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

Groups > comp.misc > #1741 > unrolled thread

Re: The Hex concept

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

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

Contents

  Re: The Hex concept "Dave" <dwickford@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-17 20:46 +0000
    Re: The Hex concept RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-18 08:59 +0000
      Re: The Hex concept Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-18 13:42 +0100
        Re: The Hex concept RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-18 19:02 +0000
          Software Bloat Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-18 19:19 +0000
            Re: Software Bloat Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-18 20:51 +0000
              Re: Software Bloat Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-18 14:49 -0700
                Re: Software Bloat Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-18 22:05 +0000
                  Re: USB interface RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-20 20:09 +0000
                    Re: USB interface Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-20 20:24 +0000
                    Re: USB interface Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-21 04:31 +0000
                      Re: USB interface RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-21 09:39 +0000
                        Re: USB interface RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-01 21:19 +0000
                          Re: USB interface Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-05-01 23:33 -0300
                          Re: USB interface Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-05-02 08:49 +0100
                            Re: USB interface Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-02 07:56 +0000
                              Re: USB interface Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-05-02 10:39 +0100
                                Re: USB interface Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-02 10:21 +0000
                                  Re: USB interface Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2014-05-02 19:30 +0100
                            Re: USB interface Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-05-02 08:23 +0000
                            Re: USB interface Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-02 09:58 +0100
                              Re: USB interface RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-02 09:14 +0000
                                Re: USB interface Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-02 11:06 +0100
                                  Re: USB interface Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-05-02 10:21 +0000
                                    Re: USB interface Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-05-02 22:35 +0200
                            Re: USB interface Will Honea <whonea@whonea.net> - 2014-05-02 12:25 -0600
                          Re: USB interface Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-05-02 13:23 +0300
                            Re: USB interface Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-05-02 15:29 +0200
                              Re: USB interface Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-05-06 16:47 +0300
                                Re: USB interface Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-05-08 16:55 +0200
                      Re: USB interface Rich <rich@example.com> - 2014-03-21 15:20 +0000
                        Re: USB interface Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-22 00:41 +0000
                          Re: USB interface Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-21 22:44 -0500
                            Re: USB interface Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-22 00:49 -0700
                              Re: USB interface Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-22 09:46 +0100
                                Re: USB interface Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-03-22 12:42 -0500
                              Re: USB interface Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-03-22 15:17 +0000
                Re: Software Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-18 22:07 +0000
                  Re: Software Bloat Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-03-18 15:38 -0700
                    Re: Software Bloat Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-03-19 10:30 -0400
                      Re: Software Bloat Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-03-19 15:40 +0000
                        Re: Software Bloat Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-19 16:27 +0000
                    Re: Software Bloat Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-19 16:59 +0100
                  Re: Software Bloat polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-03-18 22:55 +0000
                    Re: Software Bloat Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-19 12:27 +0000
                      Re: Software Bloat Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-19 16:26 +0000
                      Re: Software Bloat RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-03-19 20:07 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#1741 — Re: The Hex concept

"Dave"  wrote in message news:lg1u1g$lf0$1@news.albasani.net... 

> A cold blooded cabal deal
> effaced a dolled celeb called Coda
> cola, coffee, cocoa feed all
> Coda, a fabled fool, leaded dead.

> A00C01D00B100DED00CABA100DEA1
> EFFACED00A00D011ED00CE1EB00CA11ED00C0DA
> C01A00C0FFEE00C0C0A00FEED00A11
> C0DA00A00FAB1ED00F001001EADED00DEAD

... After being fed up with DEADBEEF I wrote the above.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1754

On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:46:12 -0000
"Dave" <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Dave"  wrote in message news:lg1u1g$lf0$1@news.albasani.net... 
> 
> > A cold blooded cabal deal
> > effaced a dolled celeb called Coda
> > cola, coffee, cocoa feed all
> > Coda, a fabled fool, leaded dead.
> 
> > A00C01D00B100DED00CABA100DEA1
> > EFFACED00A00D011ED00CE1EB00CA11ED00C0DA
> > C01A00C0FFEE00C0C0A00FEED00A11
> > C0DA00A00FAB1ED00F001001EADED00DEAD
> 
> ... After being fed up with DEADBEEF I wrote the above.

I'm impressed!  The only way this could be cooler is if this code
sequence causes something nifty to happen on x86, like a stack overflow
that reveals a secret message from the guys at INTEL or something.
"Repent!" 

I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the fun
you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random addresses
to see how desperately you could bork your machine?

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

#1765

On 2014-03-18, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>
> I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the fun
> you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random addresses
> to see how desperately you could bork your machine?

I for one was furious when I discovered something as complex as a
flight simulator buried in Excel.

IMHO MS were either taking the piss or had lousy quality control.

-- 
Paul Sture

"In that case," said Napoleon, "let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy
is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him."

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

#1770

On 2014-03-18, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-03-18, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>
>> I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the
>> fun you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random
>> addresses to see how desperately you could bork your machine?
>
> I for one was furious when I discovered something as complex as a
> flight simulator buried in Excel.
>
> IMHO MS were either taking the piss or had lousy quality control.
>

Fair point - I do enjoy easter eggs, but a flight simulator seems like
some pretty hefty code bloat.   I think it says less about their quality
control processes and more about their disregard for the consumer!

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

#1773 — Software Bloat

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-18, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-18, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the
>>> fun you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random
>>> addresses to see how desperately you could bork your machine?
>> 
>> I for one was furious when I discovered something as complex as a
>> flight simulator buried in Excel.
>> 
>> IMHO MS were either taking the piss or had lousy quality control.
>> 
> 
> Fair point - I do enjoy easter eggs, but a flight simulator seems like
> some pretty hefty code bloat.   I think it says less about their quality
> control processes and more about their disregard for the consumer!

I think it also says something about the level of boredom that Excel
developers must be suffering from.  Imagine working on software that has
been more or less finished for almost 20 years, you might decide to
secretly work on something else too!

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

#1777 — Re: Software Bloat

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:19:40 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-03-18, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-18, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the
>>>> fun you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random
>>>> addresses to see how desperately you could bork your machine?
>>> 
>>> I for one was furious when I discovered something as complex as a
>>> flight simulator buried in Excel.
>>> 
>>> IMHO MS were either taking the piss or had lousy quality control.
>>> 
>> 
>> Fair point - I do enjoy easter eggs, but a flight simulator seems like
>> some pretty hefty code bloat.   I think it says less about their quality
>> control processes and more about their disregard for the consumer!
>
>I think it also says something about the level of boredom that Excel
>developers must be suffering from.  Imagine working on software that has
>been more or less finished for almost 20 years, you might decide to
>secretly work on something else too!

 Well, I can easily imagine the 'pressure from the top' to keep
bloating the product with useless 'features', no matter how unwanted,
just to satisfy the needs of the "Wintel" cartel.

 In fact, ever since windows 98 came along as a result of Bill's
attempts to 'bury netscape once and for all', I've had a scene, not
unlike one of those Hitler's Downfall parodies, storyboarded in my
head.

 I googled for such a parody but, rather disappointingly, came up
'dry'. After all, the netscape debacle must surely be crying out for
the "Downfall" parody treatment, It's just gotta be a 'No-Brainer'
right?

 Now I can easily storyboard the situation that _must_ have caused the
Excel developers to take the extreme bloatware measure they did with
'hiding a whole flight simulator' in the program.

 Just imagine the scene after Bill's little pep talk with the
developers...

1st Dev: "Well, we all heard Mein Fuhrer's words. What can we possibly
do now?"

2nd Dev: "He did say "Keep bloating the product with useless
'features', no matter how unwanted." didn't he?"

3rd Dev: "So what? We've bloated the product about as far as we dare!"

2nd Dev: "Well, what about an 'Easter Egg' or two?"

1st Dev: "You know, that just might work! It needs to be a rather
'large' 'Easter Egg' though (you know the phrase, "It's nothing on a
big ship"?), well that's the problem we have to solve if we go that
route."

2nd Dev: "If it's like that, I guess we might as well be hung for a
sheep as for a lamb. In which case, why not go the whole hog and have
some fun with it?"

1st Dev: "That sounds like a plan. Now it's just a question of
creating a sufficiently bloated chunk of code for our  'Easter Egg'.
Any Ideas?"...

 I'm no 'script writer' but I think it must convey some idea of the
atmosphere in the Excel development team that must have existed at the
time. If anyone wants to run with 'this script starter' they're quite
welcome to (I'm pretty sure I won't be able to claim 'originality' on
this one). :-)
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1778 — Re: Software Bloat

On 2014-03-18 20:51:01 +0000, Johny B Good said:

> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:19:40 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
> <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-03-18, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-03-18, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the
>>>>> fun you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random
>>>>> addresses to see how desperately you could bork your machine?
>>>> 
>>>> I for one was furious when I discovered something as complex as a
>>>> flight simulator buried in Excel.
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO MS were either taking the piss or had lousy quality control.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Fair point - I do enjoy easter eggs, but a flight simulator seems like
>>> some pretty hefty code bloat.   I think it says less about their quality
>>> control processes and more about their disregard for the consumer!
>> 
>> I think it also says something about the level of boredom that Excel
>> developers must be suffering from.  Imagine working on software that has
>> been more or less finished for almost 20 years, you might decide to
>> secretly work on something else too!
> 
>  Well, I can easily imagine the 'pressure from the top' to keep
> bloating the product with useless 'features', no matter how unwanted,
> just to satisfy the needs of the "Wintel" cartel.
> 
>  In fact, ever since windows 98 came along as a result of Bill's
> attempts to 'bury netscape once and for all', I've had a scene, not
> unlike one of those Hitler's Downfall parodies, storyboarded in my
> head.
> 
>  I googled for such a parody but, rather disappointingly, came up
> 'dry'. After all, the netscape debacle must surely be crying out for
> the "Downfall" parody treatment, It's just gotta be a 'No-Brainer'
> right?
> 
>  Now I can easily storyboard the situation that _must_ have caused the
> Excel developers to take the extreme bloatware measure they did with
> 'hiding a whole flight simulator' in the program.
> 
>  Just imagine the scene after Bill's little pep talk with the
> developers...
> 
> 1st Dev: "Well, we all heard Mein Fuhrer's words. What can we possibly
> do now?"
> 
> 2nd Dev: "He did say "Keep bloating the product with useless
> 'features', no matter how unwanted." didn't he?"
> 
> 3rd Dev: "So what? We've bloated the product about as far as we dare!"
> 
> 2nd Dev: "Well, what about an 'Easter Egg' or two?"
> 
> 1st Dev: "You know, that just might work! It needs to be a rather
> 'large' 'Easter Egg' though (you know the phrase, "It's nothing on a
> big ship"?), well that's the problem we have to solve if we go that
> route."
> 
> 2nd Dev: "If it's like that, I guess we might as well be hung for a
> sheep as for a lamb. In which case, why not go the whole hog and have
> some fun with it?"
> 
> 1st Dev: "That sounds like a plan. Now it's just a question of
> creating a sufficiently bloated chunk of code for our  'Easter Egg'.
> Any Ideas?"...
> 
>  I'm no 'script writer' but I think it must convey some idea of the
> atmosphere in the Excel development team that must have existed at the
> time. If anyone wants to run with 'this script starter' they're quite
> welcome to (I'm pretty sure I won't be able to claim 'originality' on
> this one). :-)

If there is ever a Nuremburg-type trial at which the Excel developers 
are defendants, the judge will not accept the defense that they were 
just following orders.

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

#1780 — Re: Software Bloat

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:49:50 -0700, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2014-03-18 20:51:01 +0000, Johny B Good said:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:19:40 +0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex
>> <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2014-03-18, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
>>>>> On 2014-03-18, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I for one think the world needs more easter eggs.  Remember all the
>>>>>> fun you could have on a Commodore 64 PEEKing and POKEing random
>>>>>> addresses to see how desperately you could bork your machine?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I for one was furious when I discovered something as complex as a
>>>>> flight simulator buried in Excel.
>>>>> 
>>>>> IMHO MS were either taking the piss or had lousy quality control.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Fair point - I do enjoy easter eggs, but a flight simulator seems like
>>>> some pretty hefty code bloat.   I think it says less about their quality
>>>> control processes and more about their disregard for the consumer!
>>> 
>>> I think it also says something about the level of boredom that Excel
>>> developers must be suffering from.  Imagine working on software that has
>>> been more or less finished for almost 20 years, you might decide to
>>> secretly work on something else too!
>> 
>>  Well, I can easily imagine the 'pressure from the top' to keep
>> bloating the product with useless 'features', no matter how unwanted,
>> just to satisfy the needs of the "Wintel" cartel.
>> 
>>  In fact, ever since windows 98 came along as a result of Bill's
>> attempts to 'bury netscape once and for all', I've had a scene, not
>> unlike one of those Hitler's Downfall parodies, storyboarded in my
>> head.
>> 
>>  I googled for such a parody but, rather disappointingly, came up
>> 'dry'. After all, the netscape debacle must surely be crying out for
>> the "Downfall" parody treatment, It's just gotta be a 'No-Brainer'
>> right?
>> 
>>  Now I can easily storyboard the situation that _must_ have caused the
>> Excel developers to take the extreme bloatware measure they did with
>> 'hiding a whole flight simulator' in the program.
>> 
>>  Just imagine the scene after Bill's little pep talk with the
>> developers...
>> 
>> 1st Dev: "Well, we all heard Mein Fuhrer's words. What can we possibly
>> do now?"
>> 
>> 2nd Dev: "He did say "Keep bloating the product with useless
>> 'features', no matter how unwanted." didn't he?"
>> 
>> 3rd Dev: "So what? We've bloated the product about as far as we dare!"
>> 
>> 2nd Dev: "Well, what about an 'Easter Egg' or two?"
>> 
>> 1st Dev: "You know, that just might work! It needs to be a rather
>> 'large' 'Easter Egg' though (you know the phrase, "It's nothing on a
>> big ship"?), well that's the problem we have to solve if we go that
>> route."
>> 
>> 2nd Dev: "If it's like that, I guess we might as well be hung for a
>> sheep as for a lamb. In which case, why not go the whole hog and have
>> some fun with it?"
>> 
>> 1st Dev: "That sounds like a plan. Now it's just a question of
>> creating a sufficiently bloated chunk of code for our  'Easter Egg'.
>> Any Ideas?"...
>> 
>>  I'm no 'script writer' but I think it must convey some idea of the
>> atmosphere in the Excel development team that must have existed at the
>> time. If anyone wants to run with 'this script starter' they're quite
>> welcome to (I'm pretty sure I won't be able to claim 'originality' on
>> this one). :-)
>
>If there is ever a Nuremburg-type trial at which the Excel developers 
>are defendants, the judge will not accept the defense that they were 
>just following orders.

 We all know it will never come to that. However, assuming such a
scenario, by that logic the windows 98  and the windows XP developers
will be in exactly the same boat (as will those two patsies at Intel
responsible for 'inventing' the USB interface).
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1831 — Re: USB interface

On 2014-03-18, Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>  We all know it will never come to that. However, assuming such a
> scenario, by that logic the windows 98  and the windows XP developers
> will be in exactly the same boat (as will those two patsies at Intel
> responsible for 'inventing' the USB interface).

Incidentally, what's your gripe about the USB interface?  Honestly
curious - is it the fact that 99% of the time, you wind up sticking the
plug in the wrong way, or something more fundamental that that?

I'd think compared to what it replaced for common use peripherals -
PS/2, parallel, and serial - USB is an improvement, though there's room
to grow.

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

#1835 — Re: USB interface

On 2014-03-20, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-03-18, Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>  We all know it will never come to that. However, assuming such a
>> scenario, by that logic the windows 98  and the windows XP developers
>> will be in exactly the same boat (as will those two patsies at Intel
>> responsible for 'inventing' the USB interface).
>
> Incidentally, what's your gripe about the USB interface?  Honestly
> curious - is it the fact that 99% of the time, you wind up sticking the
> plug in the wrong way, or something more fundamental that that?

The fact that the plug fits neatly in an RJ45 socket?    :o)

-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 6th day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
A non-empty Hausdorff topological space is a continuous image of the unit
interval if and only if it is a compact, connected, locally connected
second-countable space.

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

#1841 — Re: USB interface

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:09:54 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

>On 2014-03-18, Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>  We all know it will never come to that. However, assuming such a
>> scenario, by that logic the windows 98  and the windows XP developers
>> will be in exactly the same boat (as will those two patsies at Intel
>> responsible for 'inventing' the USB interface).
>
>Incidentally, what's your gripe about the USB interface?  Honestly
>curious - is it the fact that 99% of the time, you wind up sticking the
>plug in the wrong way, or something more fundamental that that?
>

 Oh, it was much more fundamental than that. It's sole purpose seems
to have been to help push the sales of intel's next generation of
money spinning processors since it was such a profligate consumer of
cpu cycles for so little return.

>I'd think compared to what it replaced for common use peripherals -
>PS/2, parallel, and serial - USB is an improvement, though there's room
>to grow.

 It's only in recent years that cpu grunt finally reached a state
where USB2's voracious appetite for cpu cycles could finally be
satisfied without too much detriment to the rest of the system's
performance.

 USB3 has had to be redesigned to use dma to work at its much higher
data rates so is finally what USB should have been based upon in the
first place, rather than using PIO methods designed to artificially
generate a need to upgrade cpu performance to suit Intel's purpose.
-- 
Regards, J B Good

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

#1846 — Re: USB interface

>  Oh, it was much more fundamental than that. It's sole purpose seems
> to have been to help push the sales of intel's next generation of
> money spinning processors since it was such a profligate consumer of
> cpu cycles for so little return.
>
>>I'd think compared to what it replaced for common use peripherals -
>>PS/2, parallel, and serial - USB is an improvement, though there's room
>>to grow.
>
>  It's only in recent years that cpu grunt finally reached a state
> where USB2's voracious appetite for cpu cycles could finally be
> satisfied without too much detriment to the rest of the system's
> performance.
>
>  USB3 has had to be redesigned to use dma to work at its much higher
> data rates so is finally what USB should have been based upon in the
> first place, rather than using PIO methods designed to artificially
> generate a need to upgrade cpu performance to suit Intel's purpose.

That's interesting; I wasn't aware of any of that.  And Huge, you're right
about sticking a USB thingie in the RJ45 slot, too - I've done that.

So back to USB/cycle stuff - what's your opinion of the newer stuff then,
firewire (now withering on the vine of course), lightning, etc.?

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

#2586 — Re: USB interface

On 2014-03-21 09:39:47 +0000, RS Wood said:

>> 
>> Oh, it was much more fundamental than that. It's sole purpose seems
>> to have been to help push the sales of intel's next generation of
>> money spinning processors since it was such a profligate consumer of
>> cpu cycles for so little return.
>> 
>>> I'd think compared to what it replaced for common use peripherals -
>>> PS/2, parallel, and serial - USB is an improvement, though there's room
>>> to grow.
>> 
>> It's only in recent years that cpu grunt finally reached a state
>> where USB2's voracious appetite for cpu cycles could finally be
>> satisfied without too much detriment to the rest of the system's
>> performance.
>> 
>> USB3 has had to be redesigned to use dma to work at its much higher
>> data rates so is finally what USB should have been based upon in the
>> first place, rather than using PIO methods designed to artificially
>> generate a need to upgrade cpu performance to suit Intel's purpose.
> 
> That's interesting; I wasn't aware of any of that.  And Huge, you're right
> about sticking a USB thingie in the RJ45 slot, too - I've done that.
> 
> So back to USB/cycle stuff - what's your opinion of the newer stuff then,
> firewire (now withering on the vine of course), lightning, etc.?


Resurrecting this old thread because there's been an interesting post 
at Hacker News and the comments in that thread are pretty interesting.  
The article is interesting, too.  Never thought I'd hear such a 
vigorous defense for RS -232!

USB Sucks (2005):
http://www.technozeal.com/topic2.html

Thread on Hacker News:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649063

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

#2590 — Re: USB interface

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

> Resurrecting this old thread because there's been an interesting post 
> at Hacker News and the comments in that thread are pretty interesting.  
> The article is interesting, too.  Never thought I'd hear such a 
> vigorous defense for RS -232!
> 
> USB Sucks (2005):
> http://www.technozeal.com/topic2.html
> 
> Thread on Hacker News:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649063


Not to mention the totally amateur hacker such as I.  I cobbled
together a Perl script to talk to the serial port and now can monitor
the speed and distance my pet deer mouse achieves daily in his
exercize wheel. Supporting hardware made from magnets, bicycle parts,
hot glue, an old serial mouse, a toothbrush handle and some cable
ties.

I don't even know where to begin to do this in Perl, C or anything
else, even if I were to use the same trick of wiring a reed switch
across button-1 of a USB mouse.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

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

#2591 — Re: USB interface

On 01/05/14 22:19, RS Wood wrote:

> Resurrecting this old thread because there's been an interesting post at
> Hacker News and the comments in that thread are pretty interesting. The
> article is interesting, too.  Never thought I'd hear such a vigorous
> defense for RS -232!
>
> USB Sucks (2005):
> http://www.technozeal.com/topic2.html
>
> Thread on Hacker News:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649063
>

Meanwhile, whilst potentially simple to make electronics for, RS232 was 
in practise the biggest dogs breakfast of all time.

Many many speeds (fair enough),

different parity, random combinations of handshaking signals, stop bits,

and worst of all - probably the most use and abuse of connectors known 
to man. I have personally seen:

DB9, DB25 (good), RJ45 (well, handy for patching, but, ewww), 
PS2/mini-din (whyFFS), 3.5mm(1/8") stereo jack (yuk yuk yuk)...

Sure there were more, but WTF...

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

#2592 — Re: USB interface

On Fri, 02 May 2014 08:49:58 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

> On 01/05/14 22:19, RS Wood wrote:
> 
>> Resurrecting this old thread because there's been an interesting post
>> at Hacker News and the comments in that thread are pretty interesting.
>> The article is interesting, too.  Never thought I'd hear such a
>> vigorous defense for RS -232!
>>
>> USB Sucks (2005):
>> http://www.technozeal.com/topic2.html
>>
>> Thread on Hacker News:
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7649063
>>
>>
> Meanwhile, whilst potentially simple to make electronics for, RS232 was
> in practise the biggest dogs breakfast of all time.
> 
> Many many speeds (fair enough),
> 
> different parity, random combinations of handshaking signals, stop bits,
> 
> and worst of all - probably the most use and abuse of connectors known
> to man. I have personally seen:
> 
> DB9, DB25 (good), RJ45 (well, handy for patching, but, ewww),
> PS2/mini-din (whyFFS), 3.5mm(1/8") stereo jack (yuk yuk yuk)...
> 
> Sure there were more, but WTF...

And the fact that DB9 isn't correct...it's DE9! (DE is the shell size, so 
you have DE9 and DE15)

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

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

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

#2600 — Re: USB interface

On 02/05/14 08:56, Bob Eager wrote:

> And the fact that DB9 isn't correct...it's DE9! (DE is the shell size, so
> you have DE9 and DE15)
>

Interesting Bob, never knew that! Where did the name DB-9 come from as 
it's quite common?

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

#2606 — Re: USB interface

On Fri, 02 May 2014 10:39:43 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

> On 02/05/14 08:56, Bob Eager wrote:
> 
>> And the fact that DB9 isn't correct...it's DE9! (DE is the shell size,
>> so you have DE9 and DE15)
>>
>>
> Interesting Bob, never knew that! Where did the name DB-9 come from as
> it's quite common?

DB25 was more common and people just assumed that the smaller one would 
be DB9, I think.

This explains it quite well:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-subminiature

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

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

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

#2612 — Re: USB interface

On 02/05/14 11:21, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2014 10:39:43 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
>
>> On 02/05/14 08:56, Bob Eager wrote:
>>
>>> And the fact that DB9 isn't correct...it's DE9! (DE is the shell size,
>>> so you have DE9 and DE15)
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting Bob, never knew that! Where did the name DB-9 come from as
>> it's quite common?
>
> DB25 was more common and people just assumed that the smaller one would
> be DB9, I think.
>
> This explains it quite well:
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-subminiature
>

Most interesting - thanks Bob :)

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

#2594 — Re: USB interface

On 2014-05-02, Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> and worst of all - probably the most use and abuse of connectors known 
> to man. I have personally seen:
>
> DB9, DB25 (good), RJ45 (well, handy for patching, but, ewww), 
> PS2/mini-din (whyFFS), 3.5mm(1/8") stereo jack (yuk yuk yuk)...

By a bizarre coincidence, I threw out my 'Big Box of RS232 Connectors'last
weekend, which contained enough adaptors, gender changers, cross-over
cables and so forth to be able to make any combination of DCE/DTE, gender
and connector.  I hadn't used any of them for many years, with the exception
of the connector to my UPS which, being slightly elderly, still has an
RS232 connector. I had to buy an USB/RS232 adaptor to connect it to my
PC, which lacks an RS232 port.


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 49th day of Discord in the YOLD 3180
“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime;
 the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out
                 automatically and without pity.”

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web