiga had more than 5% market share. Not humongous, > but not trivial either. Sure, PCs totally crowded everything out, but the > Amiga had a pretty healthy share of the "not-PC" market. > > Out of curiosity, would you consider the Apple II line a success or a > failure? The total number of machines Apple sold in that line was about > 6.5 million--only sightly more than the Amiga. Most people would consider > the Apple II as one of the more successful architectures of all time, but > perhaps you'd view it otherwise? > Apple II was a success - it was the forerunner of multiple other Apple products. The Amiga was a failed computer from a failed company in a niche market. Nothing more. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <16e29552-64f1-40f9-9564-e0195ac31612@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99780 |
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Apple II was a success - it was the forerunner of multiple other Apple > products. The Amiga was a failed computer from a failed company in a > niche market. Nothing more. The combined sales volume for all Apple machines that are even remotely based on the Apple II architecture, including the Apple IIgs and the Apple ///, is under seven million. The Macintosh was a totally different architecture which has nothing in common with any predecessors in the Apple II line, so its sales can't be credited to the Apple II architecture. Seven million is bigger than five million, but not by so much that the former should be considered a great success and the latter a failure. Looking merely at raw sales volume would imply that any architecture which wasn't sold in the last few years was a "failure in a niche market". If one looks at fraction of sales volume, for much of its run the Amiga was in third place behind the Macintosh but well ahead of anything else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o393dh$a1$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99813 |
On 12/18/2016 11:26 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Apple II was a success - it was the forerunner of multiple other Apple >> products. The Amiga was a failed computer from a failed company in a >> niche market. Nothing more. > > The combined sales volume for all Apple machines that are even remotely based > on the Apple II architecture, including the Apple IIgs and the Apple ///, > is under seven million. The Macintosh was a totally different architecture > which has nothing in common with any predecessors in the Apple II line, so > its sales can't be credited to the Apple II architecture. > > Seven million is bigger than five million, but not by so much that the > former should be considered a great success and the latter a failure. > > Looking merely at raw sales volume would imply that any architecture which > wasn't sold in the last few years was a "failure in a niche market". If > one looks at fraction of sales volume, for much of its run the Amiga was in > third place behind the Macintosh but well ahead of anything else. > So? The Mac was still an extension for the Apple II, even though they didn't have the same architecture. And Apple is still going strong. The Amiga had no successor systems and Commodore is long gone. But I know that's way too much info for your brain to grasp. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o398bo$1p94$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99813 |
On 18-12-16 17:26, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Apple II was a success - it was the forerunner of multiple other Apple >> products. The Amiga was a failed computer from a failed company in a >> niche market. Nothing more. > > The combined sales volume for all Apple machines that are even remotely based > on the Apple II architecture, including the Apple IIgs and the Apple ///, > is under seven million. The Macintosh was a totally different architecture > which has nothing in common with any predecessors in the Apple II line, so > its sales can't be credited to the Apple II architecture. > > Seven million is bigger than five million, but not by so much that the > former should be considered a great success and the latter a failure. > > Looking merely at raw sales volume would imply that any architecture which > wasn't sold in the last few years was a "failure in a niche market". If > one looks at fraction of sales volume, for much of its run the Amiga was in > third place behind the Macintosh but well ahead of anything else. You can argue all you want, but Jerry will always find another excuse to exclude the Amiga because that system disproves his statement that "at best they used null modem cables and copied files one at a time with a terminal program" in his debate about the survival of old software packages. <o2fubo$a4s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> When he acknowledges the success of the Amiga, he'll have to admit he was wrong. Do you think you can make him do that? -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o39nhk$is7$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99860 |
On 12/19/2016 1:19 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 18-12-16 17:26, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 9:49:20 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Apple II was a success - it was the forerunner of multiple other Apple >>> products. The Amiga was a failed computer from a failed company in a >>> niche market. Nothing more. >> >> The combined sales volume for all Apple machines that are even >> remotely based >> on the Apple II architecture, including the Apple IIgs and the Apple ///, >> is under seven million. The Macintosh was a totally different >> architecture >> which has nothing in common with any predecessors in the Apple II >> line, so >> its sales can't be credited to the Apple II architecture. >> >> Seven million is bigger than five million, but not by so much that the >> former should be considered a great success and the latter a failure. >> >> Looking merely at raw sales volume would imply that any architecture >> which >> wasn't sold in the last few years was a "failure in a niche market". If >> one looks at fraction of sales volume, for much of its run the Amiga >> was in >> third place behind the Macintosh but well ahead of anything else. > > You can argue all you want, but Jerry will always find another excuse to > exclude the Amiga because that system disproves his statement that "at best > they used null modem cables and copied files one at a time with a terminal > program" in his debate about the survival of old software packages. > <o2fubo$a4s$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> > > When he acknowledges the success of the Amiga, he'll have to admit he was > wrong. Do you think you can make him do that? > Once again you take statements out of context. But that's what trolls do. The Amiga was just a(nother) failed computer in a niche market. If it were so great, both it's descendants and Commodore would still be around. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2hcdk$ecq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98647 |
On 10/12/16 04:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > I have no reason to think he has software from 31 years ago. Plus, in > the days before the internet, copying from computer to computer was much > more difficult. Few people had networks; at best they used null modem > cables and copied files one at a time with a terminal program. > Let me think back 31 years. I think it was about that sort of time that I first used a network of BBC micros, connected to a server with a hard disk. That made copying software quite easy. Of course, I fully agree that copying software has become easier since those days. Certainly the decade from 30 years ago to 20 years ago made a very large difference. But for people involved in more serious programming, they would have archives of the tools they used - most likely on tape. And if those tools were needed later, at some time they get transferred to hard disk. So if someone says they have 30 years old software on tap, then I believe them unless I have overwhelming reason not to. > And where's your comment about the "diskette straw man" you referred to > above? Maybe because you have no idea? > I have no idea which "diskette straw man" argument you are referring to here - there have been too many silly points in this thread to keep up with them all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kdp4$c9u$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98714 |
On 12/10/2016 12:03 PM, David Brown wrote: > On 10/12/16 04:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> I have no reason to think he has software from 31 years ago. Plus, in >> the days before the internet, copying from computer to computer was much >> more difficult. Few people had networks; at best they used null modem >> cables and copied files one at a time with a terminal program. >> > > Let me think back 31 years. I think it was about that sort of time that > I first used a network of BBC micros, connected to a server with a hard > disk. That made copying software quite easy. > Did you even read where I said "FEW PEOPLE HAD NETWORKS"? I don't think so. > Of course, I fully agree that copying software has become easier since > those days. Certainly the decade from 30 years ago to 20 years ago made > a very large difference. But for people involved in more serious > programming, they would have archives of the tools they used - most > likely on tape. And if those tools were needed later, at some time they > get transferred to hard disk. So if someone says they have 30 years old > software on tap, then I believe them unless I have overwhelming reason > not to. > Those archives would be on floppy disks or tapes. And exactly who has them on tape now? Someone might have building plans for a pyramid, written in ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics on parchment, also. There would be a much better chance of that surviving than something on diskette or tape. >> And where's your comment about the "diskette straw man" you referred to >> above? Maybe because you have no idea? >> > > I have no idea which "diskette straw man" argument you are referring to > here - there have been too many silly points in this thread to keep up > with them all. > You're the one who made the claim. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mg9n4cd99trcong29sugqmnrl35cqu8ijk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #98521 |
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:16:47 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 12/9/2016 5:39 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/12/16 04:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are.
>>> It's not what the discussion was about. Obviously you have serious
>>> comprehension problems. But you've already shown that.
>>>
>>> I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't
>>> still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be
>>> readable after 21 years).
>>>
>>> But you'll argue with anything and everything, won't you, Ben? Even
>>> from a position of ignorance.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really think Ben has gone to such effort to make fake compiler
>> outputs just to fool /you/? You are implying quite an extraordinary
>> degree of dishonest and malice in Ben. He clearly posted the results
>> from a /real/ compiler of the relevant age, showing the relevant point.
>> I am no lawyer, but I would wonder if that crosses the line between
>> Usenet banter and libel. Of course, since no one takes you seriously I
>> don't think your comments will harm his solid reputation here.
>>
>
>Actually, I think he's quite capable of it. Just using a newer compiler
>and calling it an old one, for instance.
>
>Even if he could still read diskettes (when was the last time you had a
>computer with a diskette drive), diskettes 31 years old would not be
>readable. Additionally, it would not run on any current OS - none of
>them support DOS any more. There are some emulators - but only for the
>documented interface. Microsoft was well-known for using undocumented
>calls to the OS's, even back then. None of the emulators, AFAIK,
>support those undocumented calls.
>
>He made a claim with no support as to where he got the compiler or how
>he ran it.
While I don't have a copy of MSC 3.1, I do have a copy on a server
drive of MSC 5.1, circa 1988. And yes, it will run on any 32-bit x86
Windows machine, including Win10, which still includes all the NTVDM
stuff. You're out of luck, except with an emulator, with any 64-bit
Windows machine (where all the 16 bit support, both real and protected
mode) has gone away.
Anyway, I happened to run this on a Win8 (32-bit) machine (it was
handy, the Win10/32 machine not), and MSC 5.1 output the following for
Ben's sample code:
>int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>
>int g() { return f(1.0); }
::G:\wessel>f:cl /Fa -c -Ox test200.c
::Microsoft (R) C Optimizing Compiler Version 5.10
::Copyright (c) Microsoft Corp 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988. All rights reserved.
::
::test200.c
::
::G:\wessel>notepad test200.asm
_TEXT SEGMENT
ASSUME CS: _TEXT
PUBLIC _g
_g PROC NEAR
push bp
mov bp,sp
sub sp,2
fld QWORD PTR $T20000
sub sp,8
mov bx,sp
fstp QWORD PTR [bx]
fwait
call _f
mov WORD PTR [bp-2],ax
mov sp,bp
pop bp
ret
nop
_g ENDP
_TEXT ENDS
Not exactly the same generated code, but certainly similar, and it
does try to pass a float to f().
For grins, I tried this with a version 3.21 of Lattice C (circa 1987,
the timestamp on the main compiler executable is 08/12/1987), which is
the oldest C compiler I believe I have easy access to, and got (using
the Lattice disassembler):
::G:\wessel>lc test200.c
::Lattice MS-DOS C Compiler, Version 3.21
::Copyright 1987 Lattice, Inc.
::
::Compiling TEST200.C
::Module size P=002D D=0008 U=0000
::
::Total files: 1, Compiled OK: 1
::
::
::G:\wessel>omd test200.obj>j1
::
::G:\wessel>notepad j1
Lattice Object Module Disassembler V3.20
Copyright (C) 1984 Lattice, Inc.
Intel Object File Loader V1.00
80186 Instruction Set
EXTERNAL DEFINITIONS
F 0000-00 G 000F-00
SECTION 00 "PROG" 002D BYTES
0000 B8FEFF MOV AX,FFFE
0003 E8 0000-XX.1 CALL CXSTKP
0006 8B4606 MOV AX,[BP+06]
0009 40 INC AX
000A 83C402 ADD SP,02
000D 5D POP BP
000E C3 RET
000F B8FEFF MOV AX,FFFE
0012 E8 0000-XX.1 CALL CXSTKP
0015 BE 0000-01 MOV SI,01.0000
0018 FF7406 PUSH [SI+06]
001B FF7404 PUSH [SI+04]
001E FF7402 PUSH [SI+02]
0021 FF34 PUSH [SI]
0023 E8DAFF CALL 0000
0026 8BE5 MOV SP,BP
0028 83C402 ADD SP,02
002B 5D POP BP
002C C3 RET
SECTION 01 "DATA" 0008 BYTES
0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 F0 3F ......p?
SECTION 02 "UDATA" 0000 BYTES
Which also has g() (starts at 0x000f) passing a 64-bit float to f(),
although it does it on the integer stack with the four PUSH's starting
at 0x0018.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8760ms7osy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98441 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
> On 12/8/2016 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 12/7/2016 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>> <snip>
>>>>> But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even
>>>>> when they are before you were born.
>>>>
>>>> You could alwas post some evidence for your claims, you know. Then you
>>>> would not have to rely on personal remarks.
>>>
>>> Do you have any compilers from 30 years ago and an OS on which they
>>> run? I'm not talking about a recent compiler which supports K&R. I'm
>>> talking about something like IBM or Microsoft compiler for DOS from
>>> that timeframe.
>>
>> Yes I do. "Microsoft" is a little vague but let's take Microsoft C
>> version 3.0 which is dated 1985 -- slap bang in the middle of the decade
>> you are talking about.
>>
>> Here is the listing for the code generated for the function g from this
>> source:
>>
>> int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>>
>> int g() { return f(1.0); }
>>
>> CONST SEGMENT
>> $T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
>> CONST ENDS
>> _TEXT SEGMENT
>> PUBLIC _g
>> _g PROC NEAR
>> *** 000010 55 push bp
>> *** 000011 8b ec mov bp,sp
>> *** 000013 33 c0 xor ax,ax
>> *** 000015 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
>> *** 000018 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
>> *** 00001c e8 00 00 call __fldd
>> *** 00001f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
>> *** 000022 8b dc mov bx,sp
>> *** 000024 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
>> *** 000027 e8 00 00 call _f
>> *** 00002a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
>> *** 00002c 5d pop bp
>> *** 00002d c3 ret
>> _g ENDP
>>
>> Notice how it passes an 8 byte float to f despite the fact that the call
>> is preceded by a definition of f.
>>
>> And for good measure, here is the code generated by this C source where
>> only a declaration is in scope at the point of the call:
>>
>> int f();
>>
>> int g() { return f(1.0); }
>>
>> int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>>
>> CONST SEGMENT
>> $T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
>> CONST ENDS
>> _TEXT SEGMENT
>> PUBLIC _g
>> _g PROC NEAR
>> *** 000000 55 push bp
>> *** 000001 8b ec mov bp,sp
>> *** 000003 33 c0 xor ax,ax
>> *** 000005 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
>> *** 000008 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
>> *** 00000c e8 00 00 call __fldd
>> *** 00000f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
>> *** 000012 8b dc mov bx,sp
>> *** 000014 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
>> *** 000017 e8 00 00 call _f
>> *** 00001a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
>> *** 00001c 5d pop bp
>> *** 00001d c3 ret
>> _g ENDP
>>
>> Apart from the offsets it's the same code.
>>
>
> You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are.
> It's not what the discussion was about.
You won't say which compilers did what you claim, but you've allowed
hints to emerge -- 1985, Microsoft, commercial not shareware and so on.
Here is Microsoft's 1985 commercial C compiler /not/ doing exactly what
you claimed "every one of them" did.
So, what to do...
> Obviously you have serious
> comprehension problems. But you've already shown that.
>
> I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't
> still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be
> readable after 21 years).
... accuse me of fabricating evidence. Now, I consider it a badge of
honour to be called a pig by you, but this is shocking behaviour from
you. You should be ashamed.
On a lighter note, I find it interesting that you don't think old
software is being preserved. It is. How unfortunate for you.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2fumf$avp$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98614 |
On 12/9/2016 4:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/8/2016 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2016 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even
>>>>>> when they are before you were born.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could alwas post some evidence for your claims, you know. Then you
>>>>> would not have to rely on personal remarks.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any compilers from 30 years ago and an OS on which they
>>>> run? I'm not talking about a recent compiler which supports K&R. I'm
>>>> talking about something like IBM or Microsoft compiler for DOS from
>>>> that timeframe.
>>>
>>> Yes I do. "Microsoft" is a little vague but let's take Microsoft C
>>> version 3.0 which is dated 1985 -- slap bang in the middle of the decade
>>> you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Here is the listing for the code generated for the function g from this
>>> source:
>>>
>>> int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>>>
>>> int g() { return f(1.0); }
>>>
>>> CONST SEGMENT
>>> $T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
>>> CONST ENDS
>>> _TEXT SEGMENT
>>> PUBLIC _g
>>> _g PROC NEAR
>>> *** 000010 55 push bp
>>> *** 000011 8b ec mov bp,sp
>>> *** 000013 33 c0 xor ax,ax
>>> *** 000015 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
>>> *** 000018 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
>>> *** 00001c e8 00 00 call __fldd
>>> *** 00001f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
>>> *** 000022 8b dc mov bx,sp
>>> *** 000024 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
>>> *** 000027 e8 00 00 call _f
>>> *** 00002a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
>>> *** 00002c 5d pop bp
>>> *** 00002d c3 ret
>>> _g ENDP
>>>
>>> Notice how it passes an 8 byte float to f despite the fact that the call
>>> is preceded by a definition of f.
>>>
>>> And for good measure, here is the code generated by this C source where
>>> only a declaration is in scope at the point of the call:
>>>
>>> int f();
>>>
>>> int g() { return f(1.0); }
>>>
>>> int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>>>
>>> CONST SEGMENT
>>> $T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
>>> CONST ENDS
>>> _TEXT SEGMENT
>>> PUBLIC _g
>>> _g PROC NEAR
>>> *** 000000 55 push bp
>>> *** 000001 8b ec mov bp,sp
>>> *** 000003 33 c0 xor ax,ax
>>> *** 000005 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
>>> *** 000008 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
>>> *** 00000c e8 00 00 call __fldd
>>> *** 00000f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
>>> *** 000012 8b dc mov bx,sp
>>> *** 000014 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
>>> *** 000017 e8 00 00 call _f
>>> *** 00001a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
>>> *** 00001c 5d pop bp
>>> *** 00001d c3 ret
>>> _g ENDP
>>>
>>> Apart from the offsets it's the same code.
>>>
>>
>> You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are.
>> It's not what the discussion was about.
>
> You won't say which compilers did what you claim, but you've allowed
> hints to emerge -- 1985, Microsoft, commercial not shareware and so on.
>
I did say which compilers. But your reading comprehension problem
doesn't allow you to understand it.
> Here is Microsoft's 1985 commercial C compiler /not/ doing exactly what
> you claimed "every one of them" did.
>
> So, what to do...
>
And that is NOT at all what I claimed it to do.
>> Obviously you have serious
>> comprehension problems. But you've already shown that.
>>
>> I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't
>> still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be
>> readable after 21 years).
>
> ... accuse me of fabricating evidence. Now, I consider it a badge of
> honour to be called a pig by you, but this is shocking behaviour from
> you. You should be ashamed.
>
You show no reason to believe it is real, and I have every reason to
believe it isn't.
But it doesn't matter - your "test" doesn't show what I was discussing.
But once again you show reading comprehension problems.
> On a lighter note, I find it interesting that you don't think old
> software is being preserved. It is. How unfortunate for you.
>
> <snip>
>
OK, tell me where I can get a copy of Microsoft C 3.0 that works on my
current Windows system. If it has been preserved like you say, that
should be easy.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8737hv52ym.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98649 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
> On 12/9/2016 4:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
<snip>
>> Here is Microsoft's 1985 commercial C compiler /not/ doing exactly what
>> you claimed "every one of them" did.
>>
>> So, what to do...
>
> And that is NOT at all what I claimed it to do.
Unfortunately for you, you keep walking saying too much. I posted an
actual example:
f(a)
double a
{ ... }
g() { f(42); } /* A Stuckle compiler converts this to 42.0 */
and you replied
"That is correct. And the code generated would *properly* convert the
value."
so we have an incontrovertibly example of what you say should happen.
Here is the mixed source/assembler listing that the 1985 MS C compiler
helpfully provides for that code (with ... replaced with something
valid):
; Static Name Aliases
;
TITLE js
_TEXT SEGMENT BYTE PUBLIC 'CODE'
_TEXT ENDS
CONST SEGMENT WORD PUBLIC 'CONST'
CONST ENDS
_BSS SEGMENT WORD PUBLIC 'BSS'
_BSS ENDS
_DATA SEGMENT WORD PUBLIC 'DATA'
_DATA ENDS
DGROUP GROUP CONST, _BSS, _DATA
ASSUME CS: _TEXT, DS: DGROUP, SS: DGROUP, ES: DGROUP
PUBLIC _f
PUBLIC _g
_DATA SEGMENT
EXTRN __chkstk:NEAR
_DATA ENDS
_TEXT SEGMENT
; a=4
;|*** f(a)
;|*** double a;
; Line 2
PUBLIC _f
_f PROC NEAR
*** 000000 55 push bp
*** 000001 8b ec mov bp,sp
*** 000003 33 c0 xor ax,ax
*** 000005 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
;|*** { return 1; }
; Line 3
*** 000008 b8 01 00 mov ax,1
*** 00000b 8b e5 mov sp,bp
*** 00000d 5d pop bp
*** 00000e c3 ret
_f ENDP
;|***
;|*** g() { f(42); } /* A Stuckle compiler converts this to 42.0 */
; Line 5
PUBLIC _g
_g PROC NEAR
*** 00000f 55 push bp
*** 000010 8b ec mov bp,sp
*** 000012 33 c0 xor ax,ax
*** 000014 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
*** 000017 b8 2a 00 mov ax,42
*** 00001a 50 push ax
*** 00001b e8 00 00 call _f
*** 00001e 8b e5 mov sp,bp
*** 000020 5d pop bp
*** 000021 c3 ret
_g ENDP
_TEXT ENDS
END
In all the noise, the only significant bit is
mov ax,42
push ax
call _f
<snip>
> But it doesn't matter - your "test" doesn't show what I was discussing.
> But once again you show reading comprehension problems.
You said that "the code generated would *properly* convert the value" in
this example. It does not. Do you want to pick yet another example?
<snip>
> OK, tell me where I can get a copy of Microsoft C 3.0 that works on my
> current Windows system. If it has been preserved like you say, that
> should be easy.
Sure:
https://winworldpc.com/download/4725D7BC-18DA-11E4-99E5-7054D21A8599
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web